Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-438"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-06-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070619.47.2-438"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-06-19-Speech-2-4392
lpv:speaker	lp:Carl Schlyter2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; INTA (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Miljöpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Metallic mercury is a danger to public health and to the environment, and we now have 12 000 metric tons of mercury that have to be stored. Perhaps that sounds a lot, but it is a volume that could easily fit into half of this Chamber. It would therefore be odd if we were to send this mercury here, there and everywhere and store it in a host of different places and in stores that were unsafe. That is why I am opposed to the attempt by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to get rid of mercury, because it would only be a temporary solution. A permanent solution needs to be completely safe. The only completely safe solution is to stabilise the mercury once and for all. Mercury sulphide is almost completely insoluble, which means that it can be stored safely. If it is not stabilised, we cannot have a whole lot of different, badly supervised stores. I am therefore opposed to Amendment 40, because it would undermine safety at work. It is important for us to agree on one and the same date: 1 January 2010, as stated in Amendment 43, proposed by my group. This prohibits both imports and exports of all products containing mercury, so creating a holistic view of the matter. Anything else would amount to the cynical export of mercury. We know that the chlor-alkali industry must cease exports. If it gets the chance to continue exporting one year after the ban enters into force, it will empty its stores of metallic mercury and be paid for doing so. The mercury will then be used by gold-washers in the Amazon basin and destroy huge river areas by contaminating them with mercury. It is important for the ban to be introduced on 1 January 2010. Otherwise, we would undermine the whole idea of the export ban."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph