Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-15-Speech-1-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991115.4.1-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this legislation represents the final piece of legislation stemming from the Auto-Oil programme. Ladies and gentlemen, we collectively, the European Parliament, have made this legislation a success story. We, the European Parliament, can take credit for the fact that air quality in Europe will be significantly improved. We have succeeded in securing a 60% improvement in air quality in the future, specifically in cities. This did not fall like manna from heaven: we achieved it in the Conciliation Committee. Madam President, you were the Chairperson of the Conciliation Committee delegation. You led the delegation in which we won this from the Council. So we should not hesitate over the last component of the legislation, and we should opt for the Conciliation Committee route in this case as well, because the Council has obviously not dared to make that final leap and has been very cautious on a couple of points.
The Council has certainly incorporated some important points in its common position, such as the two-stage stipulation of binding limit values, stricter durability provisions for emission control devices in lorries and buses, an on-board diagnostics system, and roadside testing. But it has been quite cautious with regard to four particular points, which I think we need to put right.
The first point is that the Council has deferred the reduction in nitrogen oxides from 2005 to 2008, and has also introduced a second phase for the 2005 stage, so that we now have a gradual reduction. To my mind, this makes no economic sense at all, because we know that nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions are bound to follow the same curve, so that if we tackle one of these two pollutants, there is an automatic knock-on effect on the other. So it also makes no economic sense to have two different limit values within three years. Instead, we need to reduce NOx emissions in one fell swoop.
Some people say that there is only one technology that can achieve this. That is clearly wrong. There are several technologies for simultaneously reducing particulate emissions and NOx emissions to the level called for at first reading, either by using the ammonia process or else by using charge cooling combined with a regeneration filter. So there are various options, and these options are not just theoretical, they are at the prototype stage. That means that we do not need to worry about this not being technically feasible.
In addition, this would also be a waste of engineering effort, and would make economic nonsense. But we also need to take this step for ecological reasons, of course. Why? We are, for instance, talking about a target ozone limit value for 2010 which is 80% below the current value in the European Union. If we really want to achieve that, then it is specifically the NOx emissions from lorries and buses that we will also have to reduce. In the European Union we have 168 million cars and 23 million commercial vehicles and buses. These 23 million commercial vehicles emit as much as the 168 million cars, that is 50% of total NOx emissions. So we absolutely must do something about it!
The second point on which the Council has been rather cautious is re-equipping older vehicles. We know that lorries and buses have a long life and tend to clock up high mileages. So it is of the utmost importance to encourage re-equipping of such vehicles, so that older vehicles become cleaner as well.
Thirdly, the Council has been rather cautious about introducing enhanced environmentally friendly vehicles – an area where we have proposed several additions – and about strict controls to prevent cycle beating, as has already happened in the USA. This means that manufacturers can simply get round limit values by electronic manipulation. We need to add something here. Emissions legislation aimed at improving air quality has been a success story, and we have an opportunity to put the icing on the cake. Of course we also need to be highly ambitious with our proposals when we go into the conciliation procedure. We want to emerge with a good compromise, so we cannot take a compromise as our starting point. I therefore call on all of us to be courageous, to achieve a swift conciliation procedure and to work together to ensure that our success story – improving air quality in Europe – really is a success right to the end."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples