Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 13 September 2011 - Strasbourg

20. A comprehensive approach to non-CO2 climate-relevant anthropogenic emissions (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on a comprehensive approach to non-CO2 climate-relevant anthropogenic emissions by Jo Leinen, Richard Seeber and Theodoros Skylakakis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (O-000135/2011 – B7-0418/2011).

  Richard Seeber, author. – (DE) Madam President, Ms Hedegaard, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Skylakakis in particular. I worked with him to launch this initiative because I believe that we need to make use of all the opportunities available to us in the struggle against climate change. I know that Ms Hedegaard is prepared to fight for this cause and that she will put in place the necessary initiatives which we are calling for in this resolution. We want to give her our support in this area, so that these initiatives can be made into reality.

As we all know, the Montreal Protocol was the first successful international treaty. It was signed in 1987 and more than 196 countries are now parties to it. It has made a major contribution to reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances. At the same time, it has had the side effect of restricting the volume of substances that have an impact on climate change, such as hydrofluorocarbons, and at a much lower cost than preventing CO2 emissions. Therefore, I believe that we should focus on this battle, for economic and social reasons, because it is much easier to win in financial terms than reducing CO2, which involves our economy incurring costs in many areas. This is where we should start, because we know that we can be highly successful at a very low cost.

The second area is, of course, the reduction of soot. We know that aerosol soot contributes to global warming and, in particular, when it forms deposits on areas of snow and ice, it causes them to melt more quickly. It is produced as a result of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. We can prevent this phenomenon by means of regulations within Europe at a relatively low cost.

One final area is tropospheric ozone, which has a major impact on our climate. Its precursor substances are produced largely by cars. Here we need to strengthen the regulations which have been established in the air quality directives and other related directives and improve their implementation in order to prevent this climate-change gas from being produced.

I would like to ask Ms Hedegaard to continue her fight in this area. You have a great deal of support in Parliament. I would like once again to remind everyone that we must remain united in our battle against climate change. However, we need to work together to choose the most beneficial approach.

  Theodoros Skylakais, author. – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, thank you for being here today. May I, too, thank Richard Seeber for his very important assistance in helping us to push this issue forward. We all know that a large part of climate change is caused by gases other than carbon dioxide. However, our climate policy focuses – and that may have been sensible initially – almost exclusively on carbon dioxide. That comes at a very high environmental and financial cost to the man in the street.

It is absurd – and hard to believe – that we still do not have an integrated policy for controlling these emissions, either at European or at international level. Just one category of non-CO2 emissions, namely hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), is forecast to account for 20% of global emissions by 2050. We know that from these HFCs, from just one category, namely HFC-23, we shall be able – thanks to the initiative by Parliament and by Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who deserves our praise for this – to save approximately EUR 1 billion a year from 2013, which we have been giving to Chinese and Indian manufacturers for no good reason whatsoever.

The strategy we are proposing today will function alongside the strategy we have adopted on CO2 and energy efficiency and will help European businesses to remain competitive. I address these remarks specifically to my fellow Members who feel that we are trying to introduce another climate policy. On the contrary, we are doing something which, in the present crisis, will benefit businesses financially. We can start this policy at European and at international level within two to three years and we shall have tangible results within five to ten years; we shall have results quickly and with spectacularly low costs because, as we discovered with HFC-23 – and this applies to numerous other categories – we are not talking about 12 or 15 or 20 or 40 dollars a tonne; we are talking about 12 or 15 or 20 or 40 cents a tonne.

Many have said that we need expensive coal. I personally would say that, in the present crisis, we need cheap coal, if we can obtain it on the market by taking such initiatives. I am sure that the Commissioner and the Commission will take such initiatives. I hope and expect as much.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to give particular thanks to Mr Seeber and Mr Skylakakis for this opportunity to explain the Commission’s approach regarding man-made, non-CO2 climate-relevant emissions.

You are quite right; non-CO2 gases are a significant contributor to climate change. If we wish to cut our greenhouse gas emissions substantially, we must address emissions from non-CO2 gases in an effective way. I fully agree with your motion for a resolution on this point.

The recent road map for moving to a low carbon economy by 2050 explores cost-efficient pathways for key economic sectors in order to meet the 2050 EU objectives for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. This analysis clearly shows that the EU should reduce agricultural non-CO2 emissions by 42-49% and other non-CO2 emissions by 70-78% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Both gentlemen spoke about what is economically beneficial, and here these non-CO2 gases come very much into the picture.

As you know, the EU has already taken a number of measures to reduce such emissions. The Effort Sharing Decision covers CO2 as well as the five non-CO2 gases included in the Kyoto Protocol. The annual binding greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States will deliver a 10% reduction of emissions from the covered sectors in 2020 compared with 2005 levels.

We already address HFC emissions through the regulation on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases and the directive on fluorinated emissions from mobile air-conditioning. The Commission will adopt a report reviewing the regulation in the coming weeks, which will show that the regulation has already contributed to the EU commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, if properly applied, the regulation on certain fluorinated gases (‘F-gases’) could, together with the directive on mobile air-conditioning, prevent almost half of the projected fluorinated gas emissions by 2050. Even more importantly, the report shows that there are options which could contribute to further cost-effective reductions. Therefore, I intend to put forward a legislative proposal in 2012.

In addition to domestic action, internationally, the Commission has repeatedly called for global action to address the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). At the meetings of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, the Commission, as the negotiator for the European Union, supports the North American and Micronesian proposals to phase down global production and consumption of HFCs as a complement to mitigation action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Commission is also fully aware of the short-term climate implications of black carbon and tropospheric ozone, particularly – as I think Mr Seeber mentioned – in the Arctic area and in the Alpine regions. The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has played a key role in several recent science assessments, in particular, in the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2011 Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone.

Within the EU, the Commission is preparing a review of the thematic strategy on air pollution. The review will be concluded in 2013 and will address air quality matters and their interlinkages with climate change policy. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone issues will be considered as part of that review.

Finally, in an international context, the EU is addressing pollutants like black carbon and tropospheric ozone under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Together with other European and North American countries, we are presently negotiating binding emission targets for ozone-creating pollutants. If a successful agreement can be struck by the end of this year – and I understand from my colleague, Commissioner Potočnik, who is responsible for these negotiations, that this outcome is within reach and there is a very good chance of achieving it – some improvements can be expected by 2020.

Finally, I know that UNEP will publish a report very soon setting out possible measures to reduce levels of black carbon in an effort to push for an international action plan for which international backing can be secured at Rio+20 in Brazil next June. Needless to say, Europe will push very hard for that to materialise.

  Sophie Auconie, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, politics is about looking to the future. I therefore applaud the outstanding work done by my colleagues, Mr Seeber and Mr Skylakakis, who have actually visualised future environmental projects and environmental standards in this resolution.

As Mr Seeber says, we need to seize every opportunity to help protect our planet. I totally agree with that point. In adopting this text, this resolution, we are preparing to implement and anticipate measures to combat global warming.

However, and as Mr Skylakakis said, we all agree that we have to wait, given that the economic situation is such that we must delay the implementation of any new legislation that we might impose on our businesses. We all agree that economic operators are suffering today and that it is vital that we do not impose major environmental standards on our businesses again.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said: ‘We do not inherit land from our parents; we borrow it from our children’. We need to act along those lines by giving our children back a clean planet. However, we must not give them back a planet that is not prosperous and that offers them no guarantees of a job.

I should like to conclude by saying that anthropogenic gases are man-made gases, with one example being the gases emitted by air-conditioning equipment. In this Chamber, it is always very cool, or even cold. I believe that if we, as a European institution, were to save a bit of energy by turning down our air-conditioning system, we would already be helping to pollute our planet less, without imposing restrictions on our businesses.

  President. – I shall take you at your word, Ms Auconie. Since I am in charge of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) programme for this House, I shall be sure to pass on your proposal to those who are not always very open to these kinds of suggestions.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) Madam President, the changes in the climate which we are all experiencing have ecological and social repercussions that ultimately affect human health not only through changes to the quality and quantity of water, air and food, but also through changing weather and agricultural patterns and ecosystems.

It has been proven scientifically that the benefits from cutting non-CO2 anthropogenic emissions are felt immediately and directly in the areas where measures are taken. I am pleased that we have managed to pass the point where carbon dioxide emissions were to blame for all the troubles with the Earth’s atmosphere and that the time has finally come for us to take action as well against other factors which are just as harmful as carbon dioxide.

Let me give you just one example. It is currently estimated that the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) has an overall impact on global warming of around 2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is expected that increased demand for HFCs could result in a contribution of 7-13% of the total greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Therefore, if we want to grasp the nettle, industry would quickly need a solid legal framework for encouraging producers to develop alternatives to HFCs.

As I have said, this is just one example of many possible actions aimed at cutting anthropogenic emissions. I wanted the Commission to give a firm, concrete answer to the question submitted on this subject, which will allow measures to be taken within a relatively short period of time. In addition, as the Montreal Protocol has successfully highlighted that greenhouse gas emissions can be successfully reduced, I think that it provides the most suitable forum for regulating and reducing globally the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I want to tell a story to the Commissioner and the House. Back in 2004, the Commission put forward legislation, which I think was called the ‘F Gas Regulation’, part of which called for the phasing-out of the existing requirements as regards the gases used in mobile air conditioning – i.e. air conditioning systems in cars.

I remember arguing that I did not have an air conditioning system in my car, but my Greek colleagues assured me that these things were essential, so I lost the argument. I said at the time that we should just open the window, but now I have succumbed myself and got an air-conditioned car. However, at the time, and indeed now, almost every car in use in Europe used or uses in its air conditioning system a hydrofluorocarbon called HFC-134a, which has a global warming potential 1 400 times greater than carbon dioxide. So if any leaks out, even in small quantities, it is an important contributor to the problem.

Eventually, after years of argument, we eventually resolved that from 2011, all new models of car should be fitted with an air conditioning system which used a gas with a global warming potential no greater than 150 times CO2. This led to a confused situation in the industry and there have been all sorts of rows over the years, but eventually, Honeywell and Dupont, two of the biggest chemical manufacturers, came up with an alternative air conditioning system using HFO-1234yf, which has a global warming potential of just four. This is going to become the standard: from 1 400 times CO2 to just four times CO2.

The message of this story is very simple. Regulations, much derided though they may be by businessmen, can push forward the pace of innovation, and the Commissioner should be aware that, even though her staff may say there is no alternative to what we do at the moment, if she pushes the boat out, it is amazing what industry can achieve.

  Satu Hassi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my sincere thanks go to Mr Seeber and Mr Skylakakis, who moved the question.

We know that fast-acting, climate-warming emissions should start to be reduced in number by 2015. For there to be any chance of that, we need to act swiftly with regard to non-CO2, climate-warming gases. Some fellow Members have already said that emissions from these gases can often be reduced far more cheaply than those of carbon dioxide, and even a hundred times more cheaply when compared to their effect on climate.

Mr Davis mentioned that the global warming effect of fluorinated greenhouse gases is up to thousands of times greater than that of carbon dioxide. We know that their contribution to climate-warming gases is growing, so there is an urgent need for restrictions to be placed on them. These restrictions can be imposed via the Montreal Protocol, but the EU is the world’s largest market, and it could also act on its own decisions. It could show the way and take its own decisions to put a stop to the use of these gases.

We have already heard examples of the better and more climate-friendly options that already exist for many purposes, and researchers and engineers are developing more of them all the time. If we can provide a model by our own example, it will be easier to assure other countries of the necessity for the same measures and, at the same time, develop our own leading position in the world of technology.

One study suggests that between 5% and 20% of the F-gases used in refrigeration equipment in shops leak over the course of a year. This is a very substantial figure, and we really need to take urgent action to show the world the way through our own actions.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Seeber and Mr Skylakakis, as well as Ms Hedegaard. I believe that we are here today, debating and arguing, to really try and achieve a strong European climate policy that is capable of safeguarding the economic development and well-being of European citizens.

As has been noted, international climate polices have mainly focused on reducing CO2 emissions. However, as this proposal highlights, it is important that we also face up to other anthropogenic emissions, which lead to the formation of tropospheric ozone and affect climate change.

A great many points have already been raised and I think we really ought to be aware of a few things: we can do this today with absolutely reasonable costs and we have the technologies available. In addition, as much as it is certain that CO2 emissions have the biggest effect, and as much as it is certain that other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere account for much lower percentages, it is equally certain that their potential is very high and that therefore, in just a few years, or a few half-dozen years, we could actually achieve significant and very important results.

There is evidence – including in the United States, as Ms Hedegaard noted – and I have seen a study published in Nature by the Scientific Agency of the US Department of Commerce which has many similarities with the analysis that my fellow Members have carried out. I therefore imagine that these very things will allow Europe to show up in Durban with an even stronger, more tangible and important stance on this issue.

Given the extraordinarily difficult and sensitive times we are going through – indeed, we were talking about the homeless until a few minutes ago – European citizens are rather on edge. Therefore, bearing in mind that this huge sensitivity obviously relates mostly to jobs, we must be capable of putting together a communications campaign that properly explains to citizens what it is that we actually want to do for development, their well-being and to protect jobs.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, according to the latest Commission forecasts, the European Union is doing better than expected at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It is largely due to this reduction in CO2 emissions that by implementing the climate and energy package adopted in 2006, the European Union will be able to reduce its emissions by up to 25% by 2020. Still, as noted very accurately by this proposal, this draft resolution, it is important to also focus on non-CO2 greenhouse gases. On a point of criticism, the rapporteurs interpreted the term ‘anthropogenic’ in a narrow sense. After all, crop growing and livestock farming are also the results of human activity.

Indeed, methane has twenty-five times the greenhouse potential of carbon dioxide, while nitrogen oxide almost three hundred times. As I said, crop production is also a result of human activity. In crop production, a cutback in the use of fertilisers, and a more targeted use in terms of time and space, could make a substantial contribution towards the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions. The same applies to livestock farming, where methane should be reduced, and that is why biogas is extremely important. I was rapporteur for this topic in 2008 and I consider it a very important step that the first pillar of the new common agricultural policy, direct payments, will include a greening component from 2014, and that the methane and nitrogen oxide emissions of agriculture can thereby be reduced.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that the European Parliament is adopting a more comprehensive position on climate policy, both generally and with this statement.

When speaking of climate change, our attention often focuses too much merely on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, instead of the far broader picture that deserves our consideration. Europe and the other continents must also try to cut other greenhouse gas emissions in addition to carbon dioxide emissions. We have a history of excellent examples of successful climate agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol, which have resulted in the prevention of extensive ozone depletion and, at the same time, a significant reduction in greenhouse gases too.

Restrictions on the use of harmful coolants have been very effective, but there is also still a lot to do in Europe. For example, the more ozone-friendly HFC coolant is not climate-friendly. Furthermore, the demand for refrigeration equipment and cold appliances will also continue to grow quite considerably in the future, because economic growth and the rise in living standards in China and India will also have an effect on the need for refrigeration. More and more people are buying refrigerators and air conditioners, and that is why we in Europe also need to invest more in developing climate-friendly cold appliances.

We should remember that the demands of energy efficiency, and, where it concerns refrigerators, food safety, need to be abided by strictly. The food cold chain must operate in such a way that consumers can be guaranteed a supply of safe food in the future. I hope that the Commission will also take these aspects of the issue into account when it reforms these regulations.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr Seeber and Mr Skylakakis, for putting this question, and also to thank the Commissioner for replying.

I should like to point out to my colleague, Mrs Auconie, that, though we keep stressing the need for changes to benefit the economy, we should be clear that, as Achim Steiner said today in Mexico, by tackling black carbon, we are not only addressing climate change but also improving our air quality. If you look at the health co-benefits, we are talking about the possibility of saving billions of euro by reducing our black carbon emissions, so it is not only environmentally but also economically a very clever thing to do. We really should bear that in mind.

I have a question for the Commissioner as regards black carbon, which was specifically mentioned by Achim Steiner, because while we say it is very important, we know that in Europe, around 50% of black carbon emissions come from domestic combustion. What kind of measures are you thinking of taking to address that? Also, 20% of black carbon emissions come from non-road machinery, and we know that this year, the Commission – albeit not your DG, Commissioner – proposed lower emission limits and greater flexibility in that area. So can we expect more surprises when it comes to black carbon?

We know aviation will be covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme in the coming year, but does the Commission have any specific plans concerning the issue of the formation of contrails and cirrus? We know that these can have a huge different impact on climate change as well, especially along aircraft flight paths, and the issue could be addressed in cooperation with meteorological institutes.

Finally, what can we expect on NOx emissions by the aviation sector, because action was promised in 2008, and we are still anxiously waiting for a proposal from the Commission?

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, promoting a green, competitive economy which is efficient in terms of using resources is a key element in the Europe 2020 strategy.

The actions taken by the European Union in the last few decades have resulted in a significant reduction in the emissions of atmospheric pollutants, including sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and particulate matter. The directives on the quality of the fuels used in both road and maritime transport have made a vitally important contribution to this reduction. Council Directive 1999/32/EC relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels stipulates the maximum permitted sulphur content for heavy fuel oil, diesel and ship engines used in the Union. Measures promoting energy efficiency in buildings and the recycling of waste will also help considerably in cutting polluting emissions.

Commissioner, I would like to ask what measures you are intending to take to ensure the reduction in polluting emissions caused by industrial sectors, especially against the background of the economic and financial crisis.

  Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, the European Commission’s draft regulation banning the use of carbon credits for projects involving industrial greenhouse gases, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons, in the EU emissions trading scheme after April 2013 was officially approved in May 2011. However, this ban does not cover the national targets of the Member States of the European Union for sectors which are not included in the trading scheme, such as agriculture and transport. This is important, given that, according to the effort sharing decision, up to 2/3 of total emission reductions required of the Member States could be covered by using carbon credits.

Environmental organisations are asking the European Union to extend the ban on the use of carbon credits to sectors not covered by the trading scheme. We are worried that, without a clear commitment, some Member States will be able to keep using carbon credits to achieve national targets, at a time when businesses are already prohibited from using them to achieve their emission reduction targets. My question therefore is this: should the Commission not examine such a ban?

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, we have a paradox nowadays between the need to control polluting emissions and the tendency to increase consumption at a time of globalisation. We are looking on helplessly at the disastrous impact of climate change, but hesitate at going ahead and adopting more concrete measures. The reservations featuring in the Copenhagen and Cancun agreements are conclusive. We remain ever hopeful that future conferences will adopt a firm stance on this point.

Europe provides an example of an initiative for combating climate change. I think that the Commission’s role at the moment is to initiate a specific strategy for gradually reducing the production and consumption of polluting substances. The framework programmes for research and innovation could help identify alternative solutions for gradually replacing current technologies with innovative, non-polluting technologies.

I am a chemical engineer. Chemistry helps us a great deal nowadays in our daily life, but it can also kill us. We need to use good judgment to go beyond making wonderful declarations of intent and urgently proceed with taking concrete measures.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, as we have seen in this debate, there are various man-made atmospheric emissions that could affect the Earth’s climate. However, as we know, the European Union’s approach to climate change has been to focus almost exclusively on carbon dioxide. This cannot be unrelated to the fact that it is the compound chosen to construct a scheme to create billions in fantasy financial assets through so-called carbon trading. However, where these so-called market solutions – which have also been applied to other compounds, in theory and in practice – have already been tested, I would say that they have not proven to be effective but rather, on the contrary, they have proven to be ineffective and perverse.

In order to limit emissions of gases capable of affecting the Earth’s atmosphere, there is therefore a need for a regulatory approach, as an alternative to so-called market solutions: an approach that takes account of the possibilities opened up by scientific and technical knowledge, and developments in scientific and technical knowledge, the specific situation of each country and a necessary and profound change to the current most dominant mode of production at global level.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the European Union does much for the gradual improvement of the climate. It is a leader within the global community when it comes to proposing and promoting effective measures for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Actual knowledge shows, however, that saving the climate will require a more complex approach to anthropogenic emissions. It turns out that, as stated in the submitted question, we should gradually begin to limit the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, reduce coal emissions and reduce the production of gases contributing to the creation of tropospheric ozone. In the increased effort for an immediate reduction in the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons at the international level, we can already rely on the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. Experience from the current behaviour of the global community shows us, however, that even more measures for climate improvement will have to be drawn up and initiated, and perhaps here in Europe. The sooner we make a start with this, the sooner will the other countries of the world be able to join our efforts at climate improvement.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I can see that he is not here any more but concerning the first intervention by Mr Tănăsescu, I just wanted to clarify one thing. I think that most people here will be aware of it, but although it does sound as if we are always only addressing CO2 emissions, this is actually not true. The vocabulary we use for simplicity’s sake always refers to CO2 emission reductions. This is because everything in the international negotiations is measured in CO2 equivalents, but that, of course, means that other kinds of emissions are being translated, so to speak, into the currency of CO2. Sometimes therefore, this might give the wrong picture as if we are only talking about or only addressing CO2 emissions. That is not the case.

On Chris Davies’s story about air conditioning in cars, I know that Mr Davies will be aware that I agree 100% with the view that we heard, that when you make a regulation, it actually pushes innovation forward. The story we heard started back in 2004 when we drew up the F-Gas regulation. I recall that very well because that Environment Council meeting was my first Council meeting as Danish Minister, and we had this big fight about how ambitious the F-Gas regulation should be. I still recall that a few of us – I think Austria and Denmark – fought so that we could have more ambitious targets in our respective Member States, so I can assure the whole Parliament that I have given a very clear message to all my services that the review we are going to make must be as ambitious as it can sensibly be. I look forward very much to working with Parliament in securing that.

I could ask a lot of detailed questions, saying what about this or that, but I think I addressed most of them in my first intervention. One key initiative to try to address many of these things will be the review that I mentioned for the thematic strategy on air pollution: the review will be ready for 2013. That is a major initiative and I think we will have a chance there to address many of these things.

Mr Tremopoulos mentioned that it is fine that we have imposed a ban on HFC-23 for companies, but what about Member States? I can tell you that back in March at the Environment Council, the Danish Minister proposed that the Member States commit voluntarily not to use HFC-23 and, by the next Council meeting in June, this alliance had grown quite substantially. I cannot exactly recall here, but there were maybe 10-12 countries or more who said they would check and come back, so I think there is a growing movement among Member States to follow our legislation.

Finally, I can also say that, since last week, when I had the chance to discuss this in New Zealand, in Australia and elsewhere, it is my feeling that when we do things like this with HFC-23 in Europe, others consider how they can follow. It is not that we do it in an empty room and then nothing more happens.

I would very much like to thank you for the draft resolution and I will be looking forward also to working with the European Parliament when we come with this review and the suggestions as to how to follow up on the F-Gas regulation. That is one thing we can do relatively soon internally in Europe. At the same time, as I mentioned, there are a number of international initiatives where we could try to mutually support one another and try to push forward this agenda at international level too. So thank you very much for this initiative. I am looking forward to continued cooperation on this.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.

(1) See Minutes