Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-318"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.17.2-318"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, all large combustion plants together account for 63% of the sulphur dioxide and 21% of the nitrogen oxide emissions in the European Union. There are therefore major environmental gains to be had in this sector. Rapporteur Oomen-Ruijten has made sound proposals to this effect. The Council has reviewed the directive in its entirety, but there is sufficient reason for making a number of further adjustments at this stage.
First of all, the emission limit values must be brought into line with the current scope of technology. If we realise that waste incineration plants and cement kilns are only allowed to emit 40 mg of sulphur dioxide, I am surprised at the values for combustion plants which can be as high as 2 000 mg. I can just about understand why the rules for large combustion plants are more relaxed, but forty times more relaxed is unacceptable to me. As the state-of-the-art technology stands at present, it is altogether possible to reduce the level of SO2-emission down to 100.
Therefore, the values proposed by the Environmental Committee, which vary from 1 200 to 300 for existing plants, are definitely not too strict. Strict standards can be prescribed for new plants since the new technology can be used here. The amendments which we have tabled in tandem with the Green Group include limit values of 400 for small plants and 200 for large plants.
Secondly, the bizarre exemption provisions must be deleted. The fact that large, old combustion plants are allowed to pollute 2 200 hours annually is unacceptable, as is the fact that it is permitted to exceed the emission limit values if the fuel, such as highly polluting brown coal, is extracted from the country’s own soil. In my opinion, the exceptions for Spain and the islands of Crete and Rhodes are also unacceptable. The liberalisation of the energy market should bring with it equal environmental conditions. We therefore need to abandon the aforesaid exceptions in order to avoid distortion of competition. In addition, incentives must be given to rejuvenate or renew old and heavily polluting plants, instead of allowing the serious pollution of the atmosphere to continue.
Thirdly, the offshore gas turbines must also meet emission requirements. Because of the changing composition of fuel, I am aware that it is impossible to meet the strict emission requirements at certain times. But if offshore gas turbines are written off completely because of it, any incentive for improvement is taken away. The amendment I tabled contains very flexible emission limit values by way of alternatives.
My fourth point concerns the approximation of this directive to the waste incineration directive. In the event of different fuels being mixed, the ultimate emission limit value in both directives is calculated in a different way. It makes little difference to the result but, in practice, the combination of these two calculation methods is not only very complicated but also unnecessary. I have proposed an adaptation in Amendment No 43."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples