Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-079"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.5.2-079"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, a friend who used to work for a leading wildlife conservation NGO tells me that it was a depressing experience each morning to read her e-mails detailing the loss of habitats and new threats to the survival of species across the world. I can understand that. So it is a pleasure to acknowledge that not every environmental problem is beyond resolution and that, in some instances as least, we are capable of turning the tide. Such is the case with air pollution. The evidence is that now, at least in some cities and towns across Europe, the air we breathe is perhaps purer than at any time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Problems remain. It is claimed that air pollution still contributes to more premature deaths than traffic accidents, but progress is being made.
Ground-level ozone is a pollutant which still severely affects the health of many of our citizens. It contributes to problems of asthma in children – now said to affect as many as one in ten children in the United Kingdom alone – and to breathing difficulties in the elderly. In severe circumstances people die. Government studies in my country suggest that ozone may lead to the premature death of 12 500 people each year. We are all well aware of the problems experienced in some cities in Europe, such as Athens, where the problem is intensified by particular climatic conditions. Pollution has further economic consequences, by reducing crop yields and damaging trees.
European legislation plays an increasing role in setting tighter standards and curbing pollution. Nothing better illustrates this than the need for concerted action on ozone. It is created by a chemical reaction between sunlight and oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds derived mostly from vehicle emissions and petrol distribution. It is often formed miles from the source of the problem. So it is a classic trans-boundary pollutant requiring trans-boundary action at European level.
The national emissions ceiling directive will provide the framework for reductions in key air pollutants. This directive concerns the action which Member States should take locally to deal with the particular problem of ozone. At first reading I welcomed the Commission's proposals to set a target value encouraging Member States not to permit ozone to exceed the World Health Organisation's guidelines of more than 20 days a year; to alert the public if local health risks are high; and to compare the performance of different countries. But I argued that the proposals were not demanding enough. Parliament has made a number of changes and, of the 19 amendments we agreed on, the Council has accepted ten of the minor ones in full and another four in part. The Council has also decided that it wants the target for the maximum number of exceedances to be 25 rather than 20 days. This does not sound too bad a compromise. Perhaps I am just a bit cynical in suggesting that it is too easy for ministers to agree tough targets which are not legally binding. Parliament should be taking steps now to ensure that the final shape of the legislation places firm obligations on Member States to achieve the objectives they claim they want to achieve.
I want Member States to be required to meet the target, save where it is physically impossible for them to do so. I want them to work towards a date by which the long-term objective of never having ozone levels exceeding WHO guidelines will be achieved. I want them quickly to implement short-term action plans if ozone levels exceed double the WHO recommendations, and I want them to provide the Commission with information of a standard which enables comparison to be made between the performance of different Member States, so that the public can determine which countries are making a real effort and which are not.
In saying this, I recognise the need to take into account the fact that one country may not be responsible for the pollution which affects it. I also understand that meteorological conditions vary. The north west of England, for example, may generate more traffic fumes than many places elsewhere in Europe but, because we are not blessed with too much sunlight, ozone is less of a problem to us than it may be in Spain.
I do not wish, in particular, to place too onerous a burden upon Mediterranean countries. But Parliament needs to adopt a strong position now, in order that the final agreement we reach with the Council reflects the need for Member States to take some real action.
I thank colleagues in other parties for working with me to try and ensure that Parliament's position commands a large majority. I thank Parliament's staff and, in particular, my assistant, Vikki Phillips, who has made a very considerable contribution to this process over the past year.
We have an opportunity to make a contribution to the process of reducing pollution and cleaning the air we breathe. I hope Parliament will give its support to the proposals in this report and the compromises agreed between the political parties, and that we play our part in achieving what could be another success story for the European environment."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples