Emission levels Denmark

It was only on June 27/28,1985 - after about two years of uncoordinated tug-of-war - that an agreement could be formulated by the EC Council of Environmental Ministers - with the exception of Denmark - on the basis of an EC Commission proposal specifying the exhaust emission levels and the introduction dates. 

Nielsen, T., A. Feilberg, M.-L. Binderup, and J. Tpnnesen, Impact of Regulations of Traffic Emissions on PAH Level in Air, Miljpprojekt No. 447, National Agency of Environmental Protection, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999b. 

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have been taxing carbon emissions since the 1990s. The results have varied with the tax collection methods. In Finland, Norway, and Sweden the carbon taxes had little impact on emissions, as industry just included them in its cost of operation while the governments treated these taxes as general revenue. In Denmark, the collected carbon taxes were invested in subsidizing the development of alternative energy technologies, and as a consequence the per capita emission by 2005 dropped below the 1990 level. 

Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) as well as the United States (USA). Other countries, such as Finland, have drafts or proposals for legislation. As a summary. Table 2 shows the size of plants covered by NOx emission standards for new combustion plants as well as for existing plants and Table 3 shows the level of standards applied in g NOx/m, at 5-7% O2. 

Table 2 shows that no emission reductions are required anywhere to reduce deposition on the southwest coast of Norway to 1.5 g S m a . To reduce the deposition to 1.0 g S m a , emission reductions are required in the German Democratic Republic, the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark and Poland, in order of national percentage of the total European cost of 3.8 billion DM per year. Substantial percentage emission reductions (from unabated 1995 levels) are required in the German Democratic Republic, Denmark, and Norway the last two because of their relative proximity to the receptor site, the first because of the relatively low marginal costs for sulfur emission control there. Note that emissions in Norway are not lowered to the minimum possible value but only by 45% after that point it is more cost-effective to reduce emissions elsewhere. 

---