Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-209"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.7.3-209"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to make two observations as well as two requests. The first is about emissions trading. Emissions trading has two sides, one is political and the other economic. In political terms, there are different ways of evaluating emissions trading. Many in our group take the view that emissions trading, i.e. the freedom to buy the obligation to reduce CO2, is not politically tenable. I do not want to evaluate that further now, but I think that the reduction of CO2 should not be seen merely as a burden but that it actually has an economic effect, and offers the opportunity, and the possibility, to bring the improvement of the quality of life into line with employment. That is why I feel that we should not participate in unlimited emissions trading.
I am absolutely convinced that Parliament’s position, which we drafted – to permit at the most 50% emissions trading, that is, 50% reduction of CO2 must be done in one’s own country – is in political and also economic terms, exactly the right way to generate employment here at home. There is a sufficient number of studies which show that, for example, a reduction by 34,000 carbon equivalent units creates around 100 jobs in Europe, and this is the route we should take in order to bring ecology and economics designed to increase employment more in line with one another. Hence my request: could you please confirm that you do not support any agreement which allows more than 50% emissions trading to take place outside one’s own country.
Secondly: the European Parliament’s participation. I was very pleased Mrs Wallström, that you emphasised once again your desire to work closely with the European Parliament and I fully accept what you say. Past experience has shown, though, that this was sometimes not the case and that participation indeed worked on a very ad hoc basis. This occurred firstly in the delegations for example, where one sometimes had the impression that the European Commission did the actual negotiating there, and that the Members of Parliament who were also present, were just there to make up the numbers. It also occurred in the drafting of the mandate or, to give a particularly negative example, in the issue of individual obligations to reduce CO2 and their negotiation by the Commission with the relevant partners, especially recently with the Japanese and Korean car manufacturers. In this case, there was absolutely no contact with the European Parliament and the Parliament was not even officially informed. The Council on the other hand, was informed and will make its decision on this on 12 October, but we have been cut out of the loop. If we want to establish an instrument for individual obligation, then please ensure that all partners participate. This brings me on to my second request: could you please confirm that a modus vivendi for the participation of Parliament will be found."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples