Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.5.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, European policy that tackles environmental problems is justified since air and water pollution are issues which extend across our national borders. Fortunately, that is quite a different story for noise pollution. I am pleased that I, in the Netherlands, am not affected by the noise produced in Milan or Athens. In other words, noise pollution is a local, or regional, problem.
The internal market justifies environmental policy at European level, in order to promote fair competition. This means, therefore, that European requirements can be prescribed for the safety and environmental friendliness of products and processes. Clear examples of products are emission requirements for cars, lorries and machinery, while waste incineration and energy generation typify processes.
In relation to fair competition, European noise standards can also be prescribed for products, such as cars, motorcycles, lorries, machinery, trains and aircraft. This is not appropriate for processes since the effects do not transcend borders. In other words, I am in favour of European standards for low-noise tyres but am opposed to the requirement that the cobblestones be removed from the streets in Brussels on account of European policy.
The Council has already taken things very far in the environmental noise directive. Parliament’s amendments, however, go even further, and I cannot back most of these as a result. In addition, I cannot see the additional benefit a European noise pollution map would afford. The Member States can map out noise pollution themselves if they so wish. Moreover, if such a map were to exist already, I would still be opposed to a European policy on environmental noise.
A separate problem is aircraft noise. Last week, I attended the ICAO Conference in Montreal on behalf of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, it appeared that outside European, there is little support for stricter noise standards for aircraft. Stricter noise standards for airfields are also a moot point. Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that airfield authorities must be able to pursue a powerful policy of their own by refusing large noise-makers. Noise pollution caused by aircraft is mainly a problem for people who live near the airports. In principle, this problem should therefore be solved locally, that is to say by the competent airport authority. In various airports, this is already the case in that flight bans are issued for the noisiest aircraft or for certain night flights. The disadvantage in this respect is that the problem could be transferred elsewhere. In addition, airports in border regions can cause extra problems. The latter must be solved mutually by the relevant Member States. In this matter, I should also add that we must not inflate the issue. If I want to fly to Strasbourg, I do not drive to Rome first because, due to competitive advantages, the flights there are cheaper than from Amsterdam.
As for the aircraft themselves, the problem is not that major technically speaking. Thanks to modern technology, it is possible to produce aircraft which produce six times less noise than aircraft built thirty years ago. Since the life of aircraft is about thirty years, the effects of these technical improvements, however, are taking a long time to kick in. The question is whether this long wait is desirable. I do not think so. If we really want to do something about aircraft noise, technical improvements must be carried out more quickly. The extra cost this entails obviously falls to the traveller who must be fully aware of the actual cost of flying."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples