Ulez Was the Right Decision Because It Has Demonstrably Improved Londoners' Health, Especially Children's
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/sadiqkhan. "Introducing Ulez was my hardest decision as mayor of London – but now we know its astonishing impact | Sadiq Khan | The Guardian." August 18, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Sadiq Khan argues that his controversial decision to introduce and expand London's low-emission zone (Ulez) was justified because new scientific studies now prove it dramatically reduced pollution-related deaths and even helped children's damaged lungs recover. He says that despite fierce political backlash, protecting children's health from toxic air was more important than the criticism he faced.
Conclusion
Introducing and expanding the Ulez, despite being politically difficult and controversial, was the correct decision because it has produced substantial, measurable public health benefits.
Premises
- Air pollution-associated deaths in London fell by around 40% between 2019 and 2024, according to Imperial College London research.
- London achieved legal NO2 limits 184 years earlier than King's College London had predicted would happen without additional action.
- A Queen Mary University study of over 3,400 children found that lung function in London children caught up to that of children in Luton after five years of Ulez, with NO2 exposure falling twice as fast in London.
- The proportion of children in London with clinically impaired lung function fell from 14% to 9% during the study period.
- Young children are especially vulnerable to air pollution due to physiological factors (faster breathing, mouth breathing, proximity to exhaust) and long-term developmental risks (asthma, COPD, lung cancer).
- Direct observation at a London school showed a 48% reduction in NO2 levels at a playground monitor over roughly a decade.
- The primary motivation and justification for Ulez was protecting vulnerable populations' health, not punishing motorists or raising revenue.
Assumptions
- The observed improvements in air quality and health outcomes are primarily attributable to the Ulez policy rather than other confounding factors (e.g., broader vehicle technology improvements, other environmental policies, pandemic-related traffic changes).
- The health benefits of reduced air pollution outweigh the economic and social costs imposed on motorists and businesses affected by the scheme.
- Correlational data (pollution levels falling, health outcomes improving) sufficiently demonstrates causation.
- Political opposition to Ulez was primarily driven by culture-war motivations rather than legitimate economic or practical concerns.
- The comparison between Luton and London is a valid control for isolating the effect of Ulez on children's lung function.