Mixed reactions to EU decision to sue Germany and other countries over air pollution
The conservative (CDU/CSU) the EU Commission should instead support German efforts to improve air quality. 鈥淭he lawsuit is the exact opposite of that,鈥� transport spokesperson Daniela Ludwig said. 鈥淭his is beyond my comprehension. The hardware retrofits demanded by the environment ministry are also a dead end, because they are an investment in the past.鈥�
Sustainable transport association the suit was 鈥渁n overdue reaction to a scandalously inactive鈥� government. 鈥淐hancellor Merkel and her transport ministers are still protecting the deceitful car industry. The suit at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) shows that soft deals with the car industry must end, and that citizens must be better protected.鈥�
NGO Environmental Action Germany (DUH), which set the ball rolling by taking local administrations to court over excessive pollution levels, the suit 鈥渃larified that people鈥檚 health is more important than increasing diesel companies鈥� profits.鈥� DUH head J眉rgen Resch said the lawsuit was a 鈥渟lap in the face for car chancellor Angela Merkel.鈥�
In a entitled 鈥淐ar industry first, citizens second鈥� for newspaper Die Zeit, Alexandra Endres writes that the EU Commission鈥檚 decision was welcome and overdue because Merkel had ignored poor air quality and emissions manipulation for years and opposed hardware retrofits, protecting the industry at the expense of citizens.
Michael Bauchm眉ller writes it is as logical as it is embarrassing that the government will be taken to the ECJ for its inaction.鈥�
In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Martin Gropp says the suit is another step towards diesel driving bans, even though it remains unclear that they would improve air quality, and would lead to increased CO2 emissions by boosting petrol engine sales.
For background, see the factsheet Diesel driving bans in Germany 鈥� The Q&A and the article Court ruling opens door for diesel bans in German cities.