Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.8.3-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in my view, Mrs Hautala has once again drawn up a very important report, which has received much support in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In addition, the Group of the Greens fully endorses the 13 amendments.
This whole report would, in fact, have been redundant if four years ago, during the negotiations with the Council, we had been able to persuade the ministers to consider the figures too. The Council of Environmental Ministers, however, proved insufficiently flexible. In those days, the discussion centred on the question whether we should aim for 50 ppm low-sulphur or whether we should aim for less. We now talk about 10 ppm sulphur-free. Sulphur is the poison for catalytic converters, just as lead was the poison for first-generation catalytic converters. We are now talking about an improved generation of catalytic converters that are about to be used. This is therefore regrettable.
I should like to point out that it was Germany that got the ball rolling, and I am pleased that we have now reached a satisfactory result. I do have a few questions for the Christian Democrats, because I do not understand why they claim that tractors should be treated differently. Tractors benefit just as much from this clean fuel, which means they produce less pollution. Even old tractors that have not yet been fitted with new catalytic converters stand to gain environmentally.
It is, of course, true that this new fuel will be somewhat more expensive than the old, polluting fuel. If the problem is that farmers need to pay slightly more, then I, as a member of the Group of the Greens, think that the importance of the issue warrants this. If this is the real problem to the Christian Democrats, they should say so. It would be unfortunate if they abstained from the vote tomorrow, for then we would be unable to achieve the required majority.
It is also important for the industry to know at this stage what the exact requirements are without having to wait until 2005. This is why I should like to urge the Christian Democrats to reconsider this report very carefully and then perhaps to be soft-hearted after all and vote along with the entire Committee of the Environment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples