Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-01-18-Speech-3-318-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120118.24.3-318-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first like to thank you for all your kind words, which I will also convey to the very hardworking people in DG CLIMA when I see them tomorrow. I know they will appreciate that very much. So thank you. I will make only three points.
First, in response to some of the recent interventions, I would say that those who were always rather sceptical towards Kyoto should be very happy with what happened in Durban. Because what we are talking about – what we actually did achieve – has been one of the key priorities for the European Union for many years, namely achieving an international system in which not only the traditionally developed countries but all the big economies should be equally legally bound. This is not a trivial thing for Europe. It was always an essential thing, and the further we move into the 21st century, the more it is clear that you cannot cope with a global problem by having only those countries that were labelled as developed countries back in 1992 being obliged to do something. That was the big step forward in Durban, namely that all countries in the end agreed that in the future they would somehow have to be legally bound and that we would be equally legally bound. I believe that there the allied effort involving the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) played a role, because while it may not have mattered that much in Beijing and Washington if Europe asked them to commit, when a total of 120 countries – among them the most vulnerable and the poorest countries in the world – said that they were ready to be equally legally bound, then it is clear that the pressure on China and India, in particular, grew, so that in the end they shifted their position. This was significant.
My second point is directed at Dan Jørgensen. Basically I agree, as Dan knows, with many of the things he says. If it had been better to say, at the last minute, ‘no, we do not want it’, then we must also ask ourselves what the alternative would have been if Europe, Norway and a few other countries had taken a second commitment period and then – full stop. If that had been the outcome of Durban, would the fight against climate change then have been better off or would it not have been better off? Would we have achieved more or less? I think it is beyond dispute that we would then have achieved less in Durban.
We can always reflect on what would have happened if we had said no. Would we have another chance in 2013 or 2014 in Doha? But sometimes, as politicians, we have to try to cash in what can be cashed in when it is possible to cash it in. My basic point to Mr Jørgensen is that it is not a question of either ‘bottom-up’ or ‘top-down’. It is not ‘either/or’, but rather it is ‘both/and’. We must have both the international framework – the rules – and the regional, national, local, business and all the other efforts.
This is why I believe that we actually did make some progress although, as I said at the beginning, not nearly enough. I believe that if the timeframe here is important and if we agree that it is important to stay below the 2°C – and there is a matter of urgency here – that is why we also still need to have an element of ‘top-down’.
That is my third and last point, because I agree with those who have said that the process is still fragile. Many battles lie ahead. So I agree that we cannot now afford to sit in Europe and just wait for whatever comes next in the international negotiations. That is of course precisely why, over the past 18 months or two years, the Commission has come up with a communication on how to move our targets, with our low-carbon roadmap and the energy roadmap; has proposed an energy efficiency directive; has come up with substantial Multiannual Financial Framework proposals with a substantial climate, environment, energy-efficiency and resource-efficiency component; has come up with a proposal on energy taxation; and has come up, as requested, with tasks and values. The list is even longer.
This is very much proof that we in the Commission do not think we should sit idly waiting for
big international agreement. We must continue to move forward in Europe. I agree very much with Corinne Lepage and others who say that this is also about economics. It is about how we, as a region and as an economy, will become more competitive through energy efficiency, resource efficiency and using intelligent climate and environment policies as a driver for innovation.
Other regions in the world – our competitors – are joining this race. We are still the front runner. I look forward to working with the European Parliament to ensure that Europe stays in that position. If we are to achieve that, we will soon have to be extremely busy getting all the initiatives the Commission has proposed through the Council and Parliament. We look forward to working with you on all these issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples