Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-482-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110705.34.2-482-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-07-05-Speech-2-483-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Adam Gierek2
lpv:spokenAs	member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Unia Pracy (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"− I voted against this draft report, firstly because industry will undoubtedly become less competitive if the EU adopts it. It would be possible for my country to implement it, and even to exceed the target, if changes were made to the instruments for its implementation, imposed by the climate and energy package. It was the Member States which agreed on the binding targets of 3x20, and they should have the opportunity to meet these obligations in the same way that they have the opportunity to shape their own energy mix, although it is evident that this opportunity exists only in theory. Secondly, I would like to remind everyone that there is no evidence that anthropomorphic CO has any impact on the climate. This hypothesis, which lacks scientific credibility, was put forward by a group of individuals subject to political lobbying, or in other words the IPCC, whose mistaken conclusions and scientific misconduct, for example as regards the Himalayan glaciers and Climategate respectively, are widely known. Furthermore, I am opposed to the environmentalist lobby which tyrannises the European Parliament and to which the European Commission listens so willingly, in particular their prominent and politically ambitious representatives. Before we take the decision to make drastic cuts to CO emissions, we should therefore provide credible evidence that they are harmful, on the basis of the opinions of independent specialists, for example those from the Polish Academy of Sciences. I voted against, since the report ignores the fact that we should fight the effects of climate change, which most probably have natural causes, and instead states that funding is to be earmarked for tilting at windmills, or in other words the ‘fight’ against causes which exist independently of us."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"2"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph