Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-262"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.11.2-262"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Karl-Heinz Florenz. Under his direction Parliament has been able to have a central role in bringing together the views of consumer associations, environmental organisations and producers also. The prevailing and uncommon mood of consensus is a resource that all parties should cherish, also bearing in mind future plans for acts.
The directive will be an important application with regard to the producer’s responsibility. I am satisfied that in many respects I have been able to strengthen and clarify it through my amendments.
Producer responsibility will have a huge impact on the volume and quality of waste electric and electronic equipment, greater than any other possible decision that Parliament might take regarding waste. It will create incentives for more environmentally friendly design and for innovations before products have yet come on the market and so reduce the ecological burden of products throughout their lifetime.
Similarly we are now creating alternative methods for treating waste to act as an incentive, resulting in an ecological burden that is as light as possible.
The amendment I tabled with this in mind was adopted by Parliament at first reading and the Council adopted it in its common position in a formulation that was further improved.
The European Union is now making legislation that will clearly show to the rest of the world that the conflict between consideration for the environment and the economy is not unavoidable but one that can be settled through carefully considered legislation. That is why it seems foolish that the Council wanted to allow collective financing – in practice a waste tax – not just with regard to historical but also future waste.
For one thing it would not be an incentive for ecodesign, which in practice would mean the whole directive would be watered down. Secondly, it would allow an opportunity for ‘free-rider’, which would penalise honest and respectable producers. Thirdly, it would increase the public tax burden since no proportional reduction in existing taxes can be anticipated. The Council’s common position therefore means fiscal greed to be endured by consumers, producers and the environment alike, although, fortunately, it would seem that Parliament is on their side.
I think Parliament’s work in connection with this directive has succeeded so well as a process that it would be worth exploring and clarifying what courses of action we could adopt more frequently for the future. If we were in the habit of erecting statues to legislative projects we might now build one gladly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples