Skip to main content
European Commission logo print header

Article Category

News
Content archived on 2022-12-02

Article available in the following languages:

Proposed limits on emissions are too rigorous, says EU Committee

The Economic and Social Committee of the European Union had a lively debate when, on 27 January 1999, members voted in favour of adopting an amendment to their Opinion on how much of which pollutants combustion plants are allowed to spew into the air. There was opposition to ...

The Economic and Social Committee of the European Union had a lively debate when, on 27 January 1999, members voted in favour of adopting an amendment to their Opinion on how much of which pollutants combustion plants are allowed to spew into the air. There was opposition to the Opinion - mainly from environmental, trade union and consumers organizations - with 20 abstentions and 25 votes against 95 in favour. Some of a number of amendments to Directive 88/609/EEC, tabled at the meeting, were adopted in the final text. The amendments were intended to reinforce measures to reduce emissions from large combustion plants. But the Opinion now states that proposed uniform emission values conflict with the provisions of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, which allows firms to gear the technologies they use to local environmental conditions. According to the Committee, the proposed limit values are too rigorous, and tightening of existing standards is not justified by technological progress. The Committee welcomed the fact that existing plants will not be covered by the Commission proposal but stressed that the proposed provisions for broken abatement equipment interfere with the responsibilities of regional and local authorities. This, Committee members say, conflicts with the subsidiarity principle. They also described the economic assessments referred to in the proposal as too superficial and failing to address the possibly serious consequences of a proposal for the Union's competitiveness. There was also criticism of confusing wording of the document and a request for a study on the impact of the Directive on the Community's most remote regions the geographical and climatological conditions of which make them a special case. There was also a request for applicant countries to be granted a transitional period.