Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.14.1-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner Wallström, environmental policy has so far been relatively successful in dealing with point source emissions from factories, power stations etc. It is a different matter where non-point source emissions are concerned, that is to say the effects of the consumption of goods and services. The problem we face is that total pollution in society, especially due to our habits of consumption, is increasing all the time. The European Environmental Agency has recently shown that the volume of waste in the fifteen Member States has increased by 15% since 1990. In spite of the fact that we have reduced pollution and are using energy and materials more efficiently, the gains are quickly being eroded by increased growth. Because the world’s gross domestic product is expected to increase by three or four times in the next 30 to 40 years, we must do something radical if we are not literally to be buried beneath an ever higher mountain of waste and pollution.
Madam President, during the discussion in the committee, the Commission’s representative pointed out that sights are not set primarily upon a framework directive. I regret that. I am convinced that a framework directive is needed, and I hope that, under Commissioner Wallström’s leadership, the Commission will think the matter over and realise that it is important in the long term to bring about a horizontal, political framework that is of help in environmental work overall.
The Integrated Product Policy we are debating in this House today offers excellent opportunities for creating a framework of incentives to get us to move away from production and consumption models characterised by a consumerist approach to linear resource flows and, instead, to embrace resource efficiency, waste minimisation, controlled use of hazardous substances and expansion of the stocks of natural capital. If this is to happen, the Integrated Product Policy must, however, be based upon a long-term vision of how we are to change our industrial production model.
I think that what we have learned is that it is not sufficient to pollute a little less. We must strive to achieve patterns of production and consumption that are clean in themselves.
The advantage of an Integrated Product Policy is that it involves a comprehensive approach, that is to say it tackles the whole product chain from the extraction of natural resources via product design and the production phase itself to the stage at which the product’s useful life is over. The Commission’s proposal has a number of good features, but is still not sufficiently proactive. It seems as if the Commission has partly rejected the Integrated Product Policy in favour of the thematic strategies. I see it not as an either/or but as a both/and. We need the thematic strategies, but we also need a framework for the Integrated Product Policy in order to hold the policy together and to be a driving force in its actual implementation. In general, environmental policy and also energy policy must become far more coherent and consistent. We now have an abundance of directives and regulations, but too little attention is given to the bigger picture.
In its proposal, the Commission talks about using voluntary methods as far as possible. EMAS and ISO are obviously constructive, but research shows that they are not enough. On the Commission’s model, voluntariness is also linked to market forces, that is to say to working with the market. Because it is extremely rare for environmental costs to be factored into the prices, the market does not, however, operate satisfactorily. Companies must be given direct incentives, that is to say be able to earn money from developing environmentally adapted products. That is rarely the case at present, in which case how is the market supposed to be able to help?
In its communication, the Commission talks about improving information for consumers. That is good, but it is naïve to believe that better labelling and better environmental information will solve this problem. I myself have been involved in developing environmental labelling in Scandinavia, and I know how difficult it is to implement it on a broad front.
As I see it, we need to place the Integrated Product Policy within a dynamic framework that supplies guidelines for policy in general and provides support for the thematic strategies. This framework should be characterised by a clear vision, based partly on the following principles.
Firstly, a systems-based approach, of which life-cycle thinking is the very core. Secondly, an enhanced understanding of how natural systems and the eco-system work so that companies’ product and business models might be adapted along biological lines. Thirdly, the optimisation of the product design process by the selection of materials that have as little environmental impact as possible. Fourthly, the principle that products whose useful life is over must be broken down into their component parts and either re-used or, if they consist of biologically degradable materials, progressively integrated into natural cycles. Finally, much more thorough use must be made of the increase in information in order to promote greater efficiency when it comes to the use of energy, materials and dematerialisation.
It is especially important to note the opportunities presented through learning from, and copying, nature. I do not have time to go into this now, but there are a number of examples where companies now make use of these principles, bring about perfectly clean solutions and, moreover, earn money from doing so."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples