The European Union is in the process of defining new standards limiting pollution from coal-fired power stations in the EU – a once-in-a-decade opportunity to clamp down on toxic emissions killing thousands of people every year.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A Greenpeace investigation<\/a> has revealed the whole process has been captured by the coal industry, with the result that the emission limits the EU is about to agree could be extremely lax. Not only would most of the existing plants be allowed to pollute several times more than could be achieved by adopting the best clean technologies available. EU standards would also be significantly weaker than those imposed in other parts of the world, including China.<\/p>\n The updated EU pollution limits must be in line with best available techniques limits.<\/p>\n Based on a draft of the proposal, this report demonstrates that EU industrial air pollution limits currently considered in the process are much weaker than the standards in force in China, Japan and the United States.<\/p>\n The report also shows that existing coal power plants both within and outside the European Union already have much more demanding emission limits or better real-world emission control performance than would be required by the draft proposals in the process.<\/p>\n ———————-<\/p>\n Coal plants are the largest source of sulphur dioxide and mercury emissions in Europe and one of the largest industrial sources of emissions of nitrogen oxides, arsenic, lead and cadmium. Air pollution from the EU’s coal-fired power stations caused an estimated 22,300 premature deaths in 2010[1]<\/sup>, as well as exacerbating asthma and contributing to dangerous levels of mercury found in the blood of thousands of babies born in Europe.<\/p>\n Right now the European Union is updating air pollution standards for industrial installations, including for coal power plants. In March 2015, the process is expected to propose definitions of best available techniques (BATs) and related pollution limits. The BATs are defined in so-called BAT reference documents (BREFs). EU member states are expected to vote on the proposal by the end of this year, followed by the formal adoption in early 2016. The new definitions of best available techniques and related emission limits must be included in updated environmental permits within four years after the adoption.<\/p>\n The updated EU pollution limits must be in line with best available techniques limits.<\/strong><\/p>\n Based on a draft of the proposal, this report demonstrates that EU industrial air pollution limits currently considered in the process are much weaker than the standards in force in China, Japan and the United States.<\/p>\n The report also shows that existing coal power plants both within and outside the European Union already have much more demanding emission limits or better real-world emission control performance than would be required by the draft proposals in the process.<\/p>\n Part 1 of this report, ‘Smoke’, compares the proposed EU air pollution standards with standards and actual emissions from other countries.<\/em><\/p>\n Part 2, ‘Mirrors’, outlines the EU decision-making process and demonstrates its capture by industry interests.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Proposed EU pollution limits compared to current performance and other standards<\/strong><\/p>\n A new proposal for the BREF for Large Combustion Plants (LCP BREF) is expected to be issued in March, defining best available techniques and related limits for pollution by coal plants, one of the largest sources of toxic pollution in Europe.<\/p>\n Exposure to particulate matter(PM2.5) is the largest environmental health threat in Europe, increasing risk of death from heart disease, respiratory diseases and lung cancer, and shortening life expectancy by 6-12 months in most European countries [3].<\/p>\n Research by Stuttgart University commissioned by Greenpeace estimates that emissions from coal-fired power plants in the EU were responsible for 22,300 premature deaths in 2010[4]<\/sup>.<\/p>\n 200,000 babies are born each year in the EU with mercury levels in their blood that are known to harm their mental and neurological development [5]<\/sup>.<\/p>\n Part 1 of this report includes comparisons of the proposed BREF standards for four highly damaging pollutants, SO2, NOx, PM2.5 and Hg, with various national standards for new and existing plants, and with some of the best performing operational plants around the world.<\/p>\n The proposed BREF standards for existing coal-fired power stations would allow them to emit<\/p>\n than the equivalent Chinese standards, and more than the average of all plants operating in Japan.<\/p>\n Even more shockingly, operators would be able to build new coal plants in the EU producing<\/p>\n of the best currently operating plants around the world.<\/p>\n The draft proposal would allow much more pollution than would result from the use of the best available techniques. Adopting these standards will allow enormous health impacts, including thousands of deaths, which could be prevented with existing technology.<\/p>\n Polluting industries have captured the regulatory process<\/strong><\/p>\n Of the various bodies involved in drafting, reviewing and proposing the new standards, the most important is the Technical Working Group (TWG), chaired by the European IPPC Bureau. Greenpeace found that the TWG is dominated by the energy industry – a total of at least 46 representatives in government delegations are in fact industry lobbyists, on top of the 137 formal industry representatives participating. This means, that the polluters are designing the regulations intended to govern their own industry.<\/p>\n Examples of government delegations dominated by industry include:<\/p>\n Reflecting Industry concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n Even genuinely independent EU country representatives have been known to advocate the positions of polluting companies, often using statements directly copied from industry representatives.<\/p>\n In a particularly blatant case, delegates from Spain’s ministry of environment and Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency argued for weaker emission limits using a statement that was identical to a comment tabled by power company lobby group Eurelectric[6]<\/sup>. Hubert Bramberger, representing the Bavarian Environment Agency in Germany’s delegation, demanded weaker SO2<\/sub> emission limits for lignite plants, with a written comment identical to ones posted by several industry representatives. Richard Chase, representing the UK Environment Agency, used a written comment identical to ones made by Eurelectric and RWE to argue that certain energy efficiency techniques were too expensive.<\/p>\n Seven delegations – those of Poland, the Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, France, the UK and Spain – are responsible for the vast majority of comments seeking to further weaken the limits.<\/p>\n Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden were the only countries to make any comments at all seeking to protect public health. All three sent government delegations composed entirely of government delegates.<\/p>\n Europe is allowing the polluters to set their own standards, with the majority of delegates representing the industries being regulated. If this is allowed to continue, our coal plants will fall well behind leading countries and cause major avoidable health impacts.<\/p>\n Time for EU decision-makers to intervene<\/strong><\/p>\n Greenpeace is calling for the process to be reformed to remove conflicts of interest, unnecessary delays, derogations and exemptions, and to bring the BREF standards into line with the real best available techniques, as is required by EU law.EU environment ministers, members of national parliaments and the European Parliament need to intervene in the process and to take the following actions:<\/p>\n ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… <\/p>\n Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] University of Stuttgart research, in Greenpeace (2013), Silent Killers: http:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/Silent-Killers\/<\/a><\/p>\n [2] For more information: http:\/\/eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu\/about\/more_information.html<\/a><\/p>\n [3] EEA (2007), Loss of statistical life expectancy attributed to anthropogenic contributions to PM2.5, 2000 and 2020: http:\/\/www.eea.europa.eu\/data-and-maps\/figures\/loss-of-statistical-life-expectancy-attributed-to-anthropogenic-contributions-to-pm2-5-2000-and-2020<\/a><\/p>\n [4] Research by Stuttgart University in Greenpeace (2013) Silent Killers report: http:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/international\/Silent-Killers\/<\/a><\/p>\n [5] Bellanger et. al. (2013) Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention i<\/strong>n Environmental Health<\/em> 2013, 12<\/strong>:3 http:\/\/www.ehjournal.net\/content\/12\/1\/3<\/a><\/p>\n [6] Carmen Canales, Spanish Ministry of Environment, Sean O’Donoghue, Ireland EPA and Helen Lavray, Eurelectric, all argued for weaker emission limits using the exact same passage, word-for-word and letter-for-letter.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/ul>\n
\n
Source<\/h5>\n