I’d guess that most who read this also read EU Referendum so I don’t link to it very often, knowing that y’all already go there. However, this post really does need emphasising, on the way in which just about everything the EU proposes on environmental matters makes them worse. Talking about an industry where I have personal experience:

Without the EU, progress on the environment would have continued and
indeed so would trans-boundary agreements. One test, therefore, is
whether the EU provides "added value", i.e., either improvements over
and above those that would have been achieved anyway, in terms of
outcome, efficiency and/or cost.
Here, the record of the EU is
dire. One of the earlier examples is the "batteries directive"
91/157/EEC, aimed at promoting the recovery and recycling of lead-acid
batteries used in motor cars. Prior to that directive, in the UK we had
an excellent system which accounted for 95 percent of all batteries
disposed of, comprising a profitable business for a number of scrap
merchants. The EU scheme, however, imposed a costly, rigid bureaucracy
which destroyed the profitability of the collection system, as a result
of which costs to end users increased and the percentage of batteries
recovered fell to less than 60 percent.

Here in Portugal I have been offered regular pick-ups of free industrial batteries, tonnes a week each from a number of plants. The lead is worth $400 a tonne or so as scrap. The regulations on how one must extract that scrap and account for the paperwork mean that even when given to one free, there is no profit. Way to encourage recycling eh?