Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.3.3-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I studied this report from my standpoint as a mayor because the Commission proposal mainly reinforces current legislation on the incineration of municipal waste. As an aside, this shows the usefulness for an MEP of being able to exercise the complementary mandate of mayor which is an option that the current French Government is unfairly and absurdly planning to prohibit. It is in no one’s interests to cut MEPs off from their grassroots.
The directive’s objective is commendable. It aims to prevent and reduce the negative effects of waste incineration and co-incineration.
However, we cannot support the proposal as it also aims to subject all plants to the same emission standards. This is not the way to deal with the overcapacity of incinerators in Europe and the rapporteur agrees with this. Certain waste flows are more easily treated in a co-incineration plant. We believe that certain proposed amendments to the common position may actually prevent existing plants being brought up to standard and may penalise the co-incineration of hazardous waste in cement works. This latter aspect essentially concerns France and Belgium.
With regard to municipal waste, I have several comments to make. Firstly, confusion should not be allowed about the definition of ‘mixed municipal waste’ in the context of co-incineration. Likening ‘partially separated waste’ to ‘untreated mixed municipal waste’, as Amendment No 14 does, risks affecting the development of the waste sorting sectors which we are trying to establish and in which some or all of the residues could be co-incinerated.
Furthermore, if Article 7(4) was amended as proposed, the removal of the qualification of municipal waste as ‘untreated’ would be tantamount to prohibiting the co-incineration of certain sorted municipal waste such as paper, cardboard and so on which could not be recycled unless it was collected separately.
Finally, it is not acceptable to reduce the threshold of 6 tonnes per hour above which existing plants incinerating household waste are subject to an emission limit value of 200 mg per cubic metre for NOx. This is because local authority planning to adapt existing equipment uses this threshold. See, in this respect, Annex V(a).
Even though we know that incineration is not the ideal solution, it represents an important advance for many authorities which have invested heavily to develop modern management of the municipal service for domestic and similar waste. However, thinking on this issue must be taken into account and research must be continued. The waste treatment industry will have to be very inventive in the future to avoid actually causing pollution. We must therefore develop broader waste management strategies and actively encourage research and development in this area which is essential for life and for the future of our local authorities."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples