From Seville to Warsaw: Industrial pollution has fallen in the EU, here's how
It is estimated that the 50,000 largest installations in the EU still account for around 40% of greenhouse gas emissions and are responsible for 20% of all air and water pollutants.
These pollutants have a significant impact on human health and the environment:
Fine particles (PM2.5) can enter our lungs and bloodstream, causing illness and death.
NOx threatens human life and biodiversity.
SOx, heavy metals and ammonia are harmful to crops, wildlife and humans.
Greenhouse gases cause climate change and reduce air quality.
A sharp fall in emissions
Pollution caused by industrial emissions accounts for billions of euros in costs and hundreds of thousands of premature deaths in the EU every year.
However, according to the European Environment Agency, environmental and health costs of European industry have decreased by a third from 2012 to 2021. The EEA says the EU energy sector has accounted for about 80% of the total decrease.
According to the same study, this is mainly due to the adoption of new techniques and the shift to renewables and less polluting fuels, both changes being largely as a result of EU action.
View Gallery
10 Photos
New European rules
The European Union recently revised its Industrial Emissions Directive (IED 2.0), its main tool for taking action on pollution coming from the continent's largest factories and farms.
Under this directive, installations have been required to comply with the environmental performance associated with the best available techniques (BAT) in their sector. A growing number of governments in the world are now seeking to adopt the same approach.
These performances are decided during the 'Sevilla process', a collaborative governance model involving industry, EU Member States and civil society, which takes place at the Joint European Research Centre (JRC) in Seville.
Currently, around 80% of industrial sites comply with the highest permitted emission limit values. Under the IED 2.0 directive, the competent authorities in the Member States will be required to use more stringent values when revising or establishing permits.
Best Available Techniques are set to also take into account more explicitly the human health and climate protection of installations.
Decarbonisation efforts
The new rules aim to achieve a further 40% reduction in the main atmospheric pollutants by 2050. One aim is to confirm the trend observed in recent decades: EU industry has grown while reducing its impact on the environment, a process known as 'decoupling'.
Another important aspect of the revised directive is to support innovation and guide investment to boost Europe's green competitiveness on the basis of the Clean Industrial Deal recently presented by the European Commission.
In Seville, a new Innovation Centre for Industrial Transformation and Emissions (INCITE) has been set up to identify and characterise the most promising technologies for achieving circular economy and carbon neutrality.
The
European Union's objectives
are to reach carbon neutrality and zero pollution by 2050. A new portal makes it possible to track changes in the levels of various pollutants in the different regions of Europe.
The
European Environment Agency
considers that the EU has completed or advanced the implementation of the 33 actions announced in the 2021 'zero pollution' action plan, but that further efforts are still needed to achieve the objectives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
2 days ago
- France 24
Coral-rich Greek archipelago hopes to gain from trawler ban
The modest catch nevertheless quickly drew several islanders in search of fresh fish, a rarity in past years in this island chain in the northeastern Aegean Sea, which has fewer than 1,500 inhabitants in total. "Today, there were two of us heading out to sea, and we caught some fish by chance," said the 76-year-old fisherman, his skin deeply tanned by the Mediterranean sun. "Yesterday, we earned 30 euros ($34). The day before yesterday, not a penny. Sometimes, we don't even have enough to eat," he told AFP. But things could be looking up for this small corner of the Aegean Sea. Last month, the Greek government banned bottom trawling in the waters around the archipelago, to protect a recent discovery of exceptionally rich coral reefs. Greece is also outlawing bottom trawling in national marine parks by 2026 and in all protected marine areas by 2030, the first country in Europe to take such a step. Fishing is generally allowed in protected marine areas worldwide, often even by trawlers, which scrape the seabed with a huge funnel-shaped net. "Finally!" Mytikas exclaimed when told of the ban. "They've ravaged the sea. They plough the seabed and destroy everything." At the island port, his colleague Vaggelis Markakis, 58, compared trawlers to "bulldozers". "If we stop them from coming here, our sea will come back to life," Mytikas said. "The sea will be filled with fish again." Research conducted in this archipelago by the conservation groups Under the Pole, which organises diving expeditions in extreme environments, and Archipelagos, in collaboration with European scientific institutions, has highlighted the existence of major underwater animal populations. At depths between 60 and 150 meters (around 200 to 500 feet), scientists have documented over 300 species living on the seabed under minimal light. 'Underwater forests' "What we discovered is beyond imagination -- vast coral reefs dating back thousands of years, still intact," gushed Anastasia Miliou, scientific director of Archipelagos. The sea floor-dwelling species discovered include vibrantly red gorgonians (Paramuricea clavata) and black corals (Antipathella subpinnata). "When these organisms occur at high densities, they form true underwater forests," said Lorenzo Bramanti, a researcher at the CNRS Laboratory of Ecogeochemistry of Benthic Environments. But these habitats are extremely sensitive. "A single trawl pass is enough to raze them," warned Stelios Katsanevakis, professor of oceanography at the University of the Aegean. And the damage can be potentially irreversible, added Bramanti. "Once destroyed, these forests may take decades or even centuries to recover," said the marine scientist, who has worked on corals in the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Pacific. "No one doubts that cutting down a forest is an ecological disaster. The same is true for animal forests," Bramanti said. Setting an example By banning bottom trawling around Fournoi, Bramanti hopes Greece will set an example for other Mediterranean countries, he said. "We must act quickly, because these are among the last ecosystems still untouched by climate change," given that they are located at depths greater than 70 meters, he said. "And we risk losing them before we even truly understand them." But the measure has left industrial fishing professionals fuming. There are around 220 bottom trawlers in Greece, and sector representatives complain restrictions on their activity are excessive. "We were not invited to any kind of discussion on this matter," said Kostas Daoultzis, head of the trawler cooperative at the northern port of Nea Michaniona, one of the country's main fish markets. Daoultzis said the decisions were "based on reports from volunteer organisations... lacking scientific backing". He said trawlers already avoid coral areas, which can damage their equipment. Fournoi fishermen counter that trawlers do fish in their waters, but turn off their tracking systems to avoid detection. Under pressure globally, trawling is likely to be on the agenda at a United Nations Ocean Conference next week in the French city of Nice. Daoultzis said he fears for the survival of his profession. "Our fishing spaces keep shrinking. Our activity is under threat, and consumers will suffer -- fish prices will skyrocket," he warned.
Euronews
28-05-2025
- Euronews
How shipping in the EU is driving the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice
Black carbon emissions from European shipping in the Arctic have been significantly underestimated, a new study suggests. Produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels in ship engines, black carbon is contributing to the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice. Previous reports have only focused on vessels flying EU flags, overlooking the impact of ships travelling to and from EU ports. 'Our findings show that ships connected to EU trade, regardless of their flag, are major drivers of black carbon pollution in the Arctic,' says Liudmila Osipova, senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), and lead author of its new study. 'Recognising these emissions in future policies could help the EU better align its climate goals with its real footprint in the Arctic.' As Arctic shipping activity increases, so too are the associated black carbon (BC) emissions. Between 2015 and 2021, BC emissions in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s definition of the Arctic nearly doubled, according to the study. In the more broadly defined Geographic Arctic, shipping emitted 1.5 kilotonnes (kt) of BC and 12 kt of CO₂ in 2021. About a quarter of these emissions occurred within the IMO definition of the Arctic, indicating a strong growth in BC emissions in the polar area, from 193 tonnes in 2015 to 413 tonnes six years later. This growth trend is concerning, since one tonne of black carbon has a global warming effect equivalent to 900 tonnes of CO₂, as it absorbs more heat in the atmosphere. BC's impact is particularly pronounced in the Arctic. When the sooty particles settle on snow or ice, they reduce the albedo of these surfaces, meaning they reflect less light and so melt faster. This compounds the climate challenges in a region which is already heating up three to four times faster than the global average. Despite its potent climate and health impacts - it is linked to lung cancer, respiratory illness, and cardiopulmonary disease - BC remains one of the most unregulated short-lived climate and air pollutants. Brussels typically only accounts for the emissions from its EU-flagged ships in the Arctic. To give a truer picture of the pollution over which the bloc has control, ICCT has also totted up BC and CO₂ from EU-regulated ships, which answer to the EU Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system as they voyage between EU ports. These vessels are the bigger polluters, it found. BC and CO₂ emissions from EU-regulated ships of at least 5,000 gross tonnage were nearly double those from EU-flagged ships in the IMO Arctic in 2021. That year, nearly three-quarters of the ships operating in the Geographic Arctic and half of those in the IMO Arctic were navigating to or from EU ports. To address a significant gap in its maritime regulation, the researchers say that EU policymakers could include BC among the pollutants measured and reported within the bloc's MRV system. Beyond improved emissions tracking, there are various ways to reduce BC emissions, such as incentivising ships to use distillate instead of residual fuel, and encouraging the installation of diesel particulate filters on board.
France 24
27-05-2025
- France 24
Reversing the brain drain: Can Europe successfully woo scientists amid US research cuts?
European agencies and research institutions are trying to woo US scientists left in limbo with promises of grants and work visas. But the enormous lacuna US President Donald Trump 's drastic cuts to federal funding for academic research have created will not be easy to fill: the White House has so far proposed to cut the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget by roughly 40%, National Science Foundation's (NSF) by 55%, NASA by 24% and a whopping 74% cut to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Several universities have experienced lay offs and hiring freezes, while researchers and institutions have announced revoked grants and the deletion of vital scientific data. Dr. Silvi Rouskin immigrated to the US from Bulgaria when she was 15 years old to pursue a career in science. Motivated by the United States' open-minded approach to education, she stayed on and, with time and hard work, began collecting accolades and awards for her research into RNA, a molecule essential for biological functions in all living beings. Ultimately, she launched her own lab and began teaching at Harvard Medical School. The success didn't come easy. She says that 'to succeed at a top institution, you have to be highly competitive, and for many people – including myself – this requires great sacrifices'. But Rouskin's work has been forced to a grinding halt as the Trump-led US administration via DOGE announced sweeping and seemingly indiscriminate cuts to funding for all kinds of research, labelled by many as an outright attack on science. Three of her students lost awards, and one of Rouskin's own awards was abruptly and prematurely terminated. She also lost work with the Texas A&M university. 'I collaborate and co-publish with over 20 labs across the United States – including labs in Florida, Nebraska, California, and Texas," she says. "Now, due to government funding cuts, I cannot even afford to support my students. The work from all of these collaborations is at risk of being lost.' On top of that, the administration's recent attempts to block foreign students from Harvard have left her students in an even more precarious position. 'Members of my lab are extremely worried, and I am worried for them!' she says. Bright minds The US's dramatic cuts to funding, keyword based vetting on research papers and other anti-academic policies has stopped a vast amount of research in its tracks. The landscape is very different now compared to what Rouskin experienced when she was 15. The US previously dedicated billions of dollars every year to research, which is why it attracted so many bright minds. The science surge began during wartime, as a wave of largely European scientists – which included the likes of Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe and Edward Teller – fled their countries to work freely, away from political and bureaucratic shackles. From the second world war onward, the US has recognised the human value and geopolitical soft power of scientific research and steadily began to increase investment in universities and federal agencies. Science and the humanities began to flourish, infrastructure for research increased and attracted the best minds from around the globe. That funding has been the key to US's success in science and since 1950, 314 Nobel laureates won their awards while working in the US. About a third were foreign born. European researchers increasingly chose the US to conduct their research. But the sharp U-turn implemented by the Trump administration may allow Europe to partially recover from decades of brain-drain. Universities and research funders are trying to capitalise on America's current anti-science stance, and woo researchers stuck in a limbo. The European Research Council (ERC) says it will inflate grants for senior scientists. The Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Stockholm, has announced a 'task force ' to admit more talent. The Aix-Marseille University in France announced the €15 million 'Safe Space for Science' initiative to attract researchers from the US. And EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emannuel Macron launched the €500 million 'Choose Europe for Science' program me to make the bloc "a magnet for researchers". Can anyone fill the void? If the current policies aren't changed or revered in the coming years, Rouskin says she would consider moving somewhere else. And theoretically, the decline of US research could be a good thing for other countries. She says that 'as US science declines, it is possible that countries like China and those in Europe will benefit'. The French ARC Foundation for Cancer Research also announced a € 3.5 million grant for struggling researchers in the US. ARC's Vice President Dr. Eric Solary says that while attracting foreign talent is a part of the fund, European research is in itself underfunded. 'We could benefit from it (foreign researchers) in principle. But there is another aspect, which is that French researchers are already afraid of the decrease support of the French government to research. They are also cut. In the budget, 500 million of euros were said to be reduced this year in this year's research budget.' Ultimately, America's lost science funding will be near impossible to match. Take the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biomedical research leviathan with a roughly $47 billion annual budget. In 2022, the NIH spent just under 85 times more on biomedical grants than the European Commission. Researches funded by the NIH collaborated with other scientists worldwide and produced thousands of research papers that have in turn led to breakthroughs in medicine and drug discovery. These papers trickle down to other researchers, who build on the data to conduct their own work – and so on. Science does not exist in a silo, and Solary says the funding cuts to institutions like the NIH will have a ripple effect on global research that cannot be easily reversed. 'It will have an effect around the world because of the number of collaboration between European teams and American teams. We need the papers to circulate. We need the circulation of data and we need the analysis of that data. And as you know, there are threats to databases (…) and we don't know what the impact of that will be." Even if Europe or other leaders in research like Canada or China increase funding and create incentives for researchers to work, the loss of federal funds for scientific research in the US would be a net loss for the world. 'Defunding critically important research with the potential to improve human health and save lives will cause long-term damage on multiple fronts,' says Rouskin. 'These cuts threaten our collective health and well-being, disrupt the pipeline of discovery from academia to industry that leads to therapeutic innovation, and erode the United States' global leadership. That is what these cuts would accomplish if they are not halted or reversed.'
