IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

(The sitting was opened at 9 a.m.)

  President. − The next item is the report (A6-0495/2008) by Mr Florenz on behalf of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change on 2050: the future begins today – recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change (2008/2105(INI)).

  Karl-Heinz Florenz, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would, in particular, like to say good morning to my fellow Members who have been working for months on this climate report. I am very grateful to you for the fair and cooperative way in which you have worked with me to put together this report.

The procedure in a horizontal committee was new. We did not have discussions with experts in a group, but with people from the transport sector, and, quite rightly, with people from the economic sector and, of course, also with people from the energy sector. It was quite clear during this process that the first hours and days of the debate were somewhat tougher because this was new subject matter. At this point, I would like once again to thank our Chairman and my good friend, Mr Sacconi, who always presided in an excellent and fair manner.

Today’s achievement, which we have noted, is essentially that this horizontal cooperation presents a great opportunity, and with the next composition of Parliament we ought to make sure that people talk to each other more and that we do not just have individual groups opposing each other.

That has been the greatest advantage of this committee. We had invited quite high-level experts such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, and experts in science, research and, of course, politics. Finally today we have an outcome in hand which shows us that the report has proved to be very positive.

We know very well that prohibitions, sanctions and doing without achieve very little. Instead, we must encourage changes in awareness as well as innovation and motivation. Our aim must be for the engineers of Europe to get up each morning and take pleasure in trying to build machines that work more efficiently in this world in order to utilise our children’s raw materials better and considerably more efficiently.

The report is also honest. We have stated that we do not have any super weapons. There is no switch that we can flick, not in Brussels nor in Bali nor in Poland in December; instead we have a whole host of measures. This is precisely where the opportunity lies: the opportunity to make it clear to the people that they themselves are responsible for a third of this climate change, for example as a result of them heating their houses. As citizens, however, we are all responsible for a third, including as a result of mobility and all that entails, and industry is also responsible for a third. The report is therefore directed at us all. That is the wonderful thing about it. We do not need to look for a villain; we are all urged to take part in innovative discussions. I am particularly pleased about that.

It is also clear that this report is evenly balanced, and I would like to emphasise that once again, because it does not represent any party programmes. Nor does it disparage any area. Instead, we point out that in certain areas there are more opportunities, whereas in other areas we have fewer opportunities. For that reason, the report also states that it ultimately points the way and indicates the way forward – particularly for Europe, as in Europe we have a vast amount of environmental technology, the volume of which is comparable with the European car industry. The amount will increase, and we must work on this to bring about innovation.

I just said that we should involve our citizens so that they can do something in their own houses. In this connection, local politics, chambers of commerce and industry and trade associations can achieve a considerable amount in terms of motivation and the provision of information.

Let me conclude by saying that the many benefits that we have demonstrated in this report should make us realise that the opportunities lie in innovation and not in depression. If we understand that, then this task has been worthwhile.

  President. − Thank you very much for the work that you have carried out Mr Florenz, and for your report.

  Martin Bursík, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here and share with you some thoughts on the important year ahead. Firstly, let me congratulate the Temporary Committee on Climate Change for all the work it has accomplished since its creation in April 2007: hearings, conferences, reports, resolutions, exchanges with third parties. Its tireless efforts have greatly contributed towards shaping the EU position on climate change.

The latest resolution, ‘2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change’, which was adopted by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change on 2 December 2008, and which you will adopt at this part-session, will again provide a very useful basis when discussing the options for a post-2012 climate agreement and for further deepening the EU’s climate policies.

As you know, the work during the Presidency will focus on the international negotiation process. By the way, I am leaving Strasbourg today and flying to Delhi to have discussions with the Indian Government and Indian representatives. Two weeks later we have an EU-Africa meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, and we have already made contact with the US Administration, which I will mention later.

By adopting the climate and environment legislative package at the end of 2008, the EU is sending a very strong political signal to all our partners in the world. With the adoption of this package in a few months’ time, the EU will demonstrate that its commitment, as well as its leadership, in the global fight against climate change is as strong as ever. Indeed, the EU will be the first region in the world to commit unilaterally to a reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

As you know, the climate and energy package will, as of 2013, enable the reform of the EU-ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme), set limits for the emissions outside the Emissions Trading Scheme, stimulate CO2 capture and storage technology, as well as boost the deployment of renewables.

As far as the ETS is concerned, a single EU cap with a linear downwards trajectory will be set, auctioning will be gradually introduced as the method of allocating allowances and monitoring reporting, and verification will be strengthened. But, of course, the EU has repeatedly said that it will not settle for 20% – we want to go for 30% – and, therefore, we hope for an ambitious global and comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Conference is now only 10 months away. The December 2008 Poznań Climate Conference agreed on a work programme for 2009, with clearly identified steps towards Copenhagen. The decision in Poznań on the operationalisation of the Adaptation Fund represents an important step forward in the negotiations on the financing building block – one of the key elements of any comprehensive global agreement.

The ministerial round table in Poznań also confirmed the shared willingness of both the developed and the developing countries to find an effective globally agreed response to dangerous climate change for the post-2012 period. This encompasses further mitigation efforts, adaptation actions and finance and technology means to make that response operational.

Poznań has also sent the message that the current financial crisis is not to be seen as an obstacle to further action on climate change, but, instead, as yet another opportunity for profoundly transforming our economic system and moving firmly towards a low-carbon economy.

The Czech Presidency intends to build on such important achievements and to pursue efforts at international level towards a successful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.

On 2 March 2009, the Environment Council, and later the ECOFIN Council and the spring European Council, will be the first opportunities for further developing the EU position in this respect, on the basis of the Commission communication towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, which we received a week ago, and on the basis of your input.

In addition to the shared vision for long-term action for mitigation technology and adaptation, the identification of appropriate means for financing effective and long-term climate policies will be key in future EU deliberations. In this context, I can only reiterate the Climate Change Committee’s call on the Commission and the Member States ‘to adopt, at bilateral level in the negotiations towards a post-2012 agreement, a mediating role between the positions of developed countries, in order to ensure by means of a balance of interest the success of the climate negotiations involving all major greenhouse gas emitters’.

The EU will also continue to engage in active outreach with key negotiating partners and main emerging economies, but also with a new US Administration. I have spoken on the phone to Carol Browner, the President’s assistant for energy and climate change. I have made a preliminary proposal to her for a high-level meeting with US representatives and the EU Commission – Commissioner Dimas – the Czech Presidency and the upcoming Swedish Presidency (i.e. the Troika) in early March, probably 2 or 6 March.

I said that the EU would like to work as closely as possible with the United States on the evolution and linkage of carbon markets. We gather that Congressman Waxman has indicated that he will try to get the legislation from his committee on the cap-and-trade system to be implemented at the end of May. This is quite an encouraging response from the United States as a reaction to the activities of the European Union.

We also count on the European Parliament to ensure that the EU voice is more widely heard, and we appreciate very much the outreach efforts that you have made in the past. I can only encourage you to continue along this path and wish you all good luck for the year ahead.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − (EL) Mr President, honourable members of the European Parliament, the final report by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change for which Mr Florenz acted as rapporteur has ambitious targets and covers a broad spectrum of issues, thereby confirming the considerable importance that the European Parliament attaches to the question of climate change. I should like to congratulate the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Florenz, on their exceptional work.

Last year, our priority was the package of measures on climate change and energy. Our efforts bore fruit and we can now be proud of this very important package of legislative acts. This year, we shall be focusing in particular within the European Union on preparing the implementation measures for this package. At international level, our priority will be negotiations on climate change, which will be stepped up in the run-up to the United Nations conference in Copenhagen and, as you have just heard, the Czech Presidency attaches great importance to these negotiations and has planned a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings and negotiations. Your report has therefore come along at the right time. In the run-up to Copenhagen we must muster all our forces and work together so that, given the particular role of Europe, we will achieve the best possible result.

I am delighted that your report, in keeping with the Commission's analysis, emphasises that the economic and financial crisis should not be used as an excuse to delay action to deal with climate change. We also agree that taking action to deal with climate change forms part of the solution to the economic crisis we face today.

With the package of measures on climate change and energy, Europe is now moving on the track of an economy of low carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, it will help to restrict Europe's dependency on imported energy, which is an equally important benefit, as we saw recently with the natural gas crisis. By implementing the target of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% or by 30%, and provided that the other developed countries accept such reductions within the framework of the international agreement, we shall without doubt be in the most ambitious position of any other country or group of countries. We are setting an example to the rest of the world, which will give a positive dynamic to the international negotiations.

Before we focus our debate on the international negotiations, I should like to comment briefly on an issue which was very rightly highlighted in the report. The report contains valuable proposals on what has to be done in order to make more efficient and effective use of natural resources, in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and save energy.

Last year, the Commission made an initial step in this direction by approving the action plan on sustainable production and consumption. More recently, with measures to complement the package of measures on climate change and energy, it strengthened action to save and make more efficient use of energy. Be that as it may, a great deal still needs to be done in the field of the sustainable use of natural resources and, of course, there is still huge potential for making more efficient use of energy. One illustrative example is the proposal which the Commission tabled recently on the energy efficiency of buildings. This is a sector for multiple targeting as it has significant benefits in terms both of energy savings and climate protection, while at the same time creating employment and contributing to the development of technological innovation.

Today, more than ever, we need to tone up and strengthen our economies by taking measures to speed up the adoption and use of clean technologies which will help to create clean jobs. At the same time, important opportunities will be created for our foreign trade as markets for clean technologies rapidly expand. With this in mind, last December the Commission proposed, among other things, specific actions within the framework of the European Economic Recovery Plan.

As far as international negotiations on climate change are concerned, the package of measures on climate change and energy has without doubt strengthened our arguments and efforts to persuade our international partners that taking effective measures is not only necessary but also feasible. Of course, there is no doubt that the international negotiations will be very difficult, due in part to the fact that they are so complex. Nonetheless, I believe that agreement will be reached in Copenhagen. We can and must reach an agreement. There is no time to lose. It is a question of political will and I think that the will exists.

Now, as the international negotiations start to intensify, last week the Commission adopted a communication which includes its positions on the most important points of the negotiations. First of all, it is the developed countries which are being called upon to continue to play a leading role. Positive messages are coming from the United States because, as the Czech minister mentioned earlier, President Obama has promised that the USA will be actively involved in the international negotiations. He has also announced that there will be a greenhouse gas trading scheme in the United States and that there will be reductions of 80% by 2050 compared with 1990.

All this is positive, but we want to see it put into practice quickly, in fact this year, because we need to reach an agreement in Copenhagen at the end of this year and the United States have a debt and, based on what President Obama has announced, they will need to make a decisive contribution, together with the European Union, so that we can all reach agreement in Copenhagen. Of course we welcome the debate under way within the United States, which will result in various other decisive measures being taken to combat climate change. One illustrative element is the measures announced recently for cars.

The communication by the European Commission confirms the target to reduce emissions by 30% collectively in the developed countries and defines the concept of comparability of effort. Comparability will be of decisive importance both in achieving the environmental targets and in safeguarding fair terms of competition. The Commission has proposed a series of criteria for defining comparability.

As far as developing countries are concerned, although efforts of similar type and scope to those of developed countries are not required, it is nonetheless important to ensure that they will continue to take action so that the economic development which they need will be less carbon dioxide-intensive. In order to achieve the objective of not exceeding 2 degrees Celsius in 2050, developing countries will need to limit the rate of increase in their emissions by 15% to 30% below those which they would otherwise have recorded had they made no effort to reduce up to 2020. Of course, the effort which will need to be made by each developing country separately will depend on their level of economic development and their resources. This means that we shall obviously be expecting more from the rapidly developing economies than from the others.

We all know that we shall not achieve the results we want in Copenhagen if we do not manage to increase investments and safeguard greater funding for reductions in emissions and adapt. Of course, one portion of the investments needed, even in developing countries, will come from the private sector within the various countries, while approximately one-third, according to the Commission's estimates, will come from the carbon dioxide market. Furthermore, one part needs to be public funding and we must examine ways of securing these public funds. Today, in the midst of a recession, this will not be an easy debate. We must nonetheless be prepared and must put forward arguments for this debate, bearing in mind that the cost of doing nothing will be much higher than the cost of any measures.

Finally, the Commission communication stresses the importance of a global carbon dioxide market and the creation, between the countries of the OECD, of compatible trading systems by 2015, while for the economically more advanced developing countries it is proposed that this should happen at a later date before 2020.

These are the main messages in the Commission communication and I shall be most interested to hear your views on them. International negotiations will proceed apace and intense diplomatic work will be needed on our part this year. I welcome your contribution to this major effort.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SL) Climate change is a vast field and I would agree with the rapporteur when he says that we, members of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, had to find innovative means in order to encompass the full breadth and content of this field. However, now that our work is done, I can confirm that we have, indeed, had ample opportunity to exchange many different views and opinions and to put forward various proposals for future action. Our discussions were quite dynamic at times, precisely because of the diversity of the views expressed. As a result, the report represents a broad spectrum of opinion and offers many good proposals, but it also enables us to coordinate our continued work in the permanent committees, as regards formulating various sectoral policies. Personally, I think that it would be a good idea if we pursued this particular methodology.

Certainly, the fields we mentioned previously, such as energy, transport and industry, proved to offer the greatest opportunities for action, but other fields proved important, too, and here I allude to agriculture, cattle breeding, sustainable forestry, information and communication technologies and the EU’s development policy concerning third countries.

Our transition to a low-carbon society will, of course, be possible if we continue to invest in research and to quicken the pace of development and innovation, and if we pursue the other objectives defined in the Lisbon Strategy. However, that alone will not be enough. We also have to change our lifestyles, but we will only be able to do so if people embrace environmental protection as a genuine value. In this regard, we need to achieve much more when it comes to information campaigns and awareness raising.

I also agree with the comments made about the correlation between the financial crisis and climate change. However, even this presents us with an opportunity and fears that climate change might have to take second place to the financial crisis are unjustified, because our measures for reviving the economy need to be designed in such a way as to promote sustainable development, not just consumer spending.

Since our objective is to limit global temperature increases, we also need to work internationally, of course. Here, Europe must establish and deepen its dialogue with the developed countries, because we have to reduce and eliminate the burden of our historic emissions together, while at the same time listening to developing nations and the poorest countries and enabling them to espouse sustainable development, even if it carries a higher price tag.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, on the openness he has shown in our work.

  Dorette Corbey, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) I should first of all like to offer Mr Florenz my heartfelt thanks for the sheer dedication and resolve with which he has written his report. It has, in my view, become an all-encompassing report with nearly 200 recommendations, and really worthwhile. It contains many sound recommendations that can be a source of inspiration to the next Parliament, the national parliaments and local authorities.

I would like to mention five core themes that are really essential for our group. First of all, this report recognises that climate change is comprehensive, affecting, as it does, all sectors, not just industry, transport and energy, for which we have already established rules, but also agriculture, health, science and technology, ICT, education, soil, water and land use. All these areas deserve our full attention and an effective solution.

Secondly, climate policy should also have a social dimension and should show solidarity. We need to address employment, income aspects and energy poverty. We need to know how new technology will be paid for, and who will bear that cost. We want to know how many jobs will be created and whether any jobs will be lost. We want retraining programmes for the new green poll workers. Without maximum social dedication, it is extremely difficult to maintain political support for climate policy.

Our third core theme is related to the economic crisis, where we once again need a comprehensive solution. The Green New Deal has now become a concept, and one that receives our wholehearted support. Considerable investments are needed. Interventions to support banks and businesses should at least have a sustainable component. Investments in houses and blocks of flats in Eastern Europe should be given greater priority, as these will be to the benefit of employment, energy security and the climate.

Our fourth core theme is agriculture. This is usually not something we discuss when we talk about the climate. Today, we demonstrate that it is, in fact, necessary, and it proved to be a controversial topic. We have long discussed the question of whether agriculture should have binding targets, and we are agreed that we should consider this seriously. What is also clear is that agriculture does not only pose a problem, it also offers solutions. Sound agriculture, effective land use and an appropriate use of biomass can help reduce greenhouse gases.

Our fifth core theme, finally, is about involving people. This requires the provision of information and transparency. If we want to change our consumption behaviour, we need to know exactly which products produce high levels of greenhouse gases and we may have to adapt our consumption patterns accordingly. This is not easy, of course, but the problem of climate change – as Mr Florenz pointed out a moment ago – cannot be solved with a few technical tricks. We will, at any rate, need to try our best to involve as many people as possible in the major challenges we are facing. Local initiatives are very valuable in this regard. Free energy audits for houses, better public transport and local and regional food production. Together, we can achieve a great deal.

With this set of measures, there is also reason for optimism. Greenhouse gases can be reduced, which contributes to innovation, economic growth, better energy supply, better food production, more employment and a more stable climate. I am indebted to all fellow Members who have made a contribution to this.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, an elephant lurks in the wings of this debate that we seem reluctant to identify. There is virtually no reference to it in this report and only a passing mention in the Commission’s comprehensive strategy for achieving a climate change agreement in Copenhagen. It is the fact that human population is growing at unprecedented and unsustainable levels. In the lifetimes of many of us here, population on this planet will have trebled. It continues to grow at the rate of 200 000 every day: 80 million a year.

Why does China need a new coal-fired power station every week? Because its population has more than doubled in 50 years, it is continuing to grow fast, demand for energy grows with it, and Chinese people want what we have in the West, and they have every right to that. The Minister is flying to India today. Population growth is even faster there and again they are turning to coal for energy.

But this planet has finite resources. We need to slow and reverse our population growth. We must do so entirely through non-coercive means, and we must never arrogantly forget that those of us in the developed countries contribute vastly more to climate change than those in developing countries.

The UN population fund says that 380 women in the world become pregnant every minute of the day, and half of that number do not plan to do so. Contraception must be available for all. Women must have control over their reproductive lives: it is so preferable to the alternative of unsafe abortion.

Medical resources need improvements so that women can safely delay giving birth until a later age, but above all the issue must be on the political agenda. Our refusal to place it there is the greatest folly. Families everywhere should be talking about this. Governments should be setting targets for population stability or reduction. Admitting the central importance of population growth is key to addressing it, and we will not succeed in tackling climate change or achieving sustainable development if we fail to do so.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, I would also like to compliment Mr Florenz on his effort and commitment in producing this report and, of course, on his ability to listen to, and understand, the many varied and different opinions.

As legislators, it is paramount, in the midst of a massive economic downturn, that we work on results for green energy technology. We can become world leaders in our diverse renewable energy fields, which should create a tight, effective and coordinated strategy – including governments, NGOs, academia, business, forward-thinkers – seeking not to talk but to solve. We need to reduce bureaucracy and support SMEs and technology developers.

The market is there. The regulatory framework is clear. We have set the targets for renewable energy. Although funding is scarce, it is crucial to technology development and to maintaining expertise. Banks and funders will have to take risks on green technology start-ups. There will be long-term gain if we step up to the mark. The jobs and wealth will flow. If, on the other hand, we dilly-dally during this precious time, we will lose out and other countries will be only too ready to fill the gap.

For example, Ireland could become to ocean wave technology what Finland is to mobile phone technology. We have the undisputed potential due to weather and location in the Atlantic. We have the technology patented. We have the expertise in situ and we have the legal target framework. The market is clear, so it is a magnificent opportunity for job creation, electricity price reduction, energy security and carbon emission reduction, not to mention patent revenues.

We now need to get behind our companies, who have been working for over a decade to come to this point. They have taken the risks, and we need to support them through increased funding. Delays at this point would be detrimental. Green technology is our future. We have the opportunity now, so let us use it.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Florenz, in particular for his patience in the negotiations. The length of the report is evidence of the huge number of issues there were to deal with.

However, I would also like to pose the question of how sustainable the agreement is that is now being signalled at the beginning of this year by this report. I remember the International Climate Conference in Poznań very well and the very weak role that the Europeans played there, because they were preoccupied with adjusting downwards their ambitious promises and ambitious statements from the international round of negotiations in Bali and, in view of the emerging financial and economic crisis, they were busy relegating climate policy to a lower priority.

I believe that the next year will be decisive as regards the question of whether we really are prepared, as we currently keep promising, to adjust the type of economy to which we in the industrial nations have become accustomed on the basis of our knowledge of climate change. I believe that the decision as to whether or not we will go down the road of sustainability has not yet been made.

In Poznań, Ban Ki-Moon and Achim Steiner recommended very strongly that all measures taken by the Member States in their economic stimulus plans and their bank rescue packages now be combined with programmes to combat poverty in developing countries and the dreadful consequences of climate change in developing countries, and also with measures for a really ambitious level of climate protection and a new energy policy.

I can see that any legislation at European level relating to this issue will be establishing new ground. It is by no means certain that Europe will find its way along the road to a modern society of energy efficiency and renewable energies. Now, as before, it all rests on the decision: do we carry on with the old mix of coal and nuclear energy or do we take ambitious new paths? I hope that we continue to address this issue as constructively as we have done in the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, although I am not certain that that will happen.

  Jens Holm, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Finally, we are to take a decision on this climate resolution, after more than eighteen months of work. I would like to mention three things in particular.

The long-term reduction targets: in paragraph 3, we demand emissions reductions in the EU of between 25% and 40% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. This is a good thing and it means that we are setting higher requirements than those in last year’s EU climate package.

We are also demanding measures to be taken in respect of the meat industry. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report, Livestock’s long shadow, the meat industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s emissions. This is something we take note of in this report and we demand a reduction in the consumption of meat. This is a bold and, to an extent, historic decision by this Parliament, which usually prefers to support subsidies for this industry, but it is a shame that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, in particular, want to vote to remove these requirements. In the same way that we need to reduce motoring, we also ought to dare to say that the current soaring meat consumption is not sustainable.

Allow me also to remind you that the meat industry is, in fact, the primary cause of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest as a result of the creation both of grazing land for animals and land for the production of feed. A large proportion of this feed is exported to Europe as soya. This is not sustainable.

The car industry is another growing problem. Between 1990 and 2005, emissions from the European transport industry increased by 32%. A huge investment in public transport and other environmentally-friendly transport is needed. Cars using fossil fuels must be replaced by electric cars and perhaps, in future, also by hydrogen-powered vehicles. We need to ask ourselves whether the situation with all these forms of transport is sustainable. Should we not encourage local production and consumption instead?

Finally, I would like to issue a warning with regard to Amendments 12 and 28, which demand an increase in nuclear energy. If they are adopted, my group will be unable to support this resolution. Therefore, please vote against Amendments 12 and 28. Thank you very much.

  Johannes Blokland, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (NL) Given that a large part of Western Europe is in the grip of a very cold spell right now, a debate on global warming is perhaps a little ill-timed. As the title of the report suggests, however, we are looking at the long term in this debate. We should not, therefore, get too bogged down by short-term events. Mr Florenz’s final report has turned out to be well thought-out and sound, and sends out a strong message.

To reduce or prevent the negative effects of climate change, tough action is needed across a wide area. We need tough goals for the period between 2020 and 2050. Not one section of society should escape making efforts. In the run-up to the climate conference in Copenhagen, we will need to maintain our ambition, backed up by a wide range of measures. This report makes a particularly valuable contribution towards this.

  Roger Helmer (NI). – Mr President, 500 years ago there was a consensus amongst learned men that the world was flat. They were wrong. In the 1970s, after three decades of global cooling, there was a consensus amongst scientists that we were facing a new ice age. They were wrong. In 1999, everybody believed that the millennium bug would create a global disaster by closing down computer systems across the world. Weapon systems would fail, commerce would stop, aircraft would fall out of the sky. They were wrong. Nothing at all happened.

Today we are told there is a consensus around catastrophic man-made global warming. It, too, is wrong. Nor is it a consensus. The myth of consensus is a propaganda triumph for the alarmists, but repeated surveys both of the scientific literature and of working climate scientists show a wide range of views on both sides of the debate, with many believing that the jury is still out.

It is true that the world has warmed slightly, although slowly and intermittently, over the last 150 years, but this is entirely consistent with well-established long-term natural climate cycles that gave us the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. There is clear evidence that, while the world has warmed slightly, other bodies in the solar system have also warmed. Ice caps have shrunk on Mars, yet nobody imagines that industrial emissions or 4x4s are to blame.

We are now planning to spend unimaginable sums of money on mitigation measures which simply will not work and which, by damaging our economies, will deny us the funds we need to address real environmental problems. As a British journalist, Christopher Booker, has remarked, global warming alarmism is the greatest collective flight from reality in human history.

  Pilar del Castillo Vera (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his work, and, of course, the chairman of the committee and all the coordinators and members of the committee as well.

This report is a further expression of what has become a permanent concern of the European Union, namely climate change and its consequences.

The latest set of measures was the recently approved energy package. The report that we are discussing today reflects that same approach to combating climate change and that same concern shown by the European Union.

The report that we have before us is, as has already been said, a set of recommendations. It is a comprehensive suite of different measures and recommendations which in turn contain different ‘road maps’ for various sectors, including fisheries, agriculture, water, forestry and so on. All of these ‘road maps’ lead in the same direction, but measures will have to be developed for each.

However, I shall confine myself to what I think is the basic principle required in order to have an effect. Faced with climate change, we have to improve efficiency; this, in my view, has to be the basic principle behind all the measures that are taken.

To make improvements in efficiency means giving priority to technological innovation; it means highlighting efficiency targets when awarding aid and subsidies; it means emphasising efficiency targets when granting certain fiscal advantages, and so on. The only way we can be really effective is to improve efficiency.

  Guido Sacconi (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, those Members who have spoken before me have demonstrated well how we have managed to bring together very diverse opinions, which have been merged into a common draft.

The Florenz report, which deserves recognition for its success in achieving this consensus by listening carefully to all points of view, is ultimately about energy reconversion and general change in production systems, lifestyles and consumption. It is more than just a philosophical statement and we know that it will not be an easy ride, but it envisages rapprochement in stages. For example, there are indications in the legacy that we are leaving to the next Parliament of what we believe should be the priorities for action in the next parliamentary term, in the run-up to Copenhagen and beyond.

I would, however, like to focus on the content. I feel it is my duty first and foremost to thank the key player in this work, the secretariat. I have here some statistics on our work. To give you an idea of how important their job was, I need only say that they organised eight thematic sessions with sixty of the world’s leading experts.

Now, most importantly, I should like to make an appeal, that is express my hopes, for the new Parliament. President Pöttering, you yourself demonstrated your belief that the gamble of this committee would pay off – even though, if the truth be told, it did not find favour with everyone in this Parliament when it was created 18 months ago. You appealed to the House on two separate occasions, illustrating your personal support for this subject and for our task, and so I will address you directly, if you will allow me. It would be a shame if the next Parliament did not create a similar instrument in the next parliamentary term, not least because in the meantime many national parliaments and governments have restructured their work, with climate change as a specific field. Therefore, I hope that the next Parliament will not go back to strict compartmentalisation, where connected areas are separated into different committees, but that, as we have recommended, it will prepare itself for the long ride to a lower carbon economy.

  Vittorio Prodi (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his work.

At last we are to vote on this report, which represents 18 months of work by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. I personally would argue that it is a success, if only a modest one. A success because Parliament has shown itself to be one of the most responsive institutions, equipping itself with an ad hoc instrument – the Temporary Committee – to gather data and ideas on a question that affects us all and the impact of which we must face together, both now and in the future. A modest one because, despite all our efforts and the quality of participation and studies carried out, the result still lacks the bite that a resolution on this topic ought to have.

Climate change, as I have said many times, is an urgent and serious matter and requires targeted and effective instruments. Our key reason for creating this committee was to obtain cross-over between policies that have always been handled too separately. I hope that this cross-over can continue in the next Parliament and that this House will also continue to be involved in the Copenhagen negotiations.

What we need is global consensus, and for this we must have something to offer, above all to developing countries. At present the equal conditions that will convince people in developing countries to espouse this policy are still lacking. It is somewhat too Eurocentric and somewhat too compartmentalised as well. We are looking at a lifestyle change. Politically we need to make proposals that are focused firstly on this policy and then on a progressive de-materialisation of our lifestyle, since otherwise it will not be sustainable.

  Alessandro Foglietta (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my compliments to President Florenz. In calling him president, I do so out of esteem and consideration for the commitment he has always shown to our Parliament.

In adopting the climate and energy package, the European Union has equipped itself with a legislative framework that gives it the right credentials to take a leading role. The recent open-mindedness shown by the new US administration gives us cause to hope for a future shared commitment with the United States to halt the consequences of climate change.

However, the full success of the initiative will be determined by the involvement of the economies of all the developing countries, such as China and India. As the Chinese environment minister made clear when he met with the delegation from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, this will only be possible with firm support from the richer countries in the form of adequate financial resources to encourage sustainable development.

Progress has been made in this area with the Poznań conference and the decision to put the adjustment fund into operation, as well as the EUR 50 million for research and technological development allocated to developing countries to support the evolution of green technologies at global level.

We must ensure that Copenhagen marks a turning point in terms of practical joint commitment by stronger economies to create a fund that will guarantee a continual flow of funding for sustainable development in emerging countries. Only through commitments agreed at international level with the involvement of emerging countries will we succeed in safeguarding the environment from irreversible effects, while at the same time protecting the competitiveness of European businesses from the effects and socio-economic costs of environmental dumping on the world market.

  Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I add my thanks to Mr Florenz for his report but I think, amidst all the congratulations to the rapporteur and to the committee for its work, we need to face some cold facts: the EU is still doing too little, too late.

I do not expect to be popular for saying so, but we need to be measuring the EU’s progress not against what other countries are doing, but against what needs to be done. Against that measure we are still failing.

We are failing in not bringing sufficient ambition to this debate. The latest science tells us we need to be reducing emissions by around 9% year on year. The targets set out in this report and in the EU’s climate package are simply not ambitious enough.

We are failing in not bringing enough urgency to this debate. If we are not well on the way to a zero-carbon economy in the next eight to ten years we will have lost the opportunity to have halted the worst of climate change.

We are failing in not being consistent. Today, we speak of renewables and energy efficiency. Yesterday, a majority in this House adopted the Laperrouze report which proudly upheld the role of coal in Europe.

We are failing in giving the impression that the climate change debate is all about giving things up, about doing without things. We need to get much better at showing real political leadership and demonstrating that action on climate change will bring us a better quality of life. It is not about shivering around a candle in a cave: it is about a future that can be more positive and attractive than today’s.

So I commend to you the idea of adopting a green new deal for Europe, a way of addressing both the economic crisis and the climate crisis, with a major investment in energy efficiency and renewables, to create millions of new green jobs in Europe.

But that is not about kick-starting economic growth in a ‘business as usual’ direction. It is about an urgently-needed transition not to a Europe based on the ever-increasing consumption of natural resources, but to a steady-state economy for Europe; not more aggregate quantitative growth, but real qualitative development. That debate urgently needs to be begun, and the EU is very well placed to start it.

  Roberto Musacchio (GUE/NGL). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Florenz on a job well done; this report is a tribute to his consistent presence, attention and contribution.

It reflects the input he has made to the work of the committee, which has been skilfully chaired by Mr Sacconi, and has looked at the issues in depth, debated, and above all contributed to the part this Parliament played in adopting the climate package. President Pöttering, I too would urge you to consider how our work can and should continue in the run-up to Copenhagen.

For now, as regards the Florenz report, I think it would be a mistake to unbalance it with what are, at this point, ideological amendments on the question of nuclear power. They are unreasonable, out of context anywhere other than in the minds of their proponents, and alter our joint position. I would, however, ask my fellow Members to consider the inclusion of an amendment that I have tabled on the relationship between climate change and water. I believe this to be a valuable field in light of the growing attention it is receiving from international organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Environment Programme, which have highlighted this area as decisive for the future, and also in view of the upcoming World Water Forum in Istanbul.

  Jim Allister (NI). – Mr President, I want to raise a voice of concern and caution in this frenzied debate about climate change, particularly as it could affect food production. We are told that the world population will spiral to nine billion by 2050, thus food production must correspondingly increase. Yet within this proposed climate change package we have emission-reduction demands which, if met, would reduce food production when we need it most.

I refer in particular to the targets on methane and nitrous oxide, and the assault on meat and dairy consumption. These reduction targets cannot be met without serious diminution in food production. Faced with the choice of feeding the world or ticking climate change correction boxes, I am afraid I am on the side of common sense and necessity.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, we head now to Copenhagen, and my honourable friend’s excellent report is a good – if I dare say it – road map, or rail map, on how we should get there.

Twenty per cent by 2020 was a start – but only a start. The package of climate measures that we have taken perhaps could have been better, but they were a start – they were a step forward. Now, with the changes in administration in the United States, we can no longer hide behind the United States’ refusal to cooperate. With the Obama presidency, we have the opportunity to stop exchanging words and start exchanging ideas. We hear that a meeting will take place on 6 March 2009. The following week we are back here and I hope we will have a statement from the Council on the result of its meetings in Washington. With the United States, we can now move to that 30% target and beyond.

We are moving on now to ecodesign, realising here, as elsewhere, that it means tremendous new opportunities in innovation and jobs. We need to move on to shipping and to agricultural emissions. The Commissioner has referred to the urgent need to talk to the low-income countries in the developing world. They will be devastated, but they did not cause this problem. Islands will sink beneath the waves; malaria, respiratory disease, skin cancer and eyesight problems are already happening. Devastation will come to agriculture. They must take action, but they need our help.

Scientists, of course, can be wrong and so can politicians, as we saw with Mbeki and AIDS. I may be wrong about the possible flu pandemic. I may be wrong about the probable impact of global warming. However, the majority of scientists may be right; the majority of politicians may be right. I and we will be culpable on both issues if I and we fail to take action to ensure that neither happens.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROURE
Vice-President

  Riitta Myller (PSE). – (FI) Madam President, the initiative by the Social Democrats to set up the Temporary Committee on Climate Change in spring 2007 is now bearing fruit. The outcome of inter-group negotiations and discussions is an emerging, ambitious, long-term agenda for action to curb climate change. For this I would sincerely like to thank the rapporteur, Karl-Heinz Florenz, and the shadow rapporteurs from all the groups who have collaborated excellently on this.

Many are sceptical about whether the Committee on Climate Change will bring added value to Parliament’s work. Today we can see the benefit of having Members of Parliament, who view matters from different perspectives, working and listening together to the world’s top experts. That leads to credible results, as we can see.

I am also sure that the very existence of the Committee and its work separately contributed to the fact that the climate package was got through so smoothly and swiftly last December. I also strongly support the appeal made by Guido Sacconi, the Committee’s chairman, that the post-election Parliament should address this issue and ensure that there is the most robust approach here to issues concerning climate change.

The mindset in the European Union has long been that we need action to prevent climate change. We have, however, lacked the financial instruments. The Climate Fund, which has now been proposed and for which money would be collected from the proceeds of emissions trading auctions, is an important initiative, and I wish it every success for the future. We need it to bring about change in our industrial structure and so that we can really get somewhere with this new green deal.

  Lena Ek (ALDE). – (SV) This report promises a great deal. It contains virtually every issue that has been mentioned in the climate debate over the last two years or more. Nevertheless, I think this piece of work lacks the punch, drive and force that are actually needed to pursue the political line that we have initiated in Europe with regard to climate issues.

No measures are proposed with regard to the protection of land and soil. As regards water resources, there is a whole package of proposals in the World Water Forum that could have been included. When it comes to energy efficiency, there are options that have not been included in areas where we have the opportunity for decision-making in Parliament. Alternative fuels are also treated with far too much restraint. In the very important area of health, the report focuses on the collection of facts and the control of mosquito bites, where, instead, we need major strategic decisions in Europe to cope with the effects of climate change on human health.

There are options here, too. In this regard, we needed to come up with more with regard to growth and jobs. It is, of course, possible to create jobs in Europe. They are needed here.

We need to anchor the measures in economic policy. In a few weeks’ time, the Council of Ministers will meet to discuss the funding of the decisions that are to be made in Copenhagen – extremely important decisions, which we in Parliament could have had a great deal of influence over. Without this anchoring in economic policy and in a policy for work and growth, there is a risk of this report becoming ‘like a candle in the wind’, a nice document, but one lacking the drive and decisiveness that we need when it comes to these issues.

  Bogdan Pęk (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I feel as if I am at the inaugural conference of a newly-founded religion, a false religion, teeming with false prophets and ideas.

The very political powers which are trying to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a move which has no scientific basis and comes at the price of restricted human development, are the ones responsible for this crisis. The blame for this situation lies with those who, along society’s path towards progress, aim to build a global government which includes the very bodies which will make an enormous profit from carbon trading whilst simultaneously brainwashing the little people with threats of climate change.

We must create a basis for development in the field of energy. In order to survive and develop, mankind needs new, powerful sources of energy, and Europe needs balance and self-sufficiency in terms of its energy supplies. Do you not understand this? If you create that which has been approved today, you reduce Europe’s chances of competing with the rest of the world.

  Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the Florenz report backs up the evaluations made by scientists and, to a large extent, shares citizens' concerns. It is a step ahead of the energy package approved by the Council in December, but we need to go beyond evaluations to specific measures, to regulations, to timetables, because climate change and its consequences are here and there is no time for further delay.

We must be careful not to allow the issue of nuclear energy, which is irrelevant to this report, to get into the report through the back door with cunning amendments, which is what some governments are seeking. We must ensure that this report, without changes that alter its balance, convinces the Council and the Commission to go one step further and not to use the economic crisis as an excuse to undermine the efforts made so far. Economic crisis and environment policy can go hand in hand to give us a positive result both for the environment and in creating jobs.

  Urszula Krupa (IND/DEM). – (PL) Madam President, the main aim of environmental protection policies, much like the package of energy and climate policies involving dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, is to control and change the national economies into what we recognise from past experience as a centrally planned economy. The abstract concept of human influence on our climate is set to restrict development, including the use of fossil fuels, and introduce dangerous CCS technology which, in Poland’s case, will make it difficult to exploit our natural resources, including rich geothermal energy sources.

Now that Poland’s industry has been shut down as part of its efforts to meet European Union requirements, attempts are being made to not only force Poles to emigrate, but also to ensure that those who remain become paupers by imposing the highest energy prices of all of the Member States. One rhetorical question remains: is the main aim of the European Union’s policy to bankrupt my countrymen and wipe Poland from the map of Europe?

  Irena Belohorská (NI). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur Mr Florenz for an excellent and extensive report. It covers all major areas of social life that have a bearing on the dramatic increase in climate change. It is high time for us to prepare necessary measures within an EU context.

As a doctor I am interested particularly in health-related changes such as increases in diseases typically associated with tropical areas. We should bear this fact in mind when supporting the pharmaceutical industry, planning hospitals and in-patient facilities, training health professionals and, above all, systematically raising public awareness. As these diseases are rare in our part of the world, we can presume that they will take a much more dramatic course.

The situation in agriculture and in securing sufficient food for human consumption will also become very serious. I firmly believe that this report is far more important than other own-initiative reports and that it will provide a good basis for future Parliaments which will have to tackle the actual impact of climate change.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, the time for talking is over and we know what needs to be done – at least those of us who accept the peer-reviewed science on the causes of the unprecedented rate of global warming and its critical impacts on all aspects of biodiversity, particularly on the poorest and most populated regions of our world. To my climate-sceptic friends, could I say that the precautionary principle should be considered. I would recommend it to them.

I should like to thank Karl-Heinz Florenz for his report. It adds to our sum of knowledge, representing, as it does, the horizontal views across a range of committees in this House, with one serious omission – that of the Committee on Fisheries, given the critical importance of the increasing acidification of our seas and oceans from increased CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

I have one question for Commissioner Dimas: following our first-reading agreement on my report on the revised EU-ETS six weeks ago, could the Commissioner put on record today exactly what work programme is in train for preparing the comitology decisions, particularly the timing and involvement of this Parliament and the stakeholders?

In conclusion, our target must be at least a 30% decrease in CO2 emissions by 2020 as part of a post-2012 global agreement, with at least an 80% decrease by 2050 – and that is the more important target. The result of the next eight months of climate diplomacy will write the text of our history books for generations and, as political leaders in our own communities and collectively, we cannot renege on our responsibility.

Commissioner, our climate and energy package must be accompanied by realistic funds, and we look to the summit in March – in six weeks’ time – for our 27 leaders of state and government to be on-message and not to let us, the citizens of the EU, and the poorest and most climate-vulnerable communities in our world, down.

  Linda McAvan (PSE). – Madam President, as this is the end of the work by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, I want to thank, firstly, Karl-Heinz Florenz for his work, but also – from my own group, the Socialist Group – Riitta Myller, Dorette Corbey and our Chair, Guido Sacconi. They have all done an excellent job and provided a good basis for the work in the future Parliament.

The report before us is long; it makes many points. I would just like to highlight one point, which some people have already touched upon, and that is the important link that we need to make between jobs and tackling climate change, and between getting out of the economic crisis and tackling climate change. Because, if we do not make that link and we do not get the economic recovery programmes right, people will start to say – and they are already saying it – that this climate change stuff was all very well when there was economic growth but we cannot afford to make all these investments now.

We have to argue very strongly, as people have here, that we cannot afford not to make those investments. I think those who talked about bankrupting their countries by doing this are very wrong. Their countries will become bankrupt unless we invest in renewable energies and unless we reduce our energy dependency on insecure sources of fossil fuels. So we have to get this package of measures right.

President Obama has already made this link in his talk about the economic recovery programme for the United States, and we need to do it here. Dorette Corbey talked about what can be done in the way of energy efficiency measures. If I look around my own constituency, Yorkshire, I can already see considerable investments in renewable technologies, in energy-efficiency measures in different companies. Now we have plans to develop carbon capture and storage in many of our power plants and major industries. This will create jobs and it will also help us cut our emissions, which of course is the object of all the work we have been doing.

  Johannes Lebech (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, as also envisaged in the report, the prevention of climate change must permeate our whole way of thinking when we are working in relevant legislative areas such as agriculture, fisheries, construction, development and foreign policy. Climate policy cannot stand alone, but needs to be incorporated into all of our legislation.

The EU’s Heads of State or Government decided nearly two years ago that the EU should take the lead in order to secure a global climate agreement in Copenhagen. There is not much time left. We have now adopted our climate package within the EU here in Parliament. It could have been more ambitious, but it is in place, and we must now support the European negotiators to enable them to achieve an ambitious goal in Copenhagen. The package takes us up to 2020, but in this report we emphasise the need to start planning now what will happen after 2020. This is something that the governments of the EU need to take note of. We need to think long term. The financial crisis is not making things any easier, but we must view this crisis as a dynamic challenge. Let us use the crisis as an opportunity to get the badly needed development of renewable energy and energy-saving technologies off the ground. Let us create new jobs in the green industries of the future, rather than protecting jobs in the old industries of the past.

Finally, I am pleased to see that the need to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon is emphasised, as the EU must make it a specific objective to tackle climate change at international level in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, drawing up a climate policy is very important both from the environmental viewpoint and also in view of the need to modernise the energy sector. We should welcome the way in which account has been taken of Kyoto progress for those countries that have reduced emissions by more than 20% since 1990, as well as the effect of the closure of Ignalina on Lithuania’s and Latvia’s energy supplies, by providing for the possibility of compensation, but each Member State must prepare a clear energy efficiency strategy. Extra quotas for industry, while fostering its competitiveness, nonetheless make it difficult to obtain funding. I welcome the plan to simplify the procedures for obtaining European Union funding, and to increase the extent of lending by the European Investment Bank, especially to small- and medium-sized enterprises. In order for the 2020 targets to be achieved, we must create an EU-wide effective incentive system, supporting businesses and individuals that use or introduce renewable energy resources. This could be done by centrally covering part of the costs of making the changes. The Commission must work actively to ensure that the rest of the world follows our example, and to make our technologies accessible to developing countries. Thank you.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Madam President, I welcome the definitive and thorough report from Mr Florenz and from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

Climate change is challenging our views on transport, land use, waste management, building work and energy use. The developing world did not create the conditions that are leading us toward irreversible damage, but they are the ones suffering the most. Europe must act as a pioneer and take charge of realistic, necessary measures on an international basis.

Forces which are not so progressive have attempted to use the economic downturn as an excuse not to fulfil the necessary climate commitments. This is completely short-sighted.

Unfortunately, in my own constituency, the Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, is one of these short-sighted politicians who does not understand the scientific and practical realities of climate change. I hope that the Minister will come to his senses and address the question, something which is already being prioritised by the rest of Europe.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Madam President, we have here an ambitious plan. A plan to do nothing less than save the world: a big job at the best of times. When the draft report was first presented by Mr Florenz to the committee, its first call to action was that we bear in mind that we humans are protectors of creation. This simple statement was the first to be attacked and removed. What was so objectionable to the committee? The word ‘creation’. Why? Because creation has a creator.

It does not matter to me how the universe was created, or in what time frame. What is important to me is that there is a God and that we are stewards who must, as Amendment 22 puts it, safeguard creation. So, as I say, we are here today setting ourselves the task of saving the world, setting a course of action that will require the cooperation and sacrifice of everyone everywhere, a task which, to be successful, will also require the cooperation of the winds, water and the sun. But, even knowing this, we are at the same time making it clear, as we have done in the past with other great challenges, that we think we can take on the enormous and urgent challenges that face mankind without help from above. Well, all I can say is: good luck with it, and may God spare us.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, I would also like to congratulate and thank Mr Florenz for his excellent report. I do not want discuss the details of this report. In my opinion, it should simply be adopted.

I would just like to return to the subject of the package on climate change, which was adopted in December, and to stress that the European Union really does have a very well-balanced package, which poses no threat to the economy. During numerous months of discussions on the subject, far-reaching amendments were made to this package. This has been our great achievement. I would now like to state what, in my opinion, are the biggest challenges facing the European Union. The first task that lies before us is providing adequate funding for the package we have approved, as well as the funding mentioned in Mr Florenz’s report.

I was the rapporteur for the SET-Plan last year and we primarily discussed the fact that new technologies, which could introduce innovation and a new economic stimulus to the European economy, first need to be funded at European Union level. That is why I wanted to sincerely congratulate Commissioner Dimas, on behalf of the Commission, on the decision to earmark EUR 3.5 billion from unused funds for investment in research in the field of energy technology, which would also help to protect the environment. Commissioner, it is an excellent decision. We must now speedily examine it in Parliament. I would now like to turn to Minister Bursik: the Council also needs to speedily examine this initial decision of the European Commission.

Another very important issue is the fact that we need to base our work on a global agreement. That is the assumption behind Mr Florenz’s report. Bilateral negotiations between two countries – Poland and Denmark – the hosts of COP 14 and COP 15, are not enough. We all have to contribute, and this includes European diplomats as well as the representatives of the Czech Presidency. Our diplomats should be involved in negotiations throughout the world, as without this global agreement, our package and Mr Florenz's report will have little meaning. That is what is most important to us today.

  Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our fellow member, Mr Florenz, perfectly sums up the results of our long deliberations on this major problem of global warming.

We all know that the plans to be implemented are huge and that, above all, we must give ourselves the means to change our culture of unbridled development by promoting changes in our economy.

The problem now is to find out how we can implement all the report's recommendations. We must urgently find means of fighting global warming. The European Union's current budget is insufficient to achieve the related objectives; neither will we be able to resolve this major funding problem by calling on national budgets or private funds.

The European Commission estimates that an annual investment of EUR 175 billion is required to fight global warming. With a budget of EUR 76 billion, we are wide of the mark. The Commission will therefore draw up an inventory of all the existing instruments, but drafting proposals for the future financial framework will be a considerable undertaking.

To optimise all our actions regarding this climate crisis, we need new resources to create a European Fund on Climate Change, which can be funded by the emission quota exchange system and which will be used to support adaptation, alleviation, sustainable consumption and energy efficiency, and therefore a large part must be devoted to the poorest countries.

That requires political courage on the part of the Council, the Commission and members of this Parliament, but it is a necessary condition, essential if the planet is to take up this challenge.

There will be no future for our civilisation if we, as Europeans, do not take measures to impose self-discipline in order to preserve our climate. It is a major political act, a political act which is vital to give our continent and others a stable future....

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Holger Krahmer (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Florenz very much for his report, which, unfortunately, has not been a great success, probably partly as a result of the fact that it has been discussed very much in the shadow of the legislative package on climate change.

We must face up to the consequences of climate change; there is no question about that. It is only the means for doing so chosen by the report that I cannot fully support. Firstly, it is right that the EU should take the first steps to protect the climate, but it is not beneficial to rush on ahead alone without the involvement of partners. Europe leading the way is not enough to convince the rest of the world. A more viable approach must involve the industrial nations and at least China, India and Brazil, otherwise Europe’s economy will remain unfairly burdened without there being any measureable effects on global CO2 emissions. Secondly, with our current level of knowledge, renewable energies cannot completely replace fossil energy sources. It may be motivating on a political level to demand that, but it is not realistic. The political will, as great as that may be, will not nullify any physical laws. Thirdly, biofuels are hailed as environmentally-friendly alternatives. Their negative side effects on food prices, which are rising as a result of these biofuels, and rainforests, which are being deforested, are not as yet under control. Fourthly, a means of mobility that protects resources in the long term is a reasonable goal. Providing incentives may help to achieve this goal. However, we should consider at what point state intervention is going too far and at what stage we can claim to have knowledge that we do not have today.

No one currently knows which technologies will best meet the mobility needs of individuals in 50 years’ time and politicians certainly do not have any better idea of this than engineers do.

Although it started with good intentions, what remains, unfortunately, is a report full of wishful thinking in written form, with moral appeals and pointing fingers. Unfortunately, the German liberals cannot give their support to this.

  Bogusław Rogalski (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, it will take a good while yet until the politicians understand that it is not the burning of coal, but solar activity, which causes the phenomenon of climate change. It will take even longer to convince societies, which have been brainwashed by aggressive environmental propaganda, of this truth.

In view of the fact that the earth’s climate is influenced by events which take place in space, we have to agree that human attempts to influence the climate are doomed to fail. The earth has experienced periods of global warming, and an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, on numerous occasions. However, global warming has always started a dozen or so centuries before any increase in carbon dioxide levels. During a period involving dramatic drops in temperature, the cooling of the climate was never prevented by the fact that, at that point, the air contained up to 10%, or more, carbon dioxide, in comparison to today.

If we acknowledged this fact, mankind would save billions of dollars by giving up pointless activities. The money saved could be spent on the fight against poverty and on new technologies. If we do not know what the deal is, then the deal is money, and emissions trading. Bravo. What a climatic masterstroke.

  Derek Roland Clark (IND/DEM). – Madam President, a mystique bordering on a religious creed has grown up around this alleged global warming. The environmental scientist has had a field day, but the natural world obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, subjects which I taught for 39 years.

The global warming theory has cast CO2, a natural constituent of the atmosphere, as a demon gas. It does have the effect – slightly – of trapping heat around the world, but how? You need to draw a graph showing how CO2 perhaps causes warming.

Is it an arithmetic graph – I must become technical – where equal rises in CO2 cause equal rises in warming? Is it an exponential graph – a runaway – where CO2 in extra amounts causes an ever-increasing rise in global warming? Or is it a logarithmic graph, where extra amounts of CO2 cause less and less extra warming, eventually becoming a flat line?

I suspected it to be the last, and the Hadley Centre, the UK’s leading authority on this subject, confirmed that it is the last graph. We are nearly on the flat line, if not already there. Extra CO2 will have no more effect. There is no problem.

  Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE). - Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Florenz. This is a rich report with a great number of concrete proposals. A specific call is made to use the stimulus packages all over the world to promote clean energy and green technologies, stressing thereby that the financial crisis and the climate crisis have the same roots – unsustainable use of resources.

While I support the report, like Caroline Lucas I would have liked to see more attention paid to the most recent signs, which tell us that climate change is both more rapid and serious than we thought just a couple of years ago – contrary to what some colleagues here have said, in particular Mr Helmer. By the way, a recent screening of more than 900 climate articles in scientific journals – peer review – showed that not one of them questioned the main thrust of the IPCC.

What I am particularly concerned about is not CO2 emissions per se, but the positive feedback mechanisms that are now happening in the planetary system, like the acidification of the oceans, reduced albedo and the possible leaking of methane from thawing tundra. All these factors will accelerate warming. We can control emissions but we cannot control these factors.

This is the main reason why, in my opinion, emission reductions have to be much more ambitious in the near future than what is currently being discussed in the EU and by the UN.

This means, by the way, that the 2°C target has to be revisited and that greenhouse gas concentrations have to be lowered, rather than continuing to increase. That is why some of us advocate very strongly the 350 ppm target. This dimension of the problem is referred to in the report but only in passing. I would have liked it to be at the core of the report. My guess is that, only a few years from now, the feedbacks I mentioned will be at the centre of the debate.

Finally, let me just endorse what Guido Sacconi said. In spite of its shortcomings, a temporary committee has been the right way to deal with a horizontal issue like this. I hope the next Parliament will build on our experience and deal with climate change and sustainability in a similar way.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, we all agree that Copenhagen must be crowned with success, because both the credibility of the political world and the survival of future generations are at stake. Our proposals must be targeted on development, employment and solidarity: the three watchwords which will mark the future of coming generations. What is needed from us today? Responsibility and decisiveness are needed to ensure adequate funding for this major climate change development plan and new dynamic development agreements over and above and separately from restrictive trade agreements.

However, there is one concern about our tactics and we need, first of all, to convince society at large and then proceed dynamically to integrate certain productive sectors into the quantum leap by agriculture: that is why we need to remember that agriculture has already been included in the national commitments to reduce emissions by 10% by 2020, that there are already important proposals from the CAP for environmentally-friendly agricultural practices and that international agreements on agriculture must be reciprocal for all international partners.

Commissioner, the food model is directly connected to the climate model and all we have to do is conscientiously convince society itself. Climate change is bringing about broader democratic participation by society, a society which lives with different cultural values.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) It is with a great deal of pleasure that I worked with Mr Florenz and all the others in the temporary committee. We have laid the desperately needed foundation for a policy that will be more integrated and ambitious in future, and can count on widespread support, even here in Parliament in the framework of the 20-20-20 objective.

The answer lies in making the economy green and making businesses, households and the government sustainable. Entrepreneurs canvassing support for such an approach – the development of sustainable initiatives for this green technology – are still running into a huge number of obstacles. If they want qualifications for workers, they are up against policy that is very compartmentalised. This report calls for an integrated approach that also hangs together territorially. If you do not do this, you will lose out in the end.

Fortunately, my amendment on the use of regions and cities has been adopted. Next week, in the buildings of Parliament, 150 cities will be signing a mayors’ covenant with the Commission. They will be following the conclusions of this report, close to the citizens and close to business. This is the right approach, in my view. As such, this approach can count on my backing. I am opposed to the over-simplified approach towards the agricultural sector in Paragraph 189, though. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is not against the consumption of meat, and rightly so. As such, we will oppose this paragraph.

Finally, I would ask the Commission, in future, to adopt a more integrated approach and reduce compartmentalisation to a minimum. In tandem with Parliament, a significant milestone could be achieved, in the combination of legislation, stimulating policy and activation at the decentralised level. A great deal can be done there.

  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – (ES) Madam President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his generosity and open-mindedness as well as all the groups that participated in this political exercise and debate on both background issues and the future. This has had the benefit of providing us with information and clarification and given us the necessary courage twinned with prudence to address other important, parallel legislative actions, also of high risk, such as the climate change package, the policy on vehicles, the Lisbon Strategy and sectors such as energy, transport, industry and tourism.

I think that this has been a good exercise and, more importantly, a way of irreversibly embracing the 21st century and, as the Commissioner said, of showing the example that we want to set for the future.

This exercise has been an example of comparison and generosity that has come at the right time, at a moment of crisis with significant social risks and the possibility of protectionism and a step backwards. There is also massive uncertainty which means that security is so important. However, we must also look to the future.

This is a new era for the United States, as has been said, and we hope for the European Union too after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, which we expect soon.

It is also a new era, and this is important, in which there are risks but also immense opportunities in huge new areas and policies. This is the case in Brazil, China and Russia, the great emerging powers, and also in major regions such as Latin America and developing countries, in Africa in particular.

I think that this is a decisive step towards a new model for development and economic and social growth, but there is a need for sustainability and reduction of impacts. However, Commissioner, Madam President, we still have the challenge of putting it across to our citizens.

I would just like to end by emphasising the advances made in introducing adaptations regarding water supply and drought as well as in sustainable mobility that I think we have ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Markus Pieper (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, the Florenz report actually contains a lot of good suggestions. One good thing about the climate debate is that it will act as a catalyst for the transition into the age of renewable energies. This is shown very clearly in the report along with many opportunities for new technologies and economic development.

However, I think it is a shame that we have excluded large areas of science. Studies and scientists that approach the subject of climate change with less gloomy scenarios or perhaps even positively, have simply been ignored. Corresponding applications were rejected by the majority, and that was that. Science is only what fits into the political concept. This will not work, because science does not allow itself to be manipulated. Thus, the report will, unfortunately, hit rocky ground in the end.

Anyone who, on this basis, demands a reduction in CO2 of 80% or more is jeopardising the economy and social achievement. Anyone who, at the same time, demands the abandonment of nuclear power is consciously closing his eyes to reality. Anyone who demands accounting standards for all areas of human life is at odds with the fundamental idea of freedom. Anyone who demands new laws for soil and agriculture is abusing the climate debate for the purposes of implementing sanctions that he or she wanted to implement anyway but which have nothing to do with climate change. And anyone who demands protective clothing against the effects of the climate is deliberately stirring up anxiety.

I hope that these radical and misplaced ideologies will not be included in the report. I will then be able to support the report, as protection of the environment is very important to me, particularly when it can be combined with social achievement and economic competitiveness.

  Matthias Groote (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Temporary Committee on Climate Change has done a very good job. Today we have in front of us the final report to be put to the vote. It indicates how we, as the European Parliament, envisage future climate policy and what measures need to be taken as regards adaptation to climate change.

I hope that, when the next legislative process is due, we in Parliament also reach such a high level of agreement so that what we have documented in this report will be put into practice. Through the committee’s method of working, this report has also succeeded in achieving a horizontal viewpoint. I have to say that we ought to maintain this committee’s method of working in the next parliamentary term, too, as Mr Sacconi has just suggested.

The fight against climate change cannot be waged by Europe alone. We must also get other continents and countries on board. The committee has also done a good job in this regard, because we, as Parliament, have for the first time become visible in matters of climate diplomacy and I would like to emphasise this once again in this House.

When we talk about adaptation measures then we are also talking about funding. In this regard, I would like, once again, to call on the other two institutions, the Commission and the Council, to give this matter top priority in the next Financial Perspective.

We can adopt the most wonderful reports here, but if there is no money available for the measures then the report will come to nothing. We should also look once more at the extent to which the financial measures that we are already taking are having an effect, and let us please have this summarised in an audit.

  Zita Pleštinská (PPE-DE). – (SK) Ladies and gentlemen, as the European Union has ambitions of becoming the leader in the international fight against global warming, it must not only formulate climate protection targets but it must also implement them through political measures. The cross-sectional report of Mr Florenz confirms that the fight against climate change must be based on a horizontal approach and it must be taken into account in all legal regulations.

Water plays a central role in climate change. We must realize that the consequences of climate change on the water regime may cause a domino effect and may impact on many sectors of the economy. The ever-increasing worldwide problems with water require a coordinated water management policy from the Member States and the introduction of environmental principles into an integrated management of water resources.

We must initiate programmes for creating surface storage facilities for rain water in forested, agricultural and urban areas through legislative instruments and through non-investment and investment measures which will make a fundamental contribution to rainwater storage in the countryside. Until now rainwater has been regarded as waste water which had to be disposed of as quickly as possible. The new approach for water is based on the principle that rainwater is the key to life. I am delighted that it will be introduced by an expert group of Czech and Slovak scientists. This is an interesting approach, Minister Bursík. I believe that it will win your support.

It is not possible to have a sustainable way of life without contributions from the economy, science, the media, voluntary sector and private citizens. It is important not to give up on such a complex problem. We face a challenge and we must act now because our actions today will determine our future. Our central aim must be not to deprive future generations of the basics of life which we have received from God.

We will prevail in global competition only if we can bring efficient, innovative and intelligent technologies to the market in a transparent manner and without bureaucratic obstacles. We will prevail only if we give the ‘green light' to all progressive solutions in Europe.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – (LT) I congratulate the rapporteur and all like-minded people, who are challenging the threat posed by climate change. Residents of Lithuania and the other Baltic countries really thirst for a European electric energy network. If it is not created within a few years, talk of energy security will remain nothing more than talk. The call to increase Structural Fund money, used to heat multi-apartment dwellings, is very important. Miracles rarely happen. However, the extension of Ignalina NPP's working life, a miracle still hoped for in Lithuania, would reduce pollution and would allow GDP to remain at 4-5% annually, which is particularly necessary for a state affected and damaged so much by the economic crisis. Confronted with the crisis, an increasing number of EU citizens are thinking more about survival than about halting climate change, but if we are able to give up our wasteful way of life and become thriftier, not only will we save the environment and stop the planet from overheating, we will replenish our pockets. By making strict savings in everyday life, when using resources, and by giving up short car journeys, it is possible to save as much as EUR 1 000 a year.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – (FR) Madam President, one might have said that this report was redundant, following the vote on the energy and climate change package last December. However, this report has the merit that it is a very good summary of what we must consider for the fight against climate change, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Karl—Heinz Florenz, who demonstrated such vision in drafting this report.

Let us go beyond discussion. Let us make sure that the Member States make a solid commitment. I agree with my fellow Members who pointed out the need for a budget which is in keeping with our ambitions. After the success story of the energy and climate change package, under the French Presidency, we must do all we can to reach a satisfactory international agreement in Copenhagen.

Yet, there is something we should be worried about. 2009 is a European election year, when the European Commission will change. We are most concerned when we read the statements by the President of the Czech Republic, who maintains that global warming does not exist.

Even if he is right, our whole plan to fight climate change is a response to the serious economic crisis we are now experiencing. The decline in energy resources, the need for energy security, deforestation, the suffocation of our great cities which are home to the majority of the population, the necessity, therefore, to use sustainable transport, the endless famine throughout the world and the need to nourish the planet; everything supports the solutions proposed to fight climate change.

We are entering the era of sustainable growth, this third industrial revolution which is a great asset for research, innovation, employment and competitiveness in our businesses. As for energy efficiency, it should already be part of all the recovery plans, because it relies on innovative technologies. It is a way of reducing energy bills, which will please consumers. By reducing fossil energy consumption, the European Union regains more independence and emits less carbon, and there are thousands of new jobs at stake.

Yes, the fight against climate change is one of the responses to the economic crisis. It will become this through the development of a low-carbon economy, with the support of local communities, business, scientists and all citizens.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). – (RO) The report presents both scientific data and recommendations for combating climate change, referring both to adaptation and the reduction in the causes of this problem. Combating climate change is not only an obligation so that we can guarantee the future for the generations to come, but it is also an opportunity for reviving the global economy.

I urge the importance of energy efficiency to be reflected in both the Community budget and in the financial instruments available. Making transport more efficient through the use of intelligent transport systems, promoting transport by rail and ship, ensuring intermodal development and investments in greener cars are measures which will help cut the emissions generated by this sector.

I have recommended the development of greener forms of tourism such as sports tourism or cultural tourism. I would also like to stress that the tourist destinations of excellence should be those which respect and protect the environment. I feel that we must consider creating an international fund for planting trees on unused landmass.

I would like to end by saying that we need to carry out research in the field of medical science and in the pharmaceutical industry aimed at producing medicines and vaccines which will be available to the entire population affected by certain illnesses at an affordable price.

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE). – (HU) Madam President, today, climate change and transport are inseparable while, at the same time, our hard-won and closely guarded mobility, the free movement of people, goods and capital, can only be continued in future if we make changes and resolve to take firm steps in this regard. As theme leader for the fifth key theme, transport, on the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, I encourage the adoption and simultaneous implementation of a comprehensive package.

What is needed? First, the economic environment must be transformed, with a two-fold goal: first, to support eco-innovation by means of taxes and public procurement, and secondly, to actually apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Eco-innovation is needed in motor vehicle technology to develop alternative fuels for that sector, for intelligent transport solutions and logistics management systems. The ‘polluter pays’ principle must be applied to all vehicles as well as in emissions trading and the incorporation of external costs.

Every initiative we have launched must be speeded up. It is not enough to talk about these things: we must make them a reality. What sort of things, for example? A common European airspace, a single European sky and our management systems. These must be effectively implemented because we will be able to regulate industry and consumption successfully once we have completed our own tasks.

Above all, we must deal with our cities and other difficult areas. Ultimately, this is perhaps the most difficult task. We must foster a new transport culture and strive for a much more effective use of the tools currently at our disposal. We would like to thank Karl-Heinz Florenz because with this report we now have a credible, multi-layered roadmap, providing the basis on which we can begin implementing our goals and sit boldly at the negotiating table in Copenhagen, asking everyone to join us.

  Adam Gierek (PSE). – (PL) Madam President, in the preamble to Mr Florenz's report, which we are discussing today, he refers to his earlier report on the scientific facts behind climate change. Unfortunately, I found no facts in that report, only a belief in the infallibility of IPCC reports. Neither the present resolution nor the one of May 2008 can thus, in any way, legitimise the political decisions of the European Commission, as they lack an objective, scientific approach. Only a cohesive model of climate change, which takes into account all variables, such as the impact of greenhouse gases, suspended particles and, above all, solar activity, could provide a justification for these decisions.

The report, which contains one-sided information highlighting the hypothetical mechanisms behind global warming, such as CO2 emissions, ignores the need for an international fight against the real impact of climate change. The Temporary Committee on Climate Change has focused, in a biased manner, on the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and has only mentioned in passing the fight against the real impact of climate change.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur, who has indeed tried to achieve as much as possible for all of us.

Agriculture is particularly affected by climate change, as its products are produced in the open air. We think of droughts and desertification, as we are seeing in southern Italy, for example, or of other extreme weather phenomena, such as unexpected rain and hail showers or floods, which often affect the livelihoods of our farmers.

Agriculture is often depicted as the big cause of climate change. Around 10% of global greenhouse gases are produced in agriculture, most of which, however, are gases of natural origin, such as methane.

In my opinion, agriculture is, on the contrary, leading the way in the fight against climate change. I would like to document the following with a study from Austria from 2008: through plants such as grass, maize and cereals and the soil, agriculture and forestry consume and bind considerably more greenhouse gases than they generate. According to the study from 2008, the emissions from agriculture and forestry of approximately 8 million tonnes CO2 equivalent per year compare in total with a binding effect of 58 million tonnes CO2 or CO2 equivalents. This shows that agriculture should not be depicted as an environmental villain. Quite the opposite. Here are some more figures: since 1990, agriculture in Austria has reduced its CO2 emissions by 1.3 million tonnes.

Energy is another important area in which agriculture contributes to the fight against climate change. For example, agriculture in Austria consumes approximately 2.2% of the energy generated. The proportion of renewable energy is 23%, a large share of which again belongs to agriculture.

Finally, I would like to say the following. Great importance must...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Florenz sincerely for the excellent work he has done as rapporteur. Our greatest challenge now is to establish the next international climate treaty. The two most awkward issues for the treaty are the emission reduction targets of different countries and how the industrialised countries will contribute to the financing of investments in climate mitigation in the developing countries. In both these matters the EU needs to raise its sights, although in theory we can be proud of the fact that we have always been leading on global climate protection.

The latest research suggests that a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 will not be enough – the targets need to be made more stringent. As for financing climate measures in the developing countries, I regret that in its new communication the Commission still made very general observations and did not propose sufficiently concrete models.

In different contexts, including the debate on the climate package, we in Parliament have shown we are prepared to contribute significantly to the effort to reduce emissions in the developing countries. This is one of those areas where the EU should also encourage the new President of the United States to adopt a new line. Up till now, the United States has not said anything about how prepared it is to support emission reduction targets in the developing countries. Climate protection can be accomplished, but the measures need to be swift and consistent.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I shall be very specific in relation to agriculture and to two paragraphs in the report which I think are not necessary. The report would perhaps be better without them. They are very specific in relation to meat consumption and I do not think there is a place for these paragraphs in the report.

The following paragraph on feed rations ignores the reality of research that has been going on for a long number of years in many Member States seeking to do exactly what it says in this paragraph, which is therefore out of date with reality.

One of the areas that I think needs to be enhanced is the communication of how farmers and those who use the land can farm in a way that is more ‘climatically friendly’. I think there has been a failure of the researchers to work with the farmers, and we need more effort in relation to extension services to get the message across, to encourage and not to coerce.

  Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva (PSE). – (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, obviously climate change is much the focus of European, and not just European, policy.

Neither one country, nor a union can separately and independently handle the challenges of climate change. Therefore we need to integrate policies on a horizontal and vertical plane. Policy, legislation and finances must work together. The report provides a fantastic platform for this.

I would like to shift focus to two facts, without which we are not able to do our work in benefit for the battle against climate change. Science: in the report special attention is made to new technologies, but we must talk more about science and target investments in science, through which solutions must be sought. Without this we are left to triviality and the mundane.

Scientific research is our basis. New technologies, developed by business and science in tandem, are our future. I appeal for investing in science and designating climate change as an important priority for all EU scientific programmes.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) In the fight against climate change we must attach great importance to the transport sector which at present emits almost a third of the EU's CO2 emissions. The transport sector must reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. In striving for these goals it is essential to implement a stable package of transport policy measures, which would include ecological innovations, the taxing of CO2 emissions, changes in driving and car use habits and other measures. I would like to draw attention to the fact that in some Member States VAT is being increased due to the financial crisis and the economic recession, and a situation has arisen where people find it cheaper to travel by car because of high public transport fares. Therefore, I would like to urge states to apply tax incentives and encourage people to use public transport. It is also important to encourage the use of trains, by investing in the development of rail infrastructure. Let me remind you that over a kilometre a train emits on average 3 times less CO2 than a car and as much as 8 times less than a plane.

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we can congratulate ourselves on the broad consensus here, but we nevertheless remain in isolation: Commissioner for the Environment, Ministers for the Environment, how important is the environment for the Commission and for the Councils and governments? We know how important.

I myself was not at all in favour of setting up this committee because I think that nothing is better at isolating something than creating a new committee. In France, we speak of a ‘Théodule committee'.

I wonder about the future of this report from the point of view of its integration into European policies. I would just like to remind those Members who were there in 1992 that there was an excellent report on sustainable development. No sooner had it been adopted – what is more, unanimously – this excellent report was buried completely. Perhaps if we had introduced it into European policies, we would not be here now.

I would like to speak to the rapporteur, who denies that he is presenting a political project. Mr Florenz, it is a political project you are presenting, because it is a complete reorientation of European policies, in terms of agriculture, fishing and transport. So, yes, we must be more ambitious and we await the results.

  Herbert Reul (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, taking the consequences of climate change seriously means listening to all of the various sides of the debate, including that of science. We had a lot of experts in the committee, that is true. Unfortunately, however, they represented only one view. We did not get the chance to hear all sides of the debate. I think this was a mistake.

We had an initial draft of Mr Florenz’s report, which was considerably better than the one we have before us today on which we are to base our decision. Many of the suggestions that are currently included are fine, but, in my opinion, a lot of them are wrong. It makes no sense constantly to resort to new regulations and new measures. The only solution can be to say ‘yes’ to innovation and ‘yes’ to research. The solution lies in assuming individual responsibility and not in ever increasing state regulations. There are numerous nonsensical regulations, such as the accounting obligation, prevention of and sanctions on the consumption of meat, calumnies on agriculture and many others. In my opinion, this is the wrong way to go and I therefore find this report problematic as it currently stands.

  Martin Bursík, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, I have realised that the distinguished Members of the Parliament are using their native languages. I have no doubt that the interpreters speak one thousand per cent better English than me, so, if you will allow me, I will speak Czech and try to react to this debate in the European Parliament.

(CS) I would like to express my appreciation for the depth of the discussion in the European Parliament, for its businesslike approach and also for the responsible attitude of the MEPs. There are about seven points from the discussion which I would like to pick up on. Firstly, I would like to underline the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since in some of the speeches the IPCC findings have been called into question. In my opinion, it is to some extent a disadvantage that the quarterly reports issued by the IPCC on material facts relating to climate change and on adaptations and mitigations are around 1200 to 1400 pages long, comprising a highly detailed scientific work complete with references to relevant scientific literature. However, a summary is later compiled from these reports and it ends as a ‘summary for policy makers’ which is about 20 pages long and no longer includes any references. In my opinion, many misunderstandings arise from the fact that we, as policy makers, do not have the time – and I apologise if this does not apply to you – to read those 1200 or 1500 pages. It is important to emphasise that the IPCC has not only been awarded a Nobel Prize, but at the Bali climate conference it was agreed by the 192 participating states that this was the most comprehensive and highest quality scientific resource, the most consistent information at our disposal for deciding on whether and how to react to climate change. This was the view of the 192 national representatives and this is also my response to some of the suggestions of alarmism, an argument I have become used to in my own country.

In my opinion, we have a very good starting point in 2009. On the one hand, we are speaking with one voice again as the European Union. The enormous value of this was brought home to me in Bali. We managed to achieve considerable progress in the negotiations with our G77 partners and other economies and we were in fact the only major global economy to press for the adoption of a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 % by 2020. The second hope at the start of this year is the change in the United States as many of you here have mentioned. The way I see the problem is that somewhere in Copenhagen is a room with around 200 locks to its door. If we manage to open all those locks then we will conclude a new global agreement on climate protection to run from 2013. In my opinion, we have now opened the first lock, which is the European Union. The second lock in the series is the United States and that is why we are putting so much emphasis on making contact as quickly as possible with the new US administration and why we are planning a joint visit in the Troika together with the upcoming Swedish presidency and the Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas. And that is my response to the comment from Jerzy Buzek, in other words we are definitely not intending to lead the international negotiations by ourselves. Not at all. We intend to coordinate the negotiations. Denmark obviously has an enormous interest in the success of the Copenhagen conference. In the closed ministerial sessions of the informal Spring European Council we intend to report on the progress of bilateral negotiations over the international climate change agreement. We will also jointly try to define a future strategy on how to coordinate international negotiations with, of course, the involvement of diplomats. In addition to this, we will negotiate the adaptations, which will be the main theme of the informal Spring Council in Prague.

The next item in my response relates to the fact that we have arrived at an interesting juncture, as EU efforts towards an ambitious and active climate change policy have suddenly come up against the effects of the financial and economic crisis. In this context, I consider it very positive that the voices calling for a postponement of our long-term climate change targets are few and far between. On the contrary, the great majority of voices – here in the European Parliament too, for which I am very grateful – are calling for us to use this coincidence and treat it as an opportunity, since that would offer a ‘six-win' strategy, in other words a 'win, win, win, win, win, win' strategy, because if individual economies are prepared to respond to the financial and economic crisis by investing − and even the most conservative economists are prepared to allow exceptions − then this represents an opportunity to transform our current economy into a low-carbon economy and to support modern environmental technologies. Why the six ‘wins'? Because we will save money on energy through energy-saving measures. Because we will reduce our dependency on imported energy, because we will reduce our consumption of non-renewable natural resources, because we will create new jobs – and do not forget that the various plans within Europe for responding to the financial and economic crisis will create new employment opportunities right in the area of ‘green jobs' and around new environmental technologies for renewable energy sources and energy saving – and at the same time we shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Czech Presidency therefore views this situation as an exceptional opportunity for changing paradigms of behaviour and for directing our economy towards greater sustainability. The greatest opportunity for changing the economy is in the global market for carbon. Compared to the environmental policy in the 1970s, when we relied on banning and injunctions and mainly employed a so-called ‘end of pipe’ policy, we find ourselves in 2009 making far greater use of financial instruments to help the environment. In my opinion, the fact that the climate-energy package includes a new emissions trading system based on auctions provides an excellent foundation for creating a global market in carbon. Let us consider the ambition. In 2013, electrical energy auctions will gradually take place and by 2015, we want to see a global market in carbon at an OECD level. We are therefore very closely monitoring developments in the US and how the process for adopting the ‘Cap and Trade’ system will look in the US Congress.

Another point I would like to mention is the role of renewable energy sources and also energy saving. In our negotiations with developing countries we must offer something, we must offer these countries economic development but at the same time we must offer the sort of development that will ensure the fulfilment of the targets identified by the IPCC and adopted by us as politicians. And here renewable energy sources will play an absolutely key role as we basically have two possible options. There are billions of people without access to electricity but with a desperate wish for electricity simply because it is such an attractive prospect for consumers and an aspiration nobody can be blamed for. The fact is that these people will either have to go to the cities for electricity that is distributed in the current conventional manner – large centralised sources, distribution grids, a burden on the environment – or electricity will come to them in the places where they have lived for generations and where they can continue their traditional way of life in harmony with nature. The second option will be possible only through decentralised renewable electricity. In other words, we who are developing the technology for renewable energy sources in Europe are doing so not only for the developed countries but also in order to increase the number of installations worldwide, to reduce investment and operating costs and to make these technologies accessible to people in developing countries. This is an enormous political task facing us in relation to developing countries.

I would like to end by assuring you that the Czech Presidency has truly extensive ambitions for achieving progress in the climate change negotiations. We will be taking a very intensive lead in international negotiations. I would also like to assure you about the consistency of the Czech Presidency and if the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic defended the Czech President Klaus here in the debate in the European Parliament, then in the area of climate change and climate change policy I must distance myself from these statements and the position of the Czech President. I want and to assure that the position of the Czech Presidency is determined by the Czech Government. I ask you to bear in mind that in spite of whatever statements you might still hear over the course of the Czech Presidency – as our president is also preparing to visit the US – that the climate policy is formulated by the Czech Government and we are united in our view and we are working together with the Commission and the upcoming Swedish Presidency in the Troika. This concludes my statement. I would like to thank you very much once again for a highly productive, businesslike and, above all, responsible discussion at this honourable assembly.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, we are also looking forward to continuing to work closely with the Czech Presidency, the Czech Government and specifically with Minister Martin Bursík. I am sure that during the first semester of 2009 we will advance the negotiations considerably.

I would like to thank all the speakers in today’s discussion for their positive contributions.

As the title of your report indicates, what happens to the world’s climate in 2015 and beyond will depend on what action the international community decides now. Building on the solid scientific advice at our disposal, and insisting that negotiations must be guided by science, remains vital. We need to communicate the scientific findings to a broader public, and enhance consumer awareness of greenhouse gas impacts on lifestyles and consumption patterns.

Such increased awareness, however, needs to be accompanied by strong economic incentives for business to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the goods and services they provide. A transition to a low-carbon economy is needed at a global scale, and can only be achieved through comprehensive and integrated action to address emissions in all sectors.

Only by being ambitious now can we keep the door open to stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases at lower levels, should the IPCC in future indicate that this is necessary. Together with the Commission, I am convinced that you also have an important role in echoing these important messages.

2009 will be a crucial year for the global climate change negotiations. For the Commission, 2009 will be a year of implementation: we are working on an implementation road map. There are about 15 measures that we need to take through comitology; there is a list of deadlines in the revised ETS that we are going to meet: for example, the list of sectors for carbon leakage should be ready by December 2009. There will be a big stakeholders’ meeting on 30 March 2009. The bulk of the work will be done during the summer and, by the end of 2009, we shall have this list dealt with.

The harmonised rules on auctioning should be ready by June 2010. There will be a big stakeholders’ meeting in February, and all these deadlines and work programmes are available to you. But 2009, as I said, is going to be a crucial year for the global climate change negotiations.

The world is expected to agree on further international action to tackle climate change at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. However, a deal in Copenhagen is by no means a given: much work remains to be done.

The climate change and energy package gave us a head start in this transition and provided an excellent basis to prove that ambitious climate policy is not only possible but also broadly beneficial to our economies and societies. The Copenhagen Communication is the basis for further elaborating the European Union’s positions on those key elements, enabling us to maintain our leadership and help lead the negotiations to a success in Copenhagen.

It is clear that the climate change challenge cannot be solved without significantly stepping up the financing of, and investment in, clean technology, as well as measures to adapt to the inevitable climate change impacts. Required amounts for developing countries are estimated to go up to EUR 120-150 billion annually in 2020.

Until 2020, this financing can, for a large part, come from the private-sector households in developing countries. For instance, the major part of reductions in the energy sector will come from efficiency improvements that will pay for themselves. These may partly be supported by international loan arrangements in order to mobilise international private finance.

Another significant part of additional financing and investment will be mobilised through the carbon market, both from the proceeds of the future auctioning of carbon allowances and via carbon credits under the CDM. The European Union in its climate and energy package has created significant demand for CDM credits until 2020. This is likely to spur the deployment of clean technologies in developing countries.

However, the poorer the developing countries are, the more they will require further public financial assistance from developed countries. Without this assistance they will not be able to sufficiently reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Without this assistance the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer the consequences of climate change. Without this assistance there will be no deal in Copenhagen.

The question is: how can we make sure that these additional public financial flows will be predictable, be spent transparently and effectively, and that the contributions to those flows will be shared internationally?

In addition to our contributions to the United Nations negotiations, we see that, following the success of the European Union’s emissions trading system, carbon markets are being established in many parts of the world. Australia has announced the core elements of its system. In autumn 2008, shortly after his election, US President Obama reaffirmed his goal to create a US-wide carbon market.

Together, these trading systems could form the nucleus of an evolving future global carbon market. As I have already stressed, the European Union’s challenge now is to facilitate the development of such linked carbon markets, in particular among OECD countries by 2015.

In the Copenhagen Communication, the Commission has addressed these questions by putting forward concrete proposals – proposals that are not only ambitious but also realistic, and will make a significant contribution to the success in Copenhagen that our planet so desperately needs.

Let me conclude by taking this opportunity to thank the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, Mr Florenz and Parliament for their strong support for our proposals and for the seriousness and speed with which they have handled the package.

(Applause)

  Karl-Heinz Florenz, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, I am very pleased that, in the closing stages of this Temporary Committee, this issue has been met with such strong interest, and for that I am most warmly appreciative. I would also like to thank all those who have contributed to this debate and all those who have worked with us. We have produced a roadmap to take us to Copenhagen, which naturally contains signposts as well as stop signs and unrestricted travel signs, but also signs that indicate that there are difficult roads ahead. We have discussed this here today.

I am pleased that there have been critical comments, some of which we can take on board. The suggestion from Mr Holm for the citizens of Europe to stop eating meat is, I am sorry to say, quite ludicrous, but we all have our own opinions. There will be a successful outcome in the end and everyone will have contributed to this. Once again, you have my sincere thanks.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today.

Written statements (Rule 142)

  Constantin Dumitriu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) Ladies and gentlemen, during the last few months we have seen what the credit crunch means, as the global economy is affected by an unprecedented crisis. However, climate, food and social crises are also making their impact felt just as much.

In Romania, we have faced falls in production in recent years due to external causes such as floods, drought and bird flu, with problems of an economic nature coming on top of this over the last few months. During the current financial crisis, it is going to be increasingly difficult for us to cover losses triggered by floods and drought using the state budget. During the whole time I have been on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have supported the idea of creating standalone intervention mechanisms at Community level, regardless of the value of the national ceilings.

I also believe that, faced with a challenge of this magnitude, we need to give priority to investments in clean technologies and renewable energy. These provide a solution to the climate crisis, while also revitalising the economy through creating new jobs. As part of our European mandate, it is our duty to persuade our governments to invest more in innovation and new environment-related technologies.

  Gábor Harangozó (PSE), in writing. – Tackling climate change at this moment of deep financial turmoil and decreased confidence in economic systems may seem for many a mistake in terms of priorities. Going ‘green’ is costly, and the efforts necessary for the fundamental restructuring of many sectors in order to achieve ambitious targets are tremendous.

Nevertheless, there are many opportunities to be seized in ‘green’ investments and policies as elements favouring economic recovery and stability. The development of a low-emission economy is a genuine challenge we cannot afford not to deal with. We need ambitious but still feasible targets and we need not be afraid to walk the path of an inevitable industrial revolution. In order to secure economic recovery and better living conditions for our citizens, a complex and ambitious approach is required, fostering innovation and the development of new jobs and businesses in the framework of ‘green’ technologies.

Finally, sufficient financial means are of course necessary to make the required investments in ‘green’ innovation and, obviously, these costs cannot simply be made at the expense of other vital Community policies which cannot bear the burden of climate change without additional financial resources.

  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) One of the most serious long-term consequences of climate change is the decrease in fresh water sources and the increasing scarcity of clean drinking water. It is no exaggeration to say that water will be the most important strategic asset of the 21st century. Europe’s environmental protection policy must therefore be applied more rigorously than it has been until now to protect water tables, prevent water and soil pollution and support appropriate handling of natural and artificial water habitats.

Alternating periods of flood and drought, as well as extreme weather conditions, demand better management of rainwater. There is no such thing as superfluous water, only poorly managed water. In the next parliamentary cycle and the new budget, the European Union must ensure that significant funds are available for flood prevention, protection of water tables, increasing urban bodies of fresh water and waste water treatment programmes. Hungary’s water resources are excellent and Hungarian hydraulic engineers have been doing a wonderful job for nearly 200 years. Therefore, I am certain that our country will play an active and constructive role in drafting a unified European water policy.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN) , in writing. – (PL) In taking the floor during this debate on climate protection policy up to 2050, I would like to draw your attention to the following points.

Firstly, if the United States and the South-East Asian countries do not join the programme aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, showing as much commitment as the European Union, then the enormous financial effort involved and the inevitable consequence of a slower rate of economic growth in the European Union will be a very high price to pay for a slight reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The European Union is responsible for barely 14% of global emissions, while the USA and the countries of South-East Asia produce nearly 80%.

Secondly, the commitments of individuals countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020, along with the need to buy emission permits, will result in a significant increase in the price of electricity and heating for individuals and even higher costs for the industrial sector, especially in the new Member States, such as Poland, where the energy sector relies on coal. As a result, many industrial sectors which have a high level of energy consumption may be shut down in those countries, entailing a range of negative social repercussions.

Finally, the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions achieved by the new Member States, and by Poland in particular, should be taken into account. In Poland, the far-reaching restructuring of the economy between 1990 and 2005, resulted in reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of around 30%. This came at a very high social cost and unemployment remained at over 20% for many years during this period.

  Adrian Manole (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I think that Mr Florenz’s report ‘2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change’ was timely and necessary, given the effects already observed and those expected as a result of climate change.

Romania was one of the first countries in Europe to have signed the Kyoto Protocol, which meant that it assumed its commitment to support the battle against climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% by 2012.

I am convinced that we need these measures, although, compared with many other European countries, Romania’s level of greenhouse gas emissions is low. Agriculture and Romanian forestry can play an important role in combating climate change, whose impact has been strongly felt in recent years, especially through flooding, high temperatures and prolonged droughts. These natural phenomena affect not only agricultural and forest productivity, but also precious habitats and ecosystems.

Agriculture and forestry are expected to continue making an important contribution to the battle against the effects caused by climate change through forestation, with the aim of absorbing and retaining greenhouse gases, and the use of biomass as a renewable source of energy.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has taken on a major role in the effort to find a compromise for adopting a global post-Kyoto agreement. It is possible that cooperation with the new US administration will enable it to come up with a specific way to implement this agreement.

Specific measures for combating the effects of climate change also offer opportunities for sustainable socio-economic development and for creating new jobs. They are targeted in particular at the new, dynamic sectors, offering major growth potential, where the level of investment made so far has been inadequate. These measures will have, apart from the beneficial effect of combating climate change, a positive impact and alleviate the effects of the economic and financial crisis and may contribute, in the long term, to reducing the European Union’s dependency on energy imports.

We are talking in this instance about new, intensive investments in transport infrastructures, renewable energy sources, biotechnologies, waste collection and recycling, nuclear energy and the renovation of residential heating systems.

Reforestation and measures preventing desertification can also produce spectacular results in the medium term.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. – I welcome the Florenz Report on climate change which aims to formulate policies for keeping global warming below 2° compared to pre-industrial times. I particularly welcome the call for a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, the call for binding targets for agriculture and the demand for the creation of a European Climate Fund.

These proposals plus the measures already adopted by the EU put us in a strong position to argue for global action on climate change at the Copenhagen summit.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE), in writing. – (HU) I wish to congratulate Mr Florenz on his report, which is excellent material in preparation for the Copenhagen Conference to be held at the end of the year.

I consider very important the observation that the economic and financial crisis and the climate change crisis have the same roots. Therefore, the way out of these crises is also the same. To mitigate and halt the consequences of these crises, comprehensive innovation and a paradigm shift are needed in all areas of life.

I agree with Commissioner Dimas that the costs must be covered first of all from carbon dioxide trading, secondly from investments by private companies and thirdly from state incentives.

Everyone is looking for breakthroughs, for ways of stimulating employment, kick-starting the engine of the global economy as soon as possible and halting climate change. The concept known as the ‘Green New Deal’ was articulated by the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. What it means, in essence, is that global economic incentives must become part of the investment in environmentally-friendly technologies. The new logic of economic organisation based on innovations in environmental technology, which has the support of international capital markets, is also a fundamental feature of the US President Barack Obama’s programme.

Innovations in green and future industrial technology would boost the effectiveness of the state and economy, heighten the interest of economic players, and increase consumers’ price and cost sensitivity with regard to the products and services being offered.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The 12 points set out in the report provide a clear action plan for the future. However, to be able to implement it at a local, national, regional and global level, we need the support of well-informed citizens.

According to a special Eurobarometer survey in spring 2008 on ‘climate change’, approximately 41% of Europeans stated that they were poorly informed about the causes, consequences and ways to combat climate change. In Romania, over 65% of citizens said they had no information about this.

Raising the profile of this issue among the public through education and awareness campaigns implemented in areas of everyday life is a vital step in this direction. The Commission and Member States must finance public awareness campaigns and create conditions for training people for new careers adapted to the specific challenges of the labour market brought about by structural economic changes, which are accelerated by climate change and its effects.

In the current economic crisis, the EU must commit itself politically and financially in the key areas of maintaining and developing ‘clean’ technologies for combating climate change, supporting cross-border adaptation measures, boosting energy efficiency and providing assistance in the event of disasters, according to the EU's principle of solidarity. The upshot of all this is the creation of ‘green’ jobs in new, competitive enterprises.

  Flaviu Călin Rus (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) Ladies and gentlemen, any debate about climate, ecosystems and energy is vitally important because any major change to these can affect life on this planet. Regardless of the types of causes or the scientific arguments put forward by various groups of researchers, one thing for certain is that we are facing global warming. This comprehensive, well-written report, apart from all the useful, valuable information it provides us with, also encourages us to ask the following question: What are we going to do for ourselves and for future generations?

Against this background of climate change, I feel that there are three kinds of projects which EU Member States should be working on and supporting, as a priority:

1. Projects involving standard policies for managing energy resources as efficiently as possible and finding solutions aimed at reducing pollution, especially in industrial areas and business parks.

2. Projects involving funding for scientific research aimed at developing clean technologies.

3. Projects which support immediate specific action aimed at recreating the ecosystem at both European level and in any other region of the world.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has assumed the leading role in the battle against climate change. Devising a long-term strategy for the effective management of the world's natural resources will help achieve a global economy with reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

This strategy must be based on the principle of solidarity aimed at reaching a balance between rich countries and developing countries, which need assistance in reducing their vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change. The signs of global warming are evident in poverty, shortages of food products and limited energy resources. It is a well-known fact that oil is no longer a sufficiently powerful source of energy to meet the level of demand, which is estimated to grow by at least 60% by 2030. Finding alternative sources and using existing resources sensibly are challenges which will face the EU in the future. Agriculture is one of the areas most vulnerable to climate change because of its dependency on meteorological conditions.

Bearing in mind that this sector provides the food resources for the world’s population, sustainable management of soil and water resources, combined with protection of forests and biodiversity, will need to feature on the agenda of the long-term strategy for tackling the effects of global warming.

  Richard Seeber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) Europe and the world are currently facing considerable challenges. The capital market crisis is not the only pressing problem. We must also initiate a sustainable programme to combat climate change as quickly as possible. As large an economic and political association as the European Union is able to establish itself as the leading partner in the fight against climate change.

The first step has already been taken in this regard – the Union has agreed binding climate targets and, with the adoption of the climate change package in December 2008, it has got many appropriate measures for protecting the climate underway. The top priority must now be the conclusion of the international agreement in Copenhagen, whilst avoiding de-industrialisation and unnecessary burdens on the European economy. We should instead increase our investment in, and research into, green technology. In this way, Europe can move forward, not only in the area of the environment, but also in the area of the economy.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has become the main actor taking specific measures by adopting policies which tackle head on the global challenge triggered by climate change.

European policy in this area can become more effective at a global level and within the EU if: a) the European effort is supported by the efforts of the other powerful industrialised countries outside the EU, along with countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and so on; b) the development of nuclear energy is encouraged and not discouraged, at least in the next 30-40 years, until technology capable of using renewable resources has been developed and the costs make it affordable to market without providing grants; c) the European Commission will give stronger support to projects aimed at saving energy and extracting energy from biomass, including the transfer of technology, in less developed EU Member States with a high agricultural potential.

Romania will continue to develop its nuclear programme for generating electricity. At the same time, it will modernise its coal-powered plants and will step up its efforts to produce energy from biomass. With this in mind, we need partnerships with Member States and we urge the European Commission to speed up the process of simplifying the procedures for committing European funds.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE), in writing. – (HU) Green investments must play a key role in state economic stimulus packages intended to counteract the negative effects of the international economic crisis. These investments, which will be used to exploit renewable energy sources more effectively, moderate energy consumption and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases offer not only economic advantages but significant social benefits as well. It is in Hungary’s interest for EU Member States to coordinate and mutually reinforce their efforts in this regard. When setting environmental goals, we also need to be attentive to the economic and social capacities of EU Member States. We must set only attainable goals, taking into consideration their effects on the economic crisis. These goals can only be attained if society shows solidarity. Government activity is not enough for this to happen; a gradual shift in attitude is necessary within society as well. The concrete recommendations for action in the Florenz report, such as support for the construction of zero energy, ‘passive’ houses, the creation of a European fund to support research into renewable energy sources, linking up energy networks at European level and raising awareness among EU citizens and children in particular, all contribute to this shift in social attitude.

Moreover, we need to strive to ensure that that we preserve Europe’s technological edge in environmental protection developments in the 21st century and that we turn this into an economic and social advantage. Given Hungary’s outstanding agricultural assets, serious opportunities may open up in energy generation from biomass or in the reuse of plant and animal by-products, waste products unsuited to other commercial uses, in the form of biogas.

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

⁂

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) I hope now that the whole of Parliament will listen. During the part-session in January, we unanimously adopted a resolution on the Horn of Africa. It contained a specific paragraph stating that Dawit Isaak should be released. Dawit Isaak is now extremely sick and I would like to ask the President to write to the Eritrean authorities.

The news of his illness has been confirmed by several sources and has been mentioned in the Swedish media today. The situation is extremely serious and desperate and I would just like to remind you that Dawit Isaak is a Swedish-Eritrean journalist who has been imprisoned without trial since 2001. His health problems are so serious now that he is being kept in a military hospital, and I fear for his life.

I would appeal for support for the release of Dawit Isaak.

(Applause)

  President. − Mrs Svensson, I can confirm that the President will write accordingly.

  President. − The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes.)

(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 pending the formal sitting.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING
President

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased and moved to welcome here today Mahmud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian National Authority. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament, Mr President.

(Applause)

We also invited the Israeli President, Shimon Peres. Unfortunately, due to Israel’s celebrations marking 60 years as a nation, the agreed appointment could not be kept. We hope that the visit by President Peres can take place soon.

Mr President, this is not the first time that you have visited the European Parliament. As I welcome you here in Strasbourg at an extremely difficult time for the Middle East and in particular for your people, the Palestinian people, I remember our last meeting in the Middle East, which took place almost two years ago – at the end of May 2007 – in Gaza. You received me at the official headquarters of the Palestinian National Authority. I will never forget our meeting, as the situation was extremely tense. At that time, you were leading delicate talks with the aim of rescuing the government of national unity, which you had formed with energy and foresight. Ten days later, an inglorious coup regrettably put an end to these efforts.

Today, you have come direct from Cairo following a stopover in Paris to meet the French President. In the last few days, some very promising talks have been held in Cairo on the formation of a Palestinian Government of national consensus.

With regard to the tragedy in the Gaza Strip, it is not without concern that the European Parliament has observed the suffering of the Palestinian people. The European Parliament has not remained silent. We demanded an immediate ceasefire. We denounced the disproportionate response taken, not only by the armed forces of Hamas, but also by civilians and international humanitarian organisations. We also decided to denounce the provocations and the rocket fire by Hamas, which regrettably – and we denounce that – continued to be aimed at Israel despite the ceasefire. This has to stop.

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for the exemplary courage and sacrifice with which they have carried out their task and with which they continue to do so. On behalf of the European Parliament, we thank these men and women of the United Nations most sincerely.

(Applause)

We are calling for the peace negotiations to be resumed as soon as possible, as we are convinced that there cannot merely be a military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a political actor, we are now under obligation and have a responsibility to do everything we can to enable the people in the Middle East to live together in peace. A prerequisite for peace between Israel and Palestine is intra-Palestinian reconciliation. The European Parliament unreservedly supports the ongoing talks, led in particular by Egypt, to smooth the way to the formation of a Palestinian government of national consensus. Only this type of government will be in a position to ensure the required unity of the Palestinian people.

(Applause)

We urge and expect such a government to observe the fundamental principles of the peace process, to refrain from violence and to conduct peace negotiations with Israel with commitment. The European Union is prepared to work together with such a government.

The commitment of the new US President, Barack Obama, and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East are positive signs. The determination of the European Union – and I am pleased that the competent Commissioner, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, is with us here, together with her colleague – to place all of its political and economic weight in the balance as well as the political will of numerous Arab partners indicate that a resumption and successful conclusion of the peace process on the basis of the resolutions of the United Nations and the Arab peace initiative should be possible.

President Abbas, we are grateful to you for being here today, and I say this on behalf of the European Parliament, but more particularly for myself. We have a great deal of respect and recognition for what you are doing under the most difficult of circumstances. We trust you, because you are a man of mediation, reconciliation and therefore also of peace. We wish you success.

I now invite you to take the floor and give your message to the European Parliament. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament, President Mahmud Abbas.

(Applause)

  Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (transcription of the English interpretation from the original Arabic). − In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. Your Excellency, Mr Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, first and foremost I should like to extend my thanks to His Excellency Mr Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, and to you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this august Assembly.

I have come to you from Palestine, whose people are suffering from one of the longest military occupations in modern history. Palestine has been deeply wounded by the most violent, dire and horrific military aggression, an aggression that has targeted the lives of children, women and the elderly, as well as their houses, livelihoods, farms, plants and schools. It has targeted drinking water, sewage systems and electricity, as well as hospitals, facilities, roads and bridges.

Yes, the Israeli war has targeted first and foremost the livelihoods of my people, its infrastructure and its future, as well as the future of its Palestinian state for which we have long worked together and for the establishment of which we are still working.

You have witnessed, along with the rest of the world, the burnt and scattered remains of children. You have heard the calls of men, the appeals of children and women who lost most of their family members. Yes, you have seen the mother who was murdered while holding her babies in her arms. You have seen the father who lost the lives of his five children because of rocket attacks, and the girl Balousha who slept next to her sisters and woke to the sound of explosions that killed them all, and the hundreds of children whose houses collapsed and fell on their heads.

You have also seen the Al-Fahura school, which was considered to be safe by the people of Jabalia, who took refuge in it, and how bombshells claimed the lives of those innocent refugees, with the result that over 40 people perished. These people had families, they had names, they had stories, ambitions and hopes. In addition, over 100 people were wounded.

Along with those innocent victims fell the values of human conscience, the principles of the United Nations and its duties to protect international peace and security. You may also recall that the headquarters of the United Nations, its schools, clinics, food and medical warehouses were not spared this insane war against our peaceful and resilient people in Gaza.

I have come to you, ladies and gentlemen, from Palestine bearing a question by a boy named Luay who lost his eyesight because of bombs. He asked me who would give back to his eyes the light of hope, the light of life and to his people the light of freedom and peace.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, those were terrible scenes and pictures. This was the aftermath of this war which led to the deaths of over 1 400 martyrs, with over 5 000 injured, the majority of whom were innocent civilians, and a high percentage of whom were children, women and the elderly. About 500 of the wounded are still in a critical condition and are dying by the day, in addition to a total destruction of over 4 000 homes, buildings, and about 20 000 other homes.

This means that about 90 000 people became homeless and were displaced. In addition to wide-ranging destruction of electricity systems, water systems, sewage systems, in addition to roads and vital facilities, public and private buildings, this Israeli war has claimed the fruit of the blood and sweat of our Palestinian people, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who worked all their lives and lost the fruit of this work. It has also destroyed what the Palestinian National Authority has established over 15 years.

Much of this infrastructure and many of these facilities were thanks to the contributions of your countries and other friendly countries.

This is the scene of the aftermath of this war. This is in parallel to another type of aggression against our lands, our farmers and our national economy that happens on a daily basis in the West Bank.

The Israeli settlement has not stopped at all. The policies of settlement led to the continuation in building the wall of separation, as well as to an increase in roadblocks, checkpoints and barriers besieging the cities, villages and little towns and refugee camps in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

On the contrary, bids for settlement units have increased 17-fold in the last year in comparison with the year that preceded Anapolis. The checkpoints have increased from 580 to 660.

Military incursions have not stopped, nor have the daily arrests and sometimes assassinations of citizens; the bullying by settlers and their armed incursions and burning of homes which happened in Hebron, Nablus and other areas; and the terrorist attacks conducted by settlers against farmers in the olive season, which is considered by our people the symbol of peace and life, and not just the livelihood for tens of thousands of Palestinian families.

This tragic scene of Israeli incursions and aggressions in the West Bank, including Eastern Jerusalem, confirms to us and to the world that what is going on is an aggression against the entire Palestinian people, its future and its legitimate national rights. It is an aggression and a war against the future of peace and dedicated international efforts that have been deployed for its establishment.

This unjust embargo on our people in Gaza and the war against it was but an episode in a continuous series of measures aiming at separating Gaza from the rest of the Occupied Palestinian lands, and also at marginalising Gaza and marginalising all of our people, and preventing our people from attaining their ultimate goal: an end to occupation, gaining freedom and the right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the lands that were occupied in 1967, with Eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

This is confirmed by the escalating settlement policies, despite all the efforts and agreements, including the George Mitchell report in 2001, the last of which was the Anapolis Agreement, which promised the Palestinian people a state at the end of 2008. However, the culmination of this Anapolis Agreement was a destructive war in Gaza and a settlement war in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

The world declared in Anapolis the failure of unilateral and military solutions. We also declared that Israel should be committed to putting an end to settlement activities in order to pave the way towards a political process that will put an end to occupation and will be the fulfilment of the right of a two-state solution – a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. However, reality proves to us that Israel is still governed by a military and settlement mentality, even though its leaders speak about the two-state solution.

We must not deal with Israel as if it were a state above accountability, above international law. We must put an end to such practices and we must hold the leaders of Israel accountable for their violations of international and humanitarian law.

(Applause)

At the same time, we should like to stress that the success of relief and aid operations, as well as resettling families whose homes were destroyed, necessitates the lifting of embargoes, opening checkpoints and crossings, as well as holding Israel accountable to its commitment in the Agreement on Movement and Crossing of 2005, which would lead to the flow of aid, equipment and materials necessary for reconstruction and the normal movement of goods and individuals. This applies to all crossings in Gaza – not just the Rafah crossing – and also applies to the freedom of movement in the West Bank and the security corridors between the West Bank and Gaza to stress the unity of the Palestinian land and its economy.

Here I should like to commend the efforts of UNRWA for its continuous work, in spite of all obstructions and obstacles, to help our people. I call upon your organisation and other organisations to support its efforts in all fields.

National reconciliation and the establishment of a national reconciliation government constitute one of our priorities. We have opened the door for this reconciliation that will put an end to divisions and upheaval, and also to calls for separation between Gaza and the West Bank. We warned against falling into this trap that Israel wants us to fall into.

Therefore, at the beginning of June we called for an unconditional dialogue. We accepted the Egyptian working paper. Our doors are still open; we will not allow the division of our people and of its geographical unity; we shall continue our dedicated efforts to deal with any attempt at separation.

We know the intentions and the plans of the regional forces and tendencies which support separation and encourage it. These forces obstruct the Egyptian solution that will put an end to internal disputes and divisions. This solution is seconded at an Arab level by the Arab League and by Security Council resolution 1860, in the drafting of which I personally participated, together with Arab and European ministers.

I should like to stress that we shall continue deploying our efforts towards reaching our most noble aim, which is to find a solution for the Arab-Palestinian cause, because the status quo leaves the future unknown and leaves our people victims of the policies of war, aggression and extremism.

Once we achieve a government of national reconciliation, based on a programme that is supported by Arab and international parties, that will allow us to oversee crossings, as well as reconstruction efforts, to the benefit of our people and of preparations for presidential and legislative elections.

I hope that will receive your support, and I also hope you will help us in organising such elections and overseeing them, as was the case in 1996 and 2006. We also hope to be able to count on your support in order to release the President of the Palestinian Legislative Council and all MPs who were arrested and are still prisoners of Israel.

(Applause)

The essence of the conflict in our region is the Israeli occupation. It is a conflict between the hopes and aspirations of our people to rid themselves of this occupation and the attempt by Israel to destroy these aspirations, as well as obstructing international efforts that aim towards establishing a Palestinian state by peaceful means.

Our people look to you and to all peace- and justice-loving nations and call upon you: the time has come for the international community to assume its legal, political and moral responsibilities in order to provide adequate international protection for it and enable it to get rid of this occupation and to live in peace and freedom. Here I should like to stress again our request and your request to send international forces in order to protect our people.

We have heard about international and Arab efforts to reconstruct Gaza. It is true that these efforts should be deployed as soon as possible in order for our people to regain hope and trust, but we wonder how long Israel will be given a free hand to destroy the assets and infrastructure of Arab people.

Therefore the international community must prevent the repetition of those past events, and should also call on Israel to stop its destructive policies. I should like to repeat my thanks to the European Commission for its help in reconstructing the establishments and the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. I should like to stress that serious and comprehensive negotiations cannot be continued without a complete halt to settlement – including what is known as natural extension – and to all settlement blocks and all types of embargo.

I should like to confirm to you that the achievements of the Palestinian Government with regard to strengthening peace, public order and stability cannot be ignored by any party. Israel should be committed to its deadlines and also should stop undermining the efforts of the Palestinian Government by means of incursions and arrests. It should also respect the legal and security status of the Palestinian authority, in addition to enabling the Government to implement its vital economic projects, without using pretexts such as the G areas and other examples.

We can no longer negotiate about the end of occupation. What we need is a complete end to occupation – i.e. of the land that has been occupied since 5 June 1967, as was stated by the road map. We cannot go back to negotiating over partial and ancillary issues, while a solution to the main cause – the end of occupation – remains absent and there is an escalation in settlement seeking to strengthen and deepen this occupation, as well as the arrest of 11 000 Palestinians prisoners. This, and only this, will enable the peace process to regain its credibility with regard to our people and the people of the area as a whole.

What we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the reconstruction of Gaza, but also the reconstruction of the peace process. This is our collective responsibility. Europe, which upheld in the past – and is still upholding – the principles of security and justice in our region and in the world, must stress today, more than at any time, its role in a comprehensive and clear partnership with President Obama’s Administration, the Quartet and the international community. The election of President Obama and his declared stances, in addition to his initiative in appointing Mr George Mitchell as his special envoy, are encouraging initiatives that will smooth the path of negotiations and the entire political process.

I should like to say, in all honesty, that our Arab decision is to implement the Arab peace initiative – the Arab peace initiative which is part of the road map, and has become an Islamic peace initiative including 57 Muslim countries. This initiative should be fully complemented.

As I said before, this initiative is part of the road map that was adopted in the Security Council, according to resolution 1515. We cannot pick and choose and negotiate about its foundations that are based on international law. This is the last opportunity we have for true and just peace in our region. All parties, especially Israel, and the Quartet, should be loud and honest about this.

We must point out that the Arab peace initiative has become an Islamic initiative as well. It is an initiative that calls for land for peace. As soon as Israel withdraws from all occupied territories, 57 Arab and Muslim countries will be willing to normalise their relationships with Israel. This is an historic opportunity that must not be wasted.

Ladies and gentlemen, the scenes of death and destruction shook the conscience and the feelings of millions of people around the world, including European friendly countries. Our people appreciate this lively human conscience, but we must stress in this regard that the people of Palestine will not lose its will for freedom and life. They look forward to your support in their struggle to achieve their right to freedom and independence, to be able to build their future and to be able to give to their children their right to a safe life, a developed school and a bright future in their homeland – this homeland that deserves life and security.

Ladies and gentlemen, our great Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, said time and again, ‘This land is worth living for’. In this regard, I should like to extend my deep thanks and gratitude to you, on behalf of the people of this great poet, for hosting the activities of his commemoration. This poet is the symbol of Palestinian patriotism. He is the poet of humanity.

To Mahmoud Darwish I say: ‘Your poem, that has yet to be written, about the children of Gaza, their suffering and their hopes, will be written by a poet from among those children who upheld your spirit, just as you upheld their cause and their little dreams’. Thank you for listening.

(Sustained applause)

  President. – President Abbas, I would like to thank you very much on behalf of the European Parliament for coming here to Strasbourg and speaking to us. We now have the joint task of working for peace. We in the European Union and the European Parliament want to be honest brokers of peace. We want the people of Israel to live within secure borders and we want the people of Palestine to live within secure borders. Our starting point is human dignity. Palestinian girls work just as hard in school as Israeli girls. Israeli boys love playing football just as much as Palestinian boys. The time must come for peaceful co-existence of the kind which we have in Europe. That is our wish for the Middle East.

We wish you, President Abbas, every success in all your efforts to bring about peace. A secure Palestinian state and also a secure Israeli state, and this comment is addressed to Israel, must not remain a future vision. This must become reality and it must happen within our lifetime. If we really want this to come about, then we will be able to achieve it.

(Applause)

Mr President, I would like to thank you. If circumstances permit, we will meet again on 23 and 24 February. The Bureau of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly has asked me to visit Palestine and Israel. I will head a delegation which will travel to Gaza and we will also visit areas of southern Israel. If your diary allows, and I hope that this will be possible, we will meet in Ramallah. I will, of course, also be visiting Jerusalem.

We want to help – and this comes both from our head and from our heart – to make peace possible between Israel and Palestine, between Palestine and Israel in the Middle East.

President Abbas, we would like to thank you for your hard work and to encourage you to continue on the road of reconciliation, compromise and peace. We would like to thank you for your visit to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS WALLIS
Vice-President

  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE). – Madam President, four months ago a Polish engineer was kidnapped in Pakistan. He is being held by his Taliban captors, who threaten to execute him today if their demands are not met. I appeal to this House to support the Governments of Poland and Pakistan in their efforts to secure the release of my countryman.

– Before the vote:

  Claudio Fava, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, with your permission I would like to ask the Council, with support from the other groups, to annex the following formal declaration to the directive and therefore to postpone the vote on the legislative resolution. I shall read the declaration that I hope will be annexed:

‘The European Parliament and the Council state that the rules on subcontracting agreed upon in Article 9 of this Directive shall be without prejudice to other provisions on this issue to be adopted in future legislative instruments.’

  Martin Bursík, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, the Presidency takes note of the proposed declaration. However, it has to inform the Members of the European Parliament that it cannot make commitments on behalf of the Council without consulting it.

  Claudio Fava, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, I understand that the Council must meet formally with the Permanent Representatives Committee. I ask the Presidency to propose officially that this declaration be added and for this reason I am requesting that the vote on the resolution be postponed until the next plenary session, in order to give the Council time to carry out its formal consultation.

(Parliament agreed to postpone the vote)

⁂

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, during the last formal sitting, I asked if the use of the camera could not be made easier by leaving one seat empty. Today that was once again not the case. The camera was not on me, but on General Morillon and then on Mr Grosch. Perhaps it would be possible to ensure that both the cameraman's job and our job are made easier.

  President. − Thank you Mr. Rack, we will remind the services.

Oral explanations of vote

– Report: Karl-Heinz Florenz (A6-0495/2008)

  David Sumberg (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I did, in the end, vote for this report because, as a whole, we are all in favour of preserving our environment. That is a noble tradition of my party – the Conservative Party in Britain – but I think I have to put two riders to it.

The first rider is that we can only have a proper policy on climate change if everybody joins in. It is simply a waste of time for the European Union, or an individual country, to have a policy. So we have to involve the countries of Asia.

The second rider is that, in the uncertain times in which we live, a policy of climate change has to be tempered with the need for energy security. We face a situation in the world today where all of our countries need a ready supply of energy. That must be predominant because, without it, the economies and the welfare and the well-being of our people will not be sustained.

  Bogdan Pęk (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, I would also like to speak on the subject of this directive. I voted against the directive, as I am utterly convinced that it is extremely dangerous and poses a threat to Europe’s development. It combines the obvious issue of the need to sensibly protect the environment with an utterly hypocritical idea, namely that humans can influence the cyclical changes in our climate.

It is precisely this part, that is, the issue of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, that makes up the most important section of this document. The enormous sums of money, estimated at hundreds of billions, that are to be spent on this objective, will be utterly wasted, when they could be used to create real environmental and energy security in the European Union instead. This is a very poor and tragically unfortunate solution.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, several paragraphs and sections of the Florenz report, especially paragraph 190, relate to agriculture’s contribution to climate change. While low or conservation tillage is an option in most EU states and has economic as well as climate change benefits – and deserves far more support, in my view – the agricultural debate and research concentrate largely on the methane and nitrous oxide contributions of ruminant livestock.

While progress is being made, I do not support Member States having to meet their non-trading sectors’ targets for emissions reductions by the compulsory reduction of Europe’s cattle herds. Let us not forget that what we do not produce here in Europe we will import. One kilo of beef produced in Brazil results in six times the carbon dioxide emissions of one kilo of beef produced in Ireland.

  Leopold Józef Rutowicz (UEN). - (PL) Madam President, the European economy is the largest importer of fossil fuels. An increase in the price of these fuels, due to greater demand and higher extraction costs, may have a significant, negative impact on the quality of life of our citizens and make the European Union's economy less competitive.

Efforts to save energy and introduce clean energy sources, which produce energy at a stable and relatively low price, could counteract this trend. Making use of scientific research and using it to develop technological solutions will automatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, spreading controversial theories and scaring us with information on carbon dioxide has no added value and makes the technical and material process of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and restricting the use of fossil fuels to produce energy, more difficult.

I support all technical and scientific activities aimed at reducing the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with the theories expressed in Mr Florenz’s report. I do not support the report.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, I would like to thank Karl Florenz for his efforts and for the democratic way in which he has managed the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. Although his original report was better than this compromise I have voted for it none-the-less. A very wide range of views was expressed in today’s matter-of-fact businesslike discussion, some of them critical but all sharing the view that climate change is now under way and there is no doubt that with today’s level of civilisation we can manage to influence it and our responsibility to future generations is to reach agreement on effective measures. None of them are panaceas and all of them must apply to all continents. I believe that the Czech Presidency, despite the extreme views of the Czech president, will manage to extract fresh undertakings from the US.

  Hynek Fajmon (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted against the Florenz report. The adoption of this report is bad news for EU citizens. The Earth’s climate has changed, is changing and will change regardless of whether or not we want it to. This will not be influenced in any way by the absurd undertakings which the EU is imposing on itself in this area. The Florenz report asserts that the climate undertakings adopted by the EU in 2007 are insufficient and that they must be increased. I do not agree with this. As long as the EU is the only part of the world reducing its emissions then the target of reducing global emissions will never be achieved. All we will achieve will be that a large proportion of European businesses will relocate and jobs will be lost. The report’s authors want to change everything in Europe, from food menus to tourism, where social tourism is to become the official aim. Even Mao-Tse-Tung would feel proud of such a cultural revolution where everything old is chucked out and replaced with the new. No rational man could agree to such an approach and I have therefore voted against it.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, although 70% of the earth’s surface is made up of water, our water reserves, especially of drinking water, are shrinking at a frightening rate. Ever greater areas of our planet face the threat of water poverty. The faster the rate of development, the greater the demand for water. Research has shown that, as societies become wealthier, the demand for water increases. There is no progress without water.

Many regions of the world are teetering on the brink of disaster. Maintaining the status quo in terms of water management could lead to a situation where access to water will not only cause disputes, but will lead to wars. The material situation of countries, rather than the military capabilities they might possess, will determine their success. Water shortages will, in a very short space of time, lead to a food crisis.

We need a suitable, integrated policy, which will help to preserve and rebuild our water reserves. We need to rationalise water usage.

  Ivo Strejček (PPE-DE). – Madam President, allow me to explain why I voted against the Florenz report on climate change.

Policies relating to climate change are based to a large extent on alarmist ideologies. The evidence for climate change is controversial. Hypotheses blaming man for this change are also, to say the least, disputable. Man is seen as a creature who is harmful to the environment without making a beneficial contribution. I do not share this view.

The content of the report is a direct consequence of an ongoing fashionable green ideology stating that we must put nature and the planet first, that we cannot take care of people, their needs and interests.

The few amendments to the report calling for further progress on nuclear energy, and supporting headway on nuclear fusion, can hardly mitigate its negative impact on the whole European economy and agriculture.

I voted against the report because it is a blueprint for substantial political problems. Instead of bringing forward ideas that nobody is interested in, we should take care of people and their needs.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I supported this report mainly because the paragraphs I had some concern about were either deleted or modified in a way which I felt was appropriate. They related specifically to agriculture livestock production. I would reinforce the point that the European Union has considerably reduced its livestock production due to CAP reforms in the past, that we are now net importers of beef and that beef is produced elsewhere with the climate change concerns attached to it.

This really shows us how important it is that there is global consensus on it and that, while Europe might lead the way, we must try to insist that others follow us because we will only do ourselves harm if we are seen to be the only ones stepping up to the mark.

Finally I support the idea in this report of a specific year targeted towards providing information and dealing with the issue of climate change in a way which brings people along with us. There is already good work being done in this area.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I voted for this report because I feel, for the first time, that the European Union is in synchronisation with the United States. President Obama has been elected to office saying that he is going to put the environment first in his programmes.

But I do not know whether my constituents will accept that we are actually going to make any difference. Even if the United States and the European Union act in concert to limit the emission of carbon, we must consider what will happen if we do not do enough to encourage the emerging India and China to do the same – by transfer of technology and by helping the Chinese and the Indians to find the most modern low-carbon technology that we can export and help them to partner. The fact is that, as we speak, China is making the production of carbon-intensive coal-fired power stations come on stream every two weeks. So how are we helping ourselves limit this thing without helping the transfer of technology?

  Daniel Hannan (NI). – Madam President, once again we see the European Union inhabiting a virtual world – a world that exists only in Parliament resolutions, in Commission communiqués and in Council press releases.

We condemn global warming, yet our monthly peregrination between Brussels and Strasbourg generates hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases. We cant about sustainable land use, yet the common agricultural policy encourages the felling of hedgerows, the use of chemical-based fertilisers and the dumping of surpluses on vulnerable Third World markets. We preach conservation, yet the common fisheries policy has created an ecological calamity, wiping out what ought to have been a great, renewable resource.

Colleagues, do you not think our voters have noticed? Do you imagine that, like Descartes’s malicious demon, you can manipulate their reality by controlling their perception? The fact is that our voters saw through us long ago, which is why, at every opportunity, they vote ‘no’. If you think I am wrong, prove me wrong. Put the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum: Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est.

– Report: Claudio Fava (A6-0026/2009)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Although I have voted for the Fava report, I have fundamental reservations over the title of the directive providing for sanctions against employers of illegally-staying third-country nationals. This is hypocritical when the black economy also includes millions of European workers, tradesmen, domestic servants and others and the harmonisation of sanctions must apply to work on the black market irrespective of where the employee comes from.

  Emine Bozkurt (PSE). – (NL) The delegation from the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) supports this directive’s objective, namely to penalise the employment of illegal immigrants with a view to discouraging working illegally as one of the factors attracting illegal migrants, whilst at the same time aiming to prevent and control the exploitation of migrants.

Despite a number of positive elements in this compromise, we felt compelled to vote against it for a number of reasons. Initially, there was liability covering the entire chain right up to the main contractor. Unfortunately, this clause did not make it into the compromise between the Council and Parliament, which is now restricted to the first stage in outsourcing or subcontracting. This is counterproductive and encourages more outsourcing in order to avoid social liability.

Furthermore, there are insufficient guarantees that migrants will be protected and employers punished for breaking the rules. Migrants will not be entitled to receive any outstanding wages before they are deported, nor will they be allowed to wait for their pay in the European Union. The chances of them getting their money after they have been deported are non-existent. This means that illegal immigrants who become the victims of exploitation and want to fight for their rights hardly stand any chance at all.

  David Sumberg (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I abstained on this important vote in this Parliament. I am, of course, not in favour of illegal immigrants coming into our countries and taking the jobs of those who have paid their taxes and paid their way over time, but I think the responsibility here should rest not principally with employers but with the national governments of the individual countries.

It gives me the chance, by that abstention, to put on record my view that our present British Government has failed lamentably to have a proper immigration policy in our country – an immigration policy that tracks those coming in as well as those going out, that ensures there is fairness between those who are entitled to come in and those who are not, and, above all, a policy which will maintain good race and community relations, based on the fact that the people of Britain feel there is a right and proper balance between those who come in, those who are here and those who go out.

⁂

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, I wanted to raise a point of order, because as far as I understand, we have not voted on the Fava report. I do not see how we can give explanations of vote when the vote has not taken place.

  President. − We voted on the report, we did not take the final vote, so people may well wish to express themselves on the earlier votes.

⁂

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Madam President, the demographic crisis is one of the most important challenges facing the European Union in the near future. A low birth rate and longer average life expectancy mean that our society is ageing. In the meantime, an ever smaller group of citizens will have to pay the associated costs.

A shortage of applicants for certain jobs means that illegal immigrants are being employed, as the cost of their labour is significantly lower. Illegal employment should be punished, and its negative consequences should, first and foremost, be felt by employers, and only later affect the workers themselves.

The Directive sets out appropriate administrative requirements to be met by employers. However, these requirements should not be excessive, as they might have a negative impact on the situation of people who have entered the European Union legally and hold valid work permits. Being obliged to examine the applicants’ papers might discourage employers from employing foreigners and, as a result, lead to a drop in the employment rate and undermine the labour market.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) I am going to vote in favour of the Fava report, though it is, of course, far from perfect. I would in any event like to express my support for the directive, which seeks to address the employment of illegal immigrants.

This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, because we should also address human traffickers, networks that provide support to illegal immigrants and also, of course, Member State governments that legalise illegal aliens on a massive scale. After all, it is precisely this impunity that is one of the major draws in this whole issue of illegal immigration. Illegal aliens can organise whatever protests they please, make demands, set up petitions, without running the risk of being caught or of being returned to their countries of origin. A return policy should be adopted that is effective and that does exactly what it says on the tin.

  Daniel Hannan (NI). – Madam President, the right to determine who may cross your borders and settle on your territory is a defining attribute of statehood. For years this Parliament has been seeking to bestow that attribute of statehood on the European Union, doing so without the consent of the voters and, in so far as one can judge from the results of the French, Dutch and Irish referendums, in the face of active opposition from the voters. The question of illicit migration ought to be a national prerogative and the question of sanctions against employers of illicit entrants ought certainly to be reserved to the Member States.

If the European Union wants to extend its jurisdiction into this field it ought first to secure the wholehearted consent of the people for the legal basis on which it intends to do so. That means putting the Lisbon Treaty to a referendum. Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, this is a dreadful piece of legislation. It is dreadful, because it criminalises the employer and does not criminalise the illicit immigrant. It is nonsense. This will create a sense of foreboding among all employers whenever they have to employ somebody. Can you imagine what will happen when a potential employer looks at a potential employee and starts asking questions which are of a very intrusive nature?

In addition, this has nothing at all to do with the European Union. This ought to be a matter for national legislation and national governments – for the national parliaments of individual Member States to decide whom they want and do not want in their countries. To criminalise national employers at a time of deepening recession is absurd. This piece of legislation should never see the light of day.

– Motion for a resolution: B6-0062/2009 (Energy efficiency)

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) The European Union can now see the first results of the common energy policy. The ETS auctions will begin in 2015 and the renewable energy programmes have started. Only the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty will enable the more effective management of European priorities in the energy sphere and these are now changing. Most important of all is political independence. Energy supply must not be a source of political blackmail. The second priority is to increase the share of clean energy and renewable energy. This is the reason why these technologies, as well as nuclear energy and its operational safety and waste issues must also be targeted in research funding. The most fundamental thing this discussion has shown is that we must also look for ways to limit consumption and show respect for natural resources. However, this starts with the education of our children.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I remember a lecturer once saying to me, when I was a young master’s student, that technology offers many solutions, but, if you want to achieve things, you often need political and managerial will to achieve your goals.

Here it is once again in the European Parliament. We talk about climate change. We talk about energy efficiency. Yet, let us remember that 12 times a year we move this House from Brussels to Strasbourg, not to mention the extra buildings that we have in Luxembourg. Not only does that cost the taxpayers of Europe an extra EUR 200 million a year, but it emits 192 000 tonnes of CO2 – equivalent to 49 000 hot air balloons. So it is time for politicians in this Chamber to stop emitting their own hot air over energy efficiency and climate change, cut out the hypocrisy and close down the Strasbourg Parliament.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (UEN). – (IT) Madam President, I drive a car, and as a driver I am constantly fed up with all the persecution we face. Some of the proposals made in this report are typical examples of this, which is why I voted against it.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). - Madam President, I reluctantly supported this, though I would have preferred not to have voted for it. The reason is that we cannot create efficiency without competition. Competition is the prime driver of efficiency in any market – energy or whatever – and here we are using a tool – technology – across the European Union to drive an energy efficiency market.

Surely we should drive energy efficiency through competition in the European Union. Had we done so and had we looked at how we can compete with each other to increase our energy efficiency, we would have the best efficient energy market in the world. That is why I said I voted for this reluctantly.

– Motion for a resolution: RC-B6-0066/2009 (Guantánamo prisoners)

  David Sumberg (PPE-DE). – Madam President, before we bid goodbye to Guantánamo by a combination of a resolution of this Parliament and the executive decision of the President of the United States – a wicked combination of naked power – let me just put on record two facts.

First of all, Guantánamo was set up in order to protect all of our citizens. As far as the United States was concerned, it worked. Since 9/11 there has not been one single act of terrorism on the United States mainland. As he goes into retirement, let us salute the record of President George W. Bush as far as that is concerned. I realise I have spoken the ultimate heresy in this House by saying it, but it is true.

Secondly, let us remember too that, although we have been pretty free with our advice to the Americans, let us see what Europe does now to take the burden-sharing of some of these prisoners and protecting our people from future terrorist attack. I will not be holding my breath.

  Jim Allister (NI). - Madam President, ever eager to jump on any passing bandwagon, today the European Parliament demanded that Member States throw open their doors to Guantánamo detainees, on the very day when security services reveal that Mullah Sakir, who was released last year, is now in the high command of al-Qaeda and directing attacks on British and NATO troops in Afghanistan. On that very day, we declare the EU is an open house for such terrorist activists. Are we mad? Remember, once admitted and regularised as citizens, such people can move freely through every Member State in the EU. I trust those who voted for this madness will stand over it when it all goes wrong.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). – (CS) Madam President, allow me to explain why I abstained from voting on the resolution concerning the closure of the Guantánamo prison. Yesterday’s discussion showed that everyone welcomes this popular or populist plan of the US President, but that is all we can do. The resolution contains assessments for which we do not have sufficient verified evaluations or verified data. We devoted three hours of heated debate yesterday to the question of where to put the prisoners and those whose crimes have not been proven. Of course, the solution lies with the US Congress and with the individual governments of some European countries, but not with the European Parliament. Therefore I did not vote for the resolution.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Whilst the resolution on Guantánamo contains a number of elements that confirm the very foundations of the rule of law, I am not happy, of course, with the underlying tenor of this text, namely that the detainees of Guantánamo would be victims of some sort that deserve our sympathy. They are not exactly squeaky clean. They are people who are suspected of committing acts of terrorism but for whom conclusive evidence is lacking.

The Member States should make the necessary arrangements for the acceptance of Guantánamo inmates, or so the resolution claims. This is problematic, to say the least. The problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism is, in my view, considerable enough in Europe, and it bears witness to a certain level of short-sightedness to want to fight terrorism but at the same time open the floodgates to people who are suspected of having ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and related groupings.

  Daniel Hannan (NI). – Madam President, for years this House has criticised the United States over the suspension of civic freedoms inherent in the maintenance of the secure facility at Guantánamo. Mine was among the voices raised in concern.

I accepted – unlike some in this Chamber – that these were difficult and sensitive issues. A number of detainees were released only to be recaptured on the battlefields of Afghanistan. One blew himself up in a market in Iraq, killing dozens of people. Nonetheless, some principles are absolute and ought not to be sacrificed to expediency. One such is the principle that no one should be detained without being accused of an offence.

Colleagues, we prefaced each of our resolutions on Guantánamo with protestations of goodwill. We spoke, we insisted, as friends of the United States. Well, here is our chance to vindicate that boast. The US Administration, in doing what we have long urged, asks our assistance. Not to tender it would be mean, inconsistent, hypocritical and self-defeating.

  Syed Kamall (PPE-DE). – Madam President, those of us who believe in freedom, individual liberty and the rule of law have for years sought to persuade our American friends to close Guantánamo Bay, or the detention there. So the country that calls itself the leader of the free world cannot put aside those values for its convenience, albeit understandable security concerns.

Now that President Obama has announced the closure of Guantánamo Bay, we should be helpful in any way we can. However, it is not for the European Union to determine who enters the European Union countries. It should be for Member States, and let us call upon the Member States of the European Union to do their bit to help our American friends at this time. They have shown the will. They have listened to us. It is about time we listened to them, just as the European political élite should listen to the voters when, in referendum after referendum, they have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. It is time for us to listen to the voices that count.

  Nirj Deva (PPE-DE). – Madam President, Magna Carta and habeas corpus are the bedrocks upon which the American Constitution was written. They are also the bedrock upon which the laws of my country have been written. You cannot charge someone and lock him up without accusing him and having a trial. However, year after year in this Parliament, we condemned President Bush for what he did with Guantánamo Bay. Now we have a situation where President Obama has, quite correctly, decided to do away with it.

When the American executive President has listened to what we have had to say, surely it is up to us to encourage Member States to take on the burden of our American allies. However, that is not a matter that this Parliament can dictate to other parliaments. It is for the national parliaments to decide that it is in their interests to help the Americans in their time of need.

Written explanations of vote

– Report: Karl-Heinz Florenz (A6-0495/2008)

  Šarūnas Birutis (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Europe needs a single strategic energy policy, which would ensure the efficient use of resources and minimize environmental impact.

The EU and Member States must ensure the development of Europe's energy infrastructure, which is imperative as we strive to diversify the EU's energy sources and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Today in the EU, the heating of buildings accounts for the highest amount of energy used and the most CO2 emitted – about 40% of all CO2 emitted. In this area in particular there are many opportunities to save energy.

I agree with the rapporteur's proposal to organise an information campaign for citizens at a national level, aimed at increasing efficient energy use, during which home and flat owners would have thermal images taken of their property and would be given information on their energy efficiency and offered recommendations on the funding of possible modernization works by requesting microcredits. Poor energy efficiency is a sore point with post-Soviet era buildings and many owners do not know how and by what means they can save energy. I believe it is necessary to increase aid from the Structural Funds by up to 15% (currently 3%) for dwelling renovation.

  John Bowis (PPE-DE), in writing. − British Conservatives welcome the broad thrust of the report of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change. We believe that the report offers a significant contribution to the debate, which will lead to an effective international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen in 2009. We support in particular the aim of ambitious medium and long-term emission reduction targets, the promotion of renewable energy and increased energy efficiency, and the call for a sustainable approach to forestry, rainforests and deforestation. We also believe that a low-carbon economy will trigger greater innovation, which will create new and competitive businesses and new jobs in the fields of clean technology, renewable energies and green enterprises.

However, we cannot support the concept that the European Security Strategy and the European Security and Defence Policy have a role to play in tackling the effects of climate change.

We also strongly oppose references to the Lisbon Treaty, in particular those which suggest that the competences of the European Union in the field of climate change are not already sufficient. We believe that the EU has all the powers that it needs to help the peoples of Europe work together to succeed and lead by example on climate change.

  Nicodim Bulzesc (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the Florenz report because I agree with the recommendations made with regard to the future integrated policy on climate change.

This report calls on the Commission to monitor closely and analyse the very latest scientific research findings in order to assess in particular whether the EU’s 2ºC target would really achieve the aim of preventing dangerous climate change effects.

At the same time, it emphasises the importance of the EU and other industrialised nations setting, as a group, a medium-term target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020, as well as a long-term target for cutting emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990, while continuing to focus on the target of limiting the rise in the average global temperature to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, thereby giving a 50% probability of achieving this objective.

  David Casa (PPE-DE), in writing. − This is a report that shows the way forward and sends a clear message to all to take action now, before it is too late. We cannot take risks where the prevention of nature and humanity is concerned. We need an integrated police so as to avoid overlaps in work and we need to harmonize our aims and strategies. The European Union should take the leading role in the battle against climate change and this report is a huge step towards that direction. The rights to life, security, health, education and environmental protection are fundamental and it is our duty to safeguard them for the generations to come. We are already aware of the huge damage that climate change is causing and we are duty bound to minimize this damage as much as possible.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) We have, today, voted in favour of the report on the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change. In this connection, we would, however, like to emphasise that the revenues from the trade in emissions allowances should accrue to the Member States.

  Călin Cătălin Chiriţă (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report ‘2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change’ because climate change may result in irreversible disasters and the era of cheap fossil energy is about to come to an end.

This is why the EU needs to join forces with its strategic partners in making every effort to reduce its current dependency on fossil fuels and increase significantly the proportion of renewable energy used.

With the appropriate investments, the European economy’s energy efficiency must grow, while polluting greenhouse gases must be cut by more than 25% in the next 12 years.

The EU must take the necessary firm action to achieve the following objectives by 2050: a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 60% level of renewable energy use and energy efficiency.

The European Year of Creativity and Innovation can be a major benchmark in this respect, highlighting the fundamental importance of investments in scientific research and new technologies.

  Konstantinos Droutsas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Climate change is the result of the irresponsible exploitation of natural resources by capital for the sake of profit.

The EU considers the workers, their way of life and their consumption habits to be at fault. It wants to put the wolf to guard the sheep, by placing responsibility for moderating climate change with precisely those who are causing it: the monopolies and the multinationals. Energy, water, forests, waste and agricultural production are being privatised and concentrated in the hands of a few multinationals, now in the name of the environment. The unimpeded operation of the ‘free market', the liberalisation of markets and capitalist restructurings form the core of the measures proposed in the European Parliament report.

EU agreements with third countries demand the liberalisation of markets and public services in all these sectors. Targets are included such as, for example, for biofuels, which destroy huge forests. Mutations are being promoted and support is given to single crops, thereby destroying biodiversity.

Environmental protection is even being used as a pretext for imperialist interventions in accordance with the ‘Solana doctrine’.

The green economy being promoted by the EU and the USA offers a way out for the purpose of over-accumulating capital, safeguarding profits for the monopolies and increasing the exploitation of workers and natural resources. Not only does it not solve anything; on the contrary, it exacerbates the problem of climate change.

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the Florenz report on the subject ‘2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change’ because it presents the European Union, the Member States and their citizens with a number of proposals for meeting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets in the European Union.

I would like to stress that the climate change issue requires a cross-cutting approach at all levels of public policy making, and that investment in ‘green’ technologies is also a requirement of the current economic crisis, in that it will help create more jobs.

I believe the final report by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, of which I was a member, is a highly positive contribution to the fight against climate change and clearly demonstrates the need to reach international agreement at the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report does not tackle the core issue regarding the causes of environmental abuse, which is the predatory nature of capitalism. It just tries to share out the responsibility among all parties so as to justify proposals that are essentially based on the liberalisation of markets, with users and workers bearing the costs.

Although the final text approved in plenary is more restrained than the original proposal and does have some positive aspects, we do not agree with other points, namely when environmental protection is used as an excuse for yet another opportunity to step up the ideological offensive, to lay the responsibility on ordinary people and workers, and to commercialise all environmental activity and make it profitable.

Thus we voted for certain proposals, including those tabled by our group, which sought to improve the report’s content, but we had to show our disagreement with the attempts to commercialise everything that is essential to human life, including the air we breathe.

  Glyn Ford (PSE), in writing. − Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world today. I am in favour of energy-efficient light bulbs, but frankly it is not enough. We will all have to make and put up with changes to our lifestyle and lives that are far more drastic and dramatic.

I was recently asked at a public meeting in Cheltenham in my constituency what I thought was the most important thing that could be done to combat global warming and climate change. My response was clear: ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Without a strong powerful EU with competence in Common Foreign and Security Policy I do not believe we will get the US and Japan, China and India, to take the necessary measures.

The backing and encouragement of a powerful EU speaking with a single voice will do more to combat climate change than millions of energy-efficient light bulbs.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) This report brings together the positions of several political groups and sectoral interests on the basis of the most recent and reliable scientific data. This document is therefore undeniably thorough, wide-reaching, up to the minute and relevant.

I agree with the report overall, but I voted against the more direct references to the impact of livestock farming on climate change, since I felt they were excessive Agriculture must not be ostracised. Instead, the production and consumption of local products must be emphasised, since transporting them results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, I voted in favour of the references to the problems faced by agriculture as a result of climate change, as I believe that the most severely affected regions should be duly compensated. Still on the subject of adapting to climate change, I agree that there is an urgent need to implement the new framework directive on soil protection, and that cohesion policy, water protection policy and the Natura 2000 network need to be adapted to cope with the expected impacts.

Lastly, I voted in favour of the references to the need to avoid overusing the Kyoto Protocol flexibility mechanisms, since Europe must actually reduce its emissions if it wants to retain its leading role in international negotiations and secure a global agreement in Copenhagen.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Climate change is a fact. Some scientists nevertheless express qualified doubts over it. Similarly, the effect of human activities, considered even by this report to be the main cause for climate change, is also questioned by some scientists. Either way, the 22 chapters of the report provide a good problem summary from the perspective of the majority opinion of experts worldwide. As far as the individual chapters are concerned, the Energy chapter is rather incomplete. It states quite correctly that fossil fuels are a finite resource while completely failing to deal with the key question of securing sufficient amounts of energy in the event that by the year 2030 the global consumption does indeed increase by 60 %.

It is therefore clear that an intensive effort to construct nuclear power stations will be necessitated in the very near future. At present this is the only recognised source of clean energy producible on a large-scale but it has its ideological opponents even in the EP. Until thermo-nuclear fusion has been mastered there will be no alternative to nuclear energy when seeking a clean energy source. With this provision I agree with the report.

  Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) The Florenz report establishes a very detailed list of the actions to be taken to combat climate change and to develop support policies. However, it suffers from structural weaknesses with regard to the vital and desirable reorientation of the European Union.

The major defects are financial.

Although the creation of a carbon tax is envisaged, the analysis and implementation of this and also of the systematic carbon offset per product are not included in the 2009-2014 Action Plan. Nevertheless, this is an essential element.

No budgetary figure has been mentioned for the definitive targeted activities and projects, for public infrastructure or innovative industrial policies, for regional development, for aid to local authorities or for research and development.

With regard to industry, the reference to ‘legislative instruments’ will not suffice.

Likewise, the setting-up of a European Climate Fund is subject to the requirement ‘of allowing the market to determine which technologies should be used…’

Therefore, it will favour neither a long-term vision nor the general interest. This is absurd.

Therefore, it is imperative that the EU very quickly looks into the question of a carbon tax, public aid to support a green New Deal and the Community budget for the prevention of climate change.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM), in writing. − (SV) There is no doubt that the climate is changing. However, it not clear whether this is mainly or largely due to human activity or if it is mainly or largely part of a natural process. There is considerable uncertainty with regard to what is happening and as regards what should be done about it. Yet it is precisely this uncertainty that indicates, for example, that we should take the first steps towards slowing down our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. That explains why, on a previous occasion, I voted in favour of the proposal to reduce these by 20% by 2020.

The European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change has now submitted a report on how the EU should act in connection with climate change. The report is very sprawling. It seems as if the Members involved are engaged in appeasing particular interests, such as agriculture and tourism. At the same time, the report demands more funding and new mechanisms, and in practice is proposing major steps towards a centralised planned economy with propaganda campaigns in schools and after-school recreation centres controlled from Brussels.

The report is so far removed from the key issues that I found myself forced to vote against it. We cannot carry on saying ‘yes’ to everything that is tabled in order to demonstrate our justified concern, uncertainty and willingness to act with regard to the issue of climate change.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support this report which reinstates the EU's short-term commitment of reducing emissions by 30% by 2020 if there is an international agreement. It also reinstates the target included in the Bali roadmap, that industrialised countries should reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. I welcome this report which urges the Commission and Council to adopt a leadership role in the upcoming post-Kyoto talks in Copenhagen and calls for minimum EU energy-efficiency standards for new and refurbished buildings. The report calls on ECONFIN to introduce reduced VAT rates for renewable energy and energy-saving products.

I support the call for economic incentives such as a carbon trading system for countries to protect their tropic rainforests, and a call for energy efficiency measures to be adopted at local and regional level to combat energy poverty.

  Iosif Matula (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union’s adoption of this report proves that it is actively involved in combating the adverse effects triggered by climate change. Global warming is one of the most complicated issues which the whole planet is facing. This is why a joint effort is required involving all countries. The more than 150 recommendations included in this report cover most of the areas where improvements can be made to achieve the European objective of reducing the rise in temperature to 2ºC.

To ensure that this objective is achieved, every single person needs to be actively involved and properly informed about how to protect the environment and assume their responsibility towards future generations.

The European Economic Recovery Plan supports the battle against global warming not only by allocating funds for the development of innovative technology, but also by using ways which will boost energy efficiency. Investment in research and innovation will enable the development of clean technologies in response to the challenges posed by climate change.

I feel that the measures being proposed are achievable and can be implemented in the medium and long term. Even though most countries are facing a number of economic and financial problems, particular attention must be focused on halting the adverse effects of climate change.

  Mary Lou McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I was happy to support the final report from the Temporary Committee on Climate Change.

Today’s report from Mr Florenz is based on scientific principles and maps out the challenges that face our society in various fields like transport, land-use, energy and waste management. The current economic crisis should not be used as an excuse to row back on our climate commitments. Some less progressive forces have tried to use the economic downturn as an excuse to renege on the necessary climate commitments. This should be seen not only as the cynical ploy it is, coming from forces not in the least bit interested in facing up to the realities of climate change, but also as short-sighted in the extreme.

I specifically reject the notion that nuclear power has any role to play in the green economy of tomorrow and beyond. Ireland must remain a nuclear-free island. Clean and renewable energy sources should be the basis of our energy supply, not the dangerous short-term folly of nuclear power.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE-DE), in writing. – (SK) I wish you all a good day. I give my full backing to the report and I would like to thank you, Mr Florenz, for a detailed report on the European Union’s future policy on climate change. It is terrible that global climate change is influencing and will influence our environment and thereby our health and our society. We therefore have a duty to progress towards agreement on a policy that will help reduce the factors contributing to a future catastrophe.

Since the decision of Parliament in April to set up the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, the negotiations on assistance in integrating European responses within a global context have been successful. However, we must continually reassess our concerns with respect to reduction targets, energy consumption and the role of agriculture. Through cooperation we will perhaps be able to reduce carbon emissions and slow down the process of global warming in Europe and throughout the world.

As Mr Florenz has said, there is more than one way to tackle climate change but we know that it is right to begin with improvements in efficiency and in the management of resources. Global climate change is damaging to our environment, to our current way of life and to the opportunities of future generations. We must do our best to slow down this process if not to halt it. I thank you all.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE), in writing. – (NL) Although this report received my backing during the final vote, this does not stop me from expressing serious objections to certain sections of it. I do not think that the cultivation of feed crops for intense livestock breeding adversely affects the climate. Nor do I believe that a European soil directive should be introduced to address the problem of climate change.

  Alexandru Nazare (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) In the current economic climate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to finance investments in clean technology and green energy, which are so necessary in the battle against global warming. This is why I would like to join with my fellow Members who support this report and propose measures aimed at increasing ‘intelligent’ investments, which is a solution not only for the climate crisis, but also for the credit crunch because it has the potential to generate new jobs.

One such measure is the Commission’s draft regulation, being debated in Parliament, which stipulates that Member States may finance, from structural and cohesion funds, large-scale public work programmes for residential renovation. This can bring numerous benefits. For instance, low-income families can receive financial assistance to help them modernise their heating systems and can enjoy substantial savings on their maintenance bills. In addition, this measure will also help reduce Europe’s energy dependency, which is a priority in light of the recent energy crisis Europe experienced.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE), in writing. − This report tackles key issues relating to climate change, such as a call to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources and improve energy efficiency.

We are currently facing a situation where the effects of climate change and global warming are creeping up on us faster than we had previously imagined. For this reason, it is imperative that environmental policy remains a top priority for the EU and individual Member States.

Along with the Climate and Energy Package adopted in December, the EU clearly now leads the way in terms of environmental legislation and is in a position to encourage countries outside of Europe to follow suit and promote policies which seek to tackle climate change.

We simply cannot afford to ignore this issue and wait fifty years to see what the consequences may be.

  Rovana Plumb (PSE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because it provides a ‘roadmap in 12 action points’ of the future integrated policy on climate change.

The report emphasises the importance of the EU and other industrialised nations setting, as a group, a medium-term target for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 25-40% by 2020, as well as a long-term target of an 80% cut by 2050, compared to 1990.

In order to achieve these objectives and adapt to climate change, funds amounting to approximately EUR 175 million per annum must be provided at EU level. This involves the creation of a climate fund, financed by the revenue from the emission trading scheme and/or equivalent private funds in Member States, in order to provide the investments and solidarity required for financing a future climate policy.

Particular attention must be focused on research to ensure scientific support for the development and implementation of ‘clean’ technologies. The environmental policy must be used as an opportunity for the strategy to adapt to the effects of climate change. It must also be applied correctly and across sectors in tackling the effects of the crisis through creating new ‘green’ jobs in competitive enterprises.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN), in writing. – (PL) So far, during various legislative periods, thirteen European Parliament resolutions have been tabled on the subject of climate change. In spite of the efforts of both the Commission and Parliament, this matter continues to spark controversy. Mr Florenz’s report does not change the position of those who are not convinced of the decisive influence of human activity on climate change which has, for millions of years, only ever been subject to the laws of nature.

A further problem involves the very idea of an integrated policy for all European countries. Bearing in mind that the report makes no reference to the specific circumstances of the new Member States or, more importantly, to the efforts they have made since 1989 to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, there can be no talk of an integrated approach. Different countries have the right to set different objectives. Countries must have the right to choose the technology they use to obtain energy. With regard to the recommendations to the Commission on establishing a binding 20% target for improving energy efficiency, it seems that the suspicion that expensive, foreign energy technology is being surreptitiously promoted is not unfounded.

  Lydie Polfer (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Florenz Report. It is an excellent piece of work because this report details a wide range of measures to be taken in areas as diverse as energy, biofuels, energy efficiency, mobility, tourism, agriculture and livestock breeding, soil protection and water management, and also waste and resource management, future themes, education and training.

The excellent work of the Temporary Committee on Climate Change set up on 25 April 2007 is visionary and its proposals against climate change deserve to be supported by all those involved in political, economic and social life.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) A huge range of subjects is covered in the debate on Europe’s future integrated policy on climate change and should guide us in the search for reasonable, feasible, science-based solutions. A bigoted debate, rejecting any science other than the official version, ignoring the need for research and forgoing the uncertainties of scientific research, turns science into dogma, and dogma is of little use to political decision makers.

Our priority must therefore be to focus on diversified and efficient energy production and consumption that can reduce our dependency and guarantee the quality of life that we want for everyone, Europeans and non-Europeans alike.

We are therefore faced with a huge scientific challenge, in which the public authorities have a duty to prioritise investment in research and development and also, in particular, insofar as they are market operators themselves, to foster the creation of profitable markets for more energy-efficient products. Climate change calls for us to take a step forward in development, not a step back. Let us make the effort.

  Peter Skinner (PSE), in writing. − The targets set by the EU to reach a coordinated reduction are vital if there is to be corresponding change for the better in our environment.

I voted to improve the structure of this coordination by use of a variety of sources – including the beneficial effects of safe nuclear energy production – all of which needs to be reviewed in the light of advice from national inspectorates and changes in technology.

Given that funding is necessary I voted too in favour of ETS auctioning revenue to be used to meet the costs of any changes needed. This includes investment in new technology.

An Emissions Trading Scheme for aviation, whilst it may have only a marginal effect, is still an appropriate way ahead.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − The debate on an integrated policy on climate change is vital if we want a 50% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. − (PL) I voted to adopt Mr Florenz’s report entitled ‘2050: the future begins today – Recommendations for the EU's future integrated policy on climate change’. This report was drawn up by the Temporary Committee on Climate Change, which was appointed in June 2007.

The report is a specific list of recommendations concerning reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, to be implemented by the Community bodies (mainly the European Commission) and the Member States. In order to achieve these objectives, it will also be necessary to take action at local level.

Changes in our climate are sudden and have serious negative consequences. The EU and the industrialised nations should adopt the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020 and, in the long term, aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, in comparison to 1990 levels.

The remaining recommendations contained in the report include partnership and cooperation, in the field of solar energy production, with third countries in the Mediterranean basin, achieving zero net energy consumption in new residential buildings by 2015, and in all new buildings by 2020, with the option of expanding this target in the long term and including renovated buildings. The plans also include the creation of a European renewable energy community, with the aim of supporting research and development activities to develop groundbreaking new technologies.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE-DE), in writing. − (DE) I have abstained from voting on the climate change report. This does not mean that I believe the entire report to be bad. However, it did combine correct scientific data and false polemics. All the work done by the committee was one-sided and the wide range of scientific opinion was not reflected. It is not possible to produce a balanced report on this basis. Unfortunately this type of approach has become more common in the run-up to the European elections.

– Report: Claudio Fava (A6-0026/2009)

  Guy Bono (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Fava report on the draft directive on sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

According to the Commission’s figures, between 4.5 and 8 million third-party nationals are living illegally within the European Union and are therefore the favoured targets of unscrupulous employers benefiting from illegal labour.

It is imperative for us to highlight these practices, which are unworthy of a Europe where respect for basic human rights should apply to everyone. The time has finally come to emphasise the responsibility of those who profit from these particularly vulnerable people. We must stop criminalising these victims by stigmatising illegal immigrants. With regard to the measures we are advocating here, it is not only a question of penalising dishonest bosses but also of defending a specific number of social rights such as the right to be represented by a trade union.

However, we should not cry victory too soon because the threat of sanctions is not enough, rather we must have the necessary legal control instruments in place. Only then will we be able to implement an effective common immigration policy.

  Charlotte Cederschiöld, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE), in writing. − (SV) The European Parliament has today voted on the report (A6-0026/2009) by Mr Fava (Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Italy) relating to the consequences for employers of illegally staying third-country nationals in the EU.

Since the report charges Member States with the responsibility of imposing sanctions under criminal law, we Swedish Conservatives have chosen not to give it our support.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I support the Fava report, which we will use to impose harsher punishments on employers using illegal labour.

Fines should henceforth include costs of returning workers to their country of origin and payment of arrears (salaries, taxes and social security contributions). Other proposed sanctions range from exclusion from public grants to temporary or permanent closure.

Let us emphasise three key points in the system: firstly, the signal sent to unscrupulous or dishonest employers by imposing criminal sanctions in the most serious cases of exploitation of illegal labour, such as the employment of minors in particularly unsuitable working conditions or where the worker is a victim of people trafficking. Next, the possibility of less stringent provisions for private individuals if the private employment conditions are in order. Finally, the liability of companies involved in the subcontracting chain, if it can be proven that they knew about the employment of illegal immigrants by the subcontractor.

Finally, let us not forget that it is a matter of minimum standards (every State is free to increase sanctions against employers and protection for illegal immigrants) and that there is a clause for revision every three years enabling us to adjust our aim based on experience.

  Constantin Dumitriu (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) The report drafted by our fellow Member is a first step towards combating illegal employment and reducing one of the most serious aspects of cross-border crime. Whereas until now, countries’ policies have focused more on how to prevent illegal immigrants gaining access to the labour market, from now on, we are tackling the problem at its root by punishing employers who profit from the vulnerability of illegal immigrants.

The majority of these employees work in the agricultural sector and there are countless cases where the conditions that these people have to put up with are inhumane, very often without being paid. The regulations we are proposing will not only punish the employers, but will also ensure that workers receive any pay owing to them. We needed provisions of this kind to set out standard regulations at Community level for punishing employers as, in the majority of cases, a steady stream of people is supplied by transnational human trafficking networks.

We must not interpret this report as meaning that the EU's borders are going to be closed, but as a reinforcement of the Community preference principle. Bearing in mind the demographic profile of the majority of Member States, we need to keep the labour market borders open, but with the proviso that the flow of workers is legal and suited to the Community’s needs.

  Patrick Gaubert (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted with the adoption, by a very large majority, of the draft directive, which is of fundamental importance in the fight against illegal immigration and is essential for the implementation of a common global immigration policy.

Illegal employment is the principal source of attraction for those thousands of men and women crossing our borders every day imagining they will find a decent job to feed their families. In reality, they only become the slaves of certain employers who use and abuse their situation of vulnerability and ignorance of their rights in order to exploit them and use them as cheap labour.

This directive sends a double signal: one with regard to fraudulent employers who will no longer be able to abuse the situation with impunity, and the other with regard to potential illegal immigrants who will be discouraged by stricter conditions of access to legal employment.

The compromise negotiated with the Council is satisfactory and we can only hope for the rapid implementation of this directive by the Member States in order to put an end to this situation of vulnerability suffered by thousands of people in Europe.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) We can only endorse the general ban on the employment of illegal workers to discourage illegal immigration. In the same way, we can only endorse sanctions against employers who resort to this type of labour, often to abuse it, and who are nothing other than modern-day slave traders.

However, I have some reservations. Once again the European Union is benefiting from a case based on Community law (first pillar) in order to extend its competences with regard to the harmonisation of the criminal law of the Member States, with the notable exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom however, who have exercised their opt out recognised by the treaties.

I then recall what happened in France following strike action in a fashionable restaurant in Neuilly favoured by President Sarkozy: bosses claimed to be victims of a too rigid labour market or protectors of a workforce to whom they paid the legal minimum, and it became easy for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status through working – a situation that this directive will further reinforce by promising regularisation for those who report their employer.

I am afraid that in reality, in countries as lax as France in this regard, all this will not limit the influx of illegal immigration.

  Carl Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) This report has various merits.

The first is that it has an educational objective. It establishes the alarming fact of the increase in illegal immigration in Europe, immigration estimated at between 4.5 and 8 million according to the Commission’s own figures, and it specifies the sectors of the economy where illegal labour is most concentrated: construction, agriculture, cleaning, hotels and restaurants.

The second is that it intensifies the fight against moonlighting, in particular by introducing financial and criminal penalties for employers of illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, the limits to this report are also numerous. There is nothing about measures to stop these intermittent floods of illegal immigration. The re-establishment of internal border controls is not even being considered.

Furthermore, in times of social and economic crisis and sharply rising unemployment, the prime necessity for the countries of the European Union is to protect their jobs, and so it is essential to implement national and European policies of social protectionism. We must reserve jobs for French people in France and for Europeans in Europe. It is a question of applying the principles of national and European preference and protection as essential conditions for the economic and social recovery of the countries of the European Union.

  Jörg Leichtfried (PSE), in writing. − (DE) I am voting in favour of Claudio Fava's report on sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-party nationals.

We must put a stop to the employment of illegal immigrants, both in order to protect them from exploitation and to prevent the economy of the country in question from being damaged.

The most important issue is not to punish the illegal workers from third-party states, but to penalise the employers, who are in a much stronger position.

  David Martin (PSE), in writing. − I support the introduction and enforcement of sanctions against employers of illegally resident immigrants. This report includes minimum rules for criminal sanctions against employers, and inspections are to be made in the sectors of activity most open to abuse, though in Scotland we are already protected by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality act 2006.

  Lydie Polfer (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the draft directive, which tackles the widespread menace of illegal immigration which often gives rise to exploitation. There are in fact between 4.5 and 8 million illegal immigrants in the European Union working in construction, agriculture, hotels and other sectors. We must strengthen the fight against illegal immigration by introducing various types of sanctions against the employers of these illegal immigrants at European level.

It is in fact a matter of giving companies a sense of responsibility and thus contributing to the strengthening of the fight against illegal immigration.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that the European Parliament has today adopted, by a large majority, the draft directive seeking to impose sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants.

This ‘sanctions’ directive fits into the EU’s strategy to combat illegal immigration, which includes the ‘blue card’ promoting selective immigration and the ‘return’ directive.

Moonlighting is a menace to the European economy, all the more so within the context of the current economic crisis.

The EU still seems to be an eldorado in the eyes of many illegal immigrants; they often find work and a quality of life here which they cannot find in their own country.

It is estimated that there are between 4.5 and 8 million third-country nationals living illegally in the EU, generally finding work in the construction, agriculture, domestic work and hotel sectors. They do poorly paid jobs, often bordering on exploitation.

Unscrupulous employers benefit from these illegal workers who are prepared to work for very poor rates and in dangerous conditions.

Thanks to today’s vote, employing illegal workers will henceforth cost employers dear and may even put them in prison.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Fava’s report providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. I share the concern expressed by the rapporteur over the social consequences of this phenomenon and the conditions of exploitation in which these migrants work.

Unscrupulous employers take advantage of illegal immigrants to fill poorly paid, unskilled jobs that no one else wants to take on. Furthermore, illegal work should be considered as nothing less than a social evil, since it can depress wages and working conditions, as well as distorting competition between businesses. I therefore applaud Mr Fava’s initiative, aimed at protecting the rights of these vulnerable people.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Commission proposal for a directive and the related report by the European Parliament on the imposition of sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals are a monument to hypocrisy and deceit. The real objective is not to impose sanctions against employers who barbarically exploit immigrant workers; on the contrary, it is to punish, arrest and violently deport immigrants to their countries of origin. It is one of a set of measures in the EU's anti-immigration policy, as expressed in the ‘Immigration Pact', and follows on from the notorious ‘directive of shame' providing for 18 months' detention of ‘illegal’ immigrants, their deportation and a ban on their entering EU territory for 5 years.

In fact, the proposal for a directive and the European Parliament report, which goes in precisely the same direction, intensify the repressive measures against immigrants, methodise their social exclusion and essentially facilitate their even more savage exploitation by capital.

The Communist Party of Greece votes against both the report and the Commission's proposal for a directive.

It supports the just demands of immigrants, their legalisation, the abolition of black and undeclared employment, an increase in wages and salaries, equal pay for an equal day's work and the full safeguarding of social and civil rights.

– Motion for a resolution: (B6-0062/2009)

  Edite Estrela (PSE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies (ICTs) because I believe ICTs play a crucial role in improving energy efficiency and may result in an estimated saving of over 50 million tonnes of CO2 each year.

The Member States need to make full use of the potential provided by ICTs in order to meet the targets set by the climate and energy package of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20%, increasing the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources to 20% and achieving a 20% improvement in energy efficiency in the European Union by 2020.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted in favour of this report by a Czech Member of this House from our political group because we believe it addresses a subject of the greatest importance: addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies (ICTs). These technologies can be the driving forces behind greater productivity, growth and cost reductions that make for competitiveness, sustainable development and the improvement of EU citizens’ quality of life. That is why we agree with the proposal to suggest to forthcoming Council presidencies that they make the topic of ICTs and their importance in combating and adapting to climate change one of their priorities.

We also think it important for more efforts to be made at every level of decision-making to use all available financial instruments for the deployment and take-up of new ICT-based technological solutions that enhance energy efficiency.

Similarly, given the delay in adopting a systematic approach to intelligent ICT solutions, it is important to raise awareness of these, placing particular emphasis on lower emissions in connection with the development of towns and cities, in particular through the development of intelligent buildings, street lighting and transmission and distribution networks and through the organisation of public transport.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN) , in writing. – (PL) I supported the motion for a resolution on the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies.

ICT should become the solution of the future for practically all energy-consuming equipment, helping to achieve significant savings in terms of energy consumption. Failing to undertake such action could lead to a significant increase in energy demand, as soon as within the next few years (around 25% in the space of four years).

The greatest savings might be possible in the sector dealing with the production and transmission of electricity. Efficiency should be increased by around 40% in the field of energy production and by around 10% in the field of energy distribution. ICT also contributes to better management of the energy grid, as well as facilitating the integration of renewable sources of energy. Thanks to the application of ICT, significant savings will be possible in terms of the heating, air conditioning and lighting of buildings. This will all contribute to a real reduction in CO2 emissions, both in terms of energy units and on a global scale.

These technologies, including the components themselves, as well as micro- and nanoelectronic systems, and many modern technological approaches (for example, photonics), increase competitiveness and create new opportunities for businesses and the labour market.

Increasing energy efficiency involves reducing energy consumption during the production, transmission and distribution phases, as well as for the end consumer. Bearing in mind that this is achieved by means of technological and behavioural changes, as well as economic changes, aimed at ensuring that the same level of comfort and service is maintained, modern ITC technology should be implemented as widely as possible.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on addressing the challenge of energy efficiency through information and communication technologies.

I would argue, in fact, that alongside the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, we must also undertake to improve energy efficiency by 20% over the same period. For this reason, I support the motion tabled, which aims to increase awareness, for example through demonstration projects, of the importance of information and communication technologies for improving energy efficiency in the EU economy. These technologies are a driving force behind increased productivity and growth, as well as cost reductions that make for competitiveness, sustainable development and the improvement of EU citizens’ quality of life.

  Flaviu Călin Rus (PPE-DE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament’s motion for a resolution on solving the problem of energy efficiency through information and communications technologies as I firmly believe that these technologies can offer viable solutions to this problem.

Energy efficiency is an extremely important topic because we are well aware that the natural reserves from which we obtain our energy are dwindling all the time and will run out at some point. Consequently, I feel that any technology which can be used to achieve energy efficiency is a benefit which society as a whole can enjoy.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PL) The issue of the European Union’s energy security has been raised many times in this Parliament, especially by representatives of the new Member States.

The crisis which has, in recent weeks, affected many Member States, has clearly shown how real the danger of having our gas supplies cut off is, and how ill-prepared we are to deal with the consequences.

Europe must finally start to show solidarity in the way it thinks and acts. We must build a suitable transmission infrastructure, create support mechanisms for countries which will lack supplies of raw materials and diversify the sources from which we obtain them. We must seek to find alternative sources of gas and create a system for saving energy and making our consumption of gas more efficient.

I am aware that all of these points have already been raised on numerous occasions in the past, but what good is that if we are still stuck at the drawing board?

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − The importance of energy efficiency and its contribution to meeting our climate change targets cannot be underestimated. Energy efficiency programmes have the potential to create jobs.

– Motion for a resolution: (RC-B6-0066/2009)

  Guy Bono (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution on the return and reintegration of detainees from the Guantánamo detention centre.

It seems to me that Europe can only congratulate President Obama on his decision to close the detention centre, something that many of us have been demanding for several years. Therefore, this seems to me to be a good opportunity to respond to the request of the USA by putting forward a common position in line with the values of the European Union.

It is essential that we are also able to put our own house in order within our own borders and that the European countries that have allowed the CIA to covertly transfer prisoners are in turn made aware of their responsibilities.

  Niels Busk, Anne E. Jensen and Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ALDE), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Liberal Party’s MEPs voted against paragraph 4 of the motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates, as we believe that it is the sovereign right of individual Member States to decide whether to accept inmates from Guantánamo should the US administration so request.

We are, of course, in favour of Member States consulting each other regarding possible effects on public security throughout the EU in the event that Member States wish to accept inmates.

  Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), in writing. − For many MEPs the existence of the Guantánamo Bay prison became a stick with which to beat America. Personally, I am grateful that the United States yet again took on a disproportionate responsibility for protecting Europe from terrorism.

Nevertheless, I accept that Guantánamo Bay prison should close. That’s not because I think that violent terrorists don’t need to be locked up; quite the opposite, in fact. But clearly the legal issues surrounding the detention of enemy combatants need to be resolved, and the best way of doing so is by closing Camp X-Ray.

Much as I admire and support America, it must be said that the inmates of Guantánamo are essentially America’s responsibility, not ours. They were captured or arrested under American command and should therefore be prosecuted for and detained for alleged offences against America, under American law and on American territory.

I do not support the idea of EU Member States taking responsibility for these extremely dangerous terrorists. However, nor do I think the EU should tell Member States what to do in this regard.

I therefore voted to abstain on this resolution.

  David Casa (PPE-DE), in writing. − We have to be very careful when taking decisions like those proposed in this resolution. We cannot just open our arms and welcome everyone released from Guantánamo. Whilst assuring that the ex-detainees are treated with dignity we have to ensure that they are innocent beyond reasonable doubt before taking any decisions. Any haphazard decisions may be fatal if we do not pay the utmost attention.

  Chris Davies (ALDE), in writing. − While welcoming the decision to close Guantánamo, I am concerned by the willingness of European countries to admit former detainees who may maintain terrorist links. Given the policy of free movement of people within the EU, the actions of one European country may have repercussions for others at a time when we already face complex terrorist problems. Furthermore, our ability to deport a terrorist suspect is constrained by international conventions (such as ECHR) whose revision is overdue.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE), in writing. − I support this resolution which welcomes President Obama's closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay and his other important and related executive orders; Recalls that the United States must bear the primary responsibility for the closure of these facilities including the future of its inmates; However, calls on EU Member States, in the spirit of providing fair and humane treatment for all and reinforcing international law, to respond positively to any request from the United States to aid the resettlement of Guantánamo Bay inmates within the European Union.

However, I am deeply concerned by reports that the Obama administration is to retain the practice of rendition.

  Edite Estrela and Armando França (PSE), in writing. – (PT) We voted in favour of the European Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on the possibility of receiving Guantánamo inmates who have not been charged with offences, since we believe that EU cooperation is essential to reinforce international law and respect for human rights, and to ensure that Guantánamo inmates receive fair, impartial treatment.

We therefore regard the Portuguese Government’s initiative and willingness to collaborate with the US Administration in the process of closing the Guantánamo detention facility as an example to be followed by other Member States, in order to support the United States in resolving this complex problem within a framework of respect for human rights and the rules of international law.

  Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) I voted against this joint motion for a resolution. In view of its recitals D (third item) and F, I consider it unacceptable that the EU should encourage its Member States to be prepared to take in prisoners released from Guantánamo in response to an ill-advised, demagogic suggestion by the Portuguese Foreign Minister.

In fact, we should not under any circumstances agree to EU Member States accepting detainees believed to be ‘potential threats’ (recital D); nor should we forget the precedent of the 61 former inmates who have been involved in terrorism since their release (recital F).

Since it is impossible to safely distinguish between those who pose a potential threat and those who do not, it is obvious that the precautionary principle should apply not just in the context of REACH.

  Pedro Guerreiro (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Although the joint motion for a resolution includes certain points that we consider positive, particularly where it says that ‘the main responsibility for the whole process of closing the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and for the future of its inmates rests with the United States’, it does not clarify the terms in which we should regard the extremely serious humanitarian situation in question.

As we have emphasised previously, we oppose any agreement between countries or between the United States and the European Union on the transfer of prisoners detained in Guantánamo. That does not mean that decisions and requests freely expressed by individuals, namely for asylum in Portugal, should not be considered within a framework of respect for national sovereignty, for the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and for international law.

The resolution, however:

– fails to denounce the fact that the detention and illegal transport of citizens have not been questioned by the new US Administration; and

– completely ignores the need to discover the whole truth about the violations of international law and human rights committed as part of the so-called ‘war on terror’, including the responsibilities of the governments of several EU countries regarding the use of their countries’ air space and territory for the rendition and transport of illegally detained prisoners.

  Ona Juknevičienė (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I warmly congratulate and support the decision of US President Barack Obama to begin the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre. This is an important step towards a new beginning in US policy. I am sure that all EU Member States will support such US policies and will answer President Obama's appeal for cooperation, or help in solving the question of released prisoners, if he asks for this. However, I voted against the resolution article, which urges Member States, ‘to be ready to accept Guantánamo prisoners’, as I believe this question should be decided independently by each country in the Community. I have no doubt that each one of them, once faced with a concrete case, will respond positively and offer support to the US administration. However, that will represent their own choice and good will and respect for humanitarian and international legal norms.

  Athanasios Pafilis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party MEPs voted against the joint motion for a resolution by the political parties in the European Parliament, calling for the immediate release of all detainees arbitrarily arrested and held by the USA at the base in Guantánamo and the immediate and definitive closure of the base which they also illegally maintain on Cuban soil, against the will of the Cuban people and its government.

Rather than this, the resolution calls for a ‘fair trial’ for anyone the USA considers it has evidence against, calling on the Member States of the EU to accept detainees in their prisons, within the framework of the joint fight against terrorism by the EU and the USA. It is an absolute mockery and complicity to agree to the trial and sentencing of detainees, when we all know the mediaeval torture which they suffered and hence the credibility of any such evidence following years of inhumane imprisonment.

The celebrations and salutations surrounding President Obama are making people delude themselves about the policy of imperialism. As far as this specific issue is concerned, the order for Guantánamo maintains the facility for the CIA to ‘abduct terrorist suspects’ and take them to secret prisons.

  Tobias Pflüger (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DE) I have voted in favour of the European Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates, because I welcome the acceptance of Guantánamo prisoners by the countries of the EU. Many EU Member States are jointly culpable when it comes to Guantánamo because, for example, they granted overflying rights for the illegal transport of prisoners.

However, the report contains a few points which make it difficult to vote in its favour.

The torture practices in Guantánamo and, in particular, waterboarding are not explicitly referred to as torture, but instead as ‘harsh interrogation techniques which amount to torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment’.

In addition, the amendments tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance asking for all secret prison camps to be closed, the right of compensation for the victims and an investigation of violations of human rights in relation to Guantánamo were all rejected.

  Luís Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. – (PT) Europe’s difficulty in dealing with the decision to close Guantánamo clearly illustrates the gap between intentions based on valid principles and reality, which is replete with difficulties.

The closure of Guantánamo is good news both in itself and symbolically. Closure, however, does not solve the problem for which the facility was created – and which it too failed to resolve – which is how to deal with a threat to national and international security that is marked by entirely different characteristics from those of traditional enemy combatants, for whom international law was designed and is prepared.

Rather than just cooperating in possibly accepting former Guantánamo inmates – a measure that may be necessary but must take account of a number of limitations – Europe, the United States and the international community must cooperate in seeking a stable and lasting legal solution to the challenge posed by international terrorist combatants. Without that, Guantánamo will be followed by another poor solution.

As for our taking in former detainees, not only should there be coordination at European level, but it would be advisable not to take in those who, in other circumstances, would not be granted visas on security grounds. Willingness and caution should be the criteria adopted.

  Luca Romagnoli (NI), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the joint motion for a resolution on the return and resettlement of the Guantánamo detention facility inmates. In particular, I am firmly convinced that the responsibility for the entire process of closing the Guantánamo detention facility and the future of its inmates rests solely and exclusively with the United States of America.

Moreover, I do not agree with the assertion made in the resolution that the responsibility for respect for international law and fundamental rights rests with all democratic countries, particularly the European Union. We cannot interfere in a matter in which the United States’ Government has sole competence. In short, for the reasons cited above, I am opposed to the possible admission of Guantánamo inmates to the EU.

  Catherine Stihler (PSE), in writing. − All EU Member States must play their part in making possible the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison. It is no good calling on the Americans to close the place, which the new President is doing, if we cannot shoulder some responsibility.

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE), in writing. – (PL) I welcomed the news of Barack Obama’s decision concerning the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison. During his election campaign, Mr Obama had already underlined that closing this notorious prison would be a priority.

The matter of the return and transfer of the Guantánamo inmates may be a sign of an important shift in US policy in the right direction, namely towards respect for fundamental rights, as well as humanitarian and international law. Now, each prisoner should stand trial. If they are found guilty, they should serve their sentence in a prison in the United States. Those who have not been charged and who voluntarily agree to be repatriated, should be sent back to their countries of origin as soon as possible. Prisoners who cannot be sent back to their country of origin due to a risk of torture or persecution should be allowed to remain in the United States, where they should receive humanitarian protection and compensation. There are currently around 242 prisoners held at Guantánamo. Some of them are there only because there is no safe country to which they can return. These people have not been charged with any crime.

The fight against terrorism is, and remains, a foreign policy priority for both the European Union and the United States. However, we must strongly emphasise that it must always go hand in hand with respect for fundamental rights and the principles of the rule of law.

(The sitting was suspended at 13.20 and resumed at 15.00.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS ROTHE
Vice-President

(The Minutes of the previous sitting were approved)

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – Madam President, on a point of order, I refer to Rule 142(2)(a) and (b) on the allocation of speaking time. Yesterday when we were discussing the Guantánamo prison, here in the Chamber, I and several other speakers were interrupted without mercy when we had exceeded our speaking time by a few seconds. That harsh treatment was meted out by Mr Pöttering and Mr Siwiec, the Vice-President replacing him later in the afternoon.

Mr Schulz, the Socialist Group leader, on the other hand, was permitted by Mr Pöttering to exceed his time limit by far more than a minute. Now, I would not dream of insinuating that this was because Mr Pöttering and Mr Schulz are buddies – alte Kameraden as one might put it in German – but I do spot a recurring pattern here. Colleagues from big groups elaborating the political message the Chair wants to hear are treated with great generosity. Colleagues from smaller groups elaborating the political message the Chair does not want to hear are treated with great meanness. Now that is in breach of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clearly stated how speaking time should be allocated.

I want to remind Mr Pöttering and all his Vice-Presidents –

(The President informed the speaker that he had exceeded his speaking time)

I was sent here to defend subsidiarity and the sovereignty of member countries and the President and the Vice-Presidents of this Parliament have no right whatsoever to try and silence the voice of 15% of the Swedish electorate.

  President. − Mr Lundgren, I am now cutting you off. You have exceeded your speaking time by more than half. I have taken note of what you have said. I believe that it is clear to everyone.

  Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM). – Madam President, can I remind you that this would not have happened to Mr Schulz. He would not have been interrupted by you. This is the great difference. But you prove my point – thank you very much.

  President. − Mr Lundgren, I am sure that you are mistaken. I will record what you have said and it will appear in the Minutes. It would certainly also be appropriate to discuss in the Bureau the question of differing behaviour, which is partly dependent on the amount of time available.