Пълен протокол на разискванията
PDF 370k
Сряда, 23 януари 2008 г. - Брюксел Редактирана версия
1. Възобновяване на сесията
 2. Приветствие
 3. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж протоколите
 4. Действия, предприети вследствие позиции и резолюции на Парламента: вж. протоколи
 5. Изпращане на текстове на споразумения от Съвета: вж. протоколи
 6. Предложения в областта на енергетиката и изменението на климата (разискване)
 7. График на следващите заседания: вж. протоколи
 8. Прекъсване на сесията



(Η συνεδρίαση αρχίζει στις 12.05 μ.μ.)

1. Възобновяване на сесията

  Πρόεδρος. – Κηρύσσω την επανάληψη της συνόδου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, η οποία είχε διακοπεί την Πέμπτη 17 Ιανουαρίου 2008.

Η συνεδρίαση δεν μπορεί να ξεκινήσει πριν από τις 12.30 μ.μ., διότι ο Πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής αδυνατεί να είναι παρών νωρίτερα, ως εκ τούτου η συ νεδρίαση προγραμματίζεται να λήξει στις 2 μ.μ.


(η συνεδρίαση διακόπτεται στις12.05μ.μ. και επαναλαμβάνεται στις 12.30μ.μ.)


2. Приветствие

  Πρόεδρος. – Υποδεχόμαστε τα μέλη ΑΚΕ του Προεδρείου της Κοινοβουλευτικής Συνέλευσης Ίσης Εκπροσώπησης ΑΚΕ-ΕΕ καθώς και τις αντιπροσωπείες τους.

Σε αυτήν την έκτακτη συνεδρίαση πρόκειται να συζητηθεί ένα θέμα σημαντικό για όλους, εφόσον οι κλιματικές αλλαγές και τα ενεργειακά ζητήματα που συνδέονται με αυτές, είναι προκλήσεις κοινές για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αλλά και για όλους τους λαούς του κόσμου.


3. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж протоколите

4. Действия, предприети вследствие позиции и резолюции на Парламента: вж. протоколи

5. Изпращане на текстове на споразумения от Съвета: вж. протоколи

6. Предложения в областта на енергетиката и изменението на климата (разискване)

  Πρόεδρος. – Η ημερήσια διάταξη προβλέπει δήλωση του Προέδρου της Επιτροπής κ. José Manuel Barroso σχετικά με τις προτάσεις που αφορούν τα ενεργειακά ζητήματα και τις κλιματικές αλλαγές.


  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all I apologise for the slight delay. As you know, we have just concluded our Commission meeting, and the first thing we did immediately after it was to come here to present what we believe is an historic package for the European Union. That is the reason why I, together with the Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Dimas, and the Commissioner for Energy, Mr Piebalgs, have only just arrived. The final drafting of the document is being completed. We will have it immediately, but this is a very important occasion to present to you first-hand the conclusions of our meeting today.

I should like to start by saying that we are very happy with the result. The result was obtained by consensus in the College, with strong backing from all the Members of the Commission for a very ambitious proposal, because we have agreed what is now the most comprehensive package in terms of climate action and renewable energy that exists in any part of the world. We believe we have reason to be proud of it. This package on climate action and renewable energy meets the challenges of the future. We believe it is good for our planet; it is good for the European economy; it is good for our citizens.

The work of the European Union is sometimes seen as rather technical: interesting to specialists, but not relevant to people’s daily lives. The action we are discussing today proves this theory wrong: the struggle against climate change and the quest for secure, sustainable and competitive energy touches every European every day. We are all affected by this, and this is one of the most – if not the most – important challenge of the 21st century.

Europeans ask for a vision and a plan of action. That is what we are doing now. This vision was set out last year with leadership from the European political community. It was agreed in the European Council, following a Commission proposal, to bring about the ‘20/20/20 by 2020’ goals: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, or 30% if other developed economies agree, 20% of energy use through renewables and a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020.

This was agreed by the European Council. We can be proud that Europe is leading that effort. We then brought it to the Heiligendamm Summit, to the High-Level Event at the United Nations in New York and finally to the Bali Conference. Without strong European leadership, we could not have achieved the promising results of the Bali Conference, setting a road map for the global agreement we are seeking and that we expect to reach in Copenhagen in 2009.

The clear commitment of this Parliament to this cause has been essential, and I want to thank you, once again, for all your support. Your work over the past year has been critical in building the political momentum in favour of action. I believe that today’s proposals match the goals that you have set out, as well as meeting the mandate given by the European Council last March.

Today’s package adds up to a detailed road map to bring about the political vision agreed last year. We have agreed on the vision and now we have to deliver on the concrete plans, the concrete instruments to achieve that vision. We believe that the main priority is to bring about a 20% cut in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and be ready, if necessary, to step up to 30% with an international agreement. Let us never forget that. This is about global warming; it is about global climate change and not just about climate change in Europe. We have to put our proposals in such a way that we bring others along with us. It is also important to lead by example and that is why, for instance, we are now proposing how to achieve the 20% of energy use through renewables by 2020.

The package we have just approved in the Commission includes the following: an updated Emissions Trading System (ETS) to create a borderless ETS to drive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from big industrial emitters; specific, binding national targets, so that Member States know exactly what they have to do outside the ETS, in sectors like transport, buildings, agriculture and waste; a new approach to actively promote renewable targets, again including binding national targets; new rules to stimulate carbon capture and storage, tomorrow’s technology to cut emissions; and new state aid rules that take into consideration the specificity of the action needed in this environmental field.

Part of our mandate was the 10% target for biofuels so that transport plays a part in emissions cuts. As you know, this 10% target was unanimously agreed by the European Council.

I want to be clear that, in putting forward proposals on biofuels, we have also fully respected the other side of the mandate: the need for environmental sustainability. The proposal creates the most comprehensive and sustainable system anywhere in the world for the certification of biofuels and for domestic and imported biofuels alike. We will also continue to promote the rapid development of second-generation biofuels.

It is important to understand that what we are promoting is sustainable biofuels and we are making a contribution to a global regime, because what we have today is a situation where, in many cases, biofuels are not sustainable and do not respond to our criteria – criteria we want to be implemented not only in Europe but throughout the world.

The package of measures proposed today contains the most far-reaching legislative proposals to be made by the European Commission for many years. How did we set about shaping this complex package? We spent a lot of time exploring options in great detail, but we always held firm to five key principles.

First, respecting the targets. Without this, we will not look serious to investors, to our negotiating partners and, most importantly, to our own citizens.

Second, fairness: recognising Member States’ different capacities to invest and their different starting points.

Third, competitiveness: designing a system able to minimise the costs to the European economy and, in some areas, improving the competitive possibilities of Europe by giving European industry and the European economy a first-mover advantage.

Fourth, the proposals had to be designed to promote a comprehensive international agreement to cut greenhouse emissions, including stepping up our own effort to 30% emission cuts should other developed countries do the same.

Last but not least, we must also start work now to halve global emissions by 2050. This means working today to bring tomorrow’s technology rapidly on stream.

This package should also be seen in articulation with some of our earlier proposals, namely the internal market for energy and the Energy Technology Plan. This is part of a very comprehensive set of proposals that is creating, for the first time, a real European energy policy, but we want this energy to be secure and also sustainable. Of course, there will be those who say that change comes at too high a cost and that we have no choice but to bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I think they have got this wrong. There is a cost, but the cost is manageable.

We have worked very hard on coming up with the right design to meet Europe’s ambitions in the right way. So the additional effort needed to realise the proposals would be less than 0.5% of GDP by 2020. This amounts, on average, to about EUR 3 a week for each European citizen. This is much less than the up to EUR 60 per week that is the cost of inaction.

Going on even the most optimistic assumptions of the Stern Report, the cost of inaction is more than 10 times what we are now proposing. It is true there are some costs, but we have to compare the cost of this package with the cost of inaction and, since the cost of inaction is much higher, we can say that there is a relative gain in having this package. In fact, every day the price of oil and gas goes up, the real cost of the package falls. Instead of costs, we really should be talking about gains for the European Union.


The package is hard-wired to reach our goals in an efficient way, using the market to drive change where it is most cost-effective and ensuring a level playing field while leaving as much as possible to Member States

We have paid particular attention to fairness. We have, therefore, designed the proposals to ensure that the demands on the poorer Member States are realistic: all will contribute, but in line with their capacity to invest.

At the level of business, we all know that there are sectors where the cost of cutting emissions could have a real impact on competitiveness with companies in countries that do nothing – or do very little – in the fight against climate change. There is no point in Europe being tough if it just means production shifting to countries allowing a free-for-all on emissions.

An international agreement is the best way to tackle this, but we also need to give legal certainty to companies that we will take the action needed. Energy-intensive industries will have ETS allowances free of charge if there is no global or sectoral agreement. If our expectations for an international agreement are not met, we will look at other options, such as requiring importers to obtain allowances alongside European competitors, as long as such a system is compatible with WTO requirements.

I am making this point specifically, because it is very important that this package and the measures that the European Union will adopt are not in favour of the environment and against the economy. No, they are not only for the environment and our planet but also for our economy and for the competitiveness of the European economy. We want industry to remain in Europe. We do not want to export our jobs to other parts of the world.


Fairness is also important at the level of the citizen. We are encouraging Member States to act in a sensitive way, such as using a share of the billions of euros to be gained in auctioning revenues to help the less well off to invest in energy-efficient homes.

But we must not forget the huge economic opportunity represented by Europe’s transition to a low-emissions economy. Europe’s leadership also means showing that the technology is there, that we will need an effective and competitive industrial sector up to the challenge. There are real opportunities there. The renewables sector alone will bring one million jobs by 2020 at least, according to our estimates. I am sure that, once again, European industry will show its ability to innovate and adapt. Europe can be the first economy for the low-carbon age. We must seize this chance.

This package represents an opportunity for Europe to show itself at its best: tackling an issue of fundamental long-term importance; using the European Union’s continental scale to best effect; turning political consensus into practical action.

If some people in Europe have doubts about the need for a European Union, then these are exactly the kinds of policy that show why we need a strong European Union more than ever.


This is precisely where we can demonstrate to the most sceptical that, alone, our Member States – even the biggest Member States – do not have the scale or the leverage to push the agenda forward. But Europe, if it is determined to lead, can do it. So, apart from the environmental aspects, apart from the economic aspects and apart from the very important geopolitical and security aspects – because let us not forget that we are speaking about security of supply, and we do not want to be dependent on regimes that are not our friends – it is also a great argument for European unity. It is also a great argument to show not only that we need a strong European Union, but also that the world needs a strong European Union to lead the global efforts to face the global challenges of the 21st century.



  Marianne Thyssen, namens de PPE-DE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, Commissievoorzitter, Raadsvoorzitter, collega's, het is vandaag een historische dag. Het is een dag die onze manier van leven, denken, doen en laten zal beïnvloeden.

Zonder afbreuk te doen aan haar andere verdiensten, zal deze Commissie later vast en zeker herinnerd worden als de Commissie die de Europese integratie versterkt heeft met een nieuwe dimensie, als de Commissie die het masterplan klimaat en energie heeft opgesteld. Een plan waarvan de basis is gelegd tijdens het Duitse Raadsvoorzitterschap onder impuls van bondskanselier Merkel en waar wij ons als PPE-DE-Fractie vanaf het begin achter hebben geschaard.

Europa toont vandaag dat het niet bang is zijn verantwoordelijkheid te nemen op het vlak van energie en klimaat en dat het wereldwijd een voortrekkersrol kan spelen. Nu komt het erop aan ambitie te verzoenen met haalbaarheid. Want laten we elkaar niets wijsmaken, collega's, de concrete realisatie van de 20-20-20-doelstellingen zal op korte en middellange termijn moeilijke beslissingen vragen van ons allemaal en grote inspanningen vergen van alle betrokkenen. Alleen al deze afspraken uitvoeren, is een grote stap voorwaarts.

Commissievoorzitter, wij gaan ervan uit dat het actieplan dat u hier zojuist heeft toegelicht, weloverwogen is. De PPE-DE-Fractie steunt uw vijf sleutelbeginselen. Maar als verantwoordelijke fractie eisen wij uiteraard de ruimte op om ook zelf te onderzoeken of elk van de door de Commissie gelanceerde voorstellen voor elk van de lidstaten en voor elk van de meest betrokken sectoren fair en haalbaar is.

Om te slagen is inderdaad een geïntegreerde aanpak nodig, waarbij onze ambitieuze energie- en klimaatdoelstellingen worden verzoend met onze doelstellingen op het vlak van economische groei en banen. Tegelijk moeten we als Europa onze bevoorrading en zelfvoorziening van energie veiligstellen.

Als PPE-DE-Fractie gaan wij akkoord met de gedifferentieerde aanpak. We weten nu al dat we bestookt zullen worden met vragen om de voorstellen af te zwakken. Het is ook onze taak om goed te luisteren naar de commentaren van de nationale en regionale overheden en van het representatief maatschappelijk middenveld. Maar ons uitgangsprincipe is dat niet degene die het hardst roept het meest mag binnenhalen. We moeten werk maken van een gedifferentieerde aanpak op basis van transparante, objectieve en faire criteria en dit in het besef dat niet handelen meer kost dan wel handelen.

Naast de onderlinge solidariteit moet de geografische en economische capaciteit van de lidstaten bij de verdeling van de lasten vooropstaan. De reeds gepresteerde inspanningen en de toekomstige innovatiecapaciteit van sectoren moet eveneens in rekening worden gebracht. Aan deze principes zullen wij onder geen beding laten tornen. De ultieme afweging die wij als PPE-DE-Fractie zullen maken, moet ons een win-winsituatie opleveren. Aan de ene kant moeten we de klimaatdoelstellingen halen, aan de andere kant moeten we een performante economie hebben die in staat blijft om banen te scheppen. Als de balans eenzijdig doorslaat, riskeren we beide te verliezen, bijvoorbeeld omdat economische sectoren wegtrekken naar plaatsen waar niet eens CO2-plafonds worden opgelegd.

Tot slot beseft de PPE-DE-Fractie dat het cruciaal is dat Europa, maar ook de rest van de wereld, erin slaagt af te kicken van zijn energieverslaving. Het moment is aangebroken om op grote schaal op CO2-armere wijze te leren consumeren. Wij zullen allemaal - ondernemers en burgers - we de knop moeten omdraaien.


  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Namens meiner Fraktion möchte ich Ihnen persönlich und der Kommission für ihre Arbeit herzlich danken. Die richtigen Ziele, wie sie aufgestellt wurden und verfolgt werden – was die Ökologie und auch die wirtschaftlichen Fragen betrifft –, sind schon angesprochen worden. Bei der Umsetzung müssen wir uns – wie es meine Vorrednerin schon gesagt hat – einzelne Punkte anschauen. Sie wissen, dass wir bezüglich der Biokraftstoffe sehr skeptisch sind, was die gegenwärtigen Technologien betrifft. Wir müssen viel mehr in Forschung und Entwicklung investieren – das gilt auch für die nächsten Haushaltspläne –, um die zweite Generation möglichst rasch zu verwirklichen, damit wirklich eine ökologisch positive Bilanz erzielt wird. Es ist ganz entscheidend, eine nachvollziehbare positive ökologische Bilanz bei den Biokraftstoffen zu haben.

Was den CO2-Ausstoß und die Treibhausgasemissionen betrifft, werden viele sagen –und ich stimme dem zu: Minus 20 % ist zu wenig, um garantiert die Ziele zu erreichen, die wir, was die Klimaveränderung betrifft, erreichen wollen. Aber ich muss Ihnen auf der anderen Seite Recht geben und möchte noch doppelt unterstreichen, was Sie gesagt haben: Es hat keinen Sinn, dass Europa einen ungeschützten Alleingang macht, und andere bleiben draußen und sind nicht bereit, mitzugehen. Denn wir wollen nicht schmutzige Technologien und Arbeitsplätze exportieren. Wir wollen in Europa saubere Technologien entwickeln und auch exportieren, damit wir diese Umwelt gemeinsam sauber halten. Das muss unser Ziel sein.


Daher, Herr Kommissionspräsident, sind überschaubare und nachvollziehbare internationale Vereinbarungen notwendig, und zwar so rasch wie möglich. Wenn das nicht möglich sein sollte, Herr Kommissionspräsident, dann sind wir dafür, dass wir auch eigene Überlegungen anstellen. Da, meine ich, ist die Kommission zu zögerlich. Ich glaube schon, dass die Entscheidungen erst später getroffen zu werden brauchen, aber ich glaube, dass jetzt bereits Überlegungen angestellt werden müssen, was wir machen, wenn es nicht zu internationalen Vereinbarungen kommt. Gibt es dann Importabgaben, sicherlich WTO-konform? Gibt es dann vielleicht doch Überlegungen, eine CO2-Steuer einzuführen? Überlegungen, die es schon gegeben hat, im Rat und in der Kommission. Jedenfalls müssen wir massiv dafür eintreten, dass beides, die ökologischen und die ökonomischen Aspekte, berücksichtigt werden. Ich nehme nicht jeden Aufschrei der Industrie für bare Münze. Das nicht, aber berechtigte Interessen der Industrie und der Arbeitnehmer müssen berücksichtigt werden. Sie haben das angekündigt. Wir werden bei der Gesetzgebung darauf schauen müssen.

Was wir wirklich erreichen müssen, Herr Präsident und meine Damen und Herren von der Kommission, ist das, was wir bei REACH geschafft haben, nämlich ein Bündnis von Ökologie, aber auch der Industrie und der Arbeitnehmer, um zu erreichen, dass alle Interessen auf einen Nenner gebracht werden können. REACH ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür. Kollege Sacconi und viele andere haben daran mitgewirkt, dass wir das mit diesem Parlament und mit dieser Kommission erreicht haben. Die ökologischen Ziele müssen uns leiten, aber unter Berücksichtigung der wirtschaftlichen Fragen zur Sicherung einer sauberen Industrie und einer sauberen Wirtschaft in Europa.


  Graham Watson, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Liberals and Democrats welcome this package. We believe it to be the most important act of Mr Barroso’s Commission thus far. Climate change is the greatest challenge facing life on our planet, the biggest problem facing our governments, and a gnawing worry for our citizens. I am grateful to Mr Davies and Ms Ek for the work they have done within my group to make sure we have a firm and early response.

It is important for the Commission to take action. National democracies are too often run by crisis management. Problems are not tackled until they have to be tackled, and sometimes action comes too late. California’s scientists warned us 30 years ago about climate change. We can no longer prevent it, but we can hope and strive to control it.

Your proposals, President Barroso, recognise the overwhelming urgency of action. They will be hotly contested. Some will argue that they will hit profits; others will argue that they will hit jobs, and we have heard hints of both. No doubt you have had heated discussions in the Commission. My group argues they can add to profits and to jobs and give our economy a new competitive edge. They are, in any case, essential to responsible stewardship of our planet and we will work with you to secure agreement on them as early as possible.


  Liam Aylward, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – A Uachtaráin, táimid ag fanacht go fonnmhar leis an bpacáiste reachtaíochta seo le tamall. Is féidir an fhís a chur i bhfeidhm anois. Is féidir sprioc a leagan síos a laghdóidh an táirgíocht CO2, agus a mhéadóidh an fuinneamh in-athnuaite.

Cinnte, beidh dúshlán i gceist do gach Ballstát. Ach, bíonn deis i gceist le dúshlán. Tabharfaidh an reachtaíocht seo seasmhacht don mhargadh, go háirithe don mhargadh gnó agus eolaíochta, d’infheisteoirí agus do chur chun cinn fhuinneamh na gaoithe, fhuinneamh na gréine, fuinnimh hidrileictrigh agus bithbhreoslaí. Cabhróidh sé seo ar fad leis an timpeallacht a chosaint ó athrú aeráide.

Maidir le bithbhreoslaí, maíonn Parlaimint na hEorpa nach drochréiteach é seo ar fhadhb an CO2. B’fhéidir go bhfuil an sprioc 10% ró-ard. Beidh orainn gné a chur sa Reachtaíocht a dhéanfaidh athbhreithniú ar sholáthar bia nó ar ghanntanas bia. Beidh ar gach Ballstát a bheith solúbtha maidir le héagsúlacht gach Ballstáit eile.

Caithfidh an reachtaíocht a bheith inmharthanach áfach. Cuirim fáilte roimh mholtaí an Choimisiúin maidir le bithfhuinneamh den dara glúin, ach ní mór a bheith ag díriú isteach ar bhithfhuinneamh den tríú glúin anois.


  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident, lieber Herr Dimas! Erinnern Sie sich noch an Bali? Ich bin sicher, Sie tun es, Herr Dimas. Da stand die Europäische Union quasi gleichbedeutend für internationale Anstrengungen zugunsten des Klimaschutzes, für internationale Solidarität, für Nachhaltigkeit. Es war ein wunderbares Gefühl. Ich war oft stolz auf Sie, Herr Dimas. Ich war sogar stolz auf den deutschen Bundesumweltminister. Mir ist dabei noch einmal klar geworden, dass die Europäische Union die Zustimmung ihrer Bürger über wirklich guten globalen Klimaschutz zurückgewinnen kann.

Aber diese Zustimmung, Herr Barroso, ist sehr leicht verspielt, besonders dann, wenn Worte und Taten nachvollziehbar auseinanderklaffen. Ich habe jetzt viel über die Debatten in der Kommission gelesen. Ich glaube, wenn Sie beim Emissionshandel mit Ihren Vorschlägen nicht hart bleiben, machen Sie ein ganz wichtiges Instrument kaputt. Ich glaube, wenn weiter saubere Kohle dominiert, wenn verdeckt für Atomkraft geworben wird, wenn Pflanzenkraftstoffe zentral sind und nicht eine andere Verkehrspolitik, wenn Effizienz – die Priorität der Prioritäten, Herr Piebalgs – immer mehr ein Schattendasein fristet, dann werden wir keinen guten Klimaschutz hinkriegen.


Die Attacken der europäischen Industrie gegen die Vorschläge sind unerträglich. Es war schließlich der freie Markt, der dieses Klimaproblem geschaffen hat. Es waren nicht China und Indien, die verschwenderisch gewirtschaftet und viel zu viel CO2 emittiert haben. Das waren wir. Der freie Markt wird das Problem nicht lösen. Der freie Markt muss im Interesse des Klimaschutzes reguliert werden. Über Außenschutz der Industrie in Europa wegen der damit verbundenen Belastungen müssen wir dann selbstverständlich reden. Wir sind bereit, das zu tun. Wir glauben, dass wir nur mit ehrgeizigen Vorschlägen von der europäischen Ebene dann auch bei der Frage des Außenschutzes in den internationalen Verhandlungen weiterkommen. Wir können nicht mit schwachen Instrumenten nach Posen gehen. Wir müssen auch in Posen und in Kopenhagen wieder die Vorreiterrolle spielen. Ich freue mich auf eine enge Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen, Herr Kollege Dimas.



  Roberto Musacchio, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è importante che la Commissione abbia deciso di venire in Aula per presentare le proprie proposte. È un bel segnale che l'Europa vuole fare sul serio, su linee giuste che abbiamo contribuito a indicare e a costruire.

Ma proprio per questo voglio dire, con sincerità, che in queste proposte ci sono anche punti che sollevano in me perplessità e non condivisione. Riguardano il peso eccessivo del biofuel, nonostante i dubbi crescenti che da più parti vengono sollevati; riguardano il rischio che sia concesso a qualcuno di assimilare il nucleare a una fonte pulita e rinnovabile, cosa che non è; riguardano l'eccessivo peso delle tecniche di cattura di CO2 rispetto ad altre pratiche migliori; riguardano le deroghe ai limiti di emissione per paesi o per settori inquinanti come il siderurgico.

Così rischiamo di indebolire quella credibilità dell'Europa, che invece deve essere rafforzata in una fase decisiva come quella che si è aperta con la Conferenza di Bali. A Bali si sono poste le condizioni per arrivare alla firma dell'accordo del dopo Kyoto. Per arrivarci – e bisogna farlo – occorrerà grande volontà politica e capacità di costruire un schema complesso, ma anche coerenza.

La volontà politica deve essere quella di considerare il tema clima il vero banco di prova dell'Europa e di una diversa globalizzazione. La coerenza richiede che ci si muova secondo l'indirizzo del 3 e 20% di riduzione delle emissioni, di risparmio energetico e di uso di energia rinnovabile.

Occorre poi individuare un pacchetto prioritario di misure da approvare nel prossimo anno, cioè prima dello scioglimento del Parlamento e delle nuove elezioni. In esso, oltre al 3 e 20%, devono essere incluse misure sulle auto e sugli aerei che rendano credibili, anche attraverso politiche verticali, gli impegni generali di riduzione. Per questo sarebbero gravi deroghe su settori come il siderurgico.

Occorre poi guardare la complessità necessaria per un accordo forte, che chiede un nuovo scenario della globalizzazione, non più fondato sulla competizione ma sulla cooperazione e il trasferimento tecnologico.

Decisivo è anche riflettere su nuovi terreni, come quello del calcolo pro capite delle emissioni proposto dalla signora Merkel, e sull'adattamento che riguarda in particolare quei continenti come l'Africa che meno inquinano e più drammaticamente sono colpiti dal cambiamento climatico. Ecco, proprio rispetto a ciò, al dramma dell'Africa, misureremo il valore e la serietà della nostra Europa.


  Johannes Blokland, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het is een belangrijke dag als het gaat om milieu- en energiebeleid. Ik wil de Europese Commissie danken voor het energiepakket dat zojuist is gepresenteerd. Voortbouwend op de beslissingen die vorig jaar genomen zijn om de uitstoot van broeikasgassen te reduceren, ligt nu het wetgevingspakket voor ons. Kenmerkend voor de voorliggende voorstellen is dat de diverse belangen niet eensluidend zijn, ook binnen de Europese Commissie niet.

In de afgelopen dagen hoorden we al kritiek op de voorstellen, voornamelijk vanuit de zware industrie. Het amenderen van de richtlijn betreffende de emissiehandel zal inderdaad pijn doen bij verschillende sectoren. Toch denk ik dat we nu stappen moeten zetten, ook al doen die soms pijn.

Ik kijk ook met belangstelling uit naar de richtlijn betreffende carbon capture and storage. Daarnaast is het fantastisch als er meer hernieuwbare energiebronnen komen; tot 20% in 2020, zoals wordt voorgesteld. Over het doel van 10% biobrandstoffen moeten we kritisch zijn. De duurzaamheidscriteria moeten een duidelijke plaats krijgen in deze richtlijn. Voor de meeste voorstellen zal de Milieucommissie in dit Huis aangewezen worden als verantwoordelijke commissie. Dat schept verplichtingen tot slagvaardigheid, maar we hebben moed voor de uiteindelijke uitkomst.

We zullen in de komende maanden veel kritische geluiden horen vanuit de lobbyhoek; toch zal er ook brede steun zijn. We moeten onze rug recht houden om binnen de kaders van verantwoordelijkheid en rechtvaardigheid te zorgen voor wetgeving waar alles en iedereen, maar vooral het milieu, bij gebaat is.


  Irena Belohorská (NI). – Ďakujem pekne pani predsedajúca, vážený pán Barroso, vážení páni komisári Dimas a Piebalgs, ďakujem vám za vami predložený návrh. Myslím si, že je veľmi dôležitý pre nás všetkých a pre budúcnosť Európy.

Konferencia v Bali v decembri minulého roku predstavuje základ pre medzinárodnú dohodu v oblasti riešenia problémov klimatických zmien. Bali Action Plan - Roadmap a Adaptačný fond sú výzvami, kde musí Európska únia prevziať hlavnú vedúcu úlohu. Musíme pripustiť mieru zodpovednosti za stav, ktorý v oblasti klimatických zmien máme.

Je logické, že rozvinuté a rozvojové krajiny nebudú mať rovnaké ciele. Čína a India by mali za znižovanie emisií dostať kompenzáciu, ktorá by mala byť exaktne definovaná. Avšak bez toho, aby tento problém začali brať vážne aj Spojené štáty, mám obavu, že naše snahy sú len mrhaním času.

Konferencia v Bali nie je nástupom Kyoto protokolu, ale dúfajme, že bude pôsobiť ako stimul, aby sa tento problém začal riešiť. Špeciálne, pán Barroso, vítam bod 2, teda spravodlivosť a rešpektovanie východiskových pozícií členských štátov a rozvoja ich ekonomiky. Ďakujem ešte raz.


  Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Sie wissen, dass ich der Ökonomie, der Ökologie und der gemeinsamen Politik sehr verbunden bin. Sie haben heute die Vision von Angela Merkel und den Staats- und Regierungschefs ein bisschen weiterentwickelt. Die Vision vom Frühjahr war genau richtig. Sie war zum richtigen Zeitpunkt gekommen. Aber sie muss jetzt mit Leben erfüllt werden, und da haben Sie die Katze nicht ganz aus dem Sack gelassen. Von Zahlen habe ich heute noch nicht allzu viel gehört. Das würde ich gerne, weil wir dieses Problem gemeinsam mit den betroffenen Parteien lösen wollen und nicht gegen sie. Die Programme, die Sie in den letzten vierzehn Tagen auf den Tisch gelegt haben, und das von heute werden die Wirtschafts- bzw. Industriepolitik Europas schwer verändern. Gerade deshalb glaube ich, dass wir noch viel mehr Schultern brauchen und nicht nur die großen Pfeiler einbeziehen dürfen.

Ich bin eigentlich ein bisschen enttäuscht, Herr Dimas, dass die Abfallpolitik, und gerade die Deponiepolitik, hier keine große Rolle spielt. Wir können in Europa Millionen Tonnen an CO2 zugunsten der Großindustrie, die global arbeitet, einsparen, wenn wir nur mutig genug sind. Wir haben doch alle in den letzten zwei Jahren gelernt, dass wir viel mehr haben als nur ein Klimaproblem. Wir haben in Zukunft ein Ressourcenproblem. Unsere Kinder werden uns üble Fragen stellen, Herr Kommissar und Herr Präsident, wenn wir darauf nicht mit mehr Mut eingehen.

Natürlich müssen wir fair mit den Unternehmen und den Umweltverbänden umgehen, und die fünf Prioritäten, die Sie aufgestellt haben, unterstreiche ich ausdrücklich. Wir können den grenzüberschreitenden Unternehmen nicht auf der einen Seite Bleischuhe anziehen und gleichzeitig erwarten, dass sie den Wettbewerb gewinnen. Das geht nicht. Da müssen wir schon klar „Butter bei die Fische“ tun, wie wir das in meiner Sprache sagen.

Was ETS angeht, gibt es nur eins: Das bekannteste und bewährte System ist ETS. Wir müssen aus unseren Fehlern lernen, aber wir müssen es knapp halten. Wir tun niemandem einen Gefallen, wenn wir zu großzügig sind. Knapp muss es sein, fair muss es sein. Dann bin ich bei Ihnen.

Die Europäische Union sollte vor diesem Thema Klimawandel nicht so viel Angst haben. Wir sollten es als Chance nutzen, als Chance für unsere Umwelt, als Chance für die Industrie und als Chance insbesondere für die kommenden Generationen.



  Guido Sacconi (PSE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io sottolineo l'importanza del fatto che lei, Presidente, abbia deciso di venire a informarci in tempo reale dell'adozione del pacchetto, che così faticosamente è stato composto, diciamo così confezionato, al quale non dimentichiamoci va aggiunta un'altra decisione che avete adottato a dicembre, vale a dire la proposta di regolamento sulle autovetture, che fa parte di questo pacchetto in una certa misura.

Io non commenterò i contenuti del pacchetto medesimo, perché ho la cattiva abitudine di giudicare quando conosco i testi, di approfondirli, di valutarli in tutte le loro articolazioni. Cercheremo di capire se gli equilibri che avete trovato sono quelli giusti, o se possano e debbano essere ulteriormente affinati e migliorati. Nell'insieme devo dire che mi pare che il complesso delle proposte corrisponda ai principi e agli obiettivi che anche questo Parlamento, oltre che il Consiglio, nei mesi scorsi ha suggerito.

Io sollevo una questione politica però – già accennata dal collega Musacchio – che riguarda noi tutti. Io condivido il suo giudizio su Bali. Non è stato un bicchiere mezzo pieno o mezzo vuoto, ma è stato un grande successo politico. Solo tre mesi prima nessuno ci avrebbe scommesso sopra neanche un centesimo. In quell'occasione l'Unione ha confermato la sua leadership mondiale, però così ha accresciuto le sue responsabilità. Noi abbiamo più responsabilità, noi non potremo andare a Poznan e poi a Copenaghen a mani vuote, dovremo andarci con dei fatti.

Voi avete fatto la vostra parte definendo questo pacchetto, ma ora sta a noi legislatori – Parlamento e Consiglio – adottarlo e trasformarlo in norme vincolanti. Ciò non sarà facile nei tempi brevi che abbiamo. La legislatura ha iniziato la sua fase finale, un po' come dovrebbero essere le emissioni di CO2 nel 2015, quando cioè si dovrebbe raggiungere il picco per poi cominciare a calare. Noi abbiamo già toccato quel tetto.

Allora ci vuole una specie di accordo informale, di procedura speciale di lavoro, per vedere di finalizzare il massimo di questi dossier entro questa legislatura, altrimenti avremo le mani vuote quando negozieremo nei passaggi successivi a Bali. Questo quindi riguarda il Parlamento, che deve fare la sua parte magari evitando conflitti di competenza che ci fanno perdere dei mesi, riguarda il Consiglio, che può avviare con noi, come si è fatto in altri casi, una cooperazione informale molto anticipata, ma riguarda anche voi. Voi siete venuti un po' tardi oggi perché evidentemente avete avuto da discutere. Rispetto ad altri dossier che io conosciuto sarebbe bene che manteneste una certa unità anche esterna.


  Lena Ek (ALDE). – Madam President, finally, we move from targets to tools! I agree that this can be wisely managed – a win-win situation, where we can create a better environment, better opportunities for our children and more jobs in Europe. But it needs coherence in our management of different political areas – research policy, development aid, the common agricultural policy, energy policy and so on – and the first test of this will be at the spring summit with the Lisbon Agenda.

Will the Lisbon Agenda at the Council in March reflect the energy and climate package? That will be the first great test. There is also another test. We have only 13 months to bring along the decisions on this very important – maybe the most important – proposal: this mandate for the European Parliament, and the Commission, and the Council. Thirteen months to be able to deliver a European standpoint before the European elections and before the extremely important meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009.

We all know that it is really important, we all know that it is imperative that we get there, and it is up to all of us individually to make it possible – and not impossible – to get a decision in April so that, unlike in the old Danish fairy tale, the Emperor does not stand naked when he goes to Copenhagen!

We also have to address energy poverty – it is not there enough – technology neutrality and the forestry issues, which have to be improved. This will be delivered, I think, in the parliamentary procedure in a very transparent and open way, as it is in Parliament.

Finally, from tools to targets: it is our responsibility, and the ALDE Group will stand by you when it comes to a decision and deliver value for voters – finally!


  Alessandro Foglietta (UEN). – Signora presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con il pacchetto energia e clima, che purtroppo non conosciamo molto bene, la Commissione ha impresso una duplice svolta: rispettare gli impegni di Kyoto, migliorare il mix e l'approvvigionamento energetico europeo. Apprezziamo in particolare l'impegno a promuovere la diffusione delle energie rinnovabili, una maggiore flessibilità nell'autorizzazione degli aiuti di Stato concessi per promuovere fini ambientali, nonché lo sviluppo di fonti pulite e di tecnologie per il controllo delle emissioni.

Tuttavia, il pacchetto contiene alcuni punti delicati per la competitività delle nostre imprese. Lo stesso Barroso ha segnalato costi per circa 60 miliardi di euro. Tuttavia bisognerà vedere l'incidenza di questi oneri. La previsione di un sistema di vendita all'asta delle quote, il costo stimato attorno al 39 euro per tonnellata di CO2, l'estensione ai settori del trasporto e dell'edilizia preoccupano non poco le industrie e probabilmente colpiranno i consumatori finali. Contro queste fosche prospettive la Commissione e soprattutto gli Stati membri dovranno impegnarsi al massimo per ridurre l'impatto economico e sociale di questi interventi.

Ribadisco che il ruolo leader dell'Europa a livello mondiale nella lotta al cambiamento climatico è indiscusso e indiscutibile. Tuttavia, dobbiamo tenere a mente che a questa posizione corrisponde quella opposta dei nostri competitori mondiali in molti settori trainanti dell'economia. Concordiamo, per concludere, con i punti che sono stati sottolineati e segnalati dal Presidente Barroso. Dobbiamo sicuramente lavorare sodo per definire impegni e risultati e dare maggiore forza al pacchetto presentato, che non deve essere virtuale ma deve essere leale.


  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, this Parliament has a vision of 21 different renewable energy technologies for the 21st century. With what the Commission is proposing today, we are taking a first step – 20% in 2020 – towards a Europe which will be run almost entirely and exclusively by renewables at the end of this century.

This is millions of jobs for Europe; this is technology leadership; this is CO2 reduction, less dependency on gas and oil imports, more competition in an energy market which is dominated by the happy few and, therefore, I thank Mr Piebalgs for not having given in to the electricity lobby by killing the guaranteed price systems, because it is only guaranteed price systems that will allow small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in this market. Biofuels at 10% is a target which was imposed on policy by car makers and the sugar industry. You did not have the courage to drop it. We will have the courage.

Lastly, I have a precise question for the Commission. We, as Greens, are in favour of protecting European industry against environmental dumping, but, Mr Barroso, there is a contradiction in what you have announced. If the European energy-intensive industry gets the allowances completely for free, how can you justify the fact that the Chinese steel company will have to pay for imports? If our industry is completely off the hook, the WTO will never accept a scheme whereby those who import to our markets have to pay, so there is a fundamental contradiction in what you have announced, or at least you have to clarify this because, otherwise, you are cheating people.


  Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisat komissaarit, yhdyn niihin puhujiin, jotka kiittävät komission hyvää tarkoitusta. Tulemme kuitenkin oppimaan, että piru asuu yksityiskohdissa. Päästökaupassa päästöoikeuksien hinta siirretään EU-alueen tukkusähkömarkkinoilla myös sellaisen ydin- ja vesivoimasähkön hintaan, jonka tuotannossa ei tarvita päästöoikeuksia. Näihin windfall-voittoihin ei pure päästöoikeuksien huutokauppa, pikemminkin se lisää näitä sähköyhtiöiden ylimääräisiä ylisuuria voittoja.

Päästökauppa suosii ydinvoiman lisärakentamista. Toivottavasti komissio on pitänyt kiinni siitä komissaari Piebalgsin esittämästä näkemyksestä, jonka mukaan ydinvoima ei ole uusiutuva energiamuoto.

Toistaiseksi on mahdotonta sanoa, onko esitetty paketti tasapainoinen jäsenvaltioiden kesken. Vaatimus uusiutuvan energiaosuuden nostamisesta EU:ssa keskimäärin 20 prosenttiin voi asettaa eriarvoiseen asemaan pienet maat, joissa tämä prosenttiluku jo ylitetään, ja suuret maat, joissa se on tällä hetkellä 2–6 prosenttia.


  Graham Booth (IND/DEM). – Madam President, nowadays, when the subject of climate change crops up, it is usually described as ‘global warming’. Is this deliberate? The only solution being put forward is to cut greenhouse gas emissions – that is, carbon dioxide – dramatically, because it is claimed that a 30% reduction will reduce the average temperature of the earth by 2° by 2020.

Such an assertion is quite amazing when no reference to the effect the sun will have had over that period is taken into account, but, for the sake of this exercise, let us suppose that the so-called ‘taxpayer-funded experts’ are right. Climate change is precisely that: climate changes all the time. So, what if earth’s climate decides to cool down instead of warm up? Will it then be suggested that we must produce much more carbon dioxide to try and offset the cooling? Of course not. They are so committed to their present ‘global warming’ prediction, that that would not be an option, but, sadly, it looks as if that is what is happening.

For the last nine years since 1998, global temperature on earth has remained the same. For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. That is not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy, it is an observational fact. It is also a scientific fact that far more people die from being too cold than from being too warm.

So, to sum up, if global warming has been just a temporary blip, and we are now heading relentlessly for the next ice age, any reductions in CO2 emissions will have precisely the opposite asserted effect to that which is intended. In the billions of years of earth’s existence, a very brief pause to check the facts is surely not too much to ask.


  Jana Bobošíková (NI). – Dámy a pánové, obávám se, že snížit za 12 let o pětinu evropskou produkci CO2 je nereálný sen. Vždyť jsme ji od roku 1990 nesnížili ani o v Kjótu dohodnutých 5 %.

Sundejme populistické brýle a přiznejme si fakt, který popisují vědci a který začínají pociťovat občané. Biopaliva energetickou situaci neřeší, právě naopak způsobují růst cen potravin, problémy se zásobami vody a v důsledku odlesňování nárůst tolik nenáviděné koncentrace CO2. Jsou zkrátka krokem špatným směrem.

Dámy a pánové, jsem přesvědčena, že bychom se měli zaměřit na atomovou energii a zbavit se strachu z jaderných reaktorů. Rozumné vlády jako finská nebo britská už to dělají. Vědecké závěry prokazují, že jaderná energie neprodukuje CO2 a minimalizuje zhoršování klimatických změn. Zároveň je levná, spolehlivá, bezpečná a snižuje závislost zemí na dodávkách paliv z nestabilních teritorií.

Pokud chceme jednat v zájmu občanů Evropské unie, měli bychom investovat do výzkumu, vývoje a osvěty právě v oblasti jádra.


  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE-DE). – Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate the Commission and its President on the presentation and the proposal here and to welcome it. I come from a country where we have proved those goals are achievable – although we do not have very much sun anyway – but it is possible to achieve those goals. And now we are, as has been said today, making the overall goals into concrete actions and measures – that is good.

I have three points. First, competitiveness needs sustainability – but sustainability needs competitiveness. If we are to be a competitive economy in the future, we need to have competitive energy sources, and that also goes for the renewables. We need to have competition between different renewables, not a regulated economy with subsidies for different renewables. We need to have fair and open competition, because then we will see the second and third generation of renewables emerge, and we will have good use of them.

The second point is that high charges for some countries must not lead to less responsibility for other countries. I must say on that point I feel a little bit uncomfortable because, maybe, some countries are getting away a little bit too easily. We need to underline this because everyone needs to make those efforts.

Thirdly, this is about renewables, but I would still like to underline the importance of nuclear power, not because I look upon nuclear power as one of the renewables, but it is my belief that, if we are to take full advantage and make full use of renewables, we must not get into a situation where the phasing-out of nuclear power consumes the achievements we can make in the fight against carbon dioxide emissions. We need both of them, and they will support each other.

Those are my three points today. I welcome the proposal and presentation, and wish us all good luck.


  Reino Paasilinna (PSE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa herra Barroso, uusiutuvat energiamuodot eivät ole vain kustannus, vaan myös prosessi, joka luo työpaikkoja, innovaatiota ja kilpailukykyä. Tämä on totta. Komissio ei ole kuitenkaan riittävästi ottanut huomioon työllisyyttä, ja tämä on keskeinen ongelma. Mitä hyötyä siitä on, jos energiaintensiivinen ja alan puhtain teollisuus joutuu muuttamaan maihin, joissa päästörajoituksia ei ole? Meidän on saatava muut teollisuusmaat rinnallemme, ja teidän tehtävänne on hoitaa tämä asia.

Niin päästökaupassa kuin jopa telesektorilla on käynyt niin, että rangaistaan niitä, jotka ovat jo täyttäneet tavoitetason, aivan niin kuin Högmark totesi. Samalla katsotaan sormien läpi niitä, jotka eivät välitä täyttää tavoitteita ajoissa eivätkä toteuta yhteisiä päätöksiä. Eihän tällä tavalla voida edetä jatkuvasti. Komissio ei ole ottanut huomioon lähtötasoa, elinkeinoelämän energiavaltaisuutta, tehokkuutta, päästöttömien roolia ja niin edelleen. Nämä ovat tärkeitä tekijöitä.

Mutta lopuksi sanoisin, että kustannustehokkuuteen päästään innovaatioilla ja se ei näy jäsenvaltioiden eikä myöskään komission budjeteissa. Kyllähän sen täytyisi näkyä keinoina päästä ulos tästä tilanteesta.


  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, no one ever said that meeting the challenge of global warming would be easy, but I am glad that the European Union here is taking the lead in trying to turn aspirations into practical policies. Numbers have been thrown about in an almost casual fashion – a lot of 20s by 2020 – and conjuring up these figures is easy, but the hard part is reaching the targets which are now being set.

In my country, the United Kingdom, for instance, I am very conscious that it is going to take quite a dramatic change of direction and a very rough gear change to meet these targets. I think this new policy direction is long overdue, but I am conscious of the difficulties and the realities before us.

I have two principal fears. The first is that governments will sign the pledge but fail to deliver, so I want to know how we are going to build in some sort of interim targets, some penalty structure, to ensure that the promises are delivered at the end of the day.

My second fear is that, in trying to do good, we will do some harm. My biggest concern here is over biofuels. I hear the comments of the Energy Commissioner, but the idea that we could risk tropical forest destruction and force up world food prices in order to featherbed our car manufacturers is, frankly, sickening, and we must be very cautious indeed about the sustainability criteria. I do have concerns about the direction of our own budget. We promote schemes that stimulate CO2 emissions and it seems to me that we have to run faster just to catch up with ourselves.

There are fine judgments to be made on many of these issues, but I know we are all working together towards a common purpose. This package of measures will promote innovation, stimulate investment and create millions of jobs. It must be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity for us all.


  Guntars Krasts (UEN). – Paldies, priekšsēdētāj! Vēlos izteikt atzinību Komisijai par diskusijas uzsākšanu šajā nozīmīgajā jautājumā. Lai arī emisiju ierobežošana un atjaunojamu resursu palielināšanas jautājumu iekļaušana vienā dokumentā formāli ir loģiska, manuprāt, tā mākslīgi palielina politisko spriedzi uz katru no uzdevumiem un debatēm laupa skaidrību. Tādēļ es runāšu tikai par atjaunojamo resursu jautājumu. Eiropas Savienībā šobrīd ir ne mazums valstu ar labiem rezultātiem šajā jomā. Tas ir attiecīgo nacionālo valstu valdību lēmums starp apgādes drošību, ekonomikas konkurētspējas un klimata saglabāšanas uzdevumiem. Šobrīd energoapgādes drošība iegūst īpašu nozīmi, jo naftas un gāzes cenas un to apgādes drošība padara tos īpaši riskantus. Nav pamata domāt, ka Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstis to neapzinās. Ja Eiropas Savienības kopējo mērķu izvirzīšana atjaunojamo resursu īpatsvara palielināšanai ir atbalstāma, tad to noteikšana dalībvalstu līmenī, manuprāt, nav šī brīža uzdevums. Un tas nav izdarāms pēc konkrēto apstākļu izvērtēšanas dalībvalstīs, pašvaldībās, ņemot vērā ne tikai ekonomiskos, bet arī sociālos un kultūras faktorus. Īpaši ironiju izraisa fakts, ka valstīm, kas jau daudz paveikušas šajā jomā, tiek izvirzīti papildus ambiciozi uzdevumi. Eiropas institūciju lomu negribētu novērtēt par zemu, kas var pievienot būtisku vērtību, piemēram, gāzes un elektrības liberalizācijas jomā, bet atjaunojamo energoresursu ražošanas jautājums ir jāatstāj dalībvalstu līmenī, kur liela daļa no tām jau sen ir sapratušas.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Solange energiehungrige Schwellenländer und energieverschwendende Industrieländer nicht verstärkt umweltpolitische Überlegungen berücksichtigen, können sämtliche Bemühungen auf EU-Ebene nicht einmal den von diesen angerichteten Schaden wiedergutmachen. Fragwürdig ist meines Erachtens auch der Erfolg des so genannten Zertifikatenhandels, mit dessen versteckter Entwicklungshilfe der Gesamtausstoß keineswegs weniger wird, sondern bestenfalls umverteilt. Bis dato hat allein Österreich 280 Millionen Euro für Zertifikate ausgegeben, während erneuerbare Energien nur im Ausmaß von 20 Millionen Euro jährlich gefördert werden. Ich glaube also, dass es, anstatt energiepolitische Überlegungen als Vorwand für einen EU-Beitritt der Türkei vorzuschieben, sinnvoller wäre, diesbezüglich die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Russland zu überdenken. Nicht zuletzt muss die EU endlich ausgereifte umweltfreundliche Antriebs- und Energietechnologien einsetzen, der Wasserverschwendung einen Riegel vorschieben, Förderungen für Transporte kreuz und quer durch Europa streichen und den Druck auf die größten Klimasünder erhöhen.


  Giles Chichester (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I welcome this package in principle, but we must recognise that renewables and efficiency gains are a domestic EU asset, which yields benefits for us, both as a sustainable low-carbon economy and for security of supply. We must also recognise that renewables are not the free lunch that some people think: they do have costs attached, which include financial, environmental and inflexibility factors. I share President Barroso’s determination that we achieve our targets without loss of global competitiveness and without exporting jobs and businesses. Whilst we are on the subject of targets, we must break with the past performance, where the EU has a dismal record in failing to meet targets. We can only agree to binding targets if they are achievable.

I welcome the approach of market mechanisms, like the Emissions Trading System, but I hope we can improve the methodology and make it work better to achieve our aims.

Finally, let me make the suggestion that we should resist the temptation to be technology-specific, we should resist being obsessive about renewables as the solution, when it is the objective of drastic emissions reduction that matters most and, therefore, we must use the full range of means available and not rule out any option.


  Britta Thomsen (PSE). – Fru formand! Hr. kommissionsformand! Jeg er utrolig glad for, at vi har fået en lovgivningspakke på bordet nu, fordi det er jo selve grundlaget for, at vi kan arbejde hen imod at realisere vores målsætninger og vise, at EU kan mere end bare at tale om det. Vi kan rent faktisk levere! Som ordfører for pakken i Parlamentet, lagde jeg vægt på, at nationale handlingsplaner skulle spille en central rolle. Disse handlingsplaner skulle ledsages af løbende midtvejsmål, og jeg er glad for at se nu, at Kommissionen har taget dette med i sit forslag. Det er helt centralt for at sikre, at vi kommer i gang allerede nu og ikke pludselig står i 2020 med uopfyldte målsætninger. Parlamentet betonede også, at det er centralt, at der sker en indsats i alle tre sektorer, el, varme og transport, og jeg er glad for at se også, at Kommissionen vil kræve, at medlemslandene fastlægger sektormålsætninger. Men jeg havde gerne set, at den sociale dimension havde fået en mere fremtrædende rolle både i forhold til energipriser, fødevarepriser og det lokale engagement. Men det er så noget af det, som vi skal arbejde videre med i Parlamentet. Jeg vil gerne lykønske Kommissionen med det gode resultat i dag.


  Vittorio Prodi (ALDE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie per la presentazione di questo pacchetto energia e cambiamento climatico, sulla cui priorità siamo assolutamente d'accordo.

Nella direttiva sulla promozione delle energie rinnovabili quali fonti di energia, tuttavia, non mi pare sufficientemente sottolineata l'urgenza di promuovere tecnologie di conversione diretta della biomassa in gas, che permettono tante applicazioni, in particolare per l'efficienza complessiva rispetto alla combustione convenzionale.

Un altro rilievo che sento il dovere di fare riguarda la direttiva per lo stoccaggio dell'anidride carbonica. Innanzitutto, l'aiuto finanziario sembra favorire particolarmente il settore del carbone e del petrolio. Tale scelta non è condivisibile, considerando che esistono opzioni diverse per la cattura dell'anidride carbonica in processi di produzione di energia, come ad esempio l'impiego di microalghe in acqua.

Un'ultima osservazione: se proprio dobbiamo usare il carbone, promuoviamo almeno la tecnologia della conversione in gas più pulita e più efficiente. Naturalmente mi riservo di esaminare i documenti finali.


  Bogdan Pęk (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałem się zwrócić bezpośrednio do pana komisarza Dimasa i zarzucić mu co najmniej niekompetencję. Jestem bowiem w posiadaniu raportu podpisanego przez stu wybitnych uczonych światowych, przekazanego Narodom Zjednoczonym, z którego to raportu wniosek końcowy jest następujący, i chciałbym prosić żeby Pan go dokładnie przeanalizował. Cytuję: „usiłowania zmierzające do przeciwstawienia się zmianie klimatu są ostatecznie bezsensowne oraz przyczyniają się do nieodpowiedniego lokowania funduszy, które mogłyby być spożytkowane na rozwiązanie bardziej naglących problemów nękających ludzkość”.

Proszę państwa, nie ma żadnego dowodu naukowego, że jesteśmy w stanie zmienić cykliczną zmianę klimatu, która zależy od zmiany aktywności słonecznej i jest znana naukowcom od co najmniej dziesięciu tysięcy lat na podstawie badania wycinków lodu. Wydawanie setek miliardów euro na ten cel grzeszy po prostu przeciwko cywilizacji ludzkiej i rozumowi. Zarzucam Wam niekompetencję i ...

(przewodnicząca odebrała głos mówcy)


  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – Köszönöm elnök asszony, biztos urak. Üdvözlöm a Bizottság erőfeszítését mind a nemzetközi összefogásban, mind pedig a belső jogalkotásban. Ebben a Parlament támogatására mindig számíthatnak. Jó érzés látni, hogy a harmadik ipari forradalomban Európa vezető szerepet tölt be. Meggyőződésem, hogy az így létrejövő technológiai innováció alkalmas lesz arra, hogy a fejlődő országok jogos igényeit, illetve a saját növekedésünk okozta terhelést kiváltsa.

Azonban az Unióban a legnagyobb veszély az egyes tagországok lanyha, vonakodó hozzáállása, amely veszélyezteti ezen ambiciózus tervek végrehajtását. Ebben azonban a Bizottság is bűnös, ugyanis rendszeresen szemet huny a tagországok nem teljesítése felett. Hadd mondjak egy személyes példát: amíg tagjelöltek voltunk, addig a Bizottság minden egyes jogszabályt kikényszerített belőlünk, amióta tagok vagyunk, mindent elnéz. Ez nem méltányosság, ez megalkuvás.

Ön beszélt az otthonok energiatakarékosságáról: nos Magyarország 2 éve nem vezette be az épületek energiatanúsítványáról szóló direktívát. A Bizottság ezt nem követeli meg, úgy tűnik. Magyarország csak csekély részt költ az uniós forrásokból energiahatékonyságra és takarékosságra. A Bizottság ezt nem kényszeríti ki. Kérdezem, hogyan lehet elérni a Bizottság által kitűzött célokat, ha maga a Bizottság [...]


  Riitta Myller (PSE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisat komission jäsenet, muutamista skeptisistä puheenvuoroista huolimatta meidän on todella aika panna maaliskuiset päätöksemme täytäntöön. Käsiteltäessä tänään annettuja ehdotuksia niin ministerineuvostossa kuin Euroopan parlamentissa meidän on pidettävä mielessä omat sitoumuksemme, joista kaikkein tärkein on se, että pidämme huolen jokaisesta yksityiskohdasta päätettäessä, että tavoitteemme toteutuu eli lämpötila maapallolla ei nouse kahta astetta enempää verrattuna esiteolliseen aikaan. Tämän täytyy olla johtopäätöksenä, kun käsittelemme näitä yksittäisiä lainsäädäntöehdotuksia, koska se on ainut tapa, jolla todella saamme muutoksen aikaan.

Tämä muutos, joka on ilmastopoliittisesti tärkeä, tarkoittaa myös muutosta meidän teollisuustuotannossamme. On selvää, että jotkut alat tulevat kärsimään, mutta on paljon aloja, jotka tulevat voittamaan. Mielestäni meidän pitää satsata niihin aloihin, jotka tulevat voittamaan. Sillä tavalla Eurooppa voi viedä tätä johtajuutta eteenpäin ja luoda työpaikkoja omalla alueellaan ja samalla luoda win-win-tilanteen yhdessä globaalien ratkaisujen kanssa.

Toivon todella, että näytämme vahvan sitoumuksemme myös niin, että biopolttoaineiden osalta ratkaisumme antavat vahvan signaalin ja kannustimen siihen, että kehitämme todella kestäviä tuotteita, jotka korvaavat nykyiset polttoaineet.


  Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente della Commissione, condivido pienamente le linee guida esposte oggi dal Presidente Barroso sulla proposta della Commissione. Si tratta di una sfida importante per l'Europa che non può più essere rinviata.

Gli obiettivi proposti, e in particolare la riduzione dei gas del 20% entro il 2020, malgrado le tante difficoltà da affrontare, possono essere realizzati. Si rende necessario però un impegno comune di tutti i paesi per una politica energetica che possa affrontare l'emergenza del cambiamento climatico e che liberi finalmente l'Europa dalla dipendenza dalle importazioni e, conseguentemente, dal continuo aumento dei prezzi dell'energia.

Occorre altresì evidenziare le tematiche relative alla sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento e alle fonti energetiche rinnovabili. Tutto ciò impone un programma di diversificazione delle risorse energetiche. Si può ridurre l'emissione di gas a effetto serra attraverso il ricorso all'energia nucleare, al carbone pulito e alle energie rinnovabili che sono a bassa emissione di carbone. In particolare, occorre concentrare gli sforzi nella ricerca sul nucleare ...

(La Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


  Atanas Paparizov (PSE). – Madam President, I join with the majority of speakers in acknowledging the importance of this energy and environment package. I also believe that it will be a new major step in increasing the role of Europe in the fight against climate change.

I would like to mention two of the five principles mentioned by the President of the Commission: fairness and competitiveness. I should like to express my satisfaction with the fact that the Commission has taken into account the position of countries like mine, Bulgaria, especially as far as trade outside the Emissions Trading Scheme is concerned and with regard to specifying targets for renewables.

As far as competitiveness is concerned, however, a lot has to be done in order to make the Commission’s proposals more precise and, in the absence of a possible future agreement, we should be very careful regarding countries like Bulgaria and the energy mix, so that the possibilities for further developing energy and industry are preserved on the basis of achievable targets and at an achievable price.


  Karin Scheele (PSE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Ich möchte mich bei Ihnen bedanken, dass Sie in der Einleitung ganz klar gemacht haben, dass die Kosten für Untätigkeit oder nicht genügend Aktivitäten auf europäischer Ebene und in den Mitgliedstaaten mindestens das Fünffache des Pakets betragen werden, das hier vorgestellt wurde. Ich möchte mich den Rednerinnen und Rednern anschließen, die die Wichtigkeit der erneuerbaren Energien unterstreichen, und bin froh, dass die Kommission Kernenergie nicht als erneuerbare Energie ansieht, was ja überhaupt nicht zur Diskussion steht.

Ich möchte auch die Wichtigkeit der Energieeffizienz und von Maßnahmen, die in diesem Bereich noch zu setzen sind, unterstreichen, weil aus allen Studien hervorgeht, dass Energieeffizienz die wirtschaftlichste Art ist, CO2-Emissionen zu bekämpfen. Ich möchte unterstreichen, dass ich bezüglich der CO2-Lagerung äußerst skeptisch bin und dass ich gegen die verbindliche Festsetzung eines Anteils von 10 % für Biokraftstoffe bin.

Als Entwicklungspolitikerin möchte ich auch noch sagen, dass ich mit Spannung die Vorschläge der Kommission erwarte, wie mehr Projekte im Rahmen des Clean Development Mechanism in die ärmsten Länder unseres Planeten gebracht werden können, denn wir wissen, dass die armen Länder am meisten unter den Folgen des Klimawandels leiden.


  Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE). – Madame la Présidente, le Président Barroso nous a présenté un objectif ambitieux dans la production d'énergie renouvelable, tout cela ayant pour finalité de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, sans pénaliser les perspectives de croissance.

Or, c'est là que j'ai, quand même, une difficulté avec la Commission.: elle souhaite, pour la base de ses calculs, tenir compte du produit intérieur brut de chaque État, et cela me semble quand même inadéquat. Il me paraît tout à fait indispensable que l'effort global de réduction des émissions attendu de chaque État membre, d'ici 2020, varie selon le niveau de départ de ces émissions par habitant, sans préjuger, bien sûr, des mécanismes de solidarité entre États. C'est-à-dire qu'il faut tenir compte de la part globale des énergies non carbonées dans le bouquet énergétique de chaque État.

Il ne faut pas confondre, en somme, les objectifs et les moyens. L'idée directrice est bien évidemment de diminuer les gaz à effet de serre, de parvenir à une décarbonisation de l'économie – comme le soulignaient les conclusions du Conseil de mars 2007.


  Dorette Corbey (PSE). – Voorzitter, vandaag zien we de uitwerking van de Europese klimaatambities. Ik vind dat de voorstellen heel erg goed in elkaar zitten, maar helaas is de doelstelling te laag. Op Bali is vastgesteld dat 25-40% minder in 2020 nodig is om het klimaat te redden. En dan is de inzet van de Europese Unie van 20% wat aan de magere kant. Dat is een verkeerd signaal naar de rest van de wereld en daar komt dan nog bij dat onder meer Bulgarije en Roemenië hun uitstoot nog eens aanzienlijk mogen verhogen.

Dat is wat mij betreft geen goed idee. Voor China en India is er dan weinig reden om hun uitstoot wel te gaan verlagen. Beter zou het zijn als de rijkere landen in de Europese Unie landen als Bulgarije en Roemenië helpen om hun uitstoot naar beneden te brengen. Dat is een betere weg om geloofwaardig te zijn in de wereld.

Helaas is de vernieuwing van het emissiehandelssysteem onder druk van de industrielobby wat verwaterd. Jammer dat de Commissie slappe knieën kreeg en het aandeel te veilen rechten voor de energie-intensieve industrie verminderde. Het is inderdaad zo dat sommige bedrijven internationaal werken, maar het is veel beter om daar een fair systeem tegenover te stellen en heffingen te hebben aan de grens.


  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Madam President, I welcome the announcement of this most important package and look forward to the legislative debate that will follow. I think it is timely to remind those, especially in my own country, who are rightly exercised about global warming, climate change and greenhouse gas emission increases and who have concerns, on the other hand, about ratifying the Lisbon Treaty – or the Reform Treaty, as we underline – that the environment and climate change are specifically included in the Lisbon Treaty as distinct from the past Constitutional Treaty: a most important point to underline.

Following Bali, it is clear that Europe, as a Union of 27 Member States, has the capacity and the ability to lead the world on this most critical of issues – climate change – with this package at its centre. Bali produced a road map for global agreement by 2009, recognising the urgency for clear and transparent international agreements – I have borrowed President Barroso’s words – to ensure at least a 50% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. And while remaining competitive is ever pressing, we cannot solve our numbers and targets by exporting jobs through relocation to regions which have no legislation to reduce greenhouse gases ...

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Inés Ayala Sender (PSE). – Señora Presidenta, el programa que nos propone la Comisión, en relación con el respeto de los objetivos para garantizar nuestra credibilidad, consistente en exigir a cada uno según sus posibilidades reales, aprovechar este reto y transformarlo en una oportunidad para hacernos más competitivos, proponerlo de modo que, de manera cooperativa, todos lo podamos hacer a nivel internacional y no perder ni un minuto es, desde luego, un programa muy esperanzador y lleno de retos apasionantes. Entre otros, se ha nombrado —y estoy de acuerdo con ello— el reto de proponer energías alternativas en vez de energía nuclear.

En cuanto al sector del transporte, creo que es un sector que comporta un reto mayor y, por lo tanto, le rogaría a la Comisión que utilizase los instrumentos que ahora mismo están sobre la mesa: el plan de acción de logística. La logística, que ahora mismo se está convirtiendo en un factor competitivo, debería ser uno de los instrumentos para aplicar la inteligencia a la movilidad y para que seamos capaces de dar buenas soluciones en materia de reducción de las emisiones.

En cuanto al proyecto Galileo, que hasta ahora ha tenido poco desarrollo, puesto que no le veíamos todas sus potencialidades, justamente creo que las aplicaciones para conseguir reducir las emisiones deberían ser otro de los retos.

Finalmente, el plan sobre el transporte urbano, creo que es ahora mismo también una posibilidad abierta.


  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte noch einmal den Verkehr als eine der Hauptursachen für die Klimaproblematik erwähnen und in den Mittelpunkt unseres Handelns rücken. Bisher hat sich die Europäische Union, was die Reduzierung von Emissionen im Verkehr betrifft, nicht mit Ruhm bekleckert. Wir haben allerdings eine zweite Chance. Wir haben zum Beispiel die Chance, bei der Eurovignette externe Kosten wirklich anrechenbar zu machen und damit mehr Transportvolumen von der Straße auf die Schiene zu verlagern, wo wir emissionsmäßig viel besser liegen.

Wenn wir das Thema Verkehr nicht angehen, werden wir keine Chance haben, die Klimaziele jemals zu erreichen. Dies gilt vor allem für alle Staaten im Herzen Europas. Damit diese Staaten endlich aktiv werden und zur Verkehrsreduzierung auf der Straße beitragen, brauchen wir auch Sanktionen für jene, die weitere Steigerungen verursachen und die nicht bereit sind, das Verkehrsaufkommen zu senken.


  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Members for the general line of strong support for our proposals. I understood correctly that this House is very committed to this very important matter and sees it as one of the most important challenges, if not the most important, for our generation. I would like to thank you for that.

We were asked to come here immediately after our meeting, so we cannot yet have an in-depth discussion, but let me tell you that the Commission would be happy to participate actively in such a debate – myself, Commissioner Dimas, Commissioner Piebalgs and the other relevant Commissioners. We will be ready to discuss with you all details of this very important set of proposals.

Let me start by saying that some of your comments were based on earlier work and not on the proposals that we are putting forward today. It is important to understand that the proposals are the ones adopted today by the College. The work was done over months – it is a very complex issue. You have had access, as has the press, to some staff work, very important work, but the decision was taken only half an hour precisely before coming to this House.

I believe it is a very balanced decision – ambitious, but, at the same time, balanced and fair, and we are very proud. I think we have gained time. I think the fact that we have one more month to build a strong consensus in the Commission helps us gain time for the adoption, hopefully in this Parliament, of the whole package. I understood the point made by Mr Sacconi and by Ms Ek about the need to do it, but let us put it like that. Let us not see the time until June 2009 as the home straight for this Parliament; Let us finish the work of this Parliament with a bang, with a climax, by adopting these very important proposals!

Let me say that, from my contacts with the governments of our Member States, namely with the current Slovene Presidency and the upcoming French Presidency, I thought that there was a strong determination to do it fast, to go ahead with it, to make it a real priority. And, if we do it as well here in the Parliament, I really believe it will be possible to get this package approved – after the necessary negotiations, of course, and we are ready. We do not pretend our proposal is perfect. I think it is possible that this Parliament, during this term, will achieve a very strong consensus around a very ambitious set of proposals.

We have highlighted the difficult and political points. Let me just make a final comment about this. One is the question of balance between ecological commitment and the need to reduce our greenhouse gases and, at the same time, the need to address fears that exist in some parts of our industry regarding some effects on international competition. Let us make it clear: we are not making an exception for any sector of our industry. All of them are going to be involved in this. What we are considering is just in case there is no global agreement, but the global agreement remains our goal and our priority. Yes, there will be some measures to cushion the impact of this factor in some of our industries, because we want, of course, to protect the economy of Europe and we want to protect our jobs in Europe. This is the important thing, and we believe we have reached a very balanced solution.

Regarding the point made about burden-sharing among Member States, we have decided to do it broadly as follows. We are going to see the concrete proposals regarding renewables. As you know, the target set was 20% of energy use through renewables. We are, today, at 8.5%, so we have to go for 11.5% more. We have decided, broadly speaking, to make half of that subject to a flat rate – everybody has to make the same effort. The other part of it, we have decided, will be according to GDP per capita. It seems to us the fairest method, because it is a way of giving more possibilities to those that have more resources to invest than the poorest Member States. I think it is fair. We have adjusted this with the criteria of flexibility for those countries that have made an effort already, so as to give some kind of prize or bonus to the early starters.

All the methodology will be transparent. We are going to present it. We believe it is a good and fair proposal in terms of burden-sharing among Member States. I am quite hopeful that it will be well received by most of our Member States. Anyway, the scenarios will be transparent, the methodology will be presented, and if the Council and Parliament can find a better solution, please do. We think, in the end, that this will be the solution, because it was technically sound and also very fair.

Regarding the problem of biofuels, we agree with most of what you said. The question is that today there are no sustainability criteria for the biofuels that are already being produced in the world and are already circulating. What we are doing now is establishing, for the first time ever, high-level criteria of sustainability for biofuels – domestic and imported biofuels – once again keeping in mind that what we want is a global agreement. Today there is no global agreement: in Latin America they do it one way, in the United States they do it another way and in Africa another way. Therefore, we need an international regime for the sustainability of biofuels, and this is what we are doing: promoting a new generation of biofuels. Therefore, while accepting all the criticisms of those who said that there are some risks with biofuels – and we agree there are – let us compare the alternative. We are proposing an alternative that is much better than the current situation.

Some of you were concerned about the need for more investment in technology. I agree with that. Let us keep this in mind when we discuss the next financial perspective. I think we have to do more. I agree, because for carbon capture and storage, which is a very important and promising technology, we need capital. By the way, regarding the auction revenues of the Member States, we are proposing that the Member States assign a part of them to the fight against climate change. Let us hope they will accept that.

Let me tell you from my contacts with the Member States during all these processes one thing that I have already made public. Sometimes, when discussing climate change, I remember what John Stuart Mill said about his father. He said that his father loved mankind in general, but hated every individual in particular. Let us hope our Member States and some of our national politicians are not like that. If they want to fight climate change, they cannot just love the agenda politically and afterwards not commit to precise targets and methods. This is an important issue.

What the Commission has done today is to translate those goals and intentions into concrete measures and into instruments that are transparent. Are they perfect? Let us discuss it. We believe they are reliable, fair and effective. We believe it is important, as Mr Hökmark said, that we also rely on the market. We will not enter into the energy mix of the Member States – that could be a discussion without end. We are not claiming that this or that is the best option. We are saying that now a goal has been unanimously agreed by the Member States of 20% use through renewables – for obvious reasons we have had to put the emphasis on renewables, because we have to give some clear incentives to the market – it is the market that will decide on the best technology and source of energy. We are not giving more precise instructions, because that is not what we have to do.

But, please, think about the difficulty involved. We are applying general rules and principles and instruments to 27 very different situations, in terms not only of economic development but also of energy mix, the history of those countries and the culture of awareness of some of these problems. It is unavoidable that, in the end, there will be some differences. The important thing is to have a coherent approach. I believe that we have come here today with a coherent approach.

I am looking forward very much to the necessary discussions at legislative level and I really believe that, with the spirit of partnership we have seen on other important pieces of legislation, we, together with the European Parliament and the Council, will reach a very ambitious and, at the same time, realistic proposal.



  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Τα πρακτικά της σημερινής συνεδρίασης θα υποβληθούν προς έγκριση από το Σώμα κατά την επόμενη περίοδο συνόδου.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 142)


  Alessandro Battilocchio (PSE), per iscritto. – Accolgo con favore il pacchetto energia e clima che la Commissione ci ha presentato. È importante che l'Unione europea continui ad avere un ruolo leader nella lotta al cambiamento climatico, e per questo si deve impegnare seriamente per raggiungere l'obiettivo del "20, 20, 20 entro il 2020" (riduzione del 20% delle emissioni di gas serra, obiettivo del 20% di risparmio energetico e 20% di energie rinnovabili). Tuttavia vorrei ricordare alla Commissione che, allo stato attuale, l'unica tecnologia ad uno stadio progettuale maturo, in grado di garantire una reale efficienza energetica e una consistente diminuzione delle emissioni di CO2, é il nucleare.

Alcuni Stati europei si presentano già parecchio avanti in questo contesto, altri si stanno organizzando, altri ancora – ed è il caso dell'Italia – sono al palo: ciò che comunque è oggettivamente mancato nel passato è una cornice normativa comune e, più in generale, una strategia complessiva dell'Unione sull'argomento. È davvero ora che la Commissione europea prenda l'iniziativa, senza tentennamenti ed esitazioni, perché la contingenza internazionale impone scelte, anche coraggiose se necessario.

Ne vale il futuro della nostra economia e, indirettamente, la nostra possibilità di far sentire la nostra voce per il rispetto dei diritti in ogni angolo del mondo, senza più temere condizionamenti e ricatti.


  Petru Filip (PPE-DE), în scris. – Apreciind preocupările Comisiei pentru mediu, ne preocupă relevanţa limitată a indicatorilor folosiţi în algoritmul de calcul al repartiţiei certificatelor de emisii poluante. Se impune stabilirea unor coeficienţi de corecţie care să reflecte diferenţele de potenţial investiţional între statele membre cu PIB apropiat, dar cu perspective socio-economice diferite. În mod cert, nivelul necesităţilor investiţionale diferă exponenţial în acord cu etapa de dezvoltare în care o anumită regiune a Europei se află. Astfel, efortul bugetar naţional necesar încadrării emisiilor poluante în limitele alocate va greva asupra bugetului investiţiilor pentru retehnologizare devenind, în zonele cu defazaj economic, o piedică în calea alinierii la normele europene de mediu.

Principiul solidarităţii europene poate fi respectat în spiritul lui numai dacă state şi regiuni aflate, din punctul de vedere al dezvoltării, sub media europeană, vor fi tratate ţinându-se cont de etapa specifică în care se află. În numele aceluiaşi principiu, sper ca aceia dintre colegii germani care au criticat decizia de relocare a fabricii Nokia să afle şi să spună deschis muncitorilor care şi-au pierdut locurile de muncă la Bochum că salariile muncitorilor din România sunt de zece ori mai mici decât ale lor şi că un litru de lapte sau un litru de benzină costă la fel de mult ca în Germania.


  Urszula Gacek (PPE-DE), in writing. – Today’s debate creates a new favourable environment to encourage a wider social debate on the role nuclear energy will play in Europe in the future. Nuclear generation is a proven and efficient way of producing electrical energy free of greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect that the average European citizen is probably totally unaware of this fact.

The public debate focuses almost exclusively on renewables and limiting the impact of burning fossil fuels.

We should be honest and admit that there is a limit to how much energy we can generate from renewable sources and still maintain competitive energy prices. Renewables are important, but we cannot mislead citizens by saying that renewables alone will solve the problem. While CCS schemes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, the technologies are still to be implemented on an industrial scale. Furthermore, they will have a substantial price tag.

A responsible approach to tackling the challenge of climate change requires a balance – a mix of economically viable renewable technologies, CCS systems and modern nuclear technologies. It is our responsibility to ensure that all options are explored, none to the exclusion of others.


  Gyula Hegyi (PSE), in writing. – Renewable energies can, in principle, offer a solution to global climate change and Europe’s energy crisis. However, biofuels and other forms of bioenergy are contradictory tools for combating climate change. Up to a certain level they positively replace fossil energy, but on a larger scale they endanger the rainforests and the food supply of Third World countries.

There are already worrying signs of deforestation in Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries. Food prices have risen as well due to the growing consumption of biofuels. The EU should limit its bioenergy consumption to the surplus agricultural capacity of the Union itself, discouraging deforestation.


  Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi (PPE-DE), în scris. – Eforturile Comisiei Europene de a propune statelor membre şi cetăţenilor un program viabil pentru atingerea obiectivelor energetice şi de mediu beneficiază de sprijinul nostru deplin. Trebuie să luăm însă în considerare aspectele de ordin financiar şi economic pe care aceste propuneri le antrenează.

Măsura revizuirii regulilor de aprobare a ajutorului de stat pentru proiectele de mediu este necesară. În condiţiile în care gradul de poluare al unor industrii este în momentul de faţă ridicat, dar costul adaptării la tehnologii nepoluante este nerentabil din punct de vedere economic, ajutoarele de stat în proporţie de 60 până la 100% pot reprezenta o soluţie viabilă. Mineritul este o astfel de industrie, care are mare nevoie de tehnologii de captare şi stocare a dioxidului de carbon.

În ceea ce priveşte proiectul Comisiei de lansare a 12 proiecte de centrale electrice bazate pe cărbune şi gaz natural care să beneficieze de tehnologia captării şi stocării de carbon, doresc să reafirm capacitatea României de a găzdui o astfel de centrală. Bazinul Văii Jiului este o regiune care oferă avantajul unor vaste resurse miniere, cât şi apropierea de centrale de generare a curentului electric aflate în funcţiune.


  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE-DE), na piśmie. – Problem zmian klimatycznych i przeciwdziałania degradacji środowiska naturalnego wysunął się na czoło agendy Unii Europejskiej w roku 2007. Propozycje Komisji Europejskiej stanowią konkretyzację ambitnych celów nakreślonych w marcu ubiegłego roku. Odzwierciedlają one wiodącą rolę wspólnoty 27 krajów w zakresie ograniczenia emisji gazów cieplarnianych.

Nie kwestionując ani celu, ani ambicji, należy zauważyć, iż Wspólnotę Europejską tworzą dwie grupy krajów przedzielone niedawno "żelazną kurtyną". Zachodnie demokracje od dziesięcioleci były wyczulone w zakresie ochrony środowiska naturalnego. Efektem były standardy ekologiczne godne naśladowania na innych kontynentach. Natomiast kraje dawnego RWPG były terenem pospiesznej industrializacji, w szczególności rozbudowy potencjału hutnictwa, chemii ciężkiej i innych branż degradujących środowisko.

Proces dostosowań do standardów Unii był niezwykle kosztowny i nie dziwi ilość okresów przejściowych wynegocjowanych przez te kraje w traktatach akcesyjnych. W krótkim czasie kraje Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej dokonały prawdziwej rewolucji w tym zakresie.

Obecnie - w świetle propozycji Komisji Europejskiej - kraje te stają wobec nowych wyzwań, które mogą przekraczać ich możliwości i ograniczać szanse rozwojowe. Problem znalezienia równowagi pomiędzy wymogami ekologicznymi, względami konkurencyjności i ochrony miejsc pracy dotyczy całej Unii Europejskiej, ale w przypadku krajów nadrabiających lukę cywilizacyjną ma szczególny wymiar!


  Αθανάσιος Παφίλης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Η παρουσίαση του Συμβουλίου των μέτρων ενάντια στις κλιματικές αλλαγές από τον πρόεδρο της Κομισιόν, Μπαρόσο, έχει στόχο και όραμα:

Την ενίσχυση των ευρωπαϊκών μονοπωλίων στον οξυμένο ενδοϊμπεριαλιστικό ανταγωνισμό στο πεδίο της ενέργειας. Ο αναγκαίος στόχος περιορισμού των εκπομπών ρύπων επιδιώκεται να αξιοποιηθεί για μοίρασμα των αγορών και περιορισμό της δυναμικής των αναδυόμενων νέων δυνάμεων (Κίνα, Βραζιλία), που διεκδικούν μεγαλύτερα μερίδια αγοράς.

Δίνει διέξοδο στην υπερσυσσώρευση του κεφαλαίου, μέσα από εμπορευματοποίηση της προστασίας του περιβάλλοντος. Μετά την «απελευθέρωση» τομέων στρατηγικής σημασίας (ενέργεια, τηλεπικοινωνίες), η πράσινη οικονομία αποτελεί μια από τις νέες μεγάλες επενδυτικές διεξόδους του μονοπωλιακού κεφαλαίου. Γι’ αυτό ο κ. Μπαρόσο μίλησε για επενδύσεις σε καινοτόμες ενεργειακές τεχνολογίες, τεχνολογικό εκσυγχρονισμό και προσαρμογή των ιδιωτικών ομίλων στις απαιτήσεις της νέας περιβαλλοντικής νομοθεσίας. Εξάλλου, το πρωτόκολλο του Κιότο δημιούργησε μια νέα καπιταλιστική αγορά του εμπορίου ρύπων. Το δικαίωμα στο «ρυπαίνειν» ανταλλάσσεται έναντι αντιτίμου στο «χρηματιστήριο» του διοξειδίου του άνθρακα.

Καλλιεργεί κλίμα ταξικής συνεργασίας, προσπαθώντας να εκμεταλλευθεί την ευαισθητοποίηση του κόσμου, κρύβοντας ότι οι επικίνδυνες κλιματικές αλλαγές, η υπερθέρμανση του πλανήτη, είναι αποτέλεσμα της βιομηχανικής ανάπτυξης με κριτήριο το καπιταλιστικό κέρδος, της εμπορευματοποίησης της γης, του αέρα, της ενέργειας, του νερού κ.ά.

Είναι μέτρα σε βάρος των λαϊκών αναγκών και ανάπτυξης της κερδοφορίας του κεφαλαίου στον περιβαλλοντικό τομέα


  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (PSE), în scris. – Statele Uniunii Europene se confruntă cu provocările legate de schimbările climatice, creşterea dependenţei de importul de energie, precum şi cu preţurile energetice ridicate. De aceea, angajamentul Uniunii Europene de a reduce cu cel puţin 20% emisiile de gaze cu efect de seră până în 2020, îndeosebi prin măsuri adoptate în sectorul energetic, este un pas important în lupta împotriva încălzirii globale.

Accelerarea trecerii la energia cu nivel scăzut de carbon prin mărirea ponderii pe piaţă a bio-combustibililor şi a surselor de energie regenerabile va încuraja inovaţiile şi va creşte competitivitatea industrială.

Statelor Membre ale căror economii sunt în curs de dezvoltare, în special Bulgaria şi România, li se va permite o creştere de 20% a emisiilor faţă de nivelul din 2005 în industriile care sunt în afara sistemului ETS, creştere care va fi calculată în funcţie de Produsul Intern Brut. În acest fel, Uniunea Europeană dă dovadă de solidaritate, asigurându-se că ţările mai sărace vor avea posibilitatea să ajungă din urmă statele ale căror economii sunt mult mai dezvoltate.


  Toomas Savi (ALDE), in writing. – Last week President Putin and First Deputy Prime Minister Medvedev of the Russian Federation signed a treaty in Sofia on constructing a gas pipeline called ‘South Stream’ across the Black Sea. Right now, when the Lisbon Treaty is about to be ratified, it seems rather odd that Bulgaria did not consult its European partners.

Union policy on energy aims, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to ensure security of energy supply in the Union. Experts have perceived a threat in South Stream to the Nabucco project, which is included in the EU Trans-European Energy Network.

In my opinion, Bulgaria has acted in a very disappointing way by signing a bilateral agreement on energy with the Russian Federation. Although Nabucco was named after an opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the current state of play resembles more an operetta or farce.


  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE-DE), în scris. – Salutăm iniţiativa Preşedintelui Comisiei de a veni în Parlamentul European pentru prezentarea propunerilor privind energia şi schimbările climatice. Cu această ocazie, rugăm Comisia Europeană să acorde atenţie sporită şi să întreprindă toate măsurile necesare pentru accelerarea realizării proiectului NABUCCO, care prezintă o importanţă majoră pentru garantarea securităţii UE de aprovizionare cu gaze naturale.


  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE), în scris. – Consider că lupta împotriva schimbărilor climatice poate fi câştigată doar dacă reuşim să asigurăm o solidaritate globală. Uniunea Europeană ar trebui să includă problematica schimbărilor climatice în toate acordurile sale, fie ele bilaterale sau multilaterale.

De asemenea, este important ca adaptarea la schimbările climatice să ţină cont şi să permită dezvoltarea economică sustenabilă a Uniunii. Nu trebuie ca promovarea culturilor de biodiesel să se facă în dauna culturilor dedicate alimentaţiei populaţiei. Dezvoltarea sustenabilă a transporturilor poate contribui la reducerea schimbărilor climatice.

Statele Membre ar trebui să îşi aleagă un mix energetic cât mai puţin poluant. Solicit Comisiei să revizuiască perspectiva financiară pentru 2007-2013 şi bugetul pe 2008, programele şi politicile comunitare, precum şi legislaţia esenţială pentru a ţine cont de adaptarea la schimbările climatice.

Comisia trebuie să recunoască importanţa autorităţilor naţionale, locale şi regionale în elaborarea şi punerea în aplicare a măsurilor de adaptare la schimbările climatice, precum şi necesitatea de a le învesti cu autoritate şi de a le acorda sprijinul necesar.

Consider că este necesar ca la nivelul UE să se dezvolte un program-cadru care să permită reducerea riscului de deşertificare şi a riscului de diminuare a cantităţii de apă potabilă.


7. График на следващите заседания: вж. протоколи

8. Прекъсване на сесията

  Πρόεδρος. – Κηρύσσω τη διακοπή της συνόδου του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

(Η συνεδρίαση λήγει στις 2.05 μ.μ.)

Правна информация - Политика за поверителност