Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-062"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Priority substances in water policy2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010515.4.2-062"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-15-Speech-2-0632
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in an opinion by the Council’s Legal Service on the Water Framework Directive, the reduction of emissions down to nearly zero is not deemed to be legally binding. If we take the background emissions into account, this will indeed be impossible. In addition, in the case of natural gas extraction, for example, a small amount of mercury always ends up in the water. Therefore, if mercury is earmarked as a priority hazardous substance, it will be impossible to extract any natural gas in future. It appears preferable to me to have a list of hazardous priority substances, the emission levels of which are reduced by 95% to 99%, than to have just one substance whose emission levels are reduced by 100%. If the objective of reducing emission levels by 100% is upheld, it will in fact be impossible to identify priority hazardous substances. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I have already criticised the method used for drafting a list of priority substances in water. The advantage of this method is speed, but this is counteracted by the fact that a great deal of information was missing at the assessment stage. Particularly with regard to metals, the outcome of the method applied can be called into question. Nickel is on the list because, in January 1990, it was marked as carcinogenic if it is inhaled in powder form. However, this was never proven with regard to nickel in water. It would be preferable to await the outcome of an extensive study into nickel in water, currently being carried out in Denmark. Furthermore, there are more indications that other metals should be placed on the list of priority substances, such as copper and arsenic. I appreciate how difficult it is to assess metals effectively, since the conditions which affect metals to a large extent, such as hardness and acidity, can vary greatly in the European Union. Maybe we should therefore opt for a regional, rather than a European, approach as far as metals are concerned."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph