Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-253"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-04-09"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Electrical and electronic equipment2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020409.11.2-253"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-04-09-Speech-2-2542
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexander de Roo2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 substitute; Temporary committee on foot and mouth disease (2002-01-17--2002-12-17)3 vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Thank you, Mr President. I too should like to add my words of praise to Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, the rapporteur. In addition, I should like to thank the other shadow rapporteurs for their fruitful cooperation. This is modern environmental policy. We are supporting pioneering businesses, instead of what we usually do, namely coasting along at a European mean rate, and granting the countries that are lagging behind another three years’ respite. Nearly the whole of Parliament will be voting in favour of individual producer responsibility tomorrow. This is new. Nine years ago we saw the adoption of the packaging directive. We Greens were on our own with our plea. We opted for producer responsibility rather than individual responsibility in respect of recycling cars. And now, tomorrow, the long-awaited moment will arrive. Individual producer responsibility. Why are both major groups now adopting the Green line? One reason is that pioneering businesses have now started lobbying. Electrolux in Sweden deserves credit in this respect. A year ago, Philips was still opposed to the concept, but it is now keeping a low profile. The well-known environmental principle is: the polluter pays, not: polluters pay. And certainly not: consumers pay, as is the case in the Dutch system. There is a collective system in the Netherlands. Everyone – every consumer – pays a waste disposal fee. This system encourages laziness in producers. Responsibility for individual products stands for innovation, which benefits the environment and, ultimately, pushes the price down for the consumer. If a business makes a product which lasts twice as long, the recycling costs will be twice as low. If they stop using dangerous substances, they will not need to pick up the bill for disposing of these later on. The new regulation will enter into force in 2006 if it is up to Parliament, or in 2007 if it is up to the Council. In my view, this would be a good time to review the Dutch system as well. In that case, we will be able to avoid the two Europes which Mrs Jackson referred to, and we will not have to wait for the ten years on which we agreed as a compromise. We must, however, convince the Council tomorrow, as the Council has produced shoddy work. Countries can choose between an individual or a collective system. That does not work. We have one market and we thus need one system for the whole of Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph