Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-127"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.7.3-127"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to open this debate by reading out a poem:
No rock is too hard
no mountain too high or mighty
no tree too majestic or mature:
We can obliterate it all.
No bird flies too high in the sky
no fish swims too deep in the sea
no animal is too remote
in lonely places.
We can control it
We can kill it.”
“Is there one single creature in the air
This poem expresses a deep compassion for creation. You may think that this was written by a twenty-first century environmental activist, but it was published in 1536 by Martin Bucer, clergyman of the Thomas Church in Strasbourg. Caring for and caring about the environment are thus not recent phenomena. It is fair to say that we are debating a Commission communication and a Parliament report which do not contain any ground-breaking news.
The Environmental Committee is of the broad opinion that the European Commission’s communication displays too much resemblance to the document that was published six years ago. In our view, the policy development in this intervening period has been too insubstantial.
The cautious approach which the Commission has adopted is, in itself, understandable, but should not mean that the safeguarding of economic growth in the short term is afforded top priority in the political arena. If that were to happen, other social and treaty objectives would be prejudiced. One of those other objectives is that it will be possible to tailor economic development to the environment. The Commission should emphatically alert the Member State governments to the fact that they have made a commitment in this connection and that they have to live with the consequences that this entails.
By introducing commercial instruments, it is possible to internalise the external impact of economic activity in the prices of goods and services. As a result, many scarce environmental resources, which have not so far had any price placed on them, can be better valued. In this way, a growing number of ‘automatic incentives’ would be built in, with the aim of inducing producers and consumers to live and operate more sustainably. However, it is striking that the Commission does not pay any attention to the imperfections and the dark side of market forces. Clean air and pure drinking water should be freely accessible to everyone. This principle of social justice and equality should also be one of the considerations. The opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs specifically addresses this aspect.
The problem of environmental degradation does not exist in isolation. Poverty, unemployment, energy and environmental problems affect and reinforce one another, as a result of which a negative spiral looms. Not only in developing countries, but also in prosperous countries does this interaction occur. More attention ought to be devoted to this.
With regard to the indicators for integration of economic and environmental policy, the Commission is right to call for accordance with structural indicators, which the Lisbon European Council requested. Unfortunately, the Commission has not underlined how crucial it is to opt for a systematic approach here, linking environmental accounts to National Accounts. The European Parliament has drawn attention to this approach in resolutions dating from 1995 and 1998. A systematic approach would make it fairly easy to identify the interaction between economic activities (per sector), the environment and other areas in an objective manner. Separate indicators involve far more surveys. Could Commissioner Wallström confirm that this systematic approach is being pursued in accordance with the proposals in this resolution?
The Commission’s proposal to tackle subsidies which promote environmental damage and tax measures in future, has attracted a great deal of press attention. However, the suggestion to draw up indicators for this purpose, appears not so fruitful in my view. I would much prefer a critical analysis based on a quality study, in which measures which promote environmental damage and levies which protect the environment, as well as stimulating subsidies are tested on their effectiveness.
The communication devotes no attention to the impact the newly announced policy measures will have on the candidate countries. In what way are the government or policy bodies from those countries involved in the stage that follows this communication?
Public awareness of the importance of a sustainable, economic development is generally below par. Greater expansion decidedly dominates current economic practice. It is not exactly the case that plenty of scope is given to respect for retaining Creation and respect for others, including future generations. Current unequal global relations not so much create privileges, as they do responsibilities and obligations for the people of rich, industrialised countries.
It is therefore regrettable that today’s debate was announced under the heading ‘environmental policy’. That is far too restricted. Today, we are discussing our future and the question whether we are prepared to take part in a changing process which got off to a promising start in Rio, or whether we will adopt a laissez-fair attitude instead. It is thus about whether we want to assume our responsibility, and whether we really want to be the stewards of this earth.
on earth, in the water
that we do not kill or destroy?
No physical force
or skill
let alone craftiness or deception
can save them
from our destructive power."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples