I imagine the enthusiastic reaction of the PP and Vox and the members of the TSJ of Madrid who annulled the parts of the ordinance that define the low emission zones (ZBE) throughout the municipality of Madrid.
The paradox of removing low-emission zones to “protect” low-income people when they are the ones who suffer most from pollution
I don’t think I’m wrong if I imagine the enthusiastic reaction that PP and Vox and the members of the second section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TSJ of Madrid had yesterday before the latter’s annulment of those parts of the ordinance that defines the low emission zones (ZBE) in the entire municipality of Madrid.
Of course, in public, one had to hide.
Almeida, who became mayor of Madrid, foaming at the mouth for his position against low-emission zones and who, during his 2019 campaign, had declared “First of all, Madrid Central is finished”, reacted to the sentence by maintaining his confidence in low-emission zones. The emission zones, which he said have been a “success”. Of course, his joy was evident when he also assured that he would only appeal the sentence if the legal services consider that the appeal is “viable”.
Little shame for those who took Ordinance 10/2021 of September 13, botched in many aspects and, above all, regarding the economic impact of the ZBE. Because that is the reason that the High Court of Justice of Madrid used to partially evaluate Vox’s arguments regarding the argumentative insufficiency of the economic impact of the Municipal Ordinance. It is not disputed by the TSJ that the City Council has the capacity to adopt the measures it deems necessary to protect health and the environment. Nor do they question the need to adopt the measures to combat air pollution necessary to guarantee, as soon as possible, compliance with the pollution limit values established by Directive 2008/50 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 21. of 2008.
But they argue that this must be justified because, without an adequate economic report and an adequate weighting of the balance of benefits and costs, a discriminatory effect can occur against the most economically vulnerable groups.
The alibi of the Madrid de los Humos gang, composed of TSJ, PP and Vox, is as simple as it is painful..
Because even more true than the fascist attacks to which Almeida has accustomed us, who says that at least “they know how to govern”, is that the excuse of the botched economic impact report is not enough to explain this blow to the health of Madrid. residents and Madrid. The PP has not devoted even 10 of the almost 400 pages of the ordinance to the analysis of its economic impact and almost all of them to reviewing (copy-paste) state, regional and municipal aid for the acquisition of efficient vehicles. As if that were enough for an adequate and just ecological transition that does not fall on the backs of the working class.
But neither Vox nor the TSJ care about the vulnerable people in Madrid.
It is not necessary to explain that Ortega Smith’s people are bothered by those who have a more precarious situation, because they demonstrate it in each of their political decisions.
And when I say that this does not affect the TSJ either, I have vital experience to prove it. It is enough to give the example of how, in 2017, financially viable investments were temporarily paralyzed to prevent, for example, the placement of defibrillators in the municipal markets of Madrid, because this could pose a problem for the stability of the Kingdom of Spain.
The paradox is enormous. The TSJ claims that the ordinance likely affects people with lower economic capacity, who are prevented or seriously hampered in their ability to access new vehicles that meet environmental requirements. And this has not been valued because it is necessary to establish concrete measures that take into account the situations of vulnerability of the groups to whom support measures must be offered in the transition process. As I said, this does not matter to the appellant, I dare say that it does not matter to the TSJ itself and, of course, to the PP. And they have already triumphed against “the globalist agenda, the environmentalists and the restrictions on the use of private vehicles”. But, with this phrase, what do the “economically vulnerable” people it claims to protect say?
Because, as people like Álvaro Fernández Heredia or Samuel Romero Aporta, director of the EMT and CEO of Madrid Calle 30 in the Ahora Madrid government, have rightly pointed out on several occasions, they only refer to economically vulnerable people who are in cars. Because for those who do not go, who are the majority, the Low Emission Zones significantly improve their mobility and quality of life. And the majority of people use public transport to get around the capital. In fact, I’m going to tell you a secret: people with lower incomes not only use it mainly, but they have no other choice.
While, according to data from the Regional Transport Consortium, the demand for passenger transport increased by 17.9% in 2023 in Madrid, the metro offer was reduced by 3.8% due to the lack of vehicles and personnel and the increase in the frequencies of the EMT buses, not because of a lack of buses (we left them those purchased during our government mandate) but because they lack people to drive them.
Neither Ayuso nor Almeida have had the money for this and it is having an impact. In concrete terms, those of us who use public transport, whether economically vulnerable or not, are packed like sardines in a can at peak times, which is difficult to hide in a rigorous economic report. The final touch for citizens is the exasperating slowness of the central government and Renfe to address the lack of investment in the Cercanías which, despite being the network that has increased supply the most in 2023, with an increase of 3.4%, has clearly shown its inadequacy in relation to existing demand.
Although the resolution is not yet final and the corresponding appeal can be filed against it before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, I am not at all optimistic about what the Madrid City Council will finally decide.
And I am not because Almeida has only moved forward reluctantly in terms of mobility. He has only taken steps forced by circumstances and by the excellent legacy, thank you, received from the municipal government that preceded him.
That he left holes in the ordinances so that they could be challenged by his right and annulled by those same PP judges, as Enrique López would say, is not the best reason to think carefully.
Faced with this alliance of the right in Madrid in terms of mobility, there is room for reaction. That of a society organized in environmental, social and neighborhood movements that knows very clearly that it is about changing social habits and customs, that is aware that this implies making sometimes uncomfortable decisions and that it is necessary to give up the total availability of individual transport to achieve a truly sustainable mobility model.
And left-wing political organizations must be at the service of this fight to propose a socially just alternative to their “Madrid of smoke.”
