Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-17-Speech-2-218"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080617.35.2-218"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
In this second reading, the European Parliament is insisting that the Council accept amendments that were already adopted at first reading.
Key amendments were the introduction of targets for recycling and waste prevention and the setting up of a five-stage waste hierarchy as a general rule.
The Council removed all references to targets but the rapporteur has restored Parliament’s amendments in a modified form. In the rapporteur’s view, it would be wrong to miss this opportunity to ensure that this directive does more than supply a set of definitions. There should be a real link between the directive and the aspirations about recycling and prevention set out in the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling.
One important aim of the directive is to draw a clear distinction between what is considered ‘recovery’ and what is ‘disposal’ of waste, since Court of Justice judgments put the question in doubt.
In any event, we believe that waste reduction, recycling and recovery must be the priorities. However, deeming coincineration a method of recovery and therefore a lucrative industry is very dubious indeed. The question is, if this is the case, who is going to reduce production and increase recycling and recovery?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples