Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-12-Speech-1-094-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110912.21.1-094-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Bütikofer, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a very good, well-balanced report. I was very pleased by it. I believe that this report will mean that the Commission will act on the problem of awareness experienced here in Europe. We all know how long we have had to wait for this report. This certainly had nothing to do with Mr Tajani, but rather those around him.
We have received information from the last meeting of the Council (environment) indicating that the Commissioner presented the raw materials strategy and that this report received unanimous verbal support. However, there was no sign of such solidarity when it came to item 2 on the agenda, the Electronic Waste Directive, which aimed to define standards and to implement the necessary steps and to set these down in this directive. This was an unmitigated disaster. The Council was unable to reach agreement with the Commission, something that happens relatively rarely, and I am very pleased that Commissioner Potočnik held out against this.
I therefore believe that this report can get things moving again in this area. After all, even if the climate problem is only half as serious as we have heard, we still need highly innovative continents like Europe to develop high-tech solutions. This requires the processing of valuable raw materials that we can also sell worldwide. I therefore believe that the three-pillar approach proposed by the Commission cannot be implemented on a successive basis – and here I differ with one or two of my colleagues from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance – but that we must implement all three together. If some people want to depict raw materials diplomacy in a negative light, it is up to them. My concern is that we should also deal in an upright way with developing countries, something we have failed to do in the last 20 to 30 years. We should forge alliances there so that our export and import opportunities can be expanded, so that we can react in a concerted way, so that we can find a way to behave, so that the regions in which we extract ores also benefit, enabling them to build schools with the profits, for example.
The second point is an issue that applies within the Community. There are huge opportunities for European industry here, because the issue at stake is the substitution of raw materials such as copper, which we currently take for granted. I am convinced that in the future there will be no more copper water pipes and that the chemicals industry will provide us with new pipes. The potential for industry is enormous.
As a farmer myself, I naturally cannot ignore the issue of the Fauna, Flora and Habitats Directive. The FFH Directive is all well and good, but we should not get carried away. The FFH Directive should be seen as an instrument for protecting the environment. My family has been protecting the environment for 300 years without ever needing such directives. However, if the FFH Directive becomes a weapon against raw materials policy, then things will start to get serious and we must make a reasonable response in resisting this together.
The third pillar, which has already been mentioned by many people is the question of what we are doing in Europe. Recycling policy and efficiency policy are the golden rule – let us start with this right now."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples