Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-068"

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	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060925.13.1-068"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-25-Speech-1-0692
lpv:speaker	lp:Riitta Myller2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Gulf States, including Yemen (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue/Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I agree with the rapporteur that this directive will not bring us any closer to the objective of good ambient air quality. It is a good thing that fine particles, the fine PM2.5 particles in fact, are included in the directive, and that binding limit values are to be set for them. The limit value proposed by the Commission and supported by the Council is 20 micrograms, as has been mentioned more than once here. It has also been mentioned that Parliament is calling for a more stringent value. This is all very well, but if we compare this proposal to the needs which, for example, the World Health Organisation has proposed and which would get us to a situation where we would no longer be causing harm to human health or having an adverse effect on nature’s levels of tolerance, this limit value is just too high. The WHO is proposing 10 micrograms, and, as has been said here, in the United States of America and Canada they have already achieved a value of 15. Air pollution is one of the main environmental problems in Europe, and people are exposed to it. Here someone mentioned a figure of 360 000-400 000 premature deaths a year. Whatever the figure is, it is very large. The limit value that is set can have a genuine impact on the number of human lives that can be saved. If this recommendation by the WHO were to come into force, the figure would be several tens of thousands. With the limit values now being proposed, we would reach a figure of just a few thousand lives. Parliament, however, is calling for more stringent limit values for these smaller particles, which I endorse. I do not, however, endorse the fact that the deadline for implementation is to be extended. I hope that we will be able to improve on that. I am rapporteur for the last phase of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. It set relatively ambitious aims, and that applies to air quality too. Its objective was to ensure that we no longer cause harm to human health. Now it has to be said that with this first legislative thematic strategy, which is meant to fulfil the aims of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, we will not achieve the targets contained in it. This will also water down the targets we settled on in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph