Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.4.2-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The only argument of note on the construction of the Baltic gas pipeline which remains unresolved is the argument relating to environmental protection. The Swiss company Nord Stream failed to submit an environmental impact assessment by the permitted deadline, leaving the European Parliament to vote blind.
It has also become apparent that the environmental impact assessment commissioned by Nord Stream only incorporated the new research problems after Parliament pointed out major failings in its research plans. The most important problem with the EIA are the wrecks of tens of warships which were sunk in battle, with their munitions, in the Gulf of Finland in August 1941; this is something which was only admitted by Duma Member Andrei Klimov ten days ago.
Last year, however, it was reported that the route was fully clear. Special focus must be placed on phosphorus released when bottom sediment is disturbed: although the EIA states that it has no bearing on eutrophication, other schools of thought beg to differ. We must also anticipate that dioxins and heavy metals will be released. The latter are relevant in terms of food preparation using fish which contain substances toxic to humans. We already know that the level of these substances and radioactivity are highest in the Baltic Sea as it is."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples