Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.15.3-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, let me thank you on behalf of the Commission for the chance to discuss the outcome of the Copenhagen conference on climate change and the follow-up to the Copenhagen Accord. My colleague, Stavros Dimas, has asked me to apologise on his behalf for not being able to be here himself because he is ill, which is particularly regrettable as this would probably have been his last plenary appearance. I volunteered to substitute for Stavros in this very important debate.
I want to express our appreciation for the active and supportive role the European Parliament played before the conference and at the conference itself. The contacts with your delegation throughout the conference proved most useful. In particular, you have played a crucial role in order to enhance our outreach with key players in other countries and other regions.
I believe we share the view that the result of Copenhagen falls badly short of our goal of an ambitious and legally binding agreement, which would be necessary to limit climate change to below 2° C. This is extremely disappointing for all of us who have fought for years and years for concrete policy decisions to reverse climate change.
The reasons for the failure were many and I will come back to them in a moment. Still, one may also conclude that the Accord is better than no outcome at all, which would have been the worst-case scenario.
On the one hand – to find something positive – the Copenhagen Accord at least recognises the need to limit climate change to below 2° C. It also invites the developed countries to list economy-wide emission targets by 31 January 2010 and calls for the developing countries to list mitigation actions by the same date. Furthermore, the Accord sets the basis for a rather substantial financial package of USD 30 billion for the coming three years and recognises the need for USD 100 billion annually by 2020.
On the other hand, the Accord has serious weaknesses. It contains no reference to mid-term or long-term mitigation targets. The reduction pledges announced so far are not sufficient to stay within the target of 2° C. There is unfortunately, in my view, little cause for optimism that we will see improved offers by 31 January – rather the opposite. Last, but certainly not least, the Accord is not legally binding and, perhaps even more worrying, it does not provide for the conclusion of a legally binding agreement this year, which was one of our key goals.
Looking ahead, the next step will be to ensure that this Accord will at least become operational and will pave the way for a new climate treaty, which must be agreed on urgently in the course of this year. As a very first step, it will be crucial to ensure that all key parties now endorse the Accord and notify their targets or actions by 31 January. Adequate financing also needs to be provided. In this respect, we need to explore ways of setting up a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. We must also strengthen alliances with countries and regions who share our vision of a successful outcome in the international climate negotiations.
To conclude, we have huge challenges before us to ensure unity at the European level, to engage strategically with key external partners and to maintain our full commitment to multilateral climate action, but there are many lessons to be learned from COP 15. One striking lesson certainly is that we must learn to speak with one voice. In Copenhagen, China, India, the United States and other major powers each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke with many different voices. The same goes for global economic governance and international security. We are indeed at a crossroads today. Either we take determined and united action for Europe’s ecological, economic and political revival, or we risk economic stagnation and political irrelevance.
Let us take Copenhagen as an alarming warning of that scenario. We must do better than that and we can do. Only by standing united can we succeed, and I look forward to working with you to achieve this objective."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples