Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-561-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.32.2-561-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we all know that it was primarily the United Nations that was saved in Cancún and not the climate. Therefore, the climate ought to be at the top of the agenda in Durban this time around. The most important thing we have internationally is the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, if anything very clearly needs to be done – because the Kyoto Protocol will expire at the end of next year – if anything is important, then it is continuing with the Kyoto Protocol and doing so straightway. Instead of attaching any strings to that, Europe should simply say: we are in favour of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol.
You said, Ms Hedegaard, that Europe is not the problem, but why are we then still not quite clear about what rules apply for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol? What will happen to all the hot air? If we really want to make a difference, we need to ensure that we bring no hot air from the first to the second commitment period. I am also addressing this to the Polish Presidency; I hope that it will make out a case to ensure that none of that hot air is brought to the next Kyoto period. That was my first point.
The second crucial point is, indeed, a clear timeframe for a binding target in 2015. We need to ensure that, in 2015, there is a binding target, the rules for which have been decided upon by more countries than just the EU. China is the key country in this respect. We all know that we looked to the US for too long in Copenhagen. This time around, though, the lynchpin will be China. If you look now at what China is doing, not just in terms of investment in renewable energy, but also with regard to energy saving, then China is
country with which we jointly, as Europe, should be making deals. Let us, therefore, just leave the US out of the picture, because we should not expect anything from the US at the moment.
Finally, let me turn to the EU’s leading role. You said: Europe is leading the way. However, we seem to be leading less and less. Australia already has plans to make taxes on carbon higher than those in Europe. In Japan, they have a more energy-efficient society. Europe should really ensure that we maintain that leadership and that also means that our own ambitions, our own climate ambitions, need to be markedly increased. Our reduction target therefore ought to be more than just that 20% with which we have been complying for years and which is easy for us to achieve. We need higher levels of ambition."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples