Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-248"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20040330.9.2-248"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". Mr President, first of all I apologise for being breathless. The brevity of colleagues today has brought this debate forward slightly to the point where I was not quite expecting to be called to speak so early. Nevertheless, perhaps we can finish before the dinner break. I congratulate Mr Goodwill, who has written a good report and taken on board many of the comments and remarks made by colleagues. We are moving towards a document which will carry to the Council many of the points that we have raised and will be a sound basis for further work in the next Parliament. As a Geordie to a Yorkshire man, I have to say, 'Th'as done good, lad'. That being said, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved. I hope we can get unity in this House for the change of legal base to a double legal base. It makes sense. In many respects this directive has two purposes, both to regulate the industrial market and also to protect the environment. We are trying to protect the environment, to remove from use, gradually and steadily, fluorinated gases, or Fgases as they are called. Useful though they have been to replace CFCs, HFCs themselves present problems, particularly with their global warming potential, and we have a responsibility to gradually reduce their use, but in a way that is logical, not too expensive, and where there are proven and viable alternatives. Our biggest step forward and our biggest technological push is unquestionably the replacement of HFCs in car air conditioning systems. These systems are produced in their millions, their leakability is notorious – I know of colleagues at home who have had to have their air conditioning systems refilled two, three or four times. I do not accept that the solution is simply to reduce the number of leaks. The solution is to move to a different kind of gas that does not present the problems that HFCs clearly do in that sector. As regards uses in other areas, there are some key and essential uses and we want to examine them carefully before we move forward with an amendment that originated with me – Amendment No 89 – which asks for an orderly phase-out over a period of time after this directive is brought into force. I hope the Commission can agree to that amendment. It gives it flexibility and a task to perform, but in a steady, logical way for which it will no doubt come back to this House for approval. We will not immediately be looking to remove HFCs from fire-fighting uses, where they are clearly very useful and the alternatives are, in my opinion, not yet proven. We will not want to remove the ban from refrigerators, where there are certain medical uses which are essential. The motto with this proposal is 'forward, but with a degree of prudence'."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph