On two occasions, Spanish magistrates have used the argument of the most modest to have two low-emission zones (LEZs) in Barcelona and Madrid removed. But it is precisely this group that suffers the most from pollution and uses private cars the least.
The latest ruling is that of the High Court of Justice of Madrid, which annulled three ZBEs, arguing, among other things, that no alternatives had been sought to avoid “the discriminatory effect on the most economically vulnerable groups”. This is very similar to what was stated in the Catalan ruling of 2022, which stated that there was “a negative effect on people with lower purchasing power”.
In both cases, the measure was aimed at preventing the circulation of the most polluting cars, that is, those that emit the most toxic gases into the air that the citizens of these cities breathe. In Barcelona, the City Council created exceptions for income that allows the continued use of these vehicles. In Madrid, consideration is being given to appealing to the Supreme Court.
This is incomprehensible. Studies show that people with high incomes use cars more, while those with low incomes use public transport.
Cristina Arjona
— Mobility Coordinator at Greenpeace
“It’s incomprehensible,” says Cristina Arjona, Greenpeace’s mobility coordinator. “Studies show that people with high incomes use cars more, while those with low incomes use public transport,” he argues.
Juan Bárcena, pollution specialist at Ecologistas en Acción, stresses that “pollution is a public health problem.” “The right to health must prevail over the supposed right to drive a private combustion car, which is what this ruling defends,” he says. Because if the regulations are relaxed, these vehicles will be able to circulate without restrictions in the city.
Regarding those who travel more by car, a World Bank study concludes that “as incomes rise, people travel more and spend more money on means of transport – in addition to services and goods – that are more carbon intensive.” In other words, they emit more gases into the atmosphere: they use cars instead of other means or start driving more powerful cars that emit NO2, for example.
In this sense, an analysis by the Sightline Institute concluded shamelessly that the more money there is, the more cars there are: “Income level explains more than half of vehicle ownership in a neighborhood.” A reality that is reproduced in many geographies.
Yet encouraging more private vehicle travel instead of promoting collective means is very costly, especially for the “most economically vulnerable groups,” as judges call them. Car dependency is bad business, the US Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) concluded in analysing spending per household.
The ITDP study highlights – and would serve as a warning – that this reliance on the private car built in the United States explains why the share of transportation expenditures in North American households is one of the highest. And among these expenditures, “lower-income households are those who own fewer cars and the need for private vehicles in the country has exacerbated economic and social inequalities.”
It hurts the poor the most
In Spain, around 5,000 premature deaths per year are attributable to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution, according to the European Environment Agency. The main source of NO2 in cities is exhaust pipes. And in Madrid, for example, the legal limit for this toxic substance has been violated for more than a decade in a row. “The ZBEs responded to Spain’s condemnation for the persistent excess of pollution in Madrid,” recalls Bárcena. “And it has been essential to finally reduce this excess.”
Pollution is a public health problem. The right to health must prevail over the so-called right to drive a private combustion engine car
Juan Barcena
— Pollution in the hands of environmentalists in action
Moreover, it is the poor who are most exposed to the harmful effects of air pollution. The World Bank explains it this way: “The lowest-paid jobs are generally those that require physical effort outdoors, which carries more risks.” And it adds that “sources of pollution, such as industrial plants or transport corridors, are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods.” It even points out that in areas where the air is significantly polluted, “housing values decrease, which reinforces the status of these neighborhoods.”
In short, the World Bank paper concludes, “as health, well-being and productivity suffer, air pollution can reinforce socio-economic inequalities.”
The Secretary General of Mobility of the Ministry of Transport, Álvaro F. Heredia, analyzed in his X profile after learning of the annulment in Madrid pronounced by the judges: “There is no greater discriminatory effect than not intervening in our cities to improve mobility and redistribute public space. All studies show that the most vulnerable people are the greatest victims of pollution and those who suffer the most when cities do not commit to sustainable mobility.
Low-emission zones are mandatory by law from 1 January 2023 for municipalities with 50,000 inhabitants and islands. They aim to improve air quality and mitigate climate change. They must also “promote modal change towards more sustainable modes of transport”, according to the royal decree that regulates them. This means switching from combustion engines to cleaner means.
However, its deployment is progressing with many difficulties. It still lacks 80% to comply with the law. In addition to the obstacles that PP and Vox have multiplied when they reached multiple municipal councils in 2023, there is a battery of legal appeals (presented by parties when they were in opposition and employers’ organizations) that have found judicial protection due to defects in the form.
