Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-227"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.7.3-227"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Jackson said that the policies hid the fact that their implementation costs money and that it was hard-hitting. I do not know how the debate is conducted in other Member States, but in my own country, it is certainly no secret that big changes are needed to reduce emissions. The question was asked here concerning the effects of reductions in emissions on jobs. Personally, I am certain that the reduction of emissions will create jobs in some areas, but it is equally true that it will mean reduced employment in others. Those who will obtain jobs are not certain of it yet, but those who are losing them know a lot more about it, and, for that reason, unfortunately, there is much stronger lobbying from their side.
Many Members spoke of the need for financial controls and an energy tax. As you know, the Council cannot take a decision on this, so I cannot say anything at all on behalf of the Council. I can only state Finland’s position, which is that we believe it is very important for the Union to make headway in the creation of a common energy tax and we have also discussed the possibility of Member States, which are so inclined, moving forward faster in this area. One problem connected with this is whether such action would be of benefit in conflicts that could possibly arise with regard to EU competition legislation. For example, in my own country we experienced the situation where an energy tax that was brought in at national level in its first version was found to be in violation of the Union’s acts on competition. However, I think that energy taxes are one means of inducing market forces to reduce emissions and develop new, modern and clean technology, and I consider that to be very important.
Regarding the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, I would say that, as the rules for the Kyoto mechanisms and those to do with compliance with the commitments made have not yet been agreed, ratification at this stage would mean that we would not really know what we were ratifying. As these matters are being discussed internationally, I believe it is important that the EU holds the trump card, enabling it also to negotiate the terms on which it should be ratified. If the EU were to ratify it immediately, it would mean that, thereafter, it would no longer have any great significance when more precise rules were being discussed.
I agree with Mr Linkohr that, as the Union is committed to targets for reduced emissions, we also have to decide on action in respect of those Member States that are unable to meet their commitments. The Kyoto Protocol and the climate agreement also states that if a combined body of economic cooperation such as the EU cannot achieve the targets as a whole, responsibility for the targets set for it falls to all its Member States, in other words, if some Member States cannot meet their commitments, the Union will suffer as a whole.
Finally, I would like to stress that the idea, which has been expressed in these deliberations, that, if nothing is done, the temperature of the Earth will have increased by two degrees in a 100 years’ time, is wrong. Restricting the rise in temperature to just two degrees over the next 100 years will take much effort. If the current trend is allowed to continue uncontrolled, with no determined climatic policy, the rise in temperature of the earth will be a lot greater than two degrees in one hundred years, and all the corresponding effects it will have will be all the more dramatic."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples