Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-11-24-Speech-2-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091124.3.2-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the context of the climate debates, we have seen a variety of views here in Parliament on the causes and impact of climate change. I do not wish to pursue this, but a number of my fellow Members who have made reference to this are right: there are an increasing number of new voices in the scientific community, and I would want us to debate these new voices with each other in a fair way.
My second point is that Parliament has adopted a clear position for the Copenhagen Summit. There is a clear remit for what is to be achieved. There is also a remit for everyone here in Parliament to look after the wellbeing of the people of the European Union, and to do so in every respect. In these debates, we must ensure that we do not view one project as the only political project that is significant for us. I therefore wish, sometimes, that, in our aims for Copenhagen, we would take care to refrain from indulging in conjuring or a numbers race – as another Member said – but instead look at what we can tangibly and effectively achieve. What can we shrewdly achieve? What are the consequences, including for European industry? We need to also take that into account. It is not the only criterion, but it must be a criterion, and for that reason I would like to see us try to reach agreements that are really as tangible as possible. That also requires being fair and the participation of the other industrialised nations so that this is not just a European project.
Another Member also pointed out that our contribution is 10%. The rest of the world, the emerging economies, the developing countries, must pay their share. If we do not obtain any precise stipulations in this regard in Copenhagen, I would rather that we obtain a political consensus and assign mandates in order to reach specific agreements in the following months. We should not take refuge in whatever formal compromise can be scrambled to in Copenhagen and kid ourselves that that would be a result that could lead automatically to 30% cuts. Realism and negotiating on specifics, then, are what is needed – then we will probably make progress."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples