Environmental digest

Legislation

Durban talks promise more talks

The UN climate talks held in Durban, South Africa were widely seen as achieving a positive outcome, despite the lack of a comprehensive global agreement on climate change. While a legally-binding agreement was never on the cards, representatives agreed to work on “a roadmap”, with a view to concluding a wider deal by 2015. However green groups stressed there is no guarantee such a deal will ever be reached.

Specifically, delegates agreed to launch a “Platform for Enhanced Action” and will begin discussions next year to “develop a protocol”, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force by 2015. The Kyoto Protocol will remain in force in the meantime. Rich countries willing to take part in a second Kyoto commitment period from 2013 will submit details of their emissions targets to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by May 2012. These will be formally adopted at the next UN climate meeting in Qatar at the end of the year.

Whether what was decided will maintain the world on a path that keeps the global temperature increase below 2° Celsius remains unclear.¹ UN agencies attempted to put a positive spin, saying the week-long meeting had achieved “several key and important steps forward”. They warned, however, that the extended time horizon for concluding a follow-on to Kyoto “left the world with some serious and urgent challenges”.

A report entitled Bridging the Emissions Gap, released in the run-up to the conference, says the best available science indicates that greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2020. It also underlines that annual global emissions need to be around 44 Gt of CO₂ equivalent by around that date in order to have a running chance of achieving a trajectory that halves emissions by 2050 below 2005 levels. Bridging the divide is economically and technologically do-able if nations raise their emission reduction ambitions and adopt more stringent low-carbon policies across countries and sectors, the report says.

The meeting allowed the EU to re-establish its leadership on climate, after what was widely regarded as a disappointing performance at the Copenhagen summit in 2009.² Europe's negotiators had made commitments from major emitters towards a further deal by 2015 a key condition. In return, the EU has agreed to commit to new binding emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol, which will remain in place during the negotiation phase. The May deadline may revive the debate over whether the EU should adopt a 30% - rather than a 20% - emissions reduction target for 2020.

The fate of surplus credits (known as AAUs) from Kyoto's first commitment period will also be resolved this year. CDM Watch, an NGO, calculates that this ‘loophole’ could single-handedly cancel nearly three-quarters of the emissions reduction pledges made by industrialised countries. Closing the loophole was one of the EU's pre-conditions for signing up to a second Kyoto period. Other actions agreed on financing, technology and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) will move these schemes to implementation.

Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director, said the Durban outcomes provided: “a clear signal and predictability to economic planners, businesses and investors about the future of low-carbon economies”, adding that the meeting had “kept the door open for the world to respond to climate change based on science and common sense rather than political expediency”.

But NGOs said the lack of ambition on near-term mitigation meant the meeting had failed. “The deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020’ leaving almost no room for [deeper] carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak”, commented Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International. Scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research stressed that current CO₂ reduction pledges set the world on a pathway to more than three degrees of warming, with potentially serious consequences (see also separate item below).

Durban Climate Conference: http://unfccc.int/2860.php; UNEP: http://www.unep.org; European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2011121101_en.htm; Greenpeace: http://www.greenpeace.org

Agency heralds ‘historic’ air standards

Policymakers and NGOs have welcomed a landmark move aimed at radically reducing power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will slash emissions of these dangerous pollutants by relying on widely available, proven pollution controls that are already in use at more than half of the US's coal-fired power plants. These are the first national standards in this area and come more than 20 years after initial attempts to control such emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

The EPA estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11 000 premature deaths and 4 700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also bring benefits for children's health – preventing 130 000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6 300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis each year.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called the standards “a major victory for clean air and public health” and welcomed the focus on cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses. Albert Rizzo, of the American Lung Association said he expected “all oil and coal-fired power plants to act now to protect all Americans, especially our children, from the health risks imposed by these dangerous air pollutants.”

Power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, cyanide, and a range of other dangerous pollutants, and are responsible for half of the mercury and over 75% of the acid gas emissions in the US. The EPA says more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy pollution control technologies that will help them meet the standards. The remainder have three years to comply, but permitting authorities are being encouraged to extend this to a fourth year where necessary.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/mats/

Europe lines up emission ceilings

European nations are likely to adopt new national air emission ceilings later this year following what were labelled constructive talks.

Parties to the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), including the EU's 27 Member States and eastern European nations, met in Geneva to discuss revisions to the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol on air pollution. On the agenda were new national emission caps and limit values for pollutants from stationary sources. Although no agreement was reached on any of these issues, the secretariat believes a deal could be struck at an extraordinary meeting in May which will focus solely on revision of the protocol.

New stricter limit values for pollutants, including NO_x and SO₂, will be set in annexes to the protocol and based on the latest best available techniques. Measures are likely to include extending the Protocol to cover emissions of fine particulates (PM2.5), which will include black carbon. Implementation is a sticking point, with Russia and Ukraine, which have not yet signed the Protocol, wanting greater flexibility in this area.

No precise figures regarding the national ceilings have yet been discussed; those on the table refer to 2020 and beyond. The European Commission has made tentative proposals for new emission ceilings and is planning to revise its own legislation in 2013.³ A new National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) will set national caps for 2020 in line with those agreed by Member States under the revised Gothenburg Protocol. Europe's air emissions have fallen in recent years due to the economic crisis.⁴ However, compliance with 2010 ceilings for NO_x remains a problem, with ten EU states predicted to miss them.⁵

UNECE: http://www.unece.org

WEEE talks go to the wire

In a case of the eleventh hour diplomacy that is commonplace in Brussels, negotiators for the Member States and the European Parliament have reached agreement on a new directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The talks were the fourth and final attempt for the parties to reach a deal and the agreement was reached two days before the Christmas recess. A failure at the meeting would have triggered conciliation talks and further delayed entry into force of the revised law.

One of the main elements of the deal is a change in the way the collection target is calculated, a factor that had been a major sticking point in the negotiations. The existing method will be retained until four years after the law's entry into force, which may be around 2012/13. Member States would then have to meet an interim collection target of 45% of WEEE placed on the market, based on the same method. The European Commission's proposed 65% target would apply seven years after entry into force, in around 2020. Alternatively, governments will be able to choose a target based on a calculation method proposed by the European Parliament. This target, which will also apply seven years after entry into force, is to collect 85% of WEEE generated each year.

Other important aspects of the deal include an agreement to open the scope of the law after six years. MEPs initially said all electronic products should be covered straightaway. The directive currently only applies to a specific list of products. All equipment that meets a definition outlined in the law will eventually be covered, except for a list of specific products. Industry had raised concern over opening the scope.

The new directive also requires large electronic and electrical goods shops to set up collection points for used small equipment. This requirement was one of the Parliament's key demands, but ministers were initially opposed to it.

In a separate move, the Commission has announced that end-of-waste criteria for copper, paper and glass are due to be adopted by a regulatory committee on 4 May. These criteria specify when a material ceases to be waste and can be reused as scrap or a product.

Polish EU Presidency: http://pl2011.eu/en

Environmental quality

Striving for sustainable ecosystems

From the most barren deserts to the most remote glaciers, more must be done to ensure the sustainable development of fragile ecosystems. This is the message of two recent reports from UNEP prepared in the run-up to the Rio + 20 meeting later this year.

On deserts, UNEP notes that natural desert ecosystems are valuable and must be conserved, but man-made deserts must be avoided. Yet, every minute, 23 hectares of land are degraded through drought and desertification, eating into the economic, social and environmental pillars of our sustainable development. With the world population now over 7 billion, every inch of the fertile soil available will matter much more than ever before. The authors call for a new initiative to identify the economics of land degradation as an essential step in providing data to world leaders to ensure this becomes a policy priority.

Addressing a meeting in Algeria, Luc Gnacadja, Executive Secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) called for much greater investment in preventing land degradation. “For peace and security to be assured in the future, we must aim to maintain a real balance between the amount of land that is degraded every year, and the degraded land that is recovered. Today, over 2 billion hectares of degraded land offers potential for rehabilitation, yet there is little investment towards its restoration.”

Mr Gnacadja stressed the need to drive action on the ground. “Then, success stories that offer hope, such as the re-greening initiatives and evergreen agriculture practiced in West Africa, the holistic rangeland management in East and Southern Africa, and the Great Green Wall Initiative of the Sahara and Sahel can be scaled up and scaled out,” he added.

At the opposite end of the temperature scale, the UNEP agency finds that glaciers in the world's four biggest mountain ranges (Andes, Himalayas, Alps and Rockies) are melting at unprecedented rates. Delegates at the World Mountain Forum held in Verbier, Switzerland in December, heard that mountain ecosystems have a special role in the transition to a low carbon, resource-efficient green economy because of their importance to poverty eradication, environmental sustainability and economic growth. They called for new forms of collaboration between governments, the private sector and local communities to meet this challenge and to promote the sustainable development of mountain ecosystems.

UNEP: http://www.unep.org; UNCCD: http://www.unccd.int

Europe struggles with sewage treatment

Compliance with EU rules on sewage treatment is still patchy, even in older Member States, according to recent figures from the European Commission. The findings emerged from a recent report on implementation of the 1991 urban wastewater treatment directive.

The EU-15 were supposed to be fully compliant with the directive by 2005, but in 2007 and 2008 – the period covered by the report – several countries had complied with fewer than half the measures. Only Austria, Denmark and Germany have met all implementation deadlines, the report notes. The UK is not included as it failed to submit the information. Some of the failures have since been addressed as the Commission has made the directive a focus for enforcement.

Among the EU-15 states that submitted information, the percentage of population centres covered by collection systems has fallen slightly, but volumes going through secondary treatment systems have risen. Newer states were given additional time to meet the law's requirements, with some expected to comply by 2008. The report finds an increasing level of compliance with rules on collection systems and better results from secondary sewage treatment systems.

It can be expensive to connect houses to sewers in relatively rural areas, the Commission notes, and this may not always be necessary to ensure compliance. Governments are recommended to look at more cost-effective solutions instead.

Meanwhile, the Commission is consulting stakeholders on a series of freshwater policies as part of a ‘fitness check’ that will help contribute to its water protection blueprint due late this year. Stakeholders are being asked to comment on the effectiveness of the urban wastewater directive, the water framework directive (WFD) and four related laws on priority substances, groundwater, nitrates and floods. The Commission is also seeking to identify gaps in the existing policy framework and barriers to the implementation of these laws. The consultation runs until the end of February.

European Commission: urban wastewater, http://europa.eu/rapid/(reference: IP/11/1531); water consultation, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/freswater.htm

Gulf Task Force unveils action plan

Concrete measures to restore the ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico are promised following publication of an action plan in response to the 2010 oil spill. The strategy, by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, addresses the long-term ecosystem restoration for the region. The Task Force was set up by Presidential order and brought together a wide range of federal, state and community organisations.

Under this restoration blueprint for the Gulf, all parties will continue to work together to address the decades-long decline in the Gulf's ecosystem. The strategy now moves to its implementation phase. New initiatives include $50 million in assistance from the US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service to help agricultural producers in seven Gulf Coast river basins improve water quality, increase water conservation and enhance wildlife habitat.

Among the key priorities of the strategy are: stopping the loss of critical wetlands, sand barriers and beaches; reducing the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf; and enhancing resiliency among coastal communities. USDA's multi-year environmental restoration effort, known as the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, or GoMI, represents a 1,100% increase in financial assistance for Gulf priority watersheds.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson welcomed the report, which she said “moved from planning and researching to supporting real, homegrown actions aimed at restoring this vital ecosystem”.

Several studies into the long-term health impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster are on-going.⁶

Gulf Task Force: http://www.epa.gov/gulfcoasttaskforce

Chemical hazards

EU washes away phosphate detergents

The EU is to impose an almost total ban on the use of phosphates in domestic laundry detergents from June 2013. Similar restrictions for domestic dishwasher detergents will apply from January 2017 following a vote in the European Parliament. The Council of Ministers has yet to give its formal backing to the proposed law but is sympathetic.

The deal adopted by MEPs limits the amount of phosphorous in domestic laundry detergents to 0.5 grams per standard dose. The European Commission had initially proposed a limit of 0.5% by weight.⁷ The limit for domestic dishwasher detergents is set at 0.3 grams, which means they will be almost phosphate-free by 2017. The Parliament initially wanted the limit for dishwashers to apply from 2015.⁸

The rules, which revise a 2004 regulation, also state that alternatives to phosphate and other phosphorous compounds will have to be evaluated under the REACH chemicals regime to make sure they pose lower risks to the environment and health.

Phosphorus restrictions are already in place in some EU states, mostly for laundry detergents. But there are great disparities in the levels set across Europe. The new rules will provide a level playing field for detergent companies, as well as help regions such as the Baltic and Danube which are badly affected by eutrophication. Savings are also likely since phosphorus treatment at wastewater plants is costly.

European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu

REACH list extended

Scientific experts from across the EU have agreed to add another 20 substances to the REACH candidate list. The move follows a consultation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) last autumn.

The additions include the first substance nominated for its endocrine disrupting properties, 4-tert-octylphenol. The ECHA Committee, made up of national experts, paid attention to this substance, which is used in the manufacture of paints, adhesives and tyres. Germany had nominated octylphenol in order to clarify that it meets the “equivalent concern” criteria used to justify the addition of endocrine disruptors to the list. Green groups had criticised the lack of action on EDCs.⁹

Substances on the candidate list are subject to extra rules on information disclosure. They may also be added to the list of substances requiring prior authorisation in future, known as the “Annex 14” list. The new additions bring the number of substances on REACH's candidate list to 73 – still some way from the European Commission's target of 136 by the end of 2012. Member States are due to propose further additions later this year.

ECHA has also recommended 13 substances be added to the Annex 14 list following a consultation last summer.¹⁰ The substances affected fall into three groups: chromates used as intermediates, in surface treatments for metals and in catalysts; trichloroethylene, a solvent widely used in industry; and a number of cobalt compounds. These additions still have to be approved by the expert committee.

A survey of companies that registered substances under REACH in 2010 shows 40% used consultants and about one quarter were unhappy with the helpdesk services provided by Member States and ECHA. The survey, which had 900 responses, showed that the main reason for companies using consultants was because they did not have the right skills in-house or wanted to cut administration. Registrants for the 2013 deadline are recommended to nominate lead registrants for each substance as early as possible and to ensure staff are properly trained.

Meanwhile, the Czech and Slovak governments have complained that REACH is putting EU firms at a disadvantage and counters efforts to cut red-tape. In a paper presented to industry ministers in Brussels, they say REACH was adopted during very different economic circumstances and that the registration process is now proving too much of a burden for the chemicals industry. A major review of REACH is currently underway and is due to be completed by the end of the year.

ECHA: authorisation list, http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/authorisation_process/candidate_list_table_en.asp; survey, http://echa.europa.eu/doc/report_survey_of_successful_registrants_en.pdf

Toxics data show upward trend

Release and disposal of toxic chemicals in the United States increased by 16% in 2010 over the previous year, the latest EPA figures show. This is the headline figure in the annual national analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), detailing toxic chemical disposal and other releases into the air, land and water, as well as information on waste management and pollution prevention activities.

The 2010 TRI data show that US facilities released 3.93 billion pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment nationwide. The EPA says the increase is mainly due to changes in the metal mining sector, which typically involves large facilities handling large volumes of material. Even a small change in the chemical composition of the ore being mined may lead to big changes in the amount of toxic chemicals reported nationally. Several other sectors also reported increases in toxic releases in 2010, including the chemical and primary metals industries.

Total air releases were down 6% since 2009, continuing a trend seen over the past several years. Releases into surface water increased 9% and releases into land increased 28% since 2009, again due primarily to the metal mining sector.

This latest report includes new information on facility efforts to reduce pollution and by considering whether economic factors could have affected the TRI data. A mobile application and Spanish translations have also been added. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said TRI was “a cornerstone of EPA's community-right-to-know” and that the Agency would “continue to put accessible, meaningful information in the hands of the American people.”

As a further example of the latter, the Agency is also making available to the public hundreds of studies on chemicals that had been treated as confidential business information (CBI). The move announced previously¹¹ is part of Jackson's plan to open access to information not entitled to CBI status. To date, more than 35 companies have agreed to review previously submitted filings containing health and safety studies. Newly available information can be found using the EPA's Chemical Data Access Tool.

The EPA, with other federal agencies, has also began the high-speed robotic screening of 10 000 chemicals under the Tox21 program announced last year.¹² The compounds cover a wide variety of classifications, and include consumer products, food additives, chemicals found in industrial processes, and human and veterinary drugs.

EPA: TRI, http://www.epa.gov/tri; CBI, http://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/; Tox21: http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/

Food watchdog responds to conflict of interest claim

Experts working for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have again been criticised over their alleged links with industry. Environmental group PAN Europe said most members of EFSA's influential working group on Thresholds of Toxicological Concern (TTC), used in chemical safety assessments, have ties to industry or related lobby groups.

The claim came just days after EFSA's Management Board adopted a new policy on independence and scientific decision-making following earlier criticisms made last April.¹³ PAN Europe believes this policy is an improvement because it is based on the OECD's conflict of interest guidelines. In August, the NGO criticised EFSA for proposing a single exposure threshold for two groups of pesticides, saying the proposed TTC poses a serious risk. It wants the TTC working group to be suspended until it is free from industry interference.

EFSA adopted its new policy after the EU's ombudsman urged it to strengthen its own rules on potential conflicts of interest in ‘revolving door’ cases. The Authority says a certain level of overlap with industry is inevitable given the nature of its work.

PAN Europe: http://www.pan-europe.info; EFSA: http://www.efsa.europa.eu

MEPs favour strict controls on chemical exports

The European Parliament's Environment Committee is urging strict controls to be maintained on the export of toxic chemicals outside the EU as part of a revision of the prior informed consent (PIC) regime for traded substances such as pesticides.

In a recent vote, the Committee backed almost unanimously the recommendations of MEP Dan Jørgensen. These significantly strengthen the European Commission's proposal, which is intended to relax PIC rules by allowing more exports when no formal prior consent has been given by the destination country.

Under existing rules, chemicals can be exported without prior consent if they have been licensed, registered or authorised in the receiving country. The Commission says exports should still be allowed if this criterion is not fulfilled provided two conditions are met. MEPs added a further condition: chemicals that are either banned or restricted in the EU should not be exported without formal prior consent.

The full Parliament will vote on the measure in March, after which agreement has to be reached with the Council of Ministers, which has yet to formulate its own position.

European Parliament: http://www.europarl.eu

China embraces HCFC alternatives

In a sign of its increasing sensitivity to environmental issues, China is investing US$270 million to cut consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) by January 2015. The move will help China comply with the Montreal Protocol, which requires all countries to gradually reduce and eventually phase-out their production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS), including HCFCs.

The HCFC Phase-out Management Plan (HPMP), launched by China's Ministry of Environmental Protection, targets chemical production, foam, industrial and commercial refrigeration, air conditioners, refrigeration servicing and solvent sectors, and will involve tens of thousands of enterprises and millions of workers. The scheme has the backing of government ministries, industrial associations, research institutes and universities as well as over 100 large companies. In the past three years, HCFC production in China has been increasing at 11% annually.

“China is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of HCFCs in the world: more than 70% of global HCFC production, and 50% of total consumption of developing countries”, said Mr Lijun Zhang, Vice Minister of Environmental Protection. “Therefore, the phaseout of HCFCs in China will play an essential role for the successful implementation of the Montreal Protocol. In addition, it will positively affect the mitigation of global climate change.” He called on industry to comply with the HPMP's target, and urged the local Environmental Protection Bureau (EPBs) to strengthen their capacity to enforce the control measures.

Elsewhere, the US EPA has added three hydrocarbons as acceptable alternatives in household and small commercial refrigerators and freezers under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The move follows requests from industry. The three hydrocarbon refrigerants approved as acceptable substitutes, with use conditions, are propane, isobutane, and a chemical known as R-441A. These newly-approved refrigerants can be used to replace ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 in both domestic and commercial applications.

Recent international talks aimed at a phase out of HFCs – which are themselves HCFC replacements – ended in deadlock.¹⁴ Scientists have highlighted action on HFCs as critical to combating climate change.¹⁵

UNEP: http://www.unep.org; EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

Public & occupational health

Greens heap pressure on BPA

The controversial chemical bisphenol-A is again in the spotlight after environmental groups in Europe raised fresh concerns over its use in both food packaging and water pipes.

French NGO Réseau Environnement Santé (RES) accused the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of stubbornness after it stood by its scientific advice on BPA despite a recent French claim that the chemical can pose health risks, even at low levels.¹⁶ EFSA said the report, by French food safety agency ANSES, focused on hazard identification which is only the first of four stages in the risk assessment process. EFSA's own assessment, on which its latest advice is based, is a lot more comprehensive, the Authority said in a statement. But André Cicolella of RES said the European agency was clinging to an old toxicology model in which “only the dose makes the poison”. There is a clear conflict of interest within EFSA's expert committee on food contact materials, he added.

Meanwhile, Swedish NGO ChemSec is calling for EU-wide rules to prevent what it claims are potentially dangerous levels of BPA leaching from water pipes. The substance is found in the epoxy resins used to reline old pipes. There is evidence to suggest BPA and related substances may leach at higher rates than expected if the resins do not harden properly or the water passing through the pipes is hot, ChemSec says. It wants a BPA ban for materials that come into contact with drinking water and systematic screening of the substances used in water pipes. Last year, WWF France raised concerns about the combined effects of BPA and other substances found in tap water.¹⁷ The EU has banned BPA from baby bottles.

EFSA: http://www.efsa.europa.eu; RES: http://reseau-environnement-sante.fr; ChemSec: http://www.chemsec.org

EU nano is ‘a lawyers' paradise’

UK experts have criticised the EU definition of nanomaterials adopted last October as vague and unworkable. One member of the UK government's Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (ACHS) said the definition was a “lawyers' paradise” that will be difficult for regulators to work with.

The definition, which has already been criticised by NGOs and industry, has no legal force but will be integrated into other EU legislation.¹⁸ It defines nanomaterials as materials for which at least half the particles are between one and 100 nanometres in size.

ACHS members said they could not see where the 50% threshold had come from, adding that it did not seem to have a scientific basis. They say an exception to the 50% rule is “too vague” and that a derogation on the lower 1 nm threshold covers only certain materials.

ACHS Chair Stephen Holgate said the Committee was “very exercised” by the definition. He was disappointed that it centred exclusively on size and not functionality, when altered function at the nano-scale was the whole reason for interest in the technology.

ACHS Committee: http://www.defra.gov.uk/achs/

Research activities

Europe invests in eco-innovation

The European Commission has promised a step-change in Europe's approach to eco-innovation under a long-awaited action plan to stimulate green growth. Proposed actions comprise a mixture of regulation, funding, demonstration projects, and product verification and standards.

The Eco-Innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP) replaces the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, launched in 2004,¹⁹ and was promised as part of the 2010 Innovation Union strategy, intended to boost growth and jobs.²⁰ The updated plan is broader than its predecessor, embracing any technology that can help meet the EU's environmental objectives. It includes a variety of measures to overcome the barriers preventing the development and spread of eco-technologies, particularly among small businesses.

On regulation, the Commission will screen existing environmental legislation to make sure there is “a coherent legislative framework for eco-innovation”, and ensure new legislation and infrastructure standards help encourage it. Greater use of ecodesign measures in waste law and minimum waste treatment standards are also foreseen.

To address poor market penetration of green technologies, the Commission will support a series of demonstration projects funded under the final round of the EU's seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7). Subsequent funding will be provided through the follow-on Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The types of sector that might be considered for support include soil remediation, demolition waste treatment, urban mining and pesticide use.

In the area of finance, the Commission will establish a network of investors and expand the assistance available to SMEs. From 2014, funding for eco-innovation will also be provided through the EU's regional programmes and two new EU-wide financial instruments will be launched to encourage private sector investment.

Additional measures are promised in relation to future skills needs and shortages, standards, and verification of environmental technology.

In a separate announcement, the Commission indicated that it expects around one-third of EU research and innovation funding to be spent on climate-related projects between 2014 and 2020. The budget proposal for the Horizon 2020 programme allocates more than €25bn to be spent in this area out of a total budget of €80bn. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the move showed “Europe's determination to stay on the frontline of the fight against climate change”. In addition, around €13.8bn would be allocated to the development of key enabling technologies such as nanotechnology, advanced materials and biotechnologies. Industrialists have complained that Europe is not putting enough emphasis on market uptake of biotech.²¹

Also, the Commission has announced a new type of project to support implementation of environmental laws under LIFE+, the environmental funding programme under the 2014–20 budget. The new Integrated Projects will focus on implementation at a regional or national level. Examples will include regional Natura 2000 networks, river basin management plans, cross-border flood prevention strategies and climate adaptation plans. LIFE+, announced last June, will have a total budget of €3.2bn, the majority of which will be allocated to the programme's environmental pillar.

European Commission: EcoAP, http://europa.eu/rapid/(reference: IP/11/1547); Horizon 2020: http://europa.eu/rapid/(reference: IP/11/1475); LIFE+: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2011121201_en.htm

Global emissions rebound to record levels

Following the dampening effect of the 2008–2009 global financial crisis (GFC), global carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion have reached a record high of 9.1 GtC in 2010. When including emissions from land-use change, the total emissions reached 10.0 GtC.

In its annual analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) says that the impact of the crisis on emissions has been short-lived owing to strong emissions growth in emerging economies and a return to emissions growth in developed economies. Contributions to global emissions growth were largest from China, USA, India, Russian Federation, and the European Union. Emissions in 2010 were 49% above 1990 levels, the reference year for the Kyoto Protocol.

In 2010 emissions grew 0.51 GtC (5.9%) – similar to the total annual emissions in India and the Russian Federation – representing the highest annual growth recorded and the highest annual growth rate since 2003. For comparison, emissions have grown at an average 3.1% per year since 2000, three times the rate of the 1990s, a rate that is projected to be maintained in 2011. After accounting for the land and ocean carbon sinks, the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ grew 2.4 parts per million (ppm) to reach 389.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2010, the highest level recorded in at least the last 800 000 years.

“In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, it is as if the 2008–2009 global financial crisis did not happen”, said Glen Peters, GCP's lead author for the study. “Many saw the crisis as an opportunity to move the global economy away from persistent and high emissions growth, but the return to emissions growth in 2010 suggests the opportunity was not exploited”.

Meanwhile, research on global sea surface temperature is providing new insights into understanding past natural climate changes as well as potential future changes. The scientists studied the sensitivity of global temperature to changes in the Earth's radiation balance (climate sensitivity) over the last half million years.

Researchers from the Universities of Southampton and Bristol reconstructed climate sensitivity over five ice-age cycles based on a global suite of records of sea surface and polar temperature change. They compared these to a new reconstruction of changes in the Earth's radiation balance caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, in surface reflectivity, and in insolation due to slow changes in the Earth–Sun orbital configuration. Their results infer that Earth's climate sensitivity over the last half million years most likely amounted to a 3.1 to 3.9 °C temperature increase for the radiative equivalent of a modern doubling of atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations (with a total range of 1.7 to 5.7 °C).

“Because our climate sensitivity values are based on real-world data from a substantial interval of time in the recent geological past, our results provide strong observational support to the climate sensitivities used in IPCC-class climate models”, explained lead researcher Eelco Rohling, of University of Southampton. “If anything, our results suggest slightly stronger sensitivity”, he added.

Global Carbon Project: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org; Sea surface study is published in the Journal of Climate, http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/clim

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 3313.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 391.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2011, 13, 2353.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2011, 13, 2679; M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2012, 14, 17.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2011, 13, 2084.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 784; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2358.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 14.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1527.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 3317.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2087.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 782; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2086.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1127; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2681.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1529.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2011, 13, 2680.
15. M. Sharpe, J. Environ., Monit., 2012, 14, 17.
16. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 3317.
17. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1864.
18. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 3318.
19. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1649.
20. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2197; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 493.
21. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 3320.

---