Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.4.3-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The ‘polluter pays’ principle is currently widely accepted. Does that imply, however, that those with a great deal of money are allowed to cause a great deal of pollution? Furthermore, what happens if the culprit is unable to pay, or if the perpetrator is not found, or if everything is carried out according to the rules on authorisation? For such time as the economy continues to be considered more important than the environment, mitigating circumstances and exceptions will always be sought. More must be done to render disasters involving oil tankers at sea and involving nuclear power stations practically impossible, but if such disasters occur nevertheless, the damage is vast. In the current situation, compulsory insurance for all economic activities is the most important weapon for preventing such disasters. The insurance companies, which do not like paying out large sums, will force the companies insured with them to become safer. It emerged from the preliminary debate that it is not just a case of an undisputed technical regime. Disasters involving oil and those involving nuclear power are exempted owing to insufficient international regimes. The right wing is saying that compulsory insurance is not customary practice, will become prohibitively expensive, and gives rise to excessive bureaucracy. The alternative would be that no one would pay for cleaning up and restoration in the event of environmental disasters, or that this would be paid for out of taxes. I support all attempts to tighten up this Directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples