11) What benefits will the Strategy bring, and how much will it cost?
The Strategy aims to provide the most cost-effective solution for reaching the interim objectives chosen.
This would bring major benefits for human health and the environment worth tens of billions of euros in annual cost savings to the EU economy, plus potential benefits for EU competitiveness through the development of innovative cleaner technologies.
The health benefits alone of the Strategy are valued at between €42 and 135 billion per year,[4] or between 0.30% and 1.0% of EU-25 GDP in 2020. Premature deaths due to particulate matter would be reduced by 63,000 in 2020 compared with the business as usual scenario. This is equivalent to saving 560,000 life years per year. Lower income groups are expected to benefit more as they are generally exposed to higher levels of air pollution than those in higher income groups.
There is no agreed methodology for expressing environmental benefits in monetary terms, but they would be substantial. The forest area affected by acidification in 2020 would be halved compared with the business as usual scenario and the total area of ecosystems affected by eutrophication reduced by 27%.
There would also be benefits in other environmental areas. Air pollution policy dovetails with climate change policy, and reductions in air pollution lead to improvements in soil and water quality.
The cost of the Strategy is estimated at €7.1 billion annually in 2020. This is equivalent to approximately 0.05% of EU-25 GDP in 2020, and is more than five times below the lowest projected value of the Strategy’s health benefits alone.
12)
Will there be a cost if we take no action?
Yes, and a heavy one. Taking no action means our economies would bear greater costs from impaired human health and higher environmental damage than would be the case with the Strategy.
The cost would be €42-135 billion per year by 2020 in foregone health benefits alone. This is without counting the environmental damage to hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of forests and other ecosystems.
13)
How can we be sure about these cost and benefit calculations?
A comprehensive impact assessment has been prepared for both the Strategy and an accompanying proposal to consolidate EU air quality legislation in a single directive. It is based on the best available science and economics. Both the cost-effectiveness methodologies and the cost-benefit methodologies were peer-reviewed independently.
n the benefits side, the most cautious methods for estimating health benefits have been used. Due to the lack of an agreed methodology, environmental benefits have not been costed and do not appear in the benefit figures.
14) Has anything changed since 2005?
Since 2005 further scientific evidence had confirmed the adverse effects of air pollution. Further modelling work is also being performed as part of the impact assessment of the revision of the national emission ceilings directive scheduled for adoption in the first half of 2008. The modelling confirms strong interlinkage between the climate change and air pollution related measures. When coordination possibilities are properly exploited, new ambitious targets addressing climate change contribute also to faster and effective air pollution abatement.
15) What do Europe’s citizens think about air pollution?
Air pollution is high on the list of European citizens’ environmental concerns. In a special 2005 Eurobarometer survey, 45% of respondents said they were worried about air pollution. The same proportion thought that EU-level was most suited to finding solutions to environmental problems. Another Eurobarometer poll, on the Lisbon agenda, showed that a large majority (64%) of the public consider environmental protection an incentive for innovation and not an obstacle to economic performance.
16) How does the Strategy affect EU competitiveness?
Pursuing the interim objectives of the Strategy is not expected to hamper Europe’s competitiveness in comparison to other industrialised countries such as the USA and Japan, as these countries have similar or more stringent air pollution policies in place.
Indeed, further reducing damage to human health and the environment could help improve the EU’s competitiveness. It can be expected to stimulate innovation in less polluting and more resource-efficient technologies. By focusing research and development on such technologies the EU can secure a strong competitive position since other countries will eventually need to adopt them too.
It is clear that China, South Korea and some other developing countries are increasingly concerned about air pollution and are looking for policy and technical inspiration from Europe. For instance both Korea and China have adopted the “Euro III” vehicle emission standards developed by the EU and are planning to adopt the “Euro IV” standards just a couple of years later than the EU itself.
The costs of the strategy are not expected to have any impact on net employment. Production lost through ill health would be reduced since improvements in air quality improve the health of employees too. This means a slight increase in labour force participation, which is one of the aims of the Lisbon Strategy.
Empezado por emulajavi
Responder Con Cita
