Member states opt for weakening air pollution targets

By watering down proposed new air pollution targets, EU environment ministers chose not to grasp the opportunity on 16 December to prevent several thousands of annual premature deaths in Europe. The Council position thereby weakens significantly the ambition level of the revised National Emissions Ceilings (NEC) directive proposed by the European Commission and supported by the European Parliament (see AN 4/2015).

In the Commission’s proposal, premature mortality from air pollution would by 2030 be reduced by 52 per cent, compared to the base year 2005. The Council’s position lowers this to 48 per cent – just six percentage points more than would anyway be achieved under business as usual. Compared to the Commission’s proposal, the Council’s relaxed targets have been estimated to result in an additional 16,000 annual premature deaths in 2030.

Moreover, member states removed the ozone precursor methane completely from the directive and introduced a variety of additional flexibilities in order to make it easier for them to comply. The Commission already included three flexibilities in its original proposal, and the Council has now added five more.

A recent paper by a coalition of environmental organisations has strongly criticised these flexibilities, claiming that they will result in higher emissions; delayed reductions; more avoidable deaths and environmental damage; more unnecessary administration; and an unenforceable directive.

Because flexibilities are usually based on complex rules and methodologies, they are confusing to the public, media, local authorities and business, thereby undermining both the effectiveness and legitimacy of the legislation. This complexity also increases the risk of abuse by member states, which raises the question of whether the Commission has the willingness and capacity to ensure effective enforcement.

Looking at the specific Emission Reduction Commitments (ERC) for each member state, the countries want to lower 77 of the 140 targets for 2030, while agreeing to keep 52 at the level proposed by the Commission, and offering more ambitious targets in just 11 cases (see Table).

At the bottom of the league among member states we find Denmark, Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, who all have chosen to weaken their ERCs for all five pollutants, while Italy and the UK want lower targets for four owf the pollutants.

In contrast, Finland accepts all its targets, closely followed by Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden, which stick to four out of the five targets. As icing on the cake, Finland has opted for a tougher target for ammonia, and Sweden has opted for tougher targets for both sulphur dioxide and PM2.5.

Table 1: Country-by-country emission reduction targets for 2030 in per cent as compared to the base year 2005. (COM = Commission’s proposal, as adjusted in early 2015; Council = Council’s general approach as adopted in December 2015).

	SO₂		NOx		VOC		NH₃		PM2.5
	COM	Council	COM	Council	COM	Council	COM	Council	COM	Council
Austria	−41	−41	−71	−71	−40	−36	−18	−18	−49	−46
Belgium	−66	−66	−59	−59	−35	−35	−13	−13	−41	−38
Bulgaria	−93	−88	−63	−58	−69	−42	−18	−9	−66	−41
Croatia	−86	−82	−62	−57	−50	−48	−23	−23	−62	−55
Cyprus	−95	−93	−70	−55	−50	−50	−21	−20	−78	−70
Czech. R.	−73	−66	−64	−64	−50	−50	−38	−22	−50	−60
Denmark	−62	−52	−66	−58	−49	−37	−32	−24	−56	−41
Estonia	−72	−68	−46	−30	−28	−28	−1	−1	−41	−41
Finland	−34	−34	−47	−47	−48	−48	−15	−20	−34	−34
France	−77	−75	−69	−69	−52	−52	−23	−13	−56	−56
Germany	−57	−58	−64	−64	−35	−24	−38	−29	−42	−42
Greece	−92	−88	−69	−50	−64	−62	−31	−10	−71	−45
Hungary	−73	−73	−66	−66	−58	−58	−43	−25	−64	−48
Ireland	−82	−85	−71	−69	−32	−32	−10	−5	−39	−41
Italy	−71	−71	−68	−65	−49	−46	−22	−14	−54	−40
Latvia	−42	−46	−41	−34	−42	−38	3	−1	−46	−43
Lithuania	−65	−60	−51	−51	−47	−47	−2	−10	−48	−35
Luxemb.	−45	−45	−85	−82	−49	−41	−24	−22	−43	−40
Malta	−95	−95	−79	−79	−27	−27	−24	−24	−76	−50
Netherl.	−58	−58	−61	−61	−22	−15	−21	−21	−40	−40
Poland	−77	−69	−51	−39	−55	−26	−22	−22	−46	−46
Portugal	−83	−83	−61	−61	−44	−38	−19	−14	−68	−51
Romania	−92	−85	−62	−57	−67	−43	−28	−22	−69	−39
Slovakia	−82	−82	−48	−48	−32	−32	−43	−30	−63	−40
Slovenia	−88	−91	−65	−65	−59	−53	−26	−15	−76	−58
Spain	−87	−87	−66	−62	−39	−39	−21	−16	−62	−50
Sweden	−14	−22	−66	−66	−39	−36	−17	−17	−17	−19
UK	−89	−87	−74	−72	−39	−39	−24	−11	−53	−45
EU28	−81	−78	−65	−62	−46	−40	−25	−18	−54	−45

For the EU as a whole, ammonia is the pollutant for which the ambition level has been downgraded the most, by seven percentage points. This is particularly remarkable as the emission cuts achieved so far for ammonia have been very modest compared to those for the other four pollutants, and even more so when considering that the proposed reduction target for 2030 is much less ambitious than for the other pollutants.

According to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Denmark, Romania, Poland, Italy, Spain, the UK and Bulgaria have been particularly vociferous in calling for lower emissions reduction targets, and some member states, such as France and Germany, seem preoccupied with protecting large-scale industrial farming, which produces high ammonia emissions that are responsible for around 30,000 of these deaths, rather than protecting their citizens.

The EEB has calculated that approximately 130,000 EU citizens could die prematurely in the coming years if the air pollution ERCs are weakened in line with the Council’s position. The figure represents the cumulative extra deaths between 2016 and 2030, and has been derived by assuming a linear emission reduction from 2016 to the target year 2030.

Commenting on the Council’s position, Louise Duprez, senior air quality policy officer at the EEB, said: “It is astonishing that governments are pushing for weaker laws which would kill even more of their own citizens. The industrial farming lobby has been fighting tooth and nail to weaken these laws – first by trying to exclude methane, and then by undermining ammonia targets. Why should one sector receive special treatment, when air pollution affects us all?”

Representatives of all three institutions (Council, Parliament and Commission) began negotiations in late February with the aim of reaching a final compromise by June 2016.

Christer Ågren

The NGO paper on flexibilities can be downloaded from: http://www.eeb.org/index.cfm/library/flexibilities-in-the-national-emiss...

The EEB’s press release on calculation of cumulative premature deaths can be found at: http://www.eeb.org/index.cfm/news-events/news/analysis-over-100-000-eu-c...

In this issue

A 1.5 target is needed to save the Baltic Sea

Effects of global temperature increases on the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea.

CCS in Norway – still a long way from the goal

The CCS project at Mongstad in western Norway was finally cancelled in 2013, causing sarcastic comments about “The Moon landing that failed”.

How to account for emissions of greenhouse gases from imported goods?

Carbon emissions have dropped in many rich countries, Sweden among them. Or is it just that the emitting industries have moved to China? A technical discussion is getting intensely political.

Member states opt for weakening air pollution targets

Compared to the Commission’s proposal, the relaxed targets agreed by member states could result in an additional 130,000 premature deaths by 2030.

The EU should phase out fossil gas

AirClim has published a new report (1) about the need to phase out the use of fossil gas as soon as possible in order to meet the climate targets agreed at the UN Paris Climate Conference in December 2015.

Sanctions missing for ship sulphur sinners

In the first year of stricter standards in the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) of the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel, Swedish authorities took 441 ship fuel oil samples. They discovered 15 violations of the sulphur limit, but none of these resulted in fines or other types of sanctions.

New rules on emissions from medium combustion plants adopted

Despite a widespread agreement on the urgent need to cut emissions to improve air quality, existing installations are given very generous transition periods.

Cutting meat and dairy intake is beneficial for health, the environment and climate

Halving the consumption of meat and dairy in the EU would cut agricultural nitrogen losses by more than 40 per cent and GHG emissions by 25–40 per cent.

Sector targets for aviation and shipping wanted

In the absence of additional action, international shipping and aviation will be responsible for close to 40 per cent of global CO2 emissions by 2050.

Europeans still exposed to harmful air pollution

A new report by the European Environment Agency estimates that air pollution continues to be responsible for more than 430 000 premature deaths in Europe.

A new era for the debate on coal phase-out in Germany

2015 was not only the year of the groundbreaking climate agreement in Paris. It also marked a new era in political efforts on a more actively managed phase-out of power generation from coal and lignite mining in Germany.

Explaining vehicle emissions

A new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) provides a non-technical guide that describes why, for certain pollutants, vehicles can emit substantially higher emissions on the road than official emissions tested in laboratories.

CCS sidelined by public opposition

In the EU, coal power currently accounts for about one fourth of electricity generation.

Need to decarbonise transport

Policies needed to stimulate behavioural changes.

Main menu

Member states opt for weakening air pollution targets

In this issue

A 1.5 target is needed to save the Baltic Sea

CCS in Norway – still a long way from the goal

How to account for emissions of greenhouse gases from imported goods?

Member states opt for weakening air pollution targets

The EU should phase out fossil gas

Sanctions missing for ship sulphur sinners

New rules on emissions from medium combustion plants adopted

Cutting meat and dairy intake is beneficial for health, the environment and climate

Sector targets for aviation and shipping wanted

Europeans still exposed to harmful air pollution

A new era for the debate on coal phase-out in Germany

Explaining vehicle emissions

CCS sidelined by public opposition

Need to decarbonise transport

Publications

SINK OR SOURCE? Northern Forests at a crossroads

The role of northern forests in limiting warming to 1.5°C

Protecting Northern Forests crucial for biodiversity, the climate and indigenous rights

The 100 largest industry emitters in EU-27

Road to Nowhere

Bioenergy CCS – too little, too expensive, and not net negative

Direct air carbon capture and storage - A waste of time and energy

Carbon emissions from the cement industry can be reduced without CCS

What we do

Air pollution

Climate Change

Policy initiatives

Do Your Bit!