Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Goodwill from the , Mr Langen from the Socialists and Mrs Thors from the Liberals. We worked well together. The topic of sulphur in marine fuel may sound technical and dull, but it is very important in terms of both acidification and of public health. In 2010, the amount of sulphur originating from sea-going ships will be nearly as high as that originating from all other land resources combined. This is because we have already done a great deal on land. The large chimney stacks of factories and power stations, but also cars spring to mind. In a few years' time, we will be heading towards 10 ppm, compared to 27 000 ppm accounted for by sea-going vessels. This is nearly 3 000 times higher than for cars. Acidification is still a major problem. In my own country, the Netherlands, for example, only 10% of the environment is protected against acidification, which leaves 90% that is not. Heathland is still changing into grassland, and sensitive ecosystems are still facing destruction. This is why I am extremely pleased to have struck a compromise with all the political groups, which goes much further than what the European Commission proposes. Indeed, we suggest introducing a 0.5% limit in two steps. Only then will we tackle the problem of acidification in all seriousness. The other reason why we want to go so far is public health. Sea-going ships emit black carcinogenic particles, which the wind carries for 50, 100, even hundreds of kilometres – an aspect that the Commission has overlooked. This is why we feel that the proposal to reduce sulphur content levels down to 1.5% is too modest. I should urge Commissioner Wallström to immerse herself in this issue and to adopt the European Parliament's proposal. We will then clean up those sea-going vessels in one fell swoop and not take any half measures. How do we arrive at this 0.5% threshold? This is indeed ambitious. A reduction in the sulphur content from 3% to 1.5% is possible for oil refineries without too many extreme costs. Reducing it even further to 0.5% is technically feasible, but will certainly cost three times as much, and ship owners will ultimately need to carry these extra costs. As the Commissioner stated a moment ago, the shipping industry is a very competitive business. This is why it is particularly pleasing that a company such as P[amp]O has already fitted one of its large ferries with a scrubber, which only cost a bargain EUR 1.5 million. It will reduce sulphur by 95%, carcinogenic particles by 80% and the emission of NOx by 10 to 20%. The device is called an eco-silencer, as it also greatly reduces the noise level. In my view, this scrubbing technique works very well. As long ago as in 1988, there was a ship in Norway that was equipped with this installation, the first of its kind. We have, however, added a clause to the Parliament amendments that a trial should be done first to make sure that the system works really well. Once this is successful, we would like to give the go-ahead, also to a system of emissions trading, so that it becomes possible for companies to equip their ships with a new system of this kind one after the other rather than all at once. If they all needed to be fitted simultaneously, or if we all went down to 0.5% in terms of bunker fuel oil, it would be a much more expensive operation. Such a system of emissions trading is cheaper. In short, ecology and economy go hand in hand. This is why, Commissioner Wallström, I would urge you to have another look and join the Parliament in reducing the level to 0.5%. A final reason why it is important to do something about these particles is that according to many climate scientists, these particles also adversely affect the climate. All sea-going ships together account for 20% of these particles. This aspect should also be taken into consideration. This is a third reason why we should go beyond 1.5% and go for 0.5%.

Political group: Verts-ALE