Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.24.2-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank all the speakers for their contributions to this afternoon’s discussion. We see that they are very concerned about this global problem and how the European Union is responding to it.
I would like to say a few words about the so-called ‘over-allocation’ of allowances to installations that are covered by the emissions trading system. It is a fact that we had about 3% more allowances allocated than actual emissions. That could be for various reasons, one of which could be that companies’ installations reacted to the emissions saving system and the obligations arising from the system, and they have made the most obvious and easiest reductions in emissions by improving energy efficiency, for example, or through other easy-to-take measures. It was the case in Germany that we had a real reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide from installations. Another reason could be the very mild winter that we had in 2005, which reduced the cost of heating, and – perhaps the main reason – the companies participating in the system were over-optimistic about their business growth and over-estimated their emissions, while the Member States were complacent in accepting their figures.
But, during the second trading period, we have made it quite clear to all Member States that the 12 criteria of the directive should be kept, especially for those countries that did not contract to achieve their individual quota target, which will contribute to the overall target for the European Union. Also, the actual emissions that we have now should be taken into full account.
I am going to be tough but fair with Member States regarding the national allocation plans and am very glad for the support for this approach that has been obvious from your contributions today.
The onus is firstly on governments to propose plans to the Commission which ensure that the European Union emissions trading system delivers its contribution to achieving our quota targets. At the same time, all stakeholders should engage in the process of improving and expanding the European Union scheme, so as to secure a global carbon market that can deliver the emissions reductions necessary to tackle climate change.
I would like to thank you for the rich debate with encouraging and important contributions and for your continued support for the fight against global warming and the threat posed to future generations.
Before I continue, I should like to assure Mrs Doyle that this discussion was not used as a cover by the Commission, for the simple reason that it was Parliament and not us who asked for this debate. So it cannot be a cover-up. Also, concerning my failure to mention that Ireland submitted a National Allocation Plan, I have it in my papers. I said ten Member States and I thought I mentioned Ireland, but if you did not hear it, then you are right.
Looking further ahead, concerning the review, I am now preparing a high-quality review of the European Union emissions trading scheme to identify improvements to be made beyond 2012. This could not be done before because until 30 June 2006 we had not even received the actual emissions. The emissions were reported on 15 May 2006, but some countries sent their actual emissions on 30 June 2006. So how could we have the review before we received the actual emissions?
Later this year, following the adoption of the European Union emissions trading system review report in the coming weeks, the Commission will activate a stakeholder group under the auspices of the European Climate Change Programme to intensify the debate on the review. I firmly believe that we need to focus the review debate early in the process to ensure a high-quality outcome. The priority issues to be tackled in the review are, therefore, the harmonisation and extension of the scope of the directive, further harmonisation and more predictability of the cap-setting and allocation process – including consideration of competitiveness, more robust compliance and enforcement of the rules and the linking to trading schemes in third countries and increased involvement of developing countries.
The Commission has already confirmed its intention to address aviation’s climate change impact through emissions trading. There are a number of good ideas to make emissions trading more effective, including giving longer-term certainty on allocations and increasing harmonisation in a number of areas.
We need more time to discuss and further develop these valuable ideas. I am therefore aiming for the Commission to present a legislative proposal in the course of 2007.
Here I should like to give a short answer regarding the concern expressed about power companies making windfall profits by pricing in the cost of allocations, although they receive them for free. Some companies have done that. The electricity price rose, not only because of the emissions trading system, but mainly because of high fuel prices and because of the lack of competition in the power and gas market – a lack of liberalisation. However, as one colleague mentioned, perhaps auctioning could be a solution, along with liberalisation, so we would avoid having windfall profits by power companies with consumers paying a higher price for electricity. According to the directive, auctioning is permitted for the second trading period, up to 10%. That is going to be one of the issues that will be discussed during the review period of the directive.
Looking back, we can say that the infrastructure for emissions trading is sound and the market in allowances is developing rather well. In the first year of operations, 2005 – at least according to World Bank data – 320 million allowances are reported to have been traded via market intermediaries, valued at more than EUR 6 million. So, no one can say that the emissions trading system has failed.
In 2006, the monthly trading volume has increased steadily, with volumes of 80 to 100 allowances in a busy month. A number of organised exchanges across Europe are offering platforms for trading allowances and a number of other market intermediaries, such as brokers, are also active in the market."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples