Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-01-Speech-1-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011001.4.1-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the
storms, Toulouse, I hope that we will not have to add Carling to the list, a chemical plant that is 50 km from here as the crow flies and near to my home in Lorraine. How many more deadly signs do we need, Commissioner, before we agree to discuss our society’s future? Our society is adrift, like a wayward ship set to a faulty automatic pilot. Are we still going to accept as inevitable, in the name of employment and the all-powerful economy that communities should continue to live at risk, as they do in Toulouse and elsewhere? Were these communities informed of the risks that they faced? It would appear not. On the other hand, the communities that are aware of the risks, with ecologists at the top of the list, have been calling for drastic measures for years, such as improving factory safety and of course, the closure of the most dangerous ones.
Unfortunately, in Toulouse, the worst imaginable scenario occurred. Of course, no chemical factory, no nuclear power plant, particularly following 11 September and the appalling terrorist attack on the United States will be out of bounds, the appalling now having become possible. This must by no means prevent our countries, with the European Union leading the way, from being able to adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the citizens the highest level of safety in their workplace and in their everyday lives. The Seveso I directive represented a huge step forwards. Seveso II is an improvement on this but has yet to prove itself, since it has not yet been fully implemented. The investigation will tell us whether, in Toulouse, its provisions were being implemented, but this looks unlikely. Did those responsible not consider such a disaster to be highly improbable? What Europe needs today is more than just a Seveso III.
First of all, however, I hope that we do not give in to populism by giving the impression that with one wave of a wand, we could transfer these high-risk factories to another place, a more distant and safer place. No high-risk factories should be relocated to developing countries, in the same way that it would be a mistake to consider transplanting these factories into the countryside.
Secondly, specific industrial sites must be defined, while – let us remember, Commissioner – large amounts of money and European funds have been provided to regenerate industrial wasteland and convert some of it into theme parks. It would have been more appropriate to use these places to build factories with stricter regulations.
Thirdly, it is absolutely crucial that the Commission present, as rapidly as possible, its draft directive on environmental responsibility, which is the only solution that will force negligent or even unwilling factory owners to comply with restrictive regulations.
Lastly, we need to ask: what kind of society do we want to build? If we carry on as we are, we will be authorising production of chemical molecules whose impact on health or potential risks when transported or manufactured we do not know.
This is our social model, which must be completely changed in order to guarantee future generations a life free from terrible accidents and danger."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples