Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.10.2-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"May I start by warmly congratulating not only Mr Moreira da Silva, but also the Commissioner and her officials, who really have pulled out all the stops to produce a good proposal.
This was an extremely controversial proposal. There has been much weighing up of the pros and cons in many a European boardroom, in many Member States and therefore within the political groups as well. How will this impact on our business? What will the options be for new investments in production capacity? What will an expansion cost if we have to purchase rights? And finally, what will the consequences be for the competitiveness of industries that are already finding it difficult, such as the refining industry, the chemical industry and the iron and steel industry?
Mr President, what we seemed almost to have forgotten in the discussions was that we were all there when agreements were made in Kyoto and that this directive on emission trading was simply a good way of ensuring that the reduction tasks could be implemented in a very efficient manner. That was the underlying intention of this proposal. In other words, how to use an economic tool to serve the environment. Trading in what one business has too much of and another too little.
The path to the compromise, which I otherwise support, was not an easy one. The economic interests for European industry as a whole were great and a European approach to the problem therefore went without saying. At the same time we had to put on record that a European approach was also very difficult because there were such great differences in starting positions, not only because the environment has been rather better implemented in one Member State than another, but also because the objectives of the Member States were so different.
Yet something good came out of it. The political compromise takes the existing differences into account. Agreements have been made for benchmarking and
I am very happy with them, likewise with the Commission’s control of them. It has also been agreed that the auctioning, in any event for the first but also for the second period, is allowed but is not compulsory.
Mr President, I appreciate what has been achieved, especially the benchmarking, and for that I thank my fellow Members, in particular Mr Blokland, and once again the rapporteur."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples