Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-262"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Incineration of waste2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.12.2-262"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-2632
lpv:speaker	lp:Françoise Grossetête2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2000-05-17)3 vice-chair; EPP-ED (1999-09-30--2002-03-07)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Démocratie libérale (1999-07-20--2002-11-17)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, we feel that this directive is far from satisfactory because it involves a combination of two texts, one on the incineration of dangerous waste and the other on the incineration of non-dangerous waste. This raises problems for us at several phases of the incineration process: the reception, processing and handling of the waste. One might well ask what was the point of combining these two matters. We can find the answer in Mr Blokland’s report, which is violently opposed to the coincineration industry. Paradoxically, however, by the same token, the rapporteur is in favour of mixing dangerous and non-dangerous waste. What is the advantage of this for the environment? Our Group has no wish to favour either type of industry, since both are extremely useful to waste management in Europe. The practices of each Member State must be taken into consideration, while maintaining the existing industrial balance and investigating how the environment can be better protected. This is what the common position proposes. Priority must be given to the emission limits for the most harmful substances, i.e. NOx, dioxins and furanes. Moreover, the common position suggests an NOx limit value for the incineration of dangerous waste for the year 2007. Such a thing does not yet currently exist. As regards dioxins and furanes, the limit values have now been made mandatory for all types of waste. Until now, they applied only to non-dangerous waste. It is therefore unfortunate that the Blokland report is putting unrealistic solutions forward when it is known that a good many directives on waste management are not yet applied or are not properly applied by Member States. If one wishes to go too far, one becomes counter-productive. It is completely unrealistic to wish to review the limit values of this directive every three years, if one considers the considerable investment that the industry would have to make. What the industry needs is legal certainty and reasonable time periods. The real problem is that in Europe we do not have a proper definition of what waste is, resulting in ongoing confusion when we have to revise a text on waste or to present new proposals. Commissioner, waste management in Europe must undergo complete reform as a matter of urgency."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph