Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-263"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.12.2-263"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Blokland on this report. We know that waste incineration is a very difficult and highly technical area, but I think that a creditable piece of work has been done in connection with this report. Unlike Mrs Grossetête, I think that the common position and Mr Blokland’s report will, as a matter of fact, make a significant environmental contribution in connection with waste incineration, whether we are talking about hazardous or non-hazardous waste. I believe that we are, in this way, obtaining a good tool for preventing and limiting environmental damage in connection with waste incineration and for preventing and limiting the associated risks to human health. Moreover, there are also some good resources which are being put to use. I shall certainly support the demand that proper waste planning be carried out, with waste being duly sorted, so that we have a situation in which waste incineration is linked to the EU’s combined waste legislation, with the incineration problem correctly placed in the waste hierarchy. I also think it is good that we should now be told very precisely which plants are covered by these rules and also which types of waste are thus exempt from them. Regarding the very difficult question of defining coincineration plant, including cement factories – in connection with the handling of which there has been some quite aggressive lobbying – I want to say that I think we can support Amendment No 43, which I think defines the common position well.
Finally, there is the absolutely crucial point about establishing emission limits in relation to air and water – whether we are talking about heavy metals or dust, ammonia, dioxin, sulphur dioxide or other hazardous substances. I think that defensible levels have been identified in this connection, and a reasonable balance has been struck between incineration plants proper and the combined plants. It is a balance that I hope will be maintained, including during the vote tomorrow here in the plenary sitting. Again in contrast to Mrs Grossetête, I want, moreover, to say that the levels set here for emissions are realistic. They are technologically feasible and they are, in actual fact, already being applied in a number of the Member States. The existing plants which do not at present fulfil the requirements are also to be given a good few years in which to be adapted to the new requirements laid down here. I hope therefore that, by means of the vote tomorrow, we can make our contribution to solving the health and environmental problems involved in waste incineration so that the enormous quantities of waste which we produce every single day do not cause more serious health problems or greater damage to the environment than is absolutely necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples