Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-19-Speech-2-213"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080219.30.2-213"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the realm of climate policy, the year 2007 – and some time has already elapsed since then – is regarded as the year when the reality of climate change was officially acknowledged. If we consider that the debate on global warming and sustainability strategies has been running for almost two decades, it becomes clear how long it takes to influence such a political process and how difficult it is to effect an actual strategic realignment. Even though we hear assurances throughout the EU that the pursuit of sustainability has finally been incorporated into the Lisbon Strategy, I still doubt whether we are really serious about this sea change and whether we are really prepared to strike out in a new direction and turn away from a purely quantitative growth target to pursue the aim of quality-driven growth.
When we were preparing the Lisbon resolution for Parliament, with Mr Lehne and myself as co-rapporteurs, we argued once again – not we personally but our political groups – about the issue of energy policy and energy strategies. It is no wonder that we did, for this issue is worth arguing about. The resolution now enshrines a concept that barely conceals the potential gulf between our respective views on sustainability. The term ‘low-carbon economy’ is now being presented as a compromise formula for this Parliament. In my opinion, it merely papers over the conflict between the status quo, whose advocates would press on with the energy-based economy, fuelled by the old energy mix of coal and nuclear power, and the strategy that we wanted, namely a radical change of course designed to cut resource consumption. This concept which we have now incorporated thinly veils our continuing failure to take a decision. Let me reiterate at this point that Europe, in my view, could not possibly play the pioneering role which would fulfil the hopes of people throughout the world on the basis of high-risk nuclear energy or of a renewed reliance on coal. I shall move on now, but we shall resume this argument in another context.
I also believe, Mr Verheugen, that the adjustment of the guidelines in this area is yet to happen, because simply appending security of energy supply and renewables does not amount to a change of strategy. A new strategy is quite a different matter and has to be reflected in new measures and instruments. I believe, however, that the need to alter the guidelines of the Lisbon strategy is not confined to the environmental dimension but also extends to the domain of social policy. We keep hearing of an upturn in European growth and employment over the last three years. At the same time, however, we have seen social marginalisation and an increase in the number of insecure jobs. In our opinion, the common aim of social integration and cohesion can only be interpreted to mean, in plain and simple terms, that working people in Europe must be able to live on what they earn. I was therefore puzzled by the squabbling between the political groups during the preparation of the Lisbon resolution on the question whether it is right or wrong to conclude agreements on minimum wages in Europe on an industry-by-industry basis. I do not believe there is any alternative, and I only wish there were a greater degree of consensus on that point. I also wish that my fellow Members on the right of this House would not always interpret the concept of ‘flexicurity’ to mean only that the weakest members of society need to be flexible and submissive while the others are free to continue conducting their business as they see fit.
Something I regard as a very important aspect of the resolution that will be put to the vote tomorrow – and this remark is also addressed to Mrs Figueiredo, who played a leading part in this success – is that we have managed to present joint proposals for new indicators with which progress towards achievement of the Lisbon objectives can be measured, particularly the objective of improving people’s quality of life. The fact that the income-based approach in the form of that old landmark indicator, the national-income growth rate, completely overlooks disparities in income growth shows that it is not in any way an adequate indicator. It becomes even more inadequate, of course, if we actually want to measure factors such as improvements in the quality of life and in the state of the environment. I would be delighted if the Commission were to respond to these comments regarding environmental and social indicators."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples