Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, over the past few months, we in Parliament, and outside, have witnessed a heated debate on the greenhouse effect. Do the use of fossil fuels and the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form a serious threat or is it just hot air? After all, recent research has shown that, although the role of CO2 emissions by people is restricted and that emissions trading can make a limited contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, the problem cannot actually be solved.
Is emissions trading therefore pie in the sky? I do not think so. The belief that a reduction in CO2 emissions is only of limited value in reducing the greenhouse effect is in my view wrong. If it indeed transpires that the part people play in causing the greenhouse effect can be minimised, emissions trading will have achieved one thing, namely that we are now more aware of, and more economical in the use of, our natural resources. With this, a second, unassailable goal has been achieved, namely that if we want to have long-term use of such natural resources as coal, oil and gas, we will need to learn to treat these in a responsible manner.
Making more economical use of natural resources means treating them differently from how we treat them now. In other words, compared to our present way of doing things, we must use them differently. It is therefore of great importance to ensure that this is also reflected in the way emission rights are allocated. This is why, together with the PPE-DE Group, our group has tabled amendments in order to have a kind of benchmark included in the directive. The comparison of energy consumption levels to determine the allocation of emission rights is an extra incentive for companies to take measures in order to reduce their energy consumption. In this way, industry is offered the opportunity, based on mutual and historical comparison, to reduce CO2 emissions by consuming energy in an innovative way. This is a greater incentive than introducing an energy levy, and it also places some of the social responsibility with entrepreneurs and industry.
Consequently, all the proposals tabled recently to weaken the directive and restrict its scope do not contribute towards improved energy policy in a constructive manner. Quite the reverse. Based on the idea that certain countries will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, attempts are thus made to restrict the countries' own contribution so as not to experience any economic disadvantage. The fact that this idea is based on an incorrect assumption is self-evident. After all, a reduction in energy consumption makes sense from an economic point of view too.
This has regrettably, led to many amendments being tabled which, if adopted, will seriously hamper the effectiveness of the emissions trading instrument. Voting in the various committees has demonstrated, though, that many amendments cannot therefore count on sufficient support. I am referring to the amendments that require other sectors to be added and that allow many exceptions to the rule. In addition, Amendment No 97 on co-incineration should be rejected, because it reinforces the uneven playing field of waste incineration plants versus co-incineration plants. Unlike waste incineration plants, real production processes take place at co-incineration plants, to which no exceptions should apply. This complicates the directive unnecessarily. I would therefore urge you not to support proposals of this kind.
Mr President, I will wind up by saying that solutions for a better living environment and a better future are often not obvious, certainly not in today's economic climate. Not only the economic climate is a decisive factor in this matter, however. Our role as stewards of God's creation requires us to manage the earth and its resources well. I am absolutely convinced that this is of key significance for our commitment to the sustainable use of our Earth's resources. Emissions trading can be a means to this end."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples