Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-133"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Waste incineration2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001115.5.3-133"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-15-Speech-3-1342
lpv:speaker	lp:Samuli Pohjamo2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Suomen Keskusta (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Blokland for preparing this subject. It has been a difficult process drafting the directive, as circumstances and practices in the Member States vary, and this affects many different interest groups. The end result is that we now have a reasonably balanced proposal for imposing strict limits regarding the incineration of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, improving the environment and enabling waste to also be used in the production of electricity and heat. One of the hardest problems was to define what co-incineration meant. In some countries the best alternative, environmentally speaking, is that carefully sorted combustible waste can be burned in small municipal plants that produce electricity and heating. In the first draft sketches for these plants there was a call for unnecessary, technically costly and, in some respects, impossible tests. The proposal has improved during the debate. It is also important that industry can still use non-hazardous waste in its own production of energy. In my opinion, the problem was also that the directive went into precise technical detail which it was hard to get unambiguous opinions on from the experts. I think we in Parliament should keep to the definition of the main arguments, allowing Member States to take account of differing circumstances and continue with best practice with regard to the environment. A directive on the incineration of waste will increase the costs of burning waste, but will cut hazardous emissions and improve the state of the environment. Our parliamentary debate achieved a reasonably balanced proposal that can serve as a basis for action throughout the Union."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph