Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-620-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.32.2-620-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, everyone I have heard taking the floor here today has expressed the wish that we must continue to pursue the goal of getting an international deal done. Everyone I have heard here today shares the common frustration – which is, of course, also my frustration and I think everybody’s frustration in Europe – at the lack of speed in progress. It is not that there is no progress. There is, but it is not as speedy as the urgency of the matter should tell us that it ought to be.
You will know that the Commission has made proposals here. I really hope that Parliament can help the Commission keep the ambition level up here. Finally, I am very much looking forward to working with the EP delegation in Durban and with the Presidency, all of us ensuring that Europe speaks with one voice and hopefully together, we can achieve progress in Durban – progress that does not only look like progress when it comes to the process, but actually is progress also when it comes to taking care of the interest of actually combating climate change.
I also understand that everyone here agrees that, in order to have an internationally global deal that effectively combats climate change, we need all the major emitters, all the major economies, to be part of the solution. When we agree about all this, the next question for all of us will be how do we then proceed best in order to get them into the global deal we want?
I heard one Member here say that we should encourage them. I agree, but I think that we have encouraged them for some years now and so far not with enough success. Some of them simply are not ready to commit. What choice does that leave us with? We could, of course, give up on them. I do not feel much appetite for that here. So instead we will have to find other ways to achieve the goal.
I have heard some here say that we should drop these conditions and just take a second commitment period, no matter what. My question is: try to think whether that will increase or weaken the pressure on those that we want to push forward? That is the key question. I could also put it this way. Say that we now, today, from Europe announced that, without any conditions attached, we would just take a second commitment period. Do you think that those other major emitters that we want to bring into a legally binding global system would then do more? Or, on the contrary, would they lean back and relax and say, ‘Oh, it is fine. Europe is taking a second commitment period up to 2020 or whatever, so now we can relax. Let us discuss it again at the COPs in 2018, 2019 or whenever’?
That is the challenge here. I think that is why we tried to – it would be easy for Europe just to say we could take a second commitment period – but it would not bring others to move their position. I must say that, from a lot of outreach activities in recent months, I feel that a lot of countries – a lot of developing countries, a lot of the most vulnerable countries, the least developed countries, Pacific island states – understand what Europe is trying to do is increase pressure on others to engage.
Dan Jørgensen referred to the World Energy Outlook and that it said that we have only five or six years left. That is, of course, why we cannot afford a conference in Durban where, when we leave for home, it seems that we got something good for the process but we did nothing that could reduce emissions. We must always bear in mind that reducing emissions is the important thing. That is why we tried to use whatever we have to give leverage to the negotiations in order to try to push others in our direction.
I have two final points. Corinne Lepage and Mr Pargneaux asked about funding. The EU delivered fast-start funding last year and I am glad to say that in the Ecofin last Monday, it was clear that we are now also delivering this year. Mr Pargneaux asked about governance. There, I am also glad that the transitional committee that should prepare Green Climate Fund governance has agreed, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the US, to ask the COP 17 to adopt a governance structure for the Green Climate Fund. I really hope we can make that operational in Durban.
I must also say one more thing on funding. I can feel now when we come out – whether it is Ethiopia and Africa, or it is 14 Heads of State at the Pacific Island Forum or wherever it is – that they are starting to explicitly thank the EU because they can see that our fast-start finance money is starting to work out in the field. That is what we need, and it is also what is very important that the Member States deliver on.
To conclude, I will reiterate that a critical way for the EU to convince its partners is by also showing leadership at home, as several of you have mentioned. Chris Davies and Ms del Castillo also mentioned energy efficiency. International negotiations are important – we all know why – but domestic ambition is also important. I agree, and the Commission is also in full agreement, that we could take it much further in Europe if we were actually addressing energy efficiency much more systematically. Even better, it would also contribute to job creation and make us much more competitive if we actually did that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples