EU power plant rules mostly written by industry lobbyists | RenewEconomy

EU power plant rules mostly written by industry lobbyists

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

New rules intended to combat air pollution from EU power plants could be weaker than coal standards currently in place in China.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


In The Guardian, Arthur Neslen and Rob Evans recently wrote that new rules intended to combat air pollution from EU power plants could be weaker than coal standards currently in place in China, a nation both ashamed of and reviled for its poor urban air quality. A Greenpeace study has found that the new pollution limits the European Union is discussing for large industrial and power plants are several times weaker than what the best performing plants have managed to do in other developed economies, including the US and Japan.


Lawrence Carter, a Greenpeace UK climate and energy campaigner, notes:

“Our investigation further reveals that what EU officials identify as the required ‘best available techniques’ to reduce harmful emissions would in reality allow several times more toxic pollution than those already adopted by many coal plant operators around the world. In other words, they are not the best available techniques. This is important, since the process of agreeing new pollution standards was set up to tackle” harmful health impacts of industrial emitters.

EEA-synthesis-report-213x300Carter also points out that the European Environment Agency reports that toxic fumes from the EU’s coal-fired generating stations caused an estimated 22,300 premature deaths in 2010. A separate study by the Health and Environment Alliance on the UK total alone saw over 1,500 deaths per year.

Apparently, industry lobbyists comprise over half (183 of 352) of the key official group formulating the new EU limits. Worse yet, in dozens of cases, staff members of coal firms are taking part in the process — not as formal industry representatives, but as official member state government delegates.

Carter called the situation “a classic case of allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.” Hans ten Berge, the secretary-general of Eurelectric, which represents Europe’s electricity companies, has stated the following:

“Looking at the potentially high number of power plants which we will still have to close and the very limited scope for investing in this area, I think it is logical that industry should have expressed a strong interest in keeping their ability to supply much-needed balancing power alive.”

In its report, Greenpeace implicates delegations from Britain, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, France, and Spain in driving the limitation of proposed controls. In all, says The Guardian, EU states submitted more than 8,500 comments, a number considered “exceptional.” It’s too bad Europe looks to be setting up weak standards for coal plants, considering its important leadership in funding green international activities and forwarding Intended Nationally Determined Contributions to the UN’s proposed Paris climate accord.


Source: CleanTechnica. Reproduced with permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Sid Abma 6 years ago

    You want “clean coal” power plants? You want cleaner (less CO2) emission natural gas power plants?
    We can help you make it happen.
    What is wasted energy? It is (1) Hot combusted energy that is going up the chimney to be vented into the atmosphere with (2) CO2 and (3)Water.
    Let us instead (1)Recover and (2)Transform and (3) Utilize these products and turn it into jobs and useable products.
    Coal has a few more products to remove. It is just a process.
    Coal can be combusted almost as clean as natural gas. Almost as clean as solar and wind energy.

    • Alastair Leith 6 years ago

      That’s an ALMOST the size of Texas and as costly as the NASA space program. CCS and scrubbing emissions to be as clean as the wind is not worth the candle an no FF company is serious about CCS — it’s just an delaying tactic/fig-leaf for inaction from transforming to becoming 100% RE energy corporations on their part. The energy costs are prohibitive, new build wind is already cheaper than new build gas and coal so how can new build coal with CCS — which uses at least half the energy to reduce emissions (but not fully) — compete in that market?

  2. onesecond 6 years ago

    That is ridiculous and abhorrent. Thanks for sheding light on that.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.