Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.3.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, the European Parliament has been a driving force in the debate on climate protection, and we have also achieved a large percentage of the EU’s climate protection package. The resolution that we are putting forward today has all the elements for an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen. Yet what we are proposing is also realistic. It is both ambitious and realistic at the same time, and we hope that the Council and the Commission will join forces with us to form a single lobbying body at the conference in order to get other partners on board.
The EU has taken on the leadership role in these issues and we want that to remain the case in Copenhagen. We must therefore stand by our offer of a 30% reduction in CO
by 2020. The science tells us that we need to be in the upper end between 25% and 40%. 30% would therefore still not be enough, we know that, and that is why we must actually offer this target, as it will drive up the ambition of other countries.
We know that global climate protection is not possible without financing. In contrast to the Council, Parliament has given specific figures in this regard. The global framework is around EUR 100 billion, and Europe needs to take on around a third of that. So why do we not say that we will provide EUR 30 billion in 2020? Parliament has committed itself to this and I hope that the Council and the Commission will be equally specific in two weeks time.
Mrs Wortmann-Kool has already mentioned the kick-start. We need EUR 5 to 7 billion straight away. When I look at how much money we made available for the banking crisis, we are really talking about peanuts to overcome the climate crisis – and there will be no second chance at this. Once the climate has been broken, it will be broken forever and we will not be able to fix it. This really has to deserve a major effort from us all, therefore.
I also note that some countries are moving, but others are not. It must not be the case that the two greatest climate polluters, China and the United States, play a giant game of ping-pong where each accuses the other whilst dragging its own feet. That is irresponsible and I hope that the US, in particular, will also show leadership in Copenhagen, with specific information on reductions in its own climate-change gases and also a share of the financing.
Without these two countries and without India, there will be no agreement. We emphasise forestry policy once again – deforestation is a major factor – as well as aviation and maritime transport. If railways are included in the emissions trading and have to pay, I can no longer see why aviation and maritime transport should have such special privileges.
At long last, Parliament will be represented in the EU pavilion for the first time. That is a new beginning, and I hope we are able to take part in the briefing between the Council and the Commission since, under the Treaty of Lisbon, we have joint legislative power on the Copenhagen agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples