Debate on emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, during the EP plenary session (21-24/11) in Strasbourg. Statements Julie GIRLING (ECR, UK), Rapporteur, Miguel ARIAS CANETE, Member of the EC in charge of Climate Action and Energy, Adam GIEREK (S&amp;D, PL), Jan HUITEMA (ALDE, NL), Seb DANCE (S&amp;D, UK), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), Giovanni LA VIA (EPP, IT).

Strasbourg

debate

plenary session

EICKHOUT, Bas (Greens/EFA, NL)

air quality (T)

GIRLING, Julie (EPP, UK)

ARIAS CAÑETE, Miguel (EPP, ES, EC)

DANCE, Seb (S&D, UK)

LA VIA, Giovanni (EPP, IT)

HUITEMA, Jan (Renew, NL)

GIEREK, Adam (S&D, PL)

Emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants: extracts from the debate

SOUNDBITE (English), Julie GIRLING (ECR, UK), Rapporteur,  Air pollution is the number one environmental cause of death in the EU. Over 400000 of our citizens die prematurely each year, and millions more suffer debilitating illness requiring medication and hospitalisation. This has an enormous human and economic cost, tens of billions of euros in days lost at work and even more spent on healthcare bills, particularly in a country like my own, where healthcare cost are met directly through our national system. Air pollution also hits the natural environment through eutrophication and acid deposition. So in December 2013 the Commission published its clean air package, the central plan of it was the NEC directive, and the setting of emission reduction targets in all the Member States for 2030.

SOUNDBITE (English), Julie GIRLING (ECR, UK), Rapporteur,  To reach the target for 2025, the final compromise specifies that Member States may follow a non-linear reduction trajectory if this is economically or technically more efficient, provided that as from 2025 it converges progressively on the linear trajectory and has not affected any reduction commitment for 2030. In addition, Member States will have to explain the reasons for any deviation to the linear trajectory as well as the measures necessary to bring countries back onto that trajectory. On flexibility provisions, Parliament accepted that Member States be granted some flexibility in achieving the 2030 targets, but tightened the proposal by Council to ensure that the provisions are not open to abuse.

SOUNDBITE (English), Miguel ARIAS CA&#209;ETE, Member of the EC in charge of Climate Action and Energy,  The Commission thus regret the deletion of methane from the scope of the direct, and we have made clear in our statement that we will continue to monitor emissions and their effect on ambient air quality, and we will take measures separately. On ammonia, we regret that the reduction is less than we have initially proposed on the basis of scientific analyses and our impact assessment. Finally, we also regret that the co-legislator have departed from the letter of the spirit of regulation governing the adoption of implementing acts. We have made our process clear in a further statement. However, this would not distract attention from the fact that the agreement before us is a major achievement by the three Institutions working together for the benefit of the public.

SOUNDBITE (Polish), Adam GIEREK (S&amp;D, PL),  Technology innovations and new pro-environmental technologies are our goal. These should be used to limit the emission of methane, without hampering the functioning of the farming industry.

SOUNDBITE (Dutch), Jan HUITEMA (ALDE, NL),  We are very pleased at the Agriculture Committee that we have reached an agreement on this, and we are very pleased that methane has been taken out, because it&rsquo;s agreed on elsewhere. And also that there is flexibility on how we can reduce emissions of various gasses, and I think that we need to make sure that we don&rsquo;t force farmers to keep cows in the stalls in order to capture methane, so that the organic sector can create a better contribution for reduction of CO2 by capturing these organically.

SOUNDBITE (English), Seb DANCE (S&amp;D, UK),  We were backed not just by NGOs, scientists, public health campaigners, but also by cities, from Berlin to Barcelona, London to Lisbon, Paris to Prague, Dublin to Dubrovnik, Amsterdam to Aarhus, city mayors have shown us that they want actions to be taken at European level. We now have this deal on the table with the Member States, it&rsquo;s not perfect and it won&rsquo;t eliminate the problem, but it is significant progress and it does show what can be achieved by scaling-up, overriding competing regional and national interests, and acting in the common good.

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL),  If you assess the deal, we can only be disappointed. Just look at the demands we had as a parliament: we wanted higher ambition, we had to give in substantially; we didn&rsquo;t wanted any flexibilities on top of that, the Council, the Member States were asking for more and more flexibilities; we don&rsquo;t have a 2025 target, so now it&rsquo;s only talking about 2030, very very far down the road; methane is out, so the agriculture sector is off the hook again for cleaning our air. All these things together can only lead to one conclusion that is that this package is not good enough.

SOUNDBITE (Italian), Giovanni LA VIA (EPP, IT),  Now, we have achieved not the best agreement there is - we have heard from some in this House that the targets should have been different, and that other pollutants should have been included in the final agreement - but having an agreement is better than not having an agreement. And I agree with the rapporteur that we are faced ultimately with a choice: either have a watered down agreement, something that falls short of what the Parliament wanted, or to have no agreement. And I think that we made the right choice in opting for an agreement in the seeking to start a process, a process that will considerably reduce the number of death as a result of atmospheric pollution, will improve the quality of life for people in Europe. It&rsquo;s a step in the right direction.