Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Doyle for her excellent work on this issue. My Group fully supports the change in the regulation's legal basis to Article 175. The sole objective of this regulation is, clearly, climate protection. It should be remembered that these gases were already included, in 1997, in the basket of gases to be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol and that this regulation emerged from a specific programme called the European Climate Change programme. So we should not be fooled by the pro-F-gas lobbyists who argue both for avoiding a change of legal basis and for maintenance of the status quo for their climate-destructive products.
Climate-friendly alternatives exist for almost all applications, or are in development. None of the phase-outs and bans proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is unrealistic, as some would claim, since they all take into consideration exemptions where safety standards require.
I would also point out that f-gases were pushed onto the market as replacements for CFCs, which cause ozone depletion and skin cancers, precisely by the same big chemical companies – like DuPont or, in my own country, Ineos, as ICI is now known – that were, themselves, major producers of ozone-destroying substances.
This Parliament should stand firm and put the environment and the well-being of Europe’s citizens before the narrow corporate interests of those chemical giants."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples