Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-335"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.18.2-335"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, President of the Commission, I agree totally with the previous speaker that acidification, eutrophication and the increase in ozone levels in the soil are problems we have to effectively address throughout Europe. Effective national emission limits must therefore be set for the main pollutants.
After some long and hard negotiations the Council achieved consensus on national emission ceilings. The Commission, for its part, supports the Council’s common position. The Council’s common position would mean a significant reduction in emissions. It is perhaps not as ambitious as Parliament, in its first reading, would have liked, but perhaps it is the best possible compromise in this situation. Our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has unfortunately finished up by making some proposals that are so dramatic and ambitious that, if they were implemented, the general consensus that has been reached would be jeopardised. In this respect I am in agreement with the views expressed earlier by Mr Davies.
When emission limits were being discussed in Parliament’s first reading in March of last year, I stressed that new targets should not be set before the earlier ones had been achieved. The Commission must check that there is continued improvement in all Member States, and promote measures to help industry to make the necessary changes. It is important that environmental targets are achieved as cost-effectively as possible. For that reason, Mrs Jackson’s question is more than justified.
As worthy as the tighter restriction on emissions as proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are, we should be aware of the possible adverse effects of our hopes and voting behaviour. Delaying this directive and embarking on a course of prolonged conciliation, the poker game which someone mentioned, would certainly be the worst alternative from the point of view of the environment. And besides, the environmental benefits gained from more stringent measures would be very slight in comparison with the costs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples