2.9 Approaches to Pollution Control The dispute between the use of uniform emission standards and quality standards The dispute between Britain and the other Member States that began in the 1970s ( see Section 4.8) has usually and rightly been seen as concerned with the most practical and economic means to achieve an end on which all are agreed, but underlying it there are also differences in pollution theory. For those who believe that the purpose of pollution control is to prevent targets from being unduly put at risk, then the best points for controls are those nearest to the target. The reasons for exercising controls further back along the pathway are then practical: it simply may not be possible to exercise controls anywhere else. Viewed in this way emission standards are merely a means to achieving quality objectives/standards which in turn are set to protect identified targets, and these emission standards need be no more stringent than required to meet those quality objectives. The emission standards will therefore quite logically vary from place to place. For those who believe, following the precautionary principle, that man should emit the least possible quantity of pollutant, even if it is not known to be posing risks, then the point of emission is the logical point to set the controls and they should be as stringent as available technology permits: controls further down the pathway then serve only as checks that pollutants are not in fact reaching vulnerable targets, possibly from diffuse sources that are not controlled by emission standards. According to this view of pollution control there is no objection to uniformly fixed emission standards – although there may well be objections in economic theory since ‘as stringent as available technology permits’ begs a number of questions and uniform standards may not result in the best use of financial resources. These alternative views have not always been made explicit and have not always been held consistently even in one country. In Britain, air pollution control has if anything traditionally been founded in the second view, since before the introduction of integrated pollution control in 1991, there was a duty to use the best practicable means (bpm) to prevent the escape of ‘noxious or offensive gases’ whether damage was being done or not, and the emission standards that formed part of bpm were set nationally and applied with some consistency throughout the country ( see Section 6.1). In contrast, water pollution control in Britain became firmly founded on the first view with an emphasis on achieving defined quality objectives by setting emission standards locally ( see Section 4.1). Although differences in pollution theory are important, the dispute between Britain and the other Member States over water pollution has in practice been much more concerned with administrative convenience and economic competition, both of which need a word of explanation. | 
