Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-156"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Fluorinated greenhouse gases – Emissions from motor vehicle air-conditioning systems2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051024.19.1-156"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-10-24-Speech-1-1572
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-09-15--2007-01-14)3 member; LIBE (2004-09-14--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-11-18--2006-12-12)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 treasurer; IND/DEM (2004-07-26--2007-02-12)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Doyle for her excellent report. While she has moved a reasoned proposal particularly where the legal basis is concerned, my group would like to see the Member States’ right to take additional measures made more explicit in the directive. That is why we have tabled Amendment 45. I hope that the rapporteur can endorse this in addition to the change to the legal basis. As for the bans that are added to Annex 2, especially Amendments 34 to 36, I can tell you that I do not support them. In time, I would like to see the use of fluorinated gases phased out in those applications, but we do not know whether the alternatives are actually more energy-efficient. It is therefore too premature to impose a ban at present. In future, a ban could be instituted when this directive is reviewed, but only if research were to prove that this is really more energy-efficient. I would be interested to hear what view the Commission takes of these product bans. The last thing I would like to say has to do with Amendment 19. We have just discussed my own report on cross-border waste shipments. Like many other substances, used fluorinated gases are waste substances that may be processed more effectively in a different country. Fluorinated gases are therefore not as unusual as this amendment gives us to believe, and so we should not make an exception to the normal licensing procedure for waste shipments. It would be very strange indeed if during tomorrow’s vote, we first demonstrated our allegiance to a more coherent approach to waste shipments, only to shoot this uniform approach to tatters the next day. I would therefore ask the rapporteur, and the House, not to back Amendment 19."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph