The great ‘green’ dilemma

Date: 30/05/1996

It is an issue which generates more emotion and heated debate than most others on the EU agenda. The salvoes already being fired at the European Commission over its proposed strategy for reducing harmful emissions from cars by both industry and 'green' lobbyists - before the outcome of its deliberations has even been officially made public - are testimony to the strength of feeling aroused by environmental issues.

It is a subject which pits those governments who favour tough EU-wide measures to tackle a problem which, by its very nature, transcends national boundaries against those who argue that the Union's role is simply to lay down a broad framework for action and leave it up to individual governments to decide how best to reach those goals.

It also presents companies with a genuine dilemma, with captains of industry eager to win consumers over to their products by boasting about their green credentials but understandably fearful of the potentially enormous costs involved in seeking to do too much too soon, the additional burdens new eco-taxes would place on them and the high

price that could be demanded if the EU opts for rigorous implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle.

While Union governments wrestle with the problem on a theoretical level around the negotiating table at the Intergovernmental Conference, debating whether a firmer commitment to protect the environment should be included in the revised Maastricht Treaty and whether more decisions should be taken by majority vote, the looming battle over the Commission's car emissions proposals starkly underlines the enormous problems which will face those charged with putting whatever is agreed at the IGC into practice.

Those who argue for a tougher approach to environmental issues insist that stronger treaty provisions would strike a chord with the public and demonstrate the benefits of EU-wide cooperation in a tangible way.

But while others acknowledge the strength of this argument, they are hesitant about taking the plunge, fearing that an over-zealous approach could place intolerably heavy burdens on industries struggling to keep up with their rivals in an increasingly competitive trading world and concerned that tougher powers could be used by the EU's more protectionist member states as a spurious justification for erecting barriers to imports.

Environmental campaigners form one of the most vocal groups of lobbyists seeking to influence the formulation of new policies and proposals for Union legislation in Brussels. Industry, too, wields the big guns when it comes to fighting proposals which it fears could place too great a strain on companies battling to maintain a competitive edge.

Given the strength of feeling on both sides, it is inevitable that neither camp is likely to be entirely happy with any proposal emanating from the Commission. In each case, the need to limit environmental damage must be carefully weighed against the cost of doing so - and a judgement made as to whether it is a price worth paying.

That is a debate in which the public should be actively involved. Consumers everywhere pay lip-service to the idea of tougher action to protect the environment, but the extent to which they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is - by footing part of the bill for improvements whether through the taxes they pay or higher prices for many of the goods they buy - varies enormously from one member state to another.

Only by airing these issues fully - and being honest about the choices to be made - will the IGC negotiators stand any chance of coming up with a strategy for the future able to command widespread support.