Don’t think ‘environment’. Think ‘health’ instead.
Lately, you would have heard about ULEZ (ultra-low emission zones). This concept, introduced initially by the Conservative party in central London to reduce pollution, has just been enlarged to outer London. It has created the largest ULEZ area in the world. Under the ULEZ rules, the driver must pay a daily fee to drive in these areas if they have a non-compliant polluting car, such as a diesel or one that is too old. This political decision has attracted its supporters and detractors. Among its supporters, we encounter people with chronic asthma, environmentalists, and advocates of London mayor Sadiq Khan; among its detractors, those who struggle to continue with their daily work, business owners who need a car to work, commuters, and those who regularly use their vehicle for family errands such as the weekly shop and the school run. There is a scrappage scheme that would help you financially if you need to change your car to a compliant one, but many find this help insufficient.
Coinciding with the extension of the ULEZs news came that the central government has agreed to relax building regulations, which would facilitate building more houses. The government sells this announcement with the obvious expected benefit of people being able to access the housing ladder. However, deregulation poses problems for the environment. As per other EU member states (including the UK before Brexit), developers must put in place environmental repairs before their buildings are approved to go ahead. This is no longer necessary as we have ‘brexited’. Not only that, but a well-known online newspaper also reported an increase in the share value of the (or some of the) companies that would benefit from this deregulation. These companies had previously reduced their donations to the governing Conservative party. Will they now increase their donations again?
While this news put the Conservative party in a bad light, the choice between the two major parties’ positions is often inexistent. It might be that the opposition party does oppose the anti-environmental policy initially, but this does not always mean that they will reverse the policy should they become the ruling party. The British version of our national democracy and its First Past The Post system has a reduced representation and a democratic deficiency. Without going into much detail, this often leads to a choice between only two parties. By contrast, in
other democratic systems all over the world, the functioning parliament often comprises more than one political party in power, which allows for more dissenting voices.
Both ULEZ and building regulations are often sold under the flag of the environment. Unfortunately, ‘environment’ has become a dirty word for many despite meaning the exact opposite. It should not surprise us as much of the industrialisation of the Western world involves doing things cheap and fast, which in turn means not being environmentally friendly. Often, the industrialisation clock needs to be turned back to protect the environment, which requires returning to more expensive alternatives. It might not be always like this, but it often is. Let us take things to the extreme: It would be more environmentally friendly for everyone to have their own allotment in their garden, but not everyone has a garden, the space for one diverse enough, or the time to look after it.
A way to sanitise the environment word without losing the environmentalist objective is to use the word health. It might not be immediately obvious, but the psychology of the language and how it impacts people’s minds matter. The word ‘environment’ refers to a third person. It is almost detached from us, and thus it becomes easier to dislike. However, the word ‘health’ refers to you and your family. It’s part of us. Regardless, both words are intimately connected because almost all (if not all) things that affect the environment will affect human health to a more or less degree. The samples included in this piece refer to only two environmental issues. I expect both to trigger the importance of air quality in the reader’s mind, but mostly, I hope they consider their own respiratory health. However, one of the environmental aspects in regulation in the construction industry seeks to minimise the contamination of water, which is currently a hot topic in British minds given the amount of sewage that would eventually end up not just consumed by wildlife (environment) but also consumed by us (health).
Deregulation (and more importantly, health deregulation) goes further than this and affects products that we consume every day. From things we put on our bodies, such as deodorants and cosmetics, to things we eat, such as ultra-processed foods, which make up a large percentage of our daily diet and are often sold under the false pretence of being healthy.
