Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-162"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.13.1-162"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I should like to elucidate my report on batteries and accumulators. At the European Parliament’s emphatic insistence, there is at long last a proposal by the European Commission. A number of points of the Commission proposal can be seen in a positive light.
First of all, all batteries fall within the scope of the directive. Secondly, there are binding collection targets. Thirdly, recycling percentages and recycling efficiencies are binding, and fourthly, producer responsibility plays a major role in the financing mechanisms.
In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, we have held an extensive debate on batteries. More specifically, we discussed the avoidance of the use of heavy metals and collection targets. Agreement has been reached with all groups on most points in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Even about the collection targets for batteries, we have reached a broadly supported compromise. Since the sales figures for batteries differ quite considerably from one Member State to another, certainly after 1 May, a decision has been made in favour of proposing a percentage of the sales as the collection target.
As far as the avoidance of the use of heavy metals is concerned, developments have been underway for years. EU legislation now stipulates that the heavy metals mercury, lead and cadmium are prohibited in materials and parts of vehicles which are brought onto the market after 1 July 2003, as well as in new electrical and electronic appliances which are brought onto the market after 1 July 2006.
The key problem involving batteries and accumulators is precisely the presence of mercury, lead and cadmium, which are heavy metals. On pages 9 to 12 of the explanatory note to the Commission’s proposal, the harmful environmental and health effects of mercury, cadmium and lead are clearly described. For that reason, most batteries containing mercury were already banned in 1998. The guiding principle underlying drafts of the Commission’s revised battery directive has always been a ban on nickel-cadmium batteries. Surprisingly, the present Commission proposal has not opted for a ban on these, but for a so-called closed-loop system for cadmium. However, there does not appear to be a closed-loop system since only 80% of portable nickel-cadmium batteries need to be collected. Consequently, 20% of portable nickel-cadmium batteries end up as landfill or in an incinerator. Since cadmium is a volatile metal, it will, in the case of waste incineration, inevitably end up in the atmosphere. That is why the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has introduced a ban on mercury, cadmium and lead. In addition, we have included an extensive list with exceptions for cases in which no effective substitutes are available. This includes batteries for hearing aids, emergency lighting, industrial batteries, lead accumulators and cordless power tools. Although I personally do not think the last exception to be necessary, I have added it nonetheless in order to accommodate objections from a number of Members.
The substitute for nickel-cadmium batteries, namely nickel-metal-hydride batteries, operate at a temperature of -20° Celsius to +60° Celsius. As such, I can assume that these batteries can be used across the entire European Union.
Finally, I should like to react to the comic strip of the European Portable Battery Association, in which it is suggested incorrectly that all kinds of applications would no longer be permitted if the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy were to be adopted.
I have an old – four and a half years old – mobile telephone. This old telephone contains a lithium-ion battery. I am almost certain that the batteries in all your mobile telephones are nickel-metal-hydride or lithium-ion. In short, if nickel-cadmium batteries are prohibited for these applications, there is no problem whatsoever. Another example from the comic strip is that of lead accumulators in cars, which are not prohibited in the directive on end-of-life vehicles. Neither are they prohibited in the framework of the battery directive, because, as you heard a moment ago, they are included in the list of exceptions. The same applies to button cells in hearing aids and watches, cordless power tools, emergency lighting and all industrial applications.
Even the European consumers’ organisation BEUC is in favour of a ban on nickel-cadmium batteries for consumer applications. Although, as you are aware, there are plenty of alternatives, I noticed that industry is, in principle, against a ban, to such an extent that they are opposed to it to this day, even though all the exceptions they required have been made. I take the view that such arguments should not play a role in the decision-making. I suspect there is a dangerous tactic behind this. In this respect, it is worthy of note that industry, which is so very much resistant to a ban on nickel-cadmium batteries, is promoting alternatives for these on their own websites. We should therefore also promote these alternatives, namely by excluding harmful heavy metals from batteries as much as possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples