Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-12-Speech-2-382"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-04-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sulphur content of marine fuels2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050412.34.2-382"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-04-12-Speech-2-3832
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2006-09-26)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2004-07-20--2006-09-26)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 substitute; INTA (2004-07-21--2006-09-26)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2006-09-26)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2006-09-26)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I too wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hassi for her sterling work on this very important environmental issue. I also share the view that the result would scarcely have been any better if we had forced the matter to a conciliation, something that would of course have been a possibility. Sulphur emissions from many different sources have, of course, declined considerably in recent years. It has been possible to combat a large proportion of acidification problems in this way. Emissions from shipping are still very high, however, and ships use really dirty fuels not used elsewhere. The proportion of sulphur emissions specifically from shipping is at present indefensibly high. This legislation is therefore very important. The fact is, however, that it could have been significantly better. Resistance from a number of countries in the Council is the main reason why it does not make the most of the technical opportunities we in actual fact have to clean up emissions and fuels. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in Parliament also bear a portion of the responsibility, however. At first reading, the PPE-DE Group was in favour of binding commitments to sulphur content of no more than 0.5%. Now, they have changed their minds, and one wonders why. Now, the objective of 0.5% sulphur content is only included as an option following a future review. That is something we regret. In other areas too, there has been a dismantling of what it would be within our powers to do. In spite of this, we shall vote in favour of this compromise, not because it is perfect but because we believe that it is as much as we can achieve this time."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph