Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.5.3-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The shipment of waste is fundamental to the fight in which we, the developed countries, are engaged to maintain economic development and protect the environment. I therefore subscribe to the line taken by the Blokland report. I nonetheless rebel against the obstacles that impede the recovery of waste, which – supported by the Court of Justice’s judgement in case C-228/00 – will penalise my country’s cement manufacturers. Thirty-six per cent of the alternative sources of energy used for the manufacture of cement comes from waste, which basically comes from neighbouring countries. If such shipment of waste were jeopardised, there would be dual emission of pollutants from Belgian cement works; that is to say, pollutants from waste and those originating from the fuel used in the cement works. This dual emission would be costly and harmful to the environment. Moreover, cement works would be vulnerable to job losses in regions already badly affected (Objective 1).
That is why I am against the amendments opposing recovery. To make use of the precautionary principle when the answers are known is an admission of powerlessness to control pollution. That is certainly the case when it comes to intermediate waste sorting centres, banned because they are unable to monitor the precise destination and traceability of the waste in question."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples