Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Wallström started by describing how inadequate the European Union's climate protection measures have been up to now. It is for that reason that we want to negotiate another new instrument on emissions law. We all – myself included – say ‘yes’ to that. At the same time, though, I say that, if we break down the overall picture of emissions in the European Union, it can be observed that some are already heavily involved in reducing greenhouse gases and others are not. I believe that we must not allow this additional new instrument to call into question the efforts that have already – and with some success – been made, and in view of which we should not be using a straitjacket to wreck structures that have been successful in reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This means that there are two things I see as important: the first is greater flexibility, and the second is fair conditions.
If I may start with greater flexibility, I know a business in my part of the world, which has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27% since 1990. Why on earth should this business join the emissions trading system, when it has good business reasons for saying that it does not want to? On the other hand, there is a business that is interested, even though it is not covered by the directive. Having themselves reduced CO2, they are happy to join in. In so far, I am in favour of making it possible to opt in and out. Opting in, as provided for in the proposal from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, strikes me as completely satisfactory, whereas opting out does not; the two are not parallel, in that one can opt out only up to 31 December 2007. I therefore want to put the case for leaving the conditions equal, so that if someone leaves, he is not wholly exempted, but must comply with the same emission reductions as he would if he were still in, but without this 2007 deadline. I would therefore like to urge you to vote in favour of Amendment No 81.
I now turn to the second area, which has to do with fair conditions. We must of course ensure that businesses that get stuck in and have already made the effort since 1990 should have this taken into account when emission allowances are handed out. Moreover, it is not acceptable that closures and relocations of firms should be brought into play to acquire emission allowances that are then sold at a profit, thus putting jobs at risk. These emission allowances must lapse. If we take the two together – flexibility and fair conditions – it will be with a clear conscience that we can say ‘yes’ to using emissions trading to protect the climate, but under flexible and fair conditions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples