Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-15-Speech-1-050"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by vehicles2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991115.4.1-050"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-15-Speech-1-0512
lpv:speaker	lp:Per-Arne Arvidsson2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, when, in the autumn of 1998, the European Parliament made a decision to continue with the Auto-Oil Programme, the matter was timetabled to return to Parliament in good time to facilitate a Council decision during the spring of 1999. However, the German Government, which sat on the issue during its Presidency, clearly had other ideas. The matter was seriously delayed and did not return to Parliament until the middle of the summer. If the initial timetable had been followed, the manufacturers would probably by now already have certified the requirement in stage 3 of the Programme. Environmentally more friendly diesel vehicles would already have begun to be driven on European roads. Now, Mr Lange has drafted comprehensive amendments at this late stage in the discussion of the issue. If Parliament complies with Mr Lange’s proposals, there will be further delays. That would not be good for the environment in Europe. Europe presents a variety of faces. Sweden and Finland, especially their northern parts, are very much dependent upon efficient road transport. It is quite right that we should impose tough environmental requirements upon motor vehicle manufacturers. They should really need to employ absolutely all their skills and knowledge in accomplishing the tasks we set them. We must not however draw up proposals in such a way that they contain aspects which are bad for the environment. If our decisions lead to the simplest solution becoming general practice, which is to say that of basing exhaust purification technology on catalytic converters which require large admixtures of ammonia solution, then the distribution system alone, involving the distribution of this ammonia solution to all petrol stations throughout Europe, would mean that a not insignificant portion of the environmental benefits would be lost. A technical solution like that would be especially problematic for us in northern Europe. I want to say too that the EU cannot provide direction in Europe by means of directives which are not adapted to the real situation throughout Europe. Let us make very high environmental demands, but let industry too have the time it needs to develop the best possible technical solutions for the future which are good for Europe’s countryside and for the environment in Europe’s large population centres. From this perspective, the common position is a better alternative for the environment than continued delay."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph