Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-459"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.41.2-459"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers in today’s discussion for their very constructive contributions and I urge you to support this compromise package before us today. By adopting this compromise agreement the European Union will be demonstrating that with sufficient political will it is possible to adopt the concrete measures necessary to combat climate change and that it is possible to do so at reasonable cost. If 27 countries with very different social and economic realities can agree in a relatively short time on a very complex and far-reaching set of measures, why should it not be possible to come to a similar agreement internationally? During last week’s United Nations conference in Poznań it was clear that the world’s eyes were on Europe and that our actions will have a decisive and positive influence on the international negotiations.
The last point I would like to make concerns the issue of whether the package is a threat, because I have heard some of our colleagues saying that this is a threat to their economies, especially, auctioning. But I remind you that the revenue that will be generated from auctioning remains with the Member States; it does not go abroad, to other countries, it remains with the country, with its finance ministry, and it can be used for good causes and could even be used for social issues. If there is an electricity price increase, if there are energy poor, you can rebate part of the increase of the electricity price. Consequently I do not understand the ‘threat’ caused by auctioning to the economies of those countries: the whole package is consistent with tackling the economic crisis. I do not have more time now to argue about this, but there was a big discussion on this and I am not going back.
Let me finish my intervention by expressing my sincere thanks to the European Parliament, the Presidency and the Council for the excellent cooperation on the package and the related proposals on carbon dioxide and cars and the fuel quality directive. I particularly appreciate the constructive role this House, and especially the rapporteurs, have played in securing an agreement between the institutions on this crucial package. By adopting this package you will ensure that the European Union has the concrete measures to deliver on its reduction commitments and will be reconfirming Europe’s leadership on climate change at a crucial juncture for the international negotiations. The larger the majority in favour of these measures, the stronger the signal we will send to our international partners about our determination to address climate change, and the more effective it will be in convincing them to follow our example. I therefore strongly urge you to support the compromise package before us today.
I would like to make short comments on some points that have been much discussed tonight.
Firstly, on cars: through the compromise proposal our first achievement will be that we are going to have mandatory standards for European car manufacturers, which is very important, so this alone is a reason for voting for the proposal which is part of the package. It also contributed to achievement of the targets in the non-ETS sector by about one third under the original proposal of the Commission but will still contribute about one fourth under the proposal as it stands now, and if the long-term target of 95 g is taken into account we could again reach the one third that we originally aimed at. Of course – as Chris Davies has said – it is in the interests of European car manufacturers to move fast towards the technological innovations to reduce the fuel consumption by cars because in this way they will take advantage sooner of the social shift towards cleaner cars and, by doing that, they will profit. And of course the consumers will pay smaller fuel bills and the environment will benefit from this production of cleaner cars. So even as it stands and being part of the whole package I think you should vote for it.
Secondly, auctioning: there is a lot of criticism as to why we should reduce auctioning. But still in the first and second trading period the maximum auctioning was 4%: 4% of the allowances were auctioned. Now we are going to over 50%, even after the reduction. Auctioning is very important, it is the best way of allocating allowances, it works according to the polluter pays principle, it does not permit the creation of windfall profits and it will generate funds which are needed in the fight against climate change and for other good causes. But still this incentive remains: we are going to have more than 50% and this percentage will increase year by year. If some of the countries that have an opt-out for the power sector do not use it – which is my opinion – when the time comes this percentage will go up even further.
About the windfall profits which could occur because of free allocations, free allowances: Member States who are very much concerned about it still have the possibility of taxing these windfall profits. Thus there is a way of dealing with this if there is political will and you, the Members of the European Parliament, you also have a voice in your home country.
With regard to the use of external credits in the non-ETS sector, the effort-sharing sector, I was confused by some of the arguments that were made today. Are we not in favour of the CDMs? Do we not support the flexible mechanisms of Kyoto? Are we going to be against them in the international agreement in Copenhagen? Do you think a very difficult agreement in Copenhagen without these flexible mechanisms could be impossible?
So what is your position? I do not understand it. Are you against these flexible mechanisms, against making investments in developing countries, transferring technology there, and reducing emissions and of course getting the credit for them? Of course we have to have a balance so as not to carry out most of them there. We have to carry them out here, in the European Union, domestically, because it is better for our economies, it is better for adjusting to the low-carbon needs of the future and it will give our business and industry a first-mover advantage. It will be an incentive for developing new technologies, energy efficiency and promoting renewable sources of energy.
So of course we have to keep the balance and I think that the balance has not been much disturbed by a 10% increase in the use of external credits in the non-ETS sector, because this is what we are talking about. And again, in response to arguments from Members of the European Parliament from countries which have asked for this derogation, I say: Okay, tell your countries not to use this derogation. It is up to you to influence public opinion and the governments in your countries not to use this additional 1%.
I believe that in the end, because we have so many conditions for the additional 1%, most of it will not be used. I remind you that use of this additional 1% in CDM projects should be in the least-developed countries. If I remember well, at the United Nations conference in Poznań the main argument that we had with developing countries was that we do not carry out many projects in those countries. One of the issues that we discussed was how to distribute these projects better among the developing countries and especially the least developed countries. Of course it is very important for the quality of the CDMs to be high; we discussed this in United Nations conference in Poznań and we made some progress. I hope that by the time that we have the Copenhagen Conference we shall have finished the discussion regarding the improvement and the transparency of CDMs and the additionality condition which is absolutely necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples