Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-21-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080521.3.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Socialist Group moved that the Temporary Committee on Climate Change be established and when we tabled that motion we were more convinced than ever that we are at a decisive phase in terms of European and indeed international policy, for what we are expecting of this Committee is a Herculean task, not only here in the House.
The issues it is dealing with are – it must be said – a monumental task: a task, as we say in German, for an entire century. Indeed, they are issues which must be resolved this century, for if we do not do so, much will be irrevocably lost for future generations. I therefore welcome the fact that this debate has revealed an overwhelming consensus among Members of this House that we must make massive efforts to master the challenges facing us.
I would therefore like to join in the thanks expressed to Karl-Heinz Florenz who, as a member of a different parliamentary group but in his capacity as rapporteur, has presented a report whose contents we, as the Socialist Group, can certainly endorse. I am grateful too that, with Karl-Heinz Florenz and my colleague Guido Sacconi, we have two people from this House jointly steering the Committee, which in my view is a good sign that we can achieve a result based on a consensus. So much for the consensual issues: the question which in my view will undoubtedly arise is whether we will still be able to work together when it comes to substantive issues concerning the policy course that we should take, and when we start addressing points of detail.
I would therefore like to highlight two or three fracture lines which we will have to deal with. I do not want to go into the detail of the interim report, which I think is excellent; I would simply draw your attention to one example. A few years ago, we were all very enthusiastic when we said that, in reducing CO
emissions, we wanted to move away from oil and towards renewable resources. We said that biofuels were the answer but no one realised at the time that the massive use of arable land for the cultivation of energy crops could lead to a shortage of farmland for the cultivation of foods.
When riots occurred some years ago in Mexico, when maize flour was suddenly no longer available or prices had risen dramatically, we – or at least I – did not immediately make the connection. Today, we know that we have to solve energy and climate problems but also combat hunger in the world. We need to reconcile these two aspects, and this is just one small indication that we are tackling an interdisciplinary task which will require us to demonstrate considerable resolve, and that includes the resolve to make compromises, including compromises elsewhere as well.
Europe is an industrial continent. The industrial structures which were established over the course of 50 or 60 years have been responsible for the damage to our climate. We need a change of course, but we all need to recognise that industrial structures which have been established over 50 or 60 years cannot be changed within two weeks by a parliamentary resolution. That takes time as well, so we will have to strike a balance between the very ambitious goals we are setting ourselves here.
Commissioner Dimas is right; we have no time to lose. We have to strike a balance between these ambitious goals, on the one hand, and what is feasible, in terms of a change of course, on the other. Both these aspects are crucially important, and both need a rational approach that is geared towards compromise. I therefore welcome the fact that the French Presidency has said that it is willing to try and produce a result by the end of the year. If we have the same willingness to compromise and the degree of commitment in the Council that is apparent here in Parliament, that gives me cause for optimism. However, if we see the same tactical positioning within the Council that we always see in this particular institution, we will lose time.
I have the impression that there is great readiness on the part of Parliament and in the Commission as well. If we have the same readiness in the Council too, and if all three European institutions work together, then before the European elections, we can achieve what Mr Daul has said: namely to signal to the public that the heads of state and government agree the broad policy outlines while the European Parliament does the detailed work. This division of labour is what is customary, and then it would actually be visible at last."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples