Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.9.2-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, in our discussions in the Committee on Industry, we focussed especially on the various technical options to reduce the sulphur content of marine fuels. Here too, we started by considering the real impact of such a reduction. We can visualise this in very practical terms. If you visit any port in the European Union – let's take Hamburg as an example – and sit down on the quayside, you have buses on one side which comply with the Euro 4 limit and now produce virtually no particulate emissions, and on the other side you have ships – service barges, perhaps – where you can actually see the particulate matter being released. There is clearly something wrong here, technically speaking. It is therefore appropriate to step up the measures adopted in respect of shipping. In Hamburg, for example, 80% of sulphur dioxide emissions and around 20% of particulate emissions now come from shipping, even though there are of course far fewer ships on the sea than private vehicles and lorries on the roads.
If we consider that ships are replaced relatively infrequently and engines are long-life products, it is difficult to achieve very much with exhaust gas technology for diesel engines in the short term. We are therefore focussing on the technology to reduce the sulphur content of marine fuels. That has a direct impact, and Mr de Roo has already given us the figures: such fuels typically contain 2.7% of sulphur, compared to 0.0001% for automotive fuels. There is clearly a great deal of potential here.
We need to agree on the level of reduction we must achieve. The aim is to introduce a 0.5% sulphur limit on marine fuels in order to attain a real reduction in sulphur dioxide and particulate emissions.
We spent a long time discussing how we can sensibly achieve this target, and finally opted for this two-step approach, which offers scope for development. I too would ask you, Commissioner, to go along with this two-step approach so that we can finally achieve the 0.5% limit. It is supported – as you see – by a large majority in this House.
Of course it would be better if we could proceed on the basis of an international consensus here, because naturally, the ships are not only refuelled in the European Union. However, MARPOL is itself a cumbersome vessel, as the Commissioner knows, which offers little room for manoeuvre. In my view – and the negotiations on the other issues of relevance to the environment and safety bear this out – if the European Union is the driving force here, MARPOL will start to move as well. In other words, if we take this step towards a 0.5% limit, I believe that this will offer us the prospect of achieving more robust agreements on this limit at international level.
From our perspective, the task is not just to decide on a specific technology. If it is possible to reduce sulphur dioxide and particulate emissions in another way than by reducing the sulphur content, that is naturally to be welcomed. The aim is to reduce emissions. It is not our job to decide how this should be done. To that extent, I am also in favour of examining alternative technologies and, if this review produces the right outcomes, to implement them as well. We have therefore opened the way for alternative technologies here as well.
The cost issue was naturally a major consideration in the Committee on Industry. Low-sulphur fuel is of course more expensive. However, as experience in the Baltic bears out, low-sulphur fuel oil has the advantage of resulting in less maintenance work and better fuel efficiency, so the additional cost of using low-sulphur fuel oil is to some extent compensated by cost savings. I therefore believe that in the interests of the environment, but also in the interests of the economy, the 0.5% limit should be the target. I believe this is the right route, so let us follow it together."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples