Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.19.3-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to start by thanking everyone who took the floor today for their very positive speeches, which illustrate the extent to which the members of the European Parliament are fully aware of the problem of climate change and this is, of course, also a reflection of public opinion, which has also become very aware of the problem.
Therefore, let me make it clear that we are ambitious, we have to exercise leadership in the world, we have to practice what we preach and our target is really ambitious. Of course, in order to achieve what science tells us, to limit the average increase in temperature on the planet to 2°C, we need a 50% reduction by all the countries in the world by 2050. That goes for the developed countries and the developing countries – a 60-80% reduction by the developed countries and a 30% reduction by the developing countries by 2020. Someone mentioned flexibility: these targets of 20% and 30% are flexible. They are not for all the countries in the European Union, but they will be adjusted according to the burden-sharing agreement that we had a few years ago regarding the achievement of our total target. It should be a similar system.
Nairobi was mentioned. Of course, Montreal was different from Nairobi. In Montreal we had a big achievement in the Montreal Action Plan. According to this plan in Nairobi we had certain priorities which were achieved. Mrs Doyle was right when she said they were not ambitious, but it was a step – a bigger or smaller step, but still a step – and the European Union achieved all the priorities it had set, especially in terms of trying to help the least-developed countries to get some of the investments with the usual cut-off and flexible mechanisms.
Mr Wijkman said that we were not ambitious because we do not have a partnership with China or that we have a partnership that we do not finance. The truth is that we have a European Union-China partnership and a European Union-India initiative, and both have specific objectives which will be financed by European Union funds and funds from various Member States of the European Union. Of course they are very important, because, as you said, after 2020 China, India and the other fast developing countries will emit more than all the OECD countries. Therefore it is absolutely necessary to bring them on board so that we can fight climate change together, but according to the common but differentiated principle of the United Nations Convention.
I said how important it is to have the participation of China and India and the other fast developing countries. However, it is more important to have the developed countries. Our first objective should be to consider how to bring on board developed countries, like the United States, which emits 25% of the emissions in the world and has not ratified Kyoto. Public opinion in the United States is changing and we are encouraged by the signals we are getting there. However, more work is necessary. In particular, we must strengthen our emissions trading system, because a market-based instrument like this could be the best way to bring the United States on board. Some states in the USA already have an emissions trading system. In the north-east there is an emissions trading system regarding power generation. California and some other western states will be introducing them, and we will cooperate with them in order to have a similar system in order to link the systems together. So the global emissions trading system can be born from the bottom up. In order to do that we need a strong emissions trading system in the European Union, otherwise we cannot argue with them. That is why we need to have national allocation plans that really create scarcity in the market. If I had accepted all the proposed national allocation plans from the Member States, the emissions trading system would have collapsed.
You, the Members of the European Parliament, with whom we had a lot of discussion about the emissions trading system, should help to persuade those Member States that have reservations about the national allocation plans. I am going to do my job and I shall assess the national allocation plans as is necessary in order to fight climate change.
It is very important to determine what the basic elements are for a future regime. We have to set goals, the means by which we are going to achieve these goals and establish who will be participating in achieving these targets. I spoke about the participants – both developed and developing countries. I must now mention the targets: 2°C is the target. It is essential to keep the commitment made by the European Union. The means are: firstly, the use of the market – a global emissions trading system is necessary; secondly, we need research, technology, development of technology and deployment of technology, as Minister Gabriel mentioned. Therefore we need to make it financially interesting for the economic partners to deploy new technologies. We also need to transfer technology to developing countries and in order to do that we need finance, because without finance it will not be possible.
We have the Kyoto flexible mechanism – the CDMs, the joint implementation – but we also need other funds. I am grateful to Minister Gabriel, because when I announced the adoption by the European Union of the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund, he immediately came forward with a significant contribution from Germany. Italy followed, and I hope other countries will do so, because this money is necessary in order to transfer technology to developing countries to enable those countries to be energy efficient and to make efforts in order to fight climate change.
Today I heard much about biofuels and second-generation biofuels. I said that today the Commission adopted a very important piece of legislation. However, everybody looked at the cars and not at this piece of legislation. But it is very important! I would say that we would save more carbon dioxide with this directive than with the other one, without saying that cars are not important – they are very important, especially for the future. Having a new car fleet in the European Union is important for fighting climate change.
Today’s adoption by the Commission of the fuel quality directive is encouraging sustainable fuels for transport, biofuels, and especially encouraging second-generation biofuels, which are friendly to the environment.
On cars, my proposal still stands. My proposal is there, as it was 15 days ago. I am very happy that today the President said that next week we shall be discussing it in the College. We need clean, competitive, affordable cars that will contribute to the fight against climate change. We must protect the consumers, the workers, the public in general and, of course, fight climate change, protect our planet and protect our countries.
I should like to thank the German Presidency, especially Minister Sigmar Gabriel, for the cooperation we have enjoyed, for the way in which he spoke and for the way in which he defends environmental issues and I trust that the German Presidency will perform well and meet the expectations of European citizens and respond to the views expressed here this evening. Climate change is a global challenge and the leading role of the European Union is of decisive importance in addressing it.
Finally, on Davos, it was very interesting because although there were very important issues to be discussed – Iraq, the Middle East and Doha – a poll revealed that a majority of 57% of the participants who were asked said that the number one issue the world faces today is
which means that the politicians who reflect public opinion have now also had responses from business leaders. The business leaders have joined politicians and public opinion and showed their determination to fight climate change. That is why I ask for your help in adopting the resolution, which would be very helpful for carrying on our proposals.
Today's debate has given us the chance to emphasise the importance of the forthcoming decisions due to be taken in the European Union this week and in coming weeks; these decisions are needed so that international negotiations can commence and so that we can push for an agreement at global level.
We must safeguard the credibility of the European Union in the leading role which it plays at global level in addressing climate change and we must send the strongest possible message to our partners in both the developed and the developing world.
We must also emphasise the importance of the decisions which need to be taken over the next few years as regards the international regime for climate change – I may come back to this matter later – in order to ensure that even greater efforts are made worldwide after the first period of commitments based on the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The scientific and economic arguments in favour of taking ambitious, global action to address climate change are obvious and incontrovertible. Even greater political effort is needed in order to bring about broader and more fundamental commitments. This is precisely the Commission's objective with the package of measures on climate and energy.
The next few years will be of decisive importance in shaping a global framework with the objective of ensuring that irreversible and possibly catastrophic climate change is avoided. The active participation of all of us is needed – and I have seen it here tonight with a great deal of satisfaction – in this dialogue. It is crucial that you support the strong commitment by the European Union for decisive action at both European and international level.
I should like to answer some of the observations that were made tonight.
Firstly, concerning targets, I must repeat that 15 months ago we were not discussing targets. The word ‘target’ was not mentioned. In the European Council Conclusions, the Council mentioned exploring reduction pathways in the range of 15 to 30% with developed countries. It did not occur to anyone to have a unilateral commitment for the European Union. Somebody mentioned that perhaps there is some confusion. I have to make it clear that we have a target, which is 30%, and this is the mandate we are asking the European Council to give to the Commission to negotiate with other developed countries. However, irrespective of this agreement and until such an agreement is reached, we have a unilateral commitment to reduce by 20% the emissions in the European Union. To underline the magnitude of this commitment, I should like to point out that it is more than twice our total obligation. I heard that there is not enough ambition and that we have not exercised leadership by setting this target. No other country in the world is so ambitious – not even California. Governor Schwarzenegger has received much praise. I have been asked why we do not have a similar target to that of Governor Schwarzenegger – a 25% target for 2021, but using 2006 as a basis. Therefore, if you do your calculations, his ambition is less than half of our 20% reduction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"climate change"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples