Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-26-Speech-3-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080326.4.3-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I think the debate, generally speaking, has shown support for the conclusions of the European Council. At the same time, there were some clear differences regarding the level of ambition. Let me say very frankly that I think we should not underestimate the ambition that was just reiterated regarding climate change and renewables and, generally speaking, our energy policy. Let us not forget that we are speaking of a common policy for 27 different Member States with different energy mixes, different priorities, sometimes different concerns when it comes to security of supply, also – let us be even more frank about this – very often with different levels of awareness of the problems of climate change and environmental commitment.
Certainly it will require a huge effort. We never said it would be an easy task. It is going to be a very difficult task. We have a very demanding and challenging task in front of us but I believe that with real commitment – commitment that this Parliament has shown in the past – we can deliver on this, with innovation, with more technological investment and of course working with our main partners.
Concerning the other point about the Lisbon Strategy, as has already been said by Prime Minister Janša, I think there is now a much greater awareness of the social dimension. I also noted what Mr Schulz said today and has indeed said in the past. That is why we are preparing a very important package in terms of access, opportunities and solidarity, which will be ready before the summer. We would like to work with you, with all political forces in this Parliament, in that manner.
But I would like to give you a word of warning. Please do not ask the European institutions for what they cannot deliver. We have areas of responsibility that we should assume but there are others that are mainly the responsibility of the Member States. No one is asking for responsibilities relating to social security, employment and national health services to be at European level. What we can do is improve and indeed invest more in some European instruments, in order to promote social goals and also, as we have been doing through the Lisbon Strategy, promote jobs. When we speak of economic growth in Europe, I of course mean sustainable growth. This means growth that is sustainable from a social and environmental point of view. I think that is quite obvious.
We have to realise that the instruments available at European level are limited. You will remember that when this Commission proposed a ‘globalisation adjustment fund’, a new instrument, there were some arguments against that instrument concerning subsidiarity and questions why something that should be done was being done only at European Union level. We got the agreement in the end and I am happy to see the instrument, even if it is modest, now exists and is a concrete sign of our commitment to look after those who are not the winners in globalisation.
Among those who are really pro-Europe and support the European project, I think we should be careful not to put the European Union in a position where it does not fulfil some commitments that the European Union as such cannot deliver if it does not have the support of the Member States and our governments. A lot has to be done at national level. This is why, while we can highlight that concern and you can certainly put forward proposals and legislative proposals for our package in May, it is important to do so with a sense of what is the responsibility of the European Union institutions and what is the responsibility of our national governments.
Finally, regarding the Mediterranean Union, I think we could make this project a good project for Europe that translates a renewed commitment to the Mediterranean. It is true that we should do more – at the same time, hopefully, keeping the European Union together and not divided. Of course when I speak of the European Union, I am not only speaking about the Member States but also about the European institutions. Certainly we expect the European Parliament to retain a very important role in this Mediterranean Union. That is a way of making the Barcelona Process and our neighbourhood policy more ambitious.
So it is not an easy task to reach a common approach for a common energy policy and ambitious goals on climate change for Europe. We do not do ourselves a favour in undervaluing what was achieved a year ago under the German Presidency in the European Council and what has now been confirmed with more precise targets in the European Council under the Slovene Presidency.
I also understand concerns – in fact I have expressed them myself before the European Council – about the delivery. Are we or are we not going to deliver on those commitments? This is indeed a serious concern. However, I will advise distinguished Members of this House not to be pessimistic because a lot will depend on you. A lot will depend on the role of the European Parliament because now the proposals are there and, together with the European Council, you are the legislators. So, instead of being sceptical about how far we are going, let us keep to our commitments and let us show our ambition in concrete legislative work. I welcome the remarks by all those who have mentioned the commitment and the will to work for that goal in due course, as have Mrs Doyle and others.
To answer some of the concrete questions, starting with Mrs Doyle’s question regarding the energy-intensive industries: let us be clear that the goal is and remains an international agreement, for reasons well known to everybody. It is not just European warming, it is global warming. We need a global agreement to face a global challenge. At the same time as we are working for the global agreement, the directive should clearly spell out the mechanisms in favour of energy-intensive industries to be fully or partially activated if the international negotiations fall short of our expectations. This being said, what exactly must be activated and for whom will depend on the outcome of the international negotiations. That is why we cannot now, today, state precisely and in detail the concrete mechanisms for those specific sectors of our industry.
But what we want – and what we will do already – is to give legal certainty. I understand the point: we can and already do give legal certainty to those concerned. That is why the directive that we will propose should bring full legal security to energy-intensive industries because they will already know that either the directive or an equivalent international agreement will apply to them. This was always the Commission’s intention.
I myself, together with my colleagues in the Commission, have been consulting with some of the leaders of European industry and they accept this point, generally speaking. What they want is to be sure that, in the event of there being no agreement, there will be some mechanisms to safeguard their competitive position. I think this is a fair position, not only with the business community, of which I have been speaking, but also with social partners. There is the European Trade Union Confederation, which we also spoke about.
We are very concerned about this issue and we believe it is possible, but not by reducing the level of ambition now. If we reduce the level of ambition now, we will not be credible when we have discussions with our external partners, with our American partners, or with the Chinese, Indians and others. They are very much engaged and, incidentally, seeing some progress on their side – not enough, but seeing some progress.
The concrete question about afforestation is very important. As you know, in Bali we stated our commitment to promoting afforestation. On the question of credits for afforestation, we are not against credits. On the contrary, in principle we are in favour. They are not yet included in the conclusions because there are some methodological difficulties. So we are preparing this point and of course we are ready to discuss your contribution. The contribution of others will also be welcome. We are now in the process of consulting our stakeholders.
Another point that was highlighted by some of you, namely Mr Buzek and others, is the need to invest more in technology and innovation. This is true. That is why, for instance, we have suggested that the first Knowledge and Innovation Community of the new European Institute of Technology should be devoted to climate change, energy and environmentally friendly industries, because this is a major concern and we now need to streamline some of our programmes in the European Union within our budget and with the resources we have available, in order to put more priority and more emphasis on this area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples