Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-04-Speech-3-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090204.3.3-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I have realised that the distinguished Members of the Parliament are using their native languages. I have no doubt that the interpreters speak one thousand per cent better English than me, so, if you will allow me, I will speak Czech and try to react to this debate in the European Parliament.
I would like to express my appreciation for the depth of the discussion in the European Parliament, for its businesslike approach and also for the responsible attitude of the MEPs. There are about seven points from the discussion which I would like to pick up on. Firstly, I would like to underline the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since in some of the speeches the IPCC findings have been called into question. In my opinion, it is to some extent a disadvantage that the quarterly reports issued by the IPCC on material facts relating to climate change and on adaptations and mitigations are around 1200 to 1400 pages long, comprising a highly detailed scientific work complete with references to relevant scientific literature. However, a summary is later compiled from these reports and it ends as a ‘summary for policy makers’ which is about 20 pages long and no longer includes any references. In my opinion, many misunderstandings arise from the fact that we, as policy makers, do not have the time – and I apologise if this does not apply to you – to read those 1200 or 1500 pages. It is important to emphasise that the IPCC has not only been awarded a Nobel Prize, but at the Bali climate conference it was agreed by the 192 participating states that this was the most comprehensive and highest quality scientific resource, the most consistent information at our disposal for deciding on whether and how to react to climate change. This was the view of the 192 national representatives and this is also my response to some of the suggestions of alarmism, an argument I have become used to in my own country.
In my opinion, we have a very good starting point in 2009. On the one hand, we are speaking with one voice again as the European Union. The enormous value of this was brought home to me in Bali. We managed to achieve considerable progress in the negotiations with our G77 partners and other economies and we were in fact the only major global economy to press for the adoption of a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 % by 2020. The second hope at the start of this year is the change in the United States as many of you here have mentioned. The way I see the problem is that somewhere in Copenhagen is a room with around 200 locks to its door. If we manage to open all those locks then we will conclude a new global agreement on climate protection to run from 2013. In my opinion, we have now opened the first lock, which is the European Union. The second lock in the series is the United States and that is why we are putting so much emphasis on making contact as quickly as possible with the new US administration and why we are planning a joint visit in the Troika together with the upcoming Swedish presidency and the Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas. And that is my response to the comment from Jerzy Buzek, in other words we are definitely not intending to lead the international negotiations by ourselves. Not at all. We intend to coordinate the negotiations. Denmark obviously has an enormous interest in the success of the Copenhagen conference. In the closed ministerial sessions of the informal Spring European Council we intend to report on the progress of bilateral negotiations over the international climate change agreement. We will also jointly try to define a future strategy on how to coordinate international negotiations with, of course, the involvement of diplomats. In addition to this, we will negotiate the adaptations, which will be the main theme of the informal Spring Council in Prague.
The next item in my response relates to the fact that we have arrived at an interesting juncture, as EU efforts towards an ambitious and active climate change policy have suddenly come up against the effects of the financial and economic crisis. In this context, I consider it very positive that the voices calling for a postponement of our long-term climate change targets are few and far between. On the contrary, the great majority of voices – here in the European Parliament too, for which I am very grateful – are calling for us to use this coincidence and treat it as an opportunity, since that would offer a ‘six-win' strategy, in other words a 'win, win, win, win, win, win' strategy, because if individual economies are prepared to respond to the financial and economic crisis by investing
and even the most conservative economists are prepared to allow exceptions
then this represents an opportunity to transform our current economy into a low-carbon economy and to support modern environmental technologies. Why the six ‘wins'? Because we will save money on energy through energy-saving measures. Because we will reduce our dependency on imported energy, because we will reduce our consumption of non-renewable natural resources, because we will create new jobs – and do not forget that the various plans within Europe for responding to the financial and economic crisis will create new employment opportunities right in the area of ‘green jobs' and around new environmental technologies for renewable energy sources and energy saving – and at the same time we shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Czech Presidency therefore views this situation as an exceptional opportunity for changing paradigms of behaviour and for directing our economy towards greater sustainability. The greatest opportunity for changing the economy is in the global market for carbon. Compared to the environmental policy in the 1970s, when we relied on banning and injunctions and mainly employed a so-called ‘end of pipe’ policy, we find ourselves in 2009 making far greater use of financial instruments to help the environment. In my opinion, the fact that the climate-energy package includes a new emissions trading system based on auctions provides an excellent foundation for creating a global market in carbon. Let us consider the ambition. In 2013, electrical energy auctions will gradually take place and by 2015, we want to see a global market in carbon at an OECD level. We are therefore very closely monitoring developments in the US and how the process for adopting the ‘Cap and Trade’ system will look in the US Congress.
Another point I would like to mention is the role of renewable energy sources and also energy saving. In our negotiations with developing countries we must offer something, we must offer these countries economic development but at the same time we must offer the sort of development that will ensure the fulfilment of the targets identified by the IPCC and adopted by us as politicians. And here renewable energy sources will play an absolutely key role as we basically have two possible options. There are billions of people without access to electricity but with a desperate wish for electricity simply because it is such an attractive prospect for consumers and an aspiration nobody can be blamed for. The fact is that these people will either have to go to the cities for electricity that is distributed in the current conventional manner – large centralised sources, distribution grids, a burden on the environment – or electricity will come to them in the places where they have lived for generations and where they can continue their traditional way of life in harmony with nature. The second option will be possible only through decentralised renewable electricity. In other words, we who are developing the technology for renewable energy sources in Europe are doing so not only for the developed countries but also in order to increase the number of installations worldwide, to reduce investment and operating costs and to make these technologies accessible to people in developing countries. This is an enormous political task facing us in relation to developing countries.
I would like to end by assuring you that the Czech Presidency has truly extensive ambitions for achieving progress in the climate change negotiations. We will be taking a very intensive lead in international negotiations. I would also like to assure you about the consistency of the Czech Presidency and if the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic defended the Czech President Klaus here in the debate in the European Parliament, then in the area of climate change and climate change policy I must distance myself from these statements and the position of the Czech President. I want and to assure that the position of the Czech Presidency is determined by the Czech Government. I ask you to bear in mind that in spite of whatever statements you might still hear over the course of the Czech Presidency – as our president is also preparing to visit the US – that the climate policy is formulated by the Czech Government and we are united in our view and we are working together with the Commission and the upcoming Swedish Presidency in the Troika. This concludes my statement. I would like to thank you very much once again for a highly productive, businesslike and, above all, responsible discussion at this honourable assembly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples