Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.3.3-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Manders report claims to be based on the polluter pays principle: businesses that cause environmental damage must bear the costs of the damage they have caused. As some of the amendments were a step in the right direction, we voted in favour of this report. However, one major problem remains: putting it into practice.
It is not enough for Parliament to adopt these recommendations for them to be enforced, nor is it enough for it to appoint a competent authority for operators to shoulder their responsibilities. This is particularly true where the operator is a multinational group that has the resources to evade them and the competent authority usually gives in to its demands, as we saw in France with TotalFinaElf (
oil slick, explosion at the
factory).
The rapporteur’s emphases regarding the polluter being responsible up to a certain limit would be funny if the behaviour of these large groups, which are concerned first and foremost with their profit margins, did not have tragic consequences for the population.
Similarly, it is not enough for financial guarantees to be established. The IOPCF, which is supposed to cover oil tanker risk, has just announced that it will only reimburse 15% of the
damage as it has no money. To appease the anger of the victims, the French Government did not consider looking to the charter company but will make the taxpayers pay instead. In other words, faced with the harsh reality of a profit-oriented society, this report will make absolutely no difference at all."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples