Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.14.2-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it has become universally acknowledged that environmental pollution, and certainly air pollution, are cross-border issues
. The present draft directive on national emission ceilings tackles the key culprits where atmospheric pollution is concerned. It contains maximum emission levels for substances which are responsible for acidification, ozone forming in the troposphere and the eutrophication of soil.
As the topic is reasonably technical, I will only single out the salient points on behalf of myself and my group. The directive’s key goal is to reduce the emission levels of said substances to below the critical levels and, hence, pollution. These goals must be met by 2010, with an interim assessment of the national programmes in 2006.
The most important – and you have heard so yourself just now – and most talked about component of the proposal is, of course, the table which specifies the permitted annual emission levels for each country. The fact that, at UN level, 36 countries, including 15 EU Member States, recently agreed on less strict standards for the same substances played an important role in the discussion. There are now Members who urge that this table, i.e. the European Commission’s table, be replaced by the UN’s so-called Gothenburg table, which permits a higher ceiling.
Mr President, I have to admit that this line of argument is rather weak. Indeed, UN agreements are always less ambitious due to the fact that it is difficult for the situation in rich, prosperous and hence often more polluting countries to be lumped together with the situation in the developing world. Moreover, it is incorrect that the European ceilings were established after completion of the UN negotiations. Examining the proposal and the argumentation – as I assume other Members have done – I notice that, at the time when the European ceilings were being stipulated, the UN protocol was still being negotiated. Add this to the fact that the environmental effects of SO2, NOx and the volatile organic substances, in particular, directly affect our own continent, I – and the majority in our group, I think – can go along with the Commission proposal regarding these substances.
Mr President, I do have another problem, namely that concerning ammonia. The Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats would like to see the present ceiling adjusted. Looking at the nitrate directive, I notice that hardly any Member State meets the standard specified. It seems to me completely unfeasible to go beyond the Gothenburg standard. In addition, the effects of ammonia emissions are partly local and, as such, a lower threshold seems acceptable. On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats, I have tabled an amendment which, where ammonia is concerned, is based on the lower Gothenburg standard and defers definitively setting the ceiling until the year 2006. The reason for this is that I hope that, by then, the effects of the implementation and the pending European legislation on nitrate will be able to give us better indications.
I would like to conclude by making the following comment: legislation on ceilings is, in actual fact, the counterpart of legislation on large furnaces, for which I also happen to be rapporteur. We completed the first reading even before last year’s elections. The Council of Ministers, however, is still putting a spanner in the works. Could we be informed on the progress made?
As a final remark, I would like to thank Mrs Myller, the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples