Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.12.1-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.
There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very specific ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.
Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.
Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.
In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.
With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.
Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.
As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.
We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.
Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.
We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.
The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.
In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.
It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples