Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-01-18-Speech-3-316-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120118.24.3-316-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I fully share Ms Manner’s concern regarding the way in which carbon sinks are calculated. I am not going to speak any more about that, however. Instead, I wish to say that I am surprised that we here in Europe think as if the strategy according to the Kyoto model, with its emission ceilings, is the only way to save the climate. Considering the results, at least, it is not, so I wonder why we still adhere to it. If we look at the statistics, it is evident that the United States, for example, has cut its emissions in the last ten years or so more effectively than the EU, which is committed to Kyoto. The USA and the big emitters have rejected this model, as have Japan, Russia, Australia and, most recently, Canada, which said that it was remaining outside the Kyoto agreement because it was ineffective. Mr Kent, that country’s Minister of the Environment, said that if Kyoto was anything, it was a barrier, a barrier to an effective climate policy.
We did not save anything of significance at Durban. We saved a model that we desperately cling to. However, the model has no support globally. Just nine countries have adopted the same tactics as the EU in reducing emissions. Kyoto accounts for 15% of global emissions. Should this not inspire this House to demand real results? Now that we are looking for a common new agreement for everyone, the EU must abandon its obsessions. We therefore need something more comprehensive, more satisfactory to take its place. Only that could be called an effective policy."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples