Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too should like to start with a few words of thanks. First of all to the Commissioner and her staff who have presented a sound proposal and were always prepared to discuss it with MEPs. Secondly to Mr Moreira da Silva, who has tried to improve the proposal with an admirable doggedness. And finally the colleagues of my own group who have had to sit through long discussions on this topic.
Tradable emission rights turned out to be a thorny subject. During all the difficult discussions, it was sometimes necessary to remind ourselves of what we are working towards, namely Kyoto. We must pursue the ambition of fighting climate change, and we must do this in an economically and socially responsible manner.
Three aspects were paramount in our group. First of all, we wanted to maintain, and where possible reinforce, the proposal's environmental integrity. We therefore endorse Mr Moreira da Silva's proposal to introduce a cap, a maximum ceiling, so that we can be certain that emission levels are indeed dropping. We are, in principle, in favour of cooperating in this area with Eastern European countries and developing countries, provided that this is done in a way that precludes the use of sinks and nuclear energy.
Secondly, the PSE Group wants the scheme we are drafting to be fair and to be experienced as such. This is why a credible sanctions policy should be put in place, this is why we want to absolutely avoid early innovators being disadvantaged and this is why the allocation method should also be the same wherever possible. Discrepancies that are too great between Member States lead to distortion in competition. It is still impossible to settle on one allocation method, be it grandfathering or auctioning, even within our group.
Thirdly, the scheme must be effective. This means that the market must be as big as possible: the more players, the more effective the scheme. I have to say that the discussion on this score was sometimes a little alienating. I am of the opinion that it is not at all in the interest of companies to make use of an opt-out clause, for these companies must reduce their CO2 emissions, come what may.
Businesses that fall within the scheme can – if they fail to reduce emissions – buy emission rights on the market. Businesses that do not fall within the scheme will need to switch off installations or even shut down divisions. In my view, this is not a particularly socially-minded solution. We as Socialists take employment seriously. This is why companies and trade unions do not stand to gain anything from an opt-out. It may therefore be a good idea to withdraw Amendment No 81.
It is of great importance for us to be able to announce progress in the European climate policy in New Delhi. Parliament is taking an important step today; it is the Council's turn next week. It is equally of major importance for us to flesh out the concept of sustainable development in the wake of Johannesburg.
With this decision on tradable emission rights, we do justice to the environment, but also to guiding principles in the social and economic field. We may not be agreed on the nuts and bolts, but this is the general line that we need to bear in mind. Today, we have the opportunity of opting in favour of sustainable development. Let us do so, therefore, with conviction."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples