Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.18.2-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the present draft directive concerning national emission ceilings tackles the main atmospheric pollutants. The salient points of this directive, therefore, concern the reduction of emission levels of the said substances to below the critical levels and loads. The directive’s key element, or rather the most talked-about part of this proposal is, of course, the table which lists per country the permitted annual emission for each substance. A key concern in the discussion on this subject matter was that when at UN level, the 36 countries, including the EU Member States, agreed upon other, and often less strict, standards for the same substances, this met with a storm of protest. Consequently, at first reading, many argued in favour of replacing the European Commission table, which may have been ambitious, by the UN’s so-called ‘Gothenburg table’, which allowed higher ceilings.
During the discussions at first reading, I already indicated that the line of reasoning was rather weak. After all, UN agreements always have a lower level of ambition due to the fact that it is difficult to compare the situations in rich, prosperous, and thus often more polluting countries, with the situations in developing countries. Moreover, our continent suffers the direct environmental effects of the emission of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and volatile organic substances and, albeit to a lesser extent, ammonia.
At first reading, the PPE-DE Group adopted the European Commission’s ceiling at first reading. However, we have improved the ammonia table, partly because the risk of spreading is less pronounced.
My instinct tells me that the Council’s compromise proposal with regard to SO2, NOx and the VOC will lead to higher emission levels. Only with regard to ammonia can I identify with the Council’s compromise. The Commissioner is as aware as we are of the problems involved in implementing the nitrate directive: in actual fact, none of the Member States meet the standards specified therein. The Commission’s proposals to further reduce the ammonia ceiling are not feasible, in my opinion. I would add to this that the effects of ammonia emission are also partly a local phenomenon, and that a lower goal can therefore also be justified.
That means that we largely go along with the rapporteur: we support the first eight amendments; we do not endorse Amendment No 9. In the table, we support the SO2, NOx and the VOC and, where ammonia is concerned, we would refer to the Council’s proposal. We are also struggling with the rapporteur’s notion that what we want to reach in 2010 should, in actual fact, be reached in 2004. That seems highly ambitious to us.
Finally, I must also say that the working relationship with this rapporteur was highly successful, and that the work on the large combustion plants was excellent too. I would like to express my gratitude in this connection."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples