Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-04-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081204.3.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to offer my apologies, which I hope you will accept, for having misjudged Brussels’s traffic.
Owing to the global calendar – the European Parliament’s electoral timetable and the meetings in Poznań and Copenhagen – all parties wanted to try to arrive at an agreement by the end of the year. This is clearly a very difficult task, but there is no escaping it. This objective, which was laid down at the European Council under the German Presidency, was reiterated in October, under Mr Sarkozy’s Presidency, even though certain States, in the face of the crisis, expressed their concerns and wanted to postpone any decision. There is no question that things were tense, and Mr Sarkozy had to make a very strong commitment so that we could continue to make progress in this field.
The agreement reached in October therefore confirmed what we achieved under the German Presidency. First of all, you wished to bring forward your vote to today or yesterday. This reaction, this wish, provided a considerable boost, a considerable push, at a time when concerns were focused on this climate, and this had a very positive effect. You – the group chairmen, rapporteurs and committee chairmen – wanted to meet us and Mr Jouyet, and we all discussed what the best possible conditions were to attempt to reach an agreement by the end of the year. I believe that we all, and I should like to thank you for this, recommended holding this in-depth debate today, and postponing until this afternoon the conclusions of these debates at the Council, the Council of 11-12 December, a trialogue during the following weekend and then a debate with, I hope, a vote on 17 December.
I must say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that this will perhaps go down in history as a turning point on the road towards the agreement, which remains our common goal. We have entered a crucial phase of talks. There is no political posturing or politicking by the Member States where this matter is concerned. We are not in a negotiation where, as sometimes happens, a stance or position is taken up in order to gain a particular advantage. We are in a kind of positive paradox. We are aware that we have to take action because this is a vital issue, but that we have to do it in such a way that each directive is socially, financially and economically acceptable to the Union as a whole and to each Member State individually.
Today, the negotiations have reached a critical stage. The trialogues are going as well as could be hoped; indeed, it is the high quality of the trialogues and the trust between the parties that has enabled the timetable to be modified slightly. We do not have long left to reach a conclusion: less than two weeks, in fact. The trialogues, some of which were still taking place late last night, should enable us to finalise 90% of the text, which can then be translated into all of the Union’s languages.
Looking ahead to the Council of 11-12 December, the Council of Environment Ministers, today, and the Council of Energy Ministers, on Monday 8 December, will tackle the issues on which an agreement between the Member States still seems possible.
This afternoon the Presidency will try to make further progress on many points concerning the four texts that comprise, in the strictest sense of the word, this package.
I shall also present your agreement on the proposal for a regulation on the CO
emissions of light-duty vehicles and fuel quality.
I shall then propose adoption of the Council’s conclusions on the Commission’s communication on deforestation. Combating deforestation and forest degradation, as well as the sustainable conservation and management of forests, are key elements of a future international climate change agreement. These elements are the subject of much debate with our friends in Africa.
Moreover, we have, I hope, arrived at unanimous conclusions on genetically modified organisms.
A final trialogue will be held at the weekend, between the end of the Council of 11 December and 17 December. It will, of course, be scheduled to allow us to prepare for the debates and the vote in plenary on 16-17 December.
I would like to thank you, Mr Piebalgs and Mr Dimas, for allowing us to hold this debate and for your intense collaborative work on the energy and climate change package, on which you embarked after Bali under the Slovenian Presidency, then at the informal Council meeting in St Cloud, in August, and which has continued throughout the five months of this Presidency. Our common commitment is to secure an agreement at first reading, based on a timeframe that is compatible with international obligations and the European Parliament elections.
The previous trialogues, the last of which took place yesterday evening, have gone tremendously well from a technical point of view. To be honest, a few months ago the dossier appeared technically insurmountable. I must say that all parties, and the permanent representatives, COREPER, were equal to the challenge and did a splendid job. Obviously, I would also like to thank Parliament’s representatives at the various meetings and, in particular, at the trialogues.
Good progress has been made, and the texts have come along very well where the vast majority of points are concerned. In particular, the overall architecture and the national targets assigned to each Member State have now secured broad support.
Several difficult issues are, however, still being discussed within the Council, and between the Council and Parliament. It is clear that we must find, within the framework of the ETS Directive – which is probably the most difficult directive – systems for progressivity and financial solidarity that ensure that countries whose economies rely most on carbon can make the transition to other sources of energy.
The energy performance of industry varies, across Europe, from one to three, depending on the country. Carbon emissions vary from one to four, or even five in certain sectors. This gives you an idea of the difficulty facing us, but we must reach an agreement where Europe’s economic and industrial competitiveness is maintained. Moreover, we have been in constant contact with European industries.
Yes, electricity auctions must be organised, but we have to find a method of regulation that does not entail huge price increases for final consumers, be they domestic or industrial. We are currently mapping the route towards this transition without also creating a risk of unfair competition in the internal market.
With regard to the risks of carbon leakage, we are working on two alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive: progressivity of auctions; and a carbon inclusion mechanism such as the one planned by the United States within the framework of their own package.
The argument that this would jeopardise freedom of trade is not relevant, in our view. In any case, the choice of mechanisms must simply be decided on at a later stage. For the time being, we basically need to establish what is appropriate for sectors that are particularly vulnerable due to their exposure to potentially very high additional costs in terms of competitiveness and to risks of carbon leakage.
Some people, such as our German friends, want to retain only one criterion and to abandon progressivity. We need to find a solution that is acceptable to us all. In short, at this stage in negotiations, three major blocs have emerged.
The first is mainly composed of the Baltic countries, which are bound, under the terms of the Treaty – one of them, at least – to dismantle nuclear power stations, and which, owing to their particular geographical location, form a veritable energy island. These countries are legitimately highlighting a number of specific technical, practical and financial issues.
The second bloc comprises countries whose industry is much less efficient in energy terms, as it relies heavily on carbon. The most obvious example is Poland. It falls to us to find, for these countries, progressivity systems that do not, under any circumstances, alter the global targets or the final deadline, namely 2020, but that are still acceptable to the other countries. Progressivity of the system should be prioritised in these cases.
Basically, during this debate, I want to listen to what you have to say before rejoining the European Environment Council, which is taking place at the same time, all day. I will give an account of our discussions and your comments to my colleagues. Our work could not be coordinated better, and I am grateful to you for this invitation, which demonstrates our common desire to reach a comprehensive agreement on the energy and climate change package.
Lastly, the countries of the third bloc, although they have no major concerns or concerns of such importance within the context of this process, are paying a great deal of attention to the cost of our required solidarity and to the use of revenues arising from the various auctions and, in particular, to the choice or otherwise of post-allocation.
In two days’ time – on 6 December – a meeting is scheduled to take place in Gdansk between Mr Sarkozy and the Heads of State or Government of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and the Baltic countries, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.
I am convinced that they will manage to find ways to reach an agreement on the topics that they rightly consider to be essential. At the end of the process of this first stage, before Parliament meets again, there will inevitably be a strong commitment by the Heads of State or Government.
Indeed, this package cannot work without the strong, unanimous commitment of the Member States. That much was clear from the outset. We cannot propose a change such as this to the economic and social foundations of the lives of 450 million European citizens without having an extremely powerful political process.
There is inevitably a strong temptation within all national parliaments, and perhaps even for some of you here, to balk at the challenge, to think: ‘What is the point? Let us wait for Copenhagen, let us wait for the new US Administration to be formed’, or even, in view of the financial, industrial and social crisis, to think ‘this is not the right time’. That means, however, failing to understand that what we do not do today will cost us dearly in the future in terms of productivity and competitiveness. If we do not act today in conditions that our economies and democracies are still perfectly equipped to withstand, we will be faced with an irreversible, intolerable situation, and any progress will subsequently become impossible. We will have failed in the eyes of countries that need us to succeed for them to have faith in development. We will have failed in the eyes of countries that need us to succeed for them to have faith in their sustainable development. We will have failed in the eyes of our children. In any case, how could we meet our African counterparts, with whom we have arrived at a common Europe-Africa platform, as confirmed in Addis Ababa a few days ago, then go to Copenhagen and talk of changing the global paradigm, if Europe, which, whether we like it or not, is a white knight in this affair, as it was in Bali, does not adopt this package? I do not see how an agreement in Copenhagen would be possible without this essential prerequisite.
If, on the other hand, our 27 countries which, admittedly, still have substantial disparities in terms of wealth and
different industrial and energy backgrounds, and different climates too, manage to agree on a public process that can be assessed, verified and financed, thereby setting in motion an historic change in trends, then I believe that this will fill us with hope for Copenhagen and for the future of our planet.
We are convinced that codecision, which is, by nature, an extraordinary opportunity – since I do not believe that one of the components of democracy on its own could make progress within this framework – remains a vital rule for such a major change.
If I may say so, this is why we shall obviously make the best possible use of all the debates and opinions that we shall hear this morning, and even early this afternoon, and I hope that this codecision procedure will enable us to take this major step, a step which, I might add, European citizens are anxious to see. It is a responsible step and a step towards hope.
Indeed, we are entering the final straight with the Poznań Conference, which is taking place at this very moment. This Conference should pave the way for Copenhagen in December 2009, at a time when the world is still hesitating at a crossroads and the Member States are claiming that they are willing to make a commitment, although not by themselves, to speed up the transformation, provided that it is financed or that they receive support, and to review their methods of production and consumption, provided that competitiveness is not jeopardised. The eyes of the world are on Europe this month, December 2008, since the events of the coming days in Europe will be a kind of rehearsal, a foretaste of what will take place during the major global talks. I hope so in any case.
The energy and climate change package is a ‘how to’ package, a package on a huge, but controlled, energy, economic and technological transition, with a shared modus operandi, range of solidarity mechanisms and method, all within a Union of 27 countries making commitments democratically.
This is probably the first time in modern history that different economies have tried to change their paradigm simultaneously and together. Economic development has never been so interlinked with these energy conditions. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the task with which history has entrusted us today. When it comes to the energy and climate change package, this is the first economy in the world – 450 million consumers and 15% of greenhouse gas emissions – to attempt to demonstrate that sustainable development is possible on a scale of 27 States, notwithstanding such varied industrial, climatic, geographical and economic backgrounds.
For the other continents, this also shows that one of their main partners is already committed; it is the proof that this is possible. You are familiar with the three objectives: the famous three times twenty objectives. This is what they are traditionally called, even though, for one of the 20% objectives, the figure in question is actually 20 or 30%. Therefore, the three times twenty are: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990, 20% from renewable energy sources and a 20% improvement in energy efficiency. The Commission has translated these objectives into five major draft regulations: the ETS Directive or CO
emissions trading scheme for industry and energy providers, which aims for a 21% reduction in industrial emissions by 2020; the Effort Sharing Directive, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in non-ETS sectors such as construction, transport and agriculture by 2020; the directive on renewable energy sources, whose aim is to increase the share of these energy sources from a little over 8% in 2006 to 20%, with a 10% reduction in the transport sector; the directive on carbon capture and storage, which aims to set out the conditions for storing carbon; and, lastly, the legislation on CO
emissions from motor vehicles, which seeks to bring CO
emissions down from 160 to 120 grams, between 2006 and 2008.
Before looking in detail at the negotiations which are, by nature, fluid, I would like to make four general remarks.
Firstly, this package, which is complex, constitutes a consistent, independent and fair whole, where everyone can find their place and contribute according to their industrial, energy or geographical characteristics. Allow me to thank the Commission and the previous presidencies for these eminently collective efforts. Our objective is clear: a package of this size would normally have taken several years."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples