Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.4.4-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am the speaker for the TDI Group, even if I am speaking on behalf of just one of its component parts.
We are dealing with the matter of ballast in fluorescent tubes. Now what does this actually mean? The electric current in fluorescent lamps, such as those providing the lighting above our heads, is regulated and stabilised by small devices called ballasts. For fifty years, these ballasts have been made from a copper coil in a sheet metal box. They are called “ferromagnetic ballasts”. Nowadays, however, we have electronic ballasts.
The traditional ferromagnetic ballasts are said to entail a certain loss of energy, particularly due to resistance. The loss would be up to 8 watts an hour, whereas the electronic ones would lose only 3 watts. They would therefore allow for a saving of 5 watts and, multiplying that by 130 million ballasts, you would save millions of tonnes of energy, there would be less CO2, the greenhouse effect would be reduced and mankind would breathe more easily. Consequently, in eight years time, we would have to abandon ferromagnetic ballasts in favour of electronic ballasts.
Unfortunately, Mr Turmes does not tell us that the electronic ballast has a shorter service life than the ferromagnetic one. Therefore, more of them will have to be manufactured, with more energy consumed and the savings just mentioned will partly disappear. Furthermore, these electronic ballasts are made with transistors that contain heavy metals, such as tantalum, germanium, and even arsenic, not to mention plastic, that is to say, non-biodegradable pollutants, whereas the copper and sheet metal of the ferromagnetic ballasts are biodegradable. In other words, for a saving of energy that is not as clear cut as it seems, our Green colleagues are prepared to release heavy metals and arsenic into the environment.
At the same time, in addition to increasing pollution, unemployment will increase because the components used in the manufacture of the electronic ballasts and the machines that make them are not European. So, in order to avoid import costs, our manufacturers are going to relocate and thus reduce the number of jobs. In the final analysis, in wishing to make a modest saving of energy by using electronic ballasts, at a time when our manufacturers are demanding simply a gradual and selective ban, what we have at best is a saving but also the release of pollutants and increased unemployment.
Nor are we tackling the real problem of waste, that is to say, incandescent lamps that show losses of up to 50 watts in comparison with fluorescent lamps. But it is true that incandescent lamps are manufactured by two multinationals, Philips and Osram. And so maybe there is a connection between the internationalists of the European Commission, the internationalists of the nebulous green multinational and the transnationals of industry, but I am not asking that we shed light on the whole business."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples