Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-24-Speech-4-123"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20021024.5.4-123"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, Commissioner, whilst there is genuine cause to welcome the question and the resolution tabled by Mrs Jackson on the Union’s position at the New Delhi Conference on Climate Change, the fact that the report has been tabled so late leaves us with some doubts as to its real aim. So, ladies and gentlemen, how should we interpret this debate, which is being held after the opening of the Conference, if not as a sign of political and psychological immaturity in the face of the reality of the threats to our world posed by the upheaval of climate change? We must ask ourselves whether the latest UNEP report, which revealed that USD 150 billion is spent on environmental damage each year, escaped the scrutiny of certain European visionaries. Do not worry, ladies and gentlemen of this House. I do not mean you. Commissioner, how do you intend to convince your fellow Commissioners of the urgent need for practical measures? In New Delhi, what we actually need to do is to increase the international reaction to the threat of climate change a little more. This momentum, which the European Union harnessed to implement the conclusions of the last Earth Summit as fully as possible, must be maintained with a view to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, as defined at Bonn and Marrakech. The European Union must continue to be a driving force in combating climate change. At New Delhi, we must also pave the way for the second period, as you have said, and prepare to address requirements which are more pressing because of the gravity of the situation, and we know that time is of the essence. There are three essential points we must uphold in New Delhi. Firstly, as regards carbon wells, which distort the true environmental picture, scientific rigour and objectivity exclude this simple solution, this expedient. Secondly, it is imperative that the surge in air traffic and its impact on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions are included in the process. What is the Commission’s current view on this? Thirdly and lastly, the COP 8 must not fail to condemn the attempt to include nuclear power as a renewable energy, for nuclear power is limited and even obsolete. For example, Amendment No 15 to our resolution, seeking to reinstate it, must be rejected. There is no more urgent subject for us and our debates than the potential future impact of climate change. There is nothing more essential in politics than the very essence of all politics: the continued survival and proper functioning of the Earth itself. We must act now to give ourselves the chance of a future."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph