Pełny tekst 
Procedura : 2016/0231(COD)
Przebieg prac nad dokumentem podczas sesji
Dokument w ramach procedury : A8-0208/2017

Teksty złożone :


Debaty :

PV 13/06/2017 - 3
CRE 13/06/2017 - 3
PV 16/04/2018 - 20
CRE 16/04/2018 - 20

Głosowanie :

PV 14/06/2017 - 8.1
CRE 14/06/2017 - 8.1
Wyjaśnienia do głosowania
PV 17/04/2018 - 6.6
Wyjaśnienia do głosowania

Teksty przyjęte :


Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad
Wtorek, 13 czerwca 2017 r. - Strasburg Wersja poprawiona

3. Roczne wiążące ograniczenia emisji gazów cieplarnianych w celu wywiązania się ze zobowiązań wynikających z porozumienia paryskiego (debata)
zapis wideo wystąpień

  Președinte. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind raportul lui Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, în numele Comisiei pentru mediu, sănătate publică și siguranță alimentară, referitor la propunerea de regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind reducerea anuală obligatorie a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră de către statele membre în perioada 2021-2030, în vederea realizării unei uniuni energetice reziliente și a respectării angajamentelor asumate în temeiul Acordului de la Paris, și de modificare a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 525/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind un mecanism de monitorizare și de raportare a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră și a altor informații relevante pentru schimbările climatice (COM(2016)0482 – C8-0331/2016 – 2016/0231(COD)) (A8-0208/2017).


  Catherine Bearder, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, the most powerful signal that the European Parliament can give is that it is serious about tackling climate change and is taking real action implementing the Paris Agreement by passing the climate action regulation tomorrow. It deals with almost two-thirds of all greenhouse gases emitted across the EU. This law will translate the Paris Agreement into concrete action by the Member States.

However, last week President Trump announced that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change agreement. Even though we know that many US states, cities and businesses are continuing or even scaling-up climate action and green investment. This is sending a dreadful signal to the rest of the world. But, thankfully, China has restated their strong commitment to the Paris Agreement and President Macron has announced that France will do more compared to earlier commitments. So, with or without Trump, climate action and green investment under the Paris Agreement must move ahead.

I applaud that the groups here in the European Parliament have decided to unanimously give a strong signal to the international community that it will support this report in plenary tomorrow. I am also grateful for the strong support the report received in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and for the further work done ahead of the plenary to build an even stronger compromise.

As a result of this work, ALDE, the EPP and ECR groups agreed to table a set of joint amendments that will do three things: firstly, maintain the strength and emissions trajectory adopted by the ENVI Committee. The trajectory will secure the delivery of our 2030 target under the Paris Agreement.

Secondly, it will increase the optional use of forest credits from 119 million to 280 million tons, which will help build the business case for forest-based climate measures. In the long term, our forests are crucial to build the zero-carbon economy. At the same time, we must maintain a strong driver for energy efficient and clean transport.

Thirdly, we will give better support to lower—income Member States that have reduced their emissions significantly in earlier years. There are 17 Member States that will benefit from these measures. Farming is also covered in this regulation, and we will include special support for climate—efficient farmers. We must recognise the specific situation of the farming sector and ensure that they can continue to produce but protect at the same time.

The compromises reached will represent a balance between delivering on the EU’s commitments on the one hand, and providing fairness for all Member States and regulating the regulated sectors on the other. Because of the politically balanced agreement reached and the strong signal the climate action regulation will give to the international community, I urge you all therefore to back the report in full, which includes the compromise package negotiated ahead of the plenary vote.


  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here today in the plenary for the effort-sharing proposal. This is an important initiative to accelerate the low-carbon transition of key sectors of the economy in Europe, representing around 60% of European Union total emissions. The latest greenhouse gas emissions statistics, which the European Environment Agency released only two weeks ago, clearly point to the challenges. Emissions, in this sector, outside emissions trading, are increasing again, notably in the transport sector.

This debate, and the vote tomorrow, show that the European Union is serious about international climate commitment under the Paris Agreement and that it wants to progress without delay with domestic implementation. At the same time, Parliament is also making swift progress on one of the key legislative priorities of the European Union, and in the joint declaration on the European Union’s legislative priorities for 2017 the three institutions have agreed that the 2030 climate action proposals shall be given priority treatment in 2017.

I very much appreciate the hard work of your rapporteur, Mr Gerbrandy. He would have been happy to be here today but unfortunately he cannot be with us. On this proposal, I want to thank him for the excellent cooperation and I also want to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts in ensuring that Parliament’s report could be presented to the plenary before the summer.

Many of the key elements of what you are proposing for the vote in this House tomorrow are in line with the Commission proposals, notably on the national targets and connection between sectors with the use of the flexibilities. This is encouraging for us. As in the Commission proposals, this maintains a careful balance of three central objectives: fairness, cost-efficiency and environmental integrity.

I also note your efforts to better reward early action, which is also a central issue in the discussions in the Council. The LULUCF flexibility proposed by the Commission is of high importance and its extent should be sufficient enough to recognise the lower mitigation potential of agriculture and incentivise actions promoting carbon sequestration in agricultural soils and afforestation.

Let me offer a few comments on two key aspects of the rapporteur’s final proposals. Firstly, the report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) includes a requirement for Member States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in effort-sharing sectors by 80% by 2050 compared to 2005. It is true that consistent and long-term emission reductions are a cornerstone of European Union climate policy. However, I think it is too early to set national targets and emission trajectories for 2050 now already, without any thorough impact assessments and even before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided its special report.

We must also consider the balance with the ETS and with a policy related to land use, land-use change and forestry. We should not set in stone now partial long-term legislation only covering 60% of total European Union emissions. The Commission will address the long-term issues in the context of developing the European Union mid-century strategy, which, in accordance with the G7 Commission, is to be delivered well ahead of the 2020 deadline.

Secondly, I note the proposal for a biennial compliance check instead of every five years. This would significantly increase the misery burden of implementation and would not constitute a good example of better regulation.

The Commission fully supports the efforts of Parliament and the Council to agree on the ETS and non-ETS proposal this year. On the ETS file, we are in trilogue negotiations and I welcome the renewed efforts to make progress there. I look forward to continuing to work with you on the effort-sharing proposal and bringing it to a successful conclusion with your support.


  Merja Kyllönen, liikenne- ja matkailuvaliokunnan lausunnon valmistelija. – Arvoisa puhemies, komissio, hyvät kollegat, lämmin kiitos kaikille hyvin asiallisesta ja rakentavasta yhteistyöstä. Toivon, että muistamme aina, ettemme ole vähentämässä päästöjä EU:ta tai hallintoa varten, vaan ihmiskunnan ja planeettamme tulevaisuuden säilyttämistä varten.

Kun seuraamme erityisesti liikennesektorilta sitä vastuuta ja toimenpiteiden täytäntöönpanoa jatkossa, meidän on hyvä muistaa, että subsidiariteetin mukaan pallo on hyvin pitkälti jäsenmailla ja erityisesti niiden kaupunkiseuduilla. Rooli sekä hiilidioksidipäästöjen että muiden terveydelle haitallisten päästöjen torjunnassa kaupunkiseuduilla ja jäsenmailla on ehdottoman keskeinen. Kaupunkiliikenne tuottaa 23 prosenttia Euroopan liikenteen hiilidioksidipäästöistä, mutta kaupunkien liikennepolitiikan ja ratkaisujen suhteen EU:lla ei valitettavasti ole suoraa toimivaltaa.

Toivonkin, että komissio edistää kaikessa toiminnassaan hyvien käytänteiden monistamista ja edistämistä jäsenmaiden kesken hyvässä yhteistyössä, niin että pystyisimme suuntaamaan rahoitusta kaikissa hankkeissa nimenomaan päästöjen vähentämiseen.


  Nicola Caputo, relatore per parere della commissione per l'agricoltura. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la proposta della Commissione sull'effort sharing è un ottimo inizio per assicurare, nei settori interessati, l'obiettivo della riduzione del 30 % delle emissioni entro il 2030. Si rendono tuttavia necessarie alcune modifiche per meglio promuovere la prevedibilità a lungo termine, garantire la coerenza con altre politiche, in particolare l'obiettivo di efficienza energetica, nonché assicurare una sufficiente flessibilità e solidarietà tra gli Stati membri. L'effort sharing, può infatti essere un driver importante per favorire la decarbonizzazione dell'economia e per adempiere all'accordo di Parigi.

Il settore agricolo è responsabile per il 10 % delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra nell'Unione europea e deve quindi fare necessariamente la sua parte. L'agricoltura è il settore che soffrirà di più gli impatti dei cambiamenti climatici, ma nello stesso tempo ci sono anche pratiche agricole che possono determinare una riduzione delle emissioni e offrire benefici ambientali aggiuntivi e un reddito supplementare per gli agricoltori.

La flessibilità nei settori LULUCF, in particolare il notevole potenziale di mitigazione e di assorbimento derivante dalle foreste, è fondamentale per ridurre i costi di adeguamento alla normativa e per assicurare un sostegno supplementare all'agricoltura che deve contribuire all'azione per il clima. Tuttavia, è essenziale garantire che i crediti LULUCF assicurino reali assorbimenti supplementari e permanenti.


  Pilar Ayuso, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, dentro de las propuestas del paquete de cambio climático, esta se refiere al esfuerzo que tienen que hacer los sectores llamados difusos: la agricultura, el transporte y la construcción, los edificios, que van a tener que reducir en un 30 % sus emisiones respecto a las de 2005.

Los objetivos por países los han negociado la Comisión y el Consejo, y el Parlamento los ha respetado y no ha querido tocarlos. Nuestro debate ha sido y se ha centrado ―que no ha sido nada fácil, por cierto― fundamentalmente en la fecha del comienzo de la trayectoria y en las flexibilidades.

Los acuerdos plasmados en las enmiendas de transacción que votaremos mañana son asumibles. Son asumibles y son equilibrados. Lo que menos le gusta a mi grupo político es el inicio de la trayectoria en 2018, pero se trata de una negociación y todos hemos tenido que ceder. Estamos, sin embargo, razonablemente satisfechos con una flexibilidad LULUCF de 280 millones de toneladas de carbono. Nos habría gustado que hubiese sido un suelo y no un techo, como al final hemos acordado, pero es lo que hemos acordado.

Una reserva por cumplimiento temprano de 90 millones de toneladas es muy satisfactoria, porque puede aliviar el esfuerzo de algunos países que han sido menos favorecidos en el reparto del esfuerzo. También es aceptable la flexibilidad ligada a la cancelación de derechos de emisión.

Como he dicho, no ha sido nada fácil. Quiero agradecerle muy vivamente al señor Gerbrandy su flexibilidad y su disposición para los acuerdos.

Todos tenemos el deseo y la ambición máxima de que todo sea bueno. Finalmente, el papel lo aguanta todo, los deseos son muy loables, pero al final esto se traduce en un esfuerzo para los sectores económicos que son los que crean empleo y, en definitiva, los que sostienen nuestro sistema.


  Miriam Dalli, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here with us and also Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy who, as the rapporteur of this effort sharing regulation, worked really hard on bringing the Groups together.

Unfortunately, for a long time, we had people who considered climate change to be a fictitious thing – this is happening today as well: if you pretend that it is not real, it will literally disappear. We know today that climate change is affecting every country in every continent. What we face today is a difficult task but an achievable one. The task before us goes beyond the choices that individuals privately make. This is about industries and it is about governments making the right choices and taking concrete measures. This is our moment for action. We had the opportunity to make serious policies with the emissions trading scheme and this is our opportunity now with this regulation.

We need to end once and for all the free ride that polluters have been given. This is not a technical debate but I believe that this is a human rights debate because our citizens and our children have a right to a cleaner world. As Socialists and Democrats, we believe that it is our duty to respond properly to our planet’s greatest challenge with determination and honesty. I am proud that this political group was part of a group that stopped the attempts to water down this legislation. This is what we worked hard to achieve in the effort sharing regulation. There are no excuses: our economy will die if our ecosystems collapse.

The climate action legislation sets a clear trajectory to 2030, and a longer-term objective up to 2050, to reduce emissions in important sectors including transport, agriculture, buildings and waste. I would say to the Commissioner that we need to think now if we want to ensure our future and we need to have a long-term perspective. This Parliament must have a progressive and ambitious stand on these measures, closing loopholes and making sure that Member States reduce their emissions; ensuring also that all sectors contribute to a proper reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We pushed for more compliance checks, yes; every two years. Unlike the Commissioner, we know that this can be done and we want to be ambitious and we want to have something that really works. We aligned the review cycle with the global stocktake of the implementation of the Paris Agreement as well.

We believe that we have the means to stop this devastation but we need to have the political will to do so. This is our opportunity to really show that we are ready to stand up to the occasion. It is no longer time for watering down legislation, because we can make a positive impact. If we do not act now, the effects of climate change will become even worse.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Doceniam wysiłki sprawozdawcy, który po głosowaniu w komisji ENVI zgłosił na sesję plenarną poprawki uwzględniające również moje obawy. Dobrze, że sprawozdawca przywraca mechanizm elastyczności w wysokości 280 milionów ton dwutlenku węgla z sektora LULUCF, poszerzając go o leśnictwo. Szkoda jednak, że nie spotkała się ze zrozumieniem moja propozycja zwiększenia mechanizmu elastyczności do 425 milionów ton – tak, abyśmy promowali rozwój lasów i właściwych praktyk zarządzania lasami, co przecież jest zgodne z duchem porozumienia paryskiego. Właściwe działania w sektorze leśnictwa w znacznym stopniu równoważą emisje.

Ponadto, uważam za niesprawiedliwy przydział jednostek promujący państwa bogatsze. Wyznaczenie punktu odniesienia na lata 2016–2018 jest niekorzystne dla państw biedniejszych. Aby zachować ciągłość polityki, konieczne jest wyznaczenie poziomu emisji, który rozpocznie się z końcem obecnego okresu rozliczeniowego. Nie zgadzam się również na podniesienie ambicji redukcyjnych poprzez wyznaczanie trajektorii do ich obniżania od 2018 roku. Jeśli zaś chodzi o proponowaną rezerwę dla państw biedniejszych, to w minimalnym stopniu zrekompensuje ona ich ogromny wysiłek. Tak więc przegłosowane przez ENVI stanowisko jest w tym kształcie nieakceptowalne.


  Nils Torvalds, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this is in very many ways a discussion about balances and imbalances. We have a lot of political imbalances, we have a lot of environmental imbalances and we have a lot of economic imbalances, and they all act together. Sometimes in a happy way, usually in a less than happy way.

The question about these three files – effort-sharing, emissions trading, and land use, land-use change and forestry – is in the same way a triangle and a very difficult one. It could turn out to be a Bermuda Triangle in which money, hope and environment are those things, or it could show itself to be a functional but very precarious triangle where all the three parts are deeply interconnected. If we are not able to keep up the emissions trading part of it, then things will fall down under effort-sharing and ultimately in the sinks in the forests. So, we need to have a very strong political approach to the problems we are seeing here.

If we do not manage this, if we give in to bad information, bad tweets from the Tweet House – formerly it was called the White House but it has got a new name: the Tweet House – if you do not do this properly, we are doomed. Therefore, the question of how we manage effort-sharing is of utmost importance and I think that Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy has done a terrific job to be able to put the pieces together and be slightly ahead of the curve, because we know that the closer we come to 2040-2050, the harder it will be. So thank you, but now we are in for a fight.


  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Předem mi dovolte poděkovat panu kolegovi Gerbrandymu, který si myslím, že to nevzdal, i když to vypadalo chvíli, že vlastně nenajdeme shodu. Nicméně jsme dnes zde a na pořadu jednání plenárního zasedání máme druhý stěžejní dokument pro boj s klimatem a emisemi skleníkových plynů v EU, který zapojuje taktéž dříve mnohem nesmyslně opomíjené sektory, jako je doprava, budovy a hlavně zemědělství.

Od těchto sektorů jsme zde v posledních letech jen slyšeli, jak nic nejde. Nařízení o sdíleném úsilí je tím propojujícím mostem mezi dokumenty EU ETS i LULUCF a dalšími politikami. Dnes více než jindy ve světle zpátečnických a zcela nesmyslných kroků současné administrativy USA je důležité, abychom toto nařízení schválili v ambiciózní a silné verzi, která prošla výborem ENVI, a to ještě před samotným zasedáním Rady pro životní prostředí. Je potřeba demonstrovat naše přetrvávající odhodlání v boji se změnou klimatu.

Vyjednávání byla složitá a nemohu říci, že se vším, co prošlo, jsem úplně spokojená. Speciálně nejsem spokojená s další nově zřizovanou povolenkovou rezervou nebo s dalšími zásahy do ještě ani nefungujícího MSR. Nicméně domnívám se, že se nám podařilo přijmout dostatečně ambiciózní dokument. Jsem třeba ráda, že se podařilo přijmout pozměňovací návrh zapojující zbylou námořní dopravu, které se nevěnujeme v novele ETS.  Proto bych se nerada dočkala jeho vykostění, tak jak se stalo před pár měsíci na plénu např. právě u ETS.

Chtěla bych vás požádat, vážené kolegyně a vážení kolegové, dejte nám silný mandát pro jednání v trialogu, ať se nám nestane to, co teď v ETS zažíváme, a ať jsme opravdu tím, kým chceme být. Těmi, kteří chtějí chránit občany EU, chtějí chránit životní prostředí a záleží jim na něm.


  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Gerbrandy and express my regret that he cannot be here today for personal reasons. I very much regret this because he really put a lot of effort into this file and it is a pity that he cannot be here. Our thoughts are certainly with him.

Secondly, I would like to say that it is a bit strange that tomorrow we are going to discuss Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and today we are going to discuss our own actions. I can tell you that the Greens tried to link those two discussions. A strange idea, is it not: that we link criticism of Trump together with what we ourselves are doing within the EU?

But the big parties, especially the Christian Democrats, did not want to link them and we know why: because it is much easier to criticise Trump, for free, while at the same time knowing that in our own actions we are not doing enough to implement the Paris Agreement at all. But of course we are happy to have that debate on another day.

That is really my main criticism, too, in this Parliament. When you criticise Trump tomorrow, remind yourselves at the same time of what we are doing ourselves. First of all – and we really know all this – the current target on the table that the EU is willing to take of minus 40% by 2030 is not enough for the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Stop saying that the EU is implementing the Paris Agreement. We are not on track.

Secondly, if you look at the two pieces of legislation on the table, we are watering it down. We are creating loopholes – loopholes in the legislation – so that this minus 40% is not even really minus 40%. That is not at all good. The Commission’s proposal had too many loopholes. We improved the Commission’s proposal. Unfortunately there are a couple of amendments on the table again – in order to get the Christian Democrats on board – to go back to the size of the Commission’s loophole, so we are going backwards again, watering the proposal down again, but okay, that is what the Christian Democrats wanted and I hope that they will acknowledge this tomorrow when they criticise Trump.

But it is an improvement compared to the Commission’s proposal and the big fight will be with the Member States, because they are also criticising Trump but at the same time watering down the proposal even further.

So please, ladies and gentlemen, let us vote for this and then we will have our proposal on the table. But when we are doing the negotiations, think every time that you criticise Trump that you are only credible in criticising him if you deliver at home.


  Julia Reid, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, over the years I have witnessed in this House the perverse mechanism of the EU continuing to further develop a failing project. In the UK, we would say that this amounted to flogging a dead horse. The EU ETS is an example of this. However, in this instance, the project is one of the biggest threats to European industry and competitiveness. Once again, we are expanding and strengthening its remit. This time the European Commission proposal, Climate Action Regulation implementing the Paris Agreement, covers all sectors that currently fall outside the EU emission trading system, with particular regard to transport, waste, environment and agriculture. The aim of this proposal is to deliver, in the relevant sectors, 30% emissions reductions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The Paris Agreement sets out the goal to keep global temperature increases well below 2 °C and to strive for no more than 1.5 °C temperature increase. Consistent with these goals, the Paris Agreement also requires that zero net emissions must be achieved in the second half of this century. In addition, in 2009, the EU adopted its objective of 80—95% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050.

The EU’s climate and energy policies keep perpetuating the same misguided path, continuing to be the solo leader in the futile battle against climate change, whereas the USA and others are acting in favour of progress and prosperity. The sole effect that this huge burden of climate regulation is going to have is to exacerbate the crisis already being experienced by European Union industries that are forced to move offshore, taking their emissions and their jobs with them. My party and I oppose the EU climate and energy policy. We reject climate hysteria and believe that the EU should accept that the Paris Agreement is close to its end.




  Mireille D’Ornano, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, le retrait annoncé des États-Unis de l’accord de Paris justifie plus que jamais une action dans le cadre des organisations internationales dont les États-Unis sont encore membres. Faut-il rappeler que l’immense majorité des États européens font, eux aussi, partie de la convention-cadre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques ou encore de l’Organisation de l’aviation civile internationale (OACI) pour le secteur aérien ou de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI) dans le domaine maritime?

Aussi, ce n’est pas la signature, la ratification et l’application des accords de Paris par l’Union européenne qui feront revenir les États-Unis au cœur d’une action pragmatique, efficace et mondiale pour le climat.

Enfin, l’Union européenne n’est pas à une contradiction près en voulant réduire les émissions d’un côté, tout en défendant, de l’autre, des modèles de libre-échange qui ne font qu’aggraver ces émissions.

En matière écologique, les circuits courts, la relocalisation des entreprises et le patriotisme économique, que nous proposons depuis des années, ne sont pas le problème, mais la solution.


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η υπερθέρμανση του πλανήτη, η εξάντληση των φυσικών πόρων και η διαχείριση των αποβλήτων είναι προβλήματα που απαιτούν τη διεθνή συνεργασία, την ευαισθητοποίηση και την εφαρμογή καινοτόμων τεχνολογιών χωρίς επίπλαστα διλήμματα και μακριά από ιδιοτελή ιδιωτικά ή εθνικά συμφέροντα. Δυστυχώς, παρότι χρειάστηκαν περίπου 25 χρόνια από τη Συνάντηση Κορυφής για την προστασία της γης το 1992 στο Ρίο ντε Τζανέιρο και την επικύρωση του Πρωτοκόλλου του Κιότο, η συμφωνία του Παρισιού στερείται νομικής δέσμευσης, και αυτό αποδεικνύεται από την επικείμενη απόσυρση των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών της Αμερικής. Η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος αφορά στον άνθρωπο και την επιβίωσή του και δεν πρέπει να αποτελεί πεδίο εφαρμογής μικροπολιτικής ή προσπάθεια επιβολής συμφερόντων μεταξύ κρατών. Ως εθνικιστής, πιστεύω ότι είναι δυνατή η συνύπαρξη ενεργειακής απόδοσης και ασφάλειας με την προστασία και χρηστή διαχείριση της βιοποικιλότητας και ταυτόχρονη μείωση των λογαριασμών των καταναλωτών, μέσω αυστηρής τήρησης των υποχρεώσεων που απορρέουν από την εθνική περιβαλλοντική νομοθεσία.


  Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich dem Dank an den Berichterstatter Gerbrandy ganz ausdrücklich anschließen. Er hat hart gearbeitet, und ich glaube, am Ende liegt jetzt ein guter Kompromiss vor. Wir sollten ihm morgen durch ein gutes Abstimmungsergebnis die richtigen Grüße nach Hause schicken, in seiner schwierigen Situation. Ich bedanke mich aber auch bei allen anderen, die mitgeholfen haben, insbesondere bei Pilar Ayuso, der Schattenberichterstatterin der EVP.

Lieber Herr Kollege Bas Eickhout, wir werden morgen unmittelbar nach der Debatte über Trump über dieses Ergebnis abstimmen. Ich glaube, das ist richtig, wir brauchen ein bisschen Zeit, um das zwischen heute und morgen zu sortieren, aber wenn wir morgen eine große Mehrheit für den Bericht von Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy haben, dann ist das gerade das richtige Zeichen in Richtung USA und in die ganze Welt.

Wir sind mit diesem Vorschlag ambitioniert. Wir sind uns einig, dass das Startdatum 2018 sein wird – das ist ambitionierter als der Kommissionsvorschlag. Wir sind uns auch einig – selbst wenn das für manche Länder eine Herausforderung ist, aber es ist international wichtig –, dass kein Land als Basisjahr einen Wert haben wird, der weniger ambitioniert ist als das 2020-Ziel – das ist die richtige Antwort. Aber wir sind nicht überambitioniert.

Einige Mitgliedstaaten haben Herausforderungen: Ich nenne Irland, ich nenne Spanien und Italien, und darauf gehen wir mit der Flexibilität in den Änderungsanträgen von ALDE, EVP und ECR ein, die eben besser und angemessener sind als das, was der Umweltausschuss beschlossen hat. Deswegen glaube ich: Ambitioniert sein, aber realistisch – das ist die richtige Antwort auf Trump, nicht überambitioniert, dann werden wir nämlich auch nicht ernst genommen. Deswegen werbe ich für eine große Mehrheit für den Bericht und die Änderungsanträge von EVP, ALDE und ECR. Dann geben wir die richtige Antwort auf Trump.


  Simona Bonafè (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, negli Stati Uniti il presidente Trump mette seriamente in discussione la necessità di combattere contro i cambiamenti climatici, mentre in Gran Bretagna per formare il governo si cerca il supporto di chi nega addirittura l'esistenza del fenomeno.

Ebbene, qui al Parlamento europeo, con l'approvazione di questo regolamento per la riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 nei trasporti, negli edifici, in agricoltura e nella gestione dei rifiuti, vogliamo lanciare un messaggio chiaro: il futuro nostro e delle prossime generazioni passa per una società e un'economia più sostenibili. L'Europa ne è consapevole e sa anche che per ottenere dei risultati l'azione deve essere globale, perché le emissioni di CO2, non si fermano alle frontiere di chi le produce.

Io definisco questo testo sull'effort sharing un buon testo, un testo ambizioso, ma anche assolutamente pragmatico, che prevede soprattutto un buon sistema di flessibilità per gli Stati membri, proprio per metterli in condizione di realizzare gli obiettivi che sono previsti. Se gestita bene, la transizione a un sistema a basse emissioni non è solo benefica per l'ambiente ma anche per una crescita economica florida delle nostre società.

Non è un caso che uno dei criteri previsti da questo regolamento per stabilire gli obiettivi di riduzione per i singoli Stati membri sia proprio il livello medio di PIL pro capite. Si riconoscono gli sforzi fatti fino ad ora e si permette di valorizzare in modo flessibile la specificità dei diversi territori, da quelli a vocazione più industriale fino a quelli a vocazione agricola o boschiva. Non viene chiesto a nessuno l'impossibile, ma di contribuire al meglio. Effort sharing è condivisione degli sforzi. Noi andiamo avanti, convinti e posso dirvi, di ritorno da una missione di lavoro negli Stati Uniti, che al di là dei grandi proclami anche milioni di americani ci credono.


  Jørn Dohrmann (ECR). – Hr. formand! Jeg vil også sige tak til alle, og dette er selvfølgelig en god dag, hvor vi kan diskutere, hvad det egentlig er, der er sket, hvorfor fik vi ikke klimacertificeringen med i aftalen, så man kan vise, hvem det egentlig er, der har gjort noget, og anerkende disse folk. Vi ved, at der er nogle lande, der betaler høje skatter, høje afgifter og selvfølgelig gør en masse på dette område. Men vi skal også sige, at der skal være denne byrdefordeling imellem rig og fattig. Vi skal have fleksibiliteten, vi skal anerkende, at vi har noget teknologi, som skal overføres til nogle af de lande, som jo kunne være bedre bidragsydere til, at vi kan gøre mere for klimaet. Så derfor er det vores hensigt, at man netop får udvidet muligheden for at vise, at man har noget afprøvet teknologi, som vil være med til at hjælpe klimaet fremadrettet, og det synes vi er den vej, vi skal gå, og derfor er det godt, at man på denne måde kan lave en byrdefordeling, som kan være til gavn for alle, men også tager hensyn til alle.


  Jan Huitema (ALDE). – Beste collega's, beste commissaris, de klimaatconferentie van Parijs erkent het belang van de agrarische sector voor onze voedselvoorziening. Toch wordt de land- en tuinbouwsector nog te vaak in de hoek gezet en dat terwijl de land- en tuinbouwsector juist een unieke eigenschap bezit. De agrarische sector is één van de weinige sectoren die ook broeikasgassen kan winnen uit de lucht en omzetten in organische stof in de bodem. Een win-win situatie, want hiermee wordt ook de bodemkwaliteit van onze landbouwgronden verbeterd. Het is daarom terecht dat afgevangen broeikasgassen meegenomen worden in de klimaatdoelstellingen. Het is nu aan de lidstaten om te komen tot een model waarbij de boer en tuinder ook daadwerkelijk beloond worden voor het afvangen van broeikasgassen. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld met een CO2-handelssysteem of door meer ondernemersruimte te geven. Daarnaast loopt de Nederlandse land- en tuinbouw nu al voorop in innovaties die leiden tot een steeds lagere uitstoot van broeikasgassen per kilogram voedsel. Helaas blokkeert Europese wetgeving innovaties om van het overschot aan dierlijke mest kunstmestvervangers te maken. Hiermee kunnen we volgens berekeningen de consumptie van kunstmest met 15% reduceren, en daarmee dus ook de uitstoot van broeikasgas. De agrarische sector is dit dus niet het probleem, maar juist een deel van de oplossing. Flexibiliteit binnen wet- en regelgeving is echter wel nodig om boeren en tuinders de mogelijkheid te bieden om te blijven innoveren.


  Estefanía Torres Martínez (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, en los últimos días Trump ha sacado del Acuerdo de París a uno de los países más contaminantes del mundo, junto con China, mientras aquí se utilizan herramientas falsas en la lucha contra el cambio climático.

El informe es un paso muy pequeño. No nos engañemos: hoy ya sabemos que no llegaremos a alcanzar los objetivos marcados por el Acuerdo de París.

De nada sirven los compromisos sobre el papel cuando todo se basa en comprar bonos para seguir arrasando con el planeta y haciendo negocios.

En España, Rajoy dice que hace falta un cambio y, sin embargo, castiga el autoconsumo. Aquí, Cañete abre las puertas a los lobbies energéticos, los más contaminantes del planeta. Porque lo único que saben hacer ustedes, señores, es ayudar a sus amigos de las multinacionales.

Y lo que está pidiendo a gritos este planeta es un cambio radical de modelo productivo en nuestro modo de vida, de consumo, en nuestra relación con la naturaleza; un cambio que solo llegará de la mano de una ciudadanía consciente y comprometida, porque lo que nos estamos jugando hoy, en esta Cámara, es el futuro de esta tierra.


  Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'accordo di Parigi non è morto, l'accordo di Parigi semmai viene dimenticato quando, come in questa modifica di regolamento, ne abbiamo cambiato addirittura il titolo, richiamando appunto le azioni da intraprendere in linea con l'accordo di Parigi.

A mio avviso, siamo ben lontani purtroppo da intraprendere una vera strada che guarda davvero in direzione degli obiettivi di Parigi, anche perché i risultati di recenti studi ci dicono che la possibilità di ridurre e di mantenere l'aumento della temperatura globale entro 1,5 C° non sarà raggiunta e potrebbe già avvenire entro il 2030.

Questo dovrebbe darci l'urgenza della nostra necessità di agire, specialmente in questo regolamento che fa parte del secondo pilastro delle politiche climatiche insieme all'ETS, altro strumento che non funziona e che non favorisce gli investimenti verso appunto tecnologie pulite e una produzione davvero sostenibile e che soprattutto ci dà l'esempio di come non vengono utilizzati in maniera appropriata, ad esempio, i proventi delle aste, che dovrebbero e potrebbero essere utilizzati proprio per migliorare e fare degli investimenti nella mitigazione delle emissioni nei settori invece effort sharing.

Nessuno Stato membro ad oggi lo ha fatto. Siamo di fronte purtroppo all'ennesimo accordo che di fatto prende in giro l'opinione pubblica. Sono parole vuote, senza un vero contenuto. Io non sono d'accordo con il tentativo del relatore di tenere in barca tutti i grandi gruppi, soprattutto i gruppi conservatori che hanno fatto di tutto per smantellare questo documento e smantellarne l'ambizione. Stiamo per andare davanti al trilogo con il Consiglio e non possiamo permetterci di demolire ancora una volta l'ambizione di uno dei pilastri delle politiche per combattere il clima.


  President. – Before I give the floor to my colleague, Mrs McGuinness, I would like to take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday. She is speaking on her birthday, but still has just one and a half minutes.



  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to take ten seconds to thank the visitors to Parliament for wishing me a happy birthday – and no, I am not going to tell you what age I am, but it is all transparent and it is available – and thank you, Mr President.

Now to the subject of this debate, because Mr Liese and Mr Huitema introduced the topic on my agenda: Ireland and agriculture. I know, Commissioner, that you are fully familiar with our problems in Ireland, because we have a strong and large agricultural sector. We are doing a lot of work on climate—smart agriculture, but there is only so far we can go.

I am all for ambition, and, Mr Eickhout, I hope you appreciate that. However, ambition with targets that are unachievable can be distracting, and our 2020 target was unachievable. We know that we have to do more, but what I would ask colleagues to understand is the situation where we do not have heavy industry, we have a large agricultural sector and we need much more flexibility on this issue, because farmers are concerned that the cost of this at the moment – if we look at the calculations – would be over EUR 1.7 billion in terms of purchasing carbon.

I do not want an opt-out here, because we all have duties and responsibilities, but I want an understanding that we are major producers of food – we export it to Europe and beyond – and we need an acknowledgment of that fact in the work, and I hope that in the negotiations it will be acknowledged.


  Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous avons la lourde responsabilité de définir la politique climatique de l’Union européenne pour les trente prochaines années.

L’urgence climatique nous oblige et nous appelle à prendre des mesures à la hauteur des attentes et de la prise de conscience de nos concitoyens, pour faire face au défi de notre siècle: l’avenir de notre planète.

Le texte dont nous débattons aujourd’hui vise à traduire dans la législation européenne les engagements climatiques que l’Union et les États membres ont pris dans le cadre de l’accord de Paris.

Il s’agit donc de passer du discours aux actes. À l’heure où Donald Trump a pris la décision de quitter l’accord de Paris, il est plus que jamais crucial que l’Union européenne tienne ses engagements dans la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique.

Ce rapport, qui relève le niveau d’ambition de la proposition de la Commission européenne en inscrivant des objectifs à long terme d’ici 2050, en limitant certaines flexibilités et en renforçant le contrôle des efforts et la clause de révision pour revoir à la hausse les objectifs contraignants, permettra d’envoyer ce signal politique fort pour que l’Union européenne assume le leadership dans la mise en œuvre de l’accord de Paris.

En conséquence, j’appelle les députés européens à voter en faveur de l’ensemble du rapport adopté par la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire.

On ne peut pas se réjouir en séance plénière de la ratification de l’accord de Paris puis, une fois les textes sur la table, essayer de revoir à la baisse le niveau d’ambition de l’Union européenne.


  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Fake news staat aan de verkeerde kant van de geschiedenis. Vandaag kunnen we tonen dat de Europese Unie wel woord houdt en het akkoord van Parijs uitvoert. We zijn het aan onze kinderen en onze kleinkinderen verplicht om die verantwoordelijkheid nu op te nemen. De strijd tegen klimaatverandering is een zaak van inspanningen, maar ook van kansen en daarbij moet iedereen zijn steentje bijdragen. Klimaat is immers geen verantwoordelijkheid van de overheid alleen. Vlaanderen zit op het goede spoor. De 2020-doelstelling ligt binnen handbereik. Het bereiken van de 2030-doelen zal heel wat bijkomende inspanningen vragen. Maar Vlaanderen is vastberaden die uitdaging aan te gaan. De Vlaamse regering onder leiding van minister-president Geert Bourgeois trekt daar stevig aan de kar. Het vinden van een delicaat evenwicht tussen ambitie en haalbaarheid blijft evenwel een uitdaging en het vervroegen van de startdatum blijft in die zin een punt van zorg voor ons.


  Fredrick Federley (ALDE). – Herr talman! Först av allt vill jag gratulera föredraganden och skuggföredraganden för ett väldigt bra arbete, särskilt en tanke till vår kollega Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, som tyvärr inte kan vara här den här veckan av personliga skäl, men som har lagt ner ett väldigt hårt arbete för att se till att vi kan leverera en bred kompromiss i det här huset som bär klimatpolitiken vidare på ett ansvarsfullt sätt.

Jag tror också att det är oerhört viktigt att vi inte låter presidenten i USA sätta agendan för den europeiska klimatpolitiken. När Donald Trump nu väljer att vända sig från ambition och från klimatansvar har vi faktiskt en stor öppning för Europa att göra ännu mer som kommer att leda till att vi får innovationer, att vi får nya företag och att vi kan leda en teknisk utveckling mot en bättre värld, som skapar morgondagens industri och morgondagens energiförsörjning.

Den delen vi pratar om nu, effort sharing, är en viktig del i klimatpaketet, tillsammans med ETS:n, där vi handlar, och som mer berör industrin. Men det är också viktigt att det energipaket som vi har på bordet nu blir till bra och kraftfull lagstiftning som bygger under det vi nu säger att vi ska göra genom effort sharing. Det finns också mycket att göra beträffande direktivet om förnybar energi, till exempel. Där finns det en risk att vi, med god vilja om att rädda miljön, slår undan de förnybara bränslena, som faktiskt är de som kommer att se till att vi klarar av energiomställningen och som skapar nya jobb på landsbygden och för europeiskt jordbruk. Idag tar vi ett stort steg framåt, men det är såklart väldigt mycket arbete kvar med den tekniska lagstiftningen.


  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I am sceptical in many ways towards the European Union, but on this, I think it is a challenge that we should meet. Unlike the drive for a single currency or the current drive for a European army, this project is in our interests. But, if we want it to be in our interests, we have to bring the people along with us. Mairead McGuinness, MEP and Vice-President for Parliament, talked about the challenges to Irish farming. There can be benefits if we meet this challenge; there can be benefits in producing our proteins locally, rather than bringing them thousands of kilometres across an ocean; there can be benefits in recycling the animal manure and reusing the energy and the fertiliser, saving on heavy use of energy in chemical fertilisers. There can be use in reusing water. In many cases in Ireland, we are using treated water. This can all bring benefits to the farming community, and we need to sell it to people by showing that there will be financial benefits locally, because if we produce locally, people can stay locally and everyone is happy and the planet benefits.


  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, caro Commissario Cañete, credo che il tema del quale stiamo parlando sia un tema importante perché passa dalla teoria alla pratica. Dopo l'accordo di Parigi proviamo a metterlo in pratica con la regolamentazione pertinente.

Certo, Trump, con una visione sicuramente miope, ha dato una linea diversa, ma non c'è che dire, gli Stati americani, le grandi città e le grandi imprese tendono a dire ogni giorno, sempre di più, che invece sulla linea dell'accordo di Parigi bisogna continuare a operare. L'Europa in questo deve essere leader, deve essere leader sul piano internazionale e sul piano mondiale. La proposta che è stata messa sul tavolo è una proposta interessante. Il Parlamento l'ha sicuramente migliorata e ha corretto alcuni errori che c'erano, signor Commissario, perché gli early movers, cioè i paesi che avevano già fatto un grande sforzo e che erano già andati avanti, avevano difficoltà a implementare la proposta e lei ha riconosciuto, sin dalla prima presentazione, che c'era qualcosa da correggere.

Oggi il Parlamento ha messo in atto i correttivi. Con la riserva a 90 milioni di tonnellate, proposta dal collega Gerbrandy, credo che andiamo proprio nella direzione giusta. L'Italia potrà implementare questa proposta, che all'inizio sicuramente era molto avversa al nostro paese. Dall'altro lato, l'ambizione del Parlamento, che come PPE abbiamo accettato di anticipare la curva discendente nell'applicazione degli accordi, è nella direzione giusta. Credo che stiamo lavorando bene e dovremmo votare gli emendamenti proposti.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento).


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Köszönöm szépen Képviselőtársamnak, hogy elfogadja ezt a kérdést. Ön is említette az amerikai elnöknek a húzódozását, vagy hát inkább úgy mondanám, hogy otromba kivonulását. Kérdezem azt, hogy ez mennyire aggasztó az Ön véleménye szerint, hiszen úgy tűnik, hogy Amerikában az üzleti szféra maga azért messze túllép a megújuló energiahordozók felé?


  Giovanni La Via (PPE), risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Credo che l'impatto della scelta di Trump sia un impatto molto limitato per due ordini di motivi. In primo luogo, perché molti Stati, le grandi città e le grandi imprese vogliono continuare sulla linea dell'accordo di Parigi. Dall'altro lato, la procedura per uscire dall'accordo di Parigi è una procedura complessa, che dura del tempo, e sono certo che in ogni caso il prossimo governo americano, di qualunque colore sia, rivedrà la posizione sulla lotta al cambiamento climatico e dovranno recuperare il tempo perso.


  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, Uniunea Europeană și alți actori globali au reacționat cu forță și unitate la decizia de retragere a Statelor Unite din Acordul de la Paris. Am ales cooperarea internațională în detrimentul izolării și vom continua să jucăm un rol decisiv în combaterea amenințării grave reprezentate de schimbările climatice. Regulamentul pe care îl vom vota este o componentă importantă a politicii UE în privința schimbărilor climatice pe perioada Acordului de la Paris. El va asigura reduceri semnificative ale emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră în sectoare care astăzi sunt răspunzătoare pentru mai mult de jumătate din emisiile de la nivelul Uniunii Europene. Legislația trebuie să fie ambițioasă. În același timp, însă, trebuie să evităm ca ea să aibă efecte economice disproporționate asupra statelor membre cu venituri mai reduse. Corelând obiectivele de reducere a emisiilor cu PIB-ul, această legislație se va asigura că țările care au de atins obiective dure chiar își pot permite să le îndeplinească.


  Norbert Lins (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Heute geben wir Antwort auf den amerikanischen Präsidenten: Wir halten am Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen fest, und wir setzen das in ausgewogener Weise um. Das tun wir insbesondere mit den drei Vorschlägen: CO2-Minderungen in unserer Industrie, jetzt der heutige Vorschlag für die Treibhausgasreduzierung in Verkehr, Gebäuden, Abfall und Landwirtschaft und im dritten Vorschlag der CO2-Aufnahmekapazität unserer Wälder, also der sogenannten LULUCF-Sektor. Alle Sektoren hängen mit sogenannten Flexibilitäten eng zusammen und machen nur als Einheit Sinn.

Sehr bedeutend ist dabei die Rolle der Land- und Forstwirtschaft. Sie ist Teil der Lösung und nicht das Problem. Um das Potenzial der CO2-Minderung ausschöpfen zu können – das war 2012 zum Beispiel 9 % der Gesamtemissionen aller Sektoren –, muss der Sektor auch eine Wertschätzung und einen Anreiz bekommen, CO2-Gutschriften zu produzieren und damit mehr Aufnahme als Abgabe zu produzieren. Und er darf eben nicht bestraft werden. Deswegen bin ich für den ausgehandelten Kompromiss für die 280 Mio. Tonnen Flexibilität und glaube, dass dies ein sehr guter Kompromiss ist.


  Jo Leinen (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Der Klimaschutz ist eine moralische und eine politische Verpflichtung – heute mehr denn je. Das Parlament hat mit dem Vorschlag für eine Klimaschutzverordnung bis 2030 vielleicht keinen perfekten Kompromiss vorgelegt, aber wir haben doch sehr klare Vorgaben für eine konsequentere Reduzierung der CO2—Gase, auch für einen Fokus auf eine Langfriststrategie bis 2050 und auch für Optionen, wie die Bemühungen der Länder anerkannt werden und auch Flexibilität eingebaut wird, damit Länder nicht überfordert werden.

Jetzt brauchen wir den Rat, wir brauchen die Mitgliedstaaten, damit dieses Paket sehr bald über die Bühne gehen kann. Denn bis zur Klimakonferenz in Bonn, bis zur COP23, sollte die EU ihr Paket fertig haben: den Emissionshandel, diese Klimaschutzverordnung und auch LULUCF. So können wir der Welt zeigen, dass wir nicht nur Klimaschutz global propagieren, sondern auch zu Hause ernst nehmen. Unserer Klimaschutzdiplomatie muss es gelingen, dass wir einen globalen Konsens herstellen, auch wenn Trump dagegen ist.


  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – A União Europeia não pode hesitar no caminho que traçou para liderar o processo de harmonização e combate às alterações climáticas. O relatório hoje em debate reforça o compromisso da União Europeia com as metas do Acordo Paris e ganha uma importância acrescida com a decisão tomada pela Administração americana de retirar os Estados Unidos desse acordo.

Este regulamento estabelece metas vinculativas de emissão de gases de efeito estufa para os Estados-Membros, englobando os setores da economia não regulamentados pelo RCLE. Esses setores representam quase 60 % das emissões totais na UE em 2014 e a definição de objetivos nacionais foi feita com um processo de equidade.

Esta é uma mudança que proporcionará oportunidades de emprego, crescimento e investimento para a Europa, enquanto mitiga as alterações climáticas e exige mudanças nos comportamentos, nos incentivos às empresas e aos investimentos. É por isso que é fundamental que as opções constantes deste relatório possam ter um amplo apoio neste Parlamento. Fizemos uma opção clara pela liderança na transição para a economia e a sociedade sustentável. Hesitar, no atual contexto global, poderia significar deitar tudo a perder.


  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. formand! Tak for det! USA og Trump vil desværre ikke være med til at efterleve Paris-klimaaftalen, men vi vil i Europa! Klimaet og klodens befolkning har desperat brug for, at vi handler på de klimaforandringer, vi ser. I EU både kan og skal vi levere på vores løfter, og vi skal være ambitiøse. Også når det bliver svært, og også når vi skal fordele byrderne. Miljøudvalget har turdet være ambitiøst. Jeg støtter fuldt ud Miljøudvalgets betænkning. Vi er ambitiøse og balancerede. Særlig godt er det, at vi stiller krav om en tidlig start på indsatsen allerede i 2018. Jo før vi kommer i gang, jo bedre. Fleksibiliteten er det mest omdiskuterede. Fleksibilitet for de enkelte medlemslande er som udgangspunkt en god ting, men det må ikke blive så fleksibelt, at vi reelt slet ikke får lavet nogen nye klimaaftaler. Alle skal levere, alle sektorer skal være med, ellers får vi ikke løst vores klimaudfordringer.




  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o Acordo de Paris prevê que as partes tomem medidas para conservar e reforçar, se necessário, os sumidouros e os reservatórios de gases com efeito estufa, nomeadamente as florestas. A presente proposta é parte integrante da aplicação do compromisso assumido pela União Europeia no Acordo de Paris de reduzir as emissões em toda a economia.

Caros Colegas, estamos numa altura de grandes incertezas, de incompreensível negação das evidentes alterações climáticas por quem, como é o caso Estados Unidos, mais contribui para as emissões para a atmosfera.

A principal prioridade da União é criar uma união de energia resiliente que privilegie a eficiência energética e forneça energia segura, sustentável, a preços acessíveis aos cidadãos, bem como aplicar políticas de redução de emissões e substituição dos combustíveis fósseis. E essa, caros Colegas, é a nossa prioridade se quisermos liderar na assunção dos compromissos de Paris. Acredito que só através de uma ação climática ambiciosa se poderá contribuir para resgatar a tempo um planeta que seja sustentável à vida.

Gostaria de congratular o Sr. Gerbrandy por este excelente documento de compromisso e dizer que a Europa não pode agora recuar nos compromissos que assumiu em Paris. A Europa tem agora uma oportunidade única para mostrar ao mundo a sua liderança neste domínio.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, reducerea obligatorie a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră este un obiectiv al Uniunii Europene și este un obiectiv al tuturor statelor membre. De fiecare dată când s-au analizat reducerea emisiilor, problemele de mediu, am considerat că trebuie să luăm în calcul un context mai larg, global, pentru a nu pune Europa și cetățenii ei într-o poziție defavorabilă. Trebuie să finanțăm împădurirea, este nevoie să finanțăm împădurirea, nu trebuie doar să spunem că avem nevoie de împădurire. Este normal să dorim protecția mediului. Până la urmă, vorbim de viață, de viața oamenilor.

Ce ne facem însă cu țările mai sărace, care nu pot să atingă aceste nivele? Ce facem cu poluatorii mari, Statele Unite și China? Ce vom face cu acordul TTIP, dacă America nu va răspunde cerințelor de mediu? Ce vom face cu competiția, cu industria europeană? Cred, domnule comisar, că trebuie să aveți în vedere ca, în toate acordurile comerciale, să puneți și aceste condiții de mediu, pentru că planeta trebuie salvată și nu putem decât prin măsuri corelate nu numai cu Europa, ci și cu celelalte continente.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συζητούμε για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος, για τη μείωση των εκπομπών αερίων ρύπων, για τους στόχους της συμφωνίας των Παρισίων, και όλα αυτά όταν πλέον ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους ρυπαντές παγκοσμίως, οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της Αμερικής, δήλωσαν ότι αποσύρονται από τη συμφωνία των Παρισίων. Η απόφαση αυτή των ΗΠΑ ανατρέπει τα δεδομένα και βάζει εκ των πραγμάτων τη συζήτηση σε μια άλλη βάση, διότι οι ΗΠΑ προστατεύουν σε βάρος της ίδιας της υφηλίου τη δική τους βιομηχανία και οικονομία. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, οι στόχοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πρέπει να είναι ευέλικτοι και ρεαλιστικοί και να στηρίζουν την κοινωνία και την οικονομία, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τη δράση όλων των παγκόσμιων παικτών. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, λοιπόν, οφείλει να ξαναδεί την τροπολογία που είχα καταθέσει επανειλημμένα, δηλαδή, να απαλλαγεί η ηλεκτροπαραγωγή στην Ελλάδα από την καταβολή εισφορών για δικαιώματα εκπομπής αερίων ρύπων, όπως συμβαίνει και στην Πολωνία και στη Βουλγαρία. Επιπλέον, οι στόχοι για το σύστημα ευφυών μεταφορών θα πρέπει να μην διαλύουν τη γεωργία.


  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Wszystkie te cele związane z porozumieniem paryskim są niezwykle ważne, natomiast wydaje mi się, że powinna nam też towarzyszyć pewna refleksja, że powinniśmy być spójni w naszym działaniu, w tym, co robimy również w ramach Unii Europejskiej. Na przykład autor sprawozdania mówi o przyspieszeniu trajektorii redukcji w stosunku do propozycji Komisji z roku 2020 do roku 2018. Pytanie: czy to jest zasadne? Nie znajduje to oparcia w stanowisku wielu państw członkowskich. Z jednej strony mówimy o tym sprawozdaniu, a z drugiej bardzo komplementarne jest tu sprawozdanie posła Linsa, które dopiero będzie omawiane. Być może warto byłoby te dwa sprawozdania omawiać razem. Pani poseł McGuinness mówiła ponadto o kwestii obciążenia pewnych sektorów, na przykład rolnictwa. W niektórych krajach to może być poważny problem i to również wymaga pewnego rodzaju refleksji. I wreszcie wydaje mi się, że potrzeba nam więcej koordynacji, tak aby nasze decyzje w omawianym zakresie były spójne, aby cele wyznaczone w porozumieniu paryskim można było zrealizować.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I am totally in favour of the Paris Climate Accord. I am totally in favour of the European Union approach and especially the 2030 targets and many of the proposals here make sense. They are, however, somewhat discriminatory against agricultural producing countries, including my own.

Mr Grzyb mentioned the starting date of 2018 instead of 2020, and the target is also not appropriate. For instance, we now have to start at the target rather than the actual emissions. It is estimated that this will cost us a billion, and the Commission’s proposals took into account the mistakes that were made when the targets were set originally and if we had stuck with the Commission proposals we would have no difficulty.

Parliament is now going beyond this and it means that agricultures like Ireland will be hugely burdened. We will have to purchase compliance because we will be starting in a non-compliant area and this is something that will actually totally discriminate against us in view of the economic crisis, in view of Brexit coming down the track, and now this!

It is unnecessary and it should stop and I am tabling a split vote on it.


(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened carefully to the debate today. I am encouraged by the Members’ engagement with the issues, and I appreciate the commitment to maintain the European Union’s role as a path-breaker in the area of international climate action.

On the two non-ETS proposals, the discussions have progressed well in the Council, the technical work is nearly finalised, and I would like to thank the Members for taking this important step in Parliament, which provides crucial political momentum for this proposal. I am convinced that the Council, under the leadership of the incoming Estonian presidency, will be able to move forward swiftly before the next climate conference in Bonn in November. The European Union, as a driving force behind the high-ambition coalition, cannot come to Bonn empty handed.

I would like to give answers on some other points raised, because it was hinted by someone that the European Union was not implementing the Paris Agreement. We should be clear on two things. The first is that we really are implementing the Paris Agreement. Out of the 140 nationally determined contributions, the European Union has the most ambitious one, namely a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. This is the biggest, most ambitious target. But we have something that makes us different from the rest – in fact, two things. We have launched all the legislation needed to achieve our targets, and I can assure Mr Eickhout that, in all the legislation the Commission is launching, nothing is being watered down, and incidentally that goes for the decarbonisation study too. We will get there –taking into account also that Paris is not an agreement which stops in 2030, it is a dynamic agreement with a five-year ambition cycle, and I am sure we will work in such a way in the coming years that we will bring on board our international partners, including even the USA.

This is one president, but there will come other presidents and other administrations, and we also have to understand that we have seen a movement in the USA in response to Mr Trump’s withdrawal: a massive one from states, big cities and major businesses who have announced that they will do their part to help fulfil the original US commitment of reducing emissions by between 26% and 28% in 2025 as against 2005.

So, we are implementing the Paris Agreement. We are serious in the legislation we are introducing, and what we are discussing today is of the utmost importance. Establishing binding targets for Member States was not easy in the discussions with them. Establishing such targets in agriculture, in transport and in the building sector will be a difficult exercise, and this Parliament has improved our proposals. With regard to the agricultural sector, as many of you – Mr Lynch, Mr Caputo, Mr Flanagan, Ms McGuinness and others – have pointed out, agriculture and forestry are part of the solution, and not of the problem. In the discussions, we will have to look further at future reform of the common agricultural policy, to see how we will ensure it contributes to the solution and to maintaining a dynamic and prosperous European agricultural sector.

So, my message today is one of optimism because I have just come from Bologna and, with the Environment Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, the European Commissioners are reaffirming their strong commitment to the swift and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, which remains the global instrument for activity in tackling climate change and adapting to its effects. We are committed to its implementation, our partners are committed to its implementation, the European Parliament is supporting the Commission in having the most ambitious legislation possible.

I would like to thank all of you who took part in this debate, and particularly to thank Mr Gerbrandy, whom I am missing today, for the work he has done and for the good work I am pretty sure we will do in the trilogues.


  Catherine Bearder, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their good wishes to my good friend and colleague, Gerben—Jan Gerbrandy, who is the rapporteur on this report, and who despite doing all the heavy work on this is unable to be with us today because he has a family crisis. I am sure I speak for all this House in wishing Gerben—Jan and his family all the best.

I would like to thank the Commission for its commitment to driving down CO2 emissions. I heard earlier that there are concerns about how we can get to 2050. Well, nobody has ever said that tackling climate change is going to be easy, but it has to be done. Even the Paris Agreement still only brings us back to a level where we know we were emitting too much. The damage continues to be done to the whole planet. Every tonne of CO2 that is emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for over a hundred years.

But there is good news. We can have a green economy. We can drive the innovation and business that can address that. It is tough for farmers to change their farming practices. We understand that. We have been as firm as we can but as amenable as possible to their difficulties in making sure that farmers can associate themselves with this message and this regulation.

We have heard from the deniers from – I am ashamed to say – the UK. They deny climate change, they even deny their existence as an effective political party in the UK, and have nearly been wiped out. I think everybody here agrees that climate change is a real issue and one on which action must be effected.

A strong vote from this Parliament tomorrow will send a message to businesses, to farmers, to industry, to consumers, and to voters and the young people of Europe that we are serious about climate change. It is a compromise, sure, but it is one that we have to make and the political groups here are committed to it.

Thank you very much for your support everyone, and for the support from the Commission.


  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2017, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)


  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas españoles estamos a favor de la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero como primera medida urgente para mitigar los devastadores efectos del cambio climático. Tras el anuncio de la retirada de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea ha de liderar el proceso y redoblar sus esfuerzos como región referente. Los socialistas queremos evitar que el incremento de la temperatura media global del planeta supere los 2º C respecto a los niveles preindustriales y defenderemos la necesidad de llevar a cabo esfuerzos adicionales para que el calentamiento global no supere los 1,5º C. Defendemos la necesidad de que las emisiones globales toquen techo lo antes posible, si bien somos conscientes de que esta tarea llevará más tiempo en países en desarrollo. En este sentido, apoyamos las contribuciones al Fondo Verde del Clima, dirigido a países en vías de desarrollo con el objetivo de que reduzcan sus emisiones y mitiguen las consecuencias del cambio climático. Para ello, los socialistas queremos mantener el objetivo de movilizar 100 000 millones de dólares al año en 2020 y ampliar esta medida hasta 2025.


  György Hölvényi (PPE), írásban. – Az Európai Unió párizsi vállalása teljesítésének egyik legfontosabb eszköze az uniós kibocsátás-kereskedelmi rendszer alá nem tartozó üvegházi gázkibocsátásokat kezelő erőfeszítés-megosztási rendelet. Véleményem szerint a jogszabályjavaslatban megfogalmazott csökkentési célértékek kellően ambiciózusak, és megfelelően tükrözik az egyes tagállamok közös kibocsátás-csökkentési törekvésekhez való hozzájárulásának igazságos mértékét. Ugyanakkor fontosnak tartom azt is hangsúlyozni, hogy egyes országok esetében az előirányzott csökkentési célszámok jobban is igazodhatnának a 2020 előtti kibocsátási lehetőségeikhez. Egy olyan célérték meghatározás lenne ezért elfogadható, amely jobban reagál a 2020 előtti rendszerben tett korai csökkentésekre, mivel ezek kompenzációjára a jogosultságok átvitelének lehetősége nélkül a jól teljesítő tagállamoknak nincs lehetőségük, míg a kevésbé jól teljesítők a túlkínálat következtében lényegében értéktelen kibocsátási jogosultságok átruházásával könnyedén teljesíthetik a kívánt célértékeket 2020-ig. Emellett fontos arra is ügyelni, hogy a célértékekben jelenjen meg az egyes tagállamok tényleges fejlettségi szintje is.


  Владимир Уручев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Уважаеми колеги, Парижкото споразумение напълно очаквано прави необратим процеса на декарбонизиране на световната икономика, предвиждайки до края на този век да се постигнат нулеви нетни емисии на парникови газове.

През 2009 г. ЕС прие своята цел за намаляване на тези емисии с 80 – 95% до 2050 г. Разглежданият днес регламент за споделяне на усилията или „за действия в областта на климата в изпълнение на Парижкото споразумение“ се отнася до 60% от емисиите на парникови газове в ЕС и обхваща секторите извън схемата за търговия с емисии, включително транспорт, отпадъци, строителство и селско стопанство. Общата цел на европейско ниво за намаляване на въглеродните емисии с 40% до 2030 г. става задължителна за посочените сектори на национално ниво.

Подкрепям установяването на траектория за постигане на намаляване на емисиите с най-малко 80% до 2050 г., с цел осигуряване на дългосрочна предсказуемост на политиките и нужните инвестиции. Приветствам сериозната гъвкавост, която се предоставя на страните членки при постигането на целите на регламента. Тя е особено важна за селското стопанство и горите, които могат да допринесат и за общото намаляване на емисиите чрез естествения механизъм на поглъщане на въглероден диоксид. Приемлив е и призивът за ранни действия, доколкото се съчетава с допълнителни бонуси за съответните страни на по-късен етап.


(Die Sitzung wird um 11.20 Uhr unterbrochen.)

(Das Parlament versammelt sich von 12.00 Uhr bis 12.30 Uhr zur Feier des 30-jährigen Bestehens des Erasmus-Programms.)



Informacja prawna - Polityka ochrony prywatności