Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-03-Speech-1-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060703.18.1-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I should like to thank Mrs Lucas for her very lucid report. I support the gist of the Commission’s proposal in which it wishes to put a check on the fast growing share of aviation in climate change. Mrs Lucas’s report complements the proposal well, and we share her view that including the aviation sector in emissions trading should not be the only instrument, but should form part of a package of measures, such as introducing kerosene tax, VAT on plane tickets and congestion tax for airports. Like the rapporteur, I take the view that the emission rights to be issued should be auctioned in order to avoid large enterprises feathering their own nests with free rights, without the environment benefiting in any way.
Although my group sees the Commission proposal as a step in the right direction, we should not overestimate the importance of emissions trading, whose environmental benefits have not been proven beyond any doubt. Moreover, CO2 is not the only problem aviation faces. The emission of nitrogen oxide (NOx) is also enormously important, not only in terms of the climate, but also air quality. That is why we are in favour of including NOx in emissions trading, which is what is already happening in the Netherlands, certainly if a separate system is being set up for aviation anyway.
A system that addresses CO2 alone will not yield the maximum effect. It would be preferable to tackle NOx at the same time. We agree with the rapporteur that research into cleaner engines is needed, but this should not yet again mean that specific measures against said emissions will be shelved. If NOx is not included in emissions trading – and it now looks unlikely that it will be – airports must be encouraged to impose local emission levies as part of the package of measures set out by the rapporteur.
My party supports the Commission’s intention to end the tax benefits which the aviation sector enjoys internationally. This has led to unfair competition between different modes of transport for longer than anyone can remember. We therefore support the rapporteur’s proposal which indicates that the EU should take the initiative to introduce a kerosene tax on all domestic flights. This could prove an effective brake on the tremendous growth in the number of cheap flights against which rail is hardly equipped to compete.
Budget airlines already account for a quarter of European air traffic, which has, above all, resulted in the growth of regional airports. It is important for the Member States to give us an insight into subsidies that are channelled to those airports with the intention of attracting airline companies. We must move away from the idea that the increase in air traffic within the EU is a driving force of regional growth. For many of these medium-long distances, rail connections are a much more environmentally-friendly alternative, provided that there is a level playing field.
Since the introduction of emissions trading, rail has been paying a much higher price for electricity, but airline companies still do not pay a cent of excise despite their constant moaning and groaning about high fuel prices."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples