Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-09-Speech-2-941"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100309.22.2-941"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I am grateful to Commissioner Hedegaard for indicating that she understands the basic dilemma of climate policy: the EU cannot make reductions alone, because then not only will our own results be in vain, but we will create the risk that the environment will suffer. If production cannot continue to take place in Europe because of the soaring cost of emissions trading, and if, as a consequence, steel or paper, say, are produced in places where the ensuing emissions are greater than in Europe, emissions will increase overall. Unilateral ambition is not ambition: only when we act together according to the same rules will it be easy to tighten our belts substantially. The basis for this must be a different sort of climate strategy: a consistent cut in specific emissions. That constitutes a system of decarbonisation which is independent of the business cycle and which always rewards the party making the cuts, unlike our current system of emissions trading. China, Japan and the United States of America, among others, are interested in such a scheme, and so the EU too should update its own strategy to reflect the present situation. I would also like to ask if there is any sense in adhering to the emissions trading scheme beyond 2012, as now it appears that there will be no such schemes emerging globally that could be linked to our own. Unless the specification and allocation of emission allowances is proportional, it will be impossible to avoid distortion of competition. When, just under 10 years ago, we began to draft the Emissions Trading Directive, the entire scheme was marketed to us as a means of preparing for emissions trading on a global scale. We acquired the expertise and experience. That experience has definitely cost us dear, and the benefit to the environment is by no means obvious. Reductions in emissions could be made in a way that makes them less exposed to market failure and speculation. Does the Commission think that there are good reasons for carrying on alone?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples