Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to say thank you very much to Mrs Doyle who, I think, has done some very creditable work on this report. I see it as our duty as legislators to encourage and facilitate the development of new and more environmentally friendly technology. When there is new, environmentally friendly technology at a reasonable cost, there is no reason for us to permit older, environmentally polluting technology.
In the legislation, we must also, if possible, avoid confining ourselves to a particular technical solution just because, at precisely the time we legislate, it is the best in environmental terms. Instead, we must lay down requirements regarding upper limits for emissions and for other environmental pollution. In the light of this, I am in actual fact quite satisfied with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety’s proposals for limiting the use of greenhouse gases, even though I should obviously have liked some of my own amendments – which went a little further, for example regarding the use of fluorohydrocarbons – also to have been sanctioned by the majority of the committee. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has, however, decided, despite everything, to demand that more substances be phased out than those put forward by the Council for such treatment.
I am, in actual fact, particularly glad that the Committee has supported having Article 175 as the legal base, something that quite a few speakers have already mentioned. It is important that the Committee wishes to make it possible for countries that have stricter rules for the use of greenhouse gases to be able to retain these rules and for those that want to introduce such rules to be able to do so. Environmental requirements within the EU must not be harmonised downwards, but upwards.
When it comes to air-conditioning in cars, we are not convinced that there is at present good reason for requiring that the gas used should not be permitted to have a warming potential higher than 50, partly because the climate benefits of such a reduction would be extremely small and, at the same time, very expensive but mainly because the technology involving carbon dioxide has not yet been tested sufficiently for us to commit ourselves irrevocably to it. We in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament therefore support the rapporteur on this specific issue.
Finally, I wish to call on everyone to support the changes proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in tomorrow’s vote and, at the same time of course, the amendments tabled by the PSE Group, for example those about introducing the stricter rules for air-conditioning in cars at a time earlier than that proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples