Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe welcomes the Commission’s basic principle in reviewing the framework directive regarding waste as a potential resource. We are aiming for a balanced approach that takes account both of the consequences of the increase in waste generation, that is to say its risk factors in relation to the environment and human health, and of the demands for the growing market in new waste management technologies.
With regard to the waste hierarchy, we support, in principle, the separate collection of waste and recycling in all locations where it is financially and environmentally efficient. However, we also support the efficient management of other types of waste that cannot be recovered or recycled.
We have found that those Member States which are most successful in reducing their dependency on waste landfills have achieved this objective through a combination of recycling, biological waste treatment – that is to say composting – and energy recovery, with the proviso that specialised plants must comply with demanding criteria as regards emissions of gaseous pollutants. If they meet these criteria, they should be given the opportunity to be recognised as energy recovery plants instead of ending up at the bottom of the waste management hierarchy, at the same level as landfills.
The opportunity of achieving R1 status would motivate these plants to become energy efficient, something that is also in accordance with the European plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. Our proposal for Amendment 133 provides for a compromise solution which complements the Commission’s initial formula with the conclusions of the discussion in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
We link the hierarchy to the product life-cycle criteria. If we were to introduce that line of thinking, it would contribute to the sustainability of resources and raw materials. This is an approach that is not only aware of the harmful effects and risks to the environment caused by waste, but also the potential preservation of natural resources. However, life-cycle assessments should be coupled with a cost-benefit analysis that will guide operators when choosing appropriate courses of action.
Finally, let me say that much progress has been achieved in waste management in recent years, in the past decades we might say. The technology is improving and the costs are gradually falling, so there is no sense in dismantling procedures that have been tried and tested. This has led our group to prepare draft amendments on the definition of recycling and on the two directives on waste oils and hazardous waste that will no longer be in force. I can say that we also fully support the ideas expressed today by Commissioner Dimas on the need for legal clarity, because that too is one of our objectives.
The European Court of Justice is indeed a very important institution; however our objective must be to take charge of the legislative work and allow the Court to rule only in borderline cases that arise in this area.
I, too, would like to congratulate both rapporteurs, Mrs Jackson and Mr Blockland for their sound work and cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples