Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am pleased to be able to address the European Parliament on the emissions trading proposal. I am proud of this proposal because I see it as a cornerstone of the European Union's cost-effective implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
To maximise the cost-effectiveness of emissions trading, a number of preconditions are necessary: first, there must be clear rules; second, clear targets must be set for operators by allocating a fixed number of allowances according to fair and transparent criteria; third, the market should be as large as possible and include both potential sellers and potential buyers; fourth, in order to ensure compliance with the rules a strong framework is necessary. These are the guiding principles upon which we have formulated our proposal and I strongly recommend them to this Parliament.
Finally, I would add that the EU's credibility is at stake. We are being closely watched from all corners of the globe to see whether the EU will live up to its leadership credentials. We need to show that EU is serious and we need to start implementing the necessary measures in order to fulfil our commitments in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and beyond.
First, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Moreira Da Silva, for his unstinting efforts in bringing this proposal to its first reading. I know there were approximately 500 amendments in Committee, but we now have a much more manageable 100 amendments.
In February 2002, this House gave a resounding endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. We in the European Union were the first of the developed countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The European Community and all the Member States are now legally and politically committed to targets which limit greenhouse gas emissions. We must now take decisions to ensure that we continue to develop our leadership role and deliver on these promises. We politicians all understand that there are costs involved in respecting Kyoto. We want these costs to be as low as possible. Today's debate is a means to that end.
Without additional measures, however, the European Union as a whole will not meet its obligations under Kyoto. Indeed, several Member States are off-track. In order to fulfil our commitments we need tools both at national and Community levels. Emissions trading should be one of these tools. If emissions trading is not used, the Member States will have to use other policies and measures. The European Climate Change Programme is currently examining measures with stakeholders and emissions trading was among those identified as preferable.
We are talking about using a market-oriented instrument for the first time as an EU environment policy instrument. We all appreciate that this is a challenge. With this in mind, the Commission proposed a straightforward scheme that was mandatory from the start, concentrated on a limited but considerable number of key actors and which focused on CO2, the main greenhouse gas. The big prize before us is the establishment of an EU-wide scheme that will be extensive and will cover approximately half the CO2 emissions of the fifteen current Member States, candidate countries that will be Member States by the time this directive enters into force, and countries of the European Economic Area.
In an era of increasingly integrated markets, the European institutions cannot stand back and let each country develop different national emissions trading schemes. We should all be concerned about the impact on the internal market if different systems were to develop, and the possibility of fragmentation in the evolving internal market in greenhouse gas emission allowances. Individual national schemes are not big enough on their own to maximise the economic benefits of emissions trading. Therefore we need an emissions trading system which operates across the whole EU. The Commission believes that an EU-wide system can save 35% of the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, or EUR 1.3 billion each year by 2010. This is a very considerable cost saving that should be welcomed by everyone, including industry.
It is true that in some sectors of industry, there are cheaper cost-reduction potentials than in others. Emissions trading uses market forces to ensure that reductions are made where it is cheapest and everyone benefits from these cheaper options. Those who make these reductions are rewarded for doing so and those who do not have such cheap options can buy allowances for less than it would cost them to reduce emissions themselves. Plant managers, who know the costs better than anyone, should decide whether to go for option one or the other. Furthermore, within an EU-wide scheme, the price of an allowance would be the same wherever the plant may be.
Emissions trading for sulphur and nitrous oxide emissions was so successful in the US that the US continues to develop emissions trading for pollutants other than greenhouse gases. If we can demonstrate that emissions trading can also be applied to greenhouse gases, we will be able to show the US a way in which it may rejoin the international process in limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Not only can the EU show them how it is done, but it can also save money at the same time.
If emissions trading is a good idea, then it makes sense to start as soon as is practicable. I strongly believe that we should start in 2005, then, by the time the Kyoto Protocol become legally binding in 2008, we will have gained experience and, if necessary, fine-tuned our use of the instrument."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples