Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-361"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.13.2-361"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we all know, of course, that we are not floating in a vacuum and that one of our objectives is to occupy the strongest negotiating position. And it goes without saying that the position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is also a negotiating position, as my honourable colleague Mrs Jackson knows from her own political experience. We want a clearer definition of the aim we are trying to pursue, and rightly so. To that extent, Commissioner, however much I normally value your work, I am not entirely happy with the proposal, because it essentially offers nothing more than a system which will result in new sets of measurements – and let me say in passing to Mrs Jackson, who normally attaches great importance to the cost factor, that these measurements will be expensive, creating costs for the local authorities, regions or national governments that have to fund these measuring stations.
Nevertheless, we are aware of the dangerous nature of these heavy metals. In this respect, merely saying that we intend to take measurements is not the right approach, nor is it the most cost-effective. We must clearly indicate the direction in which we intend to proceed. As I said, the position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is, quite evidently, a negotiating position too. When we negotiate with the Council, positions will naturally shift. That is perfectly obvious, and for this reason I advocated postponement of the vote, precisely to have this time for negotiation.
The aim, though, is to make it clear what direction we intend to take in this area of our policy on air quality. I am not such a dogmatist that I would absolutely insist on enshrining particular target values and regarding them as non-negotiable, but we must make clear statements about the ultimate aim if we are to prevent the emission of hazardous substances into the environment, into the air we breathe.
If we look at the ways in which most of these hazardous substances, such as cadmium, chromium or nickel, enter the atmosphere, we find that they are generally emitted in areas with high population densities. This is why I have received letters from many local authorities asking us to set binding limit values so that they can deal better with their situation on the ground. But I do not see that as a solution. We must take full advantage of all the possibilities offered by technological progress to reduce emissions. For this reason, we need target values, coupled with clear statements as to how and when they can be achieved. In this respect I am confident, Mrs Jackson, that we can reach an agreement in our negotiations with the Council at the first reading, an agreement which clearly conveys the message that we wish to avoid emissions of these heavy metals altogether wherever possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples