EU emissions ‘cave-in’ fuels green protest

Date: 16/05/1996

ENVIRONMENTAL campaigners are accusing the European Commission of failing to live up to earlier undertakings to impose much tighter car emission and fuel specification standards.

They claim that draft proposals for fuel specifications to apply from the year 2000 fall far short of standards in the US and Nordic countries, and suggest that the Commission has caved in to industry pressure.

Even the plan to ban the sale of leaded petrol from the year 2000 has been dismissed by one lobbyist as a tactic “to keep the European Parliament happy”.

But Commission and industry officials refute such attacks, claiming it is totally misleading to compare the European situation with the US and insisting the approach being considered represents the best mix of environmental and cost concerns.

Gijs Kuneman, director of the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), says the draft fuel standards fall well short of what green lobbies were led to expect during consultations late last year.

He claims the prescribed 45&percent; maximum for so-called 'aromatics' - some of which are carcinogenic - is higher than the current EU average level of around 40&percent;, as is the planned limit for 'olefins'. Campaigners are also disappointed at a maximum level for benzene, which is twice as high as what they regard to be “safer” levels.

Proposed cuts in oxygenates from 2.7&percent; to 2.3&percent; are likely to present more of a problem for industry, and Kuneman expressed himself relatively satisfied with proposed maximum sulphur contents.

According to T&E, the tighter standards under discussion last year would have cost motorists 12 ecu per year more, at most, than they are currently paying. Lobbyists believe they were rejected as being too expensive, particularly for the oil refining sector.

Perhaps even more crucial - and still firmly under wraps - are the Commission's proposals on emission limits to apply in 2000 and its thoughts on the best approach for the next stage of the process in 2005.

Rumours indicate that limits for nitrous oxides to apply from 2000 will be less stringent than initially proposed. There is talk of 50&percent; tougher standards from 2005, although doubt remains over whether the Commission will insist on mandatory standards or rely on tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to build less-polluting vehicles.

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) officials say the biggest problem is presented by nitrous oxides (NOx) and 'particulate' emissions from diesel cars, which now account for almost a quarter of sales of new passenger vehicles. NOx are one of the main causes of ozone, while particulates are known to contribute to cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Environmentalists claim December's draft emission limits for nitrous oxides have now been weakened by 30&percent;.

“We're concerned that unless we monitor things really carefully, the standards set for 2005 will be changed at the last minute when industry says it can't respect them,” said an EEB official.

But representatives of the European car-makers association ACEA and oil industry lobby Europia, who worked with the Commission on the Auto-Oil Programme, vehemently deny such suspicions and stress it is wrong to compare standards with the US.

“The US has a great problem with carbon monoxide. The EU does not. Europe's problems are nitrous oxides, ozone and particulates. If targets are not achieved, then our opponents will have a case. They do not have one simply by comparing proposals with legislation elsewhere,” said Andrew Meneer of Europia.

Europia believes that a further tightening of emission limits in 2005 will only be necessary if air quality standards are not entirely met by the 2000 regulations.

Such standards must be based on cost-effective measures combining fuel specifications, engine standards and improved engine inspections, the group stresses, claiming that the proposed changes could cost the sector some 11.5 billion ecu, including over seven billion in capital investment.

“Using the best available technologies whatever the cost is no longer the most effective route. We must reach standards in the most cost-effective manner. The EU's air quality standards will be the most stringent in the world. To say they've been watered down is a gross misrepresentation,” said an ACEA official.