Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.10.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, it is no exaggeration, I feel, to state that tomorrow, when we approve the final version of the directive on emissions trading, we will have before us a new economic and environmental paradigm for the European Union: the carbon economy. Carbon will have a price per tonne on the market, and whoever can produce it with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions will reap the benefits. Approving this directive, then, has enormous political value: it lends credibility to our leadership on the world stage, which is crucial if we are to be able to convince Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; from 2005 on, it will allow us to remedy the inadequate progress made by the majority of Member States towards compliance with Kyoto; and, most of all, it will reduce the financial cost of implementing Kyoto in the European Union by 35%.
Although Parliament has welcomed the Commission’s proposal from the start and believes it to be valuable, we also felt that its scope could have been more ambitious. I believe that this has been achieved with the recommendation for a second reading, agreed with the Greek Presidency, with the full cooperation of the Commission. We will vote on this recommendation tomorrow. This agreement brings two great advantages: firstly, it avoids conciliation, and hence the possible postponement of the launch of the scheme from 2005 until 2006; secondly, although it does not incorporate all the amendments tabled by Parliament, the compromise that was reached includes our most important proposals.
Allow me to highlight the principal innovations introduced by this recommendation. Firstly, it defines a national ceiling for emissions allowances, in line with the Kyoto objectives. A quantified objective to be obtained by the system is thus guaranteed, and the risk of over-allocation avoided. Secondly, the temporary exclusion clause – the ‘opt-out’ – clause, will apply to installations but not to activities, thus assuring that the liquidity of the scheme and the equilibrium of the internal market will not be threatened. Thirdly, the scheme can be extended to amend the directive in other sectors, notably the transport, chemical and aluminium sectors. Fourthly, auctioning may now constitute part of the process by which emission allowances are allocated after the end of the first period, though unfortunately in a non-harmonised way. Fifthly, credits deriving from clean development projects and joint implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will be linked into this directive, but they will not replace the priority that should be given to domestic measures. Sixthly, an opt-in clause is included, permitting Member States to extend the system to other installations and activities. Seventhly, the system may be extended to greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide from the second period of the directive onwards, though on a voluntary basis. Eighthly, limits are then defined, with fixed and non-negotiable penalties for non-compliance. Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to the inclusion of benchmarking criteria for allocating emissions allowances among the Member States.
I feel, therefore, that the European emissions market has become more ambitious in environmental terms with this report. It is more effective economically, with lower risks of distortion of competition, and it is more compatible with other national policies currently in force.
I would like to conclude, then, by thanking the Council, and the Greek Presidency in particular, for its cooperation. I would like to thank the Commission, whose arbitration between Council and Commission was exemplary. Most of all, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs, because I believe that without their cooperation and support, Parliament could not have remained united. And without Parliament’s unity, this agreement would not have been such a good one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples