Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-28-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011128.8.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, honourable Members, I am very pleased to be able to address the European Parliament in this debate on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Wallström. I am pleased in one sense, because it enables me to return to a former stamping ground. I used to be an environment minister in the country I know best. But I am also unhappy I have to be here because the reason is that Commissioner Wallström is not well. I wish her a speedy recovery, so that she can perform for me on the Balkans on some future occasion, or even on Egypt. Can I say as a non-official admirer, as it were, that I recognise that the report by Mrs Hautala contributes significantly to a Commission proposal which will, I would judge bring a combination of environmental and economic benefits to our citizens.
Finally, I would like to say that the Parliament has significantly contributed to improving this proposal. There is humility for you! I therefore would like to thank the rapporteur once again, for her efforts, her professionalism and her dedication and I would like to thank the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for its input, as well.
The availability of fuels with a maximum sulphur content of 10 parts per million will remove any remaining technical barriers to the introduction of the most fuel efficient vehicles, which will in turn provide a basis for further reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. When used in older vehicles, there would also be substantial reductions in emissions of conventional pollutants leading to better air quality.
Let me turn to the key issues which are raised in the proposed amendments and first of all deal with the timetable in terms which I suspect the honourable lady will find fairly familiar. Several of the amendments propose that the final date after which all petrol and diesel sold would be subject to a maximum sulphur content of 10 parts per million, should be advanced by three years to the 1 January 2008 with the possibility of derogation for those Member States where that seems to be justified.
The Commission chose the date of 1 January 20ll, with the date for diesel subject to confirmation by 31 December, five years before in 2006, so that all Member States would enjoy a mix of air quality benefits and some reductions in CO2 emissions resulting from 10 parts per million fuel. Although the Commission is willing to consider some advancement in the final date from 1 January 2011, the Commission does not favour Parliament's approach linked to possible prolongation.
The Commission therefore, cannot accept Amendments Nos 5,11, 15, 18, 23, 31, 32, 38 and 39. However, the Commission can accept Amendment No 30 related to advancing the date for the review. The Commission can also accept Amendments Nos 22 and 46 and in part, Amendments Nos 8, 17, 42, 43 and 45, relating to defining in greater detail the availability of petrol and diesel with a maximum sulphur content of 10 parts per million fuel, during the introductory period.
Then there is the question of the quality of fuel used in non-road mobile machinery. A number of other amendments refer to the need to improve and harmonise the quality of fuel used in this machinery across the Community. The Commission acknowledges that the relative importance of emissions in this sector continues to grow as the environmental performance of engines used in on-road applications improves.
Indeed, it is already clear that the fuel used in this sector in some Member States will have to be improved in the future. However, as the work on the next stage of emission standards for compression ignition engines used in non-road applications is not finalised, nor is the required fuel quality for such standards yet identified, the Commission cannot at this point accept Amendments Nos 3, 12, 26, 37 and 40.
Let me turn to some other amendments. The Commission does not accept Amendments Nos 10, 19 and 27 on fiscal incentives in view of the legal basis of this proposal, nor given the possibilities available to Member States under other Community legislation to fiscally promote cleaner fuels through tax incentives.
On the question of alternative fuels, and bio-fuels in particular, the Commission is pleased to consider this subject in more depth, as work on this subject evolves. The Commission can therefore accept Amendments Nos 33 and 48 and in principle, Amendments Nos 14 and 44. The Commission can also accept Amendment No 47 in part, relating to other issues to be taken into account in the review and Amendment No 28, in principle and Amendment No 29, relating to reporting. Concerning the remaining amendments, the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 20, 21, 24, 25, 36 and 41. We can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 16 and 34. We can also accept Amendments Nos 4, 13 and 47, in part and Amendment No 35, in principle."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples