Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-277"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.11.3-277"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Firstly I would like to thank Mr Moreira da Silva for his clear-sighted and pertinent analyses, and for the excellent proposals he has put forward in both his reports. However, I wish to express a few reservations in the case of the early implementation of what must be called ‘a system of entitlement to pollute’.
I would like to repeat that, if we have to recognise the system of trading in CO2 emission rights as one of the provisions of our international agreements which we cannot go back on, the Commission seems to forget that this mechanism is just one of the systems described as flexible by the Kyoto Protocol.
As a result, this mechanism must be looked upon not as a frontline tool but, on the contrary, as an instrument complementary to other measures aimed at reducing greenhouses gases. We are fully aware that this mechanism does not encourage companies to become less polluting and to change their ways, and that, if nothing else is done, especially in the area of transport, we will certainly not achieve the objectives set by the Kyoto Protocol. The Commission Green Paper can thus be accused of putting the cart before the horse and of urging the European Union to put in place a system of advance trade in CO2 emission rights, even though it is not obliged to do so, especially vis-à-vis its commercial partners.
On this point, it seems to me that there is a case for backing one of the amendments tabled by my colleagues in the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, who deem it necessary to stay the implementation of a system of entitlement to pollute until the Council and the Member States have drawn up and ratified an operational plan of measures to reduce greenhouse gases, encompassing all the sectors involved, especially transport and agriculture.
What is more, the Commission remains silent on the economic and social consequences that this system cannot fail to create. But can we seriously ignore the unacceptable practices which will inevitably result from the capitalist strategies of the most polluting industries? Can we act as if we did not know that some industrial groups will merge at the cost of redundancies, and buy up non-polluting or less polluting companies with the sole purpose of recovering their right to pollute before relocating them or purely and simply closing them down?
Finally, where are our environmental objectives in this sort of international stock market of pollution rights and what can be expected of a system which simply opens up a huge market of rights on behalf of countries which, like Russia, may today have room for manoeuvre, not by virtue of bringing their factories up to the required standards, but quite simply by virtue of a dramatic reduction in their industrial output. To conclude, I think that we must press for the implementation of a framework agreement of cooperation between Russia and the European Union so as to put in place …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples