Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Full text 
Debates
Wednesday, 28 November 2018 - Brussels Revised edition

Strategy for long-term EU greenhouse gas emissions reduction in accordance with the Paris agreement (debate)
MPphoto
 

  John Stuart Agnew (EFDD). – Madam President, agriculture will be expected to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers can reduce CO2 emissions by reducing tractor use. This is possible without reducing productivity if GM seeds and glyphosate are regularly used to establish crops. The green lobby hate GM and glyphosate even more than they hate CO2, so the alternative is to abandon some land and reduce food production.

Farmers can reduce methane emissions by feeding their ruminants expensive cereals and soya instead of grazing grass. This significantly raises the costs of producing meat, milk leather and wool. The green lobby insist that ruminants should be able to graze naturally so the only alternative is for the farmer to reduce ruminant numbers.

Farmers can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by growing fewer leguminous crops, but the green lobby want more protein crops grown in Europe. These are leguminous. The green lobby cannot have it both ways.

Farmers can reduce water vapour emissions by maintaining large areas of bare soil, preventing transpiration. The green lobby do not like bare soil because of erosion risk. Perversely, but fortunately, the green lobby do like the greenhouse gas water vapour.

 
Last updated: 5 April 2019Legal notice