Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-374"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.26.2-374"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, our group did not vote in favour of this compromise in the conciliation committee, and we shall not vote in favour of it in plenary tomorrow. We are not satisfied with the content, and we are definitely not satisfied with the legal basis. That is not a criticism of the rapporteur. We believe that Mrs Doyle has done the best she possibly could in a difficult situation and has tried to go as far as humanly possible in claiming the right to retain and to introduce better environmental requirements. Given, however, the very weak position in which she found herself following Parliament’s second reading, she was unable to achieve the only reasonable objective, namely that of having environmental Article 175 adopted as the only legal basis. For us, the only acceptable outcome is for environmental legislation to be allowed to be precisely that.
We see two problems with this compromise. The first problem is that, in our view, larger steps could have been taken where various parts of it were concerned. More rapid progress can be made in abolishing these very dangerous greenhouse gases. The most serious consideration of all, however, is that there is now an active risk of putting obstacles in the way of countries that want to tighten up their national legislation in this area. This situation violates the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol and could be an obstacle to countries that wish to combat climate change which, as we all know, is the most serious environmental threat we face.
Where Denmark and Austria are concerned, they are to be given a guarantee up until the year 2012, whereupon the guarantee will come to an end. We shall then not know what is to happen, and there will again be a danger of these countries actively being forced to curb the legislation they already have. Where other countries are concerned, there would in actual fact be an end to reform if the Commission does not take a different decision. This situation is completely unacceptable.
It also means that countries within the EU will have difficulty producing new technology – which is precisely what this document says they should be doing – with a view to taking the lead by banning dangerous gases and forcing alternatives to be produced using just such new technology. By their action, the Council and the Commission are preventing new technology from being produced. In our debates, we usually agree on the seriousness of climate issues, and we usually agree with the researchers’ reports we see, saying that the situation is more serious than we believed a few years ago. Then comes this statement from the Commission, showing that it has learned nothing about climate issues. What you are saying is that the market remains more important than the environment. Companies’ right to sell dangerous gases is more important than political opportunities to combat the greenhouse effect and climate change. It is remarkable that such a thing can be said in 2006."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples