Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 10 January 2005 - Strasbourg

12. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

  President. The next item is the debate on the Commission Statement on the outcome of the Tenth Session of the Conference of Parties organised in Buenos Aires by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  Dimas, Commission. (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by saying that I fully endorse everything the President said about the unprecedented disaster in South-East Asia, and by congratulating the European Parliament on its immediate response to the question of the aid which the European Union will make available accordingly.

I must say that the European Union not only was generous but also responded quickly and efficiently to this unprecedented tragedy. It mobilised immediately. The day after the disaster, experts from the humanitarian aid office, ECHO, and the Committee on Civil Protection were in Sri Lanka and Thailand, helping to coordinate, to identify the problems, to evaluate and assess the damage and the need for certain supplies and to improve the coordination of such supplies. They will doubtless remain there for a long time, because even greater efforts are being made to restore and reconstruct the area and the support of the European Union needs to be constant.

I should like first of all to thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate with you this evening the results of the tenth conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was held in Buenos Aires last month. I must say, first of all, that it was attended by the chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr Florenz, and 7 other members, whose participation was very, very important. I have to say that they supported us, they helped us and they advised us during the negotiations, right to the end. On the last day in particular, we were in constant contact during the very tough negotiations which took place there. I have to say that the results were not spectacular. However, they were better than the results we expected, especially the results we expected before the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, in other words before we confirmed that the Kyoto Protocol would enter into force. We can therefore say that the overall results were positive. There are a number of points I can mention which illustrate this.

The first and perhaps most important of all was the discussion about what will happen after Kyoto which, according to the Kyoto Protocol, should start in 2005. We met with a great deal of reaction here; the United States and certain developing countries barely even wanted to talk. To be precise, they did not even want to discuss the possibility of starting discussions in 2005. After very tough negotiations, as I said earlier, we managed to agree, following a proposal tabled by the ambassador of Argentina, Mr Estrada, that a seminar would be held in May on two material issues: the first concerns the present situation and the second, which we insisted be included, concerns future developments. It is a first step, a hesitant step in my view, but a first step nonetheless towards negotiations, towards the discussion about what will happen after 2012 in connection with the repercussions of climate change. I must say that we had allies at these negotiations, which is an important development, in the form of numerous developing countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and numerous African countries, which previously were hesitant but which this time supported the efforts we were making to get discussions started.

Another very important point is the agreement on a five-year programme to bring developing countries into line with the requirements of climate change. I can say that we had important support here from these countries, which also stand to gain from this programme.

The third important point concerns certain clarifications about the clean development mechanism. It is one of the mechanisms for which provision is made in the Kyoto Protocol and which has become very important with the start of the application of the Protocol and the operation of the carbon dioxide trading system in the European Union. We shall have a great many applications for approvals being filed with the executive office in Bonn, which therefore needs reinforcing. It needs to become more transparent. Money is needed if it is to be able to operate efficiently and contribute to the operation of the Kyoto mechanisms.

Another issue related to the clean development mechanism is the registry system, which is needed so that the overall trading system planned can operate, and there are other technical issues which are very important but which are not put forward as much. All of this was discussed and we arrived at solutions and agreements.

I think that the European Union gave an important presentation of the carbon dioxide trading system, which has started operating officially in the meantime since 1 January. This presentation showed and in some way secured the leading role played by the European Union in the question of climate change and incited a great deal of interest. We had ministers from almost every country following the discussion on trading, followed by numerous bilateral meetings with countries which have declared an interest in cooperating, such as Norway, which has had a trading system in operation since 1 January, Japan and Canada; there was even interest from the United States, but they could not participate because they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This is a restricted system which operates between the countries which have signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Finally, I should like to say that the most important thing was that we networked through bilateral contacts which both we and the members of the European Parliament had either with corresponding members of national parliaments or with other delegations; this gives us an opportunity to be able to persuade the countries which we need on board if we are to promote the desired targets for the period after 2012, especially the United States, China and India, countries with which we absolutely must find some way to reach agreement.

To close, the discussion we had in Buenos Aires and the results of it, which are positive overall, gave us the opportunity to stimulate the dialogue within the European Union about what will happen after 2012. We have two opportunities: one was the Council of Ministers held on 20 December, which reformulated the European Union's commitment on preventing the overall temperature of the planet from rising more than two decrees Celsius over coming years, as well as the need for target percentages for increases in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. The second is the spring European Council, to which the Commission will contribute two papers: a working report on the cost and benefits of taking action or not taking action on questions of climate change and a Commission communication on the evaluation of the strategies required for the period after 2012 and what we shall do until then. Of course, we also await the contribution of the European Parliament in the matter.

I should like to say that the results from Buenos Aires, which did not receive such good coverage by the press and the media, were better than the results presented in the media. I repeat that they were not the results we wanted, but they were better than the results we expected before we went and, as such, we can say that, overall, the results were positive.

  Florenz (PPE-DE), on behalf of the group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I can readily endorse what you, Commissioner, have said just now. I believe that, all things taken into consideration, we had a successful conference, even though we did not perhaps come away having got the figures we wanted or having quite achieved our objective. At this point, I would like to express my gratitude again to the Dutch President-in-Office of the Council, who – assisted by your efforts, Commissioner – really did weld these three diverse European institutions into a team, with the result that Europe will in future be able to play an important global role not only through the euro, but also in the fields of environmental and climate policy. On this issue, I see us as not only leading, but also as determining direction. What we are aiming for is to be able to share in decisions about the ways in which we achieve our objectives, both in Europe and the world.

A few weeks ago, the Environment Agency in Copenhagen made it quite clear that we, with the instruments at our disposal, are on the right track, and you have just spoken about implementation. It was therefore logical that, in Buenos Aires, our three institutions influenced decisions on what happens after 2012, which will mark the tenth anniversary of Kyoto, for our industry needs data with which it can calculate if it is to be able to put its post-2012 investments on a legal basis. For that reason it is important that, in this House too, we should take further steps to bring us closer to the goals we have set ourselves.

Not only, of course, is that a task for industry in Europe and around the world, but we must also muster the courage to extend this both to travel and transport and to domestic fuel. I am well aware that this will not go down at all well politically speaking, but if, in future, it is to be industry alone that implements the Kyoto targets, the costs for industry, both in Europe and around the world, will be immense. We need other shoulders to share these burdens.

It follows, Commissioner, that you were right to mention Europe’s energy-saving measures. You are right to want greater energy efficiency, and we must also, of course, be judicious in promoting renewable energies. This is very much after my own heart, and I hope we will make progress in this matter.

Buenos Aires did, of course, have its darker aspects, and I, as a self-confessed friend of America, found the Americans’ truly destructive approach painful and very disappointing. Yet there is hope too – perhaps not in the American Government, but instead in ten of the American States, which have set out to pursue a greenhouse initiative quite separately from Washington, and there are signs of really hopeful developments on the border with Canada and elsewhere. I would even go as far as to say that, where transport policy is concerned, Europe has something to learn from states such as California. In the United States, too, I believe, democracy from the bottom up will get things moving in this area, and that is something I can only support.

So let me again extend warm thanks to Commissioner Dimas and to Mr Van Geel, the President-in-Office of the Council, for putting Europe’s weight into the balance. The fact that the scales did not then tip the way we wanted was not our problem. We will keep up the fight, though, firm in the conviction that we are ploughing the right furrow, an example that I, being a farmer myself, am happy to use.

Thank you for your patience, Mr President.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Corbey (PSE), on behalf of the group. – (NL) Mr President, I too should like to start with a word of thanks to Mr Florenz for his leadership of the delegation, to Mr Dimas and the Dutch Presidency for the pleasant working relationship.

I should like to start off with the North Pole, which is warming up faster than expected: glaciers are melting, permafrost is defrosting, and forestry boundaries are shifting. People on the North Pole are now forced to change their lifestyles to be compatible with warming. Societies on the North Pole are experiences on a small scale what the world as a whole will soon be dealing with. We are facing the twofold task of adjusting to climate change and at the same time keeping it to a minimum.

Given this enormous challenge, the outcome of the Climate Conference in Buenos Aires is particularly disappointing. It is, of course, a good thing that it was possible to keep the Kyoto process just on track thanks to a seminar. It is, of course, a good thing that the European Union has its own way, and that the outcome can be anticipated at this seminar, but it is all insubstantial, pathetically so.

We also have to conclude that the EU is becoming increasingly isolated. Naturally, a number of American states are prepared to set to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and there is indeed interest in our system of tradable emission allowances. It is also true that few scientists these days deny that mankind has an influence on the climate. We have to count our blessings, but the essence of Buenos Aires is that the sense of urgency that is felt in Europe is not shared in other parts of the world. I wonder why this is so. Is it that the US administration does not feel a sense of responsibility ? Is it a lack of insight on the part of the rest of the world or a lack of diplomatic skill on our part? Are our powers of persuasion failing us?

Unfortunately, we are bound to conclude that the EU did not have the influence that was required. Binding objectives after 2012 are worth striving for, but they have, unfortunately, become a European hobbyhorse. The EU will need to be extremely well prepared for the seminar in the spring. There is also a need for practical proposals, which requires leadership and powers of persuasion but, above all, courage. Sound, productive and well-founded proposals need to be tabled without delay. The EU will also need to be open to approaches adopted in other countries. I can distinguish at least three solutions which we all need to explore.

First of all, we need to focus more on making adjustments and helping developing countries, in particular, to make them. The contributions of African and Central American delegations in Buenos Aires all started with accounts of unpleasant climate changes. Adjustment is not easy, but it should certainly be about more than aid when major disasters strike. Lifestyle adjustment is fundamental, and credible programmes need to be set up to that end.

Secondly, there is the transfer of technology, into which we must put all our efforts, abandoning our ideological reserve about the clean development mechanism.

Thirdly, we will need to expend far less energy on a national approach and national objectives, and instead focus on the objectives for each sector. In the talks that our delegation has held, the sectoral approach was considered a viable route. We will need to put our heads together with the steel, cement and paper industries. Competition in those sectors is worldwide, and worldwide objectives based on the best suitable technology are the obvious way ahead. The WTO can play a role in this.

  Davies (ALDE), on behalf of the group. – Mr President, if the results of the Conference of Parties in Buenos Aires are better than expected, the Commission's expectations must have been very low when they started out. The Commissioner has now been baptised into the hard world of climate change negotiations. I hope it has given him a taste for resolving the problems and bringing the world together behind a common purpose.

The people of Carlisle are today having to cope with the worst floods on record, an unparalleled deluge of rain having fallen in recent days. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services, the voluntary organisations and many individuals for the work that they have undertaken in trying to alleviate the situation and, in particular, for their efforts in helping the elderly and others in greatest difficulty.

It is not possible to declare with certainty that these floods are an indication of global warming, but extreme weather events have been highlighted as one of the consequences of climate change. Events in Carlisle are one reason why it is so important that the EU should continue to lead the world in developing policies to combat the effects of global warming.

The British Government has declared in recent weeks that it is determined to ensure that the issue of climate change is high on its agenda when it assumes the presidency, so it is frankly astonishing that the same government is putting at risk the successful launch of the Emissions Trading Scheme, Europe's most important measures to reduce emissions of global warming gases.

The UK's national allocation plan was submitted by its government and approved by the Commission last July. Three months later, Britain was back with a revised plan that calls for bigger and more generous allowances, far larger than those demanded by any other government. It is threatening legal action if the plans are not approved. That seems an extraordinary demonstration of either incompetence or bad faith. It makes the fine words of the British Government sound very hollow.

Before the Commissioner finishes this debate, I should like him to tell the House just what the current situation is. As things stand, is the UK in the Emissions Trading Scheme or not? Do your legal offices, Commissioner, tell you that the UK has a real case, or does final approval of the Emissions Trading Scheme allocations rest with the Commission, as the directive says? Do the current position and the delays incurred present real problems for the success of the Emissions Trading Scheme in the long term?

I hope that the Commissioner will be able to respond to these points. I hope he understands that he will not be condemned by all UK representatives if he takes a very firm stand on this issue.

  Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, COP 10 marked the 10th anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and was the first COP held in the certainty that the Kyoto Protocol would enter into force. This meeting was described by one observer as 'talking about talking about the future'.

We cannot hide the very apparent difficulties of starting a discussion on the post-2012 period. This does not surprise us because the Council also failed to agree on the numbers to be given, and it is always difficult to talk about the future when the present situation is still so unsatisfactory, as it is today.

COP 10 also provided a forum for hundreds of side events, press conferences, meetings, NGOs and stakeholders, something that we consider to be important because, if the Kyoto Protocol is to become real, we need much more than governments to implement it.

I would like to underline two results of COP 10. The first is the perfectly apparent and open obstruction by the US. Commissioner, you have not spoken about that, but I think you should. You should also tell us what you are going to do about it. This was not merely a major disappointment; it was a major obstacle, a change of strategy. The US is no longer saying that it will not sign but equally will not hinder. On the contrary, it is going to hinder. It is hindering and will continue to do so in the future.

Commissioner, we should like to know your feelings on the view that the EU must be prepared to move along negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol framework without the US asking for the exclusion of those countries which are not signatories to the protocol. This is something we have to start talking about.

The second issue, as already mentioned, is the decision to convene a seminar of government experts. The mandate is very weak, as many people have already mentioned, but if there is a political will, it will be possible and we can start a serious discussion – with those who want it – on post-2012 commitments.

What do we expect from the Commission and the Council? We believe that they should prepare for the meeting in Bonn in May by setting out a global proposal on future climate policy which is consistent with the EU's commitment to keeping global warming to a maximum of +2°C, compared with pre-industrialised levels, and to having global emissions peaking within the next two decades.

Secondly, the EU Troika must engage in a serious diplomatic effort to bring on board and take into account the legitimate concerns of developing countries. There should be no illusion here. Unless serious resources are given over to adaptation measures, we will not have the developing countries on board, and we want them to fight alongside us.

Thirdly, the EU must redouble efforts to meet Kyoto and beyond. Obviously, if our own Member States are unable to respect the Kyoto Protocol today, then we will not be credible in the future.

(IT) Commissioner, you omitted one other element, which I believe it is important to underline in this debate: the attitude of the Italian minister, Mr Matteoli, who dissociated himself from the rest of the European delegation. I do not think you should be diplomatic about this, because we are all behind the European position, whereas Mr Matteoli wrongly and in an utterly inappropriate way dissociated himself from it, causing great embarrassment both to you and to the rest of the European delegation. The reason for what happened is very simple: Mr Matteoli and his government do not believe that acting through the Kyoto Protocol to limit the effects of climate change should be a top priority either today or after 2012.

The Commission, the Council and this Parliament ought to start thinking of ways to persuade those European countries that are not yet complying with the Kyoto Protocol to make a move in the right direction.

  Musacchio (GUE/NGL), on behalf of the group. – (IT) Mr President, even the recent tsunami disaster shows us how fundamental our relationship with nature is for ensuring the survival of human life and civilisation. Climate change is threatening precisely that, and therefore a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions has become an absolute priority and a factor that ought to underpin every decision on economic and social issues.

Europe has committed itself to the Kyoto commitments and to post-Kyoto, and that puts the spotlight even more strongly on the serious responsibility of the US Administration, which, however, is opposed even to ratifying Kyoto or to addressing the post-Kyoto period, as was supposed to have happened in Buenos Aires. Even Europe, I have to admit, is still a long way from playing its part to the full: it has allowed Kyoto to become distorted with the introduction of emissions trading and, above all, it is still a long way from putting its target emissions cuts into actual practice. In fact, emissions are still increasing and in some countries, such as Italy, they are increasing considerably.

We have to think about why that is happening. The fact is that it has been left up to mere market mechanisms to achieve the Kyoto targets. So far, they have not worked, while free-market globalisation has led to a multiplicity of distorting factors: production moved to countries where environmental legislation is weaker, thus increasing emissions; rich countries wasting more energy on transport and domestic uses; and the privatisation and liberalisation of the energy sector which, instead of producing savings and clean energy sources, has led to competition among traditional, polluting sources.

If – as we must – we want to implement Kyoto in practice and to go beyond it, we need to take a very different approach: we must channel all our efforts, in terms of scientific research, energy policy and infrastructure, into achieving that objective through a major strategic plan that is properly structured, adequately funded and based on democratic participation.

We need something that goes far beyond the old, obsolete market formulae and which instead represents the real challenge of a sustainable future: a new social and environmental economy, with a structure based on democratic principles and solidarity with the whole world. All that becomes even more obvious and inescapable when we think that Kyoto is just the first tiny step. In Buenos Aires, the US Administration prevented anyone from talking about what in fact needs to be done about the post-Kyoto period: that is to say, about a necessary, epoch-making change. I have to admit that the Italian Government allied itself with that reactionary stance.

That, then, is the real mission awaiting a different Europe, one that is able to talk to the whole world along these lines and, above all, to take concrete action to create a different set-up from the one in which we are unfortunately living.

  Blokland (IND/DEM), on behalf of the group. – (NL) Mr President, over the past years, this House has held many a debate on the need for climate policy. Next month, the Kyoto Protocol will actually take effect, and that is why it is useful to look back at the decisions of the past few years. It strikes me that climate policy is receiving less attention. It is becoming increasingly difficult to gain a majority for necessary measures. The reason for this, in my view, is that we notice little of climate change, and that the negative impact will be felt most acutely in remote countries. Some people also labour under the assumption that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will affect economic growth.

I should like to draw Members’ attention to a study by the IIASA, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, based in Laxenburg, Austria. The scientists involved in that study demonstrated that climate policy can be adopted in a much more cost-effective way, provided that policy for the improvement of air quality is linked to climate policy. In that way, net costs are greatly reduced, but we should also consider the regulation of gases other than CO2. To be effective, therefore, a policy need not be expensive.

I should also like to take this opportunity to draw the Commission’s attention to problems involving the emission trading system. The directive has been interpreted in very different ways, which has resulted in potentially major problems. For example, in a number of countries, the chemical industry remained outside of the scope of the directive. That gave other Member States a reason to exclude their chemical industries from its scope in order to avoid distortion of competition.

In addition, in certain Member States, penalties incurred by businesses when they exceed their emission quota are tax-deductible. Once again, there is no level playing field within the internal market. I should like to hear from Commissioner Dimas whether he is aware of this and whether a change to the directive can be proposed in order to outlaw these practices. Also, in some Member States, the industry has received state support. In my own Member State, the Netherlands, the national government has spent EUR 600 million on buying emission allowances abroad, as a result of which industry was given a smaller reduction. I should like to hear the Commissioner’s response to this as well.

When the directive was discussed, two of my amendments were adopted in this House, which should have prevented these problems from arising. I now have to conclude that the problems occurred all the same. Our climate policy should aim to improve the quality of our environment. That is what we have agreed upon and that is what we should keep to. We do not own our planet; we are merely temporary occupants.

  Aylward (UEN), on behalf of the group. – Mr President, I welcome the fact that the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force on 16 February, with 132 countries having ratified the provisions of the agreement. The recent ratification of Kyoto by the Russian Government means that it will now have legal standing. Under this agreement, the European Union is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, as compared to 1990 levels, by the year 2012. I welcome the enactment of the EU Emissions Trading Directive that will help to ensure that the European Union complies with the serious international obligations under the Kyoto Accord.

The one disappointing fact is that some countries, including Australia and America, have not signed up to the provisions of this agreement. America is responsible, as we all know, for over 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis. The effectiveness of Kyoto is diluted because America is not a signatory to the accord. However, it is not a complete tale of doom and gloom from America on this political issue. California – the largest state in America in population terms – has already enacted the Pavley tax, which is designed to reduce the use of greenhouse gases by 22% in that state by 2012. I am glad to see that it is being followed by other states. At present 19 American states are pursuing this initiative designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that more and more American businesses and citizens are becoming positively disposed to tackling climate change.

The European Union must use every diplomatic avenue open to it to coax and persuade the American Government to introduce measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This can and should be done through the structures of transatlantic summits between America and the European Union. We need a coordinated international approach to tackle climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is the only current international framework available within which the countries that have ratified it can coordinate their approach to this issue.

The British Government will assume the presidency of the European Union later this year and, as a very firm ally of the present American Administration, I would hope that it will be in a very strong diplomatic position to coax the American Government to move forward on this matter in a more constructive way.

  Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall confine myself to asking just a few questions about global warming, a subject on which ignorance goes hand in hand with very definite judgments.

First question: is it really the case that there is significant and ongoing warming? This now seems to be a solidly established fact, thanks in particular to what has happened to the expanses of ocean or to the great glaciers.

Second question: does global warming only have negative effects? That is not necessarily the case – in Siberia, for example, where the taiga and the tundra could give way to other landscapes – but it is certainly a different matter when it comes to the terrible progress of desertification in Africa or to meteorological disasters of the El Niño type.

Third question: if a decision is made to combat this phenomenon, is it certain that the phenomenon is basically due to human activity? Instances of warming and glaciation, which cannot be imputed to man, have taken place at least four times during the Quaternary period.

Fourth question: if global warming is indeed due to discharges of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere as a result of human beings burning organic fossil fuels, measures certainly need to be taken. Is it, however, worthwhile Western Europe’s making an effort at the cost of its own competitiveness when other powers such as the United States and China – respectively the world’s biggest and second-biggest polluters – wash their hands of the matter, thereby certainly compromising the success of the operation, and this in spite of the encouraging news from a number of US states, passed on to us by the previous speaker?

This brings me to my fifth and final question: systematic reforestation and the use of renewable or new sources of energy must without doubt be encouraged. However, we have to be realistic. We shall have to wait a long time before these energy sources are sufficient for our needs. In the meantime, should not some thought be given, even from an ecological point of view, to the diversification of energy sources and, in particular, to our having recourse to nuclear energy? Twenty-five years ago, France’s National Front was the first political force legitimately to draw attention to the risks of nuclear energy, a prediction sadly borne out by the Chernobyl disaster. Science moves on, however, and technology can develop. Fusion would be a process using matter that did not leave the waste generated by current processes, which remains dangerous for a long period. While waiting for progress in this area, there may exist, even for use in the fission process, elements such as thorium that present fewer risks than the elements with which we are at present familiar. This is a path upon which science can undoubtedly embark. A considerable effort is required, and it needs to be free from dogmatism of any kind.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the use of the word 'success' in this context depends on one's expectations; it means different things to different people. To me, if we exclude the interactions and discussions that took place in the margins in Buenos Aires, it is difficult to use the word 'success'. The success I found in Buenos Aires was in discussing with other colleagues – particularly the huge numbers of representatives from political and corporate America and other American bodies – how much support we have on the ground, both in the United States and in Australia, as distinct from the Bush Administration's position and, indeed, the Australian Premier's position on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change. That is the sense of success I brought back from Buenos Aires. There is huge and growing support from nine or ten different states in America, and even from some of the energy and fuel corporations and corporate America generally. That support continues to grow.

I also measure success by the progress made by China and in the attitude of the Chinese authorities – China being a developing state with huge demographic challenges. There is also the change in attitude of Brazil which is coming the road with us. That is how I measure the real success of Buenos Aires, as an indicator of the progress that has been made since previous COPs I attended.

To confuse us even further, this was COP 10, and next year we have COP 11. We have the special meeting to continue discussions; we are not allowed to call it post-Kyoto or post-2012, but we cannot ignore that it is going to be out there in the realm of debate. Also next year, we have MOP 1, to further confuse the uninitiated! I think that means the meeting of the parties who ratified Kyoto, as distinct from the Conference of the Parties who all signed the original agreement. They are two different, if similar, groups of meetings that, presumably, will go hand in hand. Maybe the Commissioner will tell us more about it.

I would like to thank Mr Florenz for his leadership of the parliamentary delegation. And thank you, Commissioner, for including the Parliament's Members. I would still like to see greater structure around Parliament's involvement in various COPs, particularly at the MOP 1 stage. I hope you found our contribution rewarding and of some use. I would love to see it structured even more, although I know there is some reticence at Council level about that. But it is a suggestion that urgently needs to be taken seriously at that level.

We cannot afford not to succeed. The Kyoto Protocol is the only game in town. An even greater emphasis on cost-benefit reports and transparent pricing of the environmental consequences of climate change and global warming will help to convince those markets still doubting the economic significance of Kyoto. It will show that any short-term inconveniences and costs will be more than compensated for by the medium- to long-term gain for the developed as well as the developing countries.

  Tarand (PSE). – (ET) Over the last two weeks, the South-East Asia disaster has had a great effect on the world. The causes of the tsunami and of global climate change are not linked, of course, unless we measure time in millions of years, and consider continental drift, which does indeed result in earthquakes and in climate change. Timescales of millions of years, however, are imperceptible to human beings, and discussions about them are therefore of little use to politicians. 2004 provided a multitude of new signs of accelerating global warming: the unexpectedly rapid melting of Greenland’s glaciers, which will raise the level of the oceans by seven metres in all, to mention just one. Last September, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair devoted one of his speeches to global climate change. In it, he stated that by 2100 the level of the ocean would rise by 88 cm, which, given today’s demographic situation, would pose a threat to a hundred million people. That is a very different order of magnitude from the number of victims of the recent tsunami. The amount of time we have to prepare, however, is different as well – instead of two hours, we still have almost a century. Nevertheless, 10% of the time we had, if we start counting from the Rio Conference, has already been spent, and not in the most constructive manner.

I have to admit that I participated in the Rio Conference, and that in my previous life as a historical climatologist I reconstructed the time series of Tallinn harbour freeze-ups back to 1500. Tallinn is located in a sensitive part of the Baltic Sea where every year the sea is faced with the Hamletic question: “To be or not to be – frozen?” From the sixteenth to the twentieth century, there were six to eight completely ice-free winters per century. In the twentieth century, mainly from the 70s onwards, there were 16 ice-free winters, and in the new millennium, four out of five winters have been ice-free. It is paradoxically sad that several successive Estonian governments have sat in a house with a superb view of the Bay of Tallinn, but have not noticed this essential climate change indicator, or have been unable to draw any inferences relating to energy policy from it. The management of Estonia’s national power generation company, inspired by the example of US oil and coal monopolies, is still being conducted in the spirit of the period of peak industrialisation of 50 years ago. The water use created by oil-shale-fired electricity generation is subsidised to such an extent that it places Estonia among the world’s top water consumers, along with the desert states which use irrigation agriculture. If we consider that drinking water costs three euros a litre in Tallinn Airport, it becomes apparent that power generation in Estonia is being subsidised with a sum of around three billion euros a year. At the same time, Estonia is lagging behind other European countries in the use of renewable energy sources, despite the high potential for both biofuels and wind energy. The point I am trying to make is that, while I acknowledge the progress made at COP-10 in Buenos Aires and the leading role of the EU in combating global climate change, it is time for the European Commission and Parliament to act together to persuade lagging member states to change their energy policies, using the structural funds if necessary.

  Schlyter (Verts/ALE). (SV) Mr President, at the same time as we are now discussing Kyoto, the small island nations are preparing for their conference on climate problems that is to take place in obscurity on the other side of the world, in spite of the fact that their entire populations are threatened with exile because of environmental destruction.

Fifteen large icebergs are floating northwards to New Zealand. In my home town, winters are 40 days shorter than when I was a boy. Almost all the glaciers are melting away. More storms occur, such as the one seen over northern Europe as recently as at the weekend. It is not acceptable to ignore the effects any longer. Even though not every storm and piece of damage can be blamed on climate change, increased frequency is a definite consequence of people’s irresponsibility.

The EU must now focus upon the problems that exist in today’s world. We cannot be content with seminars and target figures, but must make substantial and vigorous efforts in the form of legislative decisions that have practical effects. Let us show the way, then. Only you, the Commission, are entitled to table proposals concerning increased minimum taxes on fossil fuels. You have no need to wait when it comes to a carbon dioxide tax on flights within the EU or, moreover, to a climate levy on imports from industrial countries that do not fulfil the Kyoto objectives. That would no doubt get the Bush regime moving, especially if progressive states within the US were exempted from the levy.

Kyoto is not enough, however, and we do not need to wait until 2012 to realise the fact. We must draw up an action plan right now for reducing emissions by at least 30% by 2020. We already know that this is the least we can do to meet the need of future generations for raw materials and the need of poor countries for both raw materials and a stable climate.

  McDonald (GUE/NGL). – (The speaker spoke in Irish)

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Buenos Aires Conference on Climate Change as a serious endeavour in tackling global warming. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change remains the cornerstone of the international response to environmental changes. I speak in support of the resolution and wish to commend the role that the European Union has played and continues to play in bringing progressive responses to combating climate change.

I would like specifically to express my concern that the United States – the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter – was not prepared to discuss further approaches to reducing climate change, although it is heartening to note that a number of individual states in the US have been involved in various climate change initiatives. However, the failure of the US to sign up to Kyoto is actively undermining that agreement. The Kyoto Agreement is one to which we must collectively add our full support. It is a small yet significant step in the right direction. However, in the longer term, if we are to successfully wrestle with the issue of climate change then a much greater effort is required by individual countries, and indeed by industry.

The targets set for stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases are hardly ambitious, but are of fundamental importance to bringing about a marked decrease in the levels of emissions in our atmosphere. I welcome the resolution's assertion that global emissions should be reduced by half by 2050 in order to contain global warming. This is an objective we should all be working towards.

Climate change remains a crucial issue facing humanity which requires a global response, perhaps nowhere more so than in Europe. A recent report by the European Environment Agency warned that Europe is warming more quickly than the rest of the world, with potentially devastating consequences including more frequent heat waves, flooding, rising sea levels and melting glaciers. The report paints a bleak picture of a Europe devastated by changing climate.

We need a global plan to cap concentrations of critical greenhouse gases. Setting more ambitious targets to cap the concentration of greenhouse gases requires a real commitment and will require major changes to manufacturing processes, to the manner in which energy is generated and indeed to our collective lifestyle.

(The speaker continued in Irish)

  Krupa (IND/DEM).   (PL) Mr President, it is, of course, possible for the role played by Europe regarding the long-running issue of global warming to be a major one, but this will only be the case if self-discipline, solidarity and truth prevail over the uncertainties of the legislation in force and over the falsification and manipulation which take place in many fields, including emissions trading.

Although it is true that the Kyoto Protocol is an international achievement, which obliged industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the negotiated level of reductions of these emissions is a political compromise. It does not reflect the demands made by scientists, who have calculated that carbon dioxide must be reduced by 60% to halt climate change, instead of by 5% or 8%. The EU boasts of these latter figures, yet they have been attained at the expense of countries in which industry was regrettably wiped out as part of preparations for accession. Changes in land use, or in other words forest management, have also been exploited as an instrument of climate policy under the Kyoto Protocol.

Yet genuinely reliable knowledge on how much carbon dioxide is absorbed by the planting of trees is still lacking. This knowledge will only be gained after further research. Afforestation plans under the Clean Development Mechanism have therefore been the source of much controversy. Such plans are of course worthy of attention, but as Poles we are opposed to the possibility of Poland being turned into a primeval forest where a rich elite plans to enjoy hunting.

The burden of counteracting the effects of climate change should be shared fairly, as a function of the extent to which individual countries are responsible for such change. Rich, developed and heavily industrialised countries have derived huge benefits in comparison to developing countries, and are largely to blame for environmental destruction. They are, however, extremely reluctant to enter into financial commitments. This is true of both the USA and EU Member States. Many countries are also beginning to wonder whether the Kyoto commitments are not a hindrance to more rapid transformation, rather than a help. We acknowledge that, despite these shortcomings, it is useful to have agreements in place. More demanding commitments should be entered into, however, with regard to reducing emissions.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was among the first in this House to describe what came out of Buenos Aires as a success. That it is already necessary to depict such derisory developments in a positive light is evidence of how little we have come to expect.

That is very much the way I see it. There is, though, yet another parameter, and that is time, the sands of which are running out. If one briefly closes one’s eyes while listening to this debate and perhaps ignores the ‘Kyoto’ word, everything that has been said so far is reminiscent, down to the details, of the great 1992 world conference on the environment in Rio de Janeiro. Even then, we knew about the problem, and we knew how things would develop. At that time, though, we were a lot more optimistic, believing that we could hold global warming in relation to the pre-industrial era at 0.5 degrees by 2050, and now we would be happy enough to hold it at 2 degrees. That is an enormously dangerous development, simply because – quite apart from the democracy issue with which many of us here in this House now have to deal, quite apart from the social issue that is becoming so pressing now that globalisation is resuming its onward march – the ecological issue has still not been resolved.

Terrible though it might sound to say this, one almost wishes that there had been some indication that the extent of the catastrophic seaquake in South-East Asia had something to do with global warming. Then, perhaps, there might have been the chance of a worldwide effort at doing something, just as an effort is being made to deal with this great calamity.

As I see it, the whole problem – and it is a big one – with climate change is that we have no shared concept of the enemy, that nobody is coming up with alternative ways of dealing with it, and that we may well be carrying on making lots of speeches, but we are doing far too little.

  Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, the Climate Conference in Buenos Aires did not produce the result that we wanted. At the ratification, we had expected a major breakthrough and we wanted, if at all possible, to lay down exactly what is to happen after 2012. If I compare this to what appeared in the media over the past few weeks, I sometimes have a sense that we are talking each other down if we only focus on those two aspects.

We all know, of course, that the United States decided against ratification. We also notice that fast growth in India and China is bound to affect the involvement of those countries in climate policy. Nevertheless, we do not count our blessings often enough. I agree with the Commissioner, who stated a moment ago that the good thing is that results have been achieved. There are already 128 signatory states to the Climate Treaty. Even in the United States and Canada, as Mrs Doyle pointed out a moment ago, there are ever more states supporting our line and wanting to keep pace with Europe.

If we want to adopt long-term climate policy, though, we can only really achieve results if we deepen the discussion as well as broadening it. That means, therefore, that we need to involve the developing countries, much more so than we have done to date. In actual fact, as the Commissioner suggested, we should offer them this clean technology with our aid, so that they can start with clean technology straight away and make a giant leap forward.

The same also applies to China and India, in fact. We need to give them a shot in the arm too. For the rest, as far as deepening is concerned, we will need to continue to work on the administrative powers in North America, which at present want to adopt different policy. While also congratulating Mr Pieter Van Geel on his achievements, for which he has received much credit already, I trust that, under the supervision of this Commissioner, people will no longer claim that it is only Europe that does something for climate policy, because we will then be pushing ourselves further into isolation. No, we need to ensure that everyone joins in by further broadening the discussion and deepening it more effectively. I am confident that the summary we will receive shortly, the note about future developments, will be able to pull us out of this isolation.

  Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the new millennium is still young, and yet it has already seen two disastrous summers: one in which the whole of Central Europe was flooded, and another in which much of Europe groaned in a heatwave. Neither did anything to bring out of the recent conference the better results that would have been needed to solve the problems once and for all.

I want to speak today about transport, one of the main problem areas associated with Kyoto. The fact is that, while it is evident that at least some progress has been made both in heat production and in industry, that certain problems have been resolved and that technological solutions are available, it is still the transport sector in which growth rates are at their highest and where it can be said that all the solutions worked out and put in place by the other sectors whose emissions adversely affect the climate are jeopardised and nullified. It is transport that eats away at all that we have achieved in climate protection, and that is why action has to be concentrated in this area.

Commissioner, I never hear you speak out when European states, having undertaken to achieve climate targets, do the opposite and increase their emissions. I do not hear you speaking out when these states fail to take targeted action to deal with emissions from traffic. There is work for all of us to do, and what you have to do is to concretise policy within the European Union, which, in this context, means fully supporting public transport and an end to mobility growth rates, from which only cars benefit, while everything else is left standing.

  Manolakou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, unfortunately the adherence of the European Union and other imperialist industrialised nations to the philosophy of maximum possible profit for big business precludes the attainment of a substantial and satisfactory target – and this is borne out by scientific studies – for reducing emissions and limiting climate changes which will have catastrophic consequences for the future of the planet itself.

The Commission's assurance that the greenhouse gas trading programme and other flexible mechanisms will protect rather than endanger the competitiveness of the economy of the European Union is not persuasive. Instead of reducing emissions in accordance with its objectives, it has increased them by 3 units, confirming how complicated, unstable and ultimately inefficient the method of combating climate changes voted in Kyoto is. Yet there are solutions; they just have to be promoted directly, not indirectly. They are measures for substantially reducing gas emissions, such as promoting renewable energy sources, using bio-fuels, making greater use of the thermal energy produced in power stations and providing substantial protection for and making use of forests to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Instead of which, we see insistence on ineffective measures such as emissions trading, which proves that, for the sake of the profitability of big business, solutions which really would reverse the dangerous developments for the survival of the planet are being cast aside.

  Giertych (IND/DEM).   (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, climate change is a natural phenomenon. Warmer periods are followed by colder periods. Does human activity have any influence on this phenomenon? I very much doubt it. Experts disagree on the issue, and no convincing evidence has yet been found. Yet there can be no doubt that increased levels of CO2 in the air have a positive impact on plant production, and that any excess carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed effectively by the biosphere, the components of which include forests, humus and the seas.

There can also be no doubt, however, that CO2 emitted during industrial combustion processes is always accompanied by emissions of other gases that are known to be damaging to the environment, namely to forests, agricultural production, architectural monuments, and above all to human health. All efforts to develop technology aimed at reducing combustion must therefore be duly recognised. In view of the fact that the negative effects of combustion are felt across borders, any costs involved must be shared on the basis of international agreements. The Kyoto Protocol works in a logical fashion in that it transfers the costs involved in reducing combustion from countries that have undertaken efforts to do so to countries that fail to do enough in this respect.

There always has been climate change, there always will be, and we cannot do much about it. Nonetheless, anthropogenic emissions of gas into the atmosphere do pose a problem which humankind must overcome by working together. This approach deserves our full support, and the move towards renewable sources of energy and energy-saving technologies should be particularly welcome. These are costly endeavours, and without international solidarity no progress will be made in this regard. Yet we should not allow ourselves to be persuaded that greenhouse gas emissions are to blame for every natural disaster and every gale, flood, drought or tsunami. We should keep our feet on the ground and stick to the facts. I thank you.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MOSCOVICI
Vice-President

  Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, a year ago I was at the Milan Climate Change Conference, and it must be said that a number of advances have been made since then. On that occasion we met representatives of the US delegation, as was also the case this time in Buenos Aires. Whereas in Milan the US representatives were still categorically denying the human contribution to climate change, this time their attitude had softened. They now had to acknowledge facts to the extent that they agreed to talk about the possible human contribution to climate change.

Despite that admission, however, there is still a long way to go before we will persuade the United States of America to commit to a universal effort to prevent climate warming. There is thus a need for more common sense. We have numerous examples of how preventive action is far less costly than dealing with catastrophes after they have happened. That is why it is an economic absurdity that the United States is not rushing flat out to participate in cooperation on climate, instead of risking the entire planet trying to protect its competitiveness.

Another step forward at Milan was Russia’s involvement, which enabled the Kyoto Protocol to come into force. That is an important factor as a political gesture, but whether it will be any more than that remains to be seen. I fear the worst: that climate targets under the current Kyoto agreement will barely make any further progress at all.

Why should that be? At the conference the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment for the Netherlands, the country holding the presidency, said quite rightly that the problem for the future is, in particular, China’s emissions, whose rate of increase has come as a total surprise to the parties to the agreement. No disciplinary action can be taken under the Kyoto agreement, as China is not included among the industrialised countries that the emissions restrictions apply to in the first phase. Kyoto can do nothing, therefore, to bring two huge problems under control: the United States, which is at present responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and China, whose emissions are estimated to grow to four times those of the United States in ten years’ time. That means the world’s emissions will double within ten years. If that is the case, we will all perish.

It is of the utmost urgency that we repair the situation now in order to strengthen climate policy, especially in China and India, to avoid making mistakes that cannot be put right later on while we await the second phase. Some of the taboos associated with Kyoto have to be removed, and it needs to be said that in some respects it is an unsuccessful way of solving the problem of climate warming.

It would seem that, as a result of the targets for reductions in individual countries, the countries that are parties to the agreement are locked in a continuing struggle to protect their own interests. For that reason, we need a binding international ‘carbon dynamics’ approach, from which nobody can be excluded. In the globalising market economy, that is the only way to prevent international capital from transferring its production to places where emission limits do not exceed environmental norms. Consequently, we must set figures for emissions per tonne of production to act as emissions criteria for industry, and a careful definition of the theoretical minimum for emissions is needed for different sectors. We urgently need to think about energy in an entirely new way, structured above all around saving energy, increasing efficiency, and renewable and non-polluting forms of energy.

Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to Commissioner Dimas, who took excellent account of the views of the Members of the European Parliament throughout the entire conference.

  Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I believe that nobody has done more than the European Commission to combat climate change and to raise awareness of it throughout the world. However, I also believe that, while it can enjoy the responsibility and glory of having been the body that raised the problem, this must be accompanied by great scientific efforts in order to ensure that words become realities. We have to move on from a Europe of fine words to a more efficient and scientific Europe.

In this regard, I believe that, having held meetings successively in Kyoto and in other places, it is necessary, and I believe urgent, to carry out thorough work with regard to climate change. We have carried out in-depth studies into what is causing the harm but not into what is of benefit. To this end, I would like one of the proposals of this term in office to be to go further into the relationship between agriculture and the environment.

Within agriculture, I include reforestation. For example, if a hectare of orange trees produces 40 000 kilos per year or four tonnes of plant material, is that beneficial in terms of climate change or not? What, for example, is Mediterranean agriculture providing in terms of climate change?

This confrontation between agriculture and the environment must come to an end, and one of the ways to achieve this is to see the benefits of agriculture in terms of the carbon sinks it produces, and also to see what kind of reforestation is the most appropriate and what is best for the environment. In this way, we can establish positive policies to bring all activities together, not just industry, but also agriculture. In this respect, I believe we are a long way behind.

For the same reason, if, as stated in the recent report, Spain, Greece and the Mediterranean are the regions which are most going to feel the impact of climate change, I believe it is the Commission’s responsibility to produce studies and propose solutions.

  Jordan Cizelj (PPE-DE). – (SL) Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that climate change is the greatest and most serious challenge the world faces today. It is a challenge that transcends the national borders drawn up in the past by nations and by politicians.

As we endeavour today to prevent climate changes, or at least ameliorate them, we must not be limited by the ideas of national boundaries. If we wish to deal successfully with climate change, we must clearly acknowledge that we all bear responsibility for it.

In this respect, it is possible to talk about multilevel political responsibility – above all, about the responsibility of each individual country that contributes to the collective pressure on the environment, and then about the responsibility represented by solidarity between the developed and underdeveloped regions of the world. Probably the most important responsibility, however, is the intergenerational one, because the consequences of climate change are long term and will affect the lives of many generations to come.

The politicians and the countries of the European Union must take up the challenge to remain the champions of this global process. We must become more serious in our approach to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and we must do everything to ensure that this agreement is also respected by non-European states that have yet to commit themselves to its implementation, but have a relatively large effect on the environment in a global sense.

The European Union must play a leading role in the fight against climate change for two main reasons. It has valuable experience in the field of environmental policy, and it has also made serious efforts in research that may help reduce the pressure on the environment. I therefore expect the European Union to clearly demand high environmental standards after Kyoto as well. Such an approach will enable the Union to enhance its standing both among the citizens of Europe and throughout the world.

  Caspary (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the world’s climate has been undergoing natural change for millions of years. Most of the scientists quoted over recent months believe that the additional influences on our planet’s climate result from people and, above all, their emissions of carbon dioxide – possibly, or so they claim, from precisely 3% of the total emitted.

It is today’s younger generation and the generations of the future that will be most affected by climate change of this kind. On the basis of what we know at present, we have to be careful, reducing worldwide CO2 emissions both by making more efficient use of energy and relying even more on renewable energy sources and nuclear power. There is just one statistic I would like to quote on this: in the course of 2004, nuclear power stations saved the world some 2.5 billion tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions. That is twice as much as was agreed in the Kyoto targets for the period from 2008 to 2012. Let me repeat: twice as much.

How much reliance, though, can we place upon what we currently know about climate change? Is it indeed the case that human beings are the cause of additional change? Do the 3.5% of CO2 for which the human race is responsible really have an effect? To what degree is climate influenced by the varying intensity of the sun’s radiation? Water vapour is a greenhouse gas; what effect does that have? What else influences our climate? If the earth’s temperature rises, is it a result of a higher concentration of CO2 or is the reverse the case? None of this do we yet know for sure. Although many models suggest that the greenhouse effect is man-made, they have yet to produce final proof of it.

We do, as I have said, have to be careful and reduce CO2 emissions by as much as possible. At the same time, though, we must, as a matter of urgency, invest more in climate research and also support those researchers whose approach is not in line with mainstream opinion.

If we are, for mankind’s sake, to be able to take the right decisions as soon as possible and on the basis of solid data, then we need a broad spectrum of opinion. If we have reliable data, we will be able to persuade other states to take the same approach as we do.

  Belet (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, whichever way you look at it, the results of Buenos Aires are, in my view, disappointing. Kyoto runs until 2012, which is upon us, and nothing has been planned for thereafter. The follow-up seminar in Bonn is, unfortunately, little more than a palliative.

Commissioner, the European Union can no longer afford to wait for wilful states such as the United States; we must take the lead, but without having to queer our own pitch. More than ever, we should adopt a reward policy for those industrial businesses that resolutely invest in environment-friendly technologies. Alongside this, we will need to make far greater efforts, above all in the transport sector, as Mr Florenz stated at the beginning of the debate. In this connection, the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development offers excellent scope for setting up ambitious programmes. Why should we not aim high and put forward concrete deadlines? Why not foster the ambition, to put it in very concrete terms, to have 100% emission-free transport on European roads by 2020?

I should like to close with a question for the Commissioner. Do you agree that we need to free up extra resources, for example, in the shape of a zero tax rate, to put it like this, in order to encourage, and resolutely promote, the use of biofuels? You may well be known as Mother Earth’s best friend in generations to come. If I were you, I would not pass up on an opportunity like this.

  Karas (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are indeed successful, but not successful enough. Things are indeed happening, but not enough of them. Hundreds of symposia are being held, but the amount of action taken does not reflect that. We are limping along in pursuit of our goals, and time appears to be running through our fingers. Climate change is one of the great challenges of the twenty-first century – our resolution says as much – but I wonder whether we are merely aware of this fact or whether it has really sunk in, and whether it really bothers us.

Unfortunately, I believe, we have still some way to go from being aware of this to being concerned about it and doing something practical about it. We are powerless when it comes to taking the necessary political measures, even though individual events remind us of the need and encourage us to take it. The effects on the environment, the economy and society are plain for all to see, but they do not make us feel sufficiently endangered. We put the blame alternately on transport, domestic fuel and then on industry, the industrialised states, or again, the developing countries, and we have no overall view. With Lisbon in mind, would it not be opportune to talk not only about the damage done, but also about Europe’s potential for growth and ability to compete? The technologies we supply to other continents are not new, but old, and, while talking about global responsibility, we ignore the maxim that you should not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

While we talk about 2012, we are not yet giving the business world of today any assurances about the conditions under which they will have to operate when we get there. If we are to act in good time, we need these framework conditions; we also need Kyoto impact studies for everything we do in the fields of industry and transport policy.

  Dimas, Commission. Mr President, very many useful suggestions have been made tonight. In the forthcoming spring European Council, which will be the first important step in the European Union's discussion on our future climate change strategy, the Commission will make a communication, which my colleagues and I are currently preparing. This communication will be very important for the spring Council discussions. In this communication, I expect to set a series of specific recommendations and will include quite a few of the suggestions that have been made tonight. I thank those Members who made those constructive suggestions.

As regards Buenos Aires, the degree of its success can be measured by objective criteria and, as I said, our objective expectations were not great, but this does not mean that we do not have high targets and that our wishes are not ambitious. We shall work towards those targets because this is what the world needs.

We made some progress in Buenos Aires. The decision to hold a seminar in May to discuss current and new responses to climate change provides a promising opening to the dialogue and the debate for a global climate policy after 2012. The agreement to establish a work programme for adaptation is also a very important breakthrough, not only for the developed countries but also, and even more so, for the developing countries.

Overall I think we had a successful Conference of the Parties. However, I agree that we need to strengthen our dialogue with key countries such as India, China, the United States of course, and Russia. The United States says it is following a different approach, investing a lot in research and development, but I saw a small breakthrough in its agreement to participate in this seminar and to have presentations about the future.

We need to continue and strengthen our dialogue – as was suggested by many honourable Members – with these countries, both in the multilateral and bilateral contexts. As Mrs Frassoni mentioned, with the Troika, we are going to have quite a few meetings with countries such as the United States, China, India and developing countries. We also need to continue to show that we are serious about it and that we are taking the fight against climate change seriously. We should lead by example, as Mrs Corbey suggested.

The European Union Trading Scheme and its success will be very important in this regard and we need to continue to emphasise the need for others to join us in these efforts. As I mentioned previously, Norway, Canada and Japan have shown interest and we should see how we can cooperate with the United States which – except the nine north-eastern states and California – have trading systems for other greenhouse gases, but not for carbon dioxide. But the problem there is that they have not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Let us see how we overcome this obstacle. Cooperation with local and regional authorities could be very interesting, especially to get support for fighting climate change in countries around the world, and in terms of our contacts with developing countries, such as India and China – and here I must acknowledge, as someone has already said, that the small island states were our allies. It is also very important that they fully support us in what we are trying to do.

In our contacts with these countries, it is important to place the benefits of addressing climate change in the broader context of sustainable development. On local air pollution, Mr Blokland suggested that we stress the benefits in other sectors, and addressing climate change will bring important benefits to these countries. It is very important to stress the eco-innovation and environmental technologies which could be very competitive and could give the benefit of first-mover advantage to European industry and to the industries of those countries, so that they really innovate in an environmentally friendly way.

It was suggested that we did not help the least-developed countries as much as we could. I must stress that almost half of the funds for these countries are provided by the European Union. The United States is not participating at all, because it considers that to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. We have to finance projects, that is to say planned projects, not one-off, isolated projects which are ineffective.

There were so many questions, so I will answer certain very specific ones. Mr Blokland asked whether the chemical industry would be included in the EU Emissions Trading Directive. That is not possible at present. However, we are holding discussions on what will happen after the end of the first phase of emissions trading. We shall probably include it. The combustion used in chemical plants is included.

Mr Davies asked about the UK and the national allocation plan. The decision regarding the UK plan was taken on 7 July 2004, and the UK can avoid prolonging uncertainty for UK companies by proceeding on the basis of that decision. It sent us a letter dated 23 December providing certain information regarding the two questions of Gibraltar and new entrants and also asking us for additional, higher amounts of allocations. We are still looking at the technical and legal details of this. In principle, the Commission considers that a Member State can only present a single national allocation plan.

Regarding biomass and biofuels, we have a number of instruments already in place to stimulate the use of biomass. This includes a Biofuels Directive and a directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. Last year's Commission communication on renewable energy announced a biomass action plan, which should be submitted by the end of 2005. Biomass emissions are neutral. There are no allowances for emissions caused by the consumption of biomass.

In the time allotted to me, I am unable to answer all the questions and the suggestions that I have noted down during the debate. However, I must stress again how important it is to include in the cooperation developing countries such as China and India. They are worried about their future and very concerned about any limitations or reductions. We have to give them incentives so that they will know that their development will not be hindered by any future agreement. We have to find a way to cooperate and reach the targets that we mentioned before: a maximum of a 2C increase in temperature.

With regard to the United States, it is investing a great deal in research. Even there – I have heard certain people say that there are questions about the scientific proof of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and its impact – there are very recent reports, published in 2004, proving beyond doubt that climate change is caused by human activity. In the United States they say that their approach is different. They have not and are not going to sign the Kyoto Protocol. However, we have to find a way to include them in our endeavour to fight climate change. It is not a problem for one country alone or merely for the Mediterranean, where the effects will be worse than for other areas of the world: Scientists say that the temperature there, by the end of 2100, will have increased by more than five degrees. That is a large increase. One can imagine how this will affect agriculture and tourism, for example, and have an impact on the way in which people live. I heard that there will be positive effects in Siberia. That is not true. We do not know what impact climate change will have, nor what areas of the world it will affect.

Science has proven that climate change caused by human activity should be fought against. That is what we should do and will attempt to do. With your cooperation, the European Union will continue to play a leading role in the fight against climate change.

(Applause)

  President. – At the conclusion of this debate, I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday at 12 noon.

(1) See Minutes.