Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-178"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.14.3-178"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank Caroline Lucas for her report and also pay tribute to Heidi Hautala, upon whose original report this is built and who is now back in national politics in Finland. It highlights an issue that the citizens around the European Union are not even aware of, despite the fact that what the Commissioner says is absolutely true. If present trends continue, over half the pollution produced in the EU will be out at sea.
It is true that the use of sea transport and inland waterways is the most environmentally friendly way of moving goods with the possible exception of a locomotive using electricity produced in a nuclear power station. It is important we see development of this particular type of transport. It is also true that we take the pressure off the roads. In my own country, lack of investment in roads means that one alternative could be the development of more coastal shipping, using ports, for example Scarborough and Whitby, in my region.
However, there is a downside to the improvements that we have achieved on land and in fuel quality. If you fill up your car with the latest diesel at 10 parts per million, the downside of that is that the sulphur, which has been taken out of your diesel, remains in the bunker fuel which goes to the ships, and could be 26 000 parts per million.
The Hautala report, at first reading, called for reductions to 1.5% in sensitive areas like the English Channel, the Baltic and the North Sea. It is very encouraging that the amendments that I put forward at first reading with regard to abatement technology were taken on board. P[amp]O Ferries, operating on the Dover-Calais route, have two identical ships operating, one with the abatement technology and one without. I hope the Commission will look at the initial results of those trials to see whether this technology is an alternative, more cost-effective way of achieving the aims that we want. I hope that these amendments will be taken more seriously by the Commission than some of the amendments that the Commissioner referred to, which call for even stricter levels that may not be cost-effective.
We must bear in mind that if we reduce the sulphur levels of fuel for ships, we increase the emissions at the oil refinery where these sulphur levels are reduced. It is important that we act internationally, and not unilaterally, through the International Maritime Organisation and Marpol Annex VI. It is particularly disappointing that only five Member States have ratified Marpol Annex VI. Unless there have been developments which the Commissioner could refer to, I understand that the United Kingdom - which is always critical of other countries that do not ratify agreements such as Kyoto - has not ratified Marpol Annex VI.
It is vitally important, when we look at emissions, to see where they take place. Emissions out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean do not cause us problems on land. I am worried that some of the more ambitious suggestions in Mrs Lucas' report, for example an 80% cut, are out of proportion to the cost. But we now have a reasonably balanced report which we will be pleased to support in the vote in plenary tomorrow."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples