MEPs set to back calls for radical cuts in emission levels

Date: 17/02/2000

By Gareth Harding

MEPS look set to support the European Commission's demands for swingeing cuts in emissions of the four gases which cause smog and acid rain in the face of fierce opposition to the proposal from EU governments.

Riitta Myller, author of the European Parliament's report on the planned national emission ceilings directive, is calling on fellow MEPs to support the Commission's targets in most areas and go even further in others.

The Finnish Socialist MEP argues that member states should be required to slash emissions to below 'critical' levels by 2020 - a tougher target than that proposed by the Commission, which has called on Union governments to reduce the area affected by acidification by half within ten years and to cut the frequency of EU ozone-limit breachings by two-thirds.

Myller is also calling for the proposed exemptions for emissions from ships and planes and for the island territories of Spain, France and Portugal to be scrapped. This too is likely to prove controversial with both the Commission and EU governments.

Although the MEP's proposed amendments are likely to win the support of the Socialists, Greens and Liberals when the Parliament's environment committee votes on the planned legislation next week, the assembly's dominant centre-right group is expected to balk at the potential cost to firms.

The Parliament's industry committee has already set the stage for what Myller believes will be a "big fight" within the assembly when the issue is voted on by the full Parliament by calling for the Commission's proposal to be watered down.

But the biggest challenge for supporters of the initiative will be to convince EU governments of the need to sign up to more ambitious national emissions ceilings for the four gases than those which they agreed to last November under a United Nations convention on cross-boundary air pollution in Europe.

Most member states argue that going the extra mile to meet the Commission's targets would have only minor environmental benefits but would place an exorbitant burden on European industry.

Myller maintains, however, that it is "highly likely" that the €7.5-billion annual price tag for cutting emissions of sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen and ammonia is "overestimated" and insists that it could be reduced by switching to cleaner forms of power and introducing energy-efficiency measures.

Her argument is supported by a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the Commission's proposal drawn up by the European Environmental Bureau, a Brussels-based coalition of green groups.

It complains that current estimates of the cost of implementing the draft directive are based solely on end-of-pipe measures. It also argues that by adopting a "smarter approach to solve inter-related environmental problems", the price of meeting the targets could be cut by almost two-thirds.

MEPs look set to support the European Commission's demands for swingeing cuts in emissions of the four gases which cause smog and acid rain in the face of fierce opposition to the proposal from EU governments.