Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 18 January 2012 - Strasbourg

22. Follow-up to the Durban climate change conference (debate)

  President. − The next item is the Commission statement on the follow-up to the Durban climate change conference.

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, thank you for giving me the opportunity, at this early stage, to discuss the follow-up to Durban.

From the Commission’s point of view, Durban was a success for Europe. Why was that? I believe it was because it showed that if we stay firm, if we stay united and if we make the right alliances, then we can actually achieve substantial progress.

The strategy that we should not simply say ‘yes’ to a second commitment period without getting anything in return actually worked. But it is also very clear to all of us that Durban did not produce the perfect outcome for climate change. There is still a lot of work ahead of us.

It is clear to me that 2012 is going to be a very tough year for international climate negotiations, for a number of reasons. We have American elections coming up, we have a new Chinese leadership coming in and, for instance, we have an incoming Conference of Parties (COP) president who is a relative newcomer to international climate negotiations. It is clear that there are many challenges in front of us this year.

So what should be our follow-up activities? Well, of course, in the Commission we are still reflecting on and digesting Durban and reflecting about the next steps. But let me mention five things.

Firstly, in the period between 2012 and 2015 we will have to find out exactly what should come after the second commitment period. We have to reflect on what is the best way forward to get the world to where we need it to be by 2015 and, in good time before Doha, the Commission will present our suggestion on a world work programme for 2012-2015. Here I would look forward very much to the input of the European Parliament.

The second issue, for 2012, will be the ambition gap. In the last 24 hours of the conference, Europe and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – together in a joint effort – got new wording included in the Durban package to the effect that in the first half of this year we must try to address the ambition gap. That is obviously easier said than done, but a crucial issue is that the world is currently locking in too little ambition for the period up to 2020.

We know that we will have a review. It is as the result of an EU initiative that we will get a review. We also know that before too long we will have a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and, if one thing is for sure, it is not going to require us to be less busy on addressing the ambition gap. There is no indication that the warnings will be less serious. So, through substantial outreach we will work with willing partners to address this ambition gap and identify a way forward.

My third point therefore concerns outreach. We undertook substantial outreach in 2011 with the Pacific Island Forums, with a lot of developing countries and also through the New York UN Ambassadors’ visits to all parts of the world, including of course to Africa, working very closely with AOSIS and with a number of good allies in the Cartagena Dialogue.

We should build on that further this year. I went straight from Durban to New York, in the middle of December, to a meeting with AOSIS ambassadors and ministers to make the point that the good cooperation we had in Durban should not be a one-off, but rather something to build on when we go to Rio+20, and generally in a number of fields.

So we will continue to work on this alliance, and in the Commission we are also considering whether Europe could take the initiative on discussing the way forward with a number of other ambitious countries in one context or another.

My fourth point concerns what Europe itself is doing. There will be a strong focus on this. Before 1 May we have to come up with so-called quantified emission-limitation or reduction objectives – a very technical thing but something that is also, of course, of political importance, and we will have to discuss our own low-carbon pathway.

We in the Commission hope that now, during the Danish Presidency, we will have Council conclusions in March on the low-carbon strategy and that, with the good help of Parliament, we will have an ambitious energy efficiency directive within the next six months. So there are things in the pipeline that make it do-able for Europe to step up our own ambitions, not least through energy efficiency.

My fifth and last point is that Rio+20 is coming up and there are a number of issues – pricing, access to sustainable energy and other matters – on which we could make progress in Rio in June, thus indirectly benefitting the international climate agenda. As I have said, it is absolutely key here that we build on the very good alliances we made in the run-up to Durban and in Durban.

I think this is all that time permits, but I would just say that it is extremely important to take this dual approach, moving forward both in international negotiations and in terms of what we do domestically in Europe. For all the reasons that this Parliament knows, it is extremely important that we also move on that second track.

I very much look forward to continuing the good cooperation with Parliament and seeing how we can tackle the question of ambition, both internationally and regionally in terms of what we do ourselves here in Europe.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, thank you very much Ms Hedegaard. I would like to focus straight away on the last point that you made. Of course, we need to continue to move forward in Europe and we must not relax our efforts. However, we must, of course, also explain this to the Council, which did not show as much commitment to some of the issues in Durban as I would have liked. I went to Durban with slightly higher expectations and I must admit that I came home feeling a little more hopeful than when I left. We do now have the Durban Platform, which was one of the Commission’s fundamental initiatives and I would like to give my sincere thanks to you and your team. This now forms the basis for a global climate agreement, which we must work very hard on in the years up to 2015.

Unfortunately, we did not manage to expand the single-track Kyoto 2 route. It still only covers 15%. However, it is clear that we are now in a position to say that the world climate map has changed significantly. We no longer have the simple division between Kyoto and non-Kyoto countries. States like China and the US can no longer fall back on the ridiculous arguments that they have used over the last 10 years and say that if someone else is not doing something, then they will not do it either. This was genuinely embarrassing in Copenhagen and Cancún, but the situation had improved in Durban. We now have a new world order and the Commission has shown great commitment in helping to develop it.

We will now all have to travel in the same direction. There is no other option. Some countries will be slower than others. I like to compare this situation with that of a tunnel. We all know where the end is, but we still have to build the individual stations and stopping places. You are right in saying that we and the Commission will all have to work hard on this.

I would like to give you, Ms Hedegaard, my very warm congratulations. I have always been happy to do this. You made a very important contribution in Durban, but the Council did not. I will be taking the Council to task about this again later today. You have established important milestones and we will be happy to go on supporting you along this route.

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Hedegaard, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament would also like to congratulate you on your handling of the negotiations in Durban. The EU has demonstrated its strong leadership skills and this has paid off. I am also pleased about the climate diplomacy and the coalition of 120 states. I would like to see China joining our strategic coalition, alongside Africa. China is moving towards taking over worldwide responsibility. This would send out a signal to the US to bring an end to its policy of denial and to join the mainstream of international climate policy.

We have prevented a fiasco and we have produced the road map which we will have to work on. There is, of course, a great deal for us to do at home. We have the gigatonne gap and if Europe wants to play a leading role, it will have to do more than it has in the past. I hope that there will be new initiatives which go beyond 20%. We must take the hot air out of Kyoto 2. The policy cannot really be credible with all these surplus certificates.

I would like to encourage you to remain tough in the areas of aviation and shipping and to take new initiatives. It is totally absurd that the US Congress can pass a law banning airlines from taking part in our legislation. We must not allow this to happen and Parliament would like to see you maintaining your tough stance.

  Corinne Lepage, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, let me begin by congratulating you and thanking you for the work that you personally carried out in Durban, which in effect led to an almost binding agreement and did so – and here echo the words spoken somewhat less diplomatically by Mr Lorenz – despite extremely strong reluctance on the part of the Polish Presidency on certain points. Well done also for standing firm on including aviation in the ETS despite threats from the United States and China.

We have made some progress. It was not as great as we would have liked and we now know that there is very little chance of us getting greenhouse gas emissions restricted to two points, as we were promised. In these talks, it was governments, particularly those of the United States and Canada, which still fail to recognise the significance of the risk we face. However, although it has made some considerable effort on the domestic front, China also put up some resistance.

The role played by the oil and gas lobbies has also been extremely negative and we cannot help but be concerned about the next COP being held in Qatar, a State that is one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases per capita on the planet and that, moreover, denies civil society, trade unions, NGOs and women of their rights. This is a truly appalling symbol for something so important.

Progress will only be possible if progress is also made in terms of global governance. This year should then be the perfect opportunity to do so by building on the progress already made, particularly with regard to the least developed countries.

I shall finish by saying that we, in Europe, must also adopt this proactive approach that we have seen in Durban. This is not just about climate protection. It is in the interest of the European economy and we must fight to be or stay, depending on circumstance, at the forefront of the transition to a green economy. This goal can only become a reality in the months ahead and of course, Commissioner, you have our full support for going down this road.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would, first of all, like to congratulate Commissioner Hedegaard on the role she played in Durban on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. We demonstrated there that, if Europe works together and speaks with one voice, we can, indeed, make a difference on the world stage. To my mind, this was the most important result of Durban: to show that Europe can make a difference. So, thank you very much for that.

However, there remains much to be done, because we all know that we have, in fact, not moved much further forward when it comes to climate change. The gap between the two degree target that we committed ourselves to and the reduction that we promised by 2020 is still gigantic. We are still only heading towards three to four degrees. That is still a huge climate change problem and we should not be putting it off until 2020. You are right when you say that we still have a great deal of work to do between 2012 and 2015.

What matters most to the Group of the Greens? Building on our alliance with the least developed countries and the low-lying islands. They have opted to side with Europe and we should keep them firmly on our side in the forthcoming period, in order to maintain pressure on China and India. These countries need a credible trade policy and a credible technology policy. Europe will have to be very consistent on that score.

Talking of credibility: Europe itself will also have to pull out all the stops in order to demonstrate that we mean to act. That means a step towards -30% – leaked studies show that that will also save money – and the set-aside. That is the decision that was made by the European Parliament, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in December. The Committee should now really take the initiative to this end. We can take action. We have to, for the sake of the climate.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, for a treaty on climate change to be meaningful, all the major emitters in the world must be a part of it. The Durban Platform gives us a roadmap for a binding legal treaty to combat climate change. Everyone in the world, including the major emitters – the United States, India and China – must be committed to this goal.

The roadmap gives us a realistic timetable to negotiate a new agreement by 2015. The reason Durban was successful? Because it is not overly ambitious. It is not an ‘all or nothing’ summit like Copenhagen. Also, the European negotiators and the British negotiating team were able to persuade a broad coalition of countries to commit to commit. Richer developing countries have agreed to do their bit, and the poorest countries will receive assistance to cope with climate change through a green climate fund. I hope the EU will continue with this positive approach.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, let us be clear: there is no way to ‘sugar the pill’. The result of Durban is a Kyoto Protocol weakened even further, covering less than one fifth of world greenhouse gas emissions. Given the history we have, to conclude now – as the Durban Platform does – that important decisions will be made in the future does not even justify optimistic discourse.

Regrettably, only one thing seems to be containing an even greater increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere: the deepening crisis of capitalism, the recession and the consequent decline in economic activity. It is in this context that it would be even more important – that it is even more important – to change profoundly the approach we have been making to the problem of climate change. Specifically, we need to call into question the so-called flexibility instruments and carbon trading.

We shall leave you with a question, Commissioner: how can you guarantee that we will not have, in the place of investment in low-carbon technologies, a situation of business as usual, underwritten by the purchase of the emissions licences of those unable to make use of them.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, the experience of all the climate change conferences held since 1995 tells us that, in their present format, they are doomed to failure.

They sought a global agreement and, furthermore, sought to arrive at it by a consensus, an impossible ambition to achieve because of the very different productive, economic and social structure of the states concerned. That is why, in the end, what they can hope to achieve are minimum threholds, but clearly this is not enough.

Furthermore, climate change is linked to other deep-rooted problems in societies, such as their development and education models, social differences and poverty. If all of these issues are to be raised at these conferences, it will be even more difficult for agreements to be reached, especially if the conferences turn into fairs, international exhibitions, with thousands and thousands of participants, which has been the case.

The European Union must continue to fly the flag for the environment, which Commissioner Hedegaard did very well in Durban. For that, I congratulate her. These conferences, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, need greater coherence between the states, more diplomatic work and less of a festival atmosphere.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, when I look at the almost empty Chamber and compare the situation with the previous debate, with the emotion and the heat that the subject generated, and when I think about the importance of climate change for every individual person in Europe and, most importantly, for the population of the world as a whole, I find it very sad. Unfortunately, it demonstrates that this subject is gradually slipping off the political agenda. The Members who are here have all tried to do our best. Some of us attended the conference in Durban and you, Ms Hedegaard, accomplished a great deal there. I would like to compliment you on having reached an agreement and established the Durban Platform under these circumstances.

It was very difficult for me. We were fighting against a headwind from all directions. It came in particular from China, from the US and from India, but nevertheless we Europeans took on the role that we have always assigned ourselves. Everything will now depend on how the next few years go and on whether we can really achieve the goal that we have set ourselves of a binding worldwide agreement in 2015. It is up to us to convince the other states that action is needed.

We now have a consensus among most of the countries in Europe that climate change will help the economy and that we must remain competitive, but that we must do this by investing in climate-related technologies. There is a strong awareness of this in most states. We can make progress by building on this foundation. These are the only arguments which the major polluters, such as China and the US, will understand. Unfortunately, their concern about the welfare of the world’s population has been put on the back burner.

I would like to ask you in the near future to submit the proposal about F-gas emissions that you have promised us and to include aviation. Please could you also investigate what we can do with regard to tropospheric ozone and soot particles, so that we have a comprehensive strategy. Once again, Ms Hedegaard, I would like to congratulate you on what you have achieved in Durban.

  Dan Jørgensen (S&D). – (DA) Mr President, Ms Hedegaard, many of us always praise you when you are here in Parliament because you always take the lead in the fight against climate change and always support a very progressive and ambitious line. You did this in Durban, too, but I am nevertheless critical of the results. I would even go so far as to say that I think Durban was a fiasco. The reason I say this is as follows: the fact that we could not achieve anything better than a legal obligation to reduce CO2 emissions in 2020 does not mean that we should accept that. The problem with doing that is that, by doing so, we have in fact said to the rest of the world that we accept the fact that we will not have anything legally binding that can keep us below the 2 degree target before 2020. Everyone sitting in this Chamber and everyone following this debate via the web streaming or by other means and who is interested in the climate knows that this will be too late.

If we are to keep the temperature rise to less than 2 degrees – and we must do that because if we go beyond 2 degrees there are a whole series of positive feedback effects that will kick in and then the process will be irreversible and we will not be able to do anything – we need to start within 5 years. All science indicates this, the International Energy Agency says this and it is difficult to find people who understand this matter who do not agree with this. That is why it was a fiasco, and therefore we need to say that we can no longer concentrate on solving this problem from the top down via the United Nations. There is now only one way to go about this and that is from the bottom up, and you also need to play a part in this.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, the Commissioner’s achievement of a deal on an agreement with legal force by 2015 is a significant step in the development of responsible stewardship for our planet. To me, the significance of Durban lies not just in an agreement between governments, but in a consensus among the peoples of the world in that great tented city outside the conference hall, speaking many tongues, but with one global language of common concern. Their sense of urgency needs to be matched by government action.

Our greatest ally may yet be the world’s largest emitter of CO2 – China’s recent second national assessment report on climate change warns its government that action is urgently needed. The Union must work with China to build a coalition of the willing to hand down a healthy planet to future generations.

The recent IPCC report on extreme weather events ought to convince the USA and Canada. What can the Commission do to counter the detestable and irresponsible behaviour on their part that imperils humankind and bring them into the new alliance?

Among all the praise for the Durban Platform, please remember that a halo is only ever 25 centimetres from being a noose. We must change our action in the European Union. Commissioner, we know what we need to do. We have the technology to do it. Our Union will be judged by how fast it can muster the political will.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE). - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add my congratulations to the Commissioner for her work at Durban. In terms of diplomacy, Durban was a breakthrough, and continental plates moved. As has already been mentioned in this debate, a timetable agreed from the scientific perspective is a solution that is much too slow to prevent the catastrophic acceleration of climate change.

At Durban, the EU persuaded almost all the other participants to agree to take an additional step. Now it is time to step up our own climate measures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is urging industrialised countries to cut emissions by 25% at least by 2020. Our legislation says that the figure is just 20%. Our emissions targets have to bemore stringent. The hot air at Kyoto needs to be eliminated. We must obtain criteria for biofuels to prevent natural forests from becoming biofuel plantations. Tar sand and other dirty new sources of fossil fuel should be treated as the dirty options that they are. Emissions from shipping should be subject to restrictions. In short, we need to have more stringent measures in place to ensure that global warming does not exceed two degrees.

  Konrad Szymański (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I think that after Durban we can be sure of one thing. We can be sure that we are alone in the world as concerns our ideas on emission reduction. The extension of the operation of the Kyoto Protocol is only an illustration of this impasse. I think that instead of beating our head against a wall, we should revise our climate policy so that its costs are distributed more equitably.

Moving on into the next phase of the emission trading scheme in 2013 will entail in Poland, for instance, being under even greater pressure to transfer paper, glass, and cement production outside the Union. In crisis conditions, the climate policy is a millstone around the neck of European industry, which will eventually be relocated to countries that are our direct competitors. The European Union, in pursuing such a radical climate policy alone, without global agreement, brings upon itself responsibility for economic slowdown.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, the lack of agreement in Durban is a fact which the Commission should take note of. The Commissioner should take this fact into consideration in her decisions and other activities, because policies should be rational, pragmatic and predictable and lead to a clear goal.

Climate policy can only be rational when looked at from a global perspective. Greenhouse gases know no borders, so if it is a fact that Canada pulled right out of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban, if it is a fact that other countries that are major emitters, including China, do not wish to decide to significantly reduce emissions jointly with Europe, it means that our policy is Quixotic, that it is not effective, that even if we managed to reduce the limits, as proposed by the Commissioner and the Commission, this would not achieve the intended purpose in terms of impact on the global climate.

The policy makes sense only if there is a global agreement. If an effect of the policy in Europe is that our economy becomes less competitive in relation to less developed countries, and industry relocates to those countries, and with it jobs, then the consequences for our economy will be fatal. In Poland alone, according to estimates for 2013-2020, this will entail a loss of 250 000 jobs. Meanwhile energy bills will increase by 30-40% from 2013. This may lead to a crisis in the European Union as well as in relation to the European Union. This is very bad news, Commissioner. We need to take these actual facts into consideration.

  Nick Griffin (NI). - Mr President, in discussing Durban, the most obvious question is whether an agreement last year to reach an agreement in three years’ time to do something in eight years’ time is really an agreement at all.

Likewise, one has to ask whether the agreement to create a green climate fund and transfer USD 1 billion a year from hard-pressed taxpayers in countries like Britain to corrupt third world oligarchies reflects a serious threat of global communism or a happily unattainable fantasy. Given the way in which EU Commissioners are forcing economically suicidal spending cuts on the protectorates of Greece and Italy – a move likely to spark a chain-reaction implosion of the entire financial system – the fantasy answer is fortunately the more realistic.

But the most significant thing about Durban is what was not discussed: climate science. This is no surprise, as it is now crystal clear that the so-called scientific consensus on man-made global warming simply does not exist. It is not just a matter of the thousands of independent scientists who dispute the whole theory: even the warmists themselves now admit that the computer models on which the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cult is based are simplistic and flawed. The more they learn about feedback mechanisms and the complexity of real climate, the more they realise they do not know. To crucify our taxpayers and de-industrialise our economies in pursuit of the one-world government madness of the United Nations is therefore crazy.

Hence the failure of 10 000 well-meaning tax-eaters to agree anything serious in Durban is to be warmly applauded.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have the time to go into detail or to enter into discussion about the major systems, but I think we have to acknowledge that some issues remain highly critical.

I share the concern about this Green Fund. At a time like this, where we will find the resources remains a mystery and a major concern. However I believe that in order to be realistic, we have to recognise that this time things changed at Durban. The old set-up that no longer reflected the actual global geopolitical situation was finally laid to rest. We had continued to work on a snapshot of the world in the 1990s that had been superseded for some time, and that, used as a basis for the forecasts to 2050, had become truly unsustainable.

Looking at 2050 we can see that the world’s top 30 economies will probably include 19 countries that are currently classified as developing countries. I believe that this change of pace was perhaps the most interesting piece of information from a political point of view, and in fact this was correctly emphasised by Mr Florenz.

I also think that we should no longer proceed as separate, watertight entities. Therefore, bearing in mind also the words of Mario Draghi, governor of the European Central Bank, in the House the other day, if we want to push for the priorities of growth and employment in this sector as well, we must be consistent and focus on green technologies in order to deliver sustainable development and to respond to our citizens’ most important needs.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). - Mr President, it is true that in Durban there was a change. Your strategy worked out very well, Commissioner: the idea of a roadmap that you were proposing gathered alliances and the EU was put back at the centre of the negotiations. I am proud of what you did and I would like to congratulate you on it.

But it is also true that there are things which make me, as an EU citizen, ashamed. We told our allies and other people who gathered around our proposal that we would deliver Kyoto II if they delivered the roadmap. They delivered their part, the roadmap, and we did not deliver Kyoto II. We did not deliver something legally binding, and while I know that this is not your fault – it is because we could not reach a common decision on the set-asides and other issues – the bare fact, in terms of continuing to gather allies, is that we have not delivered Kyoto II.

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate you; you managed to avert disaster in Durban. You managed to put across the idea that there is a suitable framework for negotiations but, on the other hand, nothing has actually been triggered to stem climate change.

With the notable exception of Poland, you gained the support of Member States to champion these negotiations but you know, unfortunately, you do not have the same consensus from Member States to implement an ambitious climate policy.

What I propose, Commissioner, is that DG CLIMA, which you run, makes its contribution to getting Europe out of the crisis, by explaining how an ambitious climate policy could significantly help us get out of the crisis through energy efficiency, through energy savings, through renewable energy, through innovation in technology. Maybe then we would have a document which would allow us to fight – us in the Member States, you at European level –so that the old economy loosens its grip on our political leaders and the new economy may finally emerge.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, once again the World Climate Summit ended with a compromise. However, we urgently need to ask ourselves the question of how long our planet can withstand half-hearted compromises of this kind, against the background of the rapidly growing population and the increasing damage to the environment.

I was pleased about the decision to negotiate a world climate agreement within the next three years with the aim of reducing emissions of harmful greenhouse gases, which will include for the first time the major emerging economies, such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from 2013 onwards was another step in the right direction. It is also important to mention the Green Climate Fund, which will have funding of USD 100 billion up to 2020. However, leading scientists are predicting global warming of at least 3.5 degrees, with consequences that we are well aware of.

I see Durban as a reminder to us that we must achieve our 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gases.

  Romana Jordan Cizelj (PPE). - (SL) Mr President, opinions on the outcome of the Durban conference differ enormously. Just as there are two sides to every coin, there is also a positive and negative side to this outcome. Certainly, if we take a political view, the conference was a great success, since it represents a major step towards global responsibility, while the European Union once again played a leading role in this area and I sincerely congratulate you for the strategy you developed and also for your performance at the negotiations. Of course, those who judge the conference from the viewpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions cannot - we cannot - be satisfied. Here I am thinking of the biggest polluters, such as the United States, China, India, Japan and Russia. We met many representatives of these countries and actually I did not get the impression these representatives really wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think a massive task still lies ahead of us to try to gain the support of these countries. We are particularly lacking in support from developed countries. In addition, I would like to see a future agreement reached on a uniform system for calculating emissions, because without this, we do not really know what numbers we are talking about or what these numbers mean. In the future, I also want to see more progress in the field of maritime and air transport, and of course, more ambition on the part of countries. We said that our goal was 2 degrees Celsius. Now we have 4 degrees Celsius, while scientists are warning us that we should be aiming for at least one and a half degrees. Thank you.

  Åsa Westlund (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, Ms Hedegaard, I would like to add my voice to the words of congratulations that have been offered here. You did an excellent job in Durban, but it is extremely regrettable that it is still so inadequate compared to what the world needs.

I am more and more convinced that it is by demonstrating ourselves that it is possible to switch, that it pays to switch and that switching will result in more jobs, that we can get others on board. I believe that you share that conviction. Unfortunately, many people believe that switching will lead to unemployment and a major economic crisis. Precisely the opposite is true, however, and that is what Europe needs to demonstrate. Then we can get others on board.

You yourself mentioned an improved and extended cooperation with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and I also believe that this cooperation that you initiated with the least developed countries of the world (LDCs) is extremely important in order to prevent China from hiding behind them all the time on the international stage. Continue the cooperation with the LDCs in order, by so doing, to force China to take more ambitious measures.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the agreement reached in Durban, where the EU was the major player, and I would take this opportunity to congratulate you on how you conducted the work, Commissioner.

The EU proposed a roadmap to a comprehensive agreement that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement, known as the Durban Platform, will be negotiated by 2015, to come into force in 2020.

A new era started in Durban. For the first time we will have an era of a new multilateralism, in which the commitments of all the industrialised and developing countries will have the same legal value. As it is flexible, the Durban Platform represents an opportunity for the European Union to reconcile combating climate change with economic growth.

Decision was also reached in Durban on a second compliance period for the Kyoto Protocol, so as to ensure continuity between the protocol and its successor.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, it is likely that this is the most important issue we could discuss in the European Parliament, as we are talking about the world’s future. In relation to the conference in Durban, I suppose we could view the glass as being half-full or half-empty. I view the glass as half-full, as we have made unexpected progress.

Global warming is obviously a global problem and needs a global solution. We have to work in particular towards the target of keeping global warming down to less than 2% and at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

In relation to Europe, we have to lead by example, particularly in relation to reaching the 2020 targets for renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy savings, and to show, as Commissioner Hedegaard herself said on 7 November in Brussels, that green and growth go together. It then becomes a no-brainer for the rest of the world.

On the broader front we have to tackle the big offenders: aviation, shipping and deforestation. In relation to deforestation in particular, we have to ensure that our trade policies do not encourage deforestation, particularly in the Mercosur countries. Nevertheless, we have made progress.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, we can perhaps say that the success of the UN climate conference in Durban was that we agreed to agree. The strong words and declarations of the participants before the start of the UN conference did not translate into concrete ambitious and legally binding resolutions. Although the final text of the universal convention is expected in 2015, it is not expected to become legally binding until 2020, that is to say, in eight years’ time. Many world powers, which are also the largest polluters, thus left the conference feeling satisfied that they had avoided the new global rules. It appears that the European Union delegation was not sufficiently prepared to push through its objectives and force countries such as the United States, Russia, China, India and Brazil to actively engage in global strategies to combat climate change, and I am truly sorry about this.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union presented at the Durban Conference a clear agenda for reducing emissions, which remained on the discussion table for the entire duration of the conference.

No post-Kyoto agreement was signed, but the Kyoto Protocol was extended and a road map set up to 2015.

However, the Durban Platform objectives such as economic growth compatible with climate change and combating poverty are fairly ambiguous. How will industry be treated as part of combating climate change? An eco-efficient industrial policy creates jobs and provides economic growth. Unfortunately, there is still no common analytical formula used for calculating emissions, and the amount of emissions caused by air transport is not included.

Energy efficiency was also a topic of discussion in Durban. In this context, this paved the way for new opportunities and chances. This allows us also to give similar feedback on energy efficiency.

The Committees on Industry, Research and Energy and on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety must produce, along with the Commission and by the time of COP 18, specific proposals for reducing emissions.

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I also wish to congratulate you on your excellent contribution at the meeting in Durban. Of course, as has been said here, not until we have a global agreement will we be satisfied. That is something that we, as the European Union, will certainly have to strive for, as we encourage others to join us.

I wish to raise a single matter, which is one of concern. This new climate agreement now excludes the possibility of compensation for emissions from deforestation, and this is a very worrying development, especially for European countries dominated by forest. Previously, of course, it was possible for the carbon sink, which is truly massive in these forested countries, to compensate for emissions. An example is to be found in my own country, Finland, where 85% of the land surface is forest, which is well looked after. The tree growth is 10 million cubic metres a year greater than the loss. This is a real slap in the face for these countries, and I hope that we can somehow bring about changes to this situation.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I had the opportunity to participate in the conference at Durban, and I realised how pointless it was.

We spent around EUR 300 000 on an event that produced nothing but hot air. The European Union and European Parliament had their offices in the garage of the Hilton hotel. When our delegation met the Chinese delegation we were treated like morons. We were given a talk of about twenty minutes by one of their deputy ministers and then their delegation upped and left, without even listening to what our President Jo Leinen had to say, leaving us standing there in shock.

We need to be careful about being top of the class. At a time of serious economic crisis, we risk putting too much pressure on the budgets of our enterprises. It would be much better to have the courage to tax goods imported from the countries that pollute the most and to use the income to fight climate change. I say a categorical ‘no’ to a Green Fund paid for by our citizens, most of which would end up in the pockets of the Chinese.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, the longest climate conference ever held has ultimately only produced one thing: hot air. The EU and the other Kyoto states have committed to new climate targets for 2013, but these countries are only responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, the main polluters – China and the US – have not signed the Kyoto Protocol and were not prepared to agree in Durban on common goals for 2013.

Therefore, we need to consider carefully what we can do ourselves, for example, subsidies for public transport and agriculture. While imported kiwi fruit are so cheap that native fruit is allowed to fall to the ground and rot and while animals are transported all across Europe, we will still be saddling ourselves with unnecessary environmental problems. We must focus on our regional economic cycles and we must not shut down our industry because it is no longer competitive internationally when other global players are failing to follow the ground rules or even to accept them in the first place.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, I fully share Ms Manner’s concern regarding the way in which carbon sinks are calculated. I am not going to speak any more about that, however. Instead, I wish to say that I am surprised that we here in Europe think as if the strategy according to the Kyoto model, with its emission ceilings, is the only way to save the climate. Considering the results, at least, it is not, so I wonder why we still adhere to it. If we look at the statistics, it is evident that the United States, for example, has cut its emissions in the last ten years or so more effectively than the EU, which is committed to Kyoto. The USA and the big emitters have rejected this model, as have Japan, Russia, Australia and, most recently, Canada, which said that it was remaining outside the Kyoto agreement because it was ineffective. Mr Kent, that country’s Minister of the Environment, said that if Kyoto was anything, it was a barrier, a barrier to an effective climate policy.

We did not save anything of significance at Durban. We saved a model that we desperately cling to. However, the model has no support globally. Just nine countries have adopted the same tactics as the EU in reducing emissions. Kyoto accounts for 15% of global emissions. Should this not inspire this House to demand real results? Now that we are looking for a common new agreement for everyone, the EU must abandon its obsessions. We therefore need something more comprehensive, more satisfactory to take its place. Only that could be called an effective policy.

End of catch-the-eye procedure

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would first like to thank you for all your kind words, which I will also convey to the very hardworking people in DG CLIMA when I see them tomorrow. I know they will appreciate that very much. So thank you. I will make only three points.

First, in response to some of the recent interventions, I would say that those who were always rather sceptical towards Kyoto should be very happy with what happened in Durban. Because what we are talking about – what we actually did achieve – has been one of the key priorities for the European Union for many years, namely achieving an international system in which not only the traditionally developed countries but all the big economies should be equally legally bound. This is not a trivial thing for Europe. It was always an essential thing, and the further we move into the 21st century, the more it is clear that you cannot cope with a global problem by having only those countries that were labelled as developed countries back in 1992 being obliged to do something. That was the big step forward in Durban, namely that all countries in the end agreed that in the future they would somehow have to be legally bound and that we would be equally legally bound. I believe that there the allied effort involving the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) played a role, because while it may not have mattered that much in Beijing and Washington if Europe asked them to commit, when a total of 120 countries – among them the most vulnerable and the poorest countries in the world – said that they were ready to be equally legally bound, then it is clear that the pressure on China and India, in particular, grew, so that in the end they shifted their position. This was significant.

My second point is directed at Dan Jørgensen. Basically I agree, as Dan knows, with many of the things he says. If it had been better to say, at the last minute, ‘no, we do not want it’, then we must also ask ourselves what the alternative would have been if Europe, Norway and a few other countries had taken a second commitment period and then – full stop. If that had been the outcome of Durban, would the fight against climate change then have been better off or would it not have been better off? Would we have achieved more or less? I think it is beyond dispute that we would then have achieved less in Durban.

We can always reflect on what would have happened if we had said no. Would we have another chance in 2013 or 2014 in Doha? But sometimes, as politicians, we have to try to cash in what can be cashed in when it is possible to cash it in. My basic point to Mr Jørgensen is that it is not a question of either ‘bottom-up’ or ‘top-down’. It is not ‘either/or’, but rather it is ‘both/and’. We must have both the international framework – the rules – and the regional, national, local, business and all the other efforts.

This is why I believe that we actually did make some progress although, as I said at the beginning, not nearly enough. I believe that if the timeframe here is important and if we agree that it is important to stay below the 2°C – and there is a matter of urgency here – that is why we also still need to have an element of ‘top-down’.

That is my third and last point, because I agree with those who have said that the process is still fragile. Many battles lie ahead. So I agree that we cannot now afford to sit in Europe and just wait for whatever comes next in the international negotiations. That is of course precisely why, over the past 18 months or two years, the Commission has come up with a communication on how to move our targets, with our low-carbon roadmap and the energy roadmap; has proposed an energy efficiency directive; has come up with substantial Multiannual Financial Framework proposals with a substantial climate, environment, energy-efficiency and resource-efficiency component; has come up with a proposal on energy taxation; and has come up, as requested, with tasks and values. The list is even longer.

This is very much proof that we in the Commission do not think we should sit idly waiting for the big international agreement. We must continue to move forward in Europe. I agree very much with Corinne Lepage and others who say that this is also about economics. It is about how we, as a region and as an economy, will become more competitive through energy efficiency, resource efficiency and using intelligent climate and environment policies as a driver for innovation.

Other regions in the world – our competitors – are joining this race. We are still the front runner. I look forward to working with the European Parliament to ensure that Europe stays in that position. If we are to achieve that, we will soon have to be extremely busy getting all the initiatives the Commission has proposed through the Council and Parliament. We look forward to working with you on all these issues.

  President. − The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Prior to the summit in Durban many questions were raised – what position would the European Union take, was there a chance that all countries would move in the same direction and manage to work out a compromise by 2020, what about the sale after 2012 of CO2 emissions from unused limits under the Kyoto Protocol? Personally I believe, and I always underline that we must not forget about the current economic situation caused by the global economic crisis, where many markets, and not only European ones but also global markets are wondering what will happen in the near future. All these questions are affected by globalisation, the financial crisis and the interests of individual countries, so I think that the position of the European Union should be a compromise and take into account the current economic situation in the world and in Europe, the position of both people and entrepreneurs who create jobs together with the views of the world’s largest economies, such as India, China and the USA.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) At the conference in Durban the European Union made another attempt to implement the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol commitments. During the conference, Poland was labelled ‘fossil of the day’ for its constant unwillingness to reduce greenhouse gases. Those who sought to find ways of reducing emissions and implement these were deemed completely unreasonable.

EU commitments should be conditional on comparable commitments from other world economies in order to safeguard the competitiveness of the EU economy. In addition, the largest developing countries should be adequately involved in the process, according to the conclusions of the European Council of October 2009. At present, Europe emits only 11% of the total CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and fully meets its commitment to reduce emissions, as stipulated in the protocol. Only concerted action can help fight climate change. The European Union should not agree to extend the Kyoto Protocol without the participation of these key countries. This scenario would result in a transitional agreement relating to only a fraction of emissions. Therefore, the EU’s ability to provide effective global leadership in the fight against climate change will largely depend on its ability to attract large emitters to join the fight against climate change in a legally binding manner. Solidarity and fair and equitable distribution of reduction commitments should be the pillars of the further development of climate policy in the EU.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At the end of November and beginning of December last year, a conference on climate change was held in Durban, South Africa. The need to keep the global average temperature increase below two degrees Celsius was one of the key themes of this international forum. As I stated last year, this goal is also one of the main priorities of the European Union on environmental issues. However, it is quite difficult to evaluate the results of this conference. On the one hand, the Durban conference paved the way for a common legally binding agreement on reducing the increases in emissions and greenhouse gases and keeping the global average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or a two-stage threshold. It is still only path to a binding agreement. What is most important, however, is that it was possible to find a consensus among the biggest producers of emissions and greenhouse gases, including the United States, because only through a common approach will a starting point be found on the issue of climate change.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The 17th United Nations conference on climate change ended with the adoption of an agreement that provides a road map for fighting climate change by 2015, which will come into force in 2020, and with an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although we cannot say that Durban was a huge success, we can still applaud the fact that through intense negotiations, delegations from the 190 largest economies have committed to the long haul. The greatest success, without a doubt, was managing to keep the two most reluctant parties at the negotiating table: the United States and India. The United States have always been sceptical about climate change, and India, meanwhile, is among the emerging powers that refuse to acknowledge their part in the current climate situation and that believe that this is the responsibility of the long-standing industrialised countries. This is actually true, but can the historical responsibility of Europe and the United States justify the irresponsibility of major polluting countries?

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) At the Cancún Climate Conference, it was brought up as a solution that in exchange for contributing to the European Union’s 30% emission reduction commitment Central and Eastern European Member States should be allowed to a limited extent to carry over their unused emission allowances. This solution seems favourable in several respects. Firstly, even during an economic crisis the whole of the European Union should strive to be at the forefront of the fight against climate change. Through appropriate regulatory means, European companies could be encouraged to undertake innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and water and resource efficiency. In future such technologies in the service of energy and resource efficiency will represent the foundations of European competitiveness. Without innovation there can be no competitiveness, without a competitive economy there can be no employment, without jobs the European social model cannot be sustainable. Secondly, such an agreement could also be to the advantage of the Central and Eastern European Member States. The reason for this is that by selling their climate assets they can make up for missing funds necessary to implement a shift to an economic model based on sustainability. In Hungary’s case the estimated value of these climate assets is around EUR 900–1 000 million; revenues of this amount could be an immense help in achieving a green economic turning point in Hungary. I therefore encourage Member State representatives in the Council to agree on the carryover of Central and Eastern European emission allowances during the term of the Danish Presidency, which has a positive attitude towards this initiative.