Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-287"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000314.13.2-287"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, given the importance of the directive on national emission ceilings to this report on a proposal for a daughter directive, it is a little surprising that the order of debate is as it is, because without reduction in the key trans-boundary pollutants we are not going to reduce ozone.
This report sets national targets for ozone levels and proposes action plans for dealing with local problems of exceedance. To save time I am going to assume that the respiratory and other health problems associated with ozone are understood, and that every Member of this House will want to reduce them. The disputes between us will be about costs and time-scales, and perhaps also about the accuracy of the Commission's methodology and the achievability of the targets it has set in this directive.
Let me deal directly with the Commission's core proposal, the setting of a target for 2010 of 120 mg per cubic metre for ozone, not to be exceeded on more than 20 days per year.
Commission proposals for environmental improvements need to be both ambitious and realistic. These proposals are certainly ambitious but many governments dispute whether they are politically realistic, and having just come from a difficult – albeit ultimately successful – group meeting of my own, I know that many Members have doubts. In particular, representatives of the Mediterranean countries point out problems resulting from the strong sunlight they enjoy. I point out that the Commission's methodology has taken full account of this but I look at their faces and still see a degree of scepticism. I did wonder some months ago whether to table amendments, which would suggest a less ambitious outcome, but which would perhaps be more acceptable to Member States. But the Commission's 120 mg target is in line with World Health Organisation proposals, and who am I to suggest that they should be challenged? The number of days of exceedance could easily be adjusted, but that is something to negotiate only when necessary. It is a good target and, if it is at all possible, then it should be retained.
The position I have taken in preparing this report is to say that those who want tougher targets than the Commission has proposed should have their views rejected. But equally it would be wrong for us to water down the draft directive. That is why I am sorry to see amendments tabled which reflect the Industry Committee's position. It seems to have been overlooked by many that these amendments, if carried, would leave the European Union in a much weaker position with regard to ozone targets than is enjoyed by the United States of America.
We are aware of growing problems of ozone across Europe, but if we are not even prepared to match the standards being set by the USA, one of our great commercial rivals, this would indeed be a great shame and a sorry reflection on our commitment to environmental improvement.
I ask Parliament to support my proposals, to give its backing to the Commissioner and to let her play her part in negotiating a common position which is both ambitious and politically realistic."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples