Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.12.1-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner Wallström, before turning to the de Roo report I would like to say a word about emissions trading in general, about the Moreira da Silva report, which Mrs Oomen-Ruijten also mentioned. In the Moreira da Silva report, Parliament proposed introducing an upper limit, a cap, for the national allocation plan, and we wanted every country’s national allocation plans to set the same limits. Unfortunately, the Council rejected the amendment at the time. That is one of the reasons why we are now faced with a situation where we have a hotchpotch of national allocation plans which are not really compatible with each other. Many Member States had still not notified a plan by 31 March at all, and some have submitted plans that are far from ambitious. I would like to expressly support you, Commissioner Wallström, in your commitment to encourage the Member States to implement the spirit and content of this directive, and if necessary bring proceedings before the European Court of Justice to oblige them to do so. Even though Parliament’s amendment was not adopted verbatim, the requirements of Annex III do not in fact allow industry to be granted generous increases in emissions. It is therefore very important that you keep your eyes open here. We have also written a letter to that effect to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi.
We cannot allow industry in those Member States that are relatively ambitious to suffer because a few Member States continue to believe they need not do anything at all; something must also be done at home, important as Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism are.
This brings me to the de Roo report. I believe the de Roo report is an important step forward in international climate policy. We are strengthening the Kyoto process and we have also shown that there are certain limits here. Unlike Mr Linkohr, however, I believe we were right to stick to the position of not including sinks. You are almost always right, Mr Linkohr, but I believe you have miscalculated here, even if you are a physicist. In emissions trading itself we have an emission factor of zero for biomass, which means you do not need certificates at all if you burn biomass. Biomass burning gains a great deal from that. If we now also pay money for planting trees, we have deceived ourselves and are not protecting the climate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples