Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.4.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There is a conflict of interest between the industrial world and the world outside of industry. Consumers and the environment benefit from sustainable products whose individual components can be re-used at the end of their life cycle. Industry, however, benefits from competitive sales prices and minimum costs afterwards. It also benefits from passing on problems to other parties, particularly governments, which then need to organise solutions by using tax money. Industry has tried to turn the proposals to its advantage. I too have been approached with reasonable sounding arguments. Environmental fanatics would only want something that is costly and impractical, and the envisaged environmental benefits could also be achieved without compulsion. They may be right in some cases, but to admit to them that they are right would offer scope to less well-meaning competitors who, with less responsibility and therefore lower prices, would like to take the markets by storm and expand. This is why it is useful for regulations to be put in place for recycling, for ‘orphaned’ products made by companies that no longer exist and for ‘historical’ waste, in the case of which the manufacturer is not certain whether it was produced before or after the directive entered into force. Exemptions for small companies are unfair, and certainly for those that produce military equipment. Unfortunately, the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats is once again using the requirement of 314 votes to get its own way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples