Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-260"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Bonn Conference on Climate Change2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010704.6.3-260"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-07-04-Speech-3-2612
lpv:speaker	lp:Peter Liese2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3,3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3,3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, combating the catastrophic effects of climate change is the most important environmental policy challenge of our time. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that it may even be the single most important challenge overall, also beyond the parameters of environmental policy. There is thus a great deal at stake in Bonn. It is important, then, for the European Union to present a united front, and so I appeal to the Council and the Commission to include the parliamentary delegation in its activities and ensure that the head of our delegation, at least, is involved in coordination at EU level, as we are keen to support the Council and the Commission’s position. Naturally, this is only possible if we are genuinely informed in detail. The main problem, of course, is the USA’s position. This has already been pointed out several times. It is not enough merely to agree that the USA’s position is unacceptable. Since gentle persuasion and appeals have not achieved very much, we must now consider how we can exert even greater pressure. The European Union should make climate protection and the Kyoto Agreement its key priority in relations with the US. Many of our positions differ from those of the US Government or Congress, but climate protection is the major problem, and that should be made clear. This is why I was rather disappointed when, after Gothenburg, the message was: there is a difference of opinion, and that was it. The EU must make it quite clear that while we may have different opinions on other issues and still carry on with the agenda, this specific topic is a priority for the EU. Perhaps we should go as far as to make concessions in other areas in order to ensure that this priority is genuinely asserted in practice. If the Americans are then prepared to ratify Kyoto and engage in practical cooperation in Bonn, we too should be flexible. Instead of promoting the EU’s purist doctrine, e.g. on nuclear energy, we too should be prepared to compromise. However, a precondition is that the Americans actually commit themselves to ratifying Kyoto and pursuing the climate protection process in a positive way."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph