12 Amendments of Oreste ROSSI related to 2013/2113(INI)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the EU coulda greater degree of recycling would help the EU to benefit in terms of job creation and growth from a robust efforts to move toforwards a balanced, cradle- to- cradle circular economy, based on the concept of waste as a resource;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission's Green Paper and recognises the need for specific EU legislation on plastic waste, as well as more uniform, consistent and rigorous implementation of the existing legislation concerning waste;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that the existing Packaging Directive should be more widely and consistently implemented and enforced; emphasises that the internal market principles in the Packaging Directive have not stood in the way of the environmental objectives when the goals of the proposals were genuinely aimed at seeking higher environmental standards; strongly believes that the Packaging Directive provides a solid basis to deal with waste; calls for waste stream specific harmonised recycling targets in the Directive, which would further stimulate plastic waste recycling, and create a level playing field in line with the waste hierarchy;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the EU legislation on plastic waste should define: specific targets for collection and sorting and mandatory criteriabe adapted to ensure: better and more efficient collection systems, specific targets for recyclabilitying (clarifying the distinctions between mechanical/organic recycling and recovery/incineration; the aim should be a target of at least 75 % of recycled plastic by 2020); specific labelling of materials in order to inform consumers concerning their mechanical or organic recyclabilitit is advisable to introduce separate collection of materials and the harmonisation of collection, separation and general waste management across the EU to create a level playing field in line with the waste hierarchy; and, finally, criteria for the replacement of single-use and short-lived plastic products by reusable and more durable materials;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for the introduction of a landfill tax to be imposed in order to divert plastic waste from landfills and to incentivise recycling to end the export of post- consumer plastic waste to Asia and to encourage the further processing of waste in Europe;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the most dangerous plastics, those that are the most disruptive to humare should be a separate collection of materials with an emphasis on certain separations within thealth and the environment (such as micro- and oxo-biodegrad plastics waste stream (such as degradable plastics, oxo-fragmentable plastics) ands thoese whichmaterials contamin heavy metals that can also make recycling processes more difficultate the recycling waste stream; highlights, should be phased out of the market or banned outright, as soon as possible before 2020; also believes that, as demanded by a majority of European citizens (and consumers), it is finally time to phase out or ban single- use, non-biodegradable and non- compostable plastic products, also before 2020wever, that the most effective way to address the waste burden is to establish an infrastructure for waste management;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Emphasises to inform correctly the consumers that bio-based plastics should not to be confused with biodegradable plastics, and as consequence should be encouraged since their composition does not alter the durability and recyclability of the products; and finally, notes that the bio-based plastics are an eco-friendlier alternative than biodegradable plastics and should be promoted;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Believes that the use of oxo-additives in plastics should be discouraged and the use of biodegradable plastic, in particular in carrier bags, should not be promoted; Notes that in the sector of plastic bags manufacturing, so far studies have shown that only 15-35% of a biodegradable plastic bag is made from renewable resources; refers to impartial scientific research, which shows that biodegradable bags need to be up to twice as thick as normal plastic carrier bags to meet the same criteria and they are 3 times more expensive than normal plastic carrier bags and still twice more expensive than bio-based plastic bags;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Highlights that biodegradable plastics only decompose very slowly even in industrial composting plants, whereas they do not degrade in water at all, thus failing to solve the issue of maritime or nature littering; notes that they worsen the littering situation because consumers falsely think they decompose; and finally underlines that they damage the entire recycling process since even 2% of biodegradable content has a significant impact on the quality of the recycled material.
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for more investment in research and technologies aimed at obtaining more sustainable plastics and a better integration of various types in production processes and reprocessing activities, without affecting the quality of materials; considers that new technologies are also needed for enhanced plastic biodegradation processes, waste sorting methods, mechanical recycling, eco-design and smart packaging; believes that to this end, Horizon 2020 could offer opportunities to respond to this important societal need and that the advantages would be far-reaching, for both the environment and citizens, from the creation of new economic activities to the reduction of marine litter and health-related risks; underlines that recycling plastic is the best alternative to deal with plastic waste as it gives plastic waste a strong market value, fulfils environmental targets and provides considerable economic opportunities;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that the recycling of plastics provides the most effective solution to marine litter and it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and the consumption of non-renewable resources, and recalls that recycling is well received by consumers and presents the added benefit of job creation; therefore, urges for measures that encourage plastic recycling as the best option to meet environmental targets;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. CBelieves that more attention needs to be given to concrete actions and awareness raising campaigns; to this end calls for the establishment of a European Day for plastic waste, on which citizens could return any volume of plastic waste to predetermined points in return for appropriate monetary compensation, as a means of ensuring the supply of recyclable plastic and increasing public awareness of recycling; considers that this event could also include community beach cleaning activities, as a symbolic contribution to the containment of coastal pollution caused by plastic waste; and as supportive of an even larger initiative such as “Clean-up Europe Week” tackling litter in all environments;