Editorial: Clear the air

Everyone has the right to breathe clean air. In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) released revised guidelines for four outdoor air pollutants: particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. For some pollutants, such as PM, no threshold value for harmful effects could be determined, and WHO therefore decided to set values, which if achieved, would be expected to result in significantly reduced rates of adverse health effects.

The EU annual limit value for PM₁₀ of 40 microgrammes per cubic metre (µg/m³)is twice as high as recommended by the WHO. In addition the EU has a daily limit value of 50 µg/m³, the same as recommended by the WHO, but which is allowed to be exceeded 35 days every year.

Clearly, the EU’s air quality standards are insufficient to protect people’s health. Despite the weakness of these standards, legal proceedings are currently ongoing against ten member states for failing to comply with the mandatory PM₁₀ standards – limits that should have been met back in 2005.

Evidence of the health hazards posed by air pollutants is clear and unambiguous. The Commission’s own analysis concluded in 2005 that because of air pollution 370,000 people die prematurely every year in the EU. Further effects of air pollution on the environment include ecosystem damage through eutrophication, acidification and ground-level ozone.

PM alone is estimated to be responsible for 350,000 premature deaths yearly. That equals one premature death every one and a half minutes. Moreover, the current levels of PM are estimated to be responsible for around 100,000 cases of respiratory or cardiac hospital admissions, 30 million respiratory medication use days and several hundred million restricted activity days each year.

Air pollution particularly affects vulnerable groups such as infants, children, the elderly and those suffering from asthma, allergies and other respiratory diseases. Whichever way you look at this problem, the benefits of clean air far outweigh the costs.

Over the last year or so, the Commission has been flooded by requests from member states for exemptions from meeting the air quality standards. It is obvious that many member states have plainly failed to take the necessary measures in time, and now they find themselves in a critical situation where they are at risk of being brought before the European Court of Justice.

At the same time as EU countries struggle to avoid cleaning up the air in line with binding legislation they themselves have agreed and sign up to, on the other side of the Atlantic work is ongoing to strengthen air quality standards.

Another interesting contrast is the fact that in setting primary ambient air quality standards in the United States, the responsibility under the law is to establish standards that protect public health, regardless of the costs of implementing a new standard. The US Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency, for each criteria pollutant, to set a standard that protects public health with “an adequate margin of safety.” Even if in practice this may not eventually happen, the fundamental principle is good, and certainly something for other countries to emulate.

In contrast to most international environmental treaties, the EU does actually have the tools needed for strict enforcement. Financial penalties can be imposed either as a periodic (e.g. daily) penalty payment or as a lump sum. Considering the serious and widespread damage to health and the environment caused by excessive air pollution, compliance with air quality legislation is essential, and strict enforcement action by the Commission must be a top priority. We do have the right to breathe clean air.

Christer Ågren

In this issue

Asian emissions increase ozone over North America

Increases in tropospheric ozone levels above western North America during springtime are due to eastward air flows across the Pacific Ocean, with the largest increases associated with air that comes from South and East Asia, according to a recent study.

Air quality benefits from climate policy

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will help to avert dangerous climate change, but it will also bring other benefits, such as cuts in health-damaging air pollutants, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide.

Rapid action to abate methane needed

Rapid reductions in emissions of methane and other short-lived greenhouse gases are needed to slow down global warming, especially in the Arctic region.

Ozone pollution could kill millions

Ozone pollution could cause hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of damage to human health and result in millions of premature deaths around the world by 2050.

Solar power from Sahara for fossil-free Europe

Solar electricity from the Sahara could supply Europe with 15 per cent of its electricity by 2050, at a price tag of 400 billion euros.

Supergrid paves the way for wind power expansion

A supergrid connecting Scandinavia and large parts of western Europe may pave the way for an even faster expansion of off-shore windpower.

IMO urged to take action on black carbon emissions

Three countries – Norway, Sweden and the United States – are asking the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to take action to reduce shipping emissions of black carbon (BC).

Copenhagen failure on aviation and shipping

The outcome of the Copenhagen summit proved extremely disappointing as regards international aviation and shipping emissions.

Greenhouse gas reductions will benefit human health

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have major direct health benefits, especially in low-income countries.

New air quality standards in India

For the first time in 15 years India has revised its air quality standards. The new standards were notified by the environment ministry in November, and have lowered maximum limits for health damaging pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM₁₀, and introduced new limits for pollutants left out earlier, including ozone, PM_2.5, arsenic, nickel, benzene and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (as benzo(a)pyrene).

Great health benefits from new US air quality standards

New air quality standards announced by the EPA are estimated to yield health benefits in the USA of between 13 and 100 billion dollars.

Parliament debate on IPPC revision

The second reading debate on the proposed revision of the industrial pollution directive (IPPC) is about to take place.

New EU sulphur regulations in ports

From 1 January 2010, ships using ports within the EU are not allowed to use marine fuels with a sulphur content exceeding 0.1% while at berth. Moreover, marine gas oils with a sulphur content higher than 0.1% are not allowed to be marketed in any EU member state.

Review of the VOC paints directive underway

An EU consultancy report published in December recommends extending the 2004 directive on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in paints and varnishes to other products such as hairsprays, solvent-based adhesives, window cleaning products and wood coatings.

Tough stance on air quality derogations

European Commission objects to vast majority of requests for more time to comply with EU air quality legislation.

Air pollution abatement - success and failures

The convention on long range air pollution has helped to clear the skies over Europe and North America over the last three decades - but a few countries are still notorious in failing to fulfil their committments.

Renewable energy can power the world by 2030

Renewable energy sources could produce all the energy the world needs in as little as 20 years from now and at a lower cost than the present energy mix, two American experts claim.

Cutting NOx emissions - the Norwegian way

Through an agreement between the Norwegian government and business organisations, a tax was transformed into a fund for investments - and emissions began to decrease rapidly.