Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-10-Speech-2-040"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090310.6.2-040"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the idea behind the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) was to enable us to achieve maximum environmental benefit for minimum cost, giving much flexibility to industry and to Member States. However, as the Commissioner has pointed out, that principle is being abused: many Member States have interpreted best available techniques in manners not intended by the Commission.
Therefore, I very much support the rapporteur’s idea of setting a minimum standard. The fact that our rapporteur is German perhaps has some involvement in this; Germany has a very good record in this instance. I do not see why a Member State that has invested in making sure that its industry is setting high environmental standards should be undermined competitively and environmentally by those Member States that are not prepared to make similar investments.
I want to turn also to the opportunity this recast directive gives us to amend the Directive on large combustion plants. I am very keen on seeing emission performance standards introduced for large coal and gas plants because of the huge quantities of CO
they emit. However, there is much debate taking place as a result of the concern we now have about global warning, concern which perhaps was not felt quite so acutely when we put this directive into law. To some extent, there is a balance between old, traditional pollutants and the new concern of global warming gases.
In my own country, it is quite likely that we are going to face severe electricity shortages from the end of 2015 with the closure of many old coal-fired power plants that have not been modernised in line with large combustion plant requirements.
Personally, I am prepared to see a trade-off. I am prepared at second reading to negotiate a derogation – an extension of the large combustion plant requirements – to keep old plants running so long as we do not end up building new coal-fired power plants, locking us into high emissions of CO
for decades to come. However, it has to be a genuine trade-off: there has to be a genuine commitment from Member States to make the changes necessary to reduce their CO
emissions in order to allow the continued pollution from existing plants for a few years longer."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples