Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-507"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.41.2-507"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too want to offer warm thanks to the rapporteur. However, I find it hard to say anything positive about the end result of this report. Europe’s towns are still left to stand on their own; they are not being helped. Instead of creating a concrete and helpful framework for urban areas in the 27 Member States, the majority of committee members opted for a superficial text: towns are to become greener, there will be less noise and a better quality of life! The report is as vague about how to achieve that as the EU Commission was in its Green Paper on urban mobility.
Mr Rack offered us a sushi bar choice of menus for dealing with transport problems. At most, however, the report presents us with a list of added ingredients but no real recipe. There is an urgent need for action at EU level, however. Eight out of ten EU citizens live in towns and they nearly all suffer from the same problems: congestion, accidents, noise and pollution. Our towns also play a crucial role in the context of climate change. Urban traffic is responsible for around 40% of all CO
emissions and 70% of all greenhouse gases. The EU will not achieve its own climate protection target unless there is less traffic and people shift from cars to trains, buses, bicycles and walking.
Emissions from traffic have in fact risen by 30% since 1999, while emissions from other sources have fallen by 10%. That means they have virtually swallowed up the achievements in other areas. Nevertheless, the majority of Members feel that even to quote these figures in the report as an indication of the link between urban traffic and climate change is a step too far.
At tomorrow’s vote, the Greens will table amendments in an attempt to inject the report on urban mobility with the substance it so urgently needs. Firstly, we want to adjust EU cofinancing to make it more environmentally friendly; specifically, according to our amendment, that means that we should allocate 40% to the railways and 10% to expanding cycling. Up until now, 60% of EU transport funds has gone to road projects, with only 20% going to local public transport and rail transport. No wonder, then, that we are achieving the opposite of what we keep saying we want.
Secondly, we only want to grant EU funds if towns can submit a sustainable mobility plan, which would put paid to a great number of senseless road projects. Thirdly, we want to improve transport safety by setting a general speed limit of 30 km/hr, while allowing towns to set their own, higher speeds for certain roads.
If we want to do more about the environment and climate protection and ensure safe transport, Europe’s towns will need substantial EU aid. They will only get that if our amendments are adopted. If they are rejected and if another report that does not resolve a single problem is adopted, the Greens will not vote for it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples