Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-117"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-02-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste - Waste recycling (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070212.14.1-117"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-02-12-Speech-1-1182
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; DEVE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-16--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2007-03-25)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, warm congratulations to the rapporteurs; Mrs Jackson has made crucial improvements to the Commission’s original proposal. I particularly want to consider the proposed hierarchy of waste treatment from the point of view of the conservation of resources; it is because of that that this directive needs also to be seen in the context of the security of energy supply, which is the burning issue of the day in Europe at the moment. Europe’s dependency on energy supplies from various third states puts the issue of the scarcity of resources and the protection of them at the centre of almost every policy debate, and so, in order to stabilise energy supply, reprocessing of waste should be given high priority. It may not, to be sure, guarantee the security of energy supply, but it is a small contribution to it. Let us take oil as an example of this. Since it is generally estimated that the world’s stocks of oil will have been used up by 2050, it strikes me as irresponsible for us in Europe to continue to burn waste oil in such large quantities when, across Europe, it is used to produce around a third of all lubricants – an example of good technology of the sort that ought to be promoted in future. Yes, of course, flexibility is vital; after all, paper cannot be reclaimed and reprocessed an infinite number of times, and that is why I think the amendment that has been tabled on the subject of flexibility is so extremely important and relevant. For the sake of legal certainty, though – particularly where reprocessing is concerned – it is very important that, when the directive is transposed, it should be clearly laid down precisely when a substance is still waste and when it is that it becomes a product. There must be no legal grey areas here, for they result only in fraud and uncertainty, which we cannot afford. Let me conclude by saying something about the revision of the landfill directive. It is indeed the case that the disposal of waste in landfill sites is to be cut back, but the argument based on the alleged discharge from them of methane, which damages the environment, takes us down blind alleys. The technology exists to deal with this, and even now the gas is being trapped and turned into biogas. That is something we should take into account. Quite apart from that, I endorse the proposal from Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on the subject of the reprocessing of foodstuffs, and I suggest that you, Commissioner, should have a rethink about that."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph