| Euro 7: A choice between economic strength or health? European leaders moved on Monday (25 September) to water down new car pollution standards, known as Euro 7, arguing that the economic impact of the rules, designed to protect human health by improving air quality, is too great for the car industry to bear. Given the indignation from carmakers over the extra expense involved in making the changes tabled by the Commission – costs that would be passed on to the consumer – the decision may seem sensible from a market perspective. Indeed, most of the countries in favour of a weaker text, notably the club of eight like-minded nations led by Czechia and including France and Italy, cited potential job losses and poorer international competitiveness in justifying their stance. The contrary argument, however, is that pollution from vehicles – such as fine particles (PM10, PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) – contributes to a range of health issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease. And even though we are transitioning to electric vehicles, petrol and diesel vehicles will remain on the roads for decades to come – even more so in poorer parts of the world. According to a study by the US non-profit group the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT), the failure to enact the Commission’s Euro 7 proposal from 1 July 2025 will lead to an extra 7,500 premature deaths in Europe (defined as deaths from causes other than old age). So, what is a premature death worth when measured against economic interests? This may seem like the realm of abstract philosophy, but with Euro 7 our elected officials are tasked with making such a calculation. Much of legislation is a delicate trade-off between what is in the best interests of the individual and the overarching demands of our society. Food production standards, road safety rules, air quality limits – legislation governing these issues is made in the knowledge that overly exacting standards would be too costly, too difficult, and ultimately too constraining. Rather, policymakers look to strike the balance between ensuring high standards while not unduly encumbering economic activity and everyday life. In these instances, the philosophical becomes something tangible: How many cases of food poisoning are acceptable? Or car accidents? Or respiratory deaths? When it came to watering down Euro 7’s pollution standards, the justification for doing so was framed in simple terms by ministers at Monday’s Council meeting. It was the “realistic” thing to do. It was “pragmatic” given Europe’s economic reliance on the automotive industry. It was a “sensible” decision. To disrupt the automotive industry would lead to a much worse outcome, with widespread job losses, it was insinuated. But to use such language – realism, pragmatism, sensibleness – covers what is quite a brutal reality: that Europe is willing to accept several thousand premature deaths so long as the bloc’s car sector remains strong in the face of global competition. It is, in essence, not “realistic” to expect people to be able to walk along a traffic-clogged urban street (Rue de la Loi in Brussels comes to mind) without inhaling pollutants. The discomfort of asthmatics and others with respiratory issues in traffic-heavy urban areas is in fact part and parcel of Europe’s “pragmatism”. And it is “sensible” to condemn thousands (according to the ICCT study) to an early grave in the name of Europe’s global market share and national GDP. Balancing the economic might of the continent, which has a massive impact on the well-being of individuals, with the need to tangibly protect health is not an easy feat. These are unquestionably difficult decisions to make. But our leaders must be clear in what they mean when easily justifying their stance as “realistic” and “pragmatic”. – Sean Goulding Carroll | 