Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.6.1-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Mr Lange and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for an exhaustive and comprehensive report. I also want to express my gratitude for the amendments tabled. We have a basis for achieving a rapid and effective agreement.
Through averaging and banking, we have therefore introduced a flexible system which places the administrative burden on those manufacturers who wish to use it and which has a sound impact upon the environment. If, on the other hand, use is made of the facility to exempt certain products, there is a risk of drastically reducing the impact upon the environment because these exemptions are not offset, as is the case with the averaging and banking system
We must also be clear that the exempted products we are talking about are equipped exclusively with two-stroke engines, which are the most polluting. The Commission therefore wishes to emphasise the importance of retaining this instrument as a part of the legislation and opposes the amendments in question. At the same time, I wish to emphasise that what is essential is not the averaging and banking system as such but bringing about the flexibility, harmonisation and environmental benefits provided by the system.
Exemptions of certain types of equipment should therefore be accepted only after a careful analysis of the consequences, environmental and otherwise. For that reason, the Commission is opposed to introducing exemptions right now but is able to accept that this will become a possibility through making use of a committee procedure in the future. We also oppose amendments that exclude the use of two-stroke engines for generators and snow-blowers.
The Commission is prepared to look into the need for further legislation in this area, especially when it comes to particle emissions from two-stroke engines, and wishes to coordinate it with corresponding demands concerning particle emissions from motorcycles and mopeds.
The Commission is able to accept, or in principle to accept, Amendments 1, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 28 inclusive, together with Amendment 30. The Commission is not able to accept Amendments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15 and 17, but is open to studying solutions that can bring about flexibility, harmonisation and environmental benefits. The Commission is not able to accept Amendments 4, 5, 9, 16 and 29.
Emissions of pollutants from normal motor vehicles have, of course, been subject to regulations within the European Union for more than three decades. As a result, emission levels are now less than 10 per cent of those that existed before we introduced these limits. Consequently, the relative importance of other emissions has increased and, at the same time, we can see, as we also can from the Commission’s Auto-Oil programme, that the problems of air quality in the Community require further measures.
The proposal we are discussing today concerns emissions from engines used in lawn mowers, power saws, leaf collection machines, pumps, generators and similar equipment. Approximately 25 million machines of this type are manufactured in the world each year and, even if the statistics are rather unreliable, it seems as if such machines account for approximately 10-15 per cent of total emissions of hydrocarbon within the Community. We have already heard this expressed in another way: that one hour’s use of a power saw releases as much hydrocarbon as does driving a modern private car more than 2 000 kilometres. These emissions contribute to ozone formation, which is one of the air pollution problems we have still not solved. Obviously, we must do something about the emissions from machines of this type.
Products of the type affected by the proposal are sold to the very largest part of the world market, and more than 90 per cent of them are manufactured by large companies active in this market. It has been important to the Commission to bring about a harmonisation of the legislation so as to make it easier to introduce the legislation quickly, provided of course that this can be done in a way that is in keeping with a high level of ambition in environmental terms. The only existing legislation in this area is that in the United States. We consider that this legislation effectively satisfies the environmental requirements, and it has also been a big influence on the way in which our proposal is designed.
At the same time, I must alert you to the fact that there exist not only these big companies in the world market, but also companies which are not active in that market. Even if these companies account for only a small part of total production, the products are often used in small specialised areas. Many of the companies are small and therefore have limited resources for developing the technology needed to comply with the emission limits. We have therefore proposed certain special rules exempting these products and companies, and these are the same types of exemption found in the American legislation.
In my view, the Commission’s proposal is an excellent example of a win-win situation since we are meeting the needs of industry at the same time as having brought about environmental benefits which would not have been possible if industry had needed to divide its resources to take account of different forms of legislation.
The Commission is able to accept those amendments which enable the Member States to mark products which meet the stage II requirements and to use economic instruments of control to stimulate production and sales of such products even before the limit values become compulsory. The Commission is also able in principle to accept an earlier time for introducing stage II but is opposed to introducing stage I any earlier because it would put unreasonable pressure on small manufacturers who do not sell their products on the world market. The Commission is also opposed to changing the definition of small manufacturers.
With regard to the so-called averaging and banking system, we are broadly sympathetic to the questions that have been raised concerning how this is to be used in practice. However, we think that it is an important feature of the attempts to harmonise this area and that, if it were abolished, European legislation would differ from American legislation.
The reason for introducing such a system is that, where certain products are concerned, it is difficult to comply with the stage II values and that the particular products concerned vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. In this context, it is important, if the necessary environmental impact is to be achieved, not to exempt products which in reality could meet the requirements."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples