Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.24.2-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I welcome the Commission and the Presidency to this debate. I have to ask why there was this last-minute inclusion on the agenda last Friday, without the proper teeing-up among the various political groups. Was it purely technical, to comply with your obligation to revert to Parliament by 30 June, even though you are a couple of months late? But I will move on as time is too precious to waste.
The PPE-DE Group fully supports the emissions trading scheme and our objectives under Kyoto and agrees with the need to keep downward pressure on every one of the 25 Member States to meet their targets in relation to greenhouse gases, as agreed under Kyoto. Please take that as a given.
I note what the Commissioner has just said concerning the conclusions of the 2000 review: ‘the system works well, the results were good, the system is up and running’. Commissioner, I do not know whether this is a PR exercise and we do not really want the truth to get out to those who might be listening. I completely support a fully effective ETS, as do all my colleagues, but the system is not working well. I know these are early days, which is a genuine caveat for anything we say after what has been a very short 18-month review period. The theory is good, but the practice has been awful and has not matched the theory at all. We need to look at this situation urgently.
The idea was that at the end of each year the amount of carbon dioxide actually emitted had to match the amount of emission permits a company surrendered to its government. That was to keep pressure on companies to decrease their emissions. What has happened? In the first year, 2005, the actual carbon dioxide emissions of 21 countries were 44 million tonnes short of the amount of CO2 emissions permits allocated by the 21 governments in question. That resulted in absolutely no downward pressure to reduce emissions and in a very volatile carbon credit market that fluctuated from EUR 31 per tonne down to EUR 8 per tonne and back up to EUR 16 per tonne. I agree that we need a properly functioning carbon credit market. We need industry to buy into what we are saying. We need credibility, in practice as well as in theory. Could you please detail any amendments you are proposing in the directive before the second period of NAPs?
By the way, Ireland also submitted its NAP on 13 July and you did not mention its name in the countries that you read out. I would like you confirm that it has done so. Perhaps they are telling me whoppers in my home country!"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples