FRENCH CIVILISATION

SOMETHING IN THE AIR? ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN FRANCE

Dr Joseph Szarka, University of Bath, on 15 January 2001

Atmospheric pollution, a significant hazard to human health since the industrial revolution, cannot be remedied by treatment but only by prevention. Deaths from `smog' in London and in France in the 1950s led to the banning of emissions from factory and domestic chimneys, with France slower to act (1963-l973) than England, but with positive results: between 1980 and 1986 sulphur dioxide emissions fell by 60%. Nuclear generation of electricity helped to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, as air pollution from industrial sources fell, it increased from vehicles. EC initiatives (vehicle emission limits in the 1970s, and catalytic converters in 1989) reduced emissions but were largely negated by the rising number of vehicles on the roads. Health hazards from traffic fumes (asthma, etc.) multiplied. During high level alerts Prefects have powers to take exceptional actions in towns, such as restricting H.G.V.s and reducing speed limits.

How is the world responding to climate change? GHGs like carbon dioxide and methane are essential for life on earth: it is the acceleration of the GH effect which is causing problems. Fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. have probably caused a 30% increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 1750 and 1995. The increase in GHGs causes climate change alteration in seasons, higher temperatures, increased sea levels, modifications in crop regimes, and new patterns in the spread of tropical diseases. This change is irreversible. Climate change policy now is about `stabilisation' of emissions (not of GHGs in the atmosphere) at 1990 levels.

At the 1992 Rio World Conference, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was agreed. It was a compromise, placing climate change policy under the umbrella of sustainable development. Signatories had to stabilise their GHG emissions. This led to an annual series of negotiations to improve and implement climate change policy, referred to as the `Conference of the Parties'. At Kyoto in 1997, the Annex 1 countries agreed a total emissions cut of 5.2% in relation to the baseline year of 1990 for the period of 2008-2012; the EU agreed to an overall 8% cut, and the USA and China refused emissions cuts altogether (since these might curtail economic growth). At The Hague in November 2000 the EU pressed for adherence to the Kyoto commitments and an agreement on implementing them, but the `Umbrella' group of high polluter countries refused and demanded huge concessions, virtually negating all that was achieved at Kyoto. The USA also made an `emissions trading' arrangement with a group of low polluter countries to allow an increase in their own emissions, but promised to plant forests to act as `carbon sinks'. This last concession floundered on technicalities, bringing down the whole agreement. Contrary to what John Prescott claimed, the French Minister Dominique Voynet, who was in the chair, decided that her mandate from the EU was to get an agreement to introduce effective environmental measures, rather than to conclude a meaningless agreement under pressure from American industry. She therefore decided to postpone the negotiations until the next meeting at Bonn in May 2001.

Discussion after the talk showed a consensus on the need to act. It was pointed out, however, that in France, while obligatory measures might have an impact on industry, there are very few curbs on individuals because introducing authoritarian measures could backfire in the long run. This is because environmental issues have only recently emerged in France and have given rise to a lot of controversy.

Anne Whitmarsh