Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-28-Speech-3-259"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071128.24.3-259"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, when it comes to climate change, trade is often seen as part of the problem, and it is true that some trade simply cannot be justified. Sending Scottish prawns to Thailand to be peeled and returned to Scotland is just nonsense, and a waste of energy. However, as Mr Lipietz’s well-argued report demonstrates, trade can also be part of the solution. I will take just three brief examples.
Firstly, the setting of high energy-efficiency standards in Europe for household goods such as fridges, dishwashers, microwave ovens and so on can not only lead to a reduction in CO
emissions here, but also create the conditions for higher standards elsewhere. For example, a single factory in China produces 80% of the world’s microwave ovens. It is unlikely to want to produce to one standard for Europe and another for elsewhere in the world, or even, for that matter, for its domestic market.
A second example mentioned by the Committee on Industry is green goods or, to use their proper name, environmental goods and services. If we eliminate the tariffs on environmental goods and services, we can encourage trade in products that help third countries reduce their carbon footprint, such as the export of energy-efficient generators, wave technology and solar panels. Let us again take the example of China. China is currently increasing its electricity-generating capacity every year by the equivalent of the UK’s total capacity. Clearly, encouraging China to use the latest and most efficient technology could play an important part in allowing it to continue its growth without experiencing a proportionate increase in its carbon footprint.
A third and final area would be to empower consumers to make informed choices on what products they buy, through the provision of clear information on the carbon footprint of each product. However, we must be careful to ensure that the information is properly calculated and presented. The ‘food miles’ labels currently used by some UK supermarkets are unsatisfactory and can give misleading information. Flowers from Kenya, for example, have a much smaller carbon footprint than flowers grown in hothouses in Holland, but a glance at the label would lead one to a different conclusion."@en1
|
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples