Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-24-Speech-1-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051024.19.1-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have listened carefully to the speeches of the distinguished parliamentarians and I should like to make some comments on the specific amendments.
A number of other amendments that improve some of the general provisions of the regulation can be accepted. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendment 12, which provides a new definition of placing on the market. Although it supports the principle of Amendment 19 on the need to facilitate the shipment of recovered fluorinated greenhouse gases in the Community, the Commission believes it is unnecessary here since this matter is covered by the new waste shipment regulation.
As regards the directive, the Commission believes that Amendment 1 on fiscal incentives does not provide any new value added to the proposal. Member States are already allowed to grant fiscal incentives, provided that they comply with state aid rules, particularly the guidelines on state aid for environmental protection, as well as on Commission notice on the application of the state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation. The same goes for Amendment 2, as the 1999 directive already requires Member States to ensure that the label indicating carbon dioxide emissions is affixed on all new cars for sale in the European Union. However, as part of its review of this directive, with a view to making an amending proposal in 2006, if necessary, the Commission will also investigate the possibility of including on the label information on the greenhouse gas effect of mobile air conditioners. This will cover information regarding both the refrigerant used and the impact on fuel consumption. I believe this will satisfy all concerns.
Many of the new amendments that have been tabled seeking to shift the final date in the common position from 2017 to 2016 will not be supported by the Commission, since we believe that the existing dates achieve our environmental ambition and would allow industry sufficient time for compliance. It is important that the phase-out is achieved in a smooth, effective and technologically sound manner.
In summary, the Commission believes that, given the relatively small environmental gain that would result from advancing the deadline for the phase-out, the case for a change is not justified. Likewise, we cannot support amendments that change the threshold for the global warming potential from 150 to 50, since this would in our view be determining the technology that the industry has to apply for little environmental gain. We also believe that the proposed exemption for small car producers is not compatible with the type-approval system.
In conclusion, out of 45 proposed amendments to the regulation, the Commission can accept five fully, and a further 18 in principle or in part. For the directive, the Commission cannot support the 10 amendments proposed. I shall give a complete list of the Commission’s position on the amendments to Parliament’s Secretariat.
Finally, I would just like to add that, in a letter from the Director-General to Mr Florenz, the Commission has given details of the discussion we had in the college regarding the proposals pending before the legislator. This is just to provide Parliament with the existing available information, but no further economic studies are necessary.
Amendments relating to the legal base of the regulation are of particular importance. Amendments 1, 4, 5 (first part) and 45 concern the establishment of Article 175, and Amendments 33 and 40 concern the establishment of Article 95 as the sole legal base.
The Commission has accepted, as part of the compromise, that the directive should be based on Article 95 alone and that the regulation should have a legal base of Article 175 and Article 95 in relation to Articles 8, 9 and 10. However, the Commission will closely follow further developments on this issue in both Parliament and the Council. I have most certainly taken note of your concerns on this issue.
Amendments 2 and 7 specify in Article 1, with a corresponding change to the recital, that specific actions are needed in order for Member States to reach their individual Kyoto emission targets. As I have already said, the Commission can support these amendments provided that the Member States do not infringe other Treaty obligations. Likewise, it can support Amendments 6 and 31 on the promotion of alternative technologies, provided there is a change to the text.
There are a number of amendments of a technical nature specifically addressing containment. The Commission can support most of those amendments, provided that in some cases there is a change in language to reflect the technical realities.
We can also agree in principle to Amendment 25, as regards the need to indicate the global warming potential on labels for the applications covered in this regulation, although we believe the issue of labelling would be best resolved by the Commission through the committee, after careful preparation.
The review provision is very important since the regulation is only a first step. In this context, we can be positive on some of the amendments that strengthen this review process. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendments 27 and 30, which would require the Commission to provide a proposal by a specific date, irrespective of the findings of its review. This would undermine the Commission’s right of initiative with respect to legislative proposals and cannot be accepted.
The Commission cannot support Amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 41, which introduce new ‘placing on the market bans’. The Commission has always stated that a full technical and economic evaluation is needed before establishing whether a product or equipment containing fluorinated gases should be prohibited. The review provides for this four years after the entry into force of the regulation.
Amendment 26, which requires the use of HFCs only where safe, technically feasible, cost-effective and more environmentally sound alternatives do not exist, is also unacceptable. In practice, this would allow any Member State to do as it wished with respect to products containing fluorinated greenhouse gases, because there are no established criteria to determine that alternatives are safe, technically feasible and environmentally sound, etc."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples