Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-224"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.15.3-224"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this Copenhagen agreement, a two percent goal was accepted by 180 member countries, but it is still not legally binding. Not much came of all of the plans that we made here. It all went wrong in Copenhagen. It could also be called a defeat. It is important to describe the situation accurately in order to have the opportunity to think carefully about why this happened, so that we can then make some progress on this matter.
I am slightly shocked by some of the speeches I have heard here. People are saying ‘we need to fight harder’, ‘let us continue to do what we have been doing’, ‘we need a higher percentage’, ‘more money’, ‘the problem was simply not enough unity in Europe’ – I think these statements are too casual, too superficial in their analysis of the situation. Simply carrying on and marching forward is not the solution. These were not the reasons for this outcome. Have we actually considered and discussed with one another all of the essential issues in a fair and objective way? How have we dealt with the questions of fellow Members, whether justified or not, who said ‘we have questions about issues that we are critical of, climate-sceptical questions’? How did we respond in the Committee on Climate Change when fellow Members said ‘we also want to hear the other point of view – the opposing position of some scientists’? What opportunity did we actually have to present that? Moreover, regardless of which position we take, we need to discuss calmly how we should deal with the recent information that fellow Members have also just mentioned that the IPCC made a mistake with regard to the melting of glaciers?
A second set of questions also needs answers. Are we using the right instruments to tackle this? There are always new timetables, more percentages, new regulations and stipulations. This is a rather bureaucratic approach. Is Mrs Ek not right to emphasise so strongly that technology, innovation and market mechanisms are the way forward here? Other states are taking different approaches, but it is not the case that they are doing nothing. Perhaps a bit more openness and a bit more reflection will give us a chance to be more effective in this matter. This is what I would like to see, rather than the method of ‘shut your eyes and advance’."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples