Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-321"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.17.2-321"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this directive is important for the EU in terms of the environment, energy production and competitiveness. Up-to-date limit values for large power plants are needed both in the Member States and the candidate countries. For that reason, we must thank the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, sincerely for her hard work.
The committee is imposing substantially stricter limits with no adequate differentiation being made with regard to their size and type. The one-off investments in new technology the directive calls for are the same irrespective of the size of the plant. This would particularly threaten the ecologically recognised combined production of heat and power. In my own country, for example, this might mean a step backwards in ecological terms. In Finland many different bodies share this concern, among others the Ministry of the Environment. The amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy would mean investments that were not cost-effective in terms of ecological benefit, and difficulties for the combined use of energy-efficient wood and peat and the combined production of power and heat. The latter process is carried out mainly in medium-size plants, which would now be treated in the same way as the large ones.
On the other hand, the use of peat is justified. It promotes the added use of wood in power plants, as combined combustion improves the way the combustion process can be controlled, reduces problems of corrosion, and adds to the reliability of fuel being available. The report does not support this objective either, one which is directly linked to the matter of bio-fuels. It might even be said that the report could be accused of environmental avarice in some of the amendments and that it is therefore in danger of stifling many important environmental objectives. However, it is important that the report should be adopted and the directive be brought into effect, as it will prevent emissions from drifting long distances and acid deposits affecting the natural environment of another Member State.
With its amendments, in search of compromise as they are, my own group is trying, among other things, to ensure that the combined production of heat and power in small and medium-sized power plants can continue, while the large plants are compelled to invest in technology that can adhere to stricter limit values. In addition, the compromises seek to ensure that burning peat, which contains very little sulphur, does not require needless extra investment, as opposed to processes using fuels with a higher sulphur content. This is contained in Amendment No 36. We appreciate it very much that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has agreed to these compromises.
We find ourselves once again in a situation where a legislator has to face the fact that different environmental conditions also mean different environmental effects. Unless we can find the right solutions to these problems, our last resort may have to be to have our own directive for fuels within the context of the northern dimension, although this would not be a very good solution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples