Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-12-Speech-1-124"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-01-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Nuclear energy2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040112.8.1-124"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-01-12-Speech-1-1252
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie Anne Isler Béguin2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on improving safety at sea (2003-11-20--2004-04-21)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"I am opposed to nuclear energy and opposed to the nuclear package. Nonetheless, I wish Mrs de Palacio an excellent year and, above all, very good health. That being said, our Parliament must not be led astray by the Commission on nuclear matters. I am adamant that what we have here is a concerted campaign to misinform and brainwash our populations, who are more and more sceptical about the nuclear issue. The Commission would like to convey the impression that, with the wave of a magic wand, it is settling the issue of the management of nuclear waste, whereas thirty years of research have ended in failure. Nuclear safety in the power stations of the new Member States would be better guaranteed without putting some new standard in place or by proposing to grant loans to the nuclear industry, thereby giving it an advantage over clean, renewable energy sources which have difficulty gaining a foothold. Whereas all opinion polls show that the problem of nuclear waste, some of which – it must be remembered – has a life span of millions of years, is our fellow citizens’ main worry in environmental matters, the Commission considers, in view of its project, that burying nuclear waste is apparently the solution, and this without scientific proof. If, by any chance, the European Parliament were to come out in favour of burying radioactive waste, this would be a disastrous political signal for the inhabitants of Bure in Lorraine, the prime site for carving out in a deep clayey stratum a laboratory designed for testing the reaction of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Without any comparative study and without any democratic European debate on the future of nuclear waste, this decision would give the Bure site its one-way ticket for burying European nuclear waste and would turn it into the nuclear dustbin of Europe. There is still time to respond by asking the Commission to try to come up with something better regarding waste management, both by proposing that waste be stored underground within the power stations and, above all, by putting in place new, demanding standards where nuclear safety is concerned. Finally, a last question, if you would allow me: how does the Commission intend to set about asking France to provide the public with wide-ranging information on the transport of nuclear material, when this issue has been classified as a top-secret defence matter since last August."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph