Driving Out The Poor: Are UK Emissions Zones A Scam?

Emission zones were introduced to city centres around the UK, sold as vital public health measures, to clean the air, save lives, and make polluters pay. Across the various schemes, over £1 billion has now been made in fines and fees since 2019, with London’s ULEZ generating over £250 million in a single year. With compliance rates now exceeding 96% in most areas, the air quality improvements are stagnating – or, in some cases, totally non-existent – but the cameras, charges, and penalties continue. Are they still reducing pollution, or have they evolved into something else entirely? 

Some quick facts: 

• London’s ULEZ made £260 million in 2023/2024 alone, despite 96.7% compliance 
• Birmingham’s CAZ has already pulled in £125 million 
• Bath banked £7 million while surrounding towns actually saw worse pollution than before
• Scottish cities issue 169,000 LEZ fines, totalling £19 million 

And some questions worth asking: 

• If almost all vehicles are compliant, how much pollution is left to cut? 
• Are the remaining 3% of non-compliant vehicles really the problem? 
• Is this now just a regressive taxation, hitting poor people the hardest? 

What These Zones Say They Do

The metrics at the heart of these schemes are nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which are the most common pollutants used to measure urban air quality. NO₂ comes from vehicle exhausts and is linked to respiratory problems and reduced lung functions, leading to increased hospital admissions. PM2.5 is fine particulate matter – small enough to enter the bloodstream, so deemed even more dangerous, and links to heart disease, strokes and premature death. So, are these schemes actually working? 

Bath: Rerouting Pollution, Not Reducing It

Not the biggest Low Emission Zone (LEZ) in the UK, but certainly one of the starkest insights into the true results of these zones. Between 2019 and 2023, reports boasted a 32% drop in NO₂ levels, but council documents quickly admitted that these early gains were helped by Covid lockdowns and a major bridge closure that disrupted through-traffic. And, despite collecting millions in fines, Wiltshire residents saw increased traffic and an actual worsening of pollution in surrounding towns as Bath’s usual traffic diverted their path. No monitoring is allowed outside Bath’s jurisdiction, so we may never know the true figures – but it’s clear that the money came in despite making no tangible improvements for the area’s population. 

Meanwhile, those who can’t afford newer vehicles such as low-income residents clinging to aging cars or tradespeople for small businesses using old vans, continue to pay the price. The revenue generated is earmarked for sustainable travel schemes in the city, but it’s worth pondering whether a policy that simply shifts pollution elsewhere rather than reduces it, while taxing the working class, can ever be called a success. 

London: Air Gains Stagnate, Revenue Increases

London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was launched in 2019, targeting the worst-offending vehicles and promising to cut NO₂ and PM2.5. Early results were effective, with roadside NO₂ dropping by 49% between 2016 and 2023 according to a Transport for London (TfL) report. However, with such strong gains, there’s very little room left to continue improving. Now at almost 97% compliance, are the remaining few per cent really responsible for a significant share of the pollution, or is it now a disproportionate punishment on those unable to upgrade their vehicles?  

It seems London has already reached a point of diminishing returns, but the sheer scale of the revenue generated is too good to pass up for the authorities. The £224 million collected in 2022 spurred on an expansion of the ULEZ in August 2023 to cover all London boroughs – an area in which 9 million people live – increasing revenue to £260 million. 

Birmingham: Minor Improvement, Major Profits

In the Midlands, we see more of the same pattern. The city’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ) delivered a modest 13% reduction in NO₂, and no change at all in PM2.5 levels, while netting £125 million since launching the scheme – which now averages £4m per month from fines. Contrary to these efforts, Birmingham City Council spent over £1 million on vehicles that do not even comply with its own CAZ policy in 2022.  

The money has reportedly funded pedestrian zones and school safety projects, which can be argued are good uses of the city’s cash – but should they be financed through penalties dressed as public health measures? Or does this further blur the picture about the true motive behind the CAZ? 

Growing Critique of the Zones

In London, Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall has repeatedly described ULEZ as a tax on the poorest, saying it hits those who can’t afford to replace their vehicles, rather than the big polluters with fleets of brand new SUVs. Similarly, RAC and other motoring groups have warned that the schemes penalise the wrong people – those who simply drive older cars out of necessity, rather than deliberate negligence. 

Scotland’s Sue Webber, a Conservative transport spokesperson, calls her country’s LEZ enforcement a war on motorists after data emerged that 169,000 fines had been issued, costing the public £19 million. She also claimed that this isn’t about air quality anymore – it’s about filling black holes in council budgets. 

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) noted there was a disproportionate effect on sole traders and tradespeople, saying in 2024 that there is little support for micro-businesses forced to pay daily charges or replace costly vans that still function perfectly well.

Usual stats defending the zones include:

• NO₂ is falling (true, but mostly in early years) 
• Revenue goes to green projects (and what else?) 
• Fewer people are breathing illegally polluted air (technically true) 

But it’s rarely publicly considered that:

• Gains are tapering off, fines remain in place 
• PM2.5 and ozone are not being meaningfully reduced anymore 
• Displacement actually harms surrounding areas 
• The poorest are hit hardest – electricians in 2013 Transits, or pensioners in 10-year-old diesel cars 

Enforcement continues to expand, cameras are going up, fees are extending. Is the air still getting cleaner?

What Now?

While the benefits are debatable – with some buying into net zero targets and climate change, and others not – the sin that should be observed by everyone might not even be the creation of the zones in the first place. Instead, the refusal to reassess their purpose once their peak effectiveness passes is what should be grabbing the public’s attention. When the gains stall but money keeps flowing, it stops looking like an environmental policy and starts looking like business. 

Final Thought

Keeping citizens healthier should always be a priority for the authorities. In the early days, emissions zones seem to have helped some. But as we edge closer to 100% compliance, while the councils continue to extract hundreds of millions from the remaining non-compliant public, it’s fair to ask if the policy has run its course. How to do it fairly, transparently, and without punishing the people with the least capacity to change, should be the current centre of discussion. 

Join the Conversation

Do you live in or near a CAZ, LEZ or ULEZ? Do you see these policies as public health triumphs or stealth taxes? Tell us about your experience and thoughts, and open the airwaves to people actually living – and breathing – these decisions.