Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-277"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.12.2-277"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Blokland for this report; he has had a very hard job to do. Drafting environmental legislation for the whole of Europe is a demanding task, as circumstances in Member States differ enormously. I myself come from a country where we have already opted for a policy that corresponds amazingly closely to the EU strategy on waste. Only Finland has already embarked on perfectly feasible practices, as you have heard this evening. Therefore, it is tiresome to see that the same mechanisms that are needed to guide those countries that have been lax in their attention to the matter of waste disposal, are forcing the more advanced countries to take a step backwards. This should not be happening. Mrs Paulsen, was right: this is exactly where compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is needed.
If more stringent requirements regarding emissions are being illogically imposed on the use of waste as fuel than for other fuels, fuels classified as waste will cease to be used. There are no alternative proposed uses for waste: it would be deposited in landfill sites. That will add to the formation of methane, as a result of putrefaction of organic waste, and the greenhouse phenomenon. This holds true especially for the incineration of harmless sludge produced by the paper and cellulose industry. It is important that Parliament amends the proposal for the directive in this respect in accordance with the Committee’s amendment.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy adopted some proposals that, if realised, would make it harder to practise ecologically justified coincineration. For example, the limit values for emissions for fuel that is not waste in coincineration are required to be the same as for waste as fuel, even though the same material may be incinerated and give off higher levels of emissions, under EU legislation. Another example is the call for the ongoing monitoring of the ammonia content of gas from chimneys. That will add substantially to the costs of monitoring with no benefit to the environment, as the monitoring obligations have not just been imposed on those plants where ammonia emissions are generally produced. Investments that do not bring a value added element with regard to the environment mean less investments that are of benefit to the environment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples