Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-237"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-01-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Outcome of the Copenhagen Summit on climate change (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100120.15.3-237"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-01-20-Speech-3-2382
lpv:speaker	lp:Andrzej Grzyb2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; DROI (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mrs Espinosa, Commissioner, the Spanish Presidency has decided to prepare an evaluation of the Copenhagen climate conference, while we are saying here, according to many speakers, that it ended in a fiasco. However, a fiasco does not have to be a disaster – sometimes you have to draw good conclusions from a fiasco and see what really caused it. Current European Union strategy for negotiation on climate protection needs to be evaluated, because preparations are under way for the next summit, to be held in Mexico in December this year. I have a question: should we increase the reduction objective, since the current objective was not achieved in these negotiations? We have to find partners for the present objective, and for an increased objective we do not have any partners at all. It needs to be pointed out that without the United States, China and India, and this has also been said many times in this Chamber during this debate, there will be no success with the objectives set by the European Union at the Copenhagen Summit. It will be similar in Mexico, too. We must evaluate the declaration of the other parties, maintaining, above all, the forum of the climate conference as the main forum for negotiation of an understanding, irrespective of the critical evaluations as to whether the UN forum is appropriate, good, working properly, etc. We want a green economy, which makes rational use of the environment and which develops new sources of energy and new technologies to generate energy and to save it. At the same time, we know that the cheapest energy is energy which has not been exhausted, and so we need to be rational. By the way – and this is my last sentence – reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases is not achieved by the use of expensive technologies. Very often, our own resources, such as forests and soil, can also be an excellent place for absorption, and this is biological absorption and, hence, effective absorption."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph