Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.6.2-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation have in fact doubled since 1990, and possibly even more than doubled, for the most recent figures are not yet available. This does not fit in at all with the European Union’s target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, which is actually to be increased to 30% if others join in. The decision to include aviation in emission allowance trading has therefore been overdue and it is good to see that we have now reached a compromise at second reading.
This agreement is an important signal for the general climate and energy package that we still hope to conclude this year, if at all possible. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this successful outcome, namely the shadow rapporteurs, the representatives of other committees, such as Mr Jarzembowski of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the various staff members, the representatives of the Commission and the Council, and especially the Slovenian Presidency, which in my opinion delivered a master-stroke in view of the difficult discussions that were taking place at Council level.
We had to argue and wrestle over many important issues, but at the end of the day we came up with a workable compromise containing many elements that can generally be regarded as positive. Emission allowance trading for the aviation sector will now be able to function smoothly right from the off, which was not the case for the power generation and energy-intensive industries. There will be no national allocation plans and therefore no related problems such as over-allocation, distortion of competition and such like. We shall put in place a standardised European distribution system based on benchmarks and auctioning, which means that undertakings that have already invested in clean technology will be rewarded and not in some cases penalised, as in the past.
It is important that we persuade the Council of Ministers to agree to a formulation involving the earmarking of revenues, which goes further than anything the Council has yet been prepared to accept elsewhere. This is all to do with climate protection: we do not want to introduce any new taxes here but rather to ensure that the revenues are earmarked. It particularly appeals to me personally that we should focus support on those who use environmentally-friendly means of transport such as trains and buses, for they too are suffering from the high oil prices and, compared with the airlines, sometimes have to cope with all kinds of different taxes, which in my country also means having to pay an ecotax. We really need to think about making some changes to this and we now have an opportunity to do so.
The revolutionary aspect is that flights and airlines from third countries are included. This is necessary for environmental reasons, for two thirds of the emissions covered by our system originate not from internal European air travel but from intercontinental flights. We also want to incorporate third countries for competition reasons. We are convinced that our regulations are compatible with international law, for example the Chicago Convention, and there is much legal opinion to bear this out.
We shall have to live with the fact that the present administration in the United States sees this differently. I am not someone who criticises President Bush in everything he does – I tend to be more discriminating – but in this case I find it really intolerable that the Government of the United States is saying that we should still be negotiating at international level, which means at ICAO level. The ICAO has been in charge of reducing aviation emissions since 1997, in other words since Kyoto, and it has so far achieved nothing, absolutely nothing, and one of the main reasons for this is the resistance that has been put up by the current American Administration.
For this reason I would like to say something once again quite clearly: we want to see an international agreement, but realistically it has to be said that we shall only achieve this when someone enters the White House, whether it be John McCain or Barack Obama, who really takes climate protection seriously. Then we will be able to make some progress here too. All in all I think that everyone has to make concessions, but this is a good compromise and I would be pleased if this House could now vote for it with a large majority."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples