Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-363"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.20.3-363"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I thought I could limit myself to three basic comments after this lively debate, but I find I should firstly respond to a very direct question from Mr Pargneaux: I think that we can make good progress on the architecture for a green fund. However, for many parties, some of the very specific sources of finance will probably need a bit more looking into – as it is only two weeks since the High-Level Panel from the UN came forward with these various inputs.
My final comment is to Mr Leinen and Mr Arsenis, who both said that they were afraid that Cancún is being downplayed too much. I think that to say that we want an ambitious, substantial and balanced outcome – with all the elements that I mentioned and that the Belgian Presidency has mentioned – is not downplaying things too much. If we really get a decision on forestry, on adaptation, on technology, on the delivery of fast-start finance, on how to measure, report and verify carbon markets, and on the different elements that we have mentioned here, then I think it is substantial progress.
We all know why we cannot get one of the things we would like: the internationally binding deal. One of the reasons is the lack of progress in the American Senate. We all know that that is the reason why. However, I think that if we keep the momentum we are still likely to achieve the European target as soon as possible, namely to have the internationally binding deal.
We will all do our utmost to achieve that kind of progress in Cancún. The alternative is very bad; it is very grim. We must ensure this, and I can assure you that, together, the European delegation will do whatever we can to achieve this, and we will do so in such a way that the world can hear that we are speaking with a now famous ‘one voice’. I hope it will be the famous ‘one voice’ where we are all saying the same thing, where we are coming up with the same priorities, whether we are ministers, from the Commission, experts, or Members of the European Parliament.
I am also looking forward to working with your delegation when we come to Cancún.
Realistically, we should make substantial progress. We should know what we want to do with this fund and how to set it up. Then I am sure, soon thereafter, that we can also deliver on the requirements of the fund. I think we will have to progress gradually, but we are very much in favour of progressing on the green fund.
Now my three comments. Firstly, Marita Ulvskog said early in this debate that the climate issue has slid down the international agenda this year. That is of course true, but it is also true that if we compare our current position to two ago – or to five or ten years ago – we can see that climate is very much up on the agenda today.
Were it not for the run-up to the Copenhagen Accord, can you imagine that the issues on climate change, energy efficiency and how to promote green growth would have survived the economic crisis? I would argue probably not. It is something that this is still very much on our agenda in the EU, and it must also stay there.
Mr Ouzký mentioned that Europe is always ‘too optimistic’; well maybe it is not always in vain. It is not the pessimists who achieve big things. By setting targets, Europe showed the way in 2008; and in the run-up to Copenhagen, a lot of economies followed.
Two years ago we were more or less alone in setting targets. In the run-up to Copenhagen, big economies such as Indonesia, Mexico, Korea, India, South Africa and others – the list is much longer – set domestic targets. All other things being equal, this is also very important when seen from a European business perspective. That was something we actually gained. Now in a lot of countries, these domestic targets will lead to some kind of paradigm shift. Yes, it is too slow in many ways, but actually we have come quite a long way.
Somebody referred to the emerging economies. This was not an issue for emerging economies before; two years ago the emerging economies would have said that climate change was not for them to deal with. The rich countries would have to deal with it – the developed countries. Today, because of Copenhagen they acknowledge that they have a co-responsibility. We must try to build on that in Cancún, and we will.
There were some questions on the CDM. Yes, it is a problem. We are facing some challenges in that respect, and that is part of our ‘to do’ list for Cancún: to try to take some steps forward in the reforms that are necessary in the CDM system.
I would like to say to Mr Skylakakis that I am happy to announce that tomorrow the Commission will come forward with our proposal on certain use restrictions on industrial gases. There has been a very fine cooperation with and involvement from Parliament, which is needed in order to reach a successful conclusion with the Member States. We will present our proposal tomorrow and I think that it will accommodate many of the concerns that this Parliament has raised."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples