Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.3.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, a couple of months back, I was in Greenland. I visited a small town there called Ilulissat, and just north of Ilulissat is a glacier. This glacier is now melting and it is moving at two metres an hour – two metres an hour! You can see it with the naked eye. You can hear it, because when a huge chunk of ice falls off, it sounds like a clap of thunder. The meltwater coming from this glacier each day is equal to the annual consumption of a whole city the size of New York. Per day! That is an indicator of the urgency of what we are dealing with. And that is before the effects of climate change really hit us.
That is why I feel bound to say to Mrs Rosbach and others who have said today ‘we have to be level-headed’, ‘we have to look at what is politically possible’, ‘we have to look at the compromises that can be reached’: there are some things on which you cannot compromise. There are some objectives that we cannot compromise on and one of these is the 2° C goal that the EU is supporting. That is why, Minister Carlgren and Commissioner Dimas, I am very, very pleased at the signals that you are sending today. We cannot compromise on 2° C. This means that all the developed countries of the world must make reductions of between 25% and 40%. It also means that massive pressure must be put on the US to bring that country to support this goal. I would like to see some indication in your comments of the level of reduction that the US must deliver from a purely practical point of view. I think that is something that is lacking in the public debate.
What we in the EU are focusing on – apart from the fact that we must have a reduction target that is ambitious enough – is a financing plan. The rich countries of the world must help to pay for the transfer of growth to the poorest countries of the world, so that we are not demanding that they stay in poverty but rather that they continue their growth. This growth must be green growth, however, based on a technology shift, and it must be sustainable. For the time being, I regret to say that although the EU has shown leadership in a number of areas, where financing is concerned we are still not in a position to put the figures that will be required on the table. I know that this is not the fault of these two gentlemen. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to get the support of the Heads of Government in Europe. I very much hope, however, that we can get this support before Copenhagen; it is a matter of urgency.
Finally, I would like to say that it is extremely important that we in Europe take the lead in arguing that this does not mean that living standards must fall – in either the rich world or the poor world. It will not lead to our industries becoming uncompetitive. On the contrary, our demands will make them more innovative, which will make them more competitive in the world. If you read the newspapers or watch television or follow the global media at all, you will see that pessimism is the order of the day. There are many people who have already decided that Copenhagen will be a fiasco. That is why it is more important than ever for Europe to take the lead, for the EU to be in the driving seat. I would therefore like to wish you the best of luck with the negotiations in Copenhagen."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples