Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-24-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080424.5.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should also like to congratulate our rapporteur, Mrs Ferreira, on her excellent work and on her close cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs on this important issue.
I shall focus here on the two main points of the resolution, the system of exchanging CO
quotas and green taxation. Turning first of all to emission quotas, it is disturbing to note, as has been said over and over again, that industrial CO
emissions were up by 1% in 2007, last year, when the European Union at the spring summit had set itself the ambitious target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. In short, the machinery is jammed and – to put it nicely and euphemistically – we have to get it started again, because it is time to get into a virtuous circle.
I see two courses of action. The first is to support the European Commission, which is in favour of payment for emission quotas. The second starts from the idea that the present system relating only to CO
is too narrow, and that other air pollutants will have to be incorporated gradually, starting no doubt with NOx and SO
.
I also wonder about the favourable arrangements that still apply to the shipping sector. Unlike the situation that will soon apply in the aviation sector, it is not subject to any Community or international legislation on CO
reduction, a double standard that we can no longer afford.
Another cornerstone of the resolution is green taxation, environmental taxes, the revolution that Mr Eguy mentioned. The position of the Liberals and Democrats on that question is clear. Instruments based on the Community market should not be confined to the system of exchanging emission rights. We have to consider other systems and, as author, I am very much in favour of paragraph 27, which revives the idea of introducing a 'carbon' tax to offset a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies.
On the other hand – and I agree with Mr Purvis and Mr Wittman on this point – the ALDE Group will not support the last sentence of paragraph 26, which asks the Commission to submit a proposal on this Community CO
tax by the end of 2008. We prefer the Union to complete its ambitious package of 'energy and climate' legislation.
In conclusion, we have to stop being hypocritical and be very aware of the cost of our ambition. If CO
emissions are to be cut by a third, for example, every person in European must emit eight times less carbon dioxide. These blunt statistics show that, over and above the use of these market-based instruments to protect the environment, we cannot escape our own personal responsibility, and the Union will need to work very hard to stay on course, so that sustainable development is not just a fad but the model for all of us in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples