Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-171"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Substances that deplete the ozone layer2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991213.10.1-171"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-13-Speech-1-1722
lpv:speaker	lp:Giuseppe Nistico'2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to express my disappointment and regret, and in saying this, I think I am speaking for the way other Members from the first legislative phase feel. At the second reading stage, the Members from the first legislative phase cannot make any contribution to improving the content of provisions which will then be adopted by Parliament, which clearly creates a deep sense of frustration. But this frustration becomes deeper still, more bitter when, in the light of new scientific evidence, such as in the case of ozone-depleting substances, bureaucracy and emotion take priority over politics and science, and do not render admissible amendments that are new and sound from a scientific point of view. This is why I am asking all the Members to adopt Amendment No 34, already tabled in committee by Mr Bowis and Mr Sacconi and signed today by 32 Members. The amendment that we intend to have adopted regarding the inflexible and closed position of the rapporteur, Mrs Hulthén, and those who blindly support her, calls for a short postponement, until 1 January 2004, of the ban on HCFCs in fire protection systems. These substances exhibit a very low potential for depleting the ozone – 1200 times less than halons – and they are much better tolerated by the environment than substances such as HFCs and PFCs, which are unfortunately permitted by Parliament despite the fact that they are more detrimental to the environment because they have a high potential for global warming and linger in they atmosphere, for as long as six to seven thousand years. These conclusions are shared by high-level scientific bodies at international level, such as the Cairo Conference of 1998, the contracting parties of the Montreal Protocol, the Panel on Ozone Depletion of 1999 and the Ministry for the Environment of Great Britain. The gradual banning of HCFCs called for in the amendment, along with the well-founded scientific reasons, also recognises social reasons, because a lot of people risk losing their job. This is why I am asking for your support."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph