Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.16.3-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, access to energy and the handling of climate change constitute the two great challenges that the human race will have to face in the twenty-first century. That was said, not by me, but by the President of the European Council, Chancellor Merkel, here in this House a fortnight ago, and so the Commission and the Presidency are only being consistent when they prioritise the battle against climate change as part of their work programme.
It has to be said, though, that it is no less important that such words be backed up by action. As the Stern report made clear, the economic damage done by uncontrolled climate change is comparable, economically speaking, only with that done in the course of the Second World War. In my electoral district, we have a tangible example of this, one that people talk about, for we experienced the storm ‘Kyrill’, which caused thousands of people to sustain serious losses, since my electoral district was at its epicentre. Although climate change cannot be blamed for every storm, the researchers are pretty certain that the accumulation of extreme meteorological occurrences can no longer be overlooked.
That is why our aim must be to reduce emissions by 30% by the year 2020; we should do everything possible to that end. Like many other Members of this House, I do believe that talking in terms of 20% was – to say the least – confusing, for the impression was conveyed that the 20% figure was not to be taken too seriously, yet seriously is just how we should take it.
We now also have the chance to get something done about this at the international level, for in the USA, for example, the debate has undergone fundamental change in the aftermath of Katrina. After what has happened over the last few months, we have a far greater chance than in the past of doing something about it together, so, realistically, nobody should take it for granted that we will get nowhere; instead, we should do everything possible to actually get an international agreement in place.
It is good that this House should be preparing a response to the Commission’s statement, but it is also good that we are not voting on it as early as tomorrow, for there is a resolution from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in which there is much sense; even so, we still have to haggle over it if we are to be able, in Strasbourg, and with the agreement of the other committees, to be able to respond with the utmost clarity.
I, for example, take the view that the Committee on Environment’s resolution’s treatment of nuclear energy is quite irrelevant and very poor; that is not fit for purpose and there is room for us to make some improvements there, but what we must do is to send out a clear signal in favour of more being done to handle climate change. According to one survey, that is what 98% of people expect Europe’s policymakers to do, and we should not disappoint them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples