Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.17.2-322"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Ireland does not in general have a problem with stricter ELVs for new plants, as these can simply be incorporated into IPC licensing and will help achieve national emission ceilings. However, we must question further tightening beyond the common position and whether it will bring any significant additional environmental benefits. The common position was developed in tandem with the proposed NEC directive and represents a coherent and balanced approach to achieving environmental objectives over time. The proposed amendments are not justified in terms of environmental benefits and associated costs and other impacts and would disturb the balance achieved. Further tightening would increase costs and reduce Member State flexibility in meeting agreed national targets and accelerate increased dependence on natural gas with attendant fuel security concerns for electricity generation, particularly in countries like Ireland.
Additional restrictions on existing LCP are not justified in the context of Member State commitments under the NEC directive to reduce overall emissions and the impending application of the IPPC directive. Some amendments will even have a perverse effect. For example, stringent and uneconomic ELVs for small plants will hinder combined heat and power development and others do not support an integrated approach to the environment. Proposals to tighten ELVs are not proportionate regarding costs and benefits and fail to recognise that the common position is a balance between improving environmental performance and avoiding excessive costs and other impacts. No cost-benefit analysis is provided for the further reduction of emissions from plants with already low emission concentrations.
One amendment I have difficulty with is the proposal to reduce NOx emission limits from 650 to 200. It is technically feasible but will require the installation of costly end-of-pipe controls. This will require more energy input and result in increased CO2 emissions, the use of more raw materials and the production of hazardous waste. The Council's proposed ELVs could be met by primary means at a much lower cost. As noted previously, these additional costs will ultimately be borne in high electricity prices. However, it is not at all clear that the benefits in additional NOx emission reductions outweigh the associated environmental and economic costs, i.e. this is not consistent with an integrated approach to the environment as a whole."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples