Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.10.1-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Hulthén has already said a great deal. I do not wish to repeat it all. She did not emphasise the fact that the present common position probably represents the maximum which is possible at the present time. I know from the Austrian Presidency that people fought to the bitter end to ensure that the ozone layer was properly protected. Mrs Hulthén, you know how strongly I have urged you to withdraw amendments so as to allow the common position to take effect quickly. I also said to you that amendments would be tabled which did not seek – as your amendments do – to move forward even more rapidly and quickly, but even to find a way back. As an Austrian, I have no problem at all with moving forward more rapidly and quickly. But we have to learn that there are other countries which have not come as far as the Nordic countries, Austria and Germany and that we also have to give them an opportunity to move forward together with us on this. I am sorry that you did not do this because, of course, moves are now afoot which we perhaps do not like at all.
The European Union has always taken the lead on phasing out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances, and in terms of environment policy Parliament has been the European Union's conscience. This is the only way in which we can exert pressure on other States in international conferences; to show them what works, what is possible and what demands can be placed on industry – and industry in Europe has in many cases switched to new technologies.
With your permission I will examine a small example in more detail. It is Amendment No 34. Halons are very dangerous. HCFCs are not as dangerous by far in terms of ozone-layer depletion. Nevertheless, surely it would be ludicrous to replace a dangerous substance with a less dangerous one. We only need to produce this less dangerous substance in sufficient quantities and we have the same potential for causing damage. Do you not finally see that this is the wrong approach? You cannot replace halons in fire protection systems with HCFCs! There are several alternative substances available in the form of natural gases, such as nitrous argon and inergen. Austria has a very, very valuable library, the Austrian National Library. We have a fire protection system of this kind there which manages without any of these dangerous substances.
I can only hope that none of the amendments put forward receives the 314 votes. Because if we are serious about this, if we want to take a quick step forward, then the common position needs to bear fruit very soon. You see, whether it is CFCs, HCFCs or halons, today's emissions will do their damage up there in twenty or thirty years' time. In thirty years all of us – or many or most of us – will already be dead. But the destruction, for which we share the responsibility here today and will do at the vote on Wednesday, will also be our fault."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples