❶Madrid was hailed as a public health guiding light last November when it rolled out ambitious restrictions on the most polluting cars.❷Seven months and one election day later, a new conservative city council suspended enforcement of the clean air zone, a first step toward its possible termination. ❸Mayor JosQ Luis Martfnez-Almeida made opposition to the zone a centrepiece of his election campaign, despite its success in improving air quality.❹A judge has now overruled the city's decision to stop levying fines, ordering them restored.❺But with legal battles ahead, the zone's future looks uncertain at best.
❶Madrid's back and forth on clean air is a pointed reminder of the limits to the patchwork, city-by-city approach that characterises efforts on air pollution across Europe, Britain very much included.
❶Among other weaknesses, the measures cities must employ when left to tackle dirty air on their own are politically (32) controversial, and therefore vulnerable.❷That's because they inevitably put the costs of cleaning the air on to individual drivers—who must pay fees or buy better vehicles——rather than on to the car manufacturers whose cheating is the real cause of our toxic pollution.❸It's not hard to imagine a similar reversal happening in London.❹The new ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) is likely to be a big issue in next year's mayoral election. ❺And if Sadiq Khan wins and extends it to the North and South Circular roads in 2021 as he intends, it is sure to spark intense opposition from the far larger number of motorists who will then be affected.
❶It's not that measures such as London's Ulez are useless. ❷Far from it.❸Local officials are using the levers that are available to them to safeguard residents * health in the face of a serious threat.❹The zones do deliver some improvements to air quality, and the science tells us that means real health benefits.
❶But mayors and councilors can only do so much about a problem that is far bigger than any one city or town.❷They are acting because national governments—Britain's and others across Europe—have failed to do so.
❶Restrictions that keep highly polluting cars out of certain areas― ity centres, "school streets”，even individual roads—are a response to the absence of a larger effort to properly enforce existing regulations and require auto companies to bring their vehicles into compliance.❷Wales has introduced special low speed limits to minimise pollution.❸We're doing everything (35) but insist that manufacturers clean up their cars. IET
📝 全文释义（点击展开）
去年11月，马德里对高污染汽车出台了 严格的限制措施，该市因此被誉为公共卫生 的一座灯塔。七个月零一个选举日之后，新 的保守派市议会暂停实施空气清洁区政策， 这可能是终止该措施的第一步。尽管空气清 洁区政策在改善空气质量方面有所成就，但 市长何塞•路易斯・马蒂内兹■艾梅达还是 反对把该区域作为他竞选活动的核心项目。 现在，法官否决了该市停止征收罚款的决定， 并下令恢复罚款制度。但随着即将面临的法 律纠纷，(31 )即使就最乐观的一面来看， 空气清洁区的未来似乎并不明朗。 马德里在改善空气问题上所做的反复努 力，明确提醒了人们，欧洲各国(尤其包括 英国在内)在治理空气污染方面采取的东拼 西凑式的、一个城市接着一个城市的方法具 有局限性。 除其他劣势外，各城市在独立处理 空气污染问题上不得已采取的措施存在政治 争议，因此容易受到批判。这是因为它们不 可避免地把清洁空气的成本转嫁到了司机个 体身上——司机要么付费，要么购买更好的 汽车——而不是把矛头指向汽车制造商，他 们的欺骗行为才是造成有毒污染的真正原因。 不难想象伦敦也会发生类似的问题。新 的超低排放区(Ulez)很可能是明年市长选 举中的一大议题。(33)而且，如果萨迪克•汗 获胜，并如其所愿在2021年将超低排放区延 伸至南北环形公路，那势必会引起更多司机 的强烈反对，因为他们将会受到影响。 这并不是说像伦敦设立超低排放区那样 的举措是无用的。恰好相反。面对严重的威胁， 当地官员正利用他们所能采取的方法来保护 居民的健康。这些区域确实对改善空气质量 有所帮助，并且，科学也告诉我们，这种举 措会给我们的健康带来切实的好处。 但是，对于远非一个城市或城镇所 能承担的问题，市长和议员只能做这么多了。 他们现在采取行动是因为各国政府(英国以 及欧洲其他国家政府)都未能这么做。 限制高污染车辆进入特定区域(市 中心、“学校街道”、甚至个别道路)的措 施，是对无法强力妥善执行现有法规并要求 汽车公司按规生产这一问题的回应。威尔士 已经实行了特低速限制，以使污染最小化。 除了坚持让汽车制造商生产低污染的汽 车以外，我们尝试了各种方法。