Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-376"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.26.2-376"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I must thank my colleague, Mrs Doyle, for her role as Parliament’s conciliator in this demanding regulation and directive package. The regulation and directive before us are both important steps in our objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From experience I know that heading the conciliation process is an exacting task that makes great demands on the rapporteur.
Fluorinated greenhouse gases are one example of how difficult it is to solve environmental problems. You solve one and new ones can easily come along to take its place.
When at one time we switched to using fluorinated hydrocarbons in cooling systems, aerosols and other applications, we succeeded in dramatically reducing the use of chlorofluoride hydrocarbons, which make the ozone layer thinner. The Montreal Protocol was an attempt to phase out CFCs, as these gases are harmful to stratospheric ozone. That was a good thing, but agents that make the ozone layer thinner were replaced by powerful greenhouse gases. Their potential for global warming is 100 or even 1 000 times greater than carbon dioxide, and the time the gases take to disperse into the atmosphere can be very long indeed. Fluorinated gases account for at least 5% of the greenhouse phenomenon. This is why the threat of climate change means we need to cut down on the use of fluorinated hydrocarbons.
The text for a regulation now adopted by the Conciliation Committee will encourage the continued development of alternative technologies and the adoption of existing technologies, nevertheless making possible sustainable operational models to achieve the objective. Hopefully, we are now wiser than we used to be and will continue to be better able to predict the possible dangers of alternative solutions.
One of the biggest problems with the regulation under discussion was its legal basis. I hope that the two legal bases now chosen will prove, despite everything, to be a workable compromise and will not cause problems of overlap. At the time, I voted for one legal basis, Article 95, but with the highest standards. I have always wondered why environmental grounds are always automatically thought to be more environmentally friendly, while those for the internal market are branded as being in the interests of industry. It would be in the environment’s best interests to combine a harmonised market with ambitious targets. Only then would there be a proper incentive for our industry to compete on a level playing field in an environmentally friendly way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples