Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-10-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021010.1.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I will switch to English because Mr Davies called this a timid proposal. Is it a timid proposal? I would call it realistic. It is indeed a very new instrument. The only example of a trading system for air pollutants is in the USA. We are introducing a completely new, market-based instrument, so we will have to create a realistic and credible system. It has a broad scope because it covers 46% of all estimated CO2 emissions for 2010. It covers all large emitters of CO2 and it foresees future developments, for example, a time when we can monitor emissions other than CO2. Again, it has to do with credibility. Do you think that anyone would like to buy or sell on a market where they cannot rely on the rules, or in a system which is not monitored, where we do not have all the facts and are not sure about what we are doing?
We are interested. That has been our starting point to extend this proposal to all greenhouse gases. We will not do it, however, until we know that we can monitor, measure and be sure about what we are doing. We are not opposed to extensions to other sectors. Our starting point has been that we should do it when we have secured a system which we know we can rely upon. We have to build confidence in this new instrument. Maybe it is better to be prudent and realistic to start with. What would happen if we designed a system which was too ambitious and which then failed? That could kill this instrument.
We need a system with clear rules to promote transparency and confidence in the model, with no opt-outs because this will distort competition and reduce cost-effectiveness. It must also be a system that is simple and clear, with no special dispensations. It must be open to further extension through learning by doing. That is why we propose to start in 2005, leading up to 2008 with the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. This is the Commission's starting point, these are the Commission's guiding principles in designing this proposal.
Remember also that business trading is not the only instrument. We are addressing emissions from households and transport as well and we will have to go further on those areas. We have an agreement with the car industry on CO2 emissions. We have directives on energy efficiency in buildings, the promotion of public transport, and the promotion of renewable energy, amongst others. So it is clear that this is not the only instrument.
I will return to Mr Langen's comments because he was practically the only one who said that this was really a bad proposal. I take comfort from the fact that so many Members of Parliament have congratulated the Commission for a well-drafted and well-crafted proposal.
I would like to comment on a few of the main arguments used here. As regards voluntary participation or a temporary opt-out, Parliament is considering a transitional phase during which participation is not mandatory until 2008. As you have heard, I would like to make the case for a mandatory scheme from 2005. The case is a strong one. First of all, it will deliver the most in terms of cost-effectiveness. A broad scheme is needed to maximise cost-effectiveness and those savings of EUR 1.3 billion per year depend upon the full participation of all Member States. Second, it would be the best assurance of fair competition within the internal market. Would there not be a danger, with a voluntary scheme, of allowing those Member States who have done least to reduce emissions to continue to avoid taking any action? If Member States can choose which entities should be covered, the temptation will be to exempt those sectors which are exposed to competitive pressures. If one Member State wants to exempt its cement or electricity sectors, the others may be tempted to do so too, fearing that their companies will be disadvantaged in the internal market. If there are no sectors left, then there is no emissions trading and no learning by doing. I repeat that the cost-effectiveness of the instrument is directly linked to its coverage of the whole European Union. It is based on the wish for all existing Member States to take part.
To those who expressed fears that early action would be punished instead of rewarded – the 'first mover' advantage that has been mentioned – there are two comments. First, the directive as proposed by the Commission allows and even encourages Member States to recognise early action. The discussions in this Parliament and in Council tend to strengthen these provisions and I am pleased with that. This is a very important element of the proposal. It will urge the Member States to develop objective criteria such as the performance standards recommended by several Members. This, however, is a task for the Member States because our proposal is based on the principle of subsidiarity. It is not for the EU as a whole, at least not in the first phases. There is also a second consideration. This directive proposes an EU-wide system and it would therefore also bring on board the laggars. Success in coping with climate change depends as much on action by the laggars as it does on action by the early movers.
With regard to Mr Langen's comments, I believe there has been a basic misunderstanding. This is a new EU-wide measure, but it is not creating a new burden compared to the agreements reached in Kyoto. It does not change the burden-sharing within the European Union. That has already been made legally binding. This is an instrument, not a new objective. Those who have already done a lot will be able to sell their allowances which, at least according to our proposal, they would have got for free. Let us not forget that.
I will conclude because I see I am running out of time. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all Members of Parliament for a very interesting and rewarding debate on emissions trading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples