by Gareth Hughes
It was reported yesterday that a World Health Organisation survey had found Auckland’s air quality to be twice as bad as Sydney’s.
Having friends who live and cycle around Auckland regularly, I didn’t find this impossible to believe. There’s no question that the proliferation of diesel buses and trucks, as well as old cars with no emissions testing, contribute to some corridors being particularly nasty (e.g., Khyber Pass in Newmarket).
Also, as Frog blogged a few months ago recently Auckland Council received a report showing that more than 700 people now die prematurely in Auckland from air pollution and, at least, several hundred of those deaths are attributable to motor vehicles. That is many more people than die in road crashes in the region.
So I was quick to put out a release on the reported finding. But it turns out that there was a mistake in the WHO database, and Auckland’s air isn’t as bad as Tokyo’s.
I stand by every other point in my release: people are dying prematurely in Auckland because of poor air quality, and motor vehicles play a significant role in that. We can have better buses and trains, and safer walking and cycling, as well as regular emissions testing and fuel economy standards for our motor vehicles. This will not only clean up Auckland’s air, it will reduce greenhouse emissions, reduce road deaths, improve our health, and create economically vibrant town centres. Oh yeah, and save everyone money!
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Thu, September 29th, 2011
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Cheers, Gareth. I think it is great when a politician admits to a mistake, even though the mistake was not yours because you relied on a WHO report, which turned out to be flawed.
It is a pity we don’t see the same approach from Steven Joyce – everything about his transport strategy is flawed. But he chooses, because of the input
to National Party fundraisingof the road transport lobby, to ignore the evidence.Like or Dislike:
7 
6 (+1)
You said ‘corridors’ are bad, but corridors the whole of Auckland do not make. that should have got your antennae twitching.
It comes across that the Greens seize on and revel in every opportunity to declare how bad things are in NZ when in fact they are in relative terms very good (cf water quality – OECD says actual quality very good but concerns about future decline)
AS for the at least 700 deaths in Auckland, do you not see anything similarly funny in that number. barely four years ago the number was 900 for the whole of NZ and air quality has not degraded in any major centre over that time. That 700 is one in 10 deaths in Auckland. What’s the bets you know of someone who died in a car crash but how many do you know died of air pollution?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
I would be surprised if Auckland is the more polluted (Sydney having 4 times the population) but having lived over there for many years.. one thing I do know is that Sydney does have a brilliant ELECTRIC train system & Sydney-siders do USE IT !
If we want to show the world we are really ‘clean, green & 100% pure’ (not just on advertising campaigns) we need to invest in a similar train network & promote its use. One million ‘jaffas’ driving at least half that many cars (belching out tons of CO2 & other green house gases) is not a good look, environmentally. Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Insider, the OECD report actually said policies have generally fallen short of what is required to meet water quality goals in agriculture, (including in New Zealand). Dr Parris warns of the “time-bomb” effect of intensive agricultural expansion, noting the time lags of 30 – 40 years in some catchments before the effects of current farming practices are seen.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/09/22/a-warning-from-the-oecd-on-nzs-deteriorating-water-quality/
Not so much concerns about what was happening now impacting on future quality but the impact of what had already happened had yet to come through – that is become apparent. So even if we improve practices now we still have a lot of cleaning up to do because of what has already happened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RE:Dirty Air.
The last time claims of Auckland air being dirtier than London etc was in 2002. The ARC made startling claims which were welcomed by the self flagellators.
However, when I looked into it I found that the high pollution was mainly from the intersection of Queen Street and Wyndham St.
These peaks occur from 11pm to 3am on Fridays and Saturdays, when there are few people around.
What causes the high readings?
First, Queen Street runs down a gully which is further contained by a canyon of high buildings. Auckland’s nights are comparatively calm.
And the midnight hours are when the boy racers come out to play.
So yes, Auckland, like any city has a few “hot spots” but we should be comparing urban area pollution with other urban areas. Over the years I have concluded that any Environmental Data should be taken with a grain of salt. Try this for example:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/49-pollution-soil-water-air/72-contaminated-soils-comparative-risks-there-are-no-health-risks-at-the-bottom-of-your-garden
Go to: http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/49-pollution-soil-water-air/140-why-does-the-arc-employ-analysts
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)