Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-22-Speech-3-310-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110622.21.3-310-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, if Members look at their e-mails and all the requests from lobbyists and industry, and the pros and cons on the climate, they can conclude that climate is very clearly back on the political agenda.
That is a very good thing, because climate has never been off the scientific agenda. If you look at how science has been evolving meanwhile, the arguments for stronger climate policies have become stronger and stronger every day. However, in the political field, it was rather quiet on the climate front after Copenhagen and Cancún. Now it is clearly back on the political agenda.
That is a good thing. However, what is very important is that in the meantime it has become a different debate. It is not only a climate argument any more. It has become more and more an economic debate, an economic argument. If you look at the new industries relying on climate policies, they are asking for more ambitious climate policies. Or look at our oil dependency and the situation in northern Africa: the debate on oil dependency is becoming more and more important for our economic position in the EU.
But look too at all the letters from industry, really lobbying for going to 30% because it is in their interest; it helps their profits if we step up our climate ambitions. This very clearly indicates that there is a fundamental shift in the debate on climate policies. That is very important. It is not the economy versus ecology; it is the economy and ecology. That is crucial.
So what is in the report? Of course, we are asking the Commission to come forward with a proposal to move to 25% reduction domestically. This is very important, because that is the way to become less dependent on oil; that is the way to harvest the health co-benefits; that is also the way to really harvest the potential of energy savings. So energy savings are also a crucial part of the report because, if we meet our energy savings targets, we are already on the path of achieving 25% domestically in the EU.
In the report, we are asking for 30% overall; so 25% domestically, but 30% as a whole. There are a lot of offsets still in the market, so if you have 25% domestically, we are discussing 30% as a whole as well. That also limits somewhat the role of offsetting, which has also been part of the debate; that is also in the report.
This is also a discussion on the adjustment of the emissions trading system. Let me be very clear. If we are stepping up climate ambitions through energy savings and we only do something relating to energy savings, the carbon price will go down; studies estimate from EUR 15 to EUR 0 per tonne carbon. So we also need to do something in the ETS system to make sure we have the right price and really have the incentives to move to green technologies.
It is going to be a crucial vote tomorrow for a future economy, a green economy. I urge the Commission to follow up the request we will make as a Parliament tomorrow by coming forward with a legislative proposal. The Council is moving, Parliament will set out its position tomorrow, and then it is up to the Commission to come forward with a proposal. We know when we are discussing a legislative proposal that in the Council there will be no veto for any country any more.
We will have a majority in Parliament, as we will see tomorrow, and a majority in the Council to really step up our climate ambitions and make sure that the true future economy is the green economy."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples