Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-04-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090204.3.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) Finally, we are to take a decision on this climate resolution, after more than eighteen months of work. I would like to mention three things in particular.
The long-term reduction targets: in paragraph 3, we demand emissions reductions in the EU of between 25% and 40% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. This is a good thing and it means that we are setting higher requirements than those in last year’s EU climate package.
We are also demanding measures to be taken in respect of the meat industry. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report, Livestock’s long shadow, the meat industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s emissions. This is something we take note of in this report and we demand a reduction in the consumption of meat. This is a bold and, to an extent, historic decision by this Parliament, which usually prefers to support subsidies for this industry, but it is a shame that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, in particular, want to vote to remove these requirements. In the same way that we need to reduce motoring, we also ought to dare to say that the current soaring meat consumption is not sustainable.
Allow me also to remind you that the meat industry is, in fact, the primary cause of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest as a result of the creation both of grazing land for animals and land for the production of feed. A large proportion of this feed is exported to Europe as soya. This is not sustainable.
The car industry is another growing problem. Between 1990 and 2005, emissions from the European transport industry increased by 32%. A huge investment in public transport and other environmentally-friendly transport is needed. Cars using fossil fuels must be replaced by electric cars and perhaps, in future, also by hydrogen-powered vehicles. We need to ask ourselves whether the situation with all these forms of transport is sustainable. Should we not encourage local production and consumption instead?
Finally, I would like to issue a warning with regard to Amendments 12 and 28, which demand an increase in nuclear energy. If they are adopted, my group will be unable to support this resolution. Therefore, please vote against Amendments 12 and 28. Thank you very much."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"SV"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples