Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-503-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities - Industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121120.31.2-503-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-11-20-Speech-2-504-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Michèle Rivasi2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Europe Écologie (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Belarus (2009-09-16--2013-09-18)3 member; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; G/EFA (2012-02-01--2013-03-20)3 substitute; ENVI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioners, in my view there has been an extraordinary degree of misinformation during this debate. Why? Because, in the first instance, we had an exhibition – I think Polish Members arranged it – that looks as if it is on the part of citizens but, when you look more closely, it turns out it is financed by a coalition of shale gas industry associations. I would say that is false advertising; it is masquerading as something it is not! That is the problem we have with this exhibition. Secondly, you may have forgotten, but the Commissioners mentioned it, there are reports which the Commission requested. I would ask you to read them carefully, because the report on the environment shows all too clearly that there is a risk of polluting surface water and groundwater and of depleting water resources. The impact on the soil can be devastating and can also lead to atmospheric pollution. Yet people say there are no such risks. It is not a question of being for or against shale gas, because decisions on energy mix are a question of national sovereignty. Our task, as elected officials, as MEPs, is to protect the European public. These reports show that there are clearly identified shortcomings in the legislation: poor adaptation of the Water Framework Directive, management of waste needs to be integrated into the Mining Waste Directive, and fracking needs to be integrated into the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive. If we do not overcome these failings, we will face serious difficulties, as seen in the United States and Canada. Furthermore, companies should be fully liable. They should have to prove that they have sufficient financial guarantees to honour the polluter pays principle in the event of environmental damage. It is not up to industry to decide what our energy future will be, but up to the citizens. Finally, with the support of around a hundred MEPs, we have tabled an amendment calling for a moratorium on fracking in the European Union. I hope as many MEPs as possible will remember their responsibilities when it comes to voting and will show that lobbyists do not hold all the power in Brussels."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph