Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-20-Speech-1-105"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Gaseous and particulate emissions from non-road mobile machinery2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031020.7.1-105"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-20-Speech-1-1062
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--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 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, this proposal sees us continuing a tradition of this House. We have, in the past, been very thorough in campaigning for a reduction in the emission of pollutants from motors, and now we want to deal with stationary apparatus and mobile machines, an area that has not hitherto been covered. Combating these pollutants, or actually reducing them, has no profound influence on potential pollution overall, but it is significant, in that these machines and pieces of apparatus are highly localised and are generally in use for a considerable period of time. This results in heavy local pollution, which is detrimental – particularly through particulates and nitrogen oxides – to people’s health. This is something we should constantly bear in mind. I can tell Mr Lange that we should be rather more cautious here, and that this is where we should not allow ourselves to be misled into presenting specific technical solutions as especially effective in reducing the emission of pollutants. Not only do we have to cut pollutants, but we also have to think about reducing CO2 in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. We know that installing filters increases the output of CO2. This, surely, is where a compromise has to be found, so that, while calling for a reduction, we nonetheless have to keep asking ourselves to what extent we have to approach this problem only from this direction. I can agree with the specification that the rapporteur has proposed, and we should continue to take this robust line. I can remember how, in 1998, it was prophesied that Europe’s oil sector would collapse; yet it ended up being quicker off the mark than the timescale we had proposed. Our approach is without doubt the right one. I am rather more cautious about extending this to railways and boats, where I am sure that there are still some open questions. We are attempting to move more goods on to rails and boats. We also know that public transport also has to be covered – a sector that makes particular use of rail vehicles. These, though, produce pollutants, and it is on these that we want to impose rules. We will have to re-examine this. That is why the proposal is right to include such vehicles; had it not done so, approving it would have been a bit more difficult. This way, we can agree on a common denominator."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph