Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-049"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Electrical and electronic equipment2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010515.3.2-049"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-15-Speech-2-0502
lpv:speaker	lp:Peter Liese2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, may I also add my thanks to Karl-Heinz Florenz, who has presented a very good report. What we are working towards is the environmentally-friendly disposal of old electrical appliances and, if possible, material recycling. Parliament attaches the utmost importance to the polluter-pays principle, which comes across very clearly in this report. I do believe, however – and here too, the Florenz report strikes the right tone – that great care must always be taken to establish precisely how these principles can be applied in each specific sector of the economy. Even the collection of appliances or small components requires the use of energy and can in itself be harmful to the environment. It is therefore important that we provide for derogations in the case of components which contain no hazardous substances, such as light bulbs, that we always look at the whole ecological balance and then consider whether it is appropriate to collect these things separately and use them for recycling or whether such action is perhaps not justified on environmental grounds. For this reason I believe that Amendment No 65 takes us in the right direction. We must apply the polluter-pays principle correctly. I see a problem in this respect at one or two points because, in the case of historical waste in particular, we are not talking about the polluter-pays principle when we say that all those who are operating in the market at the present time have to foot the bill for those who were perhaps manufacturing some product twenty years ago. Great care must be taken here, since not every segment of this market is transparent. We became aware of this in the committee. To illustrate the problem, let me mention that I devoted myself particularly to household light fittings, since large numbers of them are produced in my constituency. The manufacturers say, with some justification, that it is surely not consistent with the polluter-pays principle to expect present-day manufacturers to pay for the recovery of a chandelier which has been hanging in someone’s lounge and which was produced twenty years ago by some manufacturer or other who is no longer in business. It is not the polluter who has to pay – quite the reverse. If consideration is also given to the fact that such products include many grey-market imports from companies which do not adhere to the high European environmental standards – companies in China, for example – it becomes clear that the polluter-pays principle would be turned on its head if we penalised companies for conducting their business properly and being properly registered. For these reasons I ask you to support Amendments Nos 65 and 88."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph