The submission of enquiries to the Forum is closed from July 6th to August 31st 2017. We look forward to receiving your enquiry in September. If your enquiry is related to the right of access to documents as outlined in Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, please contact access.to.documents@eea.europa.eu or see access to documents. We apologise for any inconvenience
Please login or register to participate.
.
 
+

parncutt I am writing on behalf of a Graz NGO called Rettet die Mur (save the river Mur).

The City of Graz plans to fell about 10,000 (ten thousand) trees along the river Mur in October 2017 to enable construction of a disputed sewage/rainwater storage pipe. Further information:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en[…]rees_for_sustainable_energy

In the past decade, the European Union has repeatedly warned the City of Graz about particulate matter pollution levels. Graz is surrounded by hills so there is relatively little wind. Although some progress has been made, felling 10,000 trees near the city centre is likely to cause particulate pollution levels to increase.

Is it possible for the EEA or another European institution to intervene on this basis?

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jul 05, 2017 09:39 AM
+

RuiweiChen Hello, I have 3 questions concerning the report EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook - 2013, part 1.A.3.b.i - iv.
(1) For the cold-start quotient for calculating the cold-start emissions of road transport, in the table 3-46 on page 64, part 3.4.3.2, this coefficient is less than 1 for VOC if the temperature is higher than 24°C, or for PM if the temperature is higher than 22°C. In these cases, perhaps the cold emissions are less than the hot ones for theses two pollutants, but with the equation (10) in page 42 to calculate the corresponding cold emissions, the results would be negative. Would there be a different formula to calculate the cold emissions for these cases?
(2) Still for the cold emissions, the beta reduction factors are available for post-Euro 1 gasoline vehicles till Euro 4, in table 3-44 on page 63. Is there factors for post-Euro 5 vehicles? Same question for diesel light commercial vehicles of table 3-63, on page 74.
(3) For calculating the cold emissions for post-Euro 1 light commercial vehicles (gasoline or diesel), the part 3.4.3.8 (last paragraph) and 3.4.8.9 (page 73) indicate using the equation (32) on page 66, in which the hot emission is based on Euro-4 vehicles, while the parameter tables recommended are for Euro 2 -- Euro 4 vehicles (table 3-44 for gasoline light commercial vehicles, and table 3-63 for diesel ones). I am wandering if we could use the equation (29) on page 63 instead.
 
Thank you in advance for your kind answers.

Rating
0
Last discussed by RuiweiChen
Oct 30, 2016 02:29 PM
+

Wannes Fuel exhausts from Diesel are leading to health problems in urban environments. Even if new sales of ICE is banned in favour of e.g. electric cars, we still will deal with Diesel-generated pollution for at least 20 years.

Back in 2001, reducing sulphur was considered as the key to lower emissions by UNEP, where benefits far outweigh the costs. I was wondering if this is still the case. (
http://www.unep.org/[…]/publowsulfurpaper.pdf ).
In 2009, European Fuel Directive limited sulphur content to 10ppm to limit the health effects (mainly reducing NOx and particle matter). Germany and Sweden have gone further and their average sulphur content is approaching 0 ppm.

Sweden even has gone further than just reducing sulphur and has MK1 fuel on the market, which is better than EN590 fuel (see here for comparisons from 2012: http://slb.nu/slb/rapporter/pdf8/slb2012_008.pdf ) I was wondering whether there are plans to update the European Fuel directive towards such a more environmentally friendly fuel (and why not use MK1 as an example?)

While reducing environmental impact is important, I feel all good measures are embedded in a global economic model. As such, we also need to take into account economic profitability of European refineries and related jobs and tax revenues in a global context. I have the following questions: How high is the infrastructure investment cost to reduce sulphur? How much are the variable costs per liter? How much lower is the energy content after sulphur reduction (plus translation in monetary value)? (Same questions would apply to MK1)

As for the environmental benefits, are there numbers available on the effect of merely a sulphur reduction (and not combined with the other benefits of MK1)?

As I know lobbying will probably be strong on European level to achieve this, I would like to convince the Belgian government, who's looking to fix the current budget deficit, to adopt a tax on the sulphur content. I would like more ammunition for this. 1,5€ct per liter in Germany had already an impact it seems.

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Sep 29, 2016 05:13 PM
 
Loading