Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-09-Speech-2-305"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100309.22.2-305"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, if I understand the last point correctly, it is about how can we enforce whatever we agree upon. That is, of course, a key issue.
The other question was how much should be given to developing countries, as I understood it. The criteria have not been set up yet, but I think it is very important that we do not attach a lot of conditions to that. This was the promise given in Copenhagen, that the fast-start financing, the here-and-now financing, will be given to the least developed countries and the most vulnerable, partly for adaptation, partly for mitigation.
I also think that it is only logical that we defend the fact that it must happen through existing channels. We cannot afford, time-wise, to invent new governing systems or channels or whatever for this money to get out to work, because we should get it out there working as soon as possible.
I would say that the EU is already ready for Bonn to deliver the fast-start financing and I would say that, at the latest in Mexico, the world must be ready to deliver on its promises on fast-start financing from Copenhagen and to set up the different criteria and exactly how we are going to do it.
To Mrs Hassi, it was the point of view of the need to stick to 30% and, in many respects, it relates also to what Mr Callanan says.
It is not very easy to decide exactly when we should go to 30% and exactly what it would take to go to 30%. That is why, in this communication, we say that, before the June European Council, we will provide an analysis on exactly how we could intelligently go to 30%. What would it require?
Of course, nobody should be naive. Of course, we should take care of our own industry, obviously. We should know what we are doing and we should not be naive. My point is simply that I think that, if we do this in an intelligent and coherent manner, it would be possible to choose tools that could, at the same time, benefit climate change and emissions reductions, energy efficiency, energy security, and innovation and job creation. That is what we will be looking for. I am not saying it is going to be easy. We should not think going to 30% will be a piece of cake, although we must know what the potential would be, what the implications would be and that would be the analysis that I would provide before the European Council meeting this June. Then, later this year, we would have the analysis on the pathways to 2050, including this 2030 perspective that I think we have to start thinking about, the reason of course being that we have pledged to reduce by 80% to 95% by 2050. If we do not get started, it is going to be extremely tough in the last one or two decades as we approach 2050."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples