Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.12.1-076"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very specific ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@cs1
".
Hr. formand, der er stillet rigtigt mange gode forslag i aften. På Det Europæiske Råds kommende forårsmøde, som vil være det første vigtige skridt i EU's drøftelser om den fremtidige klimaændringsstrategi, vil Kommissionen præsentere en meddelelse, som mine kolleger og jeg er i færd med at udarbejde. Denne meddelelse vil være meget væsentlig for Rådets drøftelser på forårsmødet. I meddelelsen har jeg til hensigt at fastlægge en række specifikke henstillinger og inkludere en del af de forslag, som allerede er stillet i aften. Jeg vil gerne takke de medlemmer af Parlamentet, som har stillet disse konstruktive forslag.
Der var så mange spørgsmål, så jeg kun kan besvare nogle af de meget specifikke. Hr. Blokland rejste spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den kemiske industri vil blive omfattet af direktivet om en ordning for handel med kvoter for drivhusgasemissioner i Fællesskabet. Det er ikke muligt på nuværende tidspunkt. Vi drøfter dog i øjeblikket, hvad der vil ske efter afslutningen af første fase af ordningen for handel med kvoter for drivhusgasemissioner. Herefter vil vi formentlig inkludere den kemiske industri. Forbrænding i kemiske anlæg er inkluderet i direktivet.
Hr. Davies spurgte om Det Forenede Kongerige og den nationale tildelingsplan. Beslutningen om planen for Det Forenede Kongerige blev truffet den 7. juli 2004, og Det Forenede Kongerige kan undgå yderligere usikkerhed ved at følge denne beslutning. Den britiske regering sendte os en skrivelse dateret den 23. december med visse oplysninger om de to spørgsmål om Gibraltar og nytilkomne og med en anmodning om yderligere og større tildelinger. Vi er stadig i færd med at undersøge de tekniske og juridiske aspekter heraf. Kommissionen mener i princippet, at en medlemsstat kun kan fremlægge én national tildelingsplan.
Hvad angår biomasse og biobrændstoffer, er der allerede fastsat en række instrumenter til fremme af anvendelsen af biomasse, herunder et direktiv om biobrændstoffer og et direktiv om elektricitet fra vedvarende energikilder. I Kommissionens meddelelse sidste år om vedvarende energi blev der annonceret en handlingsplan vedrørende biomasse, som skal fremlægges i slutningen af 2005. Emissioner fra biomasse er neutrale. Der er ingen tildelinger for emissioner forårsaget af forbrænding af biomasse.
Jeg kan ikke nå at svare på alle de spørgsmål og forslag, som jeg har noteret ned under forhandlingen inden for det tidsrum, jeg har fået tildelt. Jeg må dog endnu en gang understrege, hvor vigtigt det er at inkludere udviklingslande som Kina og Indien i samarbejdet. De er bekymrede for deres fremtid og meget usikre over for enhver begrænsning eller reduktion. Vi skal give dem incitamenter, så de ved, at deres udvikling ikke vil blive hæmmet af fremtidige aftaler. Vi skal finde en måde, hvorpå vi kan samarbejde og opfylde de målsætninger, som vi nævnte tidligere - maksimal temperaturstigning på 2 C.
Med hensyn til USA investerer den amerikanske regering meget i forskning. Selv i denne forbindelse - jeg har hørt flere sige, at der sættes spørgsmålstegn ved de videnskabelige beviser for de antropologiske årsager til klimaændringer og virkningen heraf - er der nye rapporter, offentliggjort i 2004, i henhold til hvilke det er hævet over enhver tvivl, at klimaændringer er forårsaget af menneskelig aktivitet. USA erklærer, at deres fremgangsmåde er anderledes. De har ikke undertegnet og ønsker ikke at undertegne Kyoto-protokollen. Vi skal dog finde en måde, hvorpå vi kan inkludere USA i vores bestræbelser på at bekæmpe klimaændringerne. Det er ikke et problem for et land alene eller blot for Middelhavslandene, hvor virkningerne vil være værre end alle andre steder i verden. Videnskabsmænd mener, at temperaturen i Middelhavslandene i slutningen af 2100 vil være steget med over fem grader. Det er en stor stigning. Man kan forestille sig, hvordan dette vil påvirke landbruget og turismen, f.eks., og indvirke på den måde, hvorpå mennesker lever. Jeg har hørt, at der vil være positive virkninger i Sibirien. Det er ikke sandt. Vi ved ikke, hvilken virkning klimaændringerne vil have, eller hvilke dele af verden der vil blive påvirket.
Videnskaben har slået fast, at klimaændringer forårsaget af menneskelig aktivitet skal bekæmpes. Det er det, vi skal opnå, og det. vi vil forsøge at opnå. EU vil med Deres samarbejde fortsat spille en fremtrædende rolle i bekæmpelsen af klimaændringer.
Hvad angår Buenos Aires, kan graden af succes måles ved hjælp af objektive kriterier, og som jeg nævnte, var vores objektive forventninger ikke store, men det betyder ikke, at vi ikke har høje målsætninger, og at vi ikke er ambitiøse. Vi skal arbejde hen imod opfyldelsen af disse målsætninger, for det er det, verden har brug for.
Vi har gjort fremskridt i Buenos Aires. Beslutningen om at afholde et seminar i maj for at drøfte nuværende og nye tiltag i forbindelse med klimaændringer er en lovende mulighed for dialog og forhandling om den globale klimapolitik efter 2012. Aftalen om at oprette et arbejdsprogram for vedtagelse er også et meget vigtigt gennembrud, ikke blot for de udviklede lande, men også - og i endnu højere grad - for udviklingslandene.
Generelt mener jeg, at partskonferencen har været en succes. Jeg er dog enig i, at vi skal styrke dialogen med de vigtigste lande som f.eks. Indien, Kina, USA og naturligvis Rusland. USA har erklæret, at de følger en anden kurs og investerer en masse i forskning og udvikling, men jeg oplevede et lille gennembrud i forbindelse med USA's aftale om at deltage i seminaret og fremlægge planer for fremtiden.
Vi skal fortsætte og styrke dialogen - som mange medlemmer af Parlamentet har foreslået - med disse lande, både i multilateral og bilateral sammenhæng. Som fru Frassoni nævnte, skal vi med trojkaen have en del møder med lande som USA, Kina, Indien og udviklingslandene. Vi skal også fortsat vise, at vi mener det alvorligt, og at vi tager bekæmpelsen af klimaændringer meget alvorligt. Vi skal foregå med et godt eksempel, som fru Corbey foreslog.
EU's vellykkede ordning for handel med kvoter for drivhusgasemissioner vil være meget vigtig i denne sammenhæng, og vi skal fortsat lægge vægt på betydningen af, at andre deltager i ordningen. Som jeg nævnte tidligere, har Norge, Canada og Japan vist interesse, og vi må finde ud af, hvordan vi kan få et samarbejde i gang med USA, der - bortset fra de ni nordøstlige stater og Californien - har ordninger for handel med kvoter for andre drivhusgasemissioner, men ikke for emissioner af kuldioxid. Problemet er dog, at de ikke har undertegnet Kyoto-protokollen.
Lad os prøve at overvinde denne forhindring. Samarbejde med lokale og regionale myndigheder vil være meget interessant, især opnåelse af støtte til bekæmpelse af klimaændringer fra lande rundt omkring i verden og god kontakt med udviklingslandene, f.eks. Indien og Kina - og her må jeg understrege, som nogen allerede har nævnt, at de små østater har været vores allierede. Det er også meget vigtigt, at de støtter os fuldt ud i vores bestræbelser.
I vores kontakt med disse lande er det vigtigt at se fordelene ved bekæmpelse af klimaændringer i en bredere sammenhæng i relation til bæredygtig udvikling. Hr. Blokland foreslog i forbindelse med lokal luftforurening, at vi understreger fordelene i andre sektorer, og bekæmpelse af klimaændringer vil give væsentlige fordele for disse lande. Det er meget vigtigt at fremhæve øko-innovation og miljømæssige teknologier, der kan være meget konkurrencedygtige og give stærke markedsandele inden for europæisk industri og inden for disse landes industri, så de virkelig er innovative på en miljøvenlig måde.
Det er antydet, at vi ikke har hjulpet de mindst udviklede lande så meget, som vi burde. Jeg må understrege, at næsten halvdelen af midlerne til disse lande ydes af EU. USA deltager overhovedet ikke, fordi USA mener, at landene er en del af Kyoto-protokollen. Vi skal støtte projekter, dvs. planlagte projekter, ikke enkelte og isolerede projekter, der er ineffektive."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Heute Abend wurden sehr viele nützliche Vorschläge unterbreitet. Auf der bevorstehenden Frühjahrstagung des Europäischen Rates, die für die Europäische Union den ersten bedeutenden Schritt bei der Diskussion über unsere künftige Strategie für den Klimawandel darstellen soll, wird die Kommission eine Mitteilung abgeben, die meine Kollegen und ich zurzeit erarbeiten. Diese Mitteilung wird für die Gespräche auf der Frühjahrstagung von wesentlicher Bedeutung sein. Darin werde ich eine Reihe konkreter Empfehlungen aufführen und einige der heute Abend hier vorgebrachten Anregungen aufnehmen. Ich danke den Abgeordneten, von denen diese konstruktiven Vorschläge stammen.
Hier wurden so viele Fragen gestellt, weswegen ich nur einige ganz konkrete beantworten werde. Herr Blokland fragte, ob die Chemieindustrie in die Richtlinie über den Emissionshandel in der EU einbezogen wird. Das ist derzeit nicht möglich. Wir beraten jedoch darüber, was nach dem Ende der ersten Phase des Emissionshandels geschehen wird. Wir werden sie wahrscheinlich aufnehmen. Die Verbrennung in Chemieanlagen ist bereits einbezogen.
Herr Davies fragte nach dem Vereinigten Königreich und dem nationalen Zuteilungsplan. Die Entscheidung über den Plan des Vereinigten Königreichs wurde am 7. Juli 2004 gefällt, und das Vereinigte Königreich kann britischen Unternehmen weitere Ungewissheit ersparen, wenn es auf der Basis dieser Entscheidung handelt. Die britische Regierung übermittelte uns ein Schreiben vom 23. Dezember mit bestimmten Informationen über die beiden Fragen Gibraltar und neue Marktteilnehmer und bat uns zudem um zusätzliche, höhere Zuteilungen. Wir prüfen zurzeit noch die technischen und rechtlichen Einzelheiten. Prinzipiell ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass ein Mitgliedstaat nur einen einzigen nationalen Zuteilungsplan vorlegen kann.
Was Biomasse und Biokraftstoffe anbelangt, so sind bereits eine Reihe von Instrumenten zur Förderung der Nutzung von Biomasse vorhanden. Dazu zählen eine Biokraftstoff-Richtlinie und eine Richtlinie zur Förderung der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energiequellen. Im vergangenen Jahr wurde in der Mitteilung der Kommission zu erneuerbaren Energien ein Aktionsplan zur Biomasse angekündigt, der bis Ende 2005 vorzulegen ist. Emissionen aus Biomasse sind neutral. Für Emissionen aufgrund des Verbrauchs von Biomasse gibt es keine Zertifikate.
In der mir zugeteilten Zeit kann ich nicht auf alle Fragen und Anregungen eingehen, die ich mir während der Aussprache notiert habe. Ich muss jedoch noch einmal betonen, wie wichtig es ist, Entwicklungsländer wie China und Indien in die Zusammenarbeit einzubeziehen. Sie machen sich Sorgen über ihre Zukunft und sind über Begrenzungen oder Einschränkungen sehr beunruhigt. Daher müssen wir ihnen Anreize verschaffen, damit sie wissen, dass ihre Entwicklung durch ein künftiges Übereinkommen nicht behindert wird. Wir müssen eine Möglichkeit der Zusammenarbeit finden, um die zuvor genannten Zielvorgaben zu erreichen: einen Temperaturanstieg von maximal 2 C.
Was die Vereinigten Staaten betrifft, so investieren sie sehr viel in die Forschung. Selbst dort –ich habe gehört, dass manche meinen, es gebe Zweifel am wissenschaftlichen Beweis für die anthropogenen Ursachen des Klimawandels und seiner Auswirkungen – liegen sehr aktuelle Berichte aus dem Jahr 2004 vor, die zweifellos nachweisen, dass der Klimawandel durch den Menschen hervorgerufen wird. Die USA sagen, man verfolge ein anderes Konzept. Sie haben das Kyoto-Protokoll nicht unterzeichnet und werden es nicht tun. Wir müssen jedoch eine Möglichkeit finden, sie in unsere Bemühungen zur Bekämpfung des Klimawandels einzubeziehen. Hier geht es sich nicht um das Problem eines einzelnen Landes oder lediglich des Mittelmeerraums, wo die Auswirkungen schlimmer sein werden als in anderen Regionen der Welt: Wissenschaftlern zufolge wird die Temperatur dort Ende des Jahres 2100 um mehr als fünf Grad höher liegen. Das ist ein enormer Anstieg. Man kann sich vorstellen, welche Auswirkungen sich daraus beispielsweise für die Landwirtschaft und den Tourismus sowie für die Lebensweise der Menschen ergeben. Ich habe gehört, dass die Effekte in Sibirien positiv sein sollen. Das stimmt nicht. Wir wissen nicht, wie sich der Klimawandel auswirken und auch nicht, welche Gegenden der Welt er betreffen wird.
Es ist wissenschaftlich erwiesen, dass die vom Menschen verursachte Klimaänderung bekämpft werden muss. Das sollten und werden wir versuchen. Mit Ihrer Mitarbeit wird die Europäische Union auch weiterhin eine führende Rolle bei der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels spielen.
Was Buenos Aires anbelangt, so lässt sich der Erfolgsgrad der Konferenz anhand objektiver Kriterien messen, und, wie ich bereits sagte, waren unsere objektiven Erwartungen nicht hoch, was aber nicht bedeutet, dass wir keine hoch gesteckten Ziele haben und unsere Wünsche nicht ehrgeizig sind. Wir werden auf diese Ziele hinarbeiten, denn das braucht die Welt.
Wir haben in Buenos Aires einige Fortschritte gemacht. Der Beschluss, im Mai ein Seminar abzuhalten, auf dem die aktuellen und neuen Maßnahmen in Bezug auf die Klimaänderung beraten werden, stellt eine viel versprechende Eröffnung des Dialogs und der Debatte über eine weltweite Klimapolitik nach 2012 dar. Die Vereinbarung, ein Arbeitsprogramm für die Anpassung zu erstellen, ist ebenfalls ein bedeutender Durchbruch, und zwar nicht nur für die entwickelten Länder, sondern auch und umso mehr für die Entwicklungsländer.
Insgesamt denke ich, dass die Konferenz der Vertragsparteien erfolgreich war. Ich stimme aber zu, dass wir unseren Dialog mit Schlüsselländern wie Indien, China, den Vereinigten Staaten natürlich und Russland ausbauen müssen. Die USA führen an, dass sie ein anderes Konzept verfolgen, indem sie viel in Forschung und Entwicklung investieren, doch für mich war ihre Zustimmung, sich an diesem Seminar zu beteiligen und zukunftsbezogene Präsentationen vorzustellen, ein kleiner Durchbruch.
Wir müssen – wie von vielen Abgeordneten angeregt wurde – unseren Dialog mit diesen Ländern fortsetzen und ausbauen, sowohl auf multilateraler als auch auf bilateraler Ebene. Wie Frau Frassoni erwähnte, wird die Troika einige Treffen mit Ländern wie den USA, China, Indien und Entwicklungsländern durchführen. Auch müssen wir weiterhin zeigen, dass wir den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel ernst nehmen. Wir sollten mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen, wie es Frau Corbey sagte.
In diesem Zusammenhang wird dem Emissionshandelssystem der Europäischen Union und seiner erfolgreichen Umsetzung große Bedeutung zukommen, und wir müssen auch weiterhin nachdrücklich auf die Notwendigkeit hinweisen, dass andere sich uns dabei anschließen. Wie ich bereits sagte, haben Norwegen, Kanada und Japan Interesse bekundet, und wir sollten sehen, wie wir mit den Vereinigten Staaten zusammenarbeiten können, die – mit Ausnahme der neun Bundesstaaten im Nordosten und Kalifornien – zwar über Handelssysteme für andere Treibhausgase verfügen, nicht jedoch für Kohlendioxid. Das Problem besteht allerdings darin, dass sie das Kyoto-Protokoll nicht unterzeichnet haben.
Schauen wir, wie wir dieses Hindernis überwinden können. Die Zusammenarbeit mit kommunalen und regionalen Behörden könnte sehr interessant sein, vor allem, um in der ganzen Welt Unterstützung für die Bekämpfung der Klimaänderung zu gewinnen, und auch in Bezug auf unsere Kontakte zu Entwicklungsländern wie Indien und China – und hier muss ich bestätigen, dass, wie bereits gesagt wurde, die kleinen Inselstaaten unsere Verbündeten waren. Es ist auch sehr wichtig, dass sie uns in unseren Bemühungen auf ganzer Linie unterstützen.
Bei unseren Kontakten zu diesen Ländern müssen wir die Vorteile der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Problem des Klimawandels in den breiteren Kontext der nachhaltigen Entwicklung stellen. Was die lokale Luftverschmutzung betrifft, so wies Herr Blokland darauf hin, dass wir den Nutzen in anderen Sektoren hervorheben sollten und auch, dass die Beschäftigung mit dem Klimawandel diesen Ländern wichtige Vorteile verschaffen wird. Wir müssen alles daran setzen, Öko-Innovation und Umwelttechnologien herauszustellen, die sehr konkurrenzfähig sein könnten und der europäischen Industrie und den Industrien dieser Länder einen Vorteil des Initiators verschaffen könnten, damit sie auch wirklich auf umweltfreundliche Art und Weise Innovationen einführen.
Es wurde darauf verwiesen, dass wir die am wenigsten entwickelten Länder nicht so sehr unterstützt haben wie wir konnten. Ich muss unterstreichen, dass beinahe die Hälfte der Mittel für diese Länder von der Europäischen Union zur Verfügung gestellt wird. Die USA beteiligen sich überhaupt nicht, da dies ihrer Ansicht nach Sache des Kyoto-Protokolls ist. Wir müssen Projekte finanzieren, also geplante Projekte und nicht einmalige, isolierte Projekte, die ineffektiv sind."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, απόψε ακούστηκαν πολλές χρήσιμες συστάσεις. Στο προσεχές εαρινό Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, που θα είναι και το πρώτο σημαντικό βήμα στη συζήτηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σχετικά με τη μελλοντική στρατηγική μας για την αλλαγή του κλίματος, η Επιτροπή θα κάνει μια ανακοίνωση, την οποία ετοιμάζουμε αυτόν τον καιρό με τους συναδέλφους μου. Αυτή η ανακοίνωση θα είναι πολύ σημαντική για τις συζητήσεις του εαρινού Συμβουλίου. Στην ανακοίνωση αυτή, σκοπεύω να διατυπώσω μια σειρά συγκεκριμένων υποδείξεων και θα συμπεριλάβω αρκετές από τις συστάσεις που ακούστηκαν απόψε. Ευχαριστώ τους βουλευτές που έκαναν αυτές τις εποικοδομητικές συστάσεις.
Τέθηκαν πάρα πολλές ερωτήσεις, και έτσι θα απαντήσω μόνο σε ορισμένες από αυτές. Ο κ. Blokland ρώτησε εάν η χημική βιομηχανία θα συμπεριληφθεί στην οδηγία της ΕΕ για την εμπορία εκπομπών. Αυτό δεν είναι δυνατόν επί του παρόντος. Κάνουμε, ωστόσο, συζητήσεις σχετικά με το τι θα συμβεί μετά το τέλος της πρώτης φάσης της εμπορίας εκπομπών. Πιθανότατα θα την συμπεριλάβουμε. Η καύση που χρησιμοποιείται στη χημική βιομηχανία έχει συμπεριληφθεί.
Ο κ. Davies ρώτησε για το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο και για το εθνικό του σχέδιο κατανομής. Η απόφαση για το σχέδιο του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου ελήφθη στις 7 Ιουλίου 2004 και το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο μπορεί να αποφύγει την παράταση της αβεβαιότητας για τις βρετανικές εταιρείες ενεργώντας βάσει αυτής της απόφασης. Μας έστειλε μια επιστολή με ημερομηνία 23 Δεκεμβρίου, όπου παρείχε ορισμένες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα δύο θέματα του Γιβραλτάρ και των νέων κρατών μελών και μας ζητούσε επίσης πρόσθετα, μεγαλύτερα δικαιώματα. Ακόμα εξετάζουμε τις τεχνικές και τις νομικές λεπτομέρειες αυτής της επιστολής. Καταρχήν, η Επιτροπή θεωρεί ότι κάθε κράτος μέλος μπορεί να παρουσιάσει μόνο ένα εθνικό σχέδιο κατανομής.
Όσον αφορά τη βιομάζα και τα βιοκαύσιμα, έχουν ήδη τεθεί σε εφαρμογή ορισμένα μέσα για την προώθηση της χρήσης της βιομάζας. Τα μέσα αυτά περιλαμβάνουν μια οδηγία για τα βιοκαύσιμα και έναν κανονισμό για τον ηλεκτρισμό από ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας. Η περσινή ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την ανανεώσιμη ενέργεια εξήγγειλε ένα σχέδιο δράσης για τη βιομάζα, το οποίο προβλέπεται να υποβληθεί μέχρι το τέλος του 2005. Οι εκπομπές της βιομάζας είναι ουδέτερες. Δεν υπάρχουν δικαιώματα για τις εκπομπές που προέρχονται από την κατανάλωση βιομάζας.
Στον χρόνο που μου παραχωρείται, μου είναι αδύνατον να απαντήσω σε όλες τις ερωτήσεις και τις συστάσεις που κατέγραψα κατά τη διάρκεια της συζήτησης. Ωστόσο, πρέπει να τονίσω για άλλη μία φορά πόσο σημαντικό είναι να συμπεριλάβουμε στη συνεργασία αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες όπως η Κίνα και η Ινδία. Ανησυχούν για το μέλλον τους και φοβούνται πολύ για ενδεχόμενους περιορισμούς ή μειώσεις. Πρέπει να τους δώσουμε κίνητρα, ώστε να γνωρίζουν ότι η ανάπτυξή τους δεν θα παρεμποδιστεί από καμία μελλοντική συμφωνία. Πρέπει να βρούμε τον τρόπο να συνεργαστούμε και να επιτύχουμε τους στόχους που αναφέραμε προηγουμένως: μέγιστη αύξηση της θερμοκρασίας κατά 2 βαθμούς Κελσίου.
Όσο για τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, επενδύουν πολλά στην έρευνα. Ακόμα και εκεί –άκουσα ορισμένους να λένε ότι υπάρχουν αμφιβολίες για την επιστημονική απόδειξη των ανθρωπογενών αιτίων της αλλαγής του κλίματος και των επιπτώσεών της– υπάρχουν πολύ πρόσφατες εκθέσεις, δημοσιευμένες το 2004, οι οποίες αποδεικνύουν πέραν πάσης αμφιβολίας ότι η αλλαγή του κλίματος προκαλείται από την ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα. Οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες λένε ότι η προσέγγισή τους είναι διαφορετική. Δεν έχουν και ούτε πρόκειται να υπογράψουν το Πρωτόκολλο του Κυότο. Πρέπει, ωστόσο, να βρούμε έναν τρόπο να τις συμπεριλάβουμε στην προσπάθειά μας για την καταπολέμηση της αλλαγής του κλίματος. Δεν είναι πρόβλημα μίας μόνο χώρας ή μόνο της Μεσογείου, όπου οι επιπτώσεις θα είναι χειρότερες από ό,τι σε άλλες περιοχές του κόσμου: οι επιστήμονες λένε ότι, μέχρι το τέλος το 2100, η θερμοκρασία στη Μεσόγειο θα έχει αυξηθεί κατά περισσότερους από πέντε βαθμούς. Αυτή είναι μεγάλη αύξηση. Μπορεί κανείς να φανταστεί πώς θα επηρεάσει η αύξηση αυτή τη γεωργία και τον τουρισμό, για παράδειγμα, και τι αντίκτυπο θα έχει στον τρόπο ζωής των ανθρώπων. Άκουσα ότι θα έχει θετικές συνέπειες στη Σιβηρία. Αυτό δεν είναι αλήθεια. Δεν γνωρίζουμε τι αντίκτυπο θα έχει η αλλαγή του κλίματος ούτε ποιες περιοχές του κόσμου θα επηρεάσει.
Η επιστήμη έχει αποδείξει ότι η αλλαγή του κλίματος που οφείλεται στην ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα πρέπει να καταπολεμηθεί. Αυτό πρέπει να κάνουμε και αυτό θα προσπαθήσουμε να κάνουμε. Με τη συνεργασία σας, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα εξακολουθήσει να διαδραματίζει πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο στην καταπολέμηση της αλλαγής του κλίματος.
Όσον αφορά το Μπουένος Άιρες, ο βαθμός της επιτυχίας του μπορεί να μετρηθεί με αντικειμενικά κριτήρια και, όπως είπα, οι αντικειμενικές προσδοκίες μας δεν ήταν μεγάλες, όμως αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν έχουμε υψηλούς στόχους και ότι οι επιθυμίες μας δεν είναι φιλόδοξες. Θα εργαστούμε για την επίτευξη αυτών των στόχων, γιατί αυτό χρειάζεται ο κόσμος.
Κάναμε κάποια πρόοδο στο Μπουένος Άιρες. Η απόφαση να γίνει ένα σεμινάριο τον Μάιο, προκειμένου να συζητηθούν οι τρέχουσες και οι νέες απαντήσεις στην αλλαγή του κλίματος, αποτελεί μια υποσχόμενη έναρξη του διαλόγου και της συζήτησης όσον αφορά μια παγκόσμια πολιτική για την αλλαγή του κλίματος μετά το 2012. Η συμφωνία να καθιερωθεί ένα πρόγραμμα εργασίας για την προσαρμογή είναι επίσης ένα πολύ σημαντικό βήμα, όχι μόνο για τις αναπτυγμένες χώρες αλλά επίσης –και μάλιστα ακόμη περισσότερο– για τις αναπτυσσόμενες.
Γενικά, πιστεύω ότι είχαμε μια επιτυχημένη Διάσκεψη των Συμβαλλομένων Μερών. Ωστόσο, συμφωνώ ότι πρέπει να ενισχύσουμε τον διάλογό μας με βασικές χώρες όπως η Ινδία, η Κίνα, οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, φυσικά, και η Ρωσία. Οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες λένε ότι ακολουθούν διαφορετική προσέγγιση, επενδύοντας πολλά στην έρευνα και στην ανάπτυξη, αλλά είδα μια μικρή πρόοδο στη συμφωνία τους να συμμετάσχουν σε αυτό το σεμινάριο και να παρουσιάσουν τα σχέδια τους για το μέλλον.
Χρειάζεται να συνεχίσουμε και να ενισχύσουμε τον διάλογό μας –όπως συνέστησαν πολλοί βουλευτές– με τις χώρες αυτές, τόσο σε πολυμερές όσο και σε διμερές επίπεδο. Όπως ανέφερε η κ. Frassoni, με την Τρόικα θα έχουμε αρκετές συναντήσεις με χώρες όπως οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, η Κίνα, η Ινδία και οι αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες. Χρειάζεται επίσης να συνεχίσουμε να δείχνουμε ότι αντιμετωπίζουμε το θέμα με σοβαρότητα και ότι παίρνουμε την καταπολέμηση της αλλαγής του κλίματος στα σοβαρά. Θα πρέπει να γίνουμε παράδειγμα προς μίμηση, όπως συνέστησε η κ. Corbey.
Το Σύστημα Εμπορίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και η επιτυχία του θα είναι πολύ σημαντικά από αυτήν την άποψη και πρέπει να συνεχίσουμε να υπογραμμίζουμε την ανάγκη να μας ακολουθήσουν και άλλοι σε αυτήν την προσπάθεια. Όπως ανέφερα και προηγουμένως, η Νορβηγία, ο Καναδάς και η Ιαπωνία έχουν δείξει ενδιαφέρον και θα πρέπει να δούμε πώς μπορούμε να συνεργαστούμε με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, οι οποίες –με εξαίρεση τις εννέα βορειοανατολικές πολιτείες και την Καλιφόρνια– έχουν συστήματα εμπορίας για άλλα αέρια που προκαλούν το φαινόμενο του θερμοκηπίου αλλά όχι για το διοξείδιο του άνθρακα. Αλλά το πρόβλημα με τις ΗΠΑ είναι ότι δεν έχουν υπογράψει το Πρωτόκολλο του Κυότο.
Ας δούμε πώς μπορούμε να υπερνικήσουμε αυτό το εμπόδιο. Η συνεργασία με τις τοπικές και περιφερειακές αρχές θα μπορούσε να είναι πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα, ιδίως για να εξασφαλίσουμε υποστήριξη για την καταπολέμηση της αλλαγής του κλίματος σε χώρες από όλο τον κόσμο, αλλά και από την άποψη των επαφών μας με αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες όπως η Ινδία και η Κίνα – και εδώ πρέπει να αναγνωρίσω, όπως είπε ήδη κάποιος, ότι τα μικρά νησιωτικά κράτη ήταν σύμμαχοί μας. Είναι επίσης πολύ σημαντικό το ότι μας υποστηρίζουν πλήρως σε αυτό που προσπαθούμε να κάνουμε.
Στις επαφές μας με αυτές τις χώρες, είναι σημαντικό να θέσουμε τα οφέλη της αντιμετώπισης της αλλαγής του κλίματος στο ευρύτερο πλαίσιο της αειφόρου ανάπτυξης. Σε σχέση με την ατμοσφαιρική ρύπανση σε τοπικό επίπεδο, ο κ. Blokland συνέστησε να τονίσουμε τα οφέλη σε άλλους τομείς – και η αντιμετώπιση της αλλαγής του κλίματος θα παράσχει σημαντικά οφέλη σε αυτές τις χώρες. Είναι πολύ σημαντικό να τονίσουμε την οικολογική καινοτομία και τις περιβαλλοντικές τεχνολογίες που θα μπορούσαν να είναι πολύ ανταγωνιστικές και να δώσουν το όφελος του προβαδίσματος στην ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία και στις βιομηχανίες αυτών των χωρών, ώστε να καινοτομούν πραγματικά με φιλικό για το περιβάλλον τρόπο.
Ακούστηκε ότι δεν βοηθήσαμε τις λιγότερο αναπτυγμένες χώρες όσο θα μπορούσαμε. Πρέπει να τονίσω ότι σχεδόν τους μισούς από τους πόρους προς αυτές τις χώρες τους παρέχει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες δεν συμμετέχουν καθόλου, γιατί το θεωρούν μέρος του Πρωτοκόλλου του Κυότο. Πρέπει να χρηματοδοτήσουμε έργα, δηλαδή προγραμματισμένα έργα και όχι έργα μεμονωμένα και αποσπασματικά που δεν είναι αποτελεσματικά."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, esta noche se han hecho sugerencias muy útiles. En el próximo Consejo Europeo de primavera, que será el primer paso importante en los debates de la Unión Europea sobre nuestra futura estrategia en materia de cambio climático, la Comisión hará una comunicación, que mis colegas y yo estamos elaborando en estos momentos. Esta comunicación será muy importante para los debates del Consejo en primavera. En ella, espero establecer una serie de recomendaciones concretas, e incluiré unas cuantas sugerencias que se han hecho esta noche. Quiero dar las gracias a los diputados que han realizado estas constructivas sugerencias.
Se han formulado tantas preguntas que solo voy a responder a algunas muy específicas. El señor Blokland ha preguntado si la industria química estaría incluida en la Directiva de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE. Esto no es posible en la actualidad. Sin embargo, estamos debatiendo sobre lo que ocurrirá al término de la primera fase de comercio de derechos de emisión. Probablemente deberemos incluirla. La combustión en las plantas químicas está incluida.
El señor Davies ha preguntado sobre el Reino Unido y el plan nacional de asignaciones. La decisión relativa al plan del Reino Unido se tomó el 7 de julio de 2004, y el Reino Unido puede evitar que se mantenga la incertidumbre para las empresas británicas procediendo sobre la base de esa decisión. El 23 de diciembre nos remitió una carta en que facilita cierta información relativa a las dos cuestiones de Gibraltar y a los nuevos candidatos, y en la que además solicitaba asignaciones adicionales más elevadas. Todavía estamos estudiando los detalles técnicos y jurídicos de esta cuestión. En principio, la Comisión considera que un Estado miembro solamente puede presentar un único plan nacional de asignaciones.
En cuanto a la biomasa y a los biocombustibles, ya contamos un cierto número de instrumentos en marcha para estimular el uso de la biomasa. Esto incluye la Directiva de biocombustibles y una Directiva sobre la electricidad generada a partir de fuentes de energía renovables. La comunicación de la Comisión del año pasado sobre las energías renovables anunció un plan de acción sobre la biomasa que debería presentarse hacia finales de 2005. Las emisiones de biomasa son neutras. No existen asignaciones para las emisiones causadas por el consumo de biomasa.
En el tiempo que se me ha adjudicado no puedo responder a todas las preguntas y sugerencias que he anotado durante el debate. Sin embargo, debo volver a subrayar la importancia de incluir en la cooperación a países en desarrollo como China o la India. Les preocupa su futuro, y están muy inquietos ante cualquier limitación o reducción. Debemos proporcionarles incentivos, de forma que sepan que su desarrollo no se verá obstaculizado por ningún acuerdo futuro. Debemos encontrar un camino para cooperar y alcanzar los objetivos que hemos mencionado anteriormente: un máximo de 2° C de aumento de la temperatura.
En cuanto a los Estados Unidos, están invirtiendo grandes recursos en investigación. Incluso en este ámbito –he oído decir a algunas personas que existen dudas respecto a las pruebas científicas de las causas antropogénicas del cambio climático y su efecto– existen informes muy recientes, publicados en 2004, que prueban más allá de toda duda que el cambio climático viene provocado por la actividad humana. En los Estados Unidos dicen que su enfoque es distinto. No han firmado ni van a firmar el Protocolo de Kioto. Sin embargo, debemos encontrar un camino para incluirlos en nuestro intento de luchar contra el cambio climático. Este no afecta a un solo país, ni simplemente al Mediterráneo, donde los efectos serán peores que en otras regiones del mundo. Los científicos dicen que la temperatura en el Mediterráneo, a finales de 2100, se habrá incrementado en más de cinco grados. Es un aumento enorme. Uno puede imaginarse cómo afectará a la agricultura y al turismo, por ejemplo, y tendrá un impacto en la manera de vivir de las personas. He oído decir que los efectos serán positivos en Siberia. Eso no es cierto. No sabemos qué impacto tendrá el cambio climático, ni a qué regiones del mundo va a afectar.
La ciencia ha demostrado que hay que combatir el cambio climático provocado por la actividad humana. Es lo que deberíamos hacer e intentaremos hacer. Con la cooperación de este Parlamento, la Unión Europea seguirá a la cabeza de la lucha contra el cambio climático.
Por lo que respecta a Buenos Aires, el grado de su éxito puede medirse mediante criterios objetivos y, como he dicho, nuestras expectativas objetivas no eran grandes, pero eso no significa que no tengamos grandes objetivos ni que nuestros deseos no sean ambiciosos. Deberíamos trabajar en pro de estos objetivos, porque es lo que el mundo necesita.
En Buenos Aires hemos hecho algunos progresos. La decisión de celebrar un seminario en mayo para debatir respuestas actuales y nuevas al cambio climático constituye un inicio prometedor del diálogo y del debate sobre una política climática global para después de 2012. El acuerdo de establecer un programa de trabajo para la adaptación también es un avance importantísimo, no solo para los países desarrollados, sino también, e incluso en mayor grado, para los países en desarrollo.
Pienso que en términos generales la Conferencia de las Partes fue un éxito. Sin embargo, estoy de acuerdo en que necesitamos reforzar nuestro diálogo con países clave, como la India, China, los Estados Unidos, por supuesto, y Rusia. Los Estados Unidos dicen seguir un planteamiento distinto, invirtiendo mucho en investigación y desarrollo, pero veo un pequeño avance significativo en su acuerdo de participar en este seminario y de organizar presentaciones sobre el futuro.
Necesitamos continuar y reforzar nuestro diálogo, como muchas de sus Señorías han sugerido, con estos países, tanto en el contexto multilateral como bilateral. Como ha señalado la señora Frassoni, con la troika vamos a celebrar algunas reuniones con países como los Estados Unidos, China, la India y países en desarrollo. También necesitamos continuar demostrando que somos serios y que nos tomamos en serio la lucha contra el cambio climático. Deberíamos predicar con el ejemplo, tal y como ha sugerido la señora Corbey.
El Régimen de Comercio de la Unión Europea y su éxito serán muy importantes en este sentido, y hemos de seguir insistiendo en la necesidad de que otros se nos unan en este esfuerzo. Como he mencionado anteriormente, Noruega, Canadá y Japón han mostrado interés y deberíamos plantearnos cómo podemos cooperar con los Estados Unidos, que –excepto los nueve Estados del noreste y California– tienen regímenes de comercio para otros gases de efecto invernadero, pero no para el dióxido de carbono. En este caso, el problema es que no han firmado el Protocolo de Kioto.
Veamos cómo podemos superar este obstáculo. La cooperación con las autoridades locales y regionales podría ser muy interesante, especialmente para conseguir apoyo y luchar contra el cambio climático en países de todo el mundo, además de poder tomar contacto con países en desarrollo, como la India y China; y en este punto debo reconocer que, como alguien ya ha dicho, los pequeños Estados insulares son nuestros aliados. También es muy importante que nos apoyen plenamente en lo que estamos intentando hacer.
En nuestros contactos con estos países, es importante situar los beneficios de la lucha contra el cambio climático en el contexto más amplio del desarrollo sostenible. Por lo que respecta a la contaminación atmosférica local, el señor Blokland ha sugerido que hiciéramos hincapié en los beneficios para otros sectores, y la lucha contra el cambio climático reportará importantes beneficios a estos países. Es muy importante hacer hincapié en la innovación ecológica y en tecnologías medioambientales que podrían ser muy competitivas y que podrían suponer la ventaja de ser el «primero en mover» para la industria europea y para las industrias de esos países, de forma que realmente innovaran de un modo no perjudicial para el medio ambiente.
Se ha sugerido que no ayudamos a los países menos desarrollados tanto como podríamos. Debo subrayar que casi la mitad de los fondos para estos países proceden de la Unión Europea. Los Estados Unidos no participan en absoluto, porque consideran que ello forma parte del Protocolo de Kioto. Debemos financiar proyectos, es decir, proyectos planificados, y no proyectos singulares y aislados, que son ineficaces."@es20
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, tänä iltana on esitetty erittäin paljon hyödyllisiä ehdotuksia. Keväällä pidettävässä Eurooppa-neuvostossa, joka on ensimmäinen tärkeä askel Euroopan unionissa käytävässä tulevaa ilmastonmuutosstrategiaamme koskevassa keskustelussa, komissio antaa tiedonannon, jota parhaillaan valmistelen kollegojeni kanssa. Tällä tiedonannolla on erittäin tärkeä merkitys kevään Eurooppa-neuvoston keskusteluissa. Tiedonannossa on tarkoitus antaa joitakin erityissuosituksia, ja siihen on tarkoitus sisällyttää useita tänä iltana tehtyjä ehdotuksia. Kiitän parlamentin jäseniä rakentavista ehdotuksista.
Minulle esitettiin niin paljon kysymyksiä, että vastaan vain joihinkin tiettyihin niistä. Jäsen Blokland kysyi, sisällytetäänkö kemianteollisuus EU:n päästökauppadirektiivin soveltamisalaan. Se ei ole tällä hetkellä mahdollista. Keskustelemme kuitenkin siitä, mitä päästökaupan ensimmäisen vaiheen jälkeen tapahtuu. Sisällytämme kemianteollisuuden luultavasti myöhemmin direktiivin soveltamisalaan. Kemiantehtaiden polttoprosessit kuuluvat jo sen soveltamisalaan.
Jäsen Davies kysyi Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kansallisesta jakosuunnitelmasta. Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan suunnitelmaa koskeva päätös tehtiin 7. heinäkuuta 2004, ja Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta voi estää maassa toimivien yritysten epävarmuuden pitkittymisen menettelemällä kyseisen päätöksen mukaisesti. Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta lähetti meille 23. joulukuuta päivätyn kirjeen, jossa esitettiin joitakin tietoja kahdesta Gibraltaria koskevasta kysymyksestä sekä uusista osallistujista ja jossa meiltä myös pyydettiin lisää lupia. Tutkimme edelleen asian teknisiä ja oikeudellisia yksityiskohtia. Komissio katsoo lähtökohtaisesti, että jäsenvaltio voi esittää ainoastaan yhden kansallisen jakosuunnitelman.
Mitä tulee biomassaan ja biopolttoaineisiin, meillä on jo käytössä monia välineitä biomassan käytön edistämiseksi. Näitä ovat biopolttoaineita koskeva direktiivi ja uusiutuvista energialähteistä tuotettavaa sähköä koskeva direktiivi. Komission viime vuonna antamassa tiedonannossa uusiutuvista energialähteistä tiedotettiin biomassaa koskevasta toimintasuunnitelmasta, joka on tarkoitus esittää vuoden 2005 loppuun mennessä. Biomassapäästöt ovat neutraaleja, eikä biomassan polttamisesta aiheutuville päästöille ole olemassa lupia.
Minulle myönnetty puheaika on niin lyhyt, etten voi vastata kaikkiin kysymyksiin ja ehdotuksiin, jotka olen merkinnyt muistiin keskustelun aikana. Minun on kuitenkin vielä painotettava, miten tärkeää on ottaa Kiinan ja Intian kaltaiset kehitysmaat mukaan yhteistyöhön. Ne ovat huolissaan tulevaisuudestaan, ja etenkin rajoitukset tai vähennykset aiheuttavat niille huolta. Meidän on tarjottava niille kannustimia, jotta ne tietävät, etteivät mitkään tulevat sopimukset estä niiden kehitystä. Meidän on löydettävä keino tehdä yhteistyötä ja saavuttaa aiemmin mainitsemamme tavoitteet: korkeintaan kahden asteen kasvu maapallon keskilämpötilassa.
Yhdysvallat investoi paljon tutkimukseen. Olen kuullut joidenkin sanovan, että kyse on ihmisen toiminnasta aiheutuvan ilmastonmuutoksen ja sen vaikutusten tieteellisestä näytöstä – sielläkin on julkaistu aivan hiljattain, vuonna 2004, raportteja, jotka todistavat selvästi, että ilmastonmuutos on ihmisten aikaansaannosta. Yhdysvalloissa sanotaan, että heidän lähestymistapansa on erilainen. Yhdysvallat ei ole allekirjoittanut Kioton pöytäkirjaa, eikä se aio tehdä sitä. Meidän on kuitenkin keksittävä keino, jolla saamme sen osallistumaan ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntatoimiimme. Tämä ongelma ei koske pelkästään yhtä valtiota tai ainoastaan Välimeren aluetta, jossa vaikutukset ovat vakavampia kuin missään muualla maailmassa: tutkijoiden mukaan keskilämpötila nousee siellä 2100-luvun loppuun mennessä yli viisi astetta. Nousu on huima. Voi hyvin kuvitella, miten tämä vaikuttaa esimerkiksi maatalouteen ja matkailuun sekä ihmisten elintapoihin. Kuulin, että ilmastonmuutoksella on myönteisiä vaikutuksia Siperiassa. Se ei pidä paikkaansa. Emme tiedä, mitä vaikutuksia ilmastonmuutoksella on ja mihin kaikkiin maailman alueisiin se vaikuttaa.
Tieteellisin keinoin on osoitettu, että ihmisen toiminnasta aiheutuvaa ilmastonmuutosta on torjuttava. Näin meidän on tehtävä, ja siihen myös pyrimme. Teidän avustuksellanne Euroopan unionilla on jatkossakin johtava rooli ilmastonmuutoksen torjunnassa.
Buenos Airesin konferenssin onnistumista voidaan arvioida objektiivisin kriteerein, ja kuten totesin, objektiiviset odotuksemme eivät olleet suuret, mutta tämä ei tarkoita, ettei meillä ole kunnianhimoisia tavoitteita eikä suuria toiveita. Pyrimme saavuttamaan asettamamme tavoitteet, koska se on koko maailman edun mukaista.
Asiat edistyivät Buenos Airesissa. Päätös järjestää toukokuussa seminaari, jossa keskustellaan ilmastonmuutosta koskevista nykyisistä ja uusista ratkaisuista, on lupaava alku vuoropuhelulle ja keskustelulle vuoden 2012 jälkeisestä maailmanlaajuisesta ilmastopolitiikasta. Myös päätös laatia sopeutumistoimenpiteitä koskeva työohjelma on hyvin tärkeä edistysaskel paitsi kehittyneille maille myös erityisesti kehitysmaille.
Osapuolten konferenssi oli mielestäni kaiken kaikkiaan onnistunut. Olen kuitenkin samaa mieltä siitä, että meidän on tehostettava vuoropuheluamme tärkeiden valtioiden, kuten Intian, Kiinan sekä tietenkin Yhdysvaltojen ja Venäjän, kanssa. Yhdysvallat sanoo soveltavansa erilaista lähestymistapaa ja investoivansa paljon tutkimukseen ja kehitykseen, mutta havaitsin pienen edistysaskeleen, kun se suostui osallistumaan asiantuntijoiden seminaariin ja puhumaan tulevaisuudesta.
Kuten monet parlamentin jäsenet ehdottivat, meidän on jatkettava toimiamme ja tehostettava vuoropuheluamme näiden valtioiden kanssa sekä monenvälisessä että kahdenvälisessä toiminnassa. Kuten jäsen Frassoni mainitsi, EU:n troikalla on useita tapaamisia esimerkiksi Yhdysvaltojen, Kiinan, Intian ja kehitysmaiden kanssa. Lisäksi meidän on osoitettava jatkossakin, että suhtaudumme tähän asiaan vakavasti ja että pyrimme tosissamme torjumaan ilmastonmuutosta. Meidän on näytettävä esimerkkiä, kuten jäsen Corbey totesi.
Euroopan unionin päästökauppajärjestelmällä ja sen onnistumisella on erittäin tärkeä merkitys, ja meidän on edelleen painotettava, että muiden on yhdyttävä näihin ponnisteluihimme. Kuten aiemmin mainitsin, Norja, Kanada ja Japani ovat osoittaneet kiinnostusta, ja meidän on mietittävä, miten voimme tehdä yhteistyötä Yhdysvaltojen kanssa, joka soveltaa päästökauppajärjestelmää muihin kasvihuonekaasuihin kuin hiilidioksidiin – yhdeksän koillista osavaltiota ja Kalifornia muodostavat tässä poikkeuksen. Ongelmana kuitenkin on, ettei Yhdysvallat ole allekirjoittanut Kioton pöytäkirjaa.
Mietitäänpä, miten ylitämme tämän esteen. Yhteistyö paikallisten ja alueellisten viranomaisten kanssa voisi olla erittäin mielenkiintoista varsinkin eri puolilla maailmaa sijaitsevien valtioiden tuen saamiseksi ilmastonmuutoksen torjumiseen sekä yhteyksissämme Intian ja Kiinan kaltaisiin kehitysmaihin – ja tässä yhteydessä minun on myönnettävä, että pienet saarivaltiot olivat liittolaisiamme, kuten joku jo totesi. On erittäin tärkeää, että ne tukevat meitä varauksettomasti pyrkimyksissämme.
Ollessamme tekemisissä näiden valtioiden kanssa ilmastonmuutoksen ehkäisemisen hyötyjä on tärkeää tarkastella laajemmassa kestävän kehityksen yhteydessä. Puhuessaan paikallisista ilmansaasteista jäsen Blokland ehdotti, että korostamme muille aloille koituvia hyötyjä, ja ilmastonmuutoksen ehkäisemisestä on merkittävää hyötyä näille valtioille. On erittäin tärkeää painottaa ekoinnovointia ja ympäristöteknologioita, jotka voisivat olla erittäin kilpailukykyisiä ja jotka voisivat tuoda sekä Euroopan että kyseisten valtioiden teollisuudelle nopean toimijan etuja siten, että ne todellakin toteuttavat uudistuksia ympäristöä säästäen.
Joku väitti, ettemme auta vähiten kehittyneitä maita niin paljon kuin voisimme. Minun on korostettava, että lähes puolet näiden valtioiden varoista on peräisin Euroopan unionista. Yhdysvallat ei osallistu niiden tukemiseen lainkaan, koska se katsoo rahoitustoiminnan perustuvan Kioton pöytäkirjaan. Meidän on rahoitettava hankkeita, toisin sanoen suunniteltuja hankkeita, ei yksittäisiä, erillisiä hankkeita, jotka ovat tehottomia."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, de très nombreuses suggestions utiles ont été présentées ce soir. Durant le prochain Conseil européen de printemps, première étape importante des débats de l’Union européenne concernant notre future stratégie en matière de changement climatique, la Commission soumettra une communication que mes collègues et moi sommes en train de préparer. Celle-ci sera capitale pour les débats du Conseil de printemps. Je compte y intégrer une série de recommandations spécifiques ainsi que bon nombre des suggestions présentées ce soir. Je remercie les députés à l’origine de ces propositions constructives.
Tant de questions ont été posées, je ne répondrai spécifiquement qu’à certaines d’entre elles. M. Blokland a demandé si l’industrie chimique participerait au système communautaire d’échange des droits d’émission. Ce n’est pas possible en l’état actuel des choses. Nous sommes toutefois en train de débattre sur ce qui se passera à l’issue de la première phase de l’échange de droits d’émission. Nous l’intégrerons probablement. La combustion utilisée par les installations chimiques est couverte.
M. Davies a posé une question concernant le Royaume-Uni et le plan d’allocation national. La décision concernant le plan britannique a été prise le 7 juillet 2004 et Londres peut éviter de prolonger l’incertitude dans laquelle sont plongées les entreprises britanniques en agissant sur la base de cette décision. Elle nous a envoyé une lettre en date du 23 décembre présentant certaines informations sur les deux questions concernant Gibraltar et les nouveaux arrivants et nous demandant des allocations supplémentaires et supérieures. Nous sommes toujours en train d’examiner les détails techniques et juridiques de cette requête. En principe, la Commission considère qu’un État membre ne peut présenter qu’un seul plan d’allocation national.
Concernant la biomasse et les biocarburants, plusieurs instruments visant à stimuler l’utilisation de la biomasse sont d’ores et déjà en vigueur. Ils incluent une directive sur les biocarburants ainsi qu’une autre sur l’électricité issue de sources d’énergie renouvelables. L’année dernière, la communication de la Commission relative à l’énergie renouvelable annonçait un programme d’action relatif à la biomasse qui devrait être présenté fin 2005. Les émissions provenant de la biomasse sont neutres. Les rejets découlant de sa consommation ne sont pas soumis aux quotas.
Je ne suis pas en mesure de répondre à toutes les questions et à toutes les suggestions que j’ai notées durant le débat pendant le temps qui m’est imparti. Je tiens toutefois à souligner une nouvelle fois l’importance d’intégrer dans la coopération des pays en développement tels que la Chine et l’Inde. Ils se préoccupent de leur avenir et s’inquiètent fortement de toute limitation ou réduction. Nous devons leur donner des incitants, pour qu’ils sachent que leur développement ne sera pas entravé par quelque accord futur que ce soit. Nous devons trouver une méthode de coopération et atteindre les objectifs que nous avons mentionnés précédemment: une augmentation maximale de la température de 2°C.
Quant aux États-Unis, ils investissent massivement dans la recherche. Même à ce niveau - j’ai entendu certaines personnes affirmer qu’il existait des doutes sur les preuves scientifiques des causes anthropogéniques du changement climatique et de son impact -, des rapports très récents publiés en 2004 prouvaient sans le moindre doute que le changement climatique est le résultat des activités humaines. Les États-Unis affirment adopter une approche différente. Ils n’ont pas ratifié et ne ratifieront pas le protocole de Kyoto. Nous devons toutefois trouver un moyen de les intégrer dans notre action de lutte contre le changement climatique. Ce problème ne touche pas un pays isolé ou la seule Méditerranée, où les effets seront pires que dans les autres régions du monde: les scientifiques affirment que la température y aura augmenté de plus de cinq degrés d’ici la fin 2100. C’est une augmentation importante. On peut imaginer à quel point cette situation affectera l’agriculture et le tourisme, par exemple, et modifiera le mode de vie de la population. J’ai entendu dire que les effets seraient positifs en Sibérie. Ce n’est pas vrai. Nous ignorons l’impact qu’aura le changement climatique ainsi que les régions du monde qui seront touchées.
La science a prouvé qu’il fallait lutter contre le changement climatique causé par l’activité humaine. C’est ce que nous devons faire et essaierons de faire. Avec votre collaboration, l’Union européenne continuera à jouer un rôle de premier plan dans la lutte contre le changement climatique.
En ce qui concerne Buenos Aires, son degré de réussite peut se mesurer à l’aune de critères objectifs et, comme je l’ai déclaré, nos attentes objectives étaient limitées. Cela ne signifie toutefois pas que nous n’avons pas d’objectifs d’envergure et que nos souhaits sont dépourvus d’ambitions. Nous œuvrerons à ces objectifs, car le monde en a besoin.
Nous avons enregistré certains progrès à Buenos Aires. La décision d’organiser en mai un séminaire devant examiner les réponses actuelles et nouvelles au changement climatique constitue un début encourageant pour le dialogue et le débat sur la politique climatique mondiale de l’après 2012. L’accord portant sur l’instauration d’un programme de travail d’adaptation représente également une avancée majeure, pas uniquement pour les pays développés, mais également, et surtout, pour les pays en développement.
Je pense globalement que la conférence des parties a été une réussite. Je conviens toutefois qu’il nous faut renforcer notre dialogue avec des pays clés tels que l’Inde, la Chine, les États-Unis, bien entendu, et la Russie. Washington affirme suivre une approche différente, en investissant beaucoup dans la recherche et le développement, mais son acceptation de participer à ce séminaire et d’effectuer des présentations concernant l’avenir me semble être une petite avancée.
Nous devons continuer et renforcer notre dialogue avec ces pays, comme l’ont suggéré nombre d’honorables députés, dans des contextes multilatéraux et bilatéraux. Conformément aux propos de Mme Frassoni, nous aurons avec la troïka de très nombreuses réunions avec des pays tels que les États-Unis, la Chine, l’Inde et les pays en développement. Nous devons également continuer à démontrer le sérieux qui est le nôtre dans ce domaine et l’importance que nous accordons à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Nous devons guider par l’exemple, comme l’a suggéré Mme Corbey.
Le système européen d’échange de droits d’émission et sa réussite seront très importants à ce niveau et nous devons continuer à souligner le besoin de voir les autres se joindre à nous dans le cadre de ces efforts. Comme je l’ai indiqué précédemment, la Norvège, le Canada et le Japon ont fait preuve d’intérêt et nous devrions voir de quelle manière nous pouvons coopérer avec les États-Unis, qui - à l’exception des neuf états du nord est et de la Californie - possèdent des systèmes d’échange pour d’autres gaz à effet de serre, mais pas pour le dioxyde de carbone. Toutefois, le problème à ce niveau, c’est qu’ils n’ont pas signé le protocole de Kyoto.
Voyons de quelle manière nous surmonterons cet obstacle. Une coopération avec les autorités locales et régionales pourrait s’avérer très intéressante, surtout pour trouver un soutien dans la lutte contre le changement climatique dans les différents pays du monde ainsi qu’en termes de contacts avec les pays en développement, tels l’Inde et la Chine. Je dois reconnaître à cet égard, à l’instar de ce qu’a affirmé un intervenant, que les petits États insulaires étaient de notre côté. Il est également très important qu’ils nous soutiennent pleinement dans nos desseins.
Il importe, dans nos contacts avec ces pays, de placer les avantages de la lutte contre le changement climatique dans le contexte plus large du développement durable. En ce qui concerne la pollution aérienne locale, M. Blokland a suggéré que nous soulignions les avantages dans d’autres secteurs. Or, la lutte contre le changement climatique déploiera d’importants effets bénéfiques dans ces pays. Il est très important de mettre en exergue l’éco-innovation et les technologies environnementales qui pourraient être très compétitives et donner l’avantage de l’initiative à l’industrie européenne et aux industries de ces pays, pour qu’ils innovent de manière réellement bénéfique pour l’environnement.
On a dit que nous n’aidions pas les pays les moins développés autant que nous le pourrions. Je tiens à souligner que près de la moitié des fonds destinés à ces pays sont fournis par l’Union européenne. Les États-Unis ne participent absolument pas puisqu’ils considèrent que ce volet fait partie du protocole de Kyoto. Nous devons financer des projets, c’est-à-dire des projets planifiés, et non des projets uniques et isolés marqués du sceau de l’inefficacité."@fr8
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, questa sera sono stati avanzati molti suggerimenti utili. Nel prossimo Consiglio europeo di primavera, che rappresenterà il primo passo importante nel dibattito sulla futura strategia dell’Unione europea in materia di cambiamento climatico, la Commissione presenterà la comunicazione che i miei colleghi ed io stiamo preparando, una comunicazione che sarà di estrema importanza per le discussioni che si terranno nell’ambito del Consiglio di primavera. Prevedo che tale comunicazione conterrà una serie di raccomandazioni specifiche e includerà alcune idee che sono state avanzate questa sera; ringrazio quindi gli onorevoli deputati che hanno presentato questi costruttivi suggerimenti.
Le domande poste erano molte; farò del mio meglio per rispondere ad alcuni punti specifici. L’onorevole Blokland ha chiesto se l’industria chimica sarebbe stata inclusa nella direttiva UE sullo scambio delle quote di emissione. Attualmente è impossibile. Stiamo comunque discutendo per capire quale sarà la situazione alla fine della prima fase dello scambio delle quote di emissione e probabilmente finiremo per includerla; la combustione utilizzata negli impianti chimici è inclusa.
L’onorevole Davies ha chiesto informazioni in merito al Regno Unito e al piano di assegnazione nazionale. La decisione concernente il piano del Regno Unito è stata adottata il 7 luglio 2004 e il Regno Unito può evitare di prolungare questo stato di incertezza per le imprese britanniche procedendo sulla base di tale decisione. Esso ci ha inviato una lettera datata 23 dicembre in cui forniva alcune informazioni sulle due questioni di Gibilterra e dei nuovi membri e chiedeva assegnazioni supplementari e di maggiore entità. Stiamo ancora considerando i dettagli tecnici e giuridici; in linea di principio, comunque, la Commissione ritiene che uno Stato membro possa presentare un unico piano di assegnazione nazionale.
Per quanto riguarda la biomassa e i biocombustibili, disponiamo già di una serie di strumenti per favorire l’uso della biomassa; tra questi, una direttiva sui biocombustibili ed una direttiva sull’elettricità prodotta da fonti di energia rinnovabile. L’anno scorso la comunicazione della Commissione sull’energia rinnovabile ha annunciato un piano d’azione sulla biomassa che dovrà essere presentato entro la fine del 2005. Le emissioni di biomassa sono neutre; non vi sono compensazioni per le emissioni provocate dal consumo di biomassa.
Nel tempo concessomi non sono in grado di rispondere a tutte le domande e ai suggerimenti di cui ho preso nota nel corso della discussione; vorrei però sottolineare che è importante includere nella cooperazione paesi in via di sviluppo come la Cina e l’India, che sono preoccupati per il proprio futuro e per qualsiasi limitazione o riduzione. Dobbiamo offrire loro incentivi grazie ai quali il loro sviluppo non sarà ostacolato da accordi futuri. Dobbiamo individuare nuove forme di cooperazione e raggiungere gli obiettivi che abbiamo ricordato in precedenza: un aumento massimo della temperatura pari a 2°C.
Per quanto riguarda gli Stati Uniti, essi stanno indubbiamente investendo molto nella ricerca. Anche in questo campo – ho sentito alcuni mettere in dubbio le prove scientifiche secondo cui il cambiamento climatico e gli effetti che ne discendono sono causati dall’uomo – nel 2004 sono stati pubblicati alcuni studi i quali dimostrano, con assoluta certezza, che il cambiamento climatico è provocato dall’attività umana. Gli Stati Uniti affermano di seguire un approccio diverso. Essi non hanno firmato il protocollo di Kyoto, né hanno intenzione di farlo; dobbiamo quindi trovare un modo per coinvolgerli nel nostro tentativo di contrastare questo fenomeno. Non è un problema che riguardi un solo paese o il Mediterraneo, che subirà conseguenze peggiori rispetto ad altre aree geografiche. Secondo gli scienziati, entro la fine del 2100 la temperatura in questa zona sarà cresciuta di oltre cinque gradi, un aumento davvero significativo; basti immaginare le conseguenze per l’agricoltura e il turismo, per esempio, e per il modo di vita della popolazione locale. Qualcuno ritiene che ci saranno effetti positivi in Siberia, ma non è vero. Non sappiamo quali effetti discenderanno dal cambiamento climatico, né quali aree geografiche saranno interessate.
La scienza ha dimostrato che il cambiamento climatico provocato dall’attività umana va combattuto; questo è quanto dobbiamo fare e cercheremo di fare. Con la vostra collaborazione l’Unione europea continuerà a svolgere un ruolo guida nella lotta contro il cambiamento climatico.
Per quanto riguarda Buenos Aires, ritengo possibile misurarne il successo sulla base di criteri obiettivi; come ho detto, non avevamo grandi aspettative, ma ciò non significa che i nostri obiettivi siano modesti e le nostre speranze poco ambiziose. Perseguiremo tali obiettivi perché è di questo che il mondo ha bisogno.
A Buenos Aires abbiamo realizzato alcuni progressi; la decisione di tenere un seminario a maggio per discutere le risposte – presenti e future – al cambiamento climatico costituisce una promettente apertura al dialogo e al dibattito su una politica climatica globale dopo il 2012. Anche la decisione di fissare un programma di lavoro per l’adeguamento costituisce una svolta importante, non solo per i paesi industrializzati ma anche, e forse ancor di più, per i paesi in via di sviluppo.
Nell’insieme credo che la Conferenza delle parti abbia avuto successo; concordo tuttavia sulla necessità di consolidare il nostro dialogo con paesi importanti come l’India, la Cina, gli Stati Uniti e naturalmente la Russia. Gli Stati Uniti affermano di seguire un approccio diverso, grazie a significativi investimenti in ricerca e sviluppo, ma mi sembra importante la loro decisione di partecipare a questo seminario e di presentare proposte sul futuro.
Dobbiamo continuare a consolidare il dialogo con questi paesi – come hanno suggerito molti onorevoli deputati – sia a livello multilaterale che bilaterale. Come ha ricordato l’onorevole Frassoni, insieme alla
avremo una serie di incontri con paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Cina, l’India, nonché con i paesi in via di sviluppo. Dobbiamo dimostrare la nostra intenzione di continuare su questa strada e di affrontare con serietà la lotta al cambiamento climatico. Come ha affermato l’onorevole Corbey, la nostra funzione di guida deve affermarsi con l’esempio.
Il piano dell’Unione europea che prevede lo scambio dei diritti di emissione e la sua riuscita saranno molto importanti da questo punto di vista, e dobbiamo ribadire la necessità che altri si uniscano a noi in questi sforzi. Come ho detto in precedenza, la Norvegia, il Canada e il Giappone si sono mostrati interessati ed è quindi opportuno definire le modalità di cooperazione con gli Stati Uniti che – eccezion fatta per i nove Stati nordorientali e la California – dispongono di sistemi di scambio per altri gas a effetto serra, ma non per l’anidride carbonica. Il problema in questo caso è dovuto al fatto che essi non hanno firmato il protocollo di Kyoto.
Dobbiamo esaminare come superare questo ostacolo. La cooperazione con le autorità locali e regionali potrebbe essere molto interessante, soprattutto per ottenerne il sostegno nella lotta al cambiamento climatico in tutto il mondo, nonché per i nostri contatti con i paesi in via di sviluppo, come l’India e la Cina – e qui devo riconoscere, come qualcuno ha già ricordato, che i piccoli Stati insulari si sono schierati dalla nostra parte; il loro appoggio incondizionato è essenziale nella nostra azione.
Nei nostri contatti con questi paesi è importante collocare i benefici derivanti dalla lotta ai cambiamenti climatici nel più ampio contesto dello sviluppo sostenibile. Per quanto riguarda l’inquinamento dell’aria a livello locale, l’onorevole Blokland ha proposto di evidenziare i benefici che si produrranno in altri settori, mentre la lotta ai cambiamenti climatici recherà vantaggi sostanziali a questi paesi. Voglio ricordare l’ecoinnovazione e le tecnologie ambientali che potrebbero essere molto competitive, in quanto darebbero il vantaggio della prima mossa all’industria europea e alle industrie di quei paesi, così che le innovazioni possano realizzarsi secondo modalità effettivamente ecocompatibili.
Qualcuno ha affermato che gli aiuti ai paesi meno sviluppati sono stati inferiori alle nostre capacità; vorrei ricordare che circa la metà dei fondi stanziati a favore di quei paesi provengono dall’Unione europea, mentre gli Stati Uniti non partecipano affatto poiché ritengono che ciò rientri nel protocollo di Kyoto. Dobbiamo finanziare progetti articolati nell’ambito di una seria programmazione, e non progetti isolati e del tutto inefficaci."@it12
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@lt14
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@lv13
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, er zijn hier vanavond vele bruikbare suggesties gedaan. Tijdens de komende Europese Raad in het voorjaar, waar de eerste belangrijke stap zal worden gezet met betrekking tot het debat binnen de Europese Unie over onze toekomstige klimaatveranderingsstrategie, zal de Commissie een mededeling presenteren, die mijn collega’s en ik momenteel voorbereiden. Deze mededeling zal zeer belangrijk zijn voor de besprekingen tijdens de Raad in het voorjaar. Ik ben voornemens in deze mededeling een reeks specifieke aanbevelingen te doen en daarbij zal zeker ook een groot aantal suggesties zijn dat vanavond is gedaan. Ik bedank de afgevaardigden die mij deze constructieve suggesties aan de hand hebben gedaan.
Er waren zo veel vragen dat ik mij zal beperken tot het beantwoorden van enkele zeer specifieke. Mijnheer Blokland vroeg of de chemische industrie zou worden opgenomen in de richtlijn voor de regeling van de handel in broeikasgasemissierechten binnen de Gemeenschap. Dat is op dit moment niet mogelijk. We voeren echter gesprekken over wat er zal gebeuren als de eerste fase van de emissiehandel is afgelopen. Waarschijnlijk zal de chemische industrie dan wel in de regeling worden opgenomen. De verbranding die in chemische fabrieken plaatsvindt valt al wel onder de regeling.
De heer Davies vroeg naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk en zijn nationale toewijzingsplan. Het besluit over het plan van het Verenigd Koninkrijk is genomen op 7 juli 2004, en het Verenigd Koninkrijk kan voorkomen dat de onzekerheid voor Britse bedrijven aanhoudt door op basis van dat besluit stappen te ondernemen. De regering heeft ons op 23 december een brief gestuurd die bepaalde informatie verschaft over twee kwesties: Gibraltar en nieuwe deelnemers. Bovendien wordt in deze brief verzocht om de toewijzing van aanvullende, hogere rechten. We beraden ons nog over de technische en juridische details dienaangaande. In principe is de Commissie van mening dat een lidstaat slechts één nationaal toewijzingsplan kan voorleggen.
Met betrekking tot biomassa en biobrandstoffen beschikken wij reeds over een aantal instrumenten om het gebruik van biomassa te stimuleren. Het gaat onder meer om een richtlijn over biobrandstoffen en een richtlijn over elektriciteit geproduceerd uit hernieuwbare energiebronnen. In de mededeling van de Commissie van vorig jaar over hernieuwbare energie werd een actieplan op het gebied van biomassa aangekondigd, dat vóór het einde van 2005 moet worden gepresenteerd. Biomassa-emissies zijn neutraal. Er zijn geen rechten nodig voor emissies die worden veroorzaakt door het verbruik van biomassa.
In de tijd die mij hier ter beschikking staat kan ik niet ingaan op alle vragen en suggesties die ik tijdens het debat heb genoteerd. Ik wil echter nogmaals benadrukken hoe belangrijk het is om ontwikkelingslanden als China en India bij de samenwerking te betrekken. Zij maken zich zorgen over hun toekomst en zijn erg bang voor eventuele beperkingen of verlagingen. We zullen dan ook met prikkels voor hen moeten komen om hen te laten weten dat hun ontwikkeling niet zal worden gehinderd door toekomstige overeenkomsten. We zullen een manier moeten vinden om met elkaar samen te werken en het doel te bereiken dat we eerder al hebben genoemd: een temperatuurstijging van maximaal 2C.
Wat de Verenigde Staten betreft, zij investeren veel in onderzoek. Zelfs daar – ik heb bepaalde mensen horen zeggen dat er vraagtekens worden gezet bij het wetenschappelijk bewijs voor de antropogene oorzaken van klimaatverandering en de gevolgen ervan – zijn zeer recent rapporten verschenen, gepubliceerd in 2004, waarin zonder onomstotelijk wordt bewezen dat de huidige klimaatverandering veroorzaakt wordt door menselijke activiteiten. In de Verenigde Staten zeggen ze dat hun benadering anders is. Ze hebben het Protocol van Kyoto niet ondertekend en zullen dat ook niet doen. We zullen echter een manier moeten vinden om hen te betrekken bij onze pogingen de klimaatverandering te bestrijden. Dit is geen probleem dat betrekking heeft op één enkel land of uitsluitend op het Middellandse-Zeegebied, waar de gevolgen erger zullen zijn dan in andere gebieden ter wereld: wetenschappers zeggen dat de temperatuur daar omstreeks het eind van 2100 meer dan vijf graden gestegen zal zijn. Dat is een fikse toename. Men kan zich voorstellen wat voor gevolgen dit zal hebben voor bijvoorbeeld de landbouw en het toerisme, evenals voor de manier waarop mensen leven. Ik heb gehoord dat zich positieve gevolgen zullen voordoen in Siberië. Dat is niet waar. We weten niet wat voor gevolgen klimaatverandering precies zal hebben, noch welke gebieden hierdoor getroffen zullen worden.
Het is wetenschappelijk bewezen dat klimaatverandering ten gevolge van menselijke activiteiten moet worden bestreden. Dat moeten we en zullen we dan ook proberen te doen. In samenwerking met u zal de Europese Unie een voortrekkersrol blijven spelen in de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.
Wat Buenos Aires betreft, kan het succes van de conferentie worden afgemeten aan objectieve criteria en, zoals ik al heb gezegd, waren onze objectieve verwachtingen niet erg hoog gespannen. Dat betekent echter niet dat we geen hoge doelen nastreven of dat onze wensen niet ambitieus zijn. We zullen alles in het werk stellen om deze doelen te bereiken omdat dit nodig is voor de wereld.
We hebben in Buenos Aires wel degelijk enige vooruitgang geboekt. Het besluit om in mei een seminar te organiseren om huidige en nieuwe antwoorden op klimaatverandering te bespreken, biedt een veelbelovende start van de dialoog en het debat over een mondiaal klimaatbeleid na 2012. Ook het akkoord over het opzetten van een werkprogramma voor aanpassingsmaatregelen is een zeer belangrijke doorbraak, niet alleen voor de geïndustrialiseerde landen, maar ook, en zelfs nog in meerdere mate, voor de ontwikkelingslanden.
Over het algemeen denk ik dat we een succesvolle conferentie van de partijen achter de rug hebben. Ik ben het echter met u eens dat we onze dialoog met sleutellanden als India, China, de Verenigde Staten uiteraard, en Rusland moeten intensiveren. De Verenigde Staten zeggen dat zij voor een andere benadering hebben gekozen, met grote investeringen in onderzoek en ontwikkeling, maar toch zie ik hun instemming met de deelname aan het seminar en de presentaties over de toekomst als een kleine doorbraak.
We moeten onze dialoog met deze landen voortzetten en verdiepen – zoals ook door vele van de geachte afgevaardigden werd gesuggereerd – zowel in een multilaterale als in een bilaterale context. Zoals mevrouw Frassoni zei, zullen wij met de trojka een groot aantal ontmoetingen hebben met landen als de Verenigde Staten, China, India en de ontwikkelingslanden. We moeten verder voortdurend laten zien dat het ons ernst is en dat we de strijd tegen klimaatverandering serieus nemen. We moeten het voortouw nemen, zoals mevrouw Corbey voorstelde.
De regeling voor de handel in broeikasgasemissierechten binnen de Gemeenschap en haar succes zullen in dit verband bijzonder belangrijk zijn en we moeten de noodzaak blijven benadrukken dat anderen zich aansluiten bij onze inspanningen. Zoals ik eerder reeds heb gezegd, hebben Noorwegen, Canada en Japan interesse getoond en we zullen moeten bekijken hoe we kunnen samenwerken met de Verenigde Staten die – met uitzondering van de negen noordoostelijke staten en Californië – al beschikken over regelingen voor andere broeikasgassen, maar niet voor koolstofdioxide. Het probleem daarbij is echter dat zij het Protocol van Kyoto niet hebben ondertekend.
Laten we eens zien hoe we dit obstakel kunnen omzeilen. Samenwerking met lokale en regionale autoriteiten zou zeer interessant kunnen zijn, met name voor het verkrijgen van steun bij de bestrijding van klimaatverandering in landen overal ter wereld, en op het gebied van onze contacten met ontwikkelingslanden, zoals India en China – en op dit punt moet ik erkennen, zoals iemand al gezegd heeft, dat de kleine eilandstaten onze bondgenoten waren. Het is ook heel belangrijk dat zij ons volledig steunen bij alles wat wij proberen te bereiken.
In onze contacten met deze landen is het belangrijk de voordelen van het aanpakken van klimaatverandering in de bredere context van de duurzame ontwikkeling te plaatsen. Met betrekking tot lokale luchtverontreiniging stelde de heer Blokland voor om de voordelen in andere sectoren te benadrukken, en het aanpakken van klimaatverandering zal zekere belangrijke voordelen opleveren voor deze landen. Om ervoor te zorgen dat zij echt op een milieuvriendelijke manier zullen innoveren, is het zeer belangrijk de nadruk te leggen op innovatieve en milieuvriendelijke technologieën die bijzonder concurrerend kunnen zijn en de Europese industrie en de industrieën in die landen innovatievoordeel kunnen opleveren.
Er werd gesuggereerd dat we de minst ontwikkelde landen minder hielpen dan zou kunnen. Ik moet benadrukken dat bijna de helft van de financiële middelen voor deze landen verschaft wordt door de Europese Unie. De Verenigde Staten leveren hieraan helemaal geen bijdrage, aangezien zij dit beschouwen als een onderdeel van het Protocol van Kyoto. We moeten projecten financieren, dat wil zeggen geplande projecten, geen eenmalige, op zichzelf staande projecten die niet doeltreffend zijn."@nl3
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, foram apresentadas numerosas sugestões válidas esta noite. No próximo Conselho Europeu da Primavera, que será o primeiro passo importante na discussão, na União Europeia, sobre a nossa futura estratégia de combate às alterações climáticas, a Comissão fará uma comunicação, que os meus colegas e eu próprio estamos actualmente a elaborar. Esta comunicação será muito importante para as discussões no Conselho Europeu da Primavera. Espero definir, nesta comunicação, uma série de recomendações específicas e incluirei um conjunto apreciável das sugestões hoje aqui apresentadas. Agradeço aos senhores deputados que fizeram essas sugestões construtivas.
Foram apresentadas tantas questões, que apenas responderei a algumas específicas. O senhor deputado Blokland perguntou se a indústria química estaria incluída na Directiva relativa ao comércio de emissões. Neste momento, não é possível. No entanto, estamos a levar a cabo discussões sobre o que acontecerá após o final da primeira fase do comércio de emissões. Provavelmente, incluí-la-emos. A combustão utilizada nas fábricas de produtos químicos está incluída.
O senhor deputado Davies inquiriu acerca do Reino Unido e do Plano Nacional de Atribuição. A decisão relativa ao Plano do Reino Unido foi tomada a 7 de Julho de 2004, e o Reino Unido pode evitar prolongar a incerteza para as suas empresas, agindo com base nessa decisão. As autoridades britânicas enviaram-nos uma carta, datada de 23 de Dezembro, fornecendo algumas informações relativamente às duas questões de Gibraltar e dos novos operadores, na qual nos solicita igualmente atribuições suplementares e mais numerosas. Estamos ainda a proceder à análise dos pormenores técnicos e jurídicos da questão. Em princípio, a Comissão considera que um Estado-Membro pode apresentar apenas um único Plano Nacional de Atribuições.
No que se refere à biomassa e aos biocombustíveis, dispomos já de uma série de instrumentos para estimular o uso de biomassa. Entre estes conta-se a Directiva relativa à promoção e utilização dos biocombustíveis e uma directiva relativa à electricidade produzida por fontes de energia renováveis. A Comunicação da Comissão do ano passado sobre a energia renovável anunciou um plano de acção da biomassa, que deverá ser apresentado até ao final de 2005. As emissões de biomassa são neutras. Não há atribuições no que se refere às emissões causadas pelo consumo de biomassa.
No tempo de palavra que me foi atribuído, não me é possível responder a todas as questões e sugestões que registei durante o debate. No entanto, devo voltar a salientar a importância da inclusão da cooperação com países em desenvolvimento, tais como a China e a Índia. Estes estão preocupados com o seu futuro e muito preocupados com quaisquer limitações ou reduções. É preciso dar-lhes incentivos para que compreendam que o seu desenvolvimento não será prejudicado por qualquer acordo futuro. É preciso que encontremos uma forma de cooperar e atingir as metas que referi anteriormente: um aumento máximo de 2C na temperatura.
No que se refere aos Estados Unidos, este país investe muito na investigação. Mesmo neste país – ouvi certas pessoas afirmarem que existem dúvidas quanto às provas científicas das causas antropogénicas das alterações climáticas e do seu impacto – existem relatórios recentes, publicados em 2004, que comprovam, sem sombra de dúvida, que as alterações climáticas são provocadas pela actividade humana. Nos Estados Unidos, defendem que a sua abordagem é diferente. Não assinaram e não vão assinar o Protocolo de Quioto. No entanto, é preciso que encontremos uma forma de integrar este país nos nossos esforços de luta contra as alterações climáticas. Não se trata de um problema apenas para um país, ou somente para o Mediterrâneo, onde os efeitos serão piores do que em outras regiões do mundo: os cientistas afirmam que a temperatura no Mediterrâneo terá aumentado, até ao final de 2100, em mais de cinco graus. Trata-se de um aumento significativo. Podemos imaginar como isso afectará a agricultura e o turismo, por exemplo, e o impacto que terá na forma de vida das pessoas. Ouvi dizer que haverá efeitos positivos na Sibéria. Não é verdade. Não sabemos qual será o impacto das alterações climáticas, nem que áreas do mundo serão afectadas.
A ciência provou ser necessário combater as alterações climáticas provocadas pela actividade humana. É isso que temos de tentar fazer. Com a vossa cooperação, a União Europeia continuará a desempenhar um papel de liderança na luta contra as alterações climáticas.
No que se refere a Buenos Aires, o seu grau de êxito pode ser medido por critérios objectivos e, como disse, as nossas expectativas objectivas não eram elevadas. Porém, isso não significa que as nossas metas não sejam elevadas e que os nossos desejos não sejam ambiciosos. Trabalharemos com vista à consecução dessas metas, porque é disso que o mundo precisa.
Fizemos progressos em Buenos Aires. A decisão de realizar um seminário em Maio para discutir as actuais e novas respostas às alterações climáticas proporciona-nos uma oportunidade de abertura para o diálogo e o debate, com vista a uma política mundial do clima pós 2012. O acordo que estabelece um programa de trabalho para a adaptação é igualmente um importante passo em frente, não só para os países desenvolvidos, mas também, e mais ainda, para os países em desenvolvimento.
Em geral, penso que se tratou de uma Conferência das Partes bem sucedida. No entanto, concordo ser necessário reforçar o nosso diálogo com países chave como a Índia, a China, os Estados Unidos e, evidentemente, a Rússia. Os Estados Unidos afirmam que seguem uma abordagem diferente, investindo muito na investigação e no desenvolvimento, mas considerei a sua anuência em participar neste seminário e em apresentar propostas sobre o futuro, um pequeno passo em frente.
É preciso prosseguir e reforçar o nosso diálogo – como foi sugerido por muitos dos senhores deputados – com esses países, a nível, quer multilateral, quer bilateral. Tal como referiu a senhora deputada Frassoni, juntamente com a Troika, realizaremos bastantes reuniões com países, como os Estados Unidos, a China, a Índia e outros países em desenvolvimento. É igualmente necessário que continuemos a mostrar que é com seriedade que falamos destas questões e que levamos a sério a luta contra as alterações climáticas. Deveremos dar o exemplo, como a senhora deputada Corbey sugeriu.
A este respeito, o regime de comércio de emissões da União Europeia e o êxito do mesmo serão de extrema importância, e é preciso que continuemos a colocar a ênfase na necessidade de outros se juntarem a nós nestes esforços. Como referi há pouco, a Noruega, o Canadá e o Japão mostraram interesse, e deveremos ver de que forma poderemos cooperar com os Estados Unidos que – excepto os nove Estados do Nordeste e da Califórnia – possuem regimes de comércio para outros gases com efeito de estufa, mas não para o dióxido de carbono. Porém, o problema, neste caso, é o facto de não terem assinado o Protocolo de Quioto.
Veremos como ultrapassar este obstáculo. A cooperação com as autoridades locais e regionais poderá ser muito interessante, especialmente no que respeita à luta contra as alterações climáticas em países de todo o mundo, bem como no que respeita aos nossos contactos com países em desenvolvimento, como a Índia e a China – e aqui devo reconhecer, como já aqui alguém referiu, que os pequenos Estados-ilhas foram nossos aliados. É igualmente fundamental que nos apoiem totalmente no que estamos a tentar realizar.
Nos nossos contactos com estes países, é importante que se insiram os benefícios da luta contra as alterações climáticas no contexto mais alargado do desenvolvimento sustentável. No que se refere à poluição atmosférica local, o senhor deputado Blokland sugeriu que salientemos os benefícios noutros sectores, e a luta contra as alterações climáticas trará benefícios importantes para esses países. É muito importante pôr em evidência as tecnologias de inovação ecológica e as tecnologias ambientais, que poderão ser muito competitivas e trazer para a indústria europeia e para as desses países a vantagem de terem sido as primeiras a utilizá-las, para que possam, efectivamente, inovar de uma forma respeitadora do ambiente.
Sugeriu-se que não tínhamos ajudado os países menos desenvolvidos tanto quanto poderíamos tê-lo feito. Devo salientar que praticamente metade dos fundos destinados a esses países foi providenciada pela União Europeia. Os Estados Unidos não participaram de todo, por considerarem que essa ajuda faz parte do Protocolo de Quioto. Temos de financiar projectos, entenda-se projectos que foram objecto de planeamento, e não projectos pontuais e isolados, que não são eficazes."@pt17
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@sk18
"Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Vi har i kväll fått ta del av många värdefulla förslag. Vid Europeiska rådets kommande vårmöte, som blir det första viktiga steget i EU:s diskussioner om den framtida klimatförändringsstrategin, tänker kommissionen lägga fram ett meddelande, som mina kolleger och jag just nu håller på att utarbeta. Meddelandet kommer att få stor betydelse för diskussionerna på vårmötet. Jag räknar med att avge en rad särskilda rekommendationer i meddelandet, och jag kommer att ta med flera av de förslag som har framförts i kväll. Jag tackar de ledamöter som har bidragit konstruktivt.
En mängd frågor togs upp, och jag kommer därför bara att besvara några av de mest konkreta. Johannes Blokland undrade om den kemiska industrin skulle omfattas av EU:s direktiv om handel med utsläppsrätter. Detta är inte möjligt i dagsläget. Vi diskuterar emellertid just nu vad som skall hända när den första fasen av systemet med handel med utsläppsrätter är avslutad. Troligen kommer den nämnda industrin att tas med. Förbränningen i kemiska anläggningar har tagits med.
Chris Davies ställde en fråga om Förenade kungariket och den nationella fördelningsplanen. Beslutet om den brittiska fördelningsplanen fattades den 7 juli 2004, och Förenade kungariket kan undvika en utdragen ovisshet för industriföretagen i landet genom att agera utifrån det beslutet. Vi fick en skrivelse, daterad den 23 december, med viss information om de båda frågorna om Gibraltar och nya aktörer på marknaden, och man bad också om ytterligare tilldelning i form av högre belopp. Vi undersöker fortfarande de tekniska och rättsliga detaljerna. Kommissionen anser i princip att varje medlemsstat endast kan lägga fram en nationell fördelningsplan.
När det gäller biomassa och biobränslen finns det redan ett antal instrument som stimulerar användningen av biomassa, bland annat ett direktiv om användning av biodrivmedel och ett direktiv om el producerad från förnybara energikällor. I förra årets meddelande om förnybar energi aviserade kommissionen en handlingsplan för användning av biomassa, som bör läggas fram senast i slutet av 2005. Utsläpp från biomassa är neutrala. Det finns inga rättigheter för utsläpp som uppkommer genom användning av biomassa.
Den tid som står till mitt förfogande medger inte att jag bemöter samtliga de frågor och förslag som jag har antecknat under diskussionens gång. Jag måste dock återigen understryka hur viktigt det är att utvecklingsländer som Kina och Indien deltar i samarbetet. De är oroliga för sin framtid och mycket bekymrade över begränsningar och inskränkningar. Vi måste ge dem drivfjädrar så att de förstår att de inte kommer att hindras i sin utveckling till följd av framtida överenskommelser. Vi måste hitta ett sätt att samarbeta och att nå de mål som vi nämnde tidigare, nämligen att den globala uppvärmningen skall uppgå till högst +2 C.
USA gör stora investeringar i forskning. Trots att jag har hört människor säga att de vetenskapliga bevisen för de mänskliga orsakerna till klimatförändringarna och följderna av dessa kan ifrågasättas, finns även i USA nyutkomna rapporter, från 2004, som bortom allt rimligt tvivel bevisar att klimatförändringarna är ett resultat av mänsklig aktivitet. I USA menar man att man går tillväga på ett annat sätt. De har inte undertecknat Kyotoprotokollet och kommer inte heller att göra det. Vi måste ändå hitta ett sätt att få med dem i kampen mot klimatförändringarna. Detta är inte ett problem som berör ett enstaka land eller enbart länderna kring Medelhavet, där effekterna kommer att bli värre än i övriga områden i världen – forskarna hävdar att temperaturen där kommer att ha stigit med fem grader i slutet av 2100. Det är en betydande ökning. Man kan föreställa sig hur det kommer att påverka exempelvis jordbruket, turismen och människornas levnadsförhållanden. Jag har hört att effekterna i Sibirien skulle bli positiva. Det stämmer inte. Vi känner inte till vare sig effekten av klimatförändringarna eller vilka områden i världen som kommer att drabbas.
Forskningen har visat att klimatförändringar till följd av mänsklig aktivitet bör bekämpas. Detta är något vi bör göra och kommer att försöka göra. Med ert benägna bistånd kommer EU även i fortsättningen att ha en nyckelroll i kampen mot klimatförändringarna.
När det gäller Buenos Aires kan framgången mätas utifrån objektiva kriterier, och som jag nämnde var våra förväntningar inte höga, vilket dock inte innebär att vi inte har högt ställda mål och långtgående önskemål. Vi skall arbeta mot dessa mål eftersom världen behöver det.
Vi gjorde vissa framsteg i Buenos Aires. Beslutet om ett seminarium i maj där nuvarande och nya åtgärder mot klimatförändringar skall diskuteras är en lovande början på dialogen och diskussionen om en global klimatpolitik efter 2012. Överenskommelsen om ett arbetsprogram för anpassning är också ett mycket betydelsefullt genombrott, inte endast för industriländerna, utan också, och i än högre grad, för utvecklingsländerna.
Jag anser att partskonferensen på det hela taget var framgångsrik. Jag håller emellertid med om att vi måste intensifiera dialogen med nyckelländer som Indien, Kina, Ryssland och givetvis USA. I USA säger man sig gå en annan väg och investera stora summor i forskning och utveckling, men jag tyckte mig märka ett visst genombrott när de gick med på att delta i seminariet och att redogöra för sin syn på framtiden.
Som flera ledamöter påpekade måste vi fördjupa dialogen med dessa länder, både i multi- och bilaterala sammanhang. Som Monica Frassoni nämnde avser vi att tillsammans med trojkan ha en rad möten med länder som USA, Indien, Kina och vissa utvecklingsländer. Vi måste även i fortsättningen visa att vi menar vad vi säger och att vi tar kampen mot klimatförändringarna på allvar. Som Dorette Corbey påpekade bör vi föregå med gott exempel.
Det är därför mycket viktigt att den europeiska handeln med utsläppsrätter blir en framgång, och vi måste även i fortsättningen betona vikten av att andra förenar sig med oss i detta arbete. Som jag tidigare påpekade har Norge, Kanada och Japan visat visst intresse, och vi bör undersöka hur vi kan få med USA, som med undantag för nio delstater i den nordöstra delen av landet samt Kalifornien har system för handel med andra växthusgaser än koldioxid. Problemet är dock att de inte har skrivit under Kyotoprotokollet.
Låt oss se hur vi kan undanröja detta hinder. Det skulle vara mycket intressant att samarbeta med lokala och regionala myndigheter, framför allt när det gäller att vinna stöd för kampen mot klimatförändringarna i olika länder i världen och när det gäller våra kontakter med utvecklingsländer som Indien och Kina. Låt mig i detta sammanhang bekräfta det som någon redan har nämnt, nämligen att de små östaterna stod på vår sida. Det är också mycket viktigt att Indien och Kina oförbehållsamt stöder oss i det vi försöker åstadkomma.
I kontakterna med dessa länder är det viktigt att sätta in vinsterna av kampen mot klimatförändringarna i det större sammanhang där en hållbar utveckling ingår. När det gäller lokala luftföroreningar föreslog Johannes Blokland att vi skall betona fördelarna för andra sektorer, och det kommer att medföra betydande fördelar för dessa länder om man tar itu med klimatförändringarna. Det är mycket viktigt att lägga tonvikten på ekologisk förnyelse och miljöteknik, som kan ge stora konkurrensfördelar och som kan ge både det europeiska näringslivet och näringslivet i länderna de fördelar det innebär att leda utvecklingen, så att de därmed verkligen är miljövänliga i sitt innovationsarbete.
Någon menade att vi inte bistår de minst utvecklade länderna så mycket som vi skulle kunna. Låt mig understryka att EU står för nära nog hälften av stödet till dessa länder. USA bidrar inte alls, eftersom man anser att detta faller under Kyotoprotokollet. Vi måste finansiera projekt, och då menar jag genomtänkta projekt, inte enstaka, isolerade och därmed ineffektiva projekt."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Aplausos)"20,17
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"(ΕΝ)"10
"Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"Dimas,"5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4
"troika"12
"Δήμας,"10
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples