Most pollution victims are poor

Class-obsessed Mr Claridge [Gazette, April 22] thinks that “eco-warriors” are “upper class”, and by implication should be silenced. Mr Rundell [April

29] rightly says that it is time for everyone to care about the environment. Whatever the class of the “warriors” (how irrelevant) it is indisputable (as the asthmatic mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, keeps saying) that the majority of the victims of air pollution are poor.

Last December a London coroner bravely recorded “air pollution exposure” as a cause of death on a child’s death certificate. If Ms Kissi-debrah had been able to afford the leafy charms of Hampstead or Dulwich, would she have chosen to bring up her child in the toxic air of the traffic-congested South Circular Road? If Ms Kissidebrah relied on the expertise of “upper class” lawyers to argue her case in the coroner’s court, good luck to her, and to them. Mr Claridge, supporting fellow pro-pollutionist Mr Hudson, warns politicians and “those seeking election” that his opinions are those of the majority. He is right. But he should be aware that democracy has its limits, which are breached when a majority votes for a minority to die.

In the 1960s Barbara Castle, as Minister of Transport, fought for and achieved a legal ban on drink-driving (Road Safety Act 1967), enforced by the new “breathalyser” (which detects alcohol consumption without a blood sample). At the time, drivers assumed a “right” to drive while blind drunk, and pubs served them with “one for the road” so they could be extra drunk behind the wheel. Ms Castle knew that her new law would be very unpopular. She received sack-loads (no e-petitions in those days) of hate mail and death threats, and needed a police bodyguard whenever she went outside her front door. Many rural pubs closed for ever, and social life was not the same.

But Ms Castle had the rare courage to face down her critics and get her way, and many thousands of lives were saved. In the absence of a 21st century Barbara Castle, we can only hope that our courts will take up the baton and extend the scope of the law to protect those who must breathe nitrogen dioxide and diesel particulates, suffer severe lung damage, and even die. Rosemary Sealey

Black Griffin Lane, Canterbury

■ Can I just say thank you to Alex Claridge for his supportive comments concerning my regular pro-car letters. It was very much appreciated and certainly better than the usual negative comments.

When reading these negative comments, I ask myself: how do these people travel about? Councillors try to force us onto active travel and public transport by making it more difficult to travel by private car and outrageous parking charges if we decide to stop, but at the same time promote this anti-car agenda at council meetings, then get in their own cars and drive home! All I ask for is all people to practice what they preach and be honest in what they say!

My cars through the decades have provided much enjoyment. I have supported many businesses by my patronage, given my children happy memories, that I hope will last their lifetimes and now in old age and not so good health. having ones own transport, really does help to make life more pleasant.

So why not fight those, that want to deny us all this? Scare stories of various kinds have been prevalent all through my driving history and Canterbury City Council declaring a “climate emergency” and “car-free days” continues this long list of demonising those families that travel by car.

As I have said before, over 70% of the world’s surface is covered by the oceans, so no vehicular traffic and the UK is only about 77th on the list of counties by land mass!

So is all the privation that is about to descend on us all through what the political chattering classes call “net-zero” carbon policies really worth all the proposed hardship and sacrifices?

Terry Hudson

Russell Drive, Swalecliffe