Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001002.8.1-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Piecyk, on his rapid and wonderful work and I would like to point out that I have just received a report from Friends of the Earth which makes a comparative study which I consider to be of interest.
The distance from the port of Pasajes, in the Basque Country, to Vlissingen, in Holland, is approximately the same whether one travels by sea, road or rail. A cargo of cars and caravans can easily be transported on a small ship of two thousand tonnes, instead of the 204 lorries or 7 trains with 102 wagons which would be required to transport the same load.
The results of the three systems, with regard to total external costs, in terms of road congestion, accidents, noise, atmospheric pollution and climate change, vary considerably: EUR 74 000 for the ship, EUR 130 000 for the lorries and EUR 99 000 for the railway. I believe we should draw the conclusion that sea transport is the most appropriate solution and it should receive public resources as a priority. I also agree that we should select the most important ports – as Mr Piecyk points out – as well as those which conform to intermodality and, above all, the ports which allow us to make the greatest savings in terms of environmental costs.
With regard to the other conclusions of the report, I agree with Mr Piecyk that the Council’s position is more restrictive. Some will consider it to be broader, but I believe that it is more restrictive in relation to the effective use of European funds intended for that purpose."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples