Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-09-Speech-2-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100309.22.2-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, first to Mr Seeber, about the IPCC and why did we not criticise that or whatever we were supposed to do in this paper: I must say that, although I think it is crucial for the IPCC to take the criticism seriously and try to correct where there are things that need correction, I have seen nothing to date that changes my profound understanding and feeling that, yes, we need to address climate change. There are things, details, leaked mails and all these kinds of things. I have seen nothing more profound that would change my profound attitude and I think that goes for very many, so that is very much deliberate. I think that the IPCC itself must try to be careful now to restore confidence in whatever comes out of the IPCC.
This is just an opening for discussion, saying, yes, these are bargaining chips in the international negotiations, but we should not forget there is also a domestic side to this. Where will our growth come from in the future? There, we should be careful of not being ambitious enough.
I very much agree with the point that you almost did not have time to raise – the issue of trust – and that is also why we have a substantial outreach, a thing that is crucial for the European Union.
Mrs Ulvskog, you mentioned that I spoke more about 2050 than 2010. This is a strategy on the way forward for 2012. We already have our policy for right now, 2010, in the European Union, so this is a strategy looking forward. Where I think that one of the new things to pay attention to is that we start to say we must define the pathways between 2020 and 2050, and that is why I will come up with something on what should be achieved by 2030.
The year 2020 is only 10 years away. In this Commission period, we must also lay the path for where we are going to be by 2030, so that was very deliberate and that is one of the new things in this.
I definitely do not want to lower expectations but I would be very careful not to raise expectations so high so that those who do not want the international negotiations to succeed could kill the process after Mexico if we do not achieve anything. That is why we must be practical. I will defend before anyone that up to Copenhagen, it was right to keep expectations high, to keep the pressure there and to bring this to the top of the agenda of Heads of State. It made them responsible; it made emerging economies and the United States set domestic targets; it was important. But only once can you do a thing like this and then not achieve it fully. My fear is we cannot do it twice.
Why not, then, make a specific roadmap in Bonn, guaranteeing momentum is being kept here? That is the thinking.
Finally, to Chris Davies, yes you are right. We are depending on others to make progress, and that is also why we must do the average and try to analyse the information we get. What is going on in Beijing? What is going on in Delhi? What is going on in Washington? What is going on in the US Congress? And then try to see that, by taking all of these things into consideration, we can, at the same time, ensure that we still have our objective met, namely a legally binding, truly international deal.
You mentioned this 30%, if the conditions are right – yes, you are right, this is a new way of putting it. There are footnotes also in the 2020 strategy referring to policies hitherto, that it is provided that other nations ... and so on and so forth, but I think if conditions are right, and maybe if we do this intelligently, it could also benefit Europe itself. We also need to have that in our different strategies and papers.
I know that this is one area where there is not consensus in Europe at this stage. I think it is important to consider this. Say that, for instance, China will not accept an international agreement, would we then stand still for ever on 20%? How would that benefit our economy, our innovation, our growth? Would we not risk losing the markets to China and other regions that are moving on this agenda as well, no matter whether and when we get an international deal?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples