Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Packaging and packaging waste2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020902.6.1-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-02-Speech-1-0642
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen kristillisdemokraatit rp (2001-05-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteur for her thorough work, and I particularly want to thank our Group’s shadow rapporteur for her balanced views. This is an important directive we have been waiting for, as recycling must be introduced effectively precisely where it will genuinely benefit the environment, and the volume of waste generated must be dramatically reduced. Recycling for the sake of recycling itself is something we have no need of; it must mean a genuine saving. By virtue of its legislative nature the directive should still allow for flexibility on the part of Member States in its implementation. The criterion must therefore be genuine conservation of the environment. Population density and distance will be the deciding factors in assessing whether recycling is sensible. Overall recovery and recycling targets should be considered to be along the same lines, that is, along the lines of the Commission proposal. This would prevent the use of recyclable materials merely as sources of energy. I am of the same view as Mrs Corbey that material-specific recycling targets should not be put forward. Apart from the fact that they would be awkward to set, it might mean that one sector is favoured and it might therefore distort competition. I tabled amendments both for the Committee and plenary session. They concern really quite small details, but are the sort of thing this directive seems to need for it not to become too cumbersome. One fairly prosaic example is the toilet paper tube. Perhaps many of us would not be eager to class it as packaging waste that would then have to be recycled and used, for example, in our neighbour’s toilet roll. It is to be hoped the directive will have an impact in two directions: it will be of major importance in rationalising practice, but, hopefully, also in preventing the generation of waste. The volume of waste should be de-coupled from economic growth, as my colleague Mrs Myller quite rightly stated here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph