Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.3.3-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Not only do businesses produce goods and services, they also produce pollution and accidents. The costs of repairing the damage to the environment fall on the injured parties or the government. The benefits of the economic activity that has led to the damage, on the other hand, fall to the business. To combat this injustice the 'polluter pays' principle was developed long ago, but businesses continue to exert pressure to undermine it as far as possible. We can see this in the right-wing amendments submitted, which seriously limit liability. After 21 years of preparation nothing seems to have come of the original intentions. The directive is applicable to just 13% of the EU’s territory, the regions indicated in the Birds Directive and Natura 2000. Marine pollution and damage due to nuclear energy do not count and even if people were acting on the basis of a licence or the state of the art at the time, there is no liability. Oil disasters at sea and contamination of natural crops by genetically modified crops do not lead to liability. Advances in environmental protection at national level are made impossible if Article 95 for a uniform market is placed ahead of environmental protection in Article 175. Only the left-wing amendments, taken as a whole, can make this proposal in any way acceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples