Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-26-Speech-4-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001026.2.4-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The problem of global warming caused by concentrations of gases in the atmosphere which exacerbate the greenhouse effect, such as carbon dioxide, is taking on explosive proportions. It is only three years since the Kyoto Conference and the European Environmental Agency estimates that, if emissions in the EU continue at present rates, instead of an 8% reduction in emissions of CO2 between 1990-2010, there will be a 6% increase, while in the USA the outlook is even worse.
The root of the problem lies in the fact that everything, including the quality of the environment and the climate, is sacrificed to capitalist exploitation of wealth-producing resources and excessive profit. Consequently, what could be more natural than calling for those who caused the problem to pay to resolve it?
The Commission communication should have been entitled differently, given that it contains no specific policies or measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; on the contrary, it confines itself, as the rapporteur rightly comments, to merely producing an organisation chart and a vague list of common policies and measures. It restates the position that energy taxation or a tax on fossil fuels are the mainstay of the EU strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. We disagree with this measure because, whichever way you look at it, the ‘polluter pays’ principle is a hypocritical principle and its distorted application will ensure that the entire cost of reducing emissions is passed on directly to consumers, i.e. to the workers. Given the tremendous pressure to find a solution, one might well discuss the imposition of an energy tax on fossil fuels, but only as a measure to complement an integrated policy of measures to reduce CO2 emissions and on the strict condition that the revenue from this tax is used solely to relieve the burden on workers.
We stand by the view that the cost of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be paid for by the real polluters (i.e. large-scale industry) out of their excess profits. We also agree with the rapporteur’s view that clear priority should be given to renewable energy sources and to giving support to public transport.
We are also totally opposed to the immoral and inefficient system of emission trading between companies and countries. We fail to understand how it is possible to create an entire market which trades in pollution as a commodity and on which, instead of reducing their own CO2 emissions, some companies buy in surplus coverage from other companies which are within their limits. Of course, in a capitalist system in which everything can be bought and sold, this is bound to happen.
Although opposed to the Commission communication, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece appreciate the rapporteur’s positive comments, which is why we opted to abstain rather than vote against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples