Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-26-Speech-3-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051026.13.3-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The three fluorinated gases concerned here – HFC, PFC and sulphur hexafluoride – contribute to the phenomenon of global warming. It is therefore important for the European Union to endeavour to reduce the use of these gases, and even to ban their use under certain conditions, which include having efficient alternatives and a specific timeframe.
I voted in favour of the Doyle report for two reasons:
Firstly, as a result of the efforts already made by industry. In the 1990s, today’s much maligned HFC gases replaced CFC gases, which were destroying the ozone layer. This goes to show that the principle of substituting dangerous substances with safer ones is already a reality.
Secondly, the use of these three gases for such varied purposes as refrigeration and air conditioning systems, fire extinguishers or pharmaceutical aerosols for treating asthma justifies a balanced approach between guaranteeing people’s well being and protecting the climate.
Finally, I should like to point out that we can fight effectively against greenhouse gases without making a ‘purely legal’ show of the matter. That is why I rejected the having the ‘environment’ as the sole legal base, which would have had only one effect: that of splintering the single market into 25 different sets of legislation.
Our businesses, our employees and our citizens do not want a nitpicking Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples