Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.6.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in the Green Paper on PVC, it is unfortunate that the Commission does not go much beyond a description of the situation and the presenting problems, whilst hardly offering any solutions. This is an early indicator of how difficult and confusing the entire discussion surrounding PVC is. We are dealing with different points of view, which range from promoting the PVC industry right through to banning PVC.
PVC is a very important material in our society. It is processed in many products because PVC is cheap, strong and is also durable. When we consider a replacement policy, we must give serious consideration to the ideal characteristics of the product for which there might not be an alternative. In the comparative life cycle analysis, a balance must be sought between environmental protection and the product’s life. In this connection, the differences between hard and soft PVC must also be taken into account.
The production of PVC is justified if strict emission requirements are met. In most cases, the addition of stabilisers, especially heavy metals, does not pose a problem at the user stage, since these additives are safely embedded in the structure of the material. The problems involving PVC start at the waste stage and are mainly due to the emissions of heavy metals and chlorine compounds, as well as large quantities of residues. The resolution hits the nail on the head by calling for reinforcement of European waste strategy.
Unfortunately, since the recycling of PVC has been very slow to take off, incentives are needed. In this connection, we should start with the simplest task, namely to focus on PVC which is easy to collect in large quantities. This is what we call bulk PVC, and includes pipework, tubes, construction profiles, window and door frames, eaves and other waste from the building trade. In order to recycle, however, the problem of heavy metals must be remedied and the emissions kept within bounds.
When phasing out cadmium, we need to give the industry’s voluntary commitment a fair chance. The reduction in lead is laudable too, but for the phasing out process, we need to wait for the results of the study. In my opinion, the phasing out of organotin compounds is too premature at this stage. Organotin compounds are needed for the production of PVC film as long as there is no equivalent alternative available. In addition, I am still not convinced that phasing out is justified, given the possible harm this may cause. The same applies to phthalates in my view.
It would be useful if we could separate plastics, but whether this is possible must be further examined; that is why we ought to wait until after the publication of the study to decide on compulsory labelling.
However, what causes me real concern is Paragraph 31 of the resolution, which more or less concludes that PVC should be dumped. The solution should, however, be found in separate storage, in anticipation of the recycling capacity expanding at some later stage.
I hope that the Commission communication planned for this year will appear soon after the European Parliament has given its opinion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples