Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.6.3-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Airports are built in densely populated regions and attract extra economic growth, as a result of which an increasing number of people end up living in their vicinity. Consequently, aircraft noise has become a plague to an increasing proportion of the population. The more a region is forced to rely on air traffic for its transport needs, the greater the burden becomes in terms of damage to health. The only ways to combat this nuisance are to restrict air traffic to long-distance flights, to create greater distances between airports and residential areas, to accord lower priority to economic growth or world trade and to ban noisy aircraft. Clearly, America and the Third World have different views on noise pollution. The Third World is too poor to consider matters of this kind, and in affluent America, company profits are more important than any other considerations. Anyone truly wishing to restrict noise pollution in Europe should not be content with the agreement that was recently concluded on a global scale within the ICAO, but should set higher standards themselves, if necessary. The proposal to withdraw the aforementioned Hushkits Regulation from 1 April onwards mainly aims to avoid a trade war with America. I share the view of the draftsman of the opinion, Mr Blokland, that this proposal does not go far enough and that it continues to permit exceptions for too long a term. I will be voting against the proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples