Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-404"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090310.34.2-404"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, transport, and above all road transport, is responsible for 30% of CO
emissions, and even with this directive we are still miles away from achieving fair competition between the different modes of transport.
The EU has had a mandatory rail toll since the mid-1990s. It applies to every locomotive on every kilometre of track, and it is practically unlimited in size. On the roads, it is left up to the Member States to decide whether they charge any toll at all. It applies only to goods vehicles, only on motorways and only to goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes or more. That is unfair competition. It leads to the traffic moving from the railways to the roads rather than, as your fine grandiose speeches often indicate, from the roads to the railways.
The rail toll in Slovakia is twice as high as in Germany, and the Slovaks have no road tolls at all. That is just madness. That is why we need this directive. We need the true reflection of costs. If Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats believe that the costs of congestion should not be included, they should at least vote for the inclusion of the climate costs, the accident costs and the noise costs. Then they will be credible.
Those who vote ‘no’ on this issue are giving up on climate change and setting our children and our children’s children on the road to ruin, as they will have no future on this planet. We need regulation that is much tougher than what the Commission and the majority of this House have proposed."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples