Speeding towards climate breakdown

London is increasingly falling short of its own goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, primarily due to a relentless rise in traffic. Since Mayor Sadiq Khan set a target in 2022 to decrease total traffic by 27 percent by 2030, traffic volume has climbed each year.

Despite aspirations for “net zero,” London’s road transport continues to emit approximately seven million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

Challenges Ahead

The Labour party’s transport strategy, which involves investing billions in road and airport construction, exacerbates the issue. The targets themselves were insufficient from the start, not meeting the standards climate scientists recommend for effective greenhouse gas reduction in London.

Various campaign groups advocate for more ambitious plans to reduce road traffic while enhancing public transport and promoting walking and cycling. These measures are not only healthier and more equitable socially, but they are crucial in combating the climate crisis.

The failure to meet decarbonisation goals isn’t limited to London. It reflects a broader political trend, both nationally and internationally, where ongoing fossil-fuel-driven economic growth is disguised with “green” rhetoric.

Political Hurdles in Climate Policy

In January 2022, Sadiq Khan announced a target to cut vehicle-kilometres in London by 27 percent by 2030, aiming for the city to be “carbon neutral” by the end of the decade instead of 2050. This proposal was well-received by climate policy advocates because reducing the number of cars is a highly effective method for lowering transport-related greenhouse emissions.

However, over the past four years, City Hall has not provided any detailed plans on how to achieve this target, despite producing numerous documents and consultations on other policies. Traffic has increased in London and across the UK during this period, with government estimates indicating further rises in 2025.

Carbon dioxide emissions from London’s road transport are declining, but at a far slower pace than targeted by City Hall and recommended by climate experts.

Addressing Wellbeing

Transport for London leaders acknowledge in their annual review that “further action will be required to meet the accelerated 2030 ambition”—a significant understatement—but offer no specifics on how to achieve this.

Effectively, the “net zero by 2030” target has been announced and subsequently abandoned. Drew Pearce, a senior transport consultant at City Science, commented to The Ecologist that there was a brief period when the climate crisis was prioritized, but competing issues, like the cost of living crisis, have shifted focus away from these targets.

In transport, Pearce emphasized the importance of focusing on practical mechanisms that encourage change, especially behavioral measures that can both reduce emissions and provide economic, health, and wellbeing benefits.

Rethinking Temperature Control

Both in London and nationally, Labour’s transport policy remains heavily car-focused. Despite being promoted as a solution, electric vehicles are not the panacea for decarbonising transport, as researchers have argued.

A study led by Lisa Winkler at Imperial College, published in Nature Communications in 2023, argues that policies should concentrate not on electrification but on mitigating emissions from existing cars by either reducing their use or retrofitting them with electric engines.

Only by significantly reducing car use can short-term emissions targets be met, stringent carbon budgets be adhered to, and excessive demand for additional technology, materials, and minerals be avoided. Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius depends on these measures, according to Winkler and her team.

Expansion Issues

Decarbonisation targets proposed by climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre require a 72 percent reduction in car travel and a phase-out of fossil-fueled cars by 2025. However, this target, like many others based on scientific evidence rather than political whims, has been largely missed.

Research indicates that while electrifying car fleets is time-consuming, it is also materials- and potentially carbon-intensive, especially if cars are produced in coal-powered factories in countries like India or China. The batteries contribute significantly to these emissions.

Yet, politicians at both the local and national levels continue to ignore these facts, focusing instead on expanding the road network.

Disastrous Developments

In London, the £2.2 billion Silvertown Tunnel, built by the Riverlinx consortium, was opened in April last year. In its first three months, it saw fewer journeys than expected as drivers avoided tolls. However, its presence will likely increase traffic, as opponents have long cautioned.

Nationally, the government is proceeding with the extensive 14-kilometre, six-lane Lower Thames Crossing. The Transport Action Network has highlighted that this project will divert billions from balanced transport system development, undermine rail freight, and exacerbate inequality.

Additionally, the decision to construct a new runway at Gatwick Airport will further elevate carbon emissions from the UK’s transport sector.

Ruinous Priorities

The focus on road-building is coupled with tepid support for public transport and active travel. In London, tube and overground rail fares are rising faster than inflation, due to an agreement between City Hall and the government, and the bus fare cap might be increased or removed in July.

Nationally, while a restriction on local authorities owning bus companies has been lifted, this does not reverse the privatisation that has disrupted bus services in many areas. Rail services continue to be exploited by private operators.

Labour’s steadfast focus on roads and cars is evident in its transport policy documents. The latest draft road investment strategy defends road construction with claims of supporting economic growth and meeting the needs of road users and the logistics sector, while falsely suggesting that decarbonisation primarily involves electrifying the fleet.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander asserts that the road sector will contribute to climate efforts by implementing the transport decarbonisation plan published by the Tory government in 2024, despite it being a collection of vague promises.

Meanwhile, transport department projections foresee a total road traffic volume increase of between 8 percent and 54 percent by 2060, with no political plan to reduce these figures.

The Bonfire of Climate Targets

London’s practical abandonment of its climate commitments is part of a larger trend of disregarding climate targets. Necessary changes, as highlighted by scientists, are consistently obscured and undermined by political processes.

Globally, the Climate Action Tracker thermometer indicates that if all current emissions reduction commitments are fulfilled, the world is likely to experience a temperature rise of 2.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels. However, even these commitments are unlikely to be met. London’s failure to meet its transport targets exemplifies this broader issue.

At the National Emergency Briefing on climate in November last year, Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre warned of the possibility of four degrees of global warming by 2100. Such levels of warming would lead to societal breakdown, geopolitical instability, and economic collapse, necessitating the elimination of fossil fuels to prevent accelerated warming and risk.

Rich Nations’ Responsibilities

Anderson criticized the notion of UK “climate leadership” as a myth, noting that UK emissions, when including aviation, shipping, and imports, have decreased by only about 20 percent since 1990. UK government targets account for three times the country’s fair share of the remaining global carbon budget.

Anderson stressed that solutions should start with timely technologies like public transport, electric vehicle charging for rural areas, retrofitting homes, and an extensive electrification program, rather than “delay technologies” such as carbon capture.

For years, Anderson’s views have highlighted the tension between political greenwashing and scientific research from the Tyndall Centre and others.

In 2018, amidst growing youth activism from groups like Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion, the Tyndall Centre published “carbon budgets,” specifying the reduced carbon amounts national economies should emit to avoid dangerous climate change.

The Tyndall budgets were significantly smaller than government projections, as they considered the need for wealthier nations to reduce emissions faster and excluded speculative carbon removal technologies that do not work.

Inadequate Planning

In London, campaigners, including this article’s author, unsuccessfully urged City Hall to consider Tyndall Centre research before proceeding with the Silvertown Tunnel. The difference between City Hall’s planned emissions and the Tyndall Centre’s carbon budgets was pointed out. Now, it appears that City Hall was not even aiming to meet its insufficient targets.

When the Mayor announced the “net zero by 2030” goal in 2022, he commissioned research from Element Energy on achieving it. Element Energy offered three scenarios, and the Mayor chose the medium “accelerated green” option, projecting a 78 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This optimistic forecast might align London with the government’s inadequate targets but did not consider science-based goals or reduce traffic volumes.

Political Decisions

A road user charge proposal was put up for consultation, but Mayor Khan decided against pursuing it even before its completion. Transport advocates argue that reducing traffic requires a robust set of measures, including substantial investment in public transport and active travel, alongside cutting subsidies for cars, such as road investments, parking spaces, and the fuel duty freeze.

As City Hall and national government retreat from their inadequate targets, research-based targets are further sidelined.

Kevin Anderson and his colleagues John Broderick and Isak Stoddard published a 2020 article showing that emissions reduction targets set by the UK and Sweden—often praised as exemplary—actually understated their necessary actions by a factor of two, which politicians disregarded.

Potential Temptations

Where local government shows some resolve, and active campaign groups are present, the Tyndall Centre’s carbon budgets, once downloadable from the University of Manchester’s website, served as a useful guide. However, they have since been removed. In a retrospective summary, Tyndall scientists Carly McLachlan and Chris Jones noted that local authorities often lack the levers, funds, or political will to rapidly reduce emissions.

They advise local politicians to be transparent with the public, acknowledging potential missed milestones while maintaining science and fairness-based targets to inform policy ambition. Authorities missing their targets might be tempted to integrate carbon offsets or negative emissions credits into their strategies, but McLachlan and Jones caution against this.

Effective Decarbonisation Approaches

The troubling narrative of London’s transport sector targets could apply to several other cities and national governments, as well as to housing, electricity, industry, and other fossil-fuel-consuming systems.

The aim of recounting this story is not to discourage but to illustrate how political systems impede action.

A viable response is to build a movement that unites the decarbonisation imperative with the fight against social injustice and for broader public provision—a movement that envisions cities as livable spaces.

Izzy Romilly from Possible told The Ecologist that addressing the climate crisis is straightforward: it means warmer homes, lower bills, good jobs, energy security, better health, and more.

Priorities should include targeted investment in providing electric vehicles and e-cycles to those who need them most, like taxi drivers, care workers, and delivery riders, while supporting a modal shift so reliance on electric vehicles isn’t the sole solution.

Strategic Direction

Possible’s recent briefing on Turning the tide against rising traffic advocates for a road user charge and indicates broad public support for reallocating road space away from cars and redirecting investment from road construction to walking, cycling, and public transport.

Expanding public transport is also a key issue for trade unions, including those representing rail workers, who have called for the tube to be publicly owned, and bus drivers.

Fare Free London, a grassroots campaign group, champions free public transport, which has been a powerful tool for social justice in numerous global cities that have adopted it. As part of an integrated approach, it could be crucial in reducing car dependency.

The group has launched a pledge, backed by over 100 councillors and candidates in the May elections, to support the principle of free provision.

Pearl Ahrens from Fare Free London criticized the recent increase in tube and rail fares in London as a political decision that “is going in completely the wrong direction.”

Deceptive Practices

“Raising the proportion of income from fares imposes real costs on London residents, and it’s unnecessary.

“Transport systems in most major global cities rely far less on fare income than London’s does—more sustainable funding can be sourced elsewhere.”

Connecting transport and housing issues is also essential. A coalition of researchers last year detailed the potential of “vision-led planning”, which offers alternatives to road construction and car-dependent development.

These efforts aim to be united in social movements strong enough to confront political inaction and deception.

This Author

Dr. Simon Pirani is an honorary professor at the University of Durham in the UK and author of Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption (Pluto, 2018). He writes a blog at People and Nature. You can follow Simon on BlueSky at @simonpirani.bsky.social.