Reducing the number of cars on the road to combat smog in cities. This is the only way forward, according to Andrea Minutolo, head of science at Legambiente, the environmental organisation that recently presented a special edition of its Mal'aria report. Pollution, he explains, is "a complex phenomenon" and tackling it requires "multiple solutions". But in cities "the number one enemy is traffic and the excessive use of cars that directly causes it".

On the eve of the entry into force of anti-smog measures, Legambiente presented a special edition of the "Mal'aria" report. What are the main findings?
Never before this year has the topic of health become so central in public opinion. Last winter there was much discussion about the correlation between the pandemic and air pollution. With the special edition of Mal'aria we wanted to put the quality of air in Italian cities under the microscope, analysing five-year annual averages for the three parameters typical of air pollution – namely fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (in particular NO2) – and comparing them with the limit values recommended by the World Health Organization, which, it should be remembered, are indicators designed to protect people's health.

The comparison with these values revealed that, of the 98 cities for which sufficient data were available, in 85 per cent of cases the three parameters analysed were never, or almost never, within the limits. This translates into clear evidence that for many years citizens have been breathing air with a concentration of pollutants well above what the WHO recommends. It is no coincidence, unfortunately, that Italy is one of the European Union countries with the highest number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution – around 60,000 every year.

Domestic heating has a considerably greater impact on air quality than traffic does. Wouldn't it be fairer to start there, rather than with cars?
That is not quite right. Heating contributes a great deal – around 50 per cent – to the formation of primary fine particulate matter: that is, particles emitted directly from a source, such as a fireplace or an exhaust pipe. The thing is, these primary particles account for only about 30 per cent of total particulate matter, because the vast majority of it is secondary in nature; meaning it forms as a secondary result of a process, such as the resuspension of already-deposited particles caused by vehicles travelling along a road, or of a chemical reaction starting from a primary component – as in the case of ammonia, emitted largely by livestock farming and agricultural processes, which is a precursor to the formation of PM2.5.

The truth is that air pollution is a complex phenomenon involving multiple emission sources – above all traffic, domestic heating, agriculture and industry – and requiring multiple solutions to be deployed in order to reduce it. There is no single culprit and no single solution. In cities, the number one enemy is traffic and the excessive use of cars that directly causes it. Just as domestic heating (primarily the burning of wood in fireplaces) is the main culprit in more rural areas, alongside agriculture and livestock farming – often intensive – which are concentrated above all in the Po Valley.

Last year there was a great deal of controversy over the banning of the latest-generation diesel vehicles. What is your position?
To break free from the grip of pollution, the number of private cars circulating in cities must be drastically reduced: Italy has the highest motorisation rate, with 65 cars per 100 inhabitants, peaking at 75 per 100 in some places, whereas in other European cities that we so admire the average is 25 per 100. In recent years we have been bombarded with advertising about the cleanest engines ever, claims that were exposed as false by the "dieselgate" scandal and that caused the premature death of 500 people in a single year in the city of Milan alone, as a result of the actual emissions they produced.

It is no longer enough to talk about "clean" cars that emit less than in the past, because one must consider that the total number of cars on the road has grown considerably compared with a few years ago. The very latest Euro 6 vehicles will no longer make the difference – what will is a drastic reduction in the number of cars in circulation. And among those that inevitably remain, it would be better if they were zero-emission electric vehicles.

When it comes to urban transport, there is a risk that the coronavirus emergency could trigger a massive return to private vehicles. Does that concern you?
Mobility is a fundamental issue if we are to break free from the grip of pollution, and it is even more so because of the pandemic. There is a risk of going back 20 years if the failures of the past on this issue negatively influence the measures that need to be deployed in response to the coronavirus emergency. If it was a necessity before, it is even more so now, because returning to cities congested with traffic instead of reducing its presence – at the expense of local public transport – will only increase pollution and, consequently, the problems associated with it. The 60,000 premature deaths attributable to air pollution are no less important than the more than 30,000 caused by coronavirus. They are of the same order of magnitude and deserve the same attention. For Legambiente, it is both possible and necessary to act on mobility and on people's safety in equal measure.

European emissions regulations have encouraged greater development of hybrid and electric engines. In order to allow less polluting cars to gain market share, should we keep pushing in this direction?
Once the number of cars on the road has been reduced and multimodal urban mobility has been strengthened, it will then make sense for the remaining private cars to be low- or zero-emission. Shifting the problem from 40 million petrol or diesel cars to 40 million electric cars would not solve it.

For Legambiente, the Recovery Fund represents a great opportunity to deliver structural interventions that place sustainable, electric, shared, cycling and pedestrian, and multimodal mobility at the centre. Where should we start?
Making local public transport more efficient by expanding it and making it both widespread and zero-emission. Investing in the transformation of cities, which at present are designed around the car, and making them human-scale through pedestrian zones, green spaces and cycle lanes. Encouraging sharing – shared car and scooter services on the one hand, but also scooters, bikes, e-bikes and everything else that technology will bring with it – while at the same time discouraging the use of private vehicles through measures to restrict access to parts of the city, ticket pricing and road pricing.