Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the rapporteur on the work she has done, which above all has the merit of bringing the intent of our legislation closer to the criteria that we promised to fulfil at Kyoto. Even in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I felt it necessary to distance myself from certain positions that appear only to favour sectional objectives and are likely to produce a much more disastrous outcome both for the environment and for many Member States’ economies.
First of all, on the issue of the legal basis, the shift to Article 175 may result in a distortion of the single market concept, since it allows individual Member States to introduce more restrictive requirements and measures. Choosing Article 175 as the legal basis might lead to a paradox whereby some countries may decide to prohibit the use of SF6 but then resort to current alternatives that are more polluting and less safe than fluorinated gases.
We must not forget that the purpose of the regulation is to contain fluorinated gas emissions and not to ban them. Any ban – I am referring to Articles 7 and 8 in particular – should be preceded by a study assessing both the economic impact and the environmental benefit.
I must emphasise that it is pointless to cause serious economic damage to countries that base part of their economies on the responsible use of those gases when there is no likelihood of gaining appreciable environmental benefits, while even causing greater harm in some cases.
It is pointless to resort to bans that cannot offer any feasible scientific alternatives, when at the moment it would be enough to reduce emissions. It is pointless to hinder harmonisation, when this move puts even safety at work at risk. Fluorinated gases have high energy efficiency, are non-flammable and non-toxic, and can be handled and managed by workers in total safety. Statistics show that the alternative solutions have caused many deaths in the workplace.
An approach based on responsible use, with the same rules for all the Member States, has the clear advantage of being a win-win solution. It provides a reduction in the energy costs associated with a guaranteed high degree of safety, and the environment benefits as greenhouse gas emissions are cut to the absolute minimum."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples