Úplné znění 
Postup : 2016/0231(COD)
Průběh na zasedání
Stadia projednávání dokumentu : A8-0208/2017

Předložené texty :


Rozpravy :

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

Hlasování :

PV 14/06/2017 - 8.1
CRE 14/06/2017 - 8.1
Vysvětlení hlasování
PV 17/04/2018 - 6.6
Vysvětlení hlasování

Přijaté texty :


Doslovný záznam ze zasedání
Středa, 14. června 2017 - Štrasburk Revidované vydání

9.1. Závazná roční snížení emisí skleníkových plynů členskými státy v období 2021–2030 pro potřeby odolné energetické unie a za účelem splnění závazků podle Pařížské dohody (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, I fully support the rapporteur’s stance on amending the Commission’s proposals on climate action regulation implementing the Paris Agreement. The amended proposal focuses on long—term predictability and energy efficiency, and aims to provide sufficient flexibility for the Member States.

You know that, to achieve a proper implementation of the Paris climate change agreement, it is very important to think beyond the 2030 target, which is precisely what the amended regulation proposes by setting out a long-term objective towards at least 80 % greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050.

Although, I would be glad to see a bit more flexibility in terms of encouraging Member States’ contribution to climate action in terms of agriculture and forestry activities.


  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Cóż, żyjemy w czasach, w których być może pierwszy raz w historii ludzkości decydujemy nie tylko o własnym losie, ale o losie, przyszłości nie tylko naszych dzieci czy wnuków, ale ludzi, którzy będą żyli za pięćdziesiąt czy sto lat na Ziemi. Niestety nie wszystkie kraje europejskie podzielają ten pogląd, co gorsza nie wszystkie kraje na świecie – w tym, wiemy od niedawna, także Stany Zjednoczone. Jest to natomiast państwo, które odpowiada za 15 % emisji CO2 w skali globu, zajmuje niechlubne drugie miejsce po Chinach, które emitują 30 % CO2. W sytuacji, w której się znaleźliśmy, powinniśmy więc chyba przemyśleć jeszcze raz strategię dochodzenia do celów z porozumienia paryskiego.


  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, I am in favour of the Paris Agreement. I cannot help noticing the sudden change in tone, though, of its other supporters. A year ago, they were telling us that it was a bare minimum, that it was inadequate, and suddenly, the moment Donald Trump pulled out, it became central to the survival of human civilization. But we will leave that to one side. It seems to me sensible to have countries working voluntarily on this kind of issue.

What is not sensible is to defend it – as so many in this House have been doing – as an economic project, the idea that it is all about creating green jobs and so on. To see what is wrong with that argument, consider Frédéric Bastiat’s example of the broken glass. If somebody went round smashing windows, that would – on exactly the same argument – create lots of jobs, because there would be lots of jobs needed for glaziers, people to drive the new glass, people to install them and all the rest of it; but of course we can all see that we would still be worse off. If we are prepared to pay an economic price, fine – that is a perfectly valid convincing argument. But for heaven’s sake, let us not insult people’s intelligence by claiming that this is somehow going to boost global growth.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, what we are talking about is the contribution that agriculture, transport and construction have to make to climate change. The issue is how much of a contribution can be made, particularly by agriculture, because the Council conclusions of 2014 recognise the low mitigation potential of the sector and, indeed, the Paris Agreement talks about the food security issue and the vulnerability of agriculture to the adverse impacts of climate change.

I was concerned about the targets that Ireland, in particular, would have to reach under this agreement, but I supported the report because of the overall thrust of its direction: that all sectors have to contribute. I count on the negotiations to take out the most difficult aspects of this from an Irish point of view, so that we can keep forging ahead with a sustainable food supply chain, supplying our EU customers and global customers.


  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, it is important that we meet the Paris objectives, particularly in light of the statements recently by President Trump, and I do not think anybody disputes our commitment under the Paris Agreement to binding annual greenhouse gas emissions and how we are going to reduce those. As a member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was involved on behalf of the PPE in preparing our input into today’s important vote. But I think we should take note of the different positions that Member States have, the different structures of their economies and their varying capacity to meet those targets. I therefore supported amendments, that unfortunately were not accepted, seeking to ensure we have a more flexible and less punitive approach towards the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and I acknowledge the many difficulties that many countries face after the financial crisis. The agricultural sector is particularly sensitive for Ireland and we have raised this objection today, but overall I support the report and its implementation as we aim to meet our Paris climate change objectives.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja głosowałam przeciwko przyjęciu sprawozdania dotyczącego sektorów nieobjętych ETS, ponieważ konsekwencją przyjęcia proponowanych regulacji będzie pogłębienie dysproporcji rozwojowych pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi. Proponowane rozwiązania promują państwa bogatsze poprzez niesprawiedliwy przydział jednostek rocznych limitów emisji. Ponadto 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, a więc w 2020 r.

Nie zgadzam się także z podniesieniem poziomu ambicji redukcyjnych poprzez wyznaczanie trajektorii dla ich obniżania od 2018 r. Jeśli zaś chodzi o proponowaną rezerwę dla mniej zamożnych państw członkowskich, to w minimalnym stopniu zrekompensuje ona ich dodatkowy wysiłek. Zalecam powrót do fundamentu polityki klimatycznej, jakim powinno być porozumienie paryskie.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, trebuie să spun că sunt lucruri bune în raport, amendamente pe care le-am votat, așa cum este de exemplu articolul 7 legat de asigurarea de stimulente pentru IMM-uri și pentru exploatații agricole de dimensiuni mici. Aș fi vrut să susțin acest raport în totalitate, dar trebuie să fim realiști: sunt foarte multe lucruri în raport care vor afecta în principal statele mai mici și cele mai puțin dezvoltate, așa cum sunt articole în care se prevăd exemplu introducerea de acte delegate suplimentare și nu știm ce vor conține aceste acte delegate. Cred că vor avea de suferit cetățenii care au cea mai mare nevoie de susținere.

Reducerea de emisii de gaze este o necesitate, dar țintele propuse trebuie să fie raționale și în concordanță cu posibilitățile fiecărui stat, pentru că și așa avem o criză a locurilor de muncă, și așa avem probleme cu disparități regionale și cu venituri pe cap de locuitor foarte diferite. Așadar, m-am abținut și sper ca acest raport să fie îmbunătățit, pentru că da, avem nevoie de o reducere de emisii, dar avem nevoie și de locuri de muncă și de venituri pe cap de locuitor mai mari.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, like my colleagues, I am totally in favour of the Paris Agreement and EU targets for 2030. However, we have a huge difficulty with the 2020 target setting, which was implemented here in Parliament. For that reason, I tabled a split vote on that. It means that rather than starting on actual emissions, we had to start with a target which was not reachable, was not practical and which will now probably cost the Irish taxpayer EUR 1 billion to purchase compliance. We are starting a non-compliance method.

This is not fair to us, and we have to make a stand on it and ensure that this is rectified in due course. It was only in the last minute, I think, that somehow the rapporteurs etc. got this point where Ireland and other countries are concerned. Starting in a non-compliant way, like we are, is like starting a 100 metres race where one person has to start 20 metres behind. It makes no sense, it is not fair, and it has to be amended. That is our biggest issue; we want that message to get across; we are totally in favour of reaching the 2020 targets otherwise.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, it was a very difficult decision for me to abstain on this report and not to support it, because it contains many good proposals on the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, what has happened here is that we have let the best become the enemy of the good, in particular by setting a starting date of 2018 and not 2020, as proposed by the European Commission. The starting point is critical, and pushing it back to 2018 could, as my colleague Seán Kelly has said, ensure an additional liability of EUR 1 billion for Ireland, and I simply could not support that proposal, because it is a bad proposal. I think what we have done here is to run counter to the Paris Agreement and the October 2014 Agreement, which recognised the low mitigation potential of agriculture and that food production and food security are important elements in any proposal on climate change. I hope that in the negotiations the start date will be moved back to 2020 and we can get a good overall outcome.


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Dovolte, abych vysvětlila, proč jsem v konečném hlasování podpořila stanovisko EP k návrhu nařízení o závazném každoročním snižování emisí skleníkových plynů.

Myslím, že je to důležitý signál EP právě v době, kdy Donald Trump ohlásil odstoupení Spojených států od Pařížské dohody. Tato legislativa vychází převážně z metodiky a principů nastavených předchozím rozhodnutím Rady a zároveň ze zkušeností získaných v minulém období. Jedná se také o určitá administrativní zjednodušení a posílení flexibility.

Já jsem hlasovala pro pozměňovací návrh tak, aby nebyl výchozí trajektorií pro snižování emisí rok 2018, což je návrh EP. Původní návrh Evropské komise byl rok 2021. Já souhlasím s výhradami, které zde přednesli kolegové z Irska, ale toto rozhodnutí může zvrátit Rada a doufám, že tak učiní.


  Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Natürlich ist es wichtig und richtig, dass sich das Europäische Parlament zum Pariser Abkommen und zur Reduzierung der Treibhausgase bekennt – gerade in der jetzigen Zeit, wo sich die Vereinigten Staaten offensichtlich von dieser Vereinbarung wieder entfernen wollen. Trotzdem ist mir die Zustimmung nicht ganz leicht gefallen, und bei mir bleiben mindestens noch drei Wünsche offen.

Der erste Wunsch: Ich würde alle bitten, dass wir die europäische Landwirtschaft nicht als Problem, sondern als Lösung des Problems betrachten.

Zweitens wünsche ich mir bei allen unseren Beschlüssen eine globale Sichtweise. Es bringt überhaupt nichts, wenn wir in der Europäischen Union viele Verbesserungen erzielen und dann die schlimmen Dinge im Rest der Welt geschehen.

Und der dritte Wunsch: Natürlich sollten wir bei allen Dingen, die wir machen, darauf achten, dass es umsetzbar ist und auch unbürokratisch erfolgt, denn schlussendlich müssen es die Menschen und die mittelständischen Unternehmen dann auch anwenden können.

Právní upozornění - Ochrana soukromí