Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-131"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste incineration2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001115.5.3-131"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-15-Speech-3-1322
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2002-03-07)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Démocratie libérale (1999-07-20--2002-11-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I share at least one certainty with the rapporteur, Mr Blokland: incineration may be a significant source of pollution but it is in fact necessary today, given the very low levels of waste recycling. The urgency of this subject is made more acutely felt by the problem of animal meal in feedingstuffs, which we are going to be debating later this afternoon, which are going to have to be destroyed. The objective of this proposal, which aims to replace three directives relating to waste incineration, is to improve air, water and soil quality and human health by reducing emissions of pollutants linked to incineration and co-incineration, notably dioxins, furans and heavy metals. This proposal also allows for the integration of the technical progress that has been achieved since the 1990s. Overall, the result of the conciliation process is very pleasing. The emission limit values for incineration and co-incineration plants have been brought into line, while taking account of the technical differences between these two activities. I have always been in agreement with the joint draft which regards these two systems as complementary and not competing. Today, we cannot do without either of these incineration methods. Yet one can only regret the fusion of these incineration processes in terms of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, which has considerably complicated the debate, and which I have always condemned. In my view, the working method is not good, and I believe it is undesirable that we behave in this manner on such issues. Nonetheless, we are satisfied with this third reading, because it reinforces the operation authorisation conditions. Our group, which wanted to avoid the confusion between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, recognises that the current text clearly provides for different recovery and treatment processes, which are adapted to the types of waste involved. Supplementary precautions will have to be taken as far as hazardous waste is concerned. Mr President, I would like to conclude by saying that the Group of the Europe People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is satisfied by the work that has been carried out during the course of the third reading."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph