Low-emission zones (LEZ) and Clean Air Zones (CAZ) are at the center of lively debates, often fueled by misinformation campaigns. These measures aim to improve air quality by reducing emissions from polluting vehicles in urban centers, but are often criticized with arguments that are not always borne out by facts. C40, a global network of mayors committed to fighting the climate crisis, has identified some of the most recurring false myths about Clean Air Zones, often characterized by a narrative influenced by conspiracy theories and climate denialism, a phenomenon analyzed by Climate Against Disinformation during COP27. Through substantiated data and analysis, C40 dismantles these false beliefs and highlights the real benefits of low-emission zones.
"Low-emission zones limit individual freedom."
One of the most common false myths is that these measures are authoritarian and reduce personal freedom. The idea that restricting access to polluting vehicles imposes a constraint on freedom of movement fails to take into account that mobility does not depend solely on the private car. Cities that adopt such strategies, such as London with the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), invest in more efficient public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, and offer viable alternatives for travel. Improving air quality and reducing traffic makes cities more livable and safer for everyone, without compromising freedom of movement.
"The economic impact of low-emission zones is negative."
It is often heard that these traffic restrictions penalize lower income groups and hurt the local economy. However, several studies show the opposite: LTZs and pedestrian zones can have positive effects on commerce. In Brussels, the introduction of Low Emission Zones has reduced pollution and boosted the local economy through increased pedestrian and bicycle flows. In addition, many cities offer incentives and concessions for vulnerable groups, such as discounts on public transport or subsidies for vehicle conversion. Equitable management of these policies comes through supportive measures for the most fragile communities.
"Low-emission zones do not reduce pollution."
The effectiveness of these initiatives is often questioned, but the data tell a different story. In Brussels, Low Emission Zones have reduced pollution by 30 percent along major roads, while in Barcelona, "superblocks" have decreased congestion by 25 percent. In Germany, cities with LEZs (Low Emission Zones) experienced significant reductions in hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease and stroke. These results show that such measures actually improve public health.
"Low-emission zones only serve to make cash."
Some believe that the main purpose of these initiatives is to generate revenue through fines and fees, rather than to protect public health. However, most cities reinvest the proceeds to improve public transportation and green infrastructure. In London, for example, ULEZ revenues are used to upgrade the bus network and incentivize the use of less polluting vehicles. The main focus remains on reducing the number of the most polluting vehicles and improving air quality.
"Citizens are opposed to low-emission zones."
It is often claimed that people are against these measures, but recent research shows otherwise. A study conducted by C40 shows broad support for policies regulating access to polluting vehicles. Success depends on community involvement, transparency and clear communication of benefits. Cities that invest in outreach and dialogue with citizens gain more and longer-lasting support.
"Low-emission zones are a tax on the poor."
Some argue that these measures penalize low-income people by forcing them to replace their polluting vehicles. However, many lower-income groups do not even own a car and often live in the most polluted areas. In London, only 5 percent of low-income residents own a car, but they suffer 10 percent more of the harmful effects of air pollution. To ensure equity, many cities offer incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and scrappage programs.