Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-24-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080424.5.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Ferreira for a good report on an important subject and for enjoyable and excellent cooperation. If the EU is actually going to live up to the many fine words spoken in connection with our targets for the climate and the environment, it is crucial that we politicians take responsibility and make the difficult decisions of behalf of our electorate. One of the effective tools that we have at our disposal is to limit consumption levels that create pressure on the environment by making the polluter pay. This is an excellent principle that everyone is agreed on but that has so far not been taken seriously in cases where it really does cost the polluter. For example, motorists’ costs have never been reflected in the cost of transport. One of the first things that we should do is to internalise what are popularly referred to as ‘external costs’. This would be a significant step forwards. It is of course also possible to go further in controlling the consumption of polluting substances through even tougher financial means, and let me say here that I simply do not understand why it is not possible to combine CO2 charges with an emission trading scheme. I simply do not understand this.
The use of an environmentally sound pricing policy is an effective way of using the market within environmental policy, not as a substitute for mandatory requirements and bans, but alongside them; this has also been suggested by the Commission. Concerns are often raised that the use of these market-based methods could have a skewed social impact. However, there is a need to be aware of hypocrisy. Consumption taxes usually have a fair impact, as the richest are also those who consume the most and who therefore pay the most. If there is a desire to do something about the difficulties being experienced by the poor in paying for essential consumption, there are many other methods that can be used which do not involve green taxes. For example, ordinary taxation, social and wage policies are much more appropriate if we take our responsibility for caring for the less well off seriously.
One method that will not work here is based on the establishment of a type of basic consumption that is made cheaper or even free. Firstly, consumption will always be relatively high; however, the worst aspect of the model is that it does not provide any incentive to make savings. Thus, in spite of everything, progressive taxation using green taxes is better. However, the very best thing to do is to keep these market-based instruments free of other considerations if they are really to be effective in the battle to save the environment, climate and nature. It is a good thing that concern for social distortion is so great; however, in this case it is a question of saving our living space for our descendents."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples