The Lethal Fog of Clean-Air Hypocrisy

By Vijay Jayaraj

So-called environmental activists across the United Kingdom will pat themselves on the back this Thursday (June 19), which they have declared “Clean Air Day.” Because nothing of real value will come of the observance, the crusaders’ sense of elevated virtue will be the only noticeable effect from all the promotion of cycle-to-work schemes and lamentations over vehicle exhaust on the M25.

The fact is that the air of most developed nations is quite clean, having been improved over the last 50 years through modern pollution-control technologies. Yet, a toxic fog of irony hangs heavy over these celebrations. Many of the voices calling for marginally cleaner air in London are part of a relentless global campaign to deny the world’s poorest citizens the very fuel that would significantly improve the air they breathe.

Zealots, comfortably situated in electrified offices, are waging a public relations war against natural gas and its liquefied form (LNG), even suing governments and financial institutions to stop LNG projects in developing nations and branding them as a dangerous source of energy.

Pretending that expensive and unreliable solar panels and wind turbines are realistic alternatives for more than 3 billion people – almost half the world’s population – the ecologically self-righteous would force the continued burning of wood, charcoal, animal dung and coal in unventilated huts for cooking, heating and lighting.

The resulting indoor pollution from particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides causes 3.2 million premature deaths annually, according to the World Health Organization. More than 70% of these fatalities are in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa far from London high rises.

An estimated 700,000 Africans die prematurely every year because of polluting fuels used in daily life, accounting for nearly 10% of the continent’s total mortality. In countries like Somalia, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the death rate from household air pollution is staggeringly high.

Women and children, who spend the most time near smoky stoves, bear the brunt of this respiratory assault, facing heightened risks of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute infections.

Do the activists suing LNG projects understand these numbers? Do they appreciate that by blocking the development and distribution of natural gas, they are condemning millions of women and children to this reality? They are not saving the planet. They are sacrificing the poor at the altar of their own green ideology.

The ironic twist deepens when London’s own journey to cleaner air is considered. In the 16th and 17th centuries, wood was the dominant fuel for heating and cooking across Europe. By the 18th century, coal took over, powering the Industrial Revolution but blanketing cities in soot.

The transition to natural gas in the 20th century marked a turning point, offering a cleaner, more efficient fuel that reduced household emissions. Today, natural gas supplies nearly 85% of U.K. homes for heating and cooking.

Yet, the U.K. seems determined to kick this ladder to better health away from those trying to climb it. Look no further than the relentless legal assault on the U.K. government’s support for a massive LNG project in Mozambique. This $20 billion project, led by French multinational TotalEnergies, now has an uncertain future because legal challenges stymy efforts to fund it.

Why do environmental extremists expect Nairobi, Dhaka or Lagos to skip the rational evolution of energy use that so benefited the lives and economies of the U.K. – and of many other western nations? Why do they think an African mother should wait decades – or forever – to cook without smoke?

The answer lies in an elitist worldview that treats energy as a lifestyle choice rather than a lifeline.

India offers a striking example of what’s possible when cleaner fuels replace smoky ones. Since 2016, a nationwide program has provided subsidized connections to cooking-gas cylinders for over 80 million low-income households. Between 2010 and 2019, deaths from household air pollution in India dropped by over 208,000, thanks largely to expanded access to cooking gas.

To demand that poor countries jump directly from wood and dung to advanced, fully electrified stoves is to demand the impossible. It is a denial of history and the practical considerations of energy supplies and economics.

For nations where uninterrupted electricity is still a distant dream, natural gas provides the reliable, scalable, affordable, and dramatically cleaner fuel for cooking and heating. Clean air should not be rendered an out-of-reach luxury for the Third World by Europe’s well-off who take theirs for granted.

This commentary was first published at California Globe on June 17, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.