Health, Air Pollution and Zero Carbon Commuting
Our health, and that of our friends, families, work colleagues and wider community can all be harmed by air pollution, physical inactivity and climate change.
Overview
A Lancet article reports nine million people die prematurely annually from air pollution and physical inactivity combined.
Simultaneously, the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recently produced their report into the 7th Carbon Budget. The travel section highlights 7% of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport can come from changing the amount of people on public transport and travelling more actively.
In the UK, the health damage by diesel vehicles is 20 times greater than EVs and 5 times greater than petrol cars. Diesel vehicles account for nearly 90% of the £6bn annual health costs attributed to cars and vans in the UK.
Nine million people die prematurely annually from air pollution and physical inactivity combined.
Health, air pollution and zero carbon commuting
Spring 2025 saw the release of two important documents examining the benefits of projects working towards net zero, and what the projects will look like for the UK over the next 25 years.
First, the Lancet published a review looking at the health benefits for the public of net-zero strategies.. They found there were:
The review looked at diet, fossil fuel combustion and physical activity and the number of global, annual, preventable deaths of 7 million, 5 million and 4 million people respectively [1]. It showed the benefits of tackling net zero, including reducing premature death, achieving better health and economic benefits.
Travel actions were examined and showed multiple benefits from active travel:
- Improved air quality reduces heart and lung problems (cardiovascular and respiratory health)
- Being more physically active reduces premature death, increases life expectancy and results in financial benefits too
- Additional mental health benefits and a fitter workforce, which equals more productivity and less absenteeism, and reduced hospital and healthcare costs.
Health damage by diesel vehicles is 20 times greater than EVs and 5 times greater than petrol cars. Diesel vehicles account for nearly 90% of the £6 billion annual health costs attributed to cars and vans in the UK.
Regular physical activity has important and wide-ranging health benefits. These range from reduced risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers to enhanced function and preservation of function with age. Active travel policies have a greater potential where low physical activity already causes a high health burden.
The benefits from changing travel patterns improves both air pollution and physical inactivity and can be tackled through a single behaviour change – active commuting.
Health impacts of cleaner air zones
Reports on the changes to air quality in Clean Air Zones come thick and fast. Two recent studies in Bradford and London show some of the benefits.
In Bradford, after a year, air quality improved, fewer people attended their GP for lung problems and heart problems (down about 25% each), and fewer people attended the hospital with breathing problems [3].
In central London, falls in air pollutants were dramatic with nitrogen dioxide levels down 27% and small particles down 31% [4].
Secondly, the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) produced their report into the 7th Carbon Budget [2]. The travel section highlights that 7% of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport can come from changing the amount of people on public transport and travelling more actively.
Reducing the number of vehicles on the road is important too – and can be achieved by improving public transport and active travel. It also has the effect of reducing congestion and noise pollution.
In Bradford, after a year, air quality improved, fewer people attended their GP for lung problems and heart problems (down about 25% each), and fewer people attended the hospital with breathing problems.
What do the public think?
The CCC convened a citizens’ panel to explore what an accessible and affordable vision of net zero looks like for households – and saw a modal shift in transport as a desirable option if made accessible and affordable to all households.
How can this be achieved?
Local authorities will require funding and powers to deliver better public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure, with longer term funding commitments to deliver a joined up integrated transport offer.
Understanding behaviour change
While CCC advocates better cycling and walking infrastructure, active mobility policies are most effective when integrating safe walking and cycling infrastructure with strong public transport support and educational programmes.
Using a COM-B behaviour change model, a new bike store or protected cycle lane would fall under the O for Opportunity, and specifically ‘physical opportunity’. What does that mean and what are the other parts of the COM-B model?
COM-B refers to capability, opportunity and motivation collectively influencing behaviour.
To change behaviour – for example to changing the method of the daily commute – all parts need to be considered.
- Capability consists of psychological capability (e.g. knowledge of how to ride a bike) and physical capability (having the physical fitness and ability to ride a bike)
- Opportunity consists of physical opportunity – the environmental context and resources eg. “Is there a protected cycle lane and bike store and do I own a bike?” – and social opportunity – is there social support? So, “Do I see other people like me riding a bike to work?”
- Motivation can be automatic motivation around rewards, incentives and personal enjoyment or reflective – and having belief about capabilities (“Am I going to feel comfortable riding to work?”) and consequences (“If I don’t, will I remain fit as I get older?”)
Collectively, these help to determine a person’s behaviour. Altering just one part may not change the behaviour. For example, having a great bike lane to work and place to store the bike is great, but if the person doesn’t own a bike, their commuting behaviour won’t change.
Asking people, employees and customers what they need to enable a change in behaviour and to commute more actively can shortcut straight to the answers needed.
Conclusion
The impact of poor air quality and physical inactivity harms our health. Zero carbon commuting improves both.
Simultaneously, the UK has legally binding net-zero goals to achieve. Zero carbon commuting is an important method to reduce emissions from transport.
In addition, there are a host of other benefits to individuals, neighbourhoods and populations, as well as the planet. And it saves money too.
[1] www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00330-9/fulltext
[2] https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/
You might also enjoy
InsightSBTi v2 and the Commute
The new SBTi standard makes employee commuting emissions much harder to ignore. How the significance and influence tests change Scope 3 targets.
Read →
InsightBetter Connected – The DfT’s new Transport Strategy
What Better Connected means for local authorities and sustainable transport planning, and why commuter data will be central to delivery.
Read →
InsightThe Security Dividend
High volumes of single-occupancy vehicles can create operational pressure at secure aerospace and defence sites, affecting access efficiency and perimeter control. Structured,…
Read →
