Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-04-Speech-1-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060904.18.1-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the number of cars has risen at an alarming rate over recent decades, while the use of the train, tram, underground and bus has stagnated. This has resulted in an enormous amount of space being taken up by car parks and motorways, bringing with them noise pollution, air pollution and a lack of traffic safety. Now that cars are the most commonly used mode of transport, and the road infrastructure is very extensive, complex and expensive, we cannot avoid the question of who will be footing the bill for this.
Various Member States, when determining car tax, already take greater account of the pollution they cause. Unfortunately, the proposal for a directive is a half-hearted one since it appears to be mainly pursuing other objectives. A simultaneous attempt is being made, without this contributing to less pollution, to harmonise taxes in the Member States and to give the car market new growth opportunities by introducing a price reduction from 2016.
According to the draft directive, which aims to integrate the emission of cars gradually and partially in motorised vehicle tax, a quarter of tax should be based on the CO2 emission by the end of 2008 and half by 2010, but why stop there? Why did the Commission not propose right away to take the emission of NOx and soot particles, as well as the car’s fuel efficiency as a basis for calculating motorised vehicle tax, rather than wait for amendments? Why has the Commission, for the past ten years, not shown any support for Germany Greenpeace’s initiative to develop a car that uses half the amount of petrol? Instead, the Commission would like to gradually phase out registration tax on cars across the European Union and, in so doing, make the car cheaper in 16 Member States.
So far, taxes and the differences in them have been a matter of national autonomy and national considerations. If the Union does more than combat tax havens and other forms of large-scale tax evasion, it goes beyond its line of duty. The aim should be to reduce harmful emissions rather than provide the car industry, even after the market has been saturated, with customers who are keen to buy the latest model every year. My group has rejected a ban on registration tax.
Car emissions have over the past ten years increased by 30%, despite the Kyoto Agreement and despite technical improvements. Since the increase in the number of cars and the average mileage more than cancel out the technological benefits, my group believes that doing things by halves is no longer an option. As far as we are concerned, not just 50% of car tax should be based on their CO2 emission, but 100% on the pollution they cause. The easiest way of solving this is by changing motorised vehicle tax into a levy on fuel according to the emissions. In that way, it is the air polluter that pays, and not the car owner.
New cars will need to meet strict fuel efficiency requirements, and priority will need to be given to soot filters becoming compulsory in diesel cars. In addition, the car mileage will need to come down, and that is only possible by providing robust, healthy and affordable public transport. Belt-tightening measures and privatisation in this sector, supported by the European Union, have so far had only the opposite effect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples