Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-058"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-01-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Energy efficiency for ballasts for fluorescent lighting2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000120.4.4-058"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-01-20-Speech-4-0592
lpv:speaker	lp:Francesco Enrico Speroni2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-10-05--2002-01-14)3 co-chair; TGI (1999-07-22--2001-10-02)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the previous speakers certainly displayed their expertise on the extremely technical subject of ballasts for fluorescent lighting. Nevertheless, I feel that the debate has not been followed very closely, and I wonder how many of the Members will be able to vote with any understanding of the subject, given that a person’s general knowledge – accumulated through studies, everyday life or even the political life of a Member of Parliament – is unlikely to stretch to a thorough understanding of ballasts for fluorescent lighting. I wonder, therefore, whether these subjects need to be discussed in the House, or whether it would be better, making full use of the regulatory provisions, to restrict these debates to the committees. The highly technical nature of some subjects prevents us understanding what we are voting on, although, of course, we could always stay with the customary crosses and dashes on the voting lists that are prepared by someone else. But this would debase our job! We wonder, moreover, if it is necessary for Parliament to address such complex and highly technical issues, or whether it would be better, as is the case with national regulations, to give responsibility for these subjects to other bodies, considering – and we heard this from the previous speakers – that they have minimal political implications. Furthermore, I would like to make a remark about so-called clean energy, which I do not think many Members took in. It is not true that electrical energy is clean energy: obviously, if I heat my house in the town with electric radiators rather than water radiators powered by a naphtha heater, there will be less pollution in the town, but if we consider, as the report says, that in any case 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from electricity production, perhaps it would be appropriate for the public to revise their knowledge and convictions and, above all, for clearer information to be provided regarding what actually is clean energy and what is not."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph