Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-323"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.17.2-323"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, air pollution remains a real threat to citizens' health and well-being in many parts of Europe. Our ecosystem continues to suffer from acidification and eutrophification. It is an issue where Europe can and must act since air pollution knows no borders and this directive will make an important contribution to reducing atmospheric pollution.
It is preferable to await the outcome of the review in 2004 before including gas turbines in offshore applications. We have not yet assessed all the technical implications but that will be done in the review in 2004. Thus Amendments Nos 42, 45, 46, 47 and 48 are not acceptable.
By way of conclusion, I should like to say that in both readings Parliament contributed to improving this legislative proposal. This will have an impact not only in the present European Union but ultimately also in an enlarged Community.
Let me turn to the key issues under discussion. The question of existing plants has been the major point in the debate on this proposal, both at first reading in the Council and now at second reading. After a very difficult discussion in the Council, the common position was achieved with unanimity. It now includes significant new and tougher requirements for these plants and this will result in considerably reduced emissions of sulphur dioxide from the large combustion plant sector of the existing Member States and ultimately in an enlarged Community.
While I consider that it is necessary to keep a degree of flexibility in the approach to existing plants, I share Parliament's view that a final date should be established, after which the obligations for everyone will be clear. Parliament has played a very important role in pointing towards the outcome on existing plants, and I am grateful to Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for her efforts as rapporteur.
Parliament has proposed a number of amendments to make the emission limit values more stringent, both in the case of existing plants and plants that will be licensed after the new directive comes into force. Already the common position will reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide from the LCP sector considerably. Therefore I see little justification at this point to further tighten emission limit values for sulphur dioxide for existing plants.
However, in the case of nitrogen oxides the effect will be less significant as the standards that apply to existing plants are not very demanding. Hence there is some merit in tightening emission limit values for nitrogen oxides. In the case of new plants, economies of scale which reduce the cost of compliance allow for further tightening of emission limit values for both nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides.
On the question of indigenous fuels, the time has come to remove the divergent treatment of indigenous solid fuels and other fuels and the process of phasing-out should now begin, especially in view of the changing commercial nature of the large combustion sector.
In this context, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 3, 4, 7, 8 in part; 9, 12, 13, second part; 14, 16, 17 for plants over 300 MW; 18 and 19, both for plants between 100 and 300 MW; 21, 28 and 29, both in part; 39 and 40. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 6, 13, first part, 15, 24, 25, 26, 30 to 38, 43, 44, 49, 50 and 51.
I should like to make a short comment on the other proposed amendments. Let me assure you that the Commission has considered carefully all the 50 amendments tabled. Overall we can accept 23, either fully, in part or in principle. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 10 and 11, which will simplify the obligations for refineries, and Amendment No 23 in principle, subject to ensuring that its implementation is compatible with other legislative requirements on access to this type of information on emissions.
The Commission can also accept in principle Amendment No 1, dealing with economic instruments; Amendment No 2, concerning the alignment of the definition of biomass with the recently adopted directive on the incineration of waste, and parts of Amendment No 5 requiring further examination of emissions of heavy metals from the LCP sector and emissions from large combustion plants in the maritime sector. However, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 20, 22 and 27 as they would detract from the common position or introduce inconsistencies with recently adopted and related legislation on waste incineration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples