|
| News | Policy initiatives | Acidification & Eutrophication | Air quality | Climate Change| Publications | Events | Links | The Secretariat |
 |
|
|
No. 1, March 2008
Cover story: Acting too slow Copyright: Lars-Erik Håkansson
Main articles in brief Why not nuclear? (Editorial) If nuclear power really were the environmentally friendly alternative that some of its proponents claim it to be, the environmental movement would naturally have supported it, but this is not the case. Thirteen EU member states are projected to miss ceilings for at least one pollutant if additional action is not taken. EU wants to show the way – but is aiming low The EU Commission’s climate package calls for a 20-per-cent reduction in emissions by 2020, a fact that may indicate they do not expect an ambitious international agreement. EU industrial pollution laws to be revised The Commission has proposed legislation to further reduce emissions from industrial installations, including large combustion plants.
HDV requirements move toward global harmonization The EU Commission wants stricter requirements to be imposed on emissions from heavy vehicles, but proposes that they are not implemented until 2013/14. Cleaner fuels could save tens of thousands of lives Using cleaner marine fuel could prevent 40,000 to 50,000 premature deaths each year. IMO moves slowly on ship air pollution Regulation of polluting emissions from international shipping lags far behind land-based sources, despite widely available cleaner fuels and exhaust after-treatment technologies. Baltic Sea states call for tough emission controls Tighter emission standards are needed to cut emissions of air pollutants from ships in the Baltic Sea. German Lignite: Expensive and unsustainable Germany continues to invest in brown coal mining, despite ambitious climate targets. Requirements for carbon capture and storage could eventually make the fuel unprofitable.
LRTAP Convention: Some countries still defaulting Greece and Spain have still not reduced their emissions as required.
Why not nuclear? To meet the maximum warming target of two degrees above the pre-industrial level with a reasonable degree of confidence, emissions in 2050 must be 50–85 per cent below the 1990 level, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To provide emissions space for developing countries, emissions from the industrialized countries would need to be cut by at least 80 per cent. In order to achieve emission reductions on this scale, our use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas must be dramatically reduced, especially in the industrialized nations – a fact that has led to fresh support for the nuclear power industry. But is it really justifiable to use the climate argument to support the use of nuclear power? Nuclear power entails risks of enormous proportions: unsolved waste disposal problems, dependency on uranium (uranium ore extraction and processing represent major problems themselves), the risk of nuclear arms proliferation, and large scale operations that are especially vulnerable to power cuts and terrorism. In addition there is the constant risk of accidents during operation. These risks are serious enough to rule out nuclear power. But the biggest weakness of nuclear power in the role of climate saviour is perhaps not its risks, but the fact that expensive investment in nuclear power would divert money from other means of countering the greenhouse effect that are faster, more cost-effective and more sustainable in the long term. It is also worth noting in this context that in global terms nuclear power is now a relatively marginal energy source. It accounts for around six per cent of global energy consumption and 15 per cent of power generation. In order for nuclear power to play anything more than a minor role in the war against climate change it would require massive expansion. Last year the IPCC came to the conclusion that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at 450 ppm CO2 equivalents is possible if global emissions reach a maximum in 2015 and then fall sharply. Since it takes on average 10–12 years to build a new nuclear power plant it is clearly totally unrealistic that additional nuclear power could make any significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions before 2020. If nuclear power really were the environmentally friendly alternative that some of its proponents claim it to be, the environmental movement would naturally have supported it, but this is not the case. Instead it is the same factions that put the environment in second place that are in favour of more nuclear power. Their main interest lies in the opportunities provided by various forms of large-scale, centralized projects. Renewable energy is virtually unlimited; it can be used more easily in remote or technologically undeveloped regions and it does not entail any risk to global security. Achieving solutions that are sustainable in the long term also requires substantial improvements in the efficiency with which we use energy. It may also require a different, less consumption-oriented lifestyle. Nuclear power is a dangerous, polluting, expensive and finite energy source. More nuclear power also unavoidably means less resources for genuine environmentally friendly means of supplying global energy needs. Renewable energy combined with energy efficiency measures can provide a cost-effective solution to the problem now. Why wait years for a bad solution when we can choose a good one now? Christer Ågren
Countries acting too slow Thirteen EU member states are projected to miss ceilings for at least one pollutant if additional action is not taken. Only 11 of the 25 countries that were members of the EU in 2005 expect to meet their respective national emission ceilings defined in the NEC directive 2010 with the measures they have agreed so far. The remaining thirteen – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden – are projected to miss ceilings for at least one of the four pollutants if additional actions to reduce emissions are not taken.
These are the findings of a summary by the European Environment Agency (EEA), based on each country’s official report of emissions to 2005. Bulgaria and Romania are not included in the report since they were not members of the EU when the data was reported. Luxemburg is also absent since it failed to submit any data.
Spain is one of the EU states with the highest emissions of air pollutants and is finding it difficult to meet three of the four emission ceilings in the NEC directive. Nitrogen oxides are the biggest problem, with the country promising a 28-per-cent cut in emissions over the period, but actually showing a 20-per-cent increase in 1990-2005. The target for sulphur dioxide (SO2) is considered achievable, but the country can still lay claim to the unenviable title of major European polluter (sharing first place with Poland).
Nitrogen oxides In most cases it is the emission ceiling for nitrogen oxides that poses a problem for the countries. Twelve member states indicate that, without taking additional measures, they will not fall within their ceilings by 2010. They are Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Malta. Four of them – Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands – show that even with additional measures, they are unlikely to meet their NOx ceilings in 2010.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Four member states – Spain, Hungary, Denmark and Portugal – report that they do not envisage meeting their VOC ceilings in 2010.
Sulphur dioxide Regarding sulphur dioxide, only two member states – Malta and the Netherlands – do not expect, with the current measures in place, to meet their ceilings in 2010. The EU25 as a whole is projected to be 39 per cent below the aggregate ceiling. Between 1990 and 2005 all member states except Greece and Cyprus report a decrease in emissions. The biggest reductions were reported by Germany (90 per cent), Denmark (88), Italy (72), Latvia (96) and Hungary (84 per cent). Ammonia Seventeen member states have already reduced ammonia emissions below their respective ceilings. Germany and Spain report that they will not reach the target for 2010 with the current measures in place. The projections for the EU25 are 7 per cent below the aggregated EU emission ceiling target. Inadequate reporting by several countries makes comparisons and forecasts for the EU as a whole unreliable. Reporting failures The EEA dishes out some criticism for the fact that nine of the 25 countries submitted their reports too late, and in one case – Luxembourg – not at all. One problem in this respect is that the directive does not stipulate the format in which national inventory data and projections should be submitted by the member states. Revision in progress Based on its Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution from September 2005, the European Commission has spent more than two years preparing a proposal for a revised NEC directive – the main intention being to set new (stricter) emission ceilings for 2020, and expand the number of air pollutants covered from four to five by adding fine particles (PM2.5). (See AN 3/07) For various reasons the proposal has been postponed several times, and in May 2007 the Commission decided to postpone again, the main reason being that the EU’s forthcoming new climate and energy policies should be fully accounted for when developing the new national emission ceilings. On 23 January, the Commission adopted its proposal for a new EU climate policy, including suggestions for burden sharing between member states on the 20-per-cent reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions and the target for a 20-per-cent share of renewable energy. The final NEC scenario analysis is now ongoing, but the NEC proposal is not expected until May at the earliest.
The EEA report: NEC Directive status report 2006. EEA Technical Report No. 15/2007. See also NEC evaluation report for the European Commission (pdf).
EU wants to show the way – but is aiming low The EU Commission’s climate package calls for a 20-per-cent reduction in emissions by 2020, a fact that may indicate they do not expect an ambitious international agreement. On 23 January the EU presented its climate package, which is intended to clarify how the targets adopted by the European Council in March 2007 should be achieved and how responsibility should be shared between the member states. Last year’s decision by the Council means that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU must be reduced by 20 per cent by the year 2020 compared with 1990 levels, or by 30 per cent if other industrial nations make similar undertakings, and that the renewable energy share should increase to at least a 20 per cent by 2020 (the current figure according to the Commission is 8.5 per cent). There is a further target that renewable fuels should supply 10 per cent of energy needs in the transport sector by 2020. Reducing emissions by 20 per cent compared with 1990 means a reduction of 14 per cent compared with the 2005 level. The Commission wants this reduction to be achieved through the emissions trading system and measures in other sectors. Trading sector allocation One important part of the package involves changes to the EU emissions trading system (ETS). It is proposed to extend this to include more greenhouse gases (only CO2 is currently included), and to involve all major industrial emitters. The emission allowances put on the market will be reduced year-on-year to allow for emissions covered by the ETS to be reduced by 21 per cent from 2005 levels in 2020. A growing share of emission rights will be auctioned instead of being allocated free of charge, as they are at present. See the factfile for more details. Targets for other sectors In sectors not covered by the ETS, such as buildings, transport, agriculture and waste, the EU will reduce emissions to 10 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. For each member state the Commission is proposing a specific target. These targets, which are based on GDP per capita, range from -20 per cent for Denmark and Ireland to an increase of 20 per cent for Bulgaria, see table. States would get extra flexibility by being able to use international carbon reduction credits (under Kyoto’s CDM and JI mechanisms). They could do this up to a value of 3 per cent of their 2005 emissions. This equates to almost a third of the reduction effort, the Commission says. EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The target for 2008-2012 covers emissions from all sectors, while the target for 2020 only applies to the non-trading sector.
Renewable energy To achieve the target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020, the Commission proposes binding targets for all EU countries. The proposed targets range from 10 per cent for Malta to 49 per cent for Sweden, see Chart. Every country will have to draw up national action plans that set out how they intend to meet their targets and how progress can be monitored effectively. As long as the EU’s overall target is met, member states will be allowed to make their contribution by supporting Europe’s overall renewables effort, and not necessarily inside their own borders. According to energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs, separate targets for renewables are likely to disappear after 2020, since the price of emissions credits after this date will make the process self-sustaining.
EU renewable energy share 2005 and proposed targets for 2020.
Greater share of renewable fuels The proposal also addresses the minimum target of 10 per cent for use of renewable fuels in transport, to be reached by 2020. This is the same for all member states. The directive sets out sustainability criteria that will ensure that the incentives actually benefit the environment, but many environmentalist organizations have criticized them as being completely inadequate, as well as being very difficult to enforce. Several environmentalist organizations believe that specific renewable fuels target should be eliminated altogether. See box below. Revision of the EU fuel quality directive is taking place in parallel, with the aim of reducing the percentage of fossil carbon in fuels, see article in this issue. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) In a separate policy paper the Commission sets out a commitment to ecourage the construction of up to 12 CCS demonstration plants by 2015. An impact assessment suggests commercial take up is likely to begin around 2020 and increase “substantially” after that. It estimates that 160 million tonnes of CO2 could be captured by 2030. Energy efficiency The agreement by the EU leaders in March 2007 included a non-binding commitment to reduce the union’s energy use by 20 per cent in 2020. The Commission reports that most member states are not doing enough to increase energy efficiency. This conclusion is drawn from an assessment of 17 national action plans submitted under the 2006 EU directive on end-use efficiency and energy services. Infringement proceedings were launched last October against the 10 EU countries that had yet to submit their plans. No specific proposal is put forward for increasing the focus on improving energy efficiency, despite the massive potential and the fact that it is probably the most economical way to reduce emissions. Costs and benefits The Commission calculates that implementation of the entire package will cost 0.5 per cent of GDP or 60 billion euro per year, but that the benefits are greater:
Should sights be set higher? So how does the Commission accommodate the fact that the EU leaders have expressed a willingness to reduce emissions by 30 per cent if other countries make a similar undertaking – while the current package merely entails a 20-per-cent reduction by 2020? The intention is that the EU would adjust its targets proportionately to ensure an overall 30-per-cent reduction in ETS and non-ETS sectors. In this case the amount of international credits that could be used would rise to the equivalent of one half of the reduction effort. No figures are given to show how targets would be allocated, however. It is precisely the fact that the package has been set at 20 rather than 30 per cent that has prompted the harshest criticism from environmentalist organisations. They believe it sends out a signal that the EU has little faith in an effective international agreement and undermines the Bali consensus that developed countries must cut emissions by 25–40 per cent by 2020 to avoid dangerous climate change. Some countries have raised objections to the national targets they have been allocated, and industry has complained that emission rights will be auctioned in future instead of being given out free of charge, as they are now. The 10-per-cent target for renewable fuels has also been hotly debated. Decision by next spring The goal is that the complete climate package should be adopted by spring 2009 at the latest, before the June 2009 elections to the European Parliament. Meeting this deadline will probably require Council and Parliament to reach agreement at the first reading. The incentive to reach a quick agreement is grounded on a desire that the EU should take the lead in negotiations on an international agreement to fight global warming, due to be finalized in Copenhagen in December 2009. Per Elvingson The Commission’s proposals can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm See also Climate Action Network- Europe.
Air quality law revision agreed The existing standards will not change as such, but member states will be given more time to meet them in certain areas. On 11 December the European Parliament adopted a compromise agreement on the new air quality directive, based on a deal brokered a week earlier by a group of parliamentarians and the Portuguese EU presidency. The text has been forwarded to the Council for final approval. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “Air pollution causes major problems for the environment and the health of European citizens. Therefore I am pleased that the agreement reached on air quality addresses this problem and provides ambitious, but realistic and timely standards for fine particle pollution in the EU.” But environmentalist groups, such as the European Environmental Bureau, were critical: “Politicians have allowed the weakening of existing laws in order to get new standards for fine particles,” said Doreen Fedrigo. “This might seem attractive at first, but in fact, it will not demand the required additional action that would improve air quality.” EEB is particularly disappointed with the limit value related to fine dust particles (PM2.5), which are especially harmful to people’s health. The new limit value is set as high as 25 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and will not need to be achieved until 2015. In contrast, the air quality guidelines agreed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in October 2005 recommend an annual average PM2.5 standard of 10 µg/m3. Moreover, according to EEB, the new limit value will not lead to any meaningful pollution reduction as such a level is likely to be met anyway without any extra effort from member states. However, a provisional PM2.5 limit of 20 µg/m3 by 2020 was also agreed, subject to a “favourable assessment” by the European Commission in 2013. The assessment will cover experience gathered with the weaker limit, technical feasibility and the health and environment benefits of moving to the tougher target. There is also a separate obligation for member states to limit population exposure to fine particles. The average background concentration in urban areas should not exceed 20 µg/m3 by 2015. The text also establishes related exposure reduction targets to be met by 2020. The new directive will not change the existing air quality standards as such, but would give member states more time to meet some of these standards in areas where they have difficulty complying. Under the agreed text the deadlines for complying with the already existing standards can be postponed by up to three years after the directive’s entry into force, which means that meeting the existing limit values for PM10 may now be postponed from the original deadline of 2005 until 2011. Such postponements should be granted only if member states have fully implemented relevant EU legislation, and taken all appropriate abatement measures. The directive provides a list of measures that need to be considered. Upon final approval by the Council the new directive will be published in the EU’s Official Journal alongside a Commission declaration on progress in developing and adopting further measures as outlined by the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. A review of the directive is required by 2013. Christer Ågren Further information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/directive.htm
EU industrial pollution laws to be revised The Commission has proposed legislation to further reduce emissions from industrial installations, including large combustion plants. Just before Christmas last year, the European Commission proposed draft legislation to further reduce emissions from thousands of industrial installations regulated under the EU’s 1996 integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) directive and six related laws. According to the Commission, the aim is to strengthen the provisions already in force and reduce industrial emissions, which will bring significant health and environmental benefits. The proposal should also create a more level playing field across the EU, thus reducing competition distortions between companies. By simplifying current legislation it is also hoped to cut the administrative burden for industry and public authorities. Figures on the level of implementation of the IPPC directive suggest that only about 50 per cent of the 52,000 installations covered had received a permit. This shows that member states have not made sufficient efforts to comply with the directive in time – the deadline expired on 30 October 2007. The idea is now to merge the current IPPC directive and six sectoral directives1 into a single new industrial emissions directive. This should strengthen the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) across the EU, particularly by restricting divergence from BATs to specific cases and placing greater emphasis on justifying the conditions laid down in the permits. Minimum emission limit values in certain industrial sectors should be tightened – particularly for large combustion plants (LCPs) where progress to reduce pollution is insufficient. The scope would also be extended to include medium-sized combustion plants, i.e. between 20 and 50 megawatts thermal input. Lesley James, acid rain campaigner for Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, commented: “Under the current scenario in which IPPC is not being properly implemented, the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution are not being met. The Commission has now recognized that reversing this trend requires strict, legally binding emission limit values, especially for large combustion plants.” In its communication, the Commission estimates that a higher uptake of BAT by large combustion plants “would play a significant part in helping to close (by 30–70 per cent) the existing gap” between the baseline projections for emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2020 and the objectives set out in the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. Estimates by the Commission show that the additional emission reductions achieved at LCPs alone are likely to offer annual health benefits ranging from 9 to 30 billion euro, including cutting the number of premature deaths from air pollution by 13,000 per year. These health benefits could be compared to annual costs of about 2.1 billion euro, which means that benefits outweigh costs by as much as 14 times. The Commission’s impact analysis also shows that by opting instead for the stricter interpretation of BAT-based emission limit values for LCPs, annual health benefits would rise to between 20 and 65 billion euro, while yearly costs would increase to 6.5 billion euro. The resulting net benefits – without including ecosystem benefits – would consequently amount to 13–58 billion euro per year. The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) is pleased that the current text does not include a proposal for emissions trading for SO2 and NOx, but warns that the issue is not completely forgotten. Catherine Ganzleben noted: “The Commission has indicated its intention to work on EU rules for an emissions trading scheme for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. EEB opposes any scheme that would lead to trading of local pollutants that damage human health and the environment.” It is to be hoped that the Council and Parliament respect the recasting technique and limit any amendments to addressing provisions that are open to substantive change by the Commission. Attempts to widen the scope of the review could, according to the EEB, lead to an erosion of the proposed directive’s key mechanisms for environmental protection and derail the recasting process. Christer Ågren 1 The six sectoral directives are the 2001 large combustion plants (LCP) directive, the 2000 waste incineration and co-incineration directive, the 1999 solvents directive and three minor laws relating to titanium dioxide emissions. Further information: European Commission, www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ippc
Proposed binding rules weaken current target Draft EU legislation to limit the maximum level of carbon dioxide emitted from new cars was published in December. It was criticized for weakening the existing target. The aim of the proposed new legislation from the European Commission is to limit the average emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from new cars sold within the Union to 120 g/km by 2012. But carmakers will only be responsible for an average of 130 g/km, with the last 10 g/km to be made up by other measures for which legislation will be proposed by the Commission later this year. The proposal was announced by Stavros Dimas, environment commissioner, on his own, after the enterprise commissioner, Günter Verheugen, declined to turn up. It aims to enforce the target for carmakers by imposing a scale of fines, starting in 2012 at 20 euro per gram of CO2 per car over the target, rising to 95 euro/g in 2015. Environmental groups criticized the level of fines, and the fact that the Commission has ignored the calls of NGOs by including a weight-based scale, which means heavier vehicles will be allowed to pollute more. Dimas said: “Manufacturers of larger cars will be asked to do more than the makers of smaller vehicles, to avoid the perverse incentive to make heavier vehicles.” But T&E, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, disagreed, calling the weight scale “a pat on the back for SUV makers and a setback for Europe’s low-carbon future”. The car industry association ACEA was strongly critical of the agreement, saying the required technology could force up the price of new cars by as much as 3,650 euro. Yet a report by the international debt-rating company Moody’s said the car makers were exaggerating the costs, and that the legislation would bring price increases of between 300 and 1,000 euro. The Commission’s own impact assessment says the legislation will add 1,300 euro to the price of the average car, but deliver fuel savings of around 2,700 euro over its lifetime. The biggest pressure to water down the legislation has come from Germany, whose government and commissioner (Verheugen) have been fighting for the German car industry, which produces larger cars on average. Verheugen’s absence from the launch was seen as a form of protest, and even a month later he was still distancing himself from the draft legislation. “All industries should be made as environment-friendly as technologically possible,” he told the members of the European Parliament, “but I don’t think we should do it in a way that our international competitiveness is undermined.” The draft legislation now goes to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament as part of the co-decision legislative procedure. It may get a rough ride through Parliament. In a non-binding resolution adopted on 15 January the Parliament said manufacturers should reduce the average level of CO2 emitted by cars to 125 grams per km by 2015, rather than to 120 grams by 2012 as proposed by the Commission. This contrasts with comments from Thierry Morin, the head of the French automotive company Valeo, who says the 130 g/km target is achievable now with off-the-shelf technology. Morin told Le Tribune newspaper: “Why isn’t there a law stating that the target of 120 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometre applies today, rather than in five years?” Source: T&E Bulletin, February 2008. Further reading: European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/co2/co2_home.htm.
Less carbon from road fuels It is reported that the European Parliament and Member States are working towards a first reading agreement on the revision of the EU fuel quality directive, with the aim of reaching a decision by summer. The work is prompted by a proposal presented by the Commission in January 2007, which recommends giving fuel suppliers responsibility for reducing the carbon footprint of their road fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Specifically, they must cut the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of their fuels by one per cent per year from 2011 onwards. The market will then decide for itself if the fossil fuel chain or renewable fuels offer more cost-effective emission reductions. Both the Parliament and Member States have expressed their support in principle for the proposal, but there is some disagreement over the sustainability criteria that will apply to renewable fuels, and how this will relate to the proposed directive to increase the use of renewable fuels (see article this issue). It appears most likely that both directives will have the same sustainability criteria. The form these will take is currently being worked out. Effectively, there is a tug of war between two directorates within the Commission, with the energy directorate being responsible for the directive to increase the share of renewable fuels, and the environment directorate responsible for the fuel quality directive. The two directives have different goals: one to increase the use of biofuels, and the other to reduce emissions of fossil carbon dioxide throughout the fuel life cycle. It is not yet clear how the volume target will work with the target to “decarbonize” fuels, but if decarbonization is to be achieved solely through an increased share of biofuels, it will require a higher proportion than 10 per cent by 2020. Per Elvingson Note. The Commission’s proposal also includes new, but not particularly controversial, requirements on fuels to improve air quality, see AN 1/07.
Air quality in Europe may be deteriorating Air quality in Europe has declined in recent years, according to a report from the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change (ETC/ACC), which also cautions that the short time period involved makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. Changes in EU legislation mean that concentrations and exceedances are now reported in a new way, and there are still shortcomings in the data countries supply to ETC/ACC. It is however noted that concentrations of the most significant pollutants in health terms – particulate matter (PM10) and ground-level ozone – exceeded legal limits in a “considerably” higher proportion of measured zones in 2005 than in 2001. The percentage of EU-25 zones exceeding a daily limit value for PM10 was 44 per cent in 2005. The health limit for ozone was broken in over a third of all zones and the limit to protect vegetation in nearly a quarter. The situation has also deteriorated for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and the annual legal limit for NO2 was exceeded in 26 per cent of zones. The problems are unevenly distributed across the continent, with the exception of ozone, for which almost every country in central and southern Europe reports levels that exceed limit values. In the case of NO2 and PM10, local traffic is the main cause in at least 70 per cent and 50 per cent of reported exceedances respectively. The single most important reason for ozone exceedances is also local traffic, which accounts for at least 20 per cent of the cases. For sulphur dioxide, industry and power generation are the dominant cause. Overall, it is reported that in 89 per cent of the zones, the levels reported in 2005 were below all limit values plus margins of tolerance for the First and Second Daughter Directive. Stated conversely, in 11 per cent of all zones, a plan or programme had to be developed for at least one pollutant under the same directives. Per Elvingson Further information: The report, The air quality "Questionnaire" analysis of the Member States reporting on 2005, can be downloaded from the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change, http://air-climate.eionet.europa.eu/
Emission requirements move toward global harmonization
Having sent four different proposals for stakeholder consultation last summer (see AN 3/07), the EU Commission put forward a proposal for regulation1 just before Christmas that is intended to stiffen emission standards for heavy vehicles in the EU.
Proposed Euro VI Emission Limits.
A For LPG engines there are separate limits for methane and non-methane hydrocarbons (500 and 160 mg/kWh respectively).
The new Euro VI requirements are proposed to come into force in 2013 (but would not include all vehicles until October 2014) and entail a reduction of 80 per cent in nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 66 per cent in particulate matter (PM) emissions compared to the Euro V limits, which take effect in 2008. The emission requirements for hydrocarbons (HC) are also stiffened. The vehicles covered are buses, lorries and other heavy road vehicles. Although the proposal does not take a stance on specific technical solutions it is clear that particulate filters must be fitted to all diesel vehicles in order to meet the PM requirement. Exhaust gas recirculation and after-treatment devices would be necessary to meet the new NOx standard. The Commission’s impact assessment acknowledges that meeting the proposed emission standards “will result in an increase in prices of new vehicles”. But overall the new limits will deliver “a high amount of environmental benefit at a reasonable cost”. In light of the considerable stiffening of emission requirements this will entail, there have been surprisingly few protests. One significant reason is that the proposed requirement levels are close to those that will come into effect in the USA in 2010. The proposal is consequently seen as a step on the road to global harmonization, of which the industry is in favour. In addition to more stringent limit values, the proposal introduces provisions on off-cycle emissions, on-board diagnostics, access to repair information, durability of pollution control devices, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption measurement. The proposal also foresees the introduction of a particle number limit value, as a complement to the current mass-based standards. This is to prevent the use of emission control technology that removes the larger (heavier) particles but lets through the smallest and most harmful. However, a standard must first be developed for counting the number of particles. The new legislation would be in the form of an EU regulation. Regulations are directly binding in all EU member states and require no transposition into national law. The Commission says this will reduce administrative burdens and delays. The proposal will now be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Per Elvingson 1 COM(2007) 851 final. Further information: The proposal and its impact assessment are available from the Commission.
Cleaner fuels could save tens of thousands of lives Using cleaner marine fuel could prevent 40,000 to 50,000 premature deaths each year. According to results from continuing scientific research1, premature deaths caused by air pollution from international shipping will total over 80,000 by 2012. Using the same methodology as in previous work (see AN 4/07), scientists have estimated mortality changes by 2012 associated with three of the six policy scenarios currently under review for the IMO’s ship emission regulations (see article below). The base-line scenario, no action, assumes continued worldwide use of marine heavy fuel oil with an average sulphur content of about 2.7 per cent. It is estimated that this would lead to 83,700 premature deaths from shipping-related emissions by 2012, up from around 60,000 in 2002. A “coastal scenario” assuming the use of marine distillate fuel with a sulphur content of 0.1 per cent by ships sailing within 200 nautical miles of the world’s coastlines could reduce premature mortality rates by about 50 per cent to 42,200, the study found. The coastal scenario is in line with a proposal by the United States, as a way of reducing sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from ships under MARPOL Annex VI. A global scenario with all ships using marine distillate fuel with a 0.5 per cent sulphur cap could cut premature mortality rates by around 60 per cent to 33,700. “The IMO cannot continue to ignore the mounting evidence that action to reduce air pollution from ships could avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths each year,” said David Marshall, at the Clean Air Task Force (CATF). “The IMO must act promptly to clean up the shipping industry and its fuel.” Marshall also emphasized that the benefits of cleaner marine fuel and reduced emissions would far outweigh the costs. Using cost methodology employed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, CATF estimates that the 40–50,000 lives saved annually will produce benefits to society of about US$ 225–275 billion per year. Cleanup costs are much lower. Christer Ågren 1 The study Mitigating Health Impacts of Ship Pollution through Low Sulfur Fuel Options: Initial Comparison of Scenarios. January 2008. By J. Corbett, J. Winebrake, E. Green, V. Eyring, and A. Lauer. Available at www.catf.us/projects/international_air_quality/shipping
Moving slowly on ship air pollution Regulation of polluting emissions from international shipping lags far behind land-based sources, despite widely available cleaner fuels and exhaust after-treatment technologies. In 2006 the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed to revise its regulation1 on air pollution control, with the aim of adopting new standards by the end of 2007. Work is already delayed, and a meeting of the IMO’s Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) sub-committee in London in February agreed to streamline the options being discussed rather than make definitive recommendations. The outcome of the sub-committee’s discussions will be put to the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in the first week of April, and rubber-stamped in October. Sulphur dioxide Six different proposals to reduce sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions were narrowed down to three options: Option 1 would markedly tighten the current global cap on sulphur content in fuel, from 45,000 to 10,000 parts per million (ppm) by 2012, and then further reduce it to 5,000 ppm by 2015. Option 2 would maintain the current global cap, but the fuel sulphur limit would be significantly tightened – at 1,000 ppm by 2012 – in designated sulphur emission control areas (SECAs). Option 3 would lower the global cap slightly to 30,000 ppm by 2012, as well as lowering the SECA sulphur limit in two steps, from 15,000 to 10,000 ppm by 2010, and then to 5,000 ppm by 2015. In addition, micro-emission control areas may be established (up to a distance of no more than 24 nautical miles from the shoreline) at a level of 1,000 ppm sulphur in fuel. By comparison, the current global average sulphur content of marine fuels is 27,000 ppm (2.7 per cent), and the current SECA limit is 15,000 ppm. The maximum allowed sulphur content for diesel fuel used by road vehicles in the EU and North America is, or soon will be, 10–15 ppm. Note that the BLG sub-committee did not explicitly back either a global switch to low-sulphur marine fuels or the use of ship exhaust cleaning of SO2 emissions (using scrubbers) to meet the new sulphur limits. Bryan Wood-Thomas, the chairman of the BLG, said that the three options presented by the group were not intended to constrain debate, and that nothing should preclude the development of hybrid proposals during future discussions. Nitrogen oxides A three-tier system to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from new engines was recommended by the sub-committee. In Tier 2, emissions would be cut by 16–22 per cent by 2011 relative to the Tier 1 levels from year 2000. Tier 3 would imply an 80-per-cent reduction by 2016, but this tighter limit would only apply in specially designated areas. There was no agreement on proposed NOx standards for existing (pre-2000) engines, but special attention was given to larger engines produced between 1990 and 1999. No to emissions trading After having discussed the issue of market-based instruments, the BLG noted that a large number of fundamental legal questions still remained to be solved, and therefore decided not to recommend emission trading as a means to reduce ship air pollution. Controversial study Leading up to the BLG meeting there has been some controversy over a report2 prepared for the sub-committee by a panel of so-called independent experts. The report, which was published on 21 December, does not make explicit recommendations, but its findings on the impact of the various options to reduce SO2 and PM have been submitted to both the BLG and the MEPC for consideration. In its summary of health and environment effects, the report concludes that “almost all of the available information points in the direction of a lower level of adverse environmental and human health effects when distillate fuels are used rather than residual fuel oils”. As regards consequential impacts on carbon dioxide emissions, it states that: “The alternative to removing SO2 from exhaust emissions is to remove it from the fuel prior to usage. Studies which assess the relative CO2 emissions associated with these two options suggest little difference overall, taking into account emissions associated with neutralization, scrubber operation, combustion and refinery emissions, as applicable.” The expert panel made an assessment of the total volume of fuels being consumed by shipping at present, and a prediction of fuel use and emission trends up to 2020. With no change in international regulations, it is predicted that today’s total of 369 million tonnes of marine fuel consumption would rise to 486 million tonnes by 2020, of which 382 would be heavy fuel oil and 104 would be distillates. That would put current CO2 emissions from ships at 1,120 million tonnes, rising to 1,475 million tonnes in 2020. Current total SO2 emissions from ships are estimated at 16.2 million tonnes, rising to 22.7 million tonnes in 2020. Christer Ågren 1 Annex VI of the IMO’s MARPOL Convention was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. It includes a global cap of 4.5 per cent on the sulphur content of fuel oil, and contains provisions allowing for special “SOx Emission Control Areas” (SECAs) to be established with more stringent control on sulphur emissions. In these areas, the sulphur content of fuel used onboard ships must not exceed 1.5 per cent. Alternatively, ships must fit an exhaust gas cleaning system or use other methods to limit SOx emissions. The Baltic Sea was the first SECA to come into effect in May 2006, followed by the North Sea in November 2007. Annex VI also sets limits on the emissions of NOx from new ship engines, but these standards are so weak that in practice they do not have any appreciable effect. 2 Report on the outcome of the Informal Cross Government/Industry Scientific Group of Experts established to evaluate the effects of the different fuel options proposed under the revision of MARPOL Annex VI (20 December 2007). IMO Document BLG 12/6/1.
Baltic Sea states call for tough emission controls Tighter emission standards are needed to cut emissions of air pollutants from ships in the Baltic Sea. Emissions of nitrogen oxides from shipping in the Baltic Sea are comparable to the combined land-based NOx emissions from Denmark and Sweden, and ship emissions of sulphur dioxide in the same sea area are higher than the combined land-based emissions of SO2 in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Ship traffic in the area is heavy and is growing by around five per cent per year, making the Baltic Sea one of the busiest seas in the world with 15 per cent of the world’s cargo. “The call for stricter international requirements is part of the Helcom Baltic Sea Action Plan to drastically reduce pollution to the sea and restore its good ecological status by 2021,” said Anne Christine Brusendorff, Helcom executive secretary. Nitrogen Tighter international regulations are needed to prevent a predicted sharp increase in NOx emissions from ships in the Baltic Sea, according to a joint document1 submitted by the Helcom countries to the upcoming 57th session of the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee, which is due to approve new air pollutant emission standards in early April. Helcom’s submission is based on a study by research group ShipNODeff, which calculates that the pollutant’s rise can be curbed only by limiting the NOx emissions of ship engines installed from 2015 by at least 80 per cent compared to current levels. Several scenarios up to the year 2030 were investigated. With a projected annual 5.2-per-cent growth in maritime traffic, the business-as-usual scenario would result in emissions nearly trebling, from the current (2006) level of 370,000 tonnes, to nearly 1,000,000 tonnes. Introducing one of the set of measures discussed by IMO – a 19-per-cent Tier 2 reduction in emissions from new ship engines as from 2011, and a 50-per-cent Tier 3 reduction after 2015 – would not reverse the current trend of increasing emissions. Only the most challenging requirement – an 80-per cent Tier 3 reduction in emissions from new engines installed on ships from 1 January 2015 – would result in a gradual lowering of NOx emissions after 2020. But even under this scenario, emissions in 2030 would still remain very high, about 300,000 tonnes per year. Deposition of atmospheric nitrogen is one of the main contributors to the high nutrient concentrations that stimulate massive algae blooms in the Baltic Sea. The study identifies shipping as the largest contributor to atmospheric NOx deposition into the Baltic Sea, with a share of 16 per cent – while in some areas and seasons up to 50 per cent originates from shipping. Sulphur Helcom member states will also back proposals for steep reductions in sulphur emissions from ships. The Baltic Sea coastal countries have jointly submitted a document to the IMO, calling for more ambitious aims regionally as well as globally to further reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from ships. The Baltic Sea was the first established Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA), introducing a cap of 1.5 per cent sulphur for shipping fuel starting on 19 May 2006, followed by the North Sea a year and half later. As a result, total annual emissions of SO2 from shipping in the Baltic Sea were estimated at around 148,000–167,000 tonnes for 2006. But not all ships in the Baltic Sea follow the SECA restrictions. In 2006, nearly 2,000 ships were inspected in the Baltic Sea ports for compliance with the fuel oil requirements, and in 28 cases non-compliance with the requirements was found. Sulphur emissions from shipping cause considerable harm to human health (primarily due to fine particles) and to the environment (acidification of freshwater as well as terrestrial ecosystems). One of the options favoured by most Helcom countries is a switch to cleaner fuels (distillate fuels) and a stricter fuel sulphur cap. Christer Ågren 1 The NOx submission of the Helcom countries to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, is available from HELCOM. Note: The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, or Helcom, is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, also known as the Helsinki Convention. See: www.helcom.fi.
Port electrification in California Two port-related emissions reduction programmes proposed in December by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), will dramatically reduce port-related emissions of diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides throughout the state by 2014. The first regulation will require certain type of ships (container, passenger and refrigerated cargo ships) to shut down their diesel auxiliary engines in ports in favour of using shore-based electrical power. Requirements get more stringent with time – as from 2014, 50 per cent of ship visits will be required to use cold ironing, increasing to 70 per cent in 2017 and 80 per cent in 2020. Alternative compliance methods to achieve equivalent emission reductions will be allowed. Emissions of diesel particles and smog-forming NOx from the ships are expected to come down by nearly 50 per cent relative to levels otherwise expected to be emitted in 2014, and 80 per cent by 2020. Next year, ARB expects to introduce a similar rule that will reduce emissions from bulk ships, tankers and vehicle carriers. The second regulation is aimed at cleaning up emissions from the ageing fleet of dirty diesel trucks that hauls goods to and from ports and rail yards throughout the state. A 2005 exposure study at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach showed that more than two million people live in areas around the ports with predicted cancer risks of greater than 10 in a million due to emissions from docked ocean-going vessels. The new regulations will help the Los Angeles region meet federally mandated air quality standards by 2014. In addition they will help reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
More information: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr120507.htm
The intention is that the new protocol should come into force before the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, which makes the timetable fairly tight. The roadmap establishes a timetable for the next two years of negotiations, which if successful, will culminate in a new global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009. According to the final report of the Bali conference, the nations have agreed to launch a “comprehensive process” to implement a “shared vision for long-term cooperative action”. This will include a “long-term global goal for emission reductions” on the established UN principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. As expected, delegates did not manage to agree on any concrete targets for reducing emissions. But a footnote makes reference to documents from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which say reductions of up to 40 per cent by 2020 are needed to head off dangerous climate change. Further information: www.unfccc.int.
Norway aims to go carbon neutral by 2030 Norway, which had previously declared the ambition to become carbon neutral by 2050, now says that it will do so by 2030. Achieving this target will require Norway to cut total emissions by two-thirds domestically, the statement said. It has not been decided how this will be done, but a “significant sum” of money will be earmarked for investment in renewable energy and measures to reduce emissions from the transport sector. The remaining reductions will be achieved by spending around three billion kroner per year to combat deforestation in developing countries. Significant sums will also be invested in research on renewable energy and carbon capture and storage. Norway is the world’s fifth-biggest exporter of oil and western Europe’s biggest exporter of natural gas.
Expensive and unsustainable Germany continues to invest in brown coal mining, despite ambitious climate targets. Requirements for carbon capture and storage could eventually make the fuel unprofitable. Lignite, or brown coal, is Germany’s main domestic fuel resource. Nearly 40 billion tons of economically accessible reserves slumber beneath the Rhineland near the Netherlands and in a large eastern semicircle extending from the Polish border, past the cities of Dresden and Leipzig, and up to the Baltic Sea. About 180 million tons of lignite are mined each year to generate a quarter of Germany’s electricity, amounting to 156 billion kilowatt-hours in 2007. Current production levels could theoretically be maintained into the 22nd century, but only at the price of continuing environmental degradation and social disruption. From a classic economic standpoint, lignite is Europe’s least costly commercial fuel. Being of recent geological origin, the shallow deposits can be readily excavated by surface mining. However, the lignite remains permeated with groundwater when delivered to power stations, greatly reducing generation efficiency. Firing this damp, carbonaceous fuel emits three times as much carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilowatt-hour as in natural gas power plants. One ton of lignite produces approximately the same quantity of carbon dioxide when burned. Lignite power generation is thus responsible for more than one fifth of all energy-related CO2 emissions in Germany. The Kyoto Protocol requires 21 per cent of German greenhouse gas emissions to be eliminated between 1990 and 2012. The greatest reductions were achieved in the 1990’s, as annual lignite usage in eastern Germany declined from around 300 to 80 million tons due to industrial modernization and the conversion of home heating systems from lignite briquettes to natural gas. Because of the predominance of carbon in lignite, the cost of power generation is influenced to a greater extent by EU emissions trading than with any other fuel. Most of the CO2 emissions rights (called allocations) required for trading have been distributed to power companies without charge, however, while electricity customers are consistently billed for their fictional purchase. The environmental organization WWF estimates that Germany’s five largest power producers RWE, E.ON, Vattenfall, EnBW, and Steag will have realized added income of 31 to 64 billion euro in this way by 2012. These windfall profits have boosted power bills considerably, unleashing a wave of consumer dissent. Over 1.2 million households have already switched their electricity supplier in reaction to rising prices. Public protest has widened, forcing several new coal plant projects to be postponed or abandoned. The parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern unanimously resolved in 2007 to oppose any lignite mining in that northeastern German region, which generates a third of its electricity from local wind and biomass resources. A coalition of NGOs and political parties has collected enough signatures in neighboring Brandenburg to require the state parliament to debate a moratorium on new mines. Continued lignite usage would entail wide-scale landscape devastation and the evacuation of dozens of communities. Vattenfall has already destroyed the historic village of Horno and the flora-fauna habitat at Lacoma to extract additional quantities of lignite for its chronically inefficient Jänschwalde power station. In producing one kilowatt-hour of electricity, this plant emits 1.2 kilograms of CO2 – the same as an average European automobile traveling seven kilometers on the open road. In the Rhineland, the new RWE Garzweiler II mine with a projected capacity of 1.3 billion tons of lignite will necessitate the resettlement of 7,600 people by the middle of the century. Demographic erosion is particularly serious in eastern Germany, where a loss of up to three quarters of the population is expected in particular mining regions. The village of Heuersdorf near Leipzig is currently being destroyed by the MIBRAG mining corporation after townspeople unsuccessfully called for a reduction of lignite usage to fulfill climate protection obligations. However, the routine disregard of CO2 emissions by the power industry now threatens to make lignite generation a prohibitively costly venture. Under the projected risks of emissions trading, MIBRAG has been unable to secure adequate funding for a 660 megawatt power plant required for its own operations. Part of the lignite planned for this project is located under culturally hallowed ground. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche lies buried at his birthplace in the village of Röcken only a few kilometers from the intended plant site. The lignite seams continue north past the medieval city of Lützen, where the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus was killed in a victorious battle of the 30 Years’ War in 1632. Lützen itself might be spared excavation due to the expense of resettling thousands of city inhabitants, but its drinking water supplies could vanish as groundwater was pumped out of the surrounding mines. Lignite advocates argue that advanced power plant designs can be emulated by China and India to avert a climate catastrophe. In actuality, however, the continued use of lignite is one of the most expensive ways of reducing CO2. Various techniques of carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been developed for eliminating climate-warming emissions from fossil fuel power generation. Vattenfall is completing a CCS demonstration plant at Schwarze Pumpe southeast of Berlin to verify the viability of its Oxyfuel process. The diminutive 30 megawatt capacity is only a fraction of normal plant size, however, obscuring the enormous expenditures required for full-scale lignite carbon removal. With CCS implementation, the carbon dioxide released during fuel combustion must be captured by chemical reaction, thoroughly dried, and compressed into a supercritical liquid, then transported to distant storage locations for injection at high pressure into saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas fields. The energy required by these auxiliary processes is equivalent to a third generating plant supporting every two CCS installations realized. This “parasitic load” could raise lignite consumption in Germany to around a quarter billion tons per year, emitting an equivalent amount of CO2 requiring capture and storage. Surface mining would destroy landscapes and rural culture at a highly accelerated rate. The resulting hydrological imbalances appear particularly precarious in Lusatia, where all of the Vattenfall mines are located. This region already suffers from a water deficit of seven billion cubic meters with no prospect of replenishment. Due to the supplementary energy required for CO2 capture processes, power plant cooling water consumption would double for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, in addition to the increased groundwater depletion inherent to intensified mining. Both the comprehensive costs of CCS operations and the long-term integrity of geological storage sites can only be determined by decades of practice. Yet the complex licensing procedures required for CO2 transport pipelines could delay implementation indefinitely. Vattenfall has considered sidestepping this problem by shipping lignite by rail to CCS power plants erected at North Sea storage locations, even though every second freight car would effectively be delivering groundwater from the mines. This proposal exemplifies the embryonic irrationality inherent to all carbon capture schemes. CCS would essentially divert a third of fossil fuel power resources from human usage to underground storage. Rail transportation either of lignite or of liquefied CO2 could easily disrupt regular train service. The investment risks and technological uncertainties of CCS should promote more rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies and resource conservation strategies. Many options have yet to be implemented, ranging from wide-scale biomass and solar energy generation to the use of intelligent power meters interconnected with “smart” household appliances. Such alternatives promise far greater economy than the financial extravagance of carbon-free fossil fuel power. By canceling all future lignite projects, intact landscapes and demographic stability would remain as assets for permanently sustainable development. Jeffrey H. Michel Further reading: Status and Impacts of the German Lignite Industry. By J. H. Michel, published by the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. Updated February 2008.
Some countries still defaulting Greece and Spain have still not reduced their emissions as required. A few countries are still failing to comply with the emission reduction demands of protocols to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and several countries are failing to comply with the obligation to report. This is apparent from last year’s review conducted by its Implementation Committee,1 which was discussed at the convention’s Executive Body (EB) meeting in December 2007. Despite the sharp reprimands that were issued in 2006 by the convention’s EB (which includes representatives from all the member countries), three countries – Greece, Spain and Denmark – have still not reduced their emissions as required by the protocols.2 In 2007, the committee examined the following four countries for non-compliance with emission targets. SPAIN. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were reported to have been above the base-year level every year from 1994 to 2005. Spain also failed to comply with the VOC protocol – it is still a long way from achieving the required 30-per-cent reduction. Spain has stated that it did not expect to achieve compliance with the NOx protocol before 2017 and with the VOC protocol before 2020. The committee noted that, based on the most recent emission data, Spain was now even further away from compliance than estimated before. The EB expressed increasing disappointment at the continuing failure of Spain to fulfil its obligations to take effective measures to attain compliance. GREECE. National NOx emissions are still higher than they were in 1987, the base year for the 1988 NOx protocol. In 2005 they rose to 317,000 tonnes, compared to 285,000 tonnes in 1987. The committee stated that it doubted Greece’s expectation to achieve compliance by 2010, and concluded that the country’s responses to earlier EB decisions remained insufficient. The committee also noted repeated instances of lack of cooperation. The EB expressed increasing disappointment at the continuing failure of Greece to take effective measures to reduce its emissions, and also expressed concern that Greece does not seem to give sufficient attention to the matter of continuing non-compliance. DENMARK. Increased use of biomass for domestic heating has meant that emissions in Denmark of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) continue to increase, which is not compliant with the emission reduction obligation in the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) protocol. The EB expresses disappointment that Denmark has merely indicated that it will achieve compliance “in a not too distant future”, and urges Denmark to speed up the implementation of planned measures and/or take additional measures as soon as possible to shorten the period of expected non-compliance. NORWAY. In 2005, after six years of non-compliance, Norway achieved compliance with its VOC emission reduction obligation for the whole country, but still failed to comply with regard to its tropospheric ozone management area (TOMA). However, a downward trend in emissions has been observed, and preliminary data for 2006 indicate that Norway appeared to comply with its TOMA obligation to reduce VOC emissions by at least 30 per cent from the 1989 level. During the following EB discussions several countries expressed their concern about some of the alarmingly long periods of non-compliance – 12 years in the case of Greece and more than 20 years in the case of Spain, according to their domestic plans and projections. It was agreed that the committee should look into what possible stronger measures could be taken. As to the obligation to report on emission data, the commit |
This issue is also available in pdf format: 
