On Friday I gave a talk to the Public Affairs Council. I was asked how far in advance I could tell if a legislative or regulatory proposal would come. I answered ’10 years out’.
Maybe this sounds like an incredulous mystic, so I thought it would be useful to test out this ‘gut feeling’.
This gut feeling is that there are sure tell tail signs that legislation or regulation is in the pipeline.
When you know what to look for, you can identify the signals from the background white noise, and act accordingly.
My rule of thumb is you can tell around 10 years out.
To test my gut feeling, I looked back at the development of PM 2.5 legislation in Europe. I have skin in the game here. I worked on the adoption of air quality legislation regulating particulate matter in 1997.
Back in 1997, the European Parliament did introduce limits on small Particulate Matter. Then, long term exposure to PM 2.5 only ’suggested that long term exposure to PM is associated with reduced life expectancy and with chronic effects on lung function’ (Commission proposal, 1997, p.26) (link). Today, it is clear.
Some Key Dates
1979: Emerging scientific studies in 1979 . e.g. Holland WW, Bennett AE, Cameron IR, Florey CDV, Leeder S R , Schilling RSF, et al. 1979. Health effects of particulate pollution: Reappraising the evidence. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1 10;525- 659
1993: An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities, Dockery, C. Arden Pope, (link)
1994: Dockery and Pope, Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution, 1994 (link). Indicates epidemiologic evidence of a relation between particulate air pollution and daily mortality and a causal effect on increases in daily mortality.
1995: Review Health Effects Institute, Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality: Replication and Validation of Selected Studies’, August 1995 (link). Vindicated Dockery and Pope studies, namely robust associations were reported between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality.
1996: Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management (link) 21 November 1996. No reference to PM 2.5.
19 97: Proposal for a Council Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (link) 8 October 1997. Requirement to measure PM 2.5.
1999: Council Directive 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (link) 29 June 1999. Requirement to measure PM 2.5.
2004: Clean Air Working Groups first meetings (link) 7 October 2004.
2004: Public Consultation on a new Directive, December 2004-January 2005.
2005: WHO Air Quality Guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide (link).
2005: Proposal for a Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (link) 21 September 2005. Article 15 – exposure reduction targets.
2008: Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (link) 11 June 2008. Article 15 – limit values on PM 2.5.
Observations
First in 1993 when Dockery and Pope published their findings, it was clear they had identified something important. They are respected experts.
Second when HEI – funded by both the EPA and Industry (car and oil) – subjected the above study to peer review from hell, it was, in hindsight, just a matter of time before measures would be taken. HEI are respected by regulators globally.
Third, European legislators were reluctant to act in 1997. The science was not clear enough. I know this because I worked for the Rapporteur.
Fourth, even as the causal link became clear, it took the Commission time to re-look at the issue again.
Fifth, more than a decade after the canary in the mine tweeted, the EU introduced legislation to address PM 2.5 directly.
My final observation is that most firms, trade associations, NGOs and Foundations do not have a ten-year time horizon to deal with issues. I think this is a mistake.
Some governments, a few officials in the Commission, and academics do and as they have the patience to keep with the issue, it’s governments, a few Commission officials, and universities who land up setting the agenda.