Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-357-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20110215.22.2-357-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". I fully supported the initial proposal for the establishment of CO emission standards for new light commercial vehicles (LCVs) in order to prevent a loophole resulting from the certain amount of overlap that currently exists between passenger car and LCV registration. Currently, many vehicles that are homologated as passenger cars, such as SUVs, are registered as LCVs, often because this latter category is subject to reduced taxation or because of other fiscal incentives. Although the legislation covering passenger cars (like this proposal) is based on type approval of vehicles (rather than registration), the absence of regulation for LCVs means that there is a risk that manufacturers of relatively large passenger cars will apply for LCV type approval. This would mean that these high-emitting vehicles would remain outside the scope of CO emission standards. Ultimately, the first reading agreement has turned into a very weak agreement, where the binding target to achieve 175 g CO /km has been delayed by a year. The 2020 target has been left at 147 g/km and the penalties for non-compliance have been reduced from EUR 120/g to EUR 95/g. This is an inadequate token gesture that will mean that this law will fail to make any significant contribution to the climate debate. The sense of urgency has disappeared, that much is clear. Hence, my ‘no’ vote."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph