Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-12-Speech-1-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071112.21.1-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
An ever-increasing proportion of the population of the developed world understands the threat posed by climate change. However, we need to take drastic steps if we are to reduce our emissions by 20% over 13 years.
Unfortunately, we are hardly seeing any steps to take us in this direction. It doesn’t matter which of the emitting areas we investigate, there will always be ‘voices’ that want to protect the very industry we are talking about now.
At the same time, we know that we can only meet the target that has been set if we involve every affected area in reducing emissions. If we make an exception for one, we will have to make up for it somewhere else. Which one will be the odd one out?
Air travel today is a tiny area, but one that is growing dynamically. Its growth is closely linked to the global price of raw materials, on which it does itself have great influence. We as politicians will truly support European businesses from a strategic perspective if we create an environment for them that encourages innovation.
None of this affects passengers, since the measures taken towards reducing CO
will increase the ticket price for routes within Europe by a sum of no more than approximately EUR 1. This is a fraction of what we have to pay for anti-terrorism security measures! Together with this, however, a good-quality railway of 1000 km must compete with aviation and, to achieve this, the airlines must bear the costs to which they give rise, to the same extent as we expect it of railways and road traffic."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples