Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.15.3-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit is a disappointment, for the reasons already stated. For the first time, the United Nations document mentions a two degree warming limit, but the emission limits stated by various countries at Copenhagen are the equivalent of more than a three degree rise in global warming. The last time it was three degrees warmer than now, the surface of the sea was 10 metres higher.
We have to acknowledge honestly that the EU did not show the sort of leadership it proclaims. The most important way for us to lead would have been, and still is, to aim for a more stringent emission reduction target of at least 30%. Our real target should be a reduction of 40%, if we were to heed the message of the climate scientists, as we quite rightly should. If we now stop short at a 20% reduction in emissions, it will mean that the EU has not meant anything by declaring the two degree warming limit that it has done for more than ten years now.
According to reports commissioned by a large number of governments, including the Dutch Government, a 20% reduction in emissions is a long way from the world’s most ambitious target. In the light of the information we have now, a 30% reduction target will cost less than what was estimated to be the cost of cutting emissions by 20% two years ago.
Of course, at Copenhagen there were countries that wanted to torpedo the talks. If the EU had led, it would have made this difficult for them. This time, the EU made it easy for them by blocking the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period, which is extremely important for the developing countries. It would be constructive to say that we are prepared for Kyoto’s second period on certain conditions, and it would be constructive to undertake to support climate action on the part of the economically less developed countries without recycling development cooperation money under a new heading.
From this meagre outcome, we now need to move on towards a proper climate agreement. It can only be internationally legitimate if negotiated via the United Nations. We also need a new form of climate diplomacy. It is not enough that our experts know their way through the technical jungle. We need patient diplomatic efforts to overcome the stumbling blocks and also to make the UN negotiating process a more viable one, so that, for example, it adopts rules on voting."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples