Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.8.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all cars can take zero-sulphur fuel, whether they are new or old. They do not have to be converted, there are no parts to be fitted or retrofitted. That is a big difference from the debate about leaded and unleaded petrol that we had a few years ago. So any car can take low-sulphur fuel and it has a positive effect, especially with older types of diesel engines. Zero-sulphur fuel reduces particle emissions from these older vehicles too.
Most of all, however, we need zero-sulphur fuel because we want new technologies to come on to the market, not in order to reduce conventional emissions but to consume less. We need direct injection diesel engines and direct injection petrol engines that have a wide range of lean burn. With lean burn, where little fuel is used, the proportion of nitrogen oxide is greater and we therefore need particular technologies to collect nitrogen oxides in the exhaust system. Look at it which way you will, sulphur prevents that. To save fuel and reduce CO2 in the transport sector we simply need zero-sulphur fuel as quickly as possible.
I cannot see, either, why a diesel vehicle with an almost negative particulate value – the air behind is cleaner that that drawn in at the front – is allowed on our streets while on the same street there are tractors and excavators giving off particles en masse because of the poor quality fuel. I believe these vehicles must be required to use clean fuel, too, if we want to cut particle emissions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples