Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-309"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.14.2-309"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a fair wind is blowing the way of the environment and the European Parliament welcomes this. Indeed, by virtue of an unusually fortunate coincidence, directives on waste incineration, on limit values for national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, and ozone in ambient air all feature on today’s agenda. Previously, atmospheric pollution used to be associated with roads and traffic. Today, however, on a large scale, it refers to the whole world, and on a small scale, it even means the house we live in. In short, it means our whole ecosystem, and action must be taken. Setting emission limits for the four main pollutants is a sure way to help to reduce pollution, combat acidification and limit the harmful effects of these pollutants on human health and on plant life.
In its proposal for a directive, the European Commission proposes quantified national emission ceilings, which must be met by 2010 for the four pollutants I have just mentioned. Furthermore, it estimates the costs for each Member State of complying with these limits. I think that this is a good strategy.
Mrs Myller’s excellent report makes a lucid evaluation of the European Commission’s proposal and considers it to be balanced; the report also seeks to strengthen the proposal in some areas. In particular, the committee approved a compulsory review of the directive by 2004, which will enable there to be a review of the limit values stipulated and measures adopted to ensure that these limit values are respected. All of this seems quite reasonable.
Nevertheless, I must ask a question here. Why should we not allow a Member State to prove that it is being treated particularly unfairly because of the way the directive is implemented, as a result, for example, of its geographical situation and its climate and the fact that these leave it at a major disadvantage? Would this not be wise?
The EU system for combating atmospheric pollution is thus being extended, strengthened and refined. EU environmental policy is becoming more and more the environmental policy of each Member State, with obvious advantages for all Europe’s citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples