Background image

terug

The campaign for lead-free petrol

11     The Queen was there. So were many more of the Great and the Good, all standing
2 in the rain in the Royal Mews solemnly observing the conversion of the Palace cars to
3 run on unleaded petrol. It is, of course, the aim of any campaigner to create a
4 bandwagon that others will feel driven to jump on, but what was particularly noticeable
5 about those bowing and scraping before the Queen on Monday was that not one of them
6 was around in 1982-83 when we had to battle for the decision to remove lead from
7 petrol.
28     Noticeably absent was Mr Godfrey Bradman. He would be the last person to
9 complain, or blame anyone for this. Somewhere, however, it should be recorded that it
10 was he who took up the issue, and who founded Clear, the Campaign for Lead-free Air,
11 in 1982, paid for it with £250,000 of his own money, recruited me and the others who
12 worked for it, and put up with considerable ridicule until unleaded petrol became
13 respectable.
314     Compare his modesty with the headline in the Daily Mail newspaper last Friday:
15 QUEEN JOINS MAIL CAMPAIGN. Of course the Mail's recent activities have been
16 helpful, but it provided no support whatsoever up to the point where the battle was won
17 in 1983, or subsequently, until our lead-free petrol week in November last year, when as
18 part of the promotion of itself as a 'campaigning newspaper' it finally discovered the
19 issue.
420     I make these points not out of any sense of injustice but because there are lessons
21 to be learned from the contrast between the self-promotion of those who have recently
22 adopted the issue and the experiences of the environmentalists who first raised it.
523     The Clear campaign was launched on 26 January, 1982. On the same day Kenneth
24 Clarke, then, as now, Health Minister, and Giles Shaw, a junior minister at the
25 Department of the Environment, jointly wrote to all MPs to assure them our demands
26 were unrealistic. Behind the scenes, MPs were frequently told that Clear was being
27 unnecessarily emotive, hysterical, and irresponsible.
628     What the petroleum industry was saying about Clear was usually unprintable. One
29 exception was a magazine article written by a senior executive: 'Clear is probably
30 supported by anti-capitalists. We can see only three reasons for the anti-lead movement:
31 support by precious metal producers who want the catalytic converters; support by
32 engineering groups who believe they will have new facilities to install; or support by
33 leftist-sponsored, anti-big-business groups. We think the third is most likely.'
734     No one appeared ready to acknowledge worthy motives (that we actually cared
35 about the mental health of our children) or that we actually knew what we were talking
36 about, until the evidence had become irresistible - evidence, of course, developed at the
37 expense of the children who had been exposed to the pollution.
838     Our experiences have been repeated with other environmental issues, from acid
39 rain to the threat to the ozone layer, and have currently been observable in the
40 controversy over food safety standards. First, once the controversy was under way, it was
41 up to the citizen to prove he or she was at risk, rather than up to the industries to prove
42 that their practice was safe. Second, a variety of ministers simply accepted their civil
43 service report, usually based on misinformation fed into Whitehall by the industries
44 concerned, and used Whitehall information officers to conduct a campaign of dishonesty
45 and denigration of environmentalists, instead of seriously seeking to establish where truth
46 lay.
947     Finally, while industry stressed the difficulties and the cost of unleaded petrol, I
48 repeatedly said that I had no doubt that when they were forced to act, the difficulties
49 would quickly be removed, and the costs reduced. That has happened.
1050     So it was that they all had their day at Buckingham Palace on Monday. As I have
51 said, Mr Godfrey Bradman was not invited. A small oversight. I expect he could not care
52 less. For the environmental movement I do. Because unless it is acknowledged that this
53 small advance is a triumph for ordinary citizens, for environmentalists, who were not
54 'extreme' and 'selective with the facts' but right, then every time people raise questions
55 about threats to their health, or fight for measures to protect their children, they will be
56 faced with the same expensive and often lonely battle and the same defensive techniques.
 
     Des Wilson in 'The Spectator', February 18, 1989