Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-007-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110215.3.2-007-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am delighted to be able to open our debate today on my report about emissions from light commercial vehicles (LCVs).
Before I get to the detail of the text, please allow me to express a few thanks: first of all, to the shadow rapporteurs from all of the political groups; secondly, to the rapporteurs and members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their opinions; and thirdly, to the Commissioner and her team – we have had a number of very constructive meetings about this. Fourthly, I would like to thank the Belgian Presidency for its very hard work during the trialogue negotiations; finally, my thanks go to Jos Vervloet and Isobel Findlay from the ENVI secretariat, who have provided some incredible support throughout the process. In particular, Isobel’s help on the complex comitology issues is very much appreciated.
The proposed legislation has been expected ever since similar legislation was passed concerning passenger cars. Personally, I was not entirely convinced of the need for this legislation because most vans are bought by businesses, both large and small, which are already very conscious of the need for economy and fuel efficiency. Because of this, it has been my belief throughout the process that it is crucial to have an ambitious but realistic long-term target and an appropriate short-term target that takes into account both the needs of industry product cycles and the need for environmental improvement. It has always been the long-term target that has been the main focus throughout our debate.
The Commission’s original proposal was 135g CO
/km, which was deemed by many sources to be simply unachievable. The LCV sector has longer development and production times than the passenger car sector. Similarly, LCVs, as their name implies, are used mainly for commercial purposes. Unlike passenger cars, there is less scope to modify either their shape or their weight in a bid to reduce emissions. The principal way to accomplish this in LCVs is through modification of the engines and mechanics of the vehicles – a much longer and more expensive process than simply altering the body or reducing the weight of the vehicle.
It should also be noted that there is already much greater penetration of diesel fuel usage in the LCV sector than in the car sector. When the Commission published its original proposal, many of the manufacturers made it clear that they wished to settle for nothing less than 160g CO
/km, a figure which, in turn, struck most of us in Parliament as being far too relaxed and complacent. In the end, the package that we have all agreed on, and which is before you today, has a fairly sensible compromise position of 147g CO
/km.
Given the higher costs of reducing CO
in LCVs compared to cars and the longer development and production cycles needed, my personal belief is that this provides a good balance between ensuring improved environmental standards, on the one hand, and giving a realistic and achievable target for the LCV manufacturing sector, on the other. The fact that, by reaching this compromise figure, we are being attacked on one side as being too pro-industry and on the other as being too environmentally friendly, suggests to me that possibly, we have just about got the balance right.
One area of the Commission’s proposal which all groups agreed was unworkable concerned the very complex issue of multi-stage vehicles. Obviously, it is unfair to penalise the manufacturers of the base vehicle when they are not responsible for what happens to the vehicle at a later stage of its production. The package that is before you today includes a very sensible proposal that the Commission will review this issue before the end of the year and sets out the basis under which this review should take place.
I believe that the package that we have negotiated, and which will be put before Parliament today as amendment 58, is the best possible outcome. I am pleased to have the support – I hope – of most of the main political groups. It balances the need for improved environmental standards with realistic and achievable targets that will not prejudice manufacturing industry nor pose a risk to jobs in the Union.
Generally, I am not in favour of first-reading agreements, believing that they are best avoided if at all possible. However, in this case, a first-reading agreement provides clarity and certainty to a sector that is still suffering in the wake of the global economic crisis, whilst also setting the bar for the tough but fair environmental standards that we all wish to see. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the package today."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples