NEC-direktiivist tulenev saasteaine heite riiklik summaarne piirkogus paiksest heiteallikast väljutatava saasteaine heitkoguse piiramise alusena
Laen...
Kuupäev
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus
Abstrakt
Kliimamuutuste kontekstis on laialt teada, et riigid peavad vähendama kasvuhoonegaaside heitkoguseid. Vähem teatakse aga seda, et ka õhusaaste puhul kehtivad sarnased põhimõtted. Nimelt on teatud saasteainetele kehtestatud riiklikud piirkogused, mille täitmise eest riigid vastutavad. Need kohustused tulenevad Euroopa Liidu ja rahvusvahelisest õigusest ning nende eesmärk on kaitsta nii inimeste tervist kui ka keskkonda. Neid saasteaineid paisatakse õhku väga erinevatest allikatest, näiteks tööstusest, energiasektorist, põllumajandusest ja transpordist. Seetõttu ei piisa üksikute allikate reguleerimisest – riik peab vaatama kogu pilti tervikuna. Selleks tuleb kujundada regulatsioon, mis tagab, et heide väheneb kõigi allikate peale kokku. Üheks oluliseks heiteallikate rühmaks on paiksed heiteallikad, nagu tehased ja suuremad tootmisüksused. Eestis kehtib nende suhtes reegel: kui uue tegevuse lubamine tooks kaasa riikliku koguheite piiri ületamise, tuleb keskkonnaloa andmisest keelduda. See aitab ühest küljest tagada seda, et riik täidab oma kohustusi, teisest küljest muudab süsteemi üsna jäigaks, sest ei võimalda alati arvesse võtta konkreetse juhtumi eripära. Alternatiivina on võimalik määrata paiksetele heiteallikatele eraldi kogupiir ning jagada lubatud heitkogus nende vahel ära. Selline lahendus aitab kindlamalt saavutada heite vähendamise eesmärke, kuid on samas keerukas, kuna nõuab piiratud ressursi õiglast ja tõhusat jaotamist nii riigi kui ka ettevõtjate jaoks. Kolmas võimalus on käsitleda riikliku heite kogupiiri ületamist keskkonnaohuna. See võimaldab paindlikumat lähenemist, kus iga juhtumit hinnatakse eraldi. Kuigi keskkonnaohtu tuleb üldjuhul vältida, võib teatud juhtudel sellist tegevust lubada, kui selleks on ülekaalukas avalik huvi, puudub mõistlik alternatiiv ning keskkonnamõju vähendamiseks on rakendatud vajalikud meetmed.
In the context of climate change, it is widely known that states are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What is less widely recognised, however, is that similar principles also apply to air pollution. Certain pollutants are subject to national emission ceilings, for which states are responsible. These obligations arise from European Union and international law, and their purpose is to protect both human health and the environment. These pollutants are released into the air from a wide range of sources, including industry, the energy sector, agriculture and transport. For this reason, it is not sufficient to regulate individual sources in isolation – the State must consider the overall picture. This requires a regulatory framework that ensures a reduction in emissions across all sources combined. One important category of emission sources is stationary sources, such as factories and large industrial installations. In Estonia, the following rule applies: if permitting a new activity would lead to the exceedance of the national total emission ceiling, the environmental permit must be refused. While this approach helps to ensure that the State complies with its obligations, it also makes the system rather rigid, as it does not always allow for consideration of the specific circumstances of individual cases. As an alternative, it is possible to establish a separate aggregate emission ceiling for stationary sources and allocate the permitted emissions among them. Such an approach can ensure more effectively that emission reduction targets are met. At the same time, it is complex to implement, as it requires the fair and efficient allocation of a limited resource between the State and operators. A third option is to treat the exceedance of national emission ceilings as an environmental threat. This allows for a more flexible approach, in which each case can be assessed individually. Although environmental threats should generally be avoided, in certain situations such activities may still be permitted where there is an overriding public interest, no reasonable alternative exists, and appropriate measures have been taken to reduce environmental harm.
In the context of climate change, it is widely known that states are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What is less widely recognised, however, is that similar principles also apply to air pollution. Certain pollutants are subject to national emission ceilings, for which states are responsible. These obligations arise from European Union and international law, and their purpose is to protect both human health and the environment. These pollutants are released into the air from a wide range of sources, including industry, the energy sector, agriculture and transport. For this reason, it is not sufficient to regulate individual sources in isolation – the State must consider the overall picture. This requires a regulatory framework that ensures a reduction in emissions across all sources combined. One important category of emission sources is stationary sources, such as factories and large industrial installations. In Estonia, the following rule applies: if permitting a new activity would lead to the exceedance of the national total emission ceiling, the environmental permit must be refused. While this approach helps to ensure that the State complies with its obligations, it also makes the system rather rigid, as it does not always allow for consideration of the specific circumstances of individual cases. As an alternative, it is possible to establish a separate aggregate emission ceiling for stationary sources and allocate the permitted emissions among them. Such an approach can ensure more effectively that emission reduction targets are met. At the same time, it is complex to implement, as it requires the fair and efficient allocation of a limited resource between the State and operators. A third option is to treat the exceedance of national emission ceilings as an environmental threat. This allows for a more flexible approach, in which each case can be assessed individually. Although environmental threats should generally be avoided, in certain situations such activities may still be permitted where there is an overriding public interest, no reasonable alternative exists, and appropriate measures have been taken to reduce environmental harm.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
doktoritööd