Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-31-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070131.19.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although a lady Member has just said that political problems such as climate protection must not be talked about for too long if there is no solution to them, the opposite is also the case, in that, in politics, you have to take care that problems are not whipped up into the most important problem full stop and into something that presages the end of the world, without, at the end of the day, any solution being offered that really does amount to a change for the better.
It is also with a certain amount of concern that I see some recent debates being conducted in a way that loses touch with reality, with people talking about storms being caused by changes in climate, even though anyone who reads intelligent meteorology knows that that is not how it works. There are also certain questions that are simply not being asked, or not being answered, for example, why it is that, despite the worldwide increase in the amount of CO2 being generated over the past 120 years, a temperature increase of only 0.3 degrees is being recorded at most locations, and why it was that it was between 1930 and 1960 that there was the greatest increase in storms of the highest category, with a less marked increase over the last four decades? Why is it that we have no explanation for the fact that, even if all the industrialised nations were to reduce their greenhouse gas output by 30%, we would, by 2100, have done no more than delay the warming effect by six years?
I am not questioning the need for us to give this problem our urgent attention; I am merely asking whether we are giving it thorough enough consideration and whether we are perhaps sometimes acting precipitately without asking the right questions. We are discussing climate change, security of supply and competitiveness, albeit without weighing up the various points, and instead considering them in terms of what the alternatives are.
Why is no serious thought being given to the possibility of deriving 70% of the CO2-free electricity from nuclear power, for, if the protection of the climate is so important, surely all the alternatives have to be considered fearlessly and without ideological presuppositions, and one of those alternatives, in the future, will be nuclear energy. If we are to have this debate at all, it must be conducted on a broad basis, openly, and with the necessary time being set aside for it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples