Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, fluorinated gases can destroy the ozone layer, and it is therefore important for all countries to be called on to make an extra effort to get rid of them. A direct ban, as has been implemented in Denmark, would be best. As Mrs Auken said, Danish industry has got used to the ban and is developing environmentally friendly alternatives. However, neither the Commission’s nor Mrs Doyle’s proposal refers explicitly to this viable ban.
Mrs Doyle deserves praise for using the minimum provisions of Article 175 instead of the internal market’s total harmonisation. We know that she has been under heavy pressure, but Mrs Doyle’s proposal is scarcely enough to preserve the Danish ban. Together with Mr Blokland, I have therefore tabled Amendment 45, which specifies that all countries should be permitted to go further in protecting the ozone layer against fluorinated gases. I want to be satisfied that we can keep our ban and thus the incentive to create sustainable alternatives. We know that the Commission administers Article 175 very strictly and always wants to see uniform rules instead of supporting those countries that wish to lead the way. The Commission represents total harmonisation rather than promotion of the environment, the hole in the ozone layer rather than the ozone layer itself and the past rather than our common future. I would therefore call on all my fellow Members to support Amendment 45. It reads: ‘This Regulation shall not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing stricter protective measures’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples