Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-21-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080521.3.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to express my thanks to Karl-Heinz Florenz for the very good cooperation in the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. If we take the Florenz report and say, ‘this is the state of play in the climate policy debate in the European Parliament’, we might conclude that there is a wonderful ‘climate’ among Members here in the European Parliament, were it not for the fact that – like the Beagle Boys in the famous cartoons, whom we call the ‘Tank-busters’ in German – a very different agenda is being pursued in the same place at the same time!
Unfortunately, in parallel to the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, climate policy is being pursued in the European Parliament’s other committees as well: in the Committee on Industry, in the Committee on Environment and in the Committee on Development. In these committees, our colleagues often arrive at very different outcomes; they do not conclude that we are at the dawn of a ‘green’ revolution, a second or third industrial revolution.
Let us take the controversy over the regulation of CO
emissions from cars as just one example. What is being put forward at present in this context by Mr Langen, the rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, has nothing to do with ambitious climate policy or the effort to guarantee energy security through efficiency technologies, which is what we are prescribing for the car industry in Europe. The ambitious new dawn which is championed by Mr Dimas has been consistently blocked by various majorities in the European Parliament for the last one and a half years.
I would like to know what has happened to the spirit of the broader climate debate in this controversy over cars. Here, it is not my Group that should put its hand on its heart; those who are applying the brakes here are distributed among all the other groups in this House.
Let me make one further point: emissions trading will be an important issue in Poznań and Copenhagen. The Commission should ensure that we achieve a 20% reduction in Europe. That was the proposal made by Angela Merkel when Germany held the Council Presidency, and yet as soon as the Commission tables its proposal for emissions trading, Members spring into action yet again as the parliamentary arm of the industry lobby in Europe, with the result that the negotiations focus not on achieving ambitious reduction targets but on achieving exemptions even before the rules have been established.
Mr Florenz’s report is a good report. The fact remains, however, that what we are voting on today has nothing to do with the reality of climate policy in the European Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples