When the polluter doesn't pay

01 May 2006

The European Commission's LIFE programme spends millions of European taxpayers' euros every year on laudable causes such as conserving eagles in Hungary and protecting forests in Scotland, writes Stephen Gardner.  However, the programme also has a less obviously green side: doling out large grants to some of Europe's biggest and most polluting companies in a vain attempt to persuade them to clean up their acts a bit. Airbus, for example, came to the Commission in 2004, rolled out some of Brussels' favourite buzzwords ('innovative', 'integrated', 'taking a life-cycle approach', etc.), and was promptly given £1.6 million to put in place an “environmental management system”. Airbus claimed this would “effectively support the forecast growth of various industrial sectors in the air transport industry,” whilst helping the company achieve ISO 14001 status in all of its plants across Europe by the end of 2006.  In other words it would help Airbus make bigger profits. Quite why the taxpayer should pay to boost Airbus's bottom line, whilst lending it a green tinge that will no doubt be seized on by the PR company, was not covered in the project proposal.  The EU has a 'polluter pays' principle.  It's even written down in a treaty.  But Airbus, with a bumper turnover of £15.3 billion in 2005, has friends in high places.  Why should the polluter pay when the taxpayer can do it instead? BAE Systems, meanwhile, currently negotiating to sell its share in Airbus, will be very pleased with the way things have turned out.  Its 20 percent share of the company will have only become more valuable thanks to the handout from the EU's environmental budget and subsequent ISO certification and new systems for recycling paperclips and turning the lights out when no-one is in the room. A version of this article originally appeared in Private Eye.

 

< Prev		Next >