Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-329"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.18.2-329"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Mr President. A lot of what was said in the previous debate is of great relevance to this directive too. These two documents form the basis for the acidification strategy that we adopted three years ago.
When measurements were taken last Monday in my own home district, the level of acidity was higher than it had been for a very long time. Acidification is still a problem to which we cannot avoid drawing attention.
I want to begin by thanking Mrs Myller, who has done a magnificent job, as well as my fellow MEPs in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, who have contributed to our now having a proposal which is looking really good. The problem, however, is that the path between the committee and the plenary sitting of this Parliament is at times fraught with obstacles. The closer we get to the day of decision, the more afraid some of us seem to become. Once again, we see the conflict between industry, employment and the environment rear its head. Many who have previously been environmental campaigners are transformed into preservers of the status quo in their own countries and regions and embrace the old coal-fired power stations in their home districts. The long-term view and acceptance of responsibility are suddenly things of the past when the issue arises of how we are to obtain a sound environment for life in the future too.
At Parliament’s first reading, we supported those emission ceilings proposed by the Commission. In this connection, it must also be pointed out that the ceilings and figures presented by the Commission were based upon countries’ own reporting to the Commission. These were not invented figures, plucked out of the air. Certain people appear now to be denying these figures. The figures were not over-optimistic and, just as Mrs Myller said earlier, the economic calculations were, in actual fact, a good reflection of the reality.
When, now, the Council contributes its own points of view, it will come as no surprise if, this time too, a much more meagre result is arrived at, a result very close to the figures in the Gothenburg Protocol. In this connection, I would also remind you that – to begin with, at least – the Commission refused to sign the Gothenburg Protocol because it thought it was so inadequate and not ambitious enough. I really do hope that the Commission will now show that it supports what Parliament has said, above all in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. If we opt for the Council’s line, we in actual fact choose poorer health for our citizens in a situation in which children and asthmatics are among the most vulnerable. We also choose to exceed the critical loads and levels over a further several hundred thousand hectares of land. The list could extend much further. I hope that, tomorrow, we shall have the courage to approve the proposal tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples