Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.1.4-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this is an extremely bad directive. First of all, as my colleague Mr Bowis has pointed out, it is retrospective and that is wrong in principle. Secondly, it dumps huge costs on the European motor industry which would damage competitiveness and damage employment. In this Parliament we constantly talk about the need to promote employment and jobs in Europe and yet we constantly pass measures which will have the effect of reducing employment.
I suggest to you that the directive is bad in another respect, which has not been examined well enough in this debate. It is like so much European legislation. It is far too prescriptive. It sets in stone one particular model of recycling. The production line was invented about a hundred years ago, I believe, by Henry Ford and what we are proposing to do here is to create a sort of nineteenth century production line in reverse – to dismantle vehicles, to take the pieces apart and seek to recycle them. One thing we should stop and think about is the fact that there is a very uncertain market for recycled plastic bumpers of cars. The plastics industry for the most part does not want to take these things back and cannot economically do so.
There is already a very successful industry out there which is shredding cars, recovering metals and recovering energy by the incineration of the non-metallic parts. This is a very environmentally reasonable approach. It is just as good environmentally to burn old plastic as to burn new oil for energy recovery. This method of disposal of cars carries no cost and so would eliminate the whole issue of who pays because the “dead” car would actually have a small value going into the recycling and reclamation process.
I would oppose this directive on the basis that it is too prescriptive, it ignores what is actually going on in the car recycling market at the moment and it sets in stone methods which are not necessarily the best environmentally, and are certainly very damaging economically."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples