The European Parliament will vote on Wednesday 13 September on the proposed revision of air quality standards in the EU up to 2030, a flagship text of the ‘European Green Deal’ and the ‘Zero Toxic Pollution by 2050’ ambition proposed at the end of 2022 in the interests of human health and the environment (see EUROPE 13051/1), but which divides right and left, not so much on the general objective pursued as on the timetable and level of ambition.
At stake in Tuesday’s plenary session debate ahead of the vote was the fate that would be reserved for the many amendments tabled by the EPP, the ECR and ID Groups to soften the scope of the highly ambitious report by Javi López (S&D, Spanish), adopted by a narrow majority in Parliament’s Committee on Environment with the support of the S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew Europe and The Left Groups (see EUROPE 13210/7).
The amendments from the EPP and ECR Groups, like those from the ID Group, aim to make the limit values for each atmospheric pollutant less strict, to limit the right of citizens to take legal action to obtain compensation and to postpone the application of the standards by 5 years. Unacceptable for left-wing and liberal MEPs.
In essence, this report on the revision of the ‘Ambient Air Quality’ Directives goes further than the European Commission’s proposal by tightening the limit values for pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, increasing the sampling of air quality monitoring stations and proposing to bring the Directive fully into line with WHO recommendations in future revisions of the text.
“Air pollution is responsible for more than 300,000 premature deaths a year in Europe, and 98% of city-dwellers are exposed to levels of pollution that are harmful to their health”, said Javi López, for whom the revision of the Directive is a public health issue, particularly for the most vulnerable, “such as pregnant women and children”, but also an economic issue in terms of healthcare savings.
He implored his colleagues to vote in favour of his report, taking into account access to justice, national air quality plans, which are “crucial”, and public information.
“Pollution kills. It poisons us. We need to lower the limit values and raise our ambitions”, added Denmark’s Bergur Løkke Rasmussen (Renew Europe).
For Romanian MEP Nicolae Ștefănuță (Greens/EFA), “the law we are going to vote on must oblige States to measure air quality and, if standards are exceeded, we must act and punish”.
The right, on the other hand, argued for realism. According to Norbert Lins (EPP, German), “we must not create unrealistic expectations, but take into account the situation of companies”. In his view, the package of amendments tabled aims to improve air quality without penalising businesses, and “the WHO recommendations must be taken into account, without following them word for word”. Anna Zalewska (ECR, Polish) regretted that the WHO “has privatised itself” and questioned the legal basis for applying simple recommendations in the EU.
A number of right-wing MEPs warned against measures that “would lead to cars being banned from city streets and companies going out of business” if specific geographical conditions, such as in northern Italy, were not taken into account.
The ID Group condemned the good intentions displayed, which serve an agenda of “degrowth and punishment of companies”.
Thanking the rapporteur for his “excellent work”, Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius said that the Commission’s proposal contained “stricter but realistic standards”. The revision clause in 2028 may bring them into line with the values recommended by the WHO for 2030, he said.
And he hoped that Parliament and the Council of the EU would reach an agreement on this text “before the European elections”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)