Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-22-Speech-3-318-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
dcterms:Is Part Of
lpv:document identification number
lpv:translated text
". Madam President, honourable Members, Mrs Hedegaard wants me to pass on her greetings to you. She has been unavoidably detained this evening and she has asked me to make a few important points on her behalf and on behalf of the Commission. I would like to thank Parliament, all its Members and the rapporteur for this significant and far-reaching report. We continue to attach great importance to the target of limiting global warming to 2°C. For this reason, we have put in place short- and medium-term targets for 2020 and a long-term strategy for 2050. It is clear that we must also analyse the interim stages on the timeline between 2020 and 2050 and define additional interim targets. Last year the EU established the goal of 20% covering the period of the next nine years. This was done almost a year ago in Parliament and before that in the Commission and the Council. Of course, in the light of the technical possibilities, the economic effects and the financial changes, there are arguments in favour of higher targets. However, we only put the target of 20% in place just under a year ago. I do not believe that the information which we based our decision on has changed since then. We have said that Europe will reduce emissions by 30% if other important regions of the world are prepared to make binding agreements, because the climate is a global issue. We believe that there are still opportunities to introduce binding agreements or partial agreements. For this reason, the conditions are 20% for Europe alone and 30% if we have partners, in other words, the US or China. I believe that this is a serious, far-reaching and fair offer. During the last year, the Commission discussed and adopted a communication which highlights the options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20% in line with the conclusions, in other words, a reduction of 30%. It also considers whether this target is technically and economically feasible and whether it will have an impact on costs, although we assume that the costs will be lower than previous estimates indicated. We believe that the principle of reliable planning should currently be given priority. This means that industry, the economy and private citizens have the security to plan ahead on the basis of the targets which were adopted last year with a democratic majority of 20% stand-alone and 30% when other relevant partners are prepared to enter into binding agreements. A sort of automatic mechanism was used to show that if energy efficiency was added to the 20% reduction in CO emissions then 25% would automatically be possible. However, I would like to remind you that at the same time and on the basis of the same information Parliament has been discussing 20, 20, 20 for some years. No mention has been made of the last 20% automatically turning the second 20% into 25% simply because it was adopted later and is now being addressed by the Commission. That would not be in the spirit of the inventor. This was never referred to in speeches in 2007 or 2009. It is a new idea which is open to discussion. However, I do not agree with the automatic mechanism. If we in the Commission and in the European Union had taken energy efficiency more seriously at an earlier stage, the question of the automatic mechanism would probably not have arisen. Then there is the question of balancing the interests of the economy and the environment. I believe that innovation, in particular in the area of the environment, offers significant opportunities for engineers and technicians, for adding value in a variety of ways and, therefore, for creating jobs. We must aim to ensure that these new jobs in the field of energy and climate are created in Europe. On the other hand, we must make sure that we do not lose any essential jobs. What do I mean by that? I mean that the world should not produce more aluminium and steel than it needs. However, the quantity of steel, aluminium and copper needed in Europe and in the rest of the world should, as far as possible, be manufactured here in Europe, at least if it is currently produced here. It is acceptable to relocate or avoid the production of steel, aluminium and copper wherever it is possible to do so. However, the quantity of steel, aluminium and copper needed in Europe and in the rest of the world should, if possible, be manufactured in Europe, in competition with other locations. We believe it would be wrong to move production deliberately. Therefore, when balancing these interests, we must continue in future to consider whether higher CO emission reduction targets are feasible, whether they will help to retain jobs in ‘old industries’ and whether we can prevent these jobs from being moved elsewhere. One thing is clear. I would prefer jobs in the steel industry and steel production to remain in Europe with a 20% reduction in CO emissions, rather than see them move to Brazil, Malaysia or America, where the CO emissions levels would be 100%. Then we would have put our money on the wrong solution. It is better to have a 20% reduction in emissions and to retain the jobs, the added value and the tax revenues than to lose the jobs, to have a clear conscience in Europe and to have 100% emissions in America and Asia with the jobs and the tax revenues going to these areas. This is a very pragmatic approach that nevertheless takes the environment and the economy into consideration. You are calling on the Commission to make more far-reaching proposals in individual areas. We will be happy to meet your demands. We are relying on the fact that progress will be made by other governments throughout the world during other global conferences and also after the elections in the US in the late autumn of this year. Finally, I want to encourage Parliament to continue to support us with its expert contributions and to make the appropriate demands on us. We believe that the European Union remains on the right track and we want to ensure by means of controls and transparency that we achieve the target of 20% and that nothing goes wrong in Europe. In the autumn we will be presenting to you our thoughts on the revision of the emissions trading system (ETS). We will be submitting a report, as we promised today in the proposal on energy efficiency, about whether the increase in efficiency will lead to a significant change in the market for CO . If necessary, we will have to investigate whether there will be shortages, to ensure that emissions trading remains an effective instrument for reducing CO emissions within the market economy."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:


The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph