Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100120.15.3-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if we can learn anything from Copenhagen, then it is a sense of reality. I still remember the debate we had here in this House before Copenhagen. Everyone was glowing with optimism, but it came to nothing. It was an international conference with its own rules, and we can achieve little with good will alone. So, let us approach the next negotiations in Mexico with the necessary sense of reality.
If we were to assess Copenhagen, we have to say, to be fair, that it was not so bad, because the result can serve as a basis for the negotiations in Mexico and something, at least, was achieved. The greatest disappointment for us Europeans has to be that we – the EU – were not there when the final document was drawn up. That must give us pause for thought, because we are always emphasising the fact that we are the ones who want to take a leading role in the global fight against climate change.
Why should this be? First of all, probably because, with our 14% CO
emissions, we are not among the largest emitters. The US and China together account for almost half. However, in Europe, we do not speak with one voice. The last Environment Council showed very clearly how different the views are there. Many Member States view the problem very differently to the majority in this House, for example.
However, another reason is surely the fact that we Europeans are not as good as we always claim to be. If we take these clean development mechanisms, in other words, these joint implementation measures, and the other measures out of the equation and consider only our own measures for reducing CO
emissions, then we can see that our balance sheet is not as good as we maintain.
Thirdly, we also have to say that other countries and other regions of the world have a different approach to this problem. Our big goal is a legally binding agreement. However, China and the US are opting for a different route.
Overall, we need to consider whether we should not be more flexible in our negotiations, because working together to combat the phenomenon of climate change is important, but the methods we employ to achieve this could be quite different."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples