Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-391"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.28.3-391"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, for years, old canals were neglected or closed, inland waterway transport appeared to be a thing of the past and there was a massive growth in the transport of goods by road. Nowadays, everyone across the party-political boundaries welcomes the fact that the water-borne transport of goods is coming back into fashion. This consensus conceals different opinions, as was evident in this House during the debate in February 2003 on the subject of the White Paper on transport 2010. To my group, as to some others, water-borne transport is an alternative to ever more and widening motorways. It is a way of being economical with space and the environment. This is in contrast to another view, which wants more of everything, including, therefore, even more motorways.
By creating overcapacity, entrepreneurs are given more freedom to make fresh choices within this overcapacity to decide which mode of transport is most advantageous to them at that particular moment in time. An example of overcapacity is the expensive Betuwe line that has been built as a TEN project for transport of freight by rail in the Netherlands alongside the rivers Waal and Lek, that are perfectly navigable, at the lower reaches of the Rhine. More pressing projects than these projects that are probably underutilised include the widening of the narrow canals that connect Northern France with Belgium and the Netherlands, or returning the ever dwindling transport across the Danube between Hungary and the Black Sea ever since the bombardments of 1999 back to its original level.
My group is opposed to overcapacity. Even in the case of waterways, this is at the expense of space, nature and the environment. The adjustment of rivers impacts on flood plains, biodiversity, the supply of drinking water and flooding surrounding low lands. In addition, water-borne transport is not a
that magics away all the risks of polluting and harmful substances. Their transport entails risks not only for the rivers themselves, but also for the residential areas and areas of outstanding beauty that are located downstream. We need more than just cleaner engines and sulphur-free fuel. Together with the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, we would propose infrastructural levies in order to promote fair competition between different modes of transport, a better environmental impact assessment of European development plans, a tightening of legislation for the transport of dangerous substances and preventing inland waterway ships from being put under flags of convenience, because this adversely affects social, security and environmental standards. Only when our water-borne transport meets quality requirements of this kind, is its growth a step in the right direction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"panacea"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples