Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-268"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Incineration of waste2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.12.2-268"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-2692
lpv:speaker	lp:Peter Liese2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work. The recommendation for second reading before us is an extremely important legislative resolution, not just for the environment but also for the economy of the European Union. This can be seen from the many letters which we receive from environmental associations and from the economic sector, not least of course the cement industry, but also many others such as the wood-processing industry, the paper industry, the metalworking industry and so on. I think that we must regard both sets of arguments as important, those of the environmental associations and also those of industry, because industry has also put forward arguments from a genuinely environmental viewpoint and not just from an economic viewpoint. We should treat this seriously. Not all amendments which are probably well intentioned from the environmental viewpoint are necessarily an improvement on the current situation. I think this can be seen from some of the amendments which were put forward in committee with regard to coincineration and which now reappear as amendments in plenary. We cannot in any way guarantee that in restricting coincineration we will actually achieve what we want environmentally. Above all we want to save fossil fuels. If we set up the hurdles wrong here, then we will not achieve the right environmental objective. For this reason, our Group rejects the amendments which have been resubmitted by Mr Blokland, the Greens and others. However, I think that there are still some amendments decided on in committee which we can support in good conscience in order to improve the common position. For example, I tabled a motion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy relating to NOx emitted during coincineration which, at least for new installations, is somewhat more ambitious than the Council’s proposals. I think it is realistic and, as the industry in question is saying the same, albeit with its hand in front of its mouth, we should be altogether more positive. I think, therefore, that we are on the right track in accepting much of what has been decided in the committee, but certainly nothing which goes any further."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph