合法博彩网站

听听S膿des vad墨t膩js. 鈥� N膩kamais darba k膩rt墨bas punkts ir debates par Alexandr Vondra zi艈ojumu Vides, sabiedr墨bas vesel墨bas un p膩rtikas nekait墨guma komitejas v膩rd膩 par priek拧likumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes regulai par meh膩nisko transportl墨dzek募u un motoru tipa apstiprin膩拧anu attiec墨b膩 uz to emisij膩m un akumulatoru baterijas ilgiztur墨bu (鈥淓uro 7鈥�) ( - C9-0375/2022 - ) (A9-0298/2023).

听听Alexandr Vondra, rapporteur. 鈥� Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, almost a year has passed since the Commission published its Euro 7 proposal. Unlike previous regulations, Euro 7 encompasses a broad range of vehicles, all within a single legal framework. For the first time, this legislation also contains rules affecting electric vehicles.

No matter which politician you ask, they will all claim to be committed to a sustainable automotive industry. However, the crucial difference is whether the rules being pushed for Euro 7 are realistic.

I support the Commission鈥檚 goal of producing cleaner cars and improving the quality of the air. But we must also act with due care and caution, not least because the sector accounts for more than 9听% of GDP, 26听% of manufacturing and 24听% of exports in the country I know best.

The Commission鈥檚 original proposal would have a hugely negative impact on consumers and car manufacturers 鈥� an impact which is disproportionate to its positive environmental effects. Firstly, it would divert resources from decarbonisation by requiring substantial investment in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine technology. Secondly, there are serious questions over the feasibility of the Commission-recommended standards, especially in view of short lead times. Thirdly, the cost implications are a major cause of concern, as they would have exceeded the estimates in the proposal鈥檚 impact assessment. This in turn would have led to higher costs for consumers that are already grappling with the challenges of rising costs of living.

It was therefore imperative to rework the Commission text and establish a better balance between the environmental objectives and the concerns of consumers and manufacturers. After four months of negotiations, I believe that the mandate adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety largely achieves that.

First, testing parameters are not a revolution as the Commission proposed, but an evolution from the Euro 6 parameters, which ensures that the new emission standards remain economically and technologically feasible.

Secondly, under these testing conditions, the report is able to correspond with the levels proposed by the Commission for pollutant emissions for passenger cars, and proposes additional three categories for light commercial vehicles based on their weight.

Thirdly, the adopted text also proposes tougher limits for exhaust emissions from the buses and heavy-duty vehicles, including levels set for the real driving emissions. Forced to avoid legal and investor uncertainties, specific implementation timeframes have been included that, in turn, are linked to the entry into force of all relevant secondary legislation. Once all the relevant secondary legislation is complete, new types of fully duty vehicles would have 24 months, and new types of heavy-duty vehicles 48 months, to comply. All existing types of the light-duty vehicles will have 36 months, and heavy-duty vehicles 60 months, to ensure compliance.

The sixth report also better aligns EU methodologies and limits for brake particle emission and tyre abrasion rates with UNECE standards, as well as asking for more ambitious yet achievable goals for electric vehicles鈥� battery-durability standards.

Generally, I believe the committee report represents our best opportunity at securing an interinstitutional agreement ahead of the elections. Why? Because the Council has raised many comparable concerns over the cost, timing and technical feasibility. For that reason, we can already see the outline of possible landing space for the compromise between the co-legislators. It is therefore essential that Plenary endorse my committee report.

听听Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Mr President, rapporteur Vondra, shadow rapporteurs, honourable Members, I thank you all for the progress made on this important and, I would say, complex file. A file that has been subject to significant debate in this House, but also in the Commission and among stakeholders because it touches upon essential aspects of our daily lives.

The Commission鈥檚 proposal relied on solid evidence and rigorous assessments, and we made our proposal to respect three main principles, which I trust we can all agree with. One is improving air quality to lower the number of premature deaths in the EU 鈥� 70听000 people in Europe die prematurely every year due to air pollution from cars, vans, buses and trucks. Secondly, putting clean vehicles on the market at affordable prices for our citizens, so that citizens across the EU can actually afford new vehicles and not only second-hand or third-hand vehicles, which often pollute more, as we all know. And thirdly, preserving the competitiveness of our automotive industry, and when I speak about automotive industry, I don鈥檛 only mean large manufacturers, I mean the entire ecosystem, including component manufacturers and aftermarket services.

And we also need to take into account the broader transformation of the automotive industry. In fact, this 合法博彩网站 has established earlier this year a very clear pathway to zero-emission vehicles. Back in November 2022, the Commission鈥檚 proposal aimed to strike the right balance between these challenging objectives. We proposed emission limits, achievable with cost-effective solutions, and technology which is already available. We proposed future-proof elements that will remain valid for electric vehicles, brakes, tyres, battery durability. We proposed using available digital technologies like sensors to improve compliance over the lifetime of a vehicle.

I recognise and welcome that the overall architecture and some key blocks of our proposal can be found in the 合法博彩网站鈥檚 position so far. First, the need to tackle exhaust emissions both from light duty- and from heavy duty vehicles. Second, the need to start regulating non-exhaust emissions and to do so based on the work carried out at UN level. Global harmonisation of the rules is the best way forward and Euro 7 will have a pivotal role here. And third, the need for rules on battery durability, lifetime requirements and on-board monitoring to ensure high performance over the life of a vehicle.

Having said this, there are of course areas where the 合法博彩网站鈥檚 position diverges from the Commission鈥檚. And here timing is important, both from an environmental and an economic perspective. With ENVI鈥檚 report Euro 7 requirements will apply about three years later than in the Commission proposal. This would surely give vehicle manufacturers more lead time to adapt to changes. However, it would also give less time to recoup their investment before moving to 100% zero-emission vehicles. Postponing the application would also reduce environmental and health benefits.

Another challenging aspect is the proposed approach to secondary legislation. We are fully committed to be as fast as possible, but the 合法博彩网站鈥檚 proposal would multiply the number of secondary acts, sometimes even overlapping between delegated and implementing acts. And setting strict deadlines of only 12 months could also impede our consultation process and create legal risks. I also have some questions, or at least doubts, concerning some of the proposed changes regarding brake emissions for hybrid electric vehicles or battery durability requirements. And finally, I am aware, of course, that the Council has taken a different position, notably regarding emission limits, but I won鈥檛 comment any further here today, as this will be discussed in the trilogues.

So to conclude, I want to stress again how encouraging it is to see this House鈥檚 commitment on this file. It is needed so that we can collectively provide regulatory certainty to companies and protection to our citizens, in particular our most vulnerable ones. So in this spirit, I look forward to the debate today and to the upcoming trilogue negotiations.

听听Marian-Jean Marinescu, Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru transport 葯i turism. 鈥� Domnule pre葯edinte, cred c膬 opinia din Comisia pentru transport asigur膬 un echilibru 卯ntre necesitatea de a reduce emisiile 葯i necesitatea de a asigura competitivitatea industriei europene, asigurarea, bine卯n葲eles, de locuri de munc膬 葯i, 卯n acela葯i timp, accesul la mobilitate al consumatorilor.

Cred c膬 trebuie s膬 avem 卯n vedere acest echilibru, pentru c膬 am芒ndou膬 cerin葲ele, necesit膬葲ile, sunt importante 卯ntr-o m膬sur膬 absolut egal膬.

Rezultatul din Comisia pentru mediu reflect膬 mult rezultatul din Comisia pentru transport 葯i apreciez ceea ce a f膬cut raportorul 卯n Comisia ENVI 葯i cred c膬 acest rezultat poate fi 卯mbun膬t膬葲it prin amendamentele de plen, 卯n special 卯n ceea ce prive葯te combustibilii neutri din punct de vedere CO2. Cred c膬 卯n felul acesta putem s膬 mic葯or膬m chiar emisiile, pentru c膬 putem asigura pentru autovehiculele care sunt acum pe drumurile europene reducerea emisiilor.

Deci, sprijin rezultatul din ENVI 葯i 卯n acela葯i timp o parte din amendamentele de plen.

听听Jens Gieseke, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. 鈥� Sehr geehrter Herr Pr盲sident, Frau Kommissarin Dalli, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich w眉nsche mir mehr Realismus in dieser Debatte. Wir alle wollen bessere Luftqualit盲t f眉r unsere B眉rgerinnen und B眉rger, bezahlbare Mobilit盲t f眉r B眉rger und Unternehmen und eine wettbewerbsf盲hige Industrie in der Europ盲ischen Union.

Um in allen Bereichen Fortschritte zu erreichen und niemanden 眉ber Geb眉hr zu belasten, brauchen wir bei der Euro-7-Norm einen gesunden Mittelweg. Diesen haben wir bereits erarbeitet, dieser Vorschlag steht heute hier zur Abstimmung. Er verbessert die Luftqualit盲t. Strengere Grenzwerte werden dazu f眉hren, dass Euro-7-Pkw 60听% weniger Feinstaub aussto脽en und Lkw 60听% weniger Stickoxide im Vergleich zu Euro 6.

Mobilit盲t bleibt bezahlbar. Strenge Grenzwerte und neue Testverfahren bed眉rfen erheblicher Investitionen, bringen aber einen vergleichsweise geringen Zusatznutzen f眉r die Luftqualit盲t. Wenn wir die bew盲hrten Euro-6-Testverfahren beibehalten und die Grenzwerte nur moderat versch盲rfen, verhindern wir hohe Investitionen in teure Technologie, die letztlich der Verbraucher zahlt.

Wir sichern die Wettbewerbsf盲higkeit der europ盲ischen Industrie. Erst Anfang dieses Jahres wurde in der EU das Verbrenner-Aus ab 2035 beschlossen. Da k枚nnen wir die Autoindustrie jetzt nicht zwingen, Milliarden in eine Auslauftechnologie zu investieren. Klimaschutz geht nur mit der Industrie, nicht gegen sie. Luftqualit盲t und der Erhalt von Wettbewerbsf盲higkeit und Arbeitspl盲tzen in der EU haben f眉r uns Priorit盲t.

Der vorliegende Vorschlag bringt das notwendige Gleichgewicht. Was fehlt, ist ein Passus zur Technologieneutralit盲t. CO2-neutrale Kraftstoffe helfen dem Klimaschutz. Und mit welchen Mitteln wir Klimaschutz oder bessere Luft im Endeffekt erreichen, darf nicht vorgeschrieben werden.

Wir brauchen den Wettbewerb. Ein Verbot bestimmter Technologie ist nie zielf眉hrend. Politiker sind nicht die besseren Ingenieure. Ich habe keine gefunden, auch bei den Gr眉nen nicht, obwohl ich lange gesucht habe. Aus diesem Grund haben wir 脛nderungen eingebracht, damit der Weiterbetrieb von Verbrennerautos, die klimaneutral mit CO2-neutralen Kraftstoffen betrieben werden, auch nach 2035 noch m枚glich ist.

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir haben einen guten Kompromiss gefunden. Deshalb mein Appell an alle hier: Bitte unterst眉tzen Sie diesen ausgewogenen Ansatz f眉r bessere Luft, bezahlbare Mobilit盲t und eine global wettbewerbsf盲hige Industrie.

听听Christel Schaldemose, for S&D-Gruppen. 鈥� Hr. formand! Hvert 氓r d酶r tusindvis af europ忙ere af d氓rlig luftkvalitet fra transportsektoren. Det har vi lige h酶rt, og vi ved det ogs氓 fra Verdenssundhedsorganisationen. Det er den st酶rste trussel mod vores sundhed i EU, s氓 derfor er det at tackle luftforurening et f忙lles 鈥� eller det burde v忙re et f忙lles 鈥� politisk ansvar. Et ansvar for byr氓dspolitikere og for nationale politikere og fra os p氓 europ忙isk plan. Men det ansvar har et flertal her i dette hus n忙gtet at p氓tage sig. Med aftalen om Euro 7 leverer vi simpelt hen ikke p氓 luftforurening. Jeg synes, det er pinligt, at Europa-Parlamentet fral忙gger sig ansvaret for borgernes helbred, og det vil faktisk v忙re helt forkert at kalde det forslag, vi har her i huset, for Euro 7. Det er snarere t忙t p氓 det eksisterende Euro 6-forslag. Vi har selvf酶lgelig brug for at balancere hensynene mellem sundhed og industrien og konkurrenceevne. Men det havde Kommissionen allerede sikret, at der var en balance i. Og med Europa-Parlamentets aftale, s氓 f氓r vi fuldst忙ndig fjernet den balance, der var. Fra Renew og ud til ID, s氓 har de 酶delagt balancen. De har udvandet Kommissionens forslag. Sammen med bilindustrien har de reduceret ambitionerne i forhold til emissioner, de har forringet testningen, og de har udskudt implementeringen.

For mig at se er det virkelig, virkelig et d氓rligt forslag, som p氓 ingen m氓de hj忙lper borgerne og sikrer sundheden. Jeg synes, det er pinligt, og jeg og min gruppe kommer til at stemme imod dette forslag. Vi synes ikke, det er ambiti酶st, vi syntes ikke, det leverer p氓 det, som det skulle levere p氓, og derfor er der kun 茅n ting, det er at sige nej tak til det forslag, og jeg ville 酶nske, at Kommissionen ogs氓 gik lidt h氓rdere til v忙rks og turde kritisere det forslag, der ligger her i dag. For Kommissionen m氓 ogs氓 v忙re ganske skuffet over at se deres eget forslag udvandet s氓 markant, som tilf忙ldet er.

听听Susana Sol铆s P茅rez, en nombre del Grupo Renew. 鈥� Se帽or presidente, se帽ora comisaria, despu茅s de largas negociaciones vamos a poder votar una norma Euro 7 coherente y equilibrada que tiene en cuenta la salud de los ciudadanos y mejora la calidad del aire.

Nuestra propuesta reduce las emisiones de NOx un 60听% en camiones, un 33听% en los coches y 鈥攑or primera vez鈥� las part铆culas contaminantes de frenos y ruedas, adem谩s de aumentar la durabilidad de las bater铆as. Como digo, es una propuesta sensata, con tiempos de implementaci贸n realistas para la industria y, lo que es muy importante, sin que suponga m谩s costes para los consumidores.

Porque recuerdo que lo que piden aqu铆 socialistas y verdes incrementa el precio precisamente de los veh铆culos de gama m谩s baja y pone m谩s palos en las ruedas para renovar el parque de veh铆culos tan antiguo que circula por las carreteras en muchos pa铆ses europeos.

No solo eso: su propuesta tambi茅n pone en riesgo la fabricaci贸n de los veh铆culos m谩s peque帽os 鈥攑recisamente los que se hacen en Europa鈥� y, con ello, miles de puestos de trabajo, por ejemplo, en Espa帽a.

Por tanto, les pedimos que apoyen nuestra propuesta, que es buena para el medio ambiente, buena para los ciudadanos y tambi茅n buena para la competitividad de Europa.

听听Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. 鈥� Mr President, sometimes you have the feeling that the Euro听7 debate was more about the car industry than it is about air quality, although this proposal is there to improve air quality 鈥� mainly in our cities, where road transport is still one of the biggest polluters in Europe, and where 70听000 people die prematurely because of bad air quality, because of road transport. That鈥檚 what we鈥檙e trying to address here.

People are saying, of course, 鈥榳e are trying here, we are moving to electric vehicles and that鈥檚 why we don鈥檛 need to do this.鈥� Well, the last standards that we are looking at now, Euro听6, they were formed in 2009, fifteen years ago, and the standards put in place in 2009 already could be met by technologies existing in 2009.

What we are doing now is basically reinstalling Euro听6 standards and calling it Euro听7, but are not delivering any improvement on air quality, and at the same time claiming that our citizens will be improving. Is it needed when we are moving to electric? Well, be aware that any combustion engine that is still being sold until 2035 for cars will be on European roads until 2050. For trucks, we don鈥檛 even propose the end of the combustion engine, so they will be running on our streets even longer.

Is it impossible? Even the Commission鈥檚 medium scenario showed the best cost-benefit ratio. The Commission already lowered their proposal, lowered the ambition in that proposal. We even further lower it. So anyone is saying that this is impossible to meet should read the impact assessment. Certainly the conservatives, who always love impact assessments.

I think I have a final question to the Commission. If this is being adopted and indeed it is Euro听6, can you please hurry up the negotiations on the green claims, because this will be the best example of a greenwashing label.

听听Sylvia Limmer, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. 鈥� Herr Pr盲sident, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Gleich vorneweg: Der Kommissionsvorschlag zu den Euro-7-Normen ist v枚llig inakzeptabel. Reicht Ihnen denn die Abschaffung der Autoindustrie in der EU ab 2035 nicht? Wollen Sie den Termin auf 2025 vorverlegen?

Der heute zur Abstimmung stehende Vorschlag aus dem Ausschuss ist zwar besser, aber eben nicht gut. Mir geht es jetzt auch nicht um einzelne Inhalte 鈥� ein eh schwieriges Unterfangen in l盲cherlichen 90听Sekunden, die einem daf眉r zur Verf眉gung stehen 鈥�, sondern darum, dass es ein Skandal ist, dass wir Marktliberale, wir Konservative uns von einer Minderheit links-gr眉n woker Wohlstandsvernichter, von ideologisch-politischen Abdeckern unserer Wirtschaft und unserer Freiheit am Nasenring durch die politische Arena schleifen lassen.

Sollen wir einem zwar abgemilderten, aber immer noch schlechten Vorschlag zustimmen, um noch schlechteren gr眉nideologischen Unsinn zu verhindern? Begn眉gen wir uns also mit schlechter Politik um des Kompromisses willen? Daf眉r sind wir nicht gew盲hlt worden. In Umkehrung des hier allseits beliebten Spruches sollte es besser hei脽en: 鈥�Let鈥榮 leave those green socialists behind.鈥� Wir m眉ssen diesen gef盲hrlichen gr眉n-sozialistischen Utopisten kategorisch die rote Karte zeigen, wenn wir nicht unsere wirtschaftliche Zukunft 鈥撎齯nd dazu z盲hlt auch unsere Autoindustrie听鈥� verspielen wollen.

听听Nikolaj Villumsen, for The Left-Gruppen. 鈥� Hr. formand! Hvert 氓r d酶r mindst 70 000 europ忙ere p氓 grund af luftforurening, mere end tre gange s氓 mange, som der d酶r i trafikken. Langt hovedparten af borgerne i EU uds忙ttes for d酶delig luftforurening. En luftforurening, der i overv忙ldende grad skyldes biler og lastbiler. Det kunne vi have gjort noget ved med dette lovforslag, men bilindustriens venner p氓 h酶jrefl酶jen ville det anderledes. S氓 nu st氓r vi i stedet med et forslag, der er udvandet til uigenkendelighed. Et forslag, der i alt v忙sentlighed blot forl忙nger de samme lave standarder for biler, som allerede dr忙ber mennesker i dag. Det er en skandale. Vi har ikke behov for greenwashing. Vi har behov for at s忙tte menneskeliv over bilindustriens kortsigtede profit. Vi har behov for en ambiti酶s gr酶n omstilling, s氓 vi skaber fremtidens gr酶nne arbejdspladser i Europa.

听听Edina T贸th (NI). 鈥� Eln枚k 脷r! A g茅pj谩rm疟veket 茅rint艖 Euro 7 k谩rosanyag-kibocs谩t谩si szabv谩nyok minden bizonnyal fontos el艖rel茅p茅st jelentenek a z枚ld 谩t谩ll谩sban. Ugyanakkor nem hagyhatjuk figyelmen k铆v眉l azokat a kih铆v谩sokat, amelyekkel az iparnak 茅s a polg谩roknak is szembe kell n茅zni眉k.

El艖sz枚r is fontos kiemelni, hogy a k谩rosanyag-cs枚kkent艖 int茅zked茅sek bevezet茅se sok esetben komoly beruh谩z谩sokat ig茅nyel, amely az aut贸ipari szerepl艖ket terheli legink谩bb, s az ilyen int茅zked茅sek hossz煤t谩von is hat谩ssal lehetnek a versenyk茅pess茅gre 茅s a munkahelyekre is. Az 谩remelked茅s pedig term茅szetesen kihat a v谩s谩rl贸kra, hiszen 煤j technol贸gi谩ra lesz sz眉ks茅g, ami komoly k枚lts茅geket von maga ut谩n!

A baloldal 谩ltal er艖ltetett c茅l茅rt茅kek miatt az aut贸ipar m谩r most is az alternat铆v hajt谩s煤 j谩rm疟vek fejleszt茅s茅vel van elfoglalva, 煤j szabv谩nyokkal pedig m茅g nagyobb nyom谩st gyakoroln谩nk r谩juk.

A jelenlegi h谩bor煤s infl谩ci贸s k枚rnyezetben meg kell v茅den眉nk polg谩rainkat a br眉sszeli baloldal felel艖tlen javaslatai miatt kialakuland贸 煤jabb 谩remel茅sekt艖l!

听听Francesca Peppucci (PPE). 鈥� Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi tutti vogliamo auto che rispettino l'ambiente, ma dobbiamo agire con cautela.

L'Europa 猫 conosciuta in tutto il mondo per la produzione di automobili a basse emissioni e di alta qualit脿, il fatturato generato dall'industria automobilistica rappresenta quasi l'8听% del PIL dell'Unione europea. Gli obiettivi climatici dell'Unione europea devono camminare di pari passo con lo sforzo richiesto ai produttori di automobili e di componenti di auto e la proposta che 猫 stata elaborata 猫 certamente la misura giusta tra le due esigenze.

脠 evidente come il settore dell'industria automobilistica sta gi脿 affrontando sfide senza precedenti legate alle conseguenze della guerra, come l'accesso limitato alle materie prime, l'aumento dei prezzi dell'energia o pressioni inflazionistiche, ed 猫 proprio in momenti di crisi come queste che i settori come quello automobilistico devono fare la differenza e lo devono fare in maniera competitiva sulla scena internazionale, oltre a dover garantire una mobilit脿 a prezzi accessibili ai nostri cittadini.

Andiamo spediti, quindi, con proposte concrete che raggiungano obiettivi giusti, invece di procedere con provvedimenti esclusivamente ideologici che difficilmente portano a risultati.

听听Andreas Gl眉ck (Renew). 鈥� Sehr geehrter Herr Pr盲sident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Braucht es Euro 7 denn 眉berhaupt? Autos besser und sauberer zu machen, ist nat眉rlich wichtig. Das Problem ist nur, dass die Automobilbranche bereits jetzt schon hin auf dem Weg zur Dekarbonisierung ist 鈥� und die Kosten hierf眉r sind unglaublich intensiv.

Nun, wenn Euro 7 zu streng und zu teuer wird, dann fehlen erstens mal die Ressourcen der Industrie bei diesem Transformationsprozess. Zweitens werden die Euro-7-Fahrzeuge teurer. Dann k枚nnen sich die Menschen keine neuen Autos leisten, und die Flottenerneuerung erlahmt. Au脽erdem: Euro-6-Fahrzeuge sind doch nicht unser Problem. Wenn dann allenfalls 盲ltere Fahrzeuge, die dann aber eben l盲nger nicht ausgetauscht werden.

F眉r mich macht deshalb Euro 7 nur dann Sinn, wenn eben erneuerbare Kraftstoffe im Gesetz verankert sind. Ein Verbrenner ist weder gut noch schlecht. Es kommt einfach darauf an, was man drin verbrennt. Lassen Sie uns daf眉r sorgen, dass es etwas Klimaneutrales ist, was verbrannt wird. Leider sind die erneuerbaren Kraftstoffe nicht Teil des vorliegenden Gesetzentwurfs. Das halte ich f眉r falsch. Deswegen habe ich 脛nderungsantr盲ge eingebracht, die das korrigieren sollen.

Nur Technologieoffenheit bringt die besten und g眉nstigsten L枚sungen. Bitte unterst眉tzen Sie unsere 脛nderungsantr盲ge, um ein besseres Gesetz zu machen.

听听Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). 鈥� Monsieur le Pr茅sident, mes chers coll猫gues, je dois vous dire ma col猫re. Il y a sept ans, au sortir du Dieselgate, nous 茅tions tous d鈥檃ccord dans cet h茅micycle. Nous avions dit: plus jamais 莽a. Plus jamais de voiture poubelle, plus jamais de triche sous l鈥櫯搃l complice des 脡tats membres de l鈥橴nion europ茅enne, nous avons pris la mesure du scandale sanitaire, si bien que la commission d鈥檈nqu锚te du Parlement europ茅en avait conclu que c鈥櫭﹖ait une victoire pour nous, l茅gislateurs, par un message historique aux constructeurs automobiles, un message qui disait: nous vous surveillons et vous allez r茅parer vos fautes. C鈥檈st cela qu鈥檕n leur a dit. Et depuis, plus rien. Qu鈥檈st-ce qui s鈥檈st pass茅 depuis sept ans? Rien, ou tr猫s peu. On devait passer tout de suite 脿 la norme Euro听7. On n鈥檡 est toujours pas.

