Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-10-Speech-3-087"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101110.14.3-087"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"For years now, one significant yardstick by which to measure relations between the EU and the United States has been climate policy. It is with reference to this that images of the United States as a unilateral actor that goes it alone have been strengthened. It is time, however, that we reviewed this image.
It is true that the United States distanced itself from the frontline of climate policy when it refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, time has shown that the whole agreement is ineffective and the wrong way to resolve the complex problem of climate change. By investing in robust partnerships in the area of technology and in the development of clean energy, agencies responsible for large volumes of emissions have chosen a path which is a lot more promising and which has opened up new horizons.
It is now time the EU realised what is happening. The United States is not going to embark on any emissions trading scheme. Not long ago, Obama said that it was most important to do the right thing, which, of course, is useful, whatever we might think about climate change. These useful acts include investing in clean energy and improving energy selfsufficiency. Of emissions trading, Obama said that it was a means, not an end, and that there were other ways to ‘skin the cat’.
Is Europe now the bogeyman of climate policy, who does not appreciate the situation or learn from his mistakes? We take jobs abroad and raise energy prices; we do everything the hard way instead of taking sensible action. We should prevent pollution, in the same way that we should also invest in clean energy and focus on energy selfsufficiency and afforestation. Emissions trading, in contrast, is not worth our support. It was marketed to us as a way to prepare for an international scheme, which never came. Why do we continue to use it to torment our citizens, by depriving them of work and a livelihood?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples