Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-28-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041028.3.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am delighted we are having this debate, as it is a crucial environmental issue, which is already of great concern to many people.
These new, much more powerful sonars – one of the loudest sound systems ever devised – have sparked an epidemic of strandings, internal bleeding, deafness and lung damage wherever they have been tested. A single blast of the new technology can affect animals across 3.8 million km2 of water. That is why it is simply not good enough that the Commission responded to a written question of mine last November, simply saying that this type of technology needs to be used with caution. This type of technology
be used with caution because of the huge impact it has. At one hundred miles away from the source of the sound, the noise can still cause shearing of the tissues in the air sack behind whales' and dolphins brains.
I listened with great interest to the Commissioner's introduction, and I heard a lot about more research but nothing about calling for a moratorium. In July, the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission unanimously issued a strong statement of concern about intense underwater noise, citing what
calls compelling evidence that entire populations of whales and other marine mammals are potentially threatened by it. So do not tell us that we need more research before we call for a moratorium – we do not: there is plenty of evidence that we need to act.
I would strongly urge Members to vote against the amendment tabled by the PPE Group, which seeks to weaken the resolution by calling upon Member States to adopt geographic restrictions in sensitive marine habitats. There is simply no scientific justification for this amendment.
Mrs Korhola gave a very nice speech – it is a pity she has now left the Chamber – but she did not explain why she has put her name to this very same amendment, which would gut and weaken the very resolution which she claims to support. Given that a single blast of this low-frequency technology can affect animals across 3.8 million km2 of water and that little is known about their migratory patterns, geographic restrictions are not appropriate. They will not work. I urge colleagues to reject that amendment."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"it"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples