Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060703.18.1-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we need is a standardised European procedure for stemming the environmental impact of air transport. Unilateral measures at national level such as airline-ticket taxes and kerosene taxes will not work. Emissions trading in air transport is the right course of action but, from a transport-policy point of view – or from my point of view – the main instruments contained in the Lucas report are wrong.
Firstly, we need aviation to be included in the existing EU Emissions Trading Scheme. A separate scheme would be counterproductive and would stall the growth in air transport. That conflicts with our Lisbon Strategy. Why is that the case? There is no market without suppliers and, in the early days, air transport will buy only on the basis of its growth rates and of technical innovations for the long term.
In addition, a separate scheme would require a new administrative structure and contradict our intention to strive for better lawmaking. What would we then do with other modes of transport? Would we need further schemes? This does not make any sense.
Secondly, I reject the inclusion of non-CO2 climate-change impacts through multipliers. Let us look at Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, where the NOx problem is regulated by means of landing charges. It makes sense to do it that way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples