Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060925.13.1-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, whilst I assume this generous gesture applies to the second speaker from the floor today, I shall attempt to keep it brief. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to start with a brief word of thanks to the shadow rapporteurs for this topic, Mr Krahmer, Mrs Weisgerber and Mr Wijkman, along with all other shadow rapporteurs who have contributed to this positive outcome. Air quality is a major health problem and when, more than six months ago, I started to look into it in depth, I was shocked by just how great it turned out to be.
Serious source policy has a positive impact on air, the environment and public health, but ultimately also cuts down on energy and benefits the climate on account of reduced CO2 emissions. It is also conducive to innovation: cleaner and more economical cars, for example, sell better. That is why the Committee on the Environment wishes to include in the directive Article 30A, which demands source policy by 2010. That is why the strategy proposes an interinstitutional agreement in which source policy can be enshrined. Moreover, Member States must, if there is no source policy, be able to take their own source measures outside of the market.
Air pollution is a serious problem, but the good news is that it can be resolved, provided we are willing to display the political will. The Committee on the Environment has, in my view, laid down a firm basis with these three pillars. In the new compromise, we have also given teeth to matters as they stand and improved them, and I am once again indebted to everyone who has made a contribution, particularly Mr Krahmer, Mrs Weisgerber and Mr Wijkman. With stricter standards, more attention for implementation and source policy, we have made a few major policy changes. This approach stands for a new Europe, close to the people, with a view to implementing legislation by national and local governments, with innovation in mind.
Europeans die some nine months prematurely on account of air quality, and 350 000 people die ten years prematurely. Millions of people suffer from asthma and related disorders. Bad air quality does not affect everyone in the same way. People who live in large cities, along motorways, children and the elderly are the worst affected. In addition, air pollution, and the acid rain that results from it, represent a major environmental problem in large swathes of Europe, particularly in Scandinavia.
It is for that reason, Commissioner, that we expect firm policy to curb air pollution and that is why we are disappointed with the proposals you have put forward. Mr Krahmer’s report, and my own, are above all an indictment of the attitude of indifference where air pollution is concerned. We demand, in fact, three political changes. First of all stricter standards; secondly, that more attention be given to implementation; and, thirdly, action to address the problem of air pollution at source.
Turning to the standards first, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls, in both reports, for a more ambitious approach, and that is something that is desperately needed. In the thematic strategy, the level of ambition opted for lies between A, B and C and the Maximum Technically Feasible Reduction scenario. All impact assessment studies indicate that even the maximum scenario is still cost-effective and that the ideal scenario lies between B and C. Nevertheless, the Commission, incidentally without any further explanation, has chosen level of ambition A+, which, in terms of public health, is an incomprehensible choice. A higher level of ambition is possible, as the United States has proven, and is also very cost-effective, as is evident from all studies that underpin it.
Whilst the proposals that are tabled in my report may be a few billions more expensive, they yield definite health gains. They are also a definite incentive for innovation. In the directive, the Commission proposes a new form for the finer particles, PM2.5. The finest particles are most harmful to health and the standard is also more precise, because the smallest particles contain fewer natural sources such as sea salt and desert sand. PM2.5 is therefore a better measure, although the way in which the Commission has fleshed it out is very disappointing. Parliament has demanded a target and limit value of 20 µg/m3 for PM2.5. This is considerably better than the 25 µg which the Commission and Council back, but still worse than the 15 µg in the United States and the 10 µg recommended by the World Health Organisation.
I am, in fact, very interested to see how the Commission will integrate the level of ambition selected for the strategy by Parliament in future legislation and in the National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive. Would you be in a position to say anything on this matter, Commissioner? Will you now follow Parliament’s example and opt for a level of ambition that lies between B and C?
Better standards are needed, as I said before, but that is only one of the three pillars. Our second pillar is attention for implementation. To date, efforts on the part of the Member States have not been altogether convincing. Only four Member States are in full compliance with the limit values as specified in the present directive. It is up to the Commission to ensure that these are observed, and that is also necessary, because air pollution is a cross-border problem. Since half of the Netherlands’ air pollution is imported from abroad, it cannot possibly make the air cleaner on its own, and it must be able to rely on the Belgian, British and German Governments making every effort to tackle air pollution. Conversely, the Netherlands exports an awful lot of pollution, and that is why the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Belgium must be able to count on the Netherlands pulling out all the stops to make the air cleaner.
So far, the Commission has not reacted very convincingly to Member States that exceed the standards. By introducing new provisions in the directive, the Committee on the Environment is hoping to galvanise the Commission into taking a more active role. Member States will be under a clear obligation to make efforts. Some countries need more time to achieve the limit values than others. I can go along with that, as long as they make the effort, and no exceptions without efforts. Only adequate efforts warrant exceptions. Exceptions are not, as the Commission proposal suggests, a premium for ‘doing nothing’, and Amendment 66 bears this out.
The third pillar is an ambitious source policy. Without source policy, without policy to make cars, freight traffic, shipping and industry cleaner, it is extremely difficult for the Member States, and certainly for the densely populated Member States, to make the air cleaner. That is why air quality can be improved only by bringing traffic and industry to a standstill. Those are Draconian and, at the same time, not very effective measures. It will be the lower authorities, rather than anyone else, that will be asked to foot the bill, and that, of course, is unacceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples