Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-295"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.10.2-295"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my warm thanks to Mr Jorge Moreira as rapporteur. He has fought with much energy, determination and expertise for a good and practical system of greenhouse gas emissions trading. I would also like to thank the Commission for its strong support for such a system, but I have to be perfectly honest and say that I am disappointed with the Council. I think we would have achieved more and could have got a better system if the Council and my own government in particular had been more constructive. Unfortunately, some Member States, Germany among them, tried for a long time to torpedo the whole system and weaken it. The upshot is that the compromise we now have is not as good as it might have been if everyone had sought a constructive solution from the outset.
I think some problems are inevitable unless great care is now taken with national implementation and monitoring by the Commission. The aim of the system is to cut the costs of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol and – much more important – to create an incentive for undertakings to develop new ways of saving energy and greenhouse gases. Market economics is a powerful system; it is capable of opening up potential, if only we set the right conditions. Market economics should also therefore be brought to bear on environmental protection, which is what this system seeks to do.
As I said, the Commission and the Member States now carry a heavy responsibility for implementation because the compromise is not as precise as Jorge Moreira and Parliament as a whole would have liked, but was watered down somewhat by the Council. Now, some risk of over-allocation still remains and the Commission will have to watch things very carefully; there is also still a risk of allocations being made that have no regard for the technical possibilities. We all know that coal can very easily be replaced by gas or other energy sources, but it is not so easy to cut CO2 emissions for lime, cement and steel. That must be taken into account when allowances are allocated, otherwise it will not be fair."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples