Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-304"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.9.2-304"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jonckheer, ladies and gentlemen, last week, I was in Moscow with a delegation of this Parliament, where we tried to convince the Russian Parliament, the Duma, of the need to sign, as well as implement, the Kyoto Protocol, which was no mean feat.
We are asking the Russians to make an effort to combat climate change and environmental pollution. I personally experienced the need for this in the form of a serious chest irritation during my stay in Moscow. Even in Russia, a clean environment has a price tag, despite the pledges of financial support and cooperation. To bring this need to attention in Moscow is all the more difficult, given the fact that we in the European Union are already so reluctant to pay a price for a better environment.
The Council’s draft directive for energy taxation is a striking example of the lack of unanimity in making efforts to bring about a better environment. An environmental tax on energy has been the subject of discussion and negotiation for more than ten years. Only in the past six months, under Greek Presidency, did it seem possible to agree on a compromise text. However, it became a compromise that left something to be desired.
My first observation is that the Council is still lacking the vision and audacity to take decisive action and move the tax pressure from the area of labour to environmental pollution. In this way, employment can be promoted and environmental pollution given a real price. A second point of criticism concerns the many interests of the Member States and industries which are taken into account in the proposal. As a result, the proposal contains too many exceptions and exemptions. As such, the amendments that aim to restrict the conditions for exceptions receive my support.
I should like to bring to your attention a few other matters. First of all, I should like to argue in favour of biofuels being made exempt from energy taxation. In that way, the development of these clean fuels is given a fair chance. It would be quite ludicrous to grant subsidies to promote biofuels with one hand and levy taxes on these fuels with the other. Secondly, I should like to point out that it is important for the proposal on emissions trading to be taken into consideration. Both instruments can co-exist and complement each other. I should like to warn the Council to ensure that the directives do not overlap during implementation.
Finally, in his report, the rapporteur argues in favour of abolishing the unanimity rule where tax matters are concerned. Although I consider energy taxation to be a valuable instrument for reasons of content, I cannot share the view on the unanimity rule. This is why I will not be supporting Amendment No 13 although I support the rest of Mr Jonckheer’s report. The idea of energy taxation as a supplement to the agreements that have been reached with regard to emissions trading has been mooted before. It is time we were serious about its implementation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples