Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-15-Speech-2-256"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090915.19.2-256"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Regarding the United States, the new Administration has committed to reductions which are considerably more ambitious than those of the previous administration. However, they are still not as ambitious as those to which the European Union has committed, and fall below the level that science is telling us is required in order to keep global warming below 2°C, as was agreed by all the leaders of the major economies in July 2009 in L’Aquila, including the Americans, the Chinese and the leaders of the other countries that you mentioned.
Regarding the impact assessment and the issues of competitiveness, these were discussed at length when we adopted the Energy and Climate Package. Many studies have been carried out not only by the Commission but also by industry and by various sectors. The provisions that we have in our legislation will provide the assurances needed to preserve the competitiveness of other European industries, especially small and medium-sized enterprises by, for example, granting free allowances, in many cases up to 100% of their emissions.
So this is something that we are taking into account and, of course, the same applies when we go to 30%. Additionally, if we go to 30%, it will mean that we shall have an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen where all developed countries will undertake similar comparable reduction targets to the European Union and developing countries will accept mitigation actions which will create a level playing field for the whole world. We shall then have comparable reduction obligations which will mean that the problem of competitiveness will not exist.
But the discussions in the United States are ongoing. The Markey-Waxman bill has been voted on in the House and is now going to be voted on in the Senate. There are quite a lot of provisions which need clarification, and we have to see what the net result will be at the end, because this bill could be more ambitious than it appears to be today.
For example, if the calculation of emission reductions includes those achieved by investments in ‘avoided deforestation’ – depending on whether this is calculated in the United States’ emission reduction target, or in the financing, or whatever – this is something which must be clarified in order to determine the comparability between the targets of the United States and the European Union and other developed countries.
The fact is that we are encountering a very positive attitude from this Administration, we are working closely with them, and we hope that together we shall work for a good result in Copenhagen, namely an agreement with the elements that I described previously.
Regarding Brazil, China, India, Mexico and other developing countries, of course we expect from them a reduction in the rate of growth of their emissions of the order of 15% to 30% below ‘business as usual’. This is again what science is telling us is necessary in order to keep global warming below 2 °C. Reductions by developed countries alone will not suffice.
Some of these countries have already taken national measures which will lead to reductions in emissions, either by energy efficiency measures or investments in renewable sources of energy, but we need to intensify our cooperation with them – exchange of information, cooperation regarding technologies and transfer of technology – in order to achieve the reductions that we need.
Regarding cost reduction and, as you mentioned, energy efficiency, clearly all investments in energy efficiency are win-win-win situations. For example, by reducing the consumption of imported oil, not only do you save money, and you do not pay it to the oil-producing countries, but you also reduce CO
emissions.
In many countries, especially developing countries, where there are problems with air pollution – the air pollution problem in China, for example, is very well known – there will be the collateral benefit of improving air quality.
Concerning the related problem of water and food, both of these are objectives of the European Union’s policies. We do support policies that will improve the sanitary quality and supply of water, especially in very poor countries. Regarding food, we were very careful, for example, when we examined the Biofuels Directive, that there should be no competition between feedstocks for food and biofuel. We always take account of these important issues."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples