Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-11-Speech-2-392-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120911.32.2-392-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"When I speak of the Sulphur Directive, it is as a representative of Finland and from my own country’s perspective. This is a wretched example of everything that can go wrong. The decision will mean an additional bill of billions of euro for our export industry, one that represents the peak of cleanliness in the global context. A mistake was made by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which allowed marine sulphur emission limits in the Mediterranean to be 45 times greater than those in the Baltic Sea, and now the directive is confirming that distortion of competition. The sulphur content of fuel in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and English Channel will drop from the current limit of 1% to 0.1% in 2015, while in the Mediterranean, a content of 4.5% will be permitted up until 2020. This is a particular blow for Finland, 90% of whose exports rely on shipping. The cost of sea freight will immediately rise in Finland by 30-50%. Given the current price of oil, that will mean a permanent additional annual cost of EUR 600 million, corresponding to 9 000 jobs a year. Globally too, Europe would be as much as 30 times more stringently regulated than the rest of the world for the next five to ten years.
If the EU were as good as its word, it would say that it was rejecting its position on decisions that create systematic distortion of competition for our markets. For the sake of comparison, I will take an example from the banking sector. Imagine, for example, the interest rate in Germany of 0.35%, which is what it has been for five years, at 45 times the amount: it would be 15.75%. Would this correspond to our concept of the level playing field? It does not matter how strict the limits are, as long as they apply to everyone. It is a mistake to create distortions of competition in legislation because it means environmental losses. The polluter then always has the competitive advantage. Most Finnish Members of the European Parliament wanted a transitional period for this directive and a clear signal sent to the IMO that the decision needs to be amended."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples