Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-067"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cleaner air for Europe – Thematic strategy on air pollution (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060925.13.1-067"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-25-Speech-1-0682
lpv:speaker	lp:Anja Weisgerber2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; EMPL (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V. (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; IMCO (2006-01-19--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, the constructive negotiations with the rapporteurs have brought about a sustainable compromise. If we are to achieve our main goal, that of effective and lasting improvement in air quality, it is vital that we establish limit values, but they, on their own, cannot improve the quality of the air; that can be done only through effective action to deal with emissions, such as the Euro 5 emissions standard that has already been proposed and which makes soot particle filters mandatory for new vehicles. It is primarily from the Commission that we demand further measures, in the shape, for example, of rules on residential combustion sources, Euro 6 for HGVs and Europe-wide limit values for ships’ engines. Generally speaking, we want to get away from actions that grab headlines but are no more than short-term and temporary, in favour of long-term measures that, by addressing the problem at its source, protect health more effectively. That is why our annual limit values, at 33 milligrams per square metre, are more ambitious than the Commission’s, and why we want more flexibility at the local level when it comes to daily limit values, which have been demonstrated to be largely subject to meteorological influences, since it is a proven fact that it is long-term exposure that is the most dangerous, and that is what we have to focus on. By reducing the annual limit values for particulates we seek to create incentives for long-term and sustainable projects such as environmental zones or the introduction of soot filters. More rigorous annual limit values and the effective reduction of long-term pollution brings people more benefits than closing a road for twenty-four hours. At national and local level, too, everything proportionate and necessary must be done to improve air quality, and we are creating the right incentives for that as well. Local authorities will have their deadlines extended to a maximum of six years only if they can produce action programmes that show that they have, within the bounds of proportionality, taken every step in their power to improve air quality; moreover, this concession will not be granted to all of them, but only to those that demonstrably have to contend with particularly unfavourable meteorological conditions brought on, among other things, by being located in basins. These clear messages are precisely what this compromise is about, and it thereby constitutes an even-handed and effective way of giving public health the protection it needs."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph