Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.5.1-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a directive which responds to the Commission Communication, the Green Paper and various resolutions by this Parliament. We believe it is a realistic directive and that it can be complied with perfectly well.
Before moving on, I would like to highlight the cooperation and harmony I have enjoyed with the shadow rapporteur, Mrs Rothe, and with the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mr Kronberger, since we are involved in a Hughes procedure. This circumstance, incidentally, has considerably delayed the debate on the directive at first reading as a result of a problem of competences which Parliament has taken too long to resolve.
I am going to focus essentially on the most controversial aspect of the directive, which is the issue of the objectives.
The Commission has proposed certain obligatory objectives to be complied with over a number of years. There are some countries which have made progress in achieving them and which could comply with them before the time limits set by the Commission. However, many countries have been very reticent in accepting them.
Despite the amendments presented – and there have been many – proposing indicative targets, this Parliament, both in the Industry Committee and in the Environment Committee, has approved making the targets obligatory by a huge majority. In the Industry Committee specifically, there were 38 votes in favour and 5 against.
Despite this, the shadow rapporteur, myself and the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, in an act of great generosity by Parliament, have offered the Council an amendment, which we tabled jointly, with a view to the targets being indicative. We expect something from the Council in return of course: that it reciprocate by accepting a series of other amendments from Parliament and by accepting the proposed directive from the Commission with this exception of the targets. Furthermore, we also propose to the Council a compromise on Amendment No 53, which proposes that the Member States, for justifiable reasons, may delay the application of the directive through a one-off exception of two years.
Another matter I wish to deal with does not relate to the present directive, but indirectly affects the application of mixtures. It involves Directive 98/70/EC on the quality of petrols. The Commission is aware that this directive must be adapted for mixtures, since it cannot be applied in the same way for mixtures as it is for other oil-based fuels. In countries with warm summers, volatility increases and therefore vapour pressure will have to be increased. I had presented an amendment in this regard. As a result of legal problems I have withdrawn the second part of it, but I would like to stress that the Commission must propose the modification of Directive 98/70/EC so that mixtures may have a volatility of 70 kPa (kilopascals) in the countries with hot summers, as is allowed in the countries with cold summers.
Another issue which has arisen during the debate on the amendments has been that of proposing the introduction of other fuels in the directive. This is not its aim. However, there are a number of amendments in the recitals which may be accepted, insofar as we must take account of these alternative fuels. We do agree with the amendments that move in the direction of including biohydrogen in the scope of this directive. Other amendments take the approach of establishing quality standards for biofuels which must be mixed. We must establish standard rules for all biofuels.
Finally, I would like to say that this is a directive which is intended to replace existing fuels with biofuels. It is not a directive with an ultimately environmental aim, but it has significant environmental repercussions. There are those who say that there are other cheaper ways to reduce CO2 emissions. No doubt there are, but the directive provides a further degree of synergy. Furthermore, it brings other benefits in relation to employment and agriculture. All I ask is that the Council accept the Commission’s proposal and Parliament’s proposal and that the directive be approved, because the producers of biofuels need a stable framework for production."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples