series of africa direct on al jazeera. >> smoke from canada's wildfires is choking millions there and along america's east coast. the impact on the air we breathe is long and felt around the world, and it hurts the poorest the hardest. so what is the government doing to tackle it? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. from baghdad to mexico city,

there are few places on earth where air pollution is not a problem. it affects the quality of life of billions. this week, smoke from unprecedented wildfires in canada is engulfing the skies and cities in the u.s., making the air to toxic to breathe. climate scientists say such blazes are increasing around the planets because of global warming. it is often the poorest people who are the most vulnerable. the un declared access to clean and healthy environment, a universal right, so will that be taken up by governments to mitigate the impact of our changing climate? we will get to guests in a moment but first this report. >> this is what hazardous air pollution looks like and the 8 million residents of new york have been breathing it in this week. a result of hundreds of wildfires in canada, which has disrupted the lives of millions in the northeastern united states. air pollution has long been a problem around the world.

the world health organization says it kills an estimated 7 million people a year, most in latin america, africa and asia. chile's capital santiago is constantly struggling with pollution and scientists say it is the most polluted capital on the continent. >> in summer we have the ozone pollution problem and in winter, we have the meta-pollution. unfortunately, this makes pollution levels unacceptable and other countries but define life in santiago. >> air pollution affects the lungs. healthy lungs have open pathways but poor air quality narrows them, making breathing more difficult. long-term exposure to air pollution is linked to respiratory diseases such as asthma, our disease, and cancer. last year, the u.n. general assembly declared access to a clean and healthy environment universal human rights but it is nonbinding. some governments are adopting

measures to reduce air pollution and authorities in the indian capital new delhi are banning coal power plants, limiting the number of vehicles on the road and stopping construction during times of peak pollution. other countries, including chad, don't have resources. environmentalists say the air pollution prices is preventable and governments need to take the issue seriously. >> we need to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible and adapt to changes we cannot avoid . we need better disaster response management, better systems to deal with these crises. >> world pollution accounts for more than $8 trillion in losses each year or 6% of the global economy. scientists say technological innovation is helping to tackle air pollution but what is needed more is the political and social will to address the crisis. ♪ anchor: let's bring in our guest

in madrid, dr. maria, the director of public health, environment and social determinants of health at the world health organization, in brussels, a clean air lawyer, and in daily, a youth environmentalist and advisor to the board of commonwealth human ecology council. a warm welcome. i would like to begin in madrid , the un declared access to a clean and healthy environment as a universal human right, but that is nonbinding, so countries do not have to pay attention to it. is this part of the problem, that there simply is not any law with teeth that gets into this? guest: i think it is very sad, the fact that we need a solution to claim we should all have access to clean and healthy environments. i think it should be something by default. unfortunately, that is not the

case, and the air we breathe is responsible every year for more than 7 million deaths. so if we need to use the law to go farther on protecting the health of our people and their rights to breathe clean air and have a healthy environment, i think we should do it, and this will be helpful, as well. anchor: there is a mechanism for all of this, there is the un security council, and this is now a security issue for many countries around the world, so, all of the mechanisms other. what are the problems? what is the pushback from countries to try to pass a resolution? guest: i think we are still far from recognizing that we are facing a big crisis, which is called climate change, and we are facing a crisis due to the fact that we are destroying our environment and polluting, fundamentally polluting everything we touch, the water we drink, the air we breathe,

and the food we eat. unless we decide in a strong way with a very political decision and rush to stop pollution and make it a healthier environment and development with transition to clean sources of energy and stopping the combustion of fossil fuels, we will keep killing ourselves and being responsible for the destruction that we are facing every day. i think we have a lot to gain if we take the right decision on this acceleration on the decision to remove non-clean sources of energy. and, of course, less aggressive practices, and looking at very strong agreements set the cop 28, with a strong political decision in investments and

accelerating the level of condition we have enforced at this speed to take decisions. in addition to the help of the planet or sustainable development, but more than anything, our health is already paying the price of cutting pollution and climate change, effectiveness in a dramatic way. anchor: in brussels, you just heard what dr. maria said read a lot of things need to get done. none of those things are happening. why is that? is it your experience as a lawyer? you must come up against this every day. guest: yeah, thank you. about the u.n. general assembly's resolution and the fact there is no codified law, that hits it on the head. we would argue that everything clean-air is already a human right and it is a right that states have an obligation to comply with. until this is codified within a legal framework, i think it is

easier to try to obey that obligation. that is why we try to bring litigations and decisions against public authorities. this is an obligation they should be complying with. this is quite personal -- anchor: this is quite personal for you because you suffered from about a bronchitis which led you to become an environment to lactamase. do you think the youth, which is what you are focusing, that that is literally the future? i do not want to sound like whitney houston, but that is the future, right? guest: absolutely. as you said, for me, of course, i was very indifferent to climate change when i started out, but when i actually learned that air pollution impacts my health, that is when i woke up and realized this is something i want to work on. my doctor told me i was having seasonal allergies because of

too long exposure to air pollution. that continues to lead. i have a pessimistic outlook on the human race and that i think everyone would like to know what is in it for me? as an environmentalist, that is what i try to address and all the audiences that i am talking to. i think i try to let that reflect and try to deliver the message the audience that i am talking to and make them understand why evolution is an issue that affects all of us and why we need to start working on it as a collective. other than having this be between institutions, whether it is state governments, un, or any other bodies. anchor: a very good point. there is a disconnect between, say for example, what the w.h.o. say, which is there is a certain level of air that is not pure, and then say the european union, who say, actually, the air in

europe is perfectly safe. there are no standards here and that is a big problem. guest: i think, yeah, and i agree that is a big problem. part of the problem we have in europe is there is a model but it is outdated and that is currently in the process of being advised -- revised. the most important thing is that this comply with the latest science, and it is clear, and they released their recommendations two years ago and they tell us what the maximum levels of air pollution are and states have an obligation to listen to that if they are really going to comply with their obligations to protect life and health and private life of their citizens, and they have to be following the science in making laws, which properly protect people because at the end of the day, that is the purpose of the law. anchor: the w.h.o. does not have enough teeth, we established that, to force institutions like

the european union to act, but there are things that you can do. what are those things that you can do? guest: first of all, we are putting the scientific area on the table. i think no policymaker or mayor around the world, anyone, would be able to say, i have given up. we are issuing recalls often, using this horrible number of premature deaths caused by the bad quality of the air we breathe. the fact that more than 99% of the people, almost 100% of the people all over the world is breathing air that is not respecting the standards. of course, it is not the same to live in new delhi. the standards would be completely different from those recommended then in other areas

were the standard is lower. but we are putting the evidence with all the governments, and we have risk solutions at the assembly. we have talked with ministers of health and ministers of energy because this is very much about an energy issue. we go to all the cop and climate change meetings. we describe what is needed to reduce pollution and there's plenty of evidence with the interventions and what works. we have, as well, symptoms to calculate an estimate if you go for this standard, like in european union, look at the number of deaths that you could avoid if you are a little bit more ambitious. it is a question that there is something difficult to understand when you are saying there are this many premature deaths and there is no reaction. it is very difficult to understand what is happening and why not? anchor: what are the key things

-- one of the key things here is getting governments to try to do something outside of institutions, outside of the european union or any kind of institution. what is the reaction to you when you speak to politicians? when you speak to people? is there any interest in trying to change things or are you up against a brick wall? guest: it is a bit of both, right, because there are more and more people who are becoming receptive to the idea of working on air pollution, but, unfortunately, it is a catch-22. let's take example of the firecracker band, which has been there for the past 5, 6, 7 years in india. and all the authorities, whether it is the supreme court, everyone has commanded, so we have introduced a man, and

society is not following it. on the other hand, we have social groups who are saying, air pollution is too large an issue for any of us to deal with. it is governments who are left to tackle this, so to come out of this vicious cycle and catch-22, i think that is when youth and social groups are important because there is no doubt because i think a large part of the model lies on institutions and governments, but it is also on society's youth groups to get the ball rolling. we have to take the first step because they need actual politicians and they have to know that society actually cares about an issue and they are willing to act on it. i think there is a very strong need for different groups to come together, and that is where we base our challenge, to your question. i think there are a lot of

meetings around air pollution and a lot of people i talked to, whether they are students or from retirement homes, some people think air pollution is a seasonal issue and others think it is just in south india, so really bringing about proper education and awareness would be the first step to tackle the issue. anchor: even 10 years ago, the fact that your job probably did not exist in the way it is now, you are a clean-air lawyer. 10 years ago, that must have been surprising to people. how has it shifted with the people you have spoken to, are you being listened to? guest: i am quite optimistic and i hope we are being listened to. it is certainly encouraging that the european union is in the process of updating before the market represents recognition of the fact that we now know more than we did 15 years ago, the last time that the european air-quality law was realized and came into law, so there is an

increasing recognition of how damaging air pollution can be and what level is the maximum acceptable level. i think thanks to the work of, for example, dr. maria, of course, you could always get better, and i think this falls within, again, this point about providing better information to the general public about the health impact and air pollution. the law could help with this if there was a codified human right for healthy air environment then governance would sit up and then take more ambitious steps to clean up the air and inform citizens, so these two things go hand-in-hand with states taking more robust action to clean up the air and citizens becoming more aware of the impact of air pollution on their health and demanding more from their governments.

we are already somewhere along the path but we could always do better. anchor: let's talk about this doing better because as an environmental lawyer, do you have an impact on the policy? are policymakers listening to your recommendations and absorbing that into any discussions about the law? talk us through the nuts and bolts of all of this. guest: guest: -- guest: we have definitely seen an impact of our work. our litigation has been particularly effective. a few years ago, we brought a case against the brussels government for their failure to properly put in place a monitoring network and monitoring the air quality in the city, which is the first building block to understand the quality of the air we breathe. we won that case and as a result, the brussels government had to adjust the way it was monitoring air pollution to bring us in line with the law and has publicly and openly stated that it was our litigation which prompted them

to comply with the law more effectively, to comply with their obligations better. so our litigations are definitely taken effect. anchor: that is the question i would like to ask the doctor, emma has had some success in influencing laws that are being passed. she is effectively a lobbyist for senate earth. planet earth needs lobbyists and we need someone able to sell the idea to the united nations. do we need more lawyers involved? is this a legal issue, do you think? guest: i think it is definitely the role of lawyers and the litigations is extremely important. i would like to mention, as well, the case for the u.k. for the first time ever, we have the death certificate of a little patient who passed away 10 years ago. her death certificate has written air pollution as the cause of death and not only asthma, so this was a very nice legal battle that waswon, but

now we need the commercial determinants. there are commercial interests that are clear, and as a society, we need to understand that if we don't accelerate the transition to green sources and clean sources of energy, we are all very much at risk from a health point of view. second, we need more awareness. it is increasing, no doubt, but we still need citizens to talk to politicians, and for that, they need to understand the connection between lung cancer, chronic respiratory infections and pollution, stroke, and cognitive development, and all of those behaviors. anchor: i am just going to bring in our other guests. we have been talking about the

law as possibly one way of actually getting governments to change, but that might work in the european union. in the subcontinent, there are many other issues that require legal minds and it is expensive. have you ever thought i need to push the india legal system to get this to the supreme court? that is the kind of route i need to go down? or maybe for india, that is not the right approach? guest: no, i think the legal route has been explored, and, of course, there is always hope to do more and better, but i think we are lacking and not just there, but an issue that i have seen talking to my counterparts in south asia, as well, is more an issue of implementation, as well as social and political will. for example, as i said, there is a firecracker ban, and we have a national air-quality

commission set up but it is largely ineffective. this committee has been constituted and re-constituted to make state governments and central governments work together over the years, but we see that by and large, in several states in particular, the numbers are not going down, right? so i think there are a lot of laws like the firecracker band, but enforcement is the issue, and that is where i think the role of municipal commissions and good state governments also comes in. the state government of delhi has been doing a fantastic job over the past two or three years. anchor: i am just going to distribute there because i have to bring in emma. this is an interesting conversation about enforcement. you can pass all the laws you want but you need countries to enforce them. how is that going to happen? guest: high given -- by giving

citizens a route to access justice. that is really important. we come back to this point of educating about citizens being aware of the impact and things like air pollution and how they affect their health, and empowering with them with the knowledge to hold the government to account but also hold them with the legal tools that they can go to court and told her governments for account. and that will correspond both and benefit both individual citizens been able to go to court and civil society, so, ngos, again, going and holding governments to account and making sure they are complying. that is where we need dual tools, high-level ambition in terms of actual limits on air pollution, and, also, the strong implementation of network which means the civil society and citizens are able to hold lawmakers to account. anchor: we talked so far about

lawmaking and enforcement of those laws, but if you are going to pass anything, the united nations is a key player and you have to offer incentives. countries have got to be able to think, this is in our interest and that is the only way they will act. what incentives can the united nations and who offer, other than putting information on the table? guest: since we are offering the best information ever, the number of lives you can save and diseases you can prevent, and if we go to numbers, the total amount of resources, economic resources you can save because our hospital and health systems are already paying a critical price to treat those chronic diseases, so the incentive is definitely prevention of diseases and reduction of those millions of deaths, better

services and using a health system cost, and making sure that our population will understand that. i think when you have mothers, like one mother in the u.k. has been able to change the law. it depends on where air pollution affects our health and we use their vote to make sure we know who are the ones responding and endorsing all of those lost, who was the government that we have responding to better our demands for equality? i think united nations can decide and put declarations and even sanctions don't have the capacity, but by producing every year, a tracking of who is doing what and how many lives you are saving and we could avoid, i think that would be the most powerful kind of reporting and

mechanism and monitoring how many lives you are not saving every year. anchor: we are running out of time and i have a question to ask all three. cop 28 is coming up. that is one big opportunity for countries to come together. what do you want to see from cop 28 and the climate change summit? guest: absolutely. one is topical. i am hoping -- we have seen that there is international intervention on the grounds of humanitarian reasons across the world, but i feel like climate change and evolution needs to become issues and whether the international community can come together to put pressure on other countries to help their citizens would be the first thing. second, -- anchor: sare, i am going to have to stop you there and we are running out of time. emma, you are a lawyer, legally,

what laws would you hope to see at least being talked about a cup 28? guest: i -- at cop 28? guest: i want to see high ambition on setting limits on the air we can breathe and a strong implementation network which means laws are respected and citizens can hold her governments to account to respect their human rights to breathe clean air. anchor: dr., what do you hope for? guest: we will have a meeting for the first time ever, and i would like to see all the countries upgraded their quality airlines, and drastic reduction of emissions. that would be so good for public health. anchor: i would like to thank all of our guests, and i would like to thank you for watching. you can see the program again, any time by sitting our website at al jazeera.com and you can go to facebook.com/ajinsidestory

and you can join the conversation on twitter, @ajinsidestory. from the whole team here, bye for now. ♪

[crowd clapping] crowd: nina, nina! nina, nina! nina, nina! nina! eric campbell: nina baginskaya is a 74-year-old great-grandmother who's become the icon of a revolution. maria pugachjova: i've never been scared since the 9th of