Ce qu鈥檕n va voter aujourd鈥檋ui, c鈥檈st une norme all茅g茅e, rejet茅e aux calendes grecques. Nous signons jusqu鈥檈n 2050 pour cent millions de v茅hicules poubelles et une directive sur la qualit茅 de l鈥檃ir qui ne sera jamais respect茅e. Vous ne trouverez aucun soutien de ma part 脿 un tel g芒chis. Vous irez vous expliquer aux Europ茅ens qui vont suffoquer notamment de cet air et aux trois cent mille victimes de la pollution de l鈥檃ir chaque ann茅e.

听听Marie Dauchy (ID). 鈥� Monsieur le Pr茅sident, chers coll猫gues, les normes, toujours les normes! L鈥橴nion europ茅enne n鈥檃 que ce mot 脿 la bouche. 脡tablir toujours plus de normes pour pourrir la vie de nos concitoyens. Vous voulez faire passer une nouvelle norme sur la pollution automobile, la fameuse norme Euro 7. Mais il est important que tous comprennent bien le vice qui se cache derri猫re ce texte.

L鈥橴nion europ茅enne a r茅cemment impos茅 le passage au tout 茅lectrique en nous faisant croire qu鈥檌l s鈥檃gissait d鈥檜ne solution miracle pour sauver la plan猫te. Une fois de plus, ce sont les citoyens qui devront payer l鈥檃ddition. Que proposez-vous aux personnes vivant en dehors des grandes villes, qui n鈥檕nt pas de transports en commun et qui n鈥檕nt pas d鈥檃utre choix que de prendre leur voiture pour aller travailler? Rien, absolument rien. Pire, vous les m茅prisez, puisque vous prenez des d茅cisions insens茅es qui vont profond茅ment affecter leurs vies.

Une fois de plus, ces d茅cisions sont prises par des technocrates de Bruxelles planqu茅s dans leur tour d鈥檌voire qui ne connaissent pas les r茅alit茅s que vivent nos concitoyens. Derri猫re vos soi-disant objectifs de protection de l鈥檈nvironnement se dissimule une volont茅 d鈥檈n finir avec nos libert茅s, 脿 commencer par la libert茅 de se d茅placer. Mais sachez qu鈥檈n d茅mocratie, c鈥檈st le peuple qui d茅cide et vous payerez bient么t le prix politique de cette m茅prise du peuple. Et vivement le 9 juin.

听听Sun膷ana Glavak (PPE). 鈥� Po拧tovani predsjedavaju膰i, po拧tovana povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, ovim izvje拧膰em postavljamo jasan i sna啪an smjer koji istodobno 拧titi potro拧a膷e, konkurentnost na拧eg tr啪i拧ta te, nemojmo zaboraviti, brojna radna mjesta u Europskoj uniji. Po meni, klju膷no je prona膰i odgovaraju膰u ravnote啪u izme膽u industrije i na拧ih klimatskih ciljeva. Pritom, naravno, obra膰aju膰i pozornost i na dobrobit na拧ih gra膽ana. Rekla bih da razumni rokovi za primjenu ovih pravila daju industriji vremena za prilagodbu bez kompromisa u na拧im ekolo拧kim ciljevima. Tako膽er, na拧a uskla膽enost s UN regulativama oko emisija 膷estica, ko膷nica i habanja guma pokazuje na拧u odgovornost i ono 拧to nazivamo leadership.

Ovaj zakonodavni prijedlog stavlja nas na 膷elo borbe protiv klimatskih promjena, ali tako膽er nosi te啪inu odgovornosti za preciznu implementaciju i izvr拧enje. Naravno da svi 啪elimo voziti 膷i拧膰e automobile, 啪elimo svi 膷i拧膰e kamione, autobuse. To svi dobro znamo. Znamo i kako je Klub zastupnika EPP-a veliki podupiratelj zelene tranzicije, ali jednako tako 啪elimo to u膷initi na na膷in koji uzima u obzir realne potrebe na拧ih gra膽ana. Nemojmo zaboraviti da si svi u onom prvom prijedlogu jednostavno ne bi mogli priu拧titi nove automobile - puno skuplje automobile, ali jednako tako moramo voditi ra膷una o brojnim radnim mjestima i o onome 拧to smo 膷uli o financijskom kola膷u BDP-a koji donosi industrija. Stoga, kolegice i kolege, zavr拧it 膰u. Stabilnost, sigurnost i predvidivost - ono je 拧to moramo pru啪iti na拧im gra膽anima i na拧oj industriji - a ne populizam.

听听Dita Charanzov谩 (Renew). 鈥� Mr President, dear colleagues, more than 14听million Europeans are employed by our automotive industry. That is 6.1% of the total employment in the European Union and 7% of our GDP. But this is also a vital industry undergoing transformation. They already have to heavily invest in European electric motors, European batteries and European innovations. This is why I am glad that our proposal is more realistic, and it will not put additional burdens during this transformation. For this, I want to thank our rapporteur, Mr Vondra.

Mr President, a lot is at stake. The European automotive sector is at the top of the global competition today and it must remain there. That鈥檚 the reason why we must vote in favour of this proposal.

听听Gianna Gancia (ID). 鈥� Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi ci troviamo di fronte a una scelta cruciale, quella tra il buon senso e l'ideologia.

La proposta Euro 7, come presentata dalla Commissione europea, rischia di soffocare il nostro settore automobilistico. Sosteniamo con forza il compromesso raggiunto in commissione ENVI per garantire un ambiente pi霉 pulito, ascoltando le esigenze dell'industria e quindi salvaguardando l'occupazione. Il Consiglio dell'Unione, con il sostegno dell'Italia, ha raggiunto un accordo che rafforza questo compromesso.

Per questo rimarremo fermi nel rifiutare ogni emendamento che vorr脿 rendere questo testo maggiormente punitivo.

听听袗薪写褉械泄 袧芯胁邪泻芯胁 (PPE). 鈥� 袣芯谢械谐懈, 懈屑邪屑 械写薪邪 谢芯谐懈褔械褋泻邪 蟹邪写邪褔邪 蟹邪 胁邪褋. 袙 泻褉邪褟 薪邪 屑懈薪邪谢邪褌邪 谐芯写懈薪邪 袝胁褉芯锌械泄褋泻邪褌邪 泻芯屑懈褋懈褟 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褟 锌邪泻械褌, 薪邪褉械褔械薪 袝胁褉芯 7 - 袧芯胁懈褌械 械泻芯谢芯谐懈褔薪懈 薪芯褉屑懈 蟹邪 邪胁褌芯屑芯斜懈谢懈褌械. 孝芯泄 懈蟹懈褋泻胁邪 屑懈谢懈邪褉写懈 懈薪胁械褋褌懈褑懈懈 胁 斜械薪蟹懈薪芯胁懈 懈 写懈蟹械谢芯胁懈 邪胁褌芯屑芯斜懈谢懈, 蟹邪 写邪 褋褌邪薪邪褌 锌芯-褔懈褋褌懈. 孝褉懈 屑械褋械褑邪 锌芯-泻褗褋薪芯, 胁 薪邪褔邪谢芯褌芯 薪邪 褌邪蟹懈 谐芯写懈薪邪, 褌芯蟹懈 袩邪褉谢邪屑械薪褌 芯写芯斜褉褟胁邪 褌芯褌邪谢薪邪 蟹邪斜褉邪薪邪 蟹邪 锌褉芯写邪卸斜邪 薪邪 斜械薪蟹懈薪芯胁懈 懈 写懈蟹械谢芯胁懈 邪胁褌芯屑芯斜懈谢懈. 袙 蟹邪写邪褔邪褌邪 褋械 锌懈褌邪: 蟹邪褖芯 薪邪锌褉邪胁懈褏屑械 褌邪泻邪?

袟薪邪械屑 谢懈 泻邪泻胁芯 锌褉邪胁懈屑 懈谢懈 褍薪懈褖芯卸邪胁邪屑械 械写薪邪 懈薪写褍褋褌褉懈褟, 泻芯褟褌芯 写邪胁邪 13 屑懈谢懈芯薪邪 褉邪斜芯褌薪懈 屑械褋褌邪. 13 屑懈谢懈芯薪邪 鈥� 褌芯胁邪 械 锌芯胁械褔械 芯褌 薪邪褋械谢械薪懈械褌芯 薪邪 袘械谢谐懈褟. 孝褉懈 褔械褌胁褗褉褌懈 芯褌 胁褋懈褔泻芯, 胁褋懈褔泻芯 胁褗胁 胁邪褕懈褌械 泻褗褖懈 械 写芯褋褌邪胁械薪芯 褔褉械蟹 屑懈泻褉芯斜褍褋懈 懈谢懈 泻邪屑懈芯薪懈 褋 斜械薪蟹懈薪芯胁懈 懈谢懈 写懈蟹械谢芯胁懈 写胁懈谐邪褌械谢懈. 孝褉懈 褔械褌胁褗褉褌懈. 袨褋胁械薪 袣芯胁懈写, 芯褋胁械薪 胁芯泄薪邪褌邪 胁 校泻褉邪泄薪邪, 芯褋胁械薪 懈薪褎谢邪褑懈褟褌邪, 芯褋胁械薪 胁懈褋芯泻懈褌械 褑械薪懈 薪邪 谐芯褉懈胁邪褌邪, 泻邪泻胁芯 芯褖械 懈褋泻邪屑械 写邪 褋褌芯胁邪褉懈屑 胁褗褉褏褍 谐谢邪胁懈褌械 薪邪 褌邪蟹懈 懈薪写褍褋褌褉懈褟? 袧懈褖芯 褔褍写薪芯, 褔械 懈蟹芯褋褌邪胁邪屑械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 泻邪褌邪褋褌褉芯褎邪谢薪芯 芯褌 小褗械写懈薪械薪懈褌械 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褋泻懈 褖邪褌懈. 袩褉械写懈 15 谐芯写懈薪懈 薪邪褕邪褌邪 懈泻芯薪芯屑懈泻邪 械 褋 械写懈薪 褌褉懈谢懈芯薪 写芯谢邪褉邪 锌芯-谐芯谢褟屑邪 芯褌 褌邪蟹懈 薪邪 小褗械写懈薪械薪懈褌械 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褋泻懈 褖邪褌懈. 袛薪械褋 邪屑械褉懈泻邪薪褋泻邪褌邪 械 褋 5 褌褉懈谢懈芯薪邪 写芯谢邪褉邪 锌芯-谐芯谢褟屑邪 芯褌 薪邪褕邪褌邪.

袟薪邪械褌械 谢懈 胁 褌芯锌 20 薪邪 薪邪泄-谐芯谢械屑懈褌械 泻芯屑锌邪薪懈懈 胁 袝胁褉芯锌邪, 胁 褋胁械褌邪 锌褉芯褋褌械褌械, 泻芯谢泻芯 褋邪 械胁褉芯锌械泄褋泻懈? 袛胁械, 褋邪屑芯 写胁械. 孝芯胁邪 械 褌邪泻邪, 蟹邪褖芯褌芯 薪褟屑邪屑械 薪褍卸写邪 芯褌 锌芯胁械褔械 褉械谐褍谢邪褑懈懈. 袠屑邪屑械 薪褍卸写邪 芯褌 褋胁芯斜芯写械薪 锌邪蟹邪褉 懈 褉械懈薪写褍褋褌褉懈邪谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟. 袠 邪泻芯 屑芯卸械 写邪 薪械 胁褗胁械卸写邪屑械 袝胁褉芯 8, 袝胁褉芯 9 懈 袝胁褉芯 10 写芯 泻褉邪褟 薪邪 褌芯蟹懈 屑邪薪写邪褌.

听听Ond艡ej Kova艡铆k (Renew). 鈥� Pane p艡edsedaj铆c铆, pan铆 komisa艡ko, kolegyn臎, kolegov茅, n谩vrh emisn铆 normy pro automobily Euro 7 nem臎l v prvn铆 艡ad臎 nikdy spat艡it sv臎tlo sv臎ta. To, co Komise p艡edlo啪ila p艡ed rokem, bylo velmi 拧patn茅, nerealistick茅 a st臎啪铆 provediteln茅 na艡铆zen铆. Jeho dopady na 啪ivotn铆 prost艡ed铆 by byly sporn茅 a dopady na v媒robce a u啪ivatele automobil暖 jasn臎 negativn铆: zpomalen铆 inovac铆, zastaven铆 v媒roby mal媒ch aut, masivn铆 propou拧t臎n铆 ze strany v媒robc暖, zdra啪en铆 nov媒ch aut a啪 v 艡谩du des铆tek tis铆c korun. A to jsou jen ty nejv媒znamn臎j拧铆.

Jedn谩n铆m zde v Evropsk茅m parlamentu se poda艡ilo celou 艡adu opat艡en铆 zm铆rnit. U emis铆 v媒fukov媒ch plyn暖 sm臎艡ujeme k tomu, abychom z暖stali v podstat臎 u nyn铆 platn茅 normy Euro 6 a tot茅啪, a to je tak茅 podstatn茅, z hlediska testov谩n铆 vozidel. Sou膷asn媒 n谩vrh ale neobsahuje mo啪nost dal拧铆ho vyu啪it铆 tzv. CO2 neutr谩ln铆ch paliv, chcete-li paliv syntetick茅ho 膷i biologick茅ho p暖vodu. A podle m茅ho n谩zoru by m臎l. Tato paliva nejen p艡isp铆vaj铆 ke sn铆啪en铆 emis铆, ale hlavn臎 umo啪n铆 budouc铆 vyu啪铆v谩n铆 technologie spalovac铆ch motor暖. Jsou z谩sadn铆 z hlediska zachov谩n铆 principu technologick茅 neutrality, a proto bych vyzval k tomu podpo艡it pozm臎艌ovac铆 n谩vrhy v tomto duchu p艡i z铆t艡ej拧铆m hlasov谩n铆.

听听Dennis Radtke (PPE). 鈥� Herr Pr盲sident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! F眉r uns als EVP-Fraktion ist klar: Wir m眉ssen den Beweis antreten, dass 鈥濴枚hne und Wachstum rauf鈥� und 鈥濫missionen und Umweltbelastung runter鈥� zusammen geht. Sonst wird uns bei unseren ambitionierten Zielen international niemand folgen. Und f眉r mich ist auch klar: Umweltschutz, Klimaschutz werden wir nur erreichen mit der Industrie als Partner und nicht mit der Industrie als Gegner.

Ich meine, nach vier Jahren sozialdemokratischer Industriepolitik hier in diesem Haus verwundert einen ja gar nichts mehr. Aber es ist schon erstaunlich, wenn vor drei Wochen der SPD-Vorsitzende in Deutschland erkl盲rt, die SPD stehe ohne Wenn und Aber zum Industriestandort Deutschland. Da habe ich ihm klipp und klar gesagt: Es w盲re toll, wenn Sie es nicht nur sagen, sondern wenn Ihre Genossinnen und Genossen in den Parlamenten das bei ihren Entscheidungen auch beherzigen w眉rden.

Die SPD, die Sozialdemokratie in diesem Hause, steht eben nicht f眉r den Erhalt von hochwertigen Industriearbeitspl盲tzen, sondern sie steht an der Spitze der Gegenbewegung! Das ist die traurige Realit盲t. Das wurde hier und heute auch angek眉ndigt. Die EVP steht f眉r einen anderen Kurs: Industrie als Partner f眉r Klimaschutz und Umweltschutz. Und darum geht es morgen. Und daf眉r werbe ich.

Catch-the-eye procedure

听听Sara Cerdas (S&D). 鈥� Senhor Presidente, 70% das emiss玫es dos transportes v锚m das nossas estradas.

No in铆cio de 2023, como relatora-sombra, defendi a proposta que visa reduzir as emiss玫es de CO2 para a atmosfera de ve铆culos ligeiros, a partir de 2035. E, hoje, gostaria de estar aqui a apoiar uma proposta Euro 7 mais ambiciosa, porque a polui莽茫o do ar 茅 um problema que n茫o pode ser ignorado pelas graves consequ锚ncias para o bem-estar, para a sa煤de e a qualidade de vida dos europeus.

E, ao contr谩rio do discurso da direita, os benef铆cios do Euro 7 eram evidentes. Os benef铆cios da proposta da Comiss茫o: por cada euro investido existiria um retorno de 5听鈧� em cuidados de sa煤de, em prote莽茫o ambiental.

A abordagem da direita a este relat贸rio 茅 prejudicial para a nossa capacidade de enfrentar os atuais desafios, tanto ambientais como da sa煤de p煤blica, e a luta contra a polui莽茫o do ar, pela prote莽茫o do meio ambiente e pela sa煤de e pelo bem-estar daqueles que representamos 茅 uma a莽茫o que exige o compromisso e exige, acima de tudo, coragem.

听听Aur茅lia Beigneux (ID). 鈥� Monsieur le Pr茅sident, soyons lucides: le projet de loi Euro听7 est tout simplement insoutenable. La Commission exige des constructeurs qu鈥檌ls investissent massivement pour que les moteurs thermiques soient conformes 脿 des normes toujours plus strictes. Pourtant, ces m锚mes constructeurs ont d茅j脿 investi des milliards pour passer au tout 茅lectrique en 2025 sous votre injonction. Ce que vous demandez donc aux constructeurs est contradictoire et l鈥檈xemple frappant de la d茅connexion totale avec le monde de l鈥檌ndustrie.

Pire encore, et vous le savez tr猫s bien, ces efforts vont faire exploser le prix des v茅hicules, ce qui va tout simplement supprimer les v茅hicules abordables du march茅. R茅sultat: les petites citadines, autrefois accessibles 脿 10听000听EUR, co没tent d茅sormais le triple. Sous pr茅texte d鈥櫭ヽologie, vous renforcez donc les in茅galit茅s et creusez la fracture sociale.

Les 脡tats membres ont d茅j脿 adress茅 un carton jaune 脿 ce texte. Cela devrait vous alerter. 脡coutez les constructeurs, les nations et les automobilistes. Arr锚tez de p茅naliser injustement les plus vuln茅rables de notre soci茅t茅 et arr锚tez enfin de mettre en danger notre industrie automobile.

听听Mick Wallace (The Left). 鈥� Mr President, this legislation should be about setting adequate standards to improve public health and save lives. Yet the right-wing groups instead want to limit costs for car manufacturers.

It鈥檚 estimated that pollution from road transport causes 70听000 premature deaths every year in the EU, as the Commissioner herself highlighted. Yet some groups want to put the interests of big business ahead of the health of the ordinary people of Europe.

The Commission proposal already lacked the necessary ambition, but the right wing weakened the text even further at the ENVI Committee. A report by the International Council on Clean Transportation showed that China鈥檚 emissions limit values are nearly twice as stringent as the Euro听7 proposal, and the US limits are nearly three times as stringent.

The car industry is taking home record profits and paying out massive amounts of money to shareholders. If they wanted to pay for cleaner cars, they quite well could.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

听听Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you again for the work done on this text. We are all aware of the challenges to advance our environmental and climate objectives, while maintaining the competitiveness of our automotive industry and providing our citizens with the best conditions for affordable mobility.

I took good note of the positions taken by all during this debate. There is always a bit of tension between the three objectives which I mentioned earlier, but I am confident that you will find the required majority to progress on this file and start the trilogues shortly.

I know that with the right ambition, we can support a green, digital and resilient single market for motor vehicles. Rest assured that the Commission will continue to support you in this effort and work proactively on the implementation framework, so we look forward to working with the 合法博彩网站 in this common endeavour.

VORSITZ: NICOLA BEER
痴颈锄别辫谤盲蝉颈诲别苍迟颈苍

听听Alexandr Vondra, rapporteur. 鈥� Madam President, thank you very much. I think we had a useful debate, and I want to thank everybody for joining us in this debate. I want to thank, of course, all those associated committees 鈥� ITRE, TRAN and IMCO 鈥� for their work, which certainly helped to craft my report and to reach a rational balanced proposal. I want to thank also the shadows, in particular Jens Gieseke and Susana Sol铆s, for the excellent cooperation.

I want also to appreciate that the Commission is waking up to a more realistic attitude compared with the original proposal. Yes, it comes under attack from the left. I have two points on that. First, you argue with public health in the big cities. I have a clear medicine solution. You should invest much more in public transportation 鈥� like we did in Prague 鈥� and then you would not have this kind of problem.

Don鈥檛 ask the poorer countries to give up their automobiles. Just try to watch the highway connecting Frankfurt, Prague, Bratislava. It鈥檚 one light commercial after another, transporting the old, under Euro 6, cars to the east. And this is a disaster for the environment. So that鈥檚 the reason why we selected this rational approach.

And even you 鈥� I read your amendments 鈥� moved in the direction of my report. So you recognise that this Commission original proposal was not the best one. Nevertheless, the reality is that you continue to press for unworkable high emission limits and new testing parameters, which will require significant cost.

Thus I cannot support that because it would eliminate the smaller cars from the fleets immediately. And it鈥檚 not just the most vulnerable people. It鈥檚 also the lower half of society. The left, in the past, was defending those people and now I don鈥檛 see this. So I think therefore it鈥檚 essential to endorse, and I hope you endorse, my report.

听听Die Pr盲sidentin. 鈥� Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 9. November 2023, statt.

Schriftliche Erkl盲rungen (Artikel 171)

听听Eugen Jurzyca (ECR), 辫铆蝉辞尘苍别. 鈥� N谩vrhu Euro 7 ch媒baj煤 z谩kladn茅 anal媒zy dopadov. Napr铆klad predkladatelia neanalyzovali, ak媒 vplyv bud煤 ma钮 nov茅 pravidl谩 na spomalenie v媒meny star媒ch 谩ut za nov茅. Toto spomalenie by pritom viedlo k zhor拧eniu 啪ivotn茅ho prostredia. Efekt铆vnej拧ie by bolo sk么r sa (napr铆klad da艌ovou politikou) zamera钮 na v媒menu star媒ch (najviac zne膷is钮uj煤cich) 谩ut za modern茅, ne啪 e拧te viac spr铆s艌ova钮 limity modern媒m aut谩m, preto啪e 煤spory emisi铆 medzi Euro 6 a Euro 7 nie s煤 ve木k茅, zato rozdiel v cen谩ch pravdepodobne ve木k媒 je. Som presved膷en媒, 啪e za jedno euro investovan茅 do v媒meny star媒ch 谩ut za nov茅 by sme odstr谩nili viac ton CO2, ne啪 za jedno euro investovan茅 do spr铆snenia noriem pre nov茅 aut谩.

听听Katar铆na Roth Neve膹alov谩 (NI), 辫铆蝉辞尘苍别. 鈥� Ka啪d媒 z n谩s chce d媒cha钮 膷o mo啪no naj膷istej拧铆 vzduch, no ob谩vam sa, 啪e EURO7 n谩m v tom z谩sadn媒m sp么sobom nepom么啪e. U啪 platn谩 norma EURO 6 zn铆啪ila emisie o 90% a snahu o 膹al拧iu regul谩ciu bez obnovy vozov茅ho parku, ktor媒 najviac zne膷is钮uje 啪ivotn茅 prostredie, pova啪ujem za zbyto膷n煤. EURO7 bude plati钮 pre nov茅 automobily a predra啪铆 sa t媒m ich v媒roba, 膷o pre ob膷anov urob铆 nov茅 aut谩 e拧te menej dostupn茅 a bud煤 viac siaha钮 po jazden媒ch vozidl谩ch. Navy拧e E脷 u啪 schv谩lila, 啪e od roka 2035 sa bud煤 vyr谩ba钮 len bezemisn茅 aut谩, tak啪e si nemysl铆m, 啪e je rozumn茅 na posledn媒ch p谩r rokov bezrozmyslu tla膷i钮 na to, aby sme boli 膷o najzelen拧铆, a n煤ti钮 automobilky prech谩dza钮 na nov茅 syst茅my na posledn媒ch p谩r rokov. Je dobr茅, 啪e sa spravodajcovi do spr谩vy schv谩lenej v Eur贸pskom parlamente podarilo dosta钮 viacero zlep拧en铆 oproti p么vodn茅mu n谩vrhu Eur贸pskej komisie, ktor媒 by bol pre automobilky likvida膷n媒, no aj tak som t煤to spr谩vu nemohla podpori钮, lebo m谩m za to, 啪e neprinesie 啪elan茅 v媒sledky a z谩sadn媒 pokrok, ale naopak len urob铆 nov茅 automobily nedostupn茅 pre na拧ich ob膷anov.

听听Ivan 艩tefanec (PPE), 辫铆蝉辞尘苍别. 鈥� N谩vrh nariadenia Euro 7 roz拧iruje cie木 zni啪ova钮 emisie zne膷is钮uj煤cich l谩tok z cestnej dopravy o emisie vznikaj煤ce pri pou啪铆van铆 b艜zd, pri odere pneumat铆k, ale venuje sa aj 啪ivotnosti bat茅ri铆. Je d么le啪it茅, aby podmienky pre priemysel boli nastaven茅 realisticky, preto v铆tam kompromisn茅 znenie textu, ktor茅 ust煤pilo z vysok媒ch n谩rokov na 煤pravu s煤膷asn媒ch spa木ovac铆ch motorov. Som tie啪 presved膷en媒, 啪e bud煤 schv谩len茅 v拧etky 4 k木煤膷ov茅 hlasovania o pozme艌ovac铆ch n谩vrhoch, ktor茅 sme ozna膷ili ako prioritu pre eur贸pskych 木udovcov.