Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-23-Speech-3-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100623.9.3-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I wish to make two comments on the summit’s agenda. One key theme is connected with policies since the Copenhagen meeting. The Commission has repeatedly proposed that switching from a 20% to a 30% reduction target would now be somewhat more favourable, because of the economic recession. This is very weird logic: the numbers are out of context and irrelevant to the prevailing circumstances. People do not understand that the threshold for action in that case should be higher. Who could take the Commission’s ability to draw logical conclusions seriously after saying such a thing?
The main point, however, is this: a condition of raising the reduction target has always been extending the front line with regard to emission cuts and a comprehensive global agreement. Anyone who knows anything about the matter at all realises that reduction measures in any other case will be wasted and will only benefit the producers of electricity to trade with on the stock exchange, and not the environment. Only a synchronised reduction will really have an impact and not result in production causing more pollution. That is why our group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), will be very critical of this talk about raising targets. We are against the directive. If it goes ahead, we demand that it does so properly and that the entire scale, all the way from zero, is taken into consideration.
I myself have long thought that the quantitative figures set are not necessarily even the most effective way to reduce emissions. The Commission, too, has admitted this in a sense, when it stated that China and the United States of America are passing us by. How can that be? Is it because they might have a more realistic decarbonisation policy? How long can Europe continue with its ‘Follow me, I’m behind you’ approach? Another thing is this: concerning financial management, I would say that Europe needs more precisely targeted, better regulation, and not just more regulation for its own sake."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples