Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090310.6.2-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a lot of effort went into the preparation of the IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Directive last year, and although the directive in its final form is of huge importance for the EU’s industry and its citizens, it has nevertheless been trampled underfoot by the climate and energy package. This is a pity because the directive will have a considerable economic impact, in combination with the climate package, on measures already decided. For that reason, they should be in the right proportion to the climatic and environmental benefits achieved by means of the directive.
The measures for improvement proposed under the aims of the directive must, above all, be cost-effective, otherwise it would not be worth taking up the challenge of combining seven different directives into just one. We need to be able to cut the current costs of bureaucracy and action, although I am disappointed to say that the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety fails to do that. The licensing authorities must be able to consider freely the emissions regulations for installations, taking into consideration an installation’s age and technical standard, its environmental impact and condition, and the costs of measures for improvement. This would be a way of guaranteeing sufficient flexibility for existing energy production plants, especially peaker and emergency power plants, to function up to the end of their working life.
Similarly, it would be very awkward to adopt a European Safety Net scheme in the form proposed by the rapporteur, for several reasons. We do not know where or how an ESN would be set which, in itself, is an unreasonable state of affairs. Secondly, local permit authorities are clearly in a better position to take account of prevailing conditions, such as an installation’s age, location and, for example, its water intake, which is a guarantee of flexibility, in contrast with the totally inflexible ESN. Permit conditions are already generally very stringent. Even tighter controls in connection with new permits will incur huge costs without any essential benefit to the environment. In practice this would even impair standards of environmental protection. I am pleased that the amendment tabled by my group clears this up.
Here, I would like to say a special thank you to my colleague, Mrs Jackson, for her Amendment 134, which my group has decided to support. Once again, we are witnessing the sort of practical wisdom that results from experience. The amendment finds a compromise on a large number of the hardest questions."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples