Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.14.2-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union has ambitious goals for the environment, which were set forth, for example, in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme and the acidification strategy presented in 1997. These programmes stated as their aim the protection of people and nature from the adverse effects of air pollution, meaning that critical ceilings in respect of nature and people would not be exceeded. The Commission’s proposal for a directive on national emission ceilings is an important step in achieving the aims the Union set itself: to protect its citizens from the adverse effects of air pollutants. The legacy of past decades is going to take some time to put right, however. We are still not even aware of all the technical potential for ridding ourselves of sources of emissions entirely. For this reason, it is reasonable to proceed in stages, as the Commission has proposed.
The first stage is the Interim Environmental Objectives to be achieved by 2010, which means cutting health-threatening ozone loads by two-thirds by that year. We cannot be satisfied with just this, however, as, after this target has been met, there will still be too many areas where pollution counts exceed levels that are dangerous to people and nature. Owing to this, I have recommended in my report a long-term goal, in addition to the interim one, and a final target for 2020. In that way, we would finally be able to reach a point where critical levels and loads are not exceeded and everyone will be protected effectively from all known health effects of air pollution.
In this connection I would like to draw your attention to my amendment, in which, owing to a translation error, there is a wrong word in your copy of the document. In place of ‘reached’ it should say ‘exceeded’. I hope that this will be sorted out before tomorrow’s vote.
How, then, do we achieve a situation in which air pollution does not exceed tolerance levels for humans and for nature? The Commission’s proposal sets limit values for each Member State with regard to certain kinds of interrelated emissions, which cause acidification, increased ozone in the inner atmosphere and soil eutrophication. Dealing with these problems and the emissions that cause them together has proved to be the most cost-effective way of tackling the causes of air pollution and bringing it under control. The biggest disagreements in the implementation of the directive relate to the limit values, i.e., the emission ceiling set for each country.
The UN Economic Commission for Europe has also examined the objectives for reductions in the same sources of emissions as in the proposal for a directive now under discussion, and, as a result of these talks, the so-called Gothenburg Protocol was signed. There is a clear difference between this proposal and the Commission’s. If we were to accept the ceilings in the Gothenburg Protocol, we would never reach the targets that the Union has set itself regarding air pollution. Comparing the differences between the Gothenburg Protocol and the Commission’s proposal with regard to the effects on health, the annual reduction levels proposed by the Commission would save the lives of as many as four thousand people a year in Europe.
Although it is beyond dispute that the ambitious targets set for the environment have been found to be an essential ingredient in people’s health and safety, there have been pleas for lower ceilings, on the basis that cleaner air costs too much for industry and communities. It has to be said, however, that there is very considerable exaggeration with regard to the costs involved. If, on the other hand, we calculate the benefits that better air quality will bring to people and the natural environment, as well as to buildings, we see that the economic benefits are four times greater than the costs.
We still have to work on the proposal for the directive so that, for example, the situation with regard to the applicant countries and those questions too that relate to the EU’s neighbouring regions can be better taken into account."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples