Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.14.1-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would also like to thank the rapporteurs Mrs Jackson and Mr Blokland for all their work on this, because the Verts/ALE Group was very disappointed in the Commission’s proposal. Instead of moving ahead to focus on prevention, reuse and recycling, it was in fact a step backwards: a worrying combination of no action or targets on preventing, reusing and recycling, plenty of legal loopholes for unscrupulous operators and the promotion of incineration, sending out completely the wrong message.
We had very good cooperation between the shadow rapporteurs leading up to the committee vote and we agreed on many compromise amendments and although it did not go as far as we wanted, it moved the proposal ahead to such an extent that the Verts/ALE Group withdrew our amendment rejecting the Commission proposal outright. Our group could vote for the report tomorrow if this Parliament upholds the position of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety but I fear that will not be the case.
The basis of the whole waste strategy must be the binding five-step waste hierarchy of prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal. It is essential to have national prevention programmes with Europe-wide measures and targets. Prevention has been talked about an awful lot since the first directive back in 1975 but we have seen very little action and we have heard many excuses for not doing it. That is why we welcome the target of stabilisation of waste by 2012. It is not as far as we would like to go; it is weaker than our original proposal; but we will accept that to ensure that prevention programmes with binding targets do come forward.
We also support EU-wide recycling targets. A 50% recycling level for municipal waste and 70% for construction, demolition, industrial and manufacturing waste by 2020 is perfectly achievable and realistic. And as everything cannot and should not be included in this one framework directive, we also want the Commission to bring forward proposals on specific waste streams before the end of 2008, and, in the case of biodegradable waste, by the end of 2007.
But the key issue for us in this directive is incineration. Reclassifying waste incineration as energy recovery would completely undermine measures on preventing and recycling. Yes, we have to move away from landfill, that is a legal obligation already. But incineration is not the answer. It is blatantly contradictory to endorse a five-step hierarchy and then upgrade and give incentives to the lowest level of that hierarchy. A recent report showed that incineration is not green energy or safe waste disposal. We should not participate in the ‘greenwashing’ of incineration."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples