Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-102"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.19.3-102"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all I would like to agree with Mrs Doyle that the problem that we are facing is not environmental. It affects all sectors of society and we have to take a systematic and comprehensive approach.
To Mr Reul I would like to say that I think we have to realise that parallel to climate change, we are also affected by the depletion of fisheries, huge and rapid deforestation, and water scarcity in many parts of the world. We have to face the fact that the lifestyles that we have developed in a world with 8 to 9 billion people goes beyond the carrying capacity of the globe, and that is why we have to take a systematic approach that brings us back onto a normal, sustainable path.
The reason I asked to speak is primarily that I am very disappointed with one aspect of the energy and climate package from the Commission. You talk, Commissioner, in that package, about an energy partnership with Africa. That is good. But why not the same for China and India? I know there are technology agreements, but there is very little money to back them up. In the coming five to ten years, emissions from these countries because of expanding energy systems will totally overwhelm us unless we help them to do the right things now.
Some people say ‘let China pay’. But then we disregard the historic responsibility we have for all the emissions in the past and we also disregard the fact that the Chinese need skilled people; they need technology to make it happen; they need to invest in clean technology.
So my question to you and to the Minister is, why do you not think big? Why do you not establish a partnership with China and India and beef it up with financial resources so that we can really do this together aggressively? Otherwise I think what we are doing here will be rather marginal in the years to come. We have to have this dual approach, and I feel the omission of this in your energy package is conspicuous."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples