No. 3, October 2000

Main articles summarized

All the worst offenders
Topping the list of the 100 greatest emitters of sulphur to the atmosphere in Europe are two large coal-fired power stations in Bulgaria. Together they let out nearly 600,000 tons of sulphur dioxide a year, according to a new survey of emission sources made at the instance of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain.

National ceilings
Parliament wanted to improve on the Commission’s proposals, but the Council of Ministers would rather weaken them.

Large Combustion Plants
A compromise extending the directive to existing plants was not considered good enough by environmentalists.

Climate: EU must make a move
Two German political scientists urge the need for the EU to take the lead in getting countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, seeing that many are hanging back.

Road traffic
Report confirms that environmental gains from cleaner vehicles and fuels are being eroded by increases in traffic volume and heavier vehicles.

The crunch
The European Environment Agency notes that the link between economic growth and an ever increasing use of energy has still not been broken.

Ceilings again
Of three different scenarios for reducing emissions of air pollutants presented jointly by four government departments, environmentalists in the Netherlands would prefer the most stringent.

Eastern Germany
Technological efficiency, fuel conversion, and diminished industrial activity have brought down emissions of carbon dioxide at least to West German levels.

Back to top

EDITORIAL

Past and future

Now we are into a new century. During the last ten or fifteen years the idea that something must be done to save the environment has sunk into people’s consciousness in most parts of the industrialized world. In Europe and North America at least air pollution has become a general subject of conversation. Although what most immediately comes to mind in this connection is probably car exhausts and bad urban air, people are also starting to become aware of the damaging effects, for instance, of ozone at ground level.

This was not so in the summer of 1980, when four Swedish environmentalist groups got together to work out a way of spreading information about air pollution in general and the resulting acidification in particular – the latter, then, twenty years ago, being practically unheard of, at any rate outside Norway, Sweden, and Canada. Although some thirty countries had indeed, already in 1979, signed a convention for dealing with cross-border airborne pollution, it was clear that few of them realized the extent of the problem and were prepared to act. It was only in Scandinavia that it was generally agreed that acidification could only be solved by reducing the emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the air all over northern and central Europe.

In Europe, Norway and Sweden took the lead in trying to persuade the West Germans and the British in particular to restrict their emissions. In North America the Canadians did the same vis-à-vis the United States.

In May 1981 the four Swedish environmentalist associations sent out an invitation to their counterparts elsewhere to join them in a European Conference on Acid Rain in Göteborg. The two main aims there were to provide information generally about acidification, and to consider ways in which environmentalists could cooperate to bring about a reduction of harmful emissions. One outcome of this conference was the formation of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain in January of the following year, and the start of Acid News.

It was a number of events during a few years at the end of the seventies and the beginning of the eighties that really laid the foundation for the work of improving air quality that is now going on. It may therefore be worth considering in retrospect: What was the state of knowledge at that time, and what was known or merely surmised. What sort of forecasts had been made of the trend, for instance, of emissions. What was activating political moves, then and later. What were environmentalists expectations then, and how have they altered over the years.

Most interesting of course will be to see what advances have been in the course of these twenty years. But it will also be important to try and determine why some activities and measures have been more successful than others.

There are still government officials, scientists, environmental journalists, and environmentalists who have been engaged all the time. Others may have changed their main occupations, yet still continue to maintain a concern for air quality. It is their collective impressions that we want to recall in Acid News – hence the special section in this issue chronicling the course of events and giving personal views on developments over the past two decades. We hope that these items will in their way give answers to the questions listed above, and so lead to more effective ways of attacking the problems of air pollution and acidification.

We intend to continue along this line in coming issues of Acid News, and invite contributions from all readers. We shall also be glad to hear what impressions they may have got from the special section.

Christer Ågren

Back to top

SO₂ EMISSIONS

All the worst offenders

Topping the list of the 100 greatest emitters of sulphur to the atmosphere in Europe are two large coal-fired power stations in Bulgaria. Together they let out nearly 600,000 tons of sulphur dioxide a year - as much as the combined total from all the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

The figures come from the latest survey¹ of emission sources made by Mark Barrett of SENCO consultants at the instance of the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. This is an updated version of a previous survey made in the early nineties.

Although it is evident from comparison of the two that the emissions from large installations have declined markedly in the intervening period, it is also clear that they are still far from negligible. According to the latest figures, the 100 largest emitters were still pouring out 8 million tons of sulphur dioxide a year, corresponding to 40 per cent of the total from all sources on land in Europe in 1997.

It may be noted that 81 of the plants on the list are power stations, and that all of them are coal-fired except for the Balti and Eesti plants in Estonia, which burn oil-shale. The rest are mainly smelters and refineries.

Although the survey covers essentially the whole of Europe, inadequate data has meant that plants in Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey have had to be omitted from the list. There is however another list, in the report on the survey, in which plants from those countries are ranged among the worst hundred.

The data base that was built up in the course of the survey includes some 3000 large emitters. These 3000 let out at least 15 million tons of SO₂ a year, or about a three quarters of all the emissions from land-based sources in Europe. In revising the list, Barrett has had access to the IEA's (International Energy Agency's) new data base for coal-fired plants, for the years from 1995 to 1997. As for other than coal-fired plants, Barrett's information was older, probably over-estimating the emissions.

Barrett points out that differences in the age of the data, as well as operating changes, for instance in the sulphur content of the fuel and the number of operating hours per year, can make the ranking of the plants somewhat inexact. Some of the Spanish ones have for example, by using imported coal instead of the local high-sulphur lignite, been able to cut down their emissions of sulphur by a factor of six.

Another source of error is the extent to which equipment for flue-gas desulphurization has been used. Because its FGD equipment was not always in operation in 1997, the Drax coal-fired power station in England landed ninth on the list. If it had been kept going throughout the year, the emissions would have been no more than a fifth of the recorded figure.

An aspect that is of direct political importance is the age of the plants. Around 90 per cent of the emissions of sulphur from the largest coal-fired plants comes from those that were commissioned before 1987. This is now relevant in view of the likely adoption of an EU directive for LCPs, large combustion plants (see article below). The question is whether the directive is to apply only to new plants, not yet built, or to existing ones as well.

In his report Barrett discusses briefly what it would cost to install equipment for flue-gas desulphurization - noting that it has halved in the last 5-10 years. The cost for eliminating one kilogram of sulphur is now US$3-6. Equipping the hundred plants on the list for FGD would result in sulphur emissions being cut back by 4.7 million tons, at a cost of somewhat more than US$2 billion a year. But as Barrett points out, FGD "is not generally the best emission-control option for the first tranche of emission reduction." He suggests that switching fuel and using energy more effectively would be a better alternative.

Per Elvingson
Christer Ågren

¹The worst and the best. Atmospheric emissions from large point sources in Europe. By Mark Barrett, SENCO, UK. Published by the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. Obtainable here in pdf format (320 kB)

The previous survey, entitled Sulphur emissions from large point sources in Europe (2nd edition, 1995) is also obtainable in pdf format (130 kB).

Europe's 20 largest SO₂ emitters
The list include, besides the chief emitters of sulphur dioxide in western Europe, also those in ten countries of central and eastern Europe that are either accepted candidates for admission to the EU or are now applying. The report also gives figures for emissions of NOx and CO₂, and includes a list showing emissions from plants in Turkey, Ukraine, and Belarus, as well as in Russia and Georgia west of the 45th longitude.

Note. This table has been slightly revised compared to that appearing in the printed version of Acid News 3/00.

PS = Power Station. Ref = Refinery. Ind = Industry. SO2 kt = sulphur dioxide, kilo ton.

Back to top

ACID IMPORTS

In many countries most comes from shipping

Shipping has become the largest single source of acid fallout over many countries in Europe.

The study¹ revealing this shows that although most of the sulphur emitted from ships plying in international trade gets deposited over the sea, nevertheless 10 per cent or more of the sulphur deposition over a surprising number of countries stems from that source.

As regards nitrogen deposition resulting from emissions of nitrogen oxides (nitrogen-oxide nitrogen), the proportion is still greater. In the Mediterranean area, 38 and 24 per cent of this kind of deposition over Malta and Cyprus, for instance, can be traced to emissions from ships in international trade. Around the North Sea, Denmark has the highest proportion, 20 per cent.

In sensitive coastal regions, the emissions from shipping contribute notably to overstepping of the critical loads, as regards both acidification and eutrophication. They also contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, especially in the Mediterranean region.

It can hardly be a matter of surprise that shipping should have emerged as such a prominent source of air pollution. For one thing calculations have scaled up the volume of its emissions in the Mediterranean (AN 1/00), and for another, emissions from sources on land, especially of sulphur, have markedly declined in the last twenty years. No country's emissions of acidifying air pollutants can even approach all that from ships plying in European waters.

Per Elvingson

1 Effects of international shipping on European pollution levels. By J.E. Jonson, L. Tarrasón and J. Bartnicki. EMEP/MSC-W Note 5/00. Available from Meteorological Sythesizing Centre - West, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, P.O. Box 43-Blindern, 0313 Oslo, Norway. Also in pdf format at www.emep.int.

Countries where the proportion of acid fallout coming from ships is most marked.

Back to top

NEC DIRECTIVE

Clashing over ceilings

While Parliament wanted to improve on the Commission's proposals for national ceilings, the Council of Ministers voted to soften them, thus endangering essential environmental aims.

On June 22 the environmental ministers of the EU countries agreed in principle on the common position they were to take in regard to the Commission's proposed directive for national ceilings on the emissions of four air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia. Although this was hardly unexpected, it would make the directive distinctly weaker (see Table below). On the other hand several countries have said themselves willing to accept tougher ceilings than they had agreed to when signing the Gothenburg protocol to the Convention Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution only half a year ago.

The aim of this new directive is to provide better safeguards for people's health and the environment through a successive reduction of the pollutants in question. In its strategies for combating acidification and ground-level ozone the Commission has proposed interim targets for 2010 as a first step towards realization of the long-term aims, which are to ensure no exceeding of the critical loads and a proper protection for health. The setting of national ceilings may well be pivotal for the attainment of environmental aims in the EU.

After having presented its strategy for dealing with acidification in March 1997, the Commission started to make a careful analysis of ways of arriving at the most cost-effective means, for the EU as a whole, of attaining the interim targets. Here use was made, for instance, of the RAINS computer model, which has long served for the work on transboundary air pollution. Contact was also maintained continuously with experts from all the member countries as well as other so-called stakeholders (industry and environmentalist bodies).

The outcome was the proposal for national ceilings that was put forward in June last year, which would reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide in the EU totally by 78 per cent between 1990 and 2010, those of nitrogen oxides by 55 per cent, and of volatile organic compounds and ammonia by 60 and 21 per cent respectively.

This directive would oblige each member country to have drawn up a program for progressive reduction of its emissions of the four pollutants and report it to the Commission at the latest by October 2002, stating also what measures it had actually taken to contain emissions. Every year, too, members should report on their current emission levels, and give forecasts for 2010. All this information should moreover be made public.

Having received all this, the Commission is to report to European Parliament and the Council of Ministers in 2004 and 2008 on the progress made towards the achievement of national ceilings, and on the extent to which the interim objectives were likely to be met by 2010. The Commission can also propose any adjustments to the national ceilings that may seem necessary.

As can be seen from the table, too, the member countries were quite unprepared to accept the Commission's proposals. The Council thought that between 1990 and 2010 the overall emissions of sulphur dioxide should be reduced by 77 instead of 78 per cent, those of nitrogen oxides by 51 per cent, of VOCs by 54 and ammonia by 14 per cent (instead of 55, 60, and 21 per cent). But according to the Commission, that would mean failure to reach the interim objectives for the containment of acid depositions and ozone. The Council's attitude might also mean that the Commission's proposed air-quality standards for ozone, included in a new daughter directive, would be at risk.

As can also be seen from the table, the ceilings that the member countries consider possible do not differ appreciably from those in the Gothenburg protocol. Why, then, all this trouble? The main reason is of course that EU laws "weigh" much more than international agreements. With ceilings prescribed in an EU directive, their implementation can be much better observed. Another reason is that the Commission is responsible for seeing that EU environmental aims are really met, which assumes legislation at the EU level. Moreover the EU as a possible coming signatory to the Gothenburg protocol will be obliged as far as possible to ensure that its terms are fulfilled, and that can best be done with the backing of EU legislation.

At its June meeting the Council reached a "unanimous political agreement in view of a common position." The common position will now be formally adopted without further debate, at a forthcoming Council session, before being again sent on the European Parliament for a second reading in accordance with what is known as the co-decision procedure.

As reported in Acid News 2/00, the Parliament had already given full support to the Commission's proposals, both for emission ceilings and for air-quality standards for ozone. It was in fact inclined to a further tightening up of both directives.

Just when the second reading will take place is uncertain, although it will in all likelihood not be before late autumn. With an overwhelming majority favouring the tougher line, it is unlikely that the Parliament will change its mind - thus coming onto collision course with the Council. But that is something that will have to be dealt with by conciliation talks between Council and Parliament.

Christer Ågren

Table. Emissions from each country in 1990 together with three scenarios for 2010. 
PRO is what each country has committed itself to by signing the Gotenburg Protocol. MIN is what would result from the common position reached by the Council of Ministers in June. COM shows figures resulting from the Commission's proposal for ceilings on emissions. Unit: 1000 tons.

Sources:1990 och PRO2010: Amann, M. et.al (1999) "Integrated Assessment Modelling for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone in Europe. COM2010: European Commission COM(99)125 final "Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants". MIN2010: Press release from the Environment Council, 22 June, 2000.

Back to top

LARGE COMBUSTION PLANTS DIRECTIVE

Limits also for existing plants

Despite compromise reached in the Council, environmentalists remain critical.

A compromise reached in the Council in June will mean that it is highly probable that the EU will be requiring emission reductions for existing large combustion plants - thus settling a matter that has been the main bone of contention ever since the Commission put forward its proposal for a revision of the 1988 directive¹ two years ago.

That proposal contained no requirements for existing plants. It aimed mainly at setting stricter limits for the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and dust from future plants, yet to be built. Seeing that the present requirements for such plants are extremely modest - reflecting the technical situation of the early 1980s - such a proposal could hardly be earth shaking.

It nevertheless met with distinct irritation from certain industrial groups and some of the member countries. But even more member countries, as well as the European Parliament and environmentalist organizations, thought the proposal did not go far enough, and are therefore striving for stricter requirements (see for instance AN 4/98, pp. 9-10).

The Council compromise did not however alter the emission limits proposed by the Commission for new plants. This means that if the directive is adopted unchanged, those requirements will become binding from the date at which the directive comes into force, probably in 2003.

Those interests that were pushing for stricter requirements for new plants were also able to ensure that rules would be set for existing plants. Under the compromise agreement the member countries will now have to take steps to reduce emissions from plants built before 1987. The requirements will be about the same as those that have so far been applicable for plants built after that date, and will have to be carried out at the latest by January 1, 2008.

The member countries will be permitted to meet these requirements either by setting limit values for individual plants, or using a national "bubble" ensuring the same emission total that would have resulted if limits had set for each plant separately. This latter alternative will mean that countries will be able to allow some "dirtier" plants to exceed the limits, provided the emissions from other plants are kept low enough.

The compromise will also mean that some very old plants - in any case scheduled for closing down in the near future - can be exempted altogether. Provided member countries report such plants to the commission before 2004, they will be permitted to run them for a maximum of 20,000 operating hours after January 2008. A power plant kept going at base load throughout the year will run up about 7000-8000 operating hours. Thus the compromise will, at worst, make it possible to go on operating plants that are only used for 25-40 per cent of the time (which is becoming ever more usual, for instance in the case of coal-fired power plants in Britain) for almost twenty years more.

The Council's attitude was strongly criticized by environmentalist organizations such as the European Environmental Bureau, which said in a press release: "The development towards a liberalized electricity market makes it even more important to establish minimum environmental requirements for existing power plants in order to avoid environmental dumping. Failure to set limits for existing plants will miss the opportunity to internalize some of the external costs to the environment and human health. This goes against the 'polluter pays' principle of the EC Treaty and fails to provide conditions for a 'level playing field', as required by the Single Market. Coupled with fossil fuel subsidies, this is why renewable energies cannot compete with conventional fossil fuels."

The common position pronounced on June 22 will be formally adopted, without further debate, by the Council at a forthcoming session. It will then be sent for a second reading in the European Parliament. Just when that reading will take place is uncertain, but it will probably be in November or December. It is likely that the LCP directive will be debated at the same time as that on national ceilings for emissions (see preceding article in this issue).

At its first reading of the LCP directive, the last Parliament was in favour of tightening up the requirements for existing as well as later plants. If the new parliament should maintain the same attitude as the last one, it will come into conflict with the Council. The composition of the Parliament was considerably changed by last summer's election. Any differences that may arise will have to be settled through conciliation talks with the Council in the spring of 2001.

Christer Ågren

¹Council Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

Back to top

TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT

Disturbing trend revealed

Effects have become worse, and if nothing is done they will continue that way.

Much of the gain to the environment from cleaner vehicles and fuels is being eroded by an increase in traffic volume and a larger proportion of heavier vehicles with more powerful engines.

Long suspected, this development has now been confirmed in the first of a series of reports on trends in transportation that are to come every year from the European Environment Agency. From this it appears that the effects of road traffic on the environment have become worse and if nothing is done to check it, the trend will continue at least until 2010.

The agency has set forth a great volume of data in support of its views.

The transportation sector as a whole is responsible for 26 per cent of the emissions of carbon dioxide in the EU, 85 per cent of which comes from road traffic. The emissions from road traffic increased by 30 per cent between 1985 and 1996, and an increase of 39 per cent is forecast for the whole period from 1990 to 2010.

There has on the other hand been a drop in the emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds - by 24 and 13 per cent respectively between 1990 and 1996. In 1996 road traffic was responsible for 35 and 55 per cent of the total emissions of these two.

Much of the population in the EU is exposed to concentrations of air pollutants above the proposed or set levels. As regards particles (PM10) it is estimated that as much as 90 per cent of the urban dwellers are exposed to excessive concentrations. For nitrogen dioxide the figure is 70 per cent, and for benzene and ozone about half of the population in cities.

Between 1970 and 1997 the number of cars in the EU increased from 184 to 454 per thousand of population. In 1997 still only half of the petrol-driven vehicles were equipped with catalyzers. The figure was highest in the Netherlands and Austria, where 76 per cent were so equipped, Sweden coming close with 70 per cent. Worst was Portugal, 22 per cent.

An EU citizen will travel on an average 10,000 km by car every year. The differences between countries are however considerable. Greeks travel least, 6000 km, the Irish and Danes most, 12,000 km.

Freight is now going more than ever by road: 45 per cent compared with 30 per cent in 1970.

During the nineties every day in the EU an average of 10 hectares of land was being buried under motorways, the total length of which has tripled since 1970, while railway lines have shrunk by 8 per cent. A good one per cent of the EU land area is now covered by roads, the proportion being highest in Belgium, where it is 4 per cent, and lowest in Sweden, about 0.5 per cent.

Notable among the few improvements is that lead has practically disappeared from petrol, and that vehicles are individually nine tenths less noisy than they were in 1970. The volume of traffic has however in the meantime doubled, so that 30 per cent of the population is now being disturbed by noise.

The EEA puts a great part of the blame for the bad aspect of these developments on the private car, already the chief and an ever growing form of travel. Not only is the total distance travelled increasing, but each vehicle is carrying fewer people. Most of the car trips are short, too, half of them being less than 6 km and 10 per cent less than one.

An attempt has been made to determine price trends for travel both in actual figures and as a comparison between modes. The EEA has found that whereas the cost of travel by car has fallen in many countries, it has become more expensive to use public transportation.

It is also noted that road traffic does not pay its external costs, arising from noise, exhaust emissions, congestion, and so forth. According to the agency, road traffic now pays no more than 30 per cent of these costs. Railways are somewhat better, with 39 per cent.

Per Elvingson

Are we moving in the right direction? Indicators on transport and environment integration in the EU. TERM 2000. Can be obtained from the national sales outlets for EU publications. Also available free of charge as pdf file on internet: www.eea.eu.int.

Back to top

EEA REPORT

Link between growth and energy use still unbroken

The European Environment Agency, an EU organ, now intends to issue annual reports on the state of the environment as a means of bringing pressure to bear on legislators and others who may be able to start moves for its improvement.

The first report¹ covers just about all the environmental issues that are of importance to the EU - describing in particular the success of efforts to inject the environmental aspect into key policy areas, as urged by the EU heads of government at their meeting in Cardiff, Wales, in 1998.

By setting forth trend indicators for each policy area, the report aims to give decision makers at all levels the possibility of judging whether developments are proceeding in the desired direction or call for further action.

It is noted that economic growth within the EU is continuing to require the use of ever more energy. In other words, the link between GDP growth and an increasing use of energy has still not been broken.

The EU countries' dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power remains considerable. Barely 6 per cent of the energy used in the eu stems from renewables. Sweden is shown to be best in this respect, taking 27 per cent of its needs from such sources, closely followed by Austria, 23 per cent. The proportion is lowest in the UK, only 0.9 per cent. "The EU target of 12-per-cent use of renewable energy by 2010 will require significant additional initiatives," warns the EEA in its report.

Price developments between 1985 and 1996 have hardly contributed to a more efficient use of energy. Although the proportion of taxes in final prices has increased for practically all types of fuel, both oil and electricity have actually become cheaper. During the 1990s the price of fuel for transportation did increase somewhat, but for all fuels the real price was lower in 1996 than it had been in 1985.

In 1997 the average gross consumption of energy per capita ashore in the EU was 3.8 tons in oil equivalent, although with marked variations from country to country. Leading the list here were Luxembourg and Finland, with 8.0 and 6.4 tons respectively. Lowest were Portugal and Greece, with a per capita consumption of 2.1 and 2.4 tons.

As regards greenhouse gases, emissions increased between 1990 and 1996 in all the EU countries but Germany, Britain, and Luxembourg. The greatest increase, 40 per cent, occurred in Denmark. The EEA forecasts a rise between 1990 and 2010 of 6 per cent in the eu as a whole, noting at the same time that great reductions will have to be made in very many of the member countries if the EU is to meet its commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

At least one favourable trend is reported in the matter of the climate: the emissions of methane dropped between 1990 and 1996, mainly as a result of reduced coal mining in Germany and the United Kingdom.

The trend has been much better for acidifying and ozone-forming substances. The emissions of sulphur dioxide went down by 60 per cent between 1980 and 1996 (by 40 per cent from 1990), meaning that the target for 2000 has already been attained. Since 1985 the area of ecosystem receiving depositions in excess of the critical load has shrunk by 40 per cent.

On the other hand a considerable proportion of the population is still being exposed to ozone in concentrations well above the guide values for the protection of health, and farm crops and forests are in many cases being subject to concentrations above the critical levels.

Although the emissions of ozone-forming substances - nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds - have undergone a distinct decline since 1980, the EEA insists that in order to achieve the targets for 2010, substantial further reductions will be needed.

While noting that the proportion of environmental taxes in the EU tax system has indeed increased, the eea observes that it is still small, being no more than 5-10 per cent of the tax total (highest in Portugal, lowest in Austria).

A general conclusion of the report is that as regards the integrating of environmental concerns into key economic sectors, the indicators employed for energy and transportation show there to be a movement away from the targets, and that price incentives are running counter to them.

Per Elvingson

¹ Environmental Signals 2000. European Environment Agency. Can be obtained from the national sales outlets for EU publications. Also available free of charge as pdf file at www.eea.eu.int.

Back to top

EU in brief

Environmental taxes in the EU
The use of environmental taxes is increasing in the EU, albeit slowly. In 1997 they accounted for 6.71 per cent of the total tax intake, up slightly from 1990, when it was 6.17 per cent. In 1980 it had been 5.84 per cent.

It has been shown in several studies that environmental taxes do have an effect. Outstanding examples are the taxes on water pollution that have been applied in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and also the Swedish charge on emissions of nitrogen oxides, and the differentiated taxes in several countries on leaded and unleaded petrol. More recent evaluations have shown the good effect of taxes on carbon dioxide in Denmark and Finland as well as in Sweden, and of the fuel-duty "escalator" in Britain and the Danish tax on sulphur in fuel.

The attraction of environmental taxes has lately increased among the larger member countries of the EU - Germany and Italy having introduced one on emissions of carbon dioxide as part of an ecotax reform. France and Britain will be following suit next year.

Almost all the member countries have raised their taxes on energy, or are about to do so. The aim in many cases is to constrain emissions of carbon dioxide. The Commission's proposal for raising the minimum rate for the taxation of energy in all member countries has however got stuck in the Council, where it is being blocked by Spain (Council decisions on common taxes have to be unanimous).

Source: Recent developments in the use of environmental taxes in the European Union. European Environment Agency, July 2000. Available on www.eea.eu.int.

Jobs, emissions connected
There is now a study showing that application of the harmonized energy tax proposed by the Commission in 1997 would bring 120,000 new jobs to the EU by 2010, if the proceeds were used to lower labour costs. It would also cause emissions of carbon dioxide to decline by 2 per cent. The study was made by the English consultants AEA Technology Environment in collaboration with the University of Bath.

Most of the new employment would be in engineering firms supplying emission-reducing technologies. All the members of the EU would in line to benefit. Spain for instance - the country that is now blocking the Commission's proposal - would gain 10,000 new jobs.

Source: ENDS Daily, August 14, 2000. Also on 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/studies2.htm#16.

Clean air for Europe
Better coordination of the strategies and measures for dealing with air pollution is needed in the European Union. Originally aired in a discussion paper from the Commission's environment directorate in the autumn of 1998 (see AN 1/99), the idea was to improve coordination through the setting up of a Clean Air for Europe program, CAFE.

Last July the consultants that had been employed by the Commission to propose a form for the program submitted a preliminary report, in which they said "Ideally CAFE would integrate information relating to all air quality developments in the EU." Seeing however that it would be practically impossible to do all that, they proposed various restrictions and organizational solutions.

Commenting on the report, the European Environmental Bureau, an umbrella organization for Europe's environmentalist groups, emphasized the need for adequate funding of the program, in order to ensure its capacity and authority to intervene if other parts of the Commission than the environment directorate should want to act in a way that would be inconsistent with the CAFE strategy for clean air.

The consultants final report to the Commission is expected towards the end of the year.

Cleaner bikes
The EU Commission has put forward a proposal for directive for new emission standards for motorcycles. The same both for two-stroke and four-stroke engines, they are intended to take effect in 2004, and would mean much lower emissions for all the regulated substances (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides). A new test cycle would be introduced in a subsequent stage, together with still lower emission limits in 2006.

Source: Car Lines, July 2000.

All clear
Now that the proposed directive for air-quality standards for benzene and carbon monoxide¹ has gone though a second reading in the EU Parliament, it can be assumed that the limit value for benzene will definitely be 5 ug/m³.

While expressing disappointment at some aspects of the directive, the European Environmental Bureau nevertheless declared the outcome to be "good news for citizens' health and the environment." The EEB found it especially praiseworthy that the Parliament had conducted this second reading in such a way as to avoid the possibility of a lengthy conciliation process with the Council and so enable the directive to become law sooner than might otherwise have been the case.

¹ COM(1998)591. See also AN 1/99.

Transition costs overestimated
The Commission is currently carrying on negotiations with the first six accession countries as to the length of the period to be allowed for transition to EU environmental standards. Last year these countries had formally asked for periods of up to fourteen years in which to implement various directives.

The Centre for European Policy Studies questions however in a report made last June the need for derogations and long transition periods. It considers the cost of compliance to have been much overestimated, since by the time of accession existing capital stock will have been largely replaced "in the interests of modern standards for quality, productivity, and energy efficiency."

The Centre says that the big investments that will have to be made by energy, water, and waste utilities "are wrongly assumed to be largely a burden on public capital requirements," and that it is this misapprehension that is giving rise to the demand for long transition periods. It recommends cost-recovery pricing in these sectors as a means of raising revenues and reducing the scale of the necessary investments.

ENDS Daily, June 21 and 28, 2000.

Back to top

KYOTO AND CLIMATE

Someone must make a move

Reluctance elsewhere means the EU must now act, say two German political scientists.

Since it is clear that international climate policy lacks both momentum and leadership, it is now essential that a strong player should step in to remedy the situation - and at the moment that can only be the EU.

Several countries that are willing to act have been waiting for the United States to join them in fulfilling the commitments made at Kyoto. But the USA, as well as some other countries, has an interest in delaying the process. The more time elapses before anything is done, the easier it will be for them to claim that their undertakings are either no longer realistic or impossible of fulfillment.

In order to get the international process of negotiation moving, the eu should assemble those countries that are committed to a strong policy for climate protection, thereby creating the atmosphere needed for bringing new life into the process.

A top priority to this end should be prompt ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, to ensure its coming into force as soon as possible. It is absolutely essential, in view of the Senate-driven resistance of the us to ratifying, that the EU, Japan, and Russia should do so. Their combined ratification is required in order to meet the minimum threshold of 55 per cent of the total CO₂ emissions of Annex 1 Parties (at 1990 levels).

The eu will therefore have to take steps to persuade its members to agree to its ratifying, without waiting for other countries to make a move, as well as starting to explore the possibility of getting Russia and Japan to ratify the protocol too. All of which will call for carefully designed diplomatic efforts, allowing for compromise on all sides.

As part of the bargaining process, the EU may have to show greater flexibility in regard to the Kyoto mechanisms. It should for instance be possible to agree to a charge on all transactions involving trading in emissions permits, as well as on strict procedures for monitoring, reporting, and verification of reductions. A comprehensive plan should enable the EU to prevent further dilution of the so-called sink categories under the protocol.

Then the eu should set targets for implementation of the Kyoto obligations within the Union, with possible wider coordination. The vast potential for low-cost and no-cost options for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in the eu and elsewhere has been demonstrated in numerous studies.

A coordination of policies, especially with Japan, could help to minimize concern about economic competitiveness. The proposed coordination should not rely on common, binding measures, but should rest on a transparent and accountable process. To be successful the eu should concentrate on a limited number of measures upon which agreement would be most likely.

A leadership group of committed countries might then demonstrate that ecological protection and sustainable economic growth are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing. Potential areas for fruitful coordination could include green taxation, a large-scale effort in R&D for renewables and the efficient use of energy, the dismantling of climate-inimical subsidies, standards for energy efficiency, and climate-friendly public procurement.

It will be of utmost importance for the protection of the climate, both in the medium and the long term, and for the future development of the international climate regime, to have the involvement of the developing countries. Their needs must be addressed first.

Immediate emphasis might focus on an adapting strategy to future climate changes. The resources needed for this could be obtained by setting up an adaptation fund financed by a transaction charge on all Kyoto mechanisms. Effort should be directed for instance toward elaboration of the Clean Development mechanism (CDM) under Article 12 of the protocol. That would ensure due recognition of the needs of the developing countries, but without compromising ecological effectiveness. Moreover the EU should, together with its allies outside the Union, start a dialogue with the developing countries in order to arrive at an equitable allocation of emissions rights.

If the EU were to take the lead as here proposed, the result could be a reinvigoration of the Kyoto Protocol and the creation of further incentives for governments to implement the policies and measures needed for mitigating climate change. It could also help to persuade people that economic wellbeing can be improved without having to burn increasing amounts of fossil fuels. By taking over the leadership in climate matters, the EU could ensure the progress needed to protect the Earth's climate.

The above is a digest of Breaking the Impasse: Forging an EU Leadership Initiative on Climate Change. By Hermann E. Ott and Sebastian Oberthür, 1999. Published by Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Hackesche Höfe, Rosenthaler Str. 40/41, D-10178 Berlin, Germany. Internet: www.boell.de.

Back to top

DUTCH EMISSION CEILINGS

More stringent than directive's

Environmentalist organizations are urging adoption of the most advanced scenario.

Four dutch ministries have worked out options to enable the Netherlands to go beyond its international commitments to cut emissions of the air pollutants that are responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and the formation of ground-level ozone.

All three of the proposed scenarios will cost considerably more in implementation than current policies would. There have been two reasons for developing them. Firstly, to ensure fulfillment of international commitments, it will be necessary to set lower ceilings for the Netherlands, in case reduction should appear to be stalling. Secondly the ministries want to know how the Netherlands could meet a demand for even lower international ceilings.

Three options are put forward for cutting emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia by 2010. Even the least far-reaching of these, dubbed Gothenburg, is considerably stricter than what the Netherlands committed itself to under last year's UN protocol of the same name, when the ceilings were: for SO₂ 50 kt, for NOx 266 kt, for VOCs 191 kt, and for NH₃ 128 kilotons.

Compared with the country's current targets for emissions, all the options would cost significantly more. The extra cost of "Gothenburg" would be euro 199m (DF439m), that of the more stringent "National Plus" nearly euro 450m, and of the most ambitious "Advanced Plus" option some euro 680m.

Most of the ceilings proposed for the Netherlands are stricter not only than in the UN protocol, but also than those in last year's proposal by the European Commission for a directive on national emission ceilings (see table below ).

Oil refineries would have to deliver the biggest cuts for SO₂, essentially by changing over from firing with oil residue to using gas (after gasification of the oil residue).

As for NOx, transportation and industry would have to bear the main burden. For transportation a big extra cut could be made by inland shipping, while for industry a number of technologies are available, of which the most cost-efficient should be chosen and implemented by means of an a proposed new system for trading of NOx reduction obligations.

Transportation and industry would also have to contribute most of the cuts in VOC emissions, partly because of the coming EU regulation of solvents and light motorcycles, although consumers would also be involved.

Virtually all the cuts in NH₃ emissions would have to be made in farming. Measures would include limiting the nitrogen in fodder, restricting stock keeping, lowering the emissions from stables, and injecting dung into the soil instead of spreading it on top.

The report in which all this has been set forth was compiled jointly by the ministries of agriculture, environment, transport and economic affairs. Stressing that the emissions of the four air pollutants remain too high, it estimates, on the basis of preliminary data, that strict national limits would do much to reduce NH₃ pollution in the Netherlands, but that cross-border transports would limit their ability to reduce the effects of SO₂ and NOx, and least of all to reduce the pollution from VOCs.

The Dutch research institute RIVM has calculated the effects of the depositions of acid and nitrogen on the soil in ten valuable nature reserves that are situated in areas with the lowest depositions (the coastal zone and the northern provinces). This includes part of the dunes, the Wadden Sea and its islands, and some areas of raised bog, heath, and fen.

Even there it appeared it would not be easy to reach a safe deposition level in 2010. It will be only possible when ceilings in conformity with the Commission's proposal have been adopted by the EU member states, and emissions of ammonia in the Netherlands have been brought down to the level of the "advanced" scenario and those in the regions of the ten nature reserves reduced still further.

The ministries suggest that the government should choose one of their proposed options for the country's new plan for the environment (NMP4), that is now being drafted. They note that going beyond international commitments could provide substantial benefits for the environment and public health, as well as strengthening the Dutch position in negotiations.

The Dutch environmentalist organizations, headed by the Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment, have requested the ministers to choose the advanced scenario for the Dutch acidification policy, and to add additional regional reductions in order to reach safe deposition levels in 2010 for the ten best-situated nature reserves.

Jan Fransen

Stichting Natuur en Milieu (The Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment).

Alternative emission ceilings for the Netherlands in 2010. The scenario figures, which are preliminary, may change in the final RIVM calculations.

Back to top

GLOBAL SO₂ EMISSIONS

Show a steady increase

Since 1850 the global emissions of sulphur resulting from human activities are estimated to have increased by a factor of sixty, and despite the extensive measures lately taken in Europe and North America they were still increasing in 1990 - mainly because of a rapid increase in the burning of coal in China.

To arrive at these estimates¹ a common methodology was applied for each country and year. The figures for emissions were based on the net production of fuel (production plus imports minus exports), the sulphur content, and information on sulphur retention. Emissions from ships were not included in the estimates - although such emissions have previously been estimated to account for about 5 per cent of all the sulphur coming from the combustion of fuel.

Whereas global sulphur emissions were estimated to have been 1.2 million tons 1850, by 1990 they had risen to 71.5 million tons. The slight decline that had started in 1913 continued through the first world war. There was a marked decrease during the great depression of 1930-32, followed by increases right through 1944, in part as a result of the effects of World War II. Except for a drop in 1981-1983, primarily due to a decline in the demand for oil during the global recession at that time, the postwar years have shown a continuous increase.

From a comparison of emissions from North America, Europe, and Asia it appears that whereas those from the two former have been levelling off, rapid increases are taking place in Asia. The methods used for the estimates fail however to give a full picture of the great reductions achieved in Europe and North America since 1980. As explained by Janja Husar of the study group:

"Our methodology over the 150-year period is consistent and the trends are valid for long-term trends. As far as to be accurate for recent and short-term trends, 10 years, probably not. In the last 20 years many environmental controls have been introduced in various countries. Thus the estimates of sulphur content of consumed fuel might need adjustments as the current information on controls becomes available."

The study shows coal to be the main source of anthropogenic emissions of sulphur - since 1970 the steady increase in the global total being almost entirely due to increased coal burning. In the regions where emissions has decreased it can be explained as a result of switching to fuels with a lower sulphur content. Only in a few countries, one of which is Germany, has flue-gas desulphurization produced any noticeable effect.

Per Elvingson

¹ Estimating Historical Anthropogenic Global Sulfur Emission Patterns for the Period 1850-1990. By Allen S. Lefohn, Janja D. Husar, and Rudolf B. Husar. In Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 3435-3444.

Back to top

NEW PROCESS

For cleaner diesel fuel

It seems there is a possibility of using microorganisms for desulphurizing diesel oil as an alternative to the current method. It is at any rate now being tried in a three-year research project financed by the US Department of Energy. The idea has come from Petro Star, a small refinery company in Alaska. The aim is to develop a way of producing diesel fuel that would be especially suitable for small refineries, to meet the requirements for a still lower sulphur content that will come into force in the United States in 2006.

Hydrodesulphurization is the current refinery method for removing sulphur from diesel fuel. But this process is not only costly. It also requires separate facilities to be constructed to generate the large amounts of hydrogen needed to convert sulphur impurities in diesel into hydrogen sulphide. And there is also the further expense for the facilities needed to convert the smelly, poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas into environmentally safe elemental sulphur.

The proposed biocatalytic process, using selected strains of microorganisms to remove the sulphur in diesel, eliminates both the need for hydrogen production and the expense of operating the high-temperature, high-pressure hydrodesulphurization process. Nutrients for the biocatalyst can be obtained from the components of agricultural fertilizers. The nutrients that are not consumed by the biocatalyst can be removed from the process wastewater by conventional treatment techniques.

The major technical challenge is to develop a system in which the biological process proceeds rapidly enough to remove sulphur at commercially acceptable rates and in the presence of oil (which can inhibit the microbial action).

Petro Star believes the solutions lie primarily in genetically engineering microbes to boost the rate and activity of the biocatalysts and in designing specialized process equipment that will produce a cleaner diesel fuel as well as minimizing biocatalyst losses.

Source: US Department of Energy. August 16, 2000.

Back to top

In brief

Italian cities
Traffic pollution in Italian cities is having very significant health effects, according to a study released in June. It estimates that vehicle emissions of fine particulates (PM10) account for 4.7 per cent of all deaths of people aged over 30 and for nearly 29 per cent of acute respiratory disorders in children under 15.

If particulate levels were reduced to the EU limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre 2,000 deaths would be prevented annually, the study says. Cutting PM10 to 30 ug/m³ is estimated to avoid 3,500 deaths, and a limit of 20 ug/m³ 5,500 deaths. The study was carried out jointly by WHO and Italy's national environmental protection agency, ANPA.

Source: ENDS Daily, June 22, 2000.

French air
Last June the French minister of environment, Dominique Voynet, put forward a number of proposals for the improvement of air quality.

• The limit at which traffic shall be restricted during pollution episodes should be lowered from 400 to 200 micrograms of NO₂ per cubic metre of air.
• Public air-quality reporting should be improved.

Two new grants to be added to the existing program for the purchase of "clean" vehicles. Purchasers of LPG taxis will be able to claim 20,000 francs (3000 euros). Anyone buying an electric moped will be eligible for a grant of 2000 francs.

Speaking in July, Voynet attacked French cities for not doing enough to prevent increases in road traffic. A law passed in 1996 requires France's 65 cities with more than 100,000 residents to draw up urban transport plans, but only 10 of them had sent in their proposals by the June deadline. Voynet expressed concern in particular over a lack of measures to tackle the use of private car.

Source: ENDS Daily, June 22 and July 3, 2000.

Energy Globe Award
O.Ö. Energiesparverband in Austria will be giving an international award for the best sustainable solutions in respect of energy efficiency and the generation of energy from renewable sources. Companies, public and private organizations and individuals from all over the world are invited to submit their projects before October 20.

Further information: O.Ö. Energiesparverband, Landstraße 45, A-4020 Linz, Austria. Tel. +43-732-6584-4382. Internet: www.esv.or.at/energyglobe/

More countries signing up
A few more countries have now signed the Gothenburg Protocol, adding their names to the list given in AN 1/00. These new countries are Belgium, Greece, Poland, and Moldova. Among those that have still failed to sign are Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the European Union.

Source: LRTAP Secretariat. Status June 3, 2000.

Less sulphur in British oil
The EU directive restricting the sulphur content of oil became law in Great Britain last June. According to the UK environment ministry this will lessen English and Welsh emissions of sulphur dioxide by about 60,000 tons a year from 2003. In 1997 the burning of heavy fuel oil and gas oil accounted for 20 per cent of all UK emissions of SO₂. Implementing the directive would, also according to the ministry, cost between £67 and £l76 million (euro 106-279m), with most of the extra expenditure falling on the oil refineries. Heavy fuel oil is used in a few UK power stations and in industrial boilers and furnaces. Gas oil is used for heating, in small industrial boilers, and as fuel on the railways and in some ships.

Source: ENDS Daily, June 28, 2000.

Back to top

Internet

Change or pay
Here are two internet data bases giving examples of the use of financial and fiscal instruments for the protection of the environment in various countries:

EU Commission's environment directorate: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/database.htm

OECD: www.oecd.org/env/policies/taxes/index.htm

Cyber voices against climate change
An international web-based initiative has been launched to give citizens around the world a voice in demanding a halt to global warming. The aim is to get people to send 10 million messages to world political leaders calling on them to use the November climate summit at the Hague, Netherlands, to really reduce the pollution that is causing global warming. Go to: www.climatevoice.org

Transportation x 2
The Car Lines newsletter, reporting regularly on transportation policy all around the world, is now available without charge on http://walshcarlines.com. There are also some background documents at the same address.

World Transport Policy & Practice, a quarterly journal edited by John Whitelegg, is also available, free of charge, at www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/

Back to top

Recent publications

Cutting Your Car Use (2000)
By Anna Semlyen. Under the subhead "Save Money, Be Healthy, Be Green," this book aims at convincing people, through argument and practical advice, of the advantages of cutting down on the use of private cars. 160 pp. Pocket format. £4.95 plus £1 postage and packing. Published by Green Books of Foxhole, Dartington, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6EB, UK. Internet: www.greenbooks.co.uk.

Bringing the Eurovignette into the electronic age (2000)
A promising way of making road transportation pay for the damage it causes is to introduce a kilometre charge for heavy freight carriers. This T&E report examines ways of modifying existing European legislation so as to allow for fair and efficient pricing.

T&E Report 00/4. Printed copy available from European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), Boulevard de Waterloo 34, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Can also be downloaded free of charge from the T&E website www.t-e.nu.

T&E conference on transport, enlargement and the environment (2000)
Proceedings from a conference in March this year on the environmental consequences of transportation in an enlarged Europe. T&E Report 00/3. Available from T&E, see above.

What is the Aarhus Convention?
A 12-page pamphlet describing this convention of 1998 establishing the right of citizens to have information concerning the environment and to participate in the decision making. Available from Mara Silina, EEB, Boulevard de Waterloo 34, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Tel. +32.2.289 13 05. Internet: www.participate.org.

Back to top

Published October 2000.