Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-15-Speech-3-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991215.3.3-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, at the end of this century, the subject of environmental protection is being accorded the importance which it actually deserves, given the major challenges at stake. It is true that we have made progress in numerous areas and that some environmental problems, such as water pollution, have been sorted out. But the greatest environmental problem facing our planet in the next century has not been sorted out; on the contrary, it is increasing day by day. Man is currently producing twice as many greenhouse gases, detrimental as they are to the climate, as the world can cope with in the long term. The countries of the European Union account for a large proportion. If we do not act now, the next century will be dominated by dramatic problems.
We are not talking solely of rising sea levels and the disappearance of small island States and the flooding of low-lying areas in Bangladesh or the Netherlands, which we are all aware of. We are also talking about the spread of deserts and an increase in tropical whirlwinds, the devastating effects of which have been clearly felt in recent years. This will all lead to an increase in the waves of refugees. We already have more environmental refugees than war refugees, which is why this is also of paramount importance here in Europe.
The catastrophic floods in France and elsewhere have also shown that problems arise if we fail to act quickly. Some experts are even warning of an increase in tropical diseases such as malaria in our temperate zones. Every serious scientist is saying that we need to reduce emissions by 50% in the long term. That means that we in the industrialised countries and in the European Union need to reduce them by far more than 50% in order to take account of legitimate development interests in developing countries and population growth. I therefore consider that the Kyoto Protocol is just the first step in the right direction and it must not, under any circumstances, be undermined by loopholes.
We in the European Parliament support the stand taken by the Council and the Commission that emissions must be reduced mainly in the industrialised countries close to home. The flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol are merely additional mechanisms. That applies above all to the so-called clean development mechanism. Of course, it is a good thing if industrialised countries or undertakings in industrialised countries invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy in developing countries, but that cannot replace commitments at home.
Per capita emissions in industrialised countries, including the Member States of the European Union, are several times higher than the levels which the earth can cope with in the long term. The Council and the Commission played a constructive role at the Bonn Conference. We particularly welcome the commitment to ratify Kyoto by 2002.
The Bonn Conference was not a failure, even if the dramatic situation in fact calls for greater progress. In particular, I was pleasantly surprised in Bonn by the constructive attitude being taken by the business world. Many sectors of the business world recognise that the undertaking to protect the climate also offers businesses the opportunity to earn money and create jobs. However, much still needs to be done before the all-decisive conference in the Hague.
It is particularly important for the European Commission to be credible. We can only be credible if we too do our homework. Some countries have indeed reduced emissions to some extent, but there are no true paragons. I find it particularly worrying that emissions are currently rising sharply in what are in fact environmentally-friendly countries such as Denmark and Sweden. In Sweden, this is perhaps mainly due to diversification out of nuclear power. I feel that we should address this quite openly. I do not take the view that nuclear power is a universal panacea but, more importantly, we do not want nuclear energy technology to be exported to unsafe countries in lieu of commitments at home.
The diversification out of nuclear power currently being planned or implemented in some countries in Europe exacerbates the problem. We must not overlook the fact that rising CO2 emissions are hardly likely to increase our credibility."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples