Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.12.1-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall confine myself to asking just a few questions about global warming, a subject on which ignorance goes hand in hand with very definite judgments.
First question: is it really the case that there is significant and ongoing warming? This now seems to be a solidly established fact, thanks in particular to what has happened to the expanses of ocean or to the great glaciers.
Second question: does global warming only have negative effects? That is not necessarily the case – in Siberia, for example, where the taiga and the tundra could give way to other landscapes – but it is certainly a different matter when it comes to the terrible progress of desertification in Africa or to meteorological disasters of the El Niño type.
Third question: if a decision is made to combat this phenomenon, is it certain that the phenomenon is basically due to human activity? Instances of warming and glaciation, which cannot be imputed to man, have taken place at least four times during the Quaternary period.
Fourth question: if global warming is indeed due to discharges of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere as a result of human beings burning organic fossil fuels, measures certainly need to be taken. Is it, however, worthwhile Western Europe’s making an effort at the cost of its own competitiveness when other powers such as the United States and China – respectively the world’s biggest and second-biggest polluters – wash their hands of the matter, thereby certainly compromising the success of the operation, and this in spite of the encouraging news from a number of US states, passed on to us by the previous speaker?
This brings me to my fifth and final question: systematic reforestation and the use of renewable or new sources of energy must without doubt be encouraged. However, we have to be realistic. We shall have to wait a long time before these energy sources are sufficient for our needs. In the meantime, should not some thought be given, even from an ecological point of view, to the diversification of energy sources and, in particular, to our having recourse to nuclear energy? Twenty-five years ago, France’s National Front was the first political force legitimately to draw attention to the risks of nuclear energy, a prediction sadly borne out by the Chernobyl disaster. Science moves on, however, and technology can develop. Fusion would be a process using matter that did not leave the waste generated by current processes, which remains dangerous for a long period. While waiting for progress in this area, there may exist, even for use in the fission process, elements such as thorium that present fewer risks than the elements with which we are at present familiar. This is a path upon which science can undoubtedly embark. A considerable effort is required, and it needs to be free from dogmatism of any kind."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples