Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-334"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.18.2-334"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the acidification of forests, fields and watercourses is the single biggest environmental problem in my own country. Almost all acid rain comes from the burning of fossil fuels used in energy production in other European countries. Acidification is therefore a problem ‘imported’ into our country.
The natural environment in large parts of the north of the EU has little capacity to act as a buffer against pollution. That is why acid rain causes a lot of damage in Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Major efforts are made each year to reduce the damage by liming lakes and watercourses. Without being able to put my finger on the exact figures, I would venture to maintain that, over the years, Sweden has, in financial terms, invested more in liming in order to combat acidification than certain Member States have invested in reducing acidifying emissions.
Certain areas are extremely vulnerable to acid rain, such as south-western Sweden, certain mountain areas in northern Sweden and, especially, southern Norway. I would address all you MEPs from different Member States. If we are to be able to save the valuable countryside in these areas, we need your help. We appeal to you to see the issue from a European perspective and to help us with the major problems caused by acidification. Moreover, reducing combustion emissions is an important health issue in quite a few EU countries. Many people in my own country with an interest in the environment are pinning their hopes on the European Union. The UN has proved to be poor at tackling environmental problems in Europe.
I believe that taxation is an issue for the individual nations. The national parliaments must choose the best and most practicable ways of achieving the national emission ceilings that have now been proposed. I cannot therefore support the proposal for EU taxes to combat emissions.
I also want to comment on the unemployment argument. Overall, a good environment and better health do not lead to unemployment. In the long run, efforts in favour of a sound environment and better health are a good investment, leading to reduced costs and a better economic position. The situation in Russia would have been much better today if there had been no need to inherit the ill health and the environmental catastrophe left behind when the Communist system collapsed.
The Council’s common position is remarkable for its lack of ambition and for the fact that the Council does not want to set a date for when the measures are to come into effect. So we know how the directive is to be complied with. It will quite simply not be complied with at all.
Parliament should therefore again be as ambitious in combating acidification as the Commission was in setting what have been called emission ceilings. With Parliament and the Commission shoulder to shoulder on this issue, the Council’s position is becoming rather embarrassing for the governments of the Member States. Finally, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Myller, for her efforts to achieve results in this important area of environmental concern."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples