Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-053"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Noise charges for civil subsonic aircraft2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020903.3.2-053"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-03-Speech-2-0542
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, noise pollution has a significant effect on the well being of very many European citizens. Noise in the areas close to airports often reaches a level that is unbearable for millions of our fellow citizens. That is why it is absolutely essential to combine regulatory methods with economic instruments in order to minimise noise pollution. The first measure that should be taken is to withdraw the noisiest aircraft. This measure has only been partially implemented so far. We are aware that many aircraft, which only just meet the standards described in Chapter 3, continue to use airports in Europe. It is now imperative that we supplement the regulatory measures with economic instruments. Therefore, using charges and applying the polluter pays principle is certainly a good initiative. We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal, which seeks to introduce a system of charges in a harmonised Community framework. The aim is to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft and, in addition, to avoid dumping between airports. Noise dumping of this kind is obviously very harmful to citizens living close to these airports. That said, although the Commission’s proposal is sound in principle, when it is examined in more detail, it can be seen that it is not sufficiently rigorous or effective, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. According to this proposal, then, the introduction of charges is optional, which will inevitably bring about a dumping policy. Moreover, the differentiation between types of noise pollution is insufficient. Since the proposed ratio of 1:20 between the highest and lowest noise charge was insufficient, the rapporteur suggested increasing this ratio from 20 to 40, which is wholly acceptable. By and large, we agree with the proposals made by the rapporteur, but we added one element to these proposals that the rapporteur unfortunately rejects, namely to take into account the level of noise at night and the level of noise during the day/night/evening, which are two extremely important indicators of noise pollution which allow us to differentiate between charges. We hope that the rapporteur reviews his position and takes into account the problem of noise at night because it is obvious that this problem is certainly the most harmful nuisance that one can encounter. We are not going to solve the problem with charges alone, but in any case, this measure will help to improve the situation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph