Climate change and developing countries in the framework of the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (debate) President The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission on climate change and developing countries in the framework of the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Andreas Carlgren Mr President, we are at a decisive point in time. In just under two months' time, the world will sign an agreement in Copenhagen for combating the climate challenges that we face. This agreement must meet three conditions: it must keep global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, it must encompass all nations and it must adapt future efforts to higher levels of ambition as new knowledge becomes available. With just 48 days left to the opening of the UN's major Conference on Climate Change, it is high time that political will was transformed into concrete actions. Negotiations are moving too slowly, however. A number of key issues have not yet been resolved. Many people are now taking the easy way out - by giving in to pessimism. Let me make one thing clear: that is not what the EU is here to do. We want the EU to show leadership by expressing a clear, unequivocal political will. A comprehensive and ambitious agreement on climate change has the very highest priority for the Swedish Presidency. The EU's response to the negotiating difficulties is that we must step up the pace. We must drive things forward to ensure that the world reaches the agreement required. We will take on the challenge of bringing the other nations of the world with us into an agreement that is sufficiently capable of meeting the challenge of climate change. We are therefore taking an intensive two-track approach: firstly, sending a powerful message to our negotiating partners; and secondly, bringing the EU together behind a strong negotiating mandate ahead of the Copenhagen conference. The EU has already laid the foundation for this with the climate and energy package agreed on by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2008. I would like to express particular thanks for the commitment shown by many here in Parliament in the work on the climate and energy package. The decision made by the European Parliament at that time places the EU in a strong negotiating position. This week, the final pieces will be put in place to provide a complete picture of this strong position. The negotiations will be concluded in the European Council next week and I know that many of you will be following this closely. I am pleased that some of you will also be able to be present in Copenhagen. I also welcome the resolution that the European Parliament is in the process of preparing. Emissions must be restricted to the level required to keep global warming down to less than two degrees Celsius. This means that the bids currently on the table are not enough. The EU will reduce emissions by 30% by 2020 provided that other parties also make adequate commitments. We view the 30% goal as a way of leveraging others to join us in raising their ambitions. Emissions should be cut by at least 80% by 2050. However, measures by the EU alone are not enough to ensure that global warming does not exceed two degrees Celsius. We need to get everyone on board. We have seen promising signals, for example, from the new government in Japan. We now urge other developed countries - not least the US - to raise their bids. The developing countries have an opportunity to achieve sustainable development while, at the same time, reducing emissions. This means planning low-carbon growth, integrating climate measures and adapting national development strategies. It is a way of making sure that climate and development measures are incorporated into all political decisions and ensuring that growth benefits everyone; a way of constructing and opening up democratic governance, contributing to equality and fighting and reducing poverty. We make particular demands of the fastest-growing developing countries - not least China, which is the country with the highest emissions. Emissions need to be cut by approaching 30% by 2020 compared with the situation where no measures are taken. Development issues must be absolutely central in the agreement reached in Copenhagen. The European Council has concluded that climate change is undermining efforts to combat poverty and achieve sustainable development. Climate change poses a threat to the Millennium Development Goals. Experts in development will also take part in the negotiating work. We will particularly highlight development issues within the context of the ongoing negotiations. All nations - except those that are least developed - should share responsibility for the costs of measures to combat climate change, but those of us in the developed countries must take the lead by ourselves reducing emissions and financing important measures. We need a sustainable international structure for cooperation and support for developing countries. Such a structure would also allow us to assist the very poorest and most vulnerable countries, which are often the hardest hit by climate change. Adaptation measures are required in this regard. Finally, let me state that the EU is prepared to take its responsibilities seriously. The Council is aware of the scale of the financing required. The Commission estimates that the costs will amount to nearly EUR 100 billion per year in the developing countries by 2020. We in the EU are also prepared to provide prompt financing for immediate measures in the period up to 2012, as a way of increasing trust between North and South in the climate negotiations. We face a great challenge in these final weeks leading up to Copenhagen. I am therefore asking you to set the pace. We need leadership from the governments of the Member States, efforts by national parliaments and support from the populations of the EU Member States. The European Parliament has a very important part to play in this work if we are to achieve our goals in Copenhagen. Karel De Gucht Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first of all thank you for giving me the opportunity to express the Commission's views on this sensitive issue. You are already aware that there will be no ambitious deal in Copenhagen if the concerns of the developing countries are not taken into account, not only those of emerging countries, but also very much the concerns of the most vulnerable and the poorest developing countries. Nevertheless, reaching a good deal in Copenhagen is in our common interest. Developing countries are the most vulnerable countries to climate change. The EU is the first donor in the world and a leader in the fight against climate change. We have to combine our efforts. There is no place for North-South confrontation when you are dealing with climate change. I would even go further and say that no other alliance can be as determining and effective as the one engaging the most vulnerable countries and the ones who have put on the negotiating table the most ambitious proposals to fight this plague - that is to say, Europe. Our general approach towards the most vulnerable countries, followed up to now through the Global Climate Change Alliance, is made up of three parallel strands, which are interlinked and are mutually reinforcing. First, building political alliances through reinforced dialogue on climate change. Three joint political declarations have been signed respectively with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, plus one with the ACP group as a whole. Second, promoting sound policies and strategies linking climate change and development. I am of the opinion that climate resilience and low-carbon policies must be integrated into wider developments and the poverty reduction strategies of our partners. There can only be a single development strategy, which incorporates climate concerns pursuing the objectives of sustainable development and poverty reduction. It is not a matter of choosing one or the other: both are essential. In this spirit, we already support the implementation of the existing national adaptation programmes of action of LDCs in 15 eligible countries. Third, encouraging adequate EU contribution to finance climate actions, in particular, for adaptation, which is the priority concern for those countries that are most vulnerable to climate change impact, but who barely contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. We are only 50 days away from Copenhagen. Expectations are very high. And we are worried because the negotiations are dangerously close to deadlock at the moment. It is now the time for putting offers on the table. That is what Europe has done, and that is what we expect our partners to do as well. Firstly, we have made offers in terms of commitments. The EU has already put on the table ambitious targets and commitments - so far, the second most ambitious on the table of negotiations. We have already guaranteed a unilateral 20% emission reduction by 2020, and we are committed to increase to 30% if comparable efforts are made by others according to their responsibilities and capabilities. Second, offers in terms of financing. We are all conscious that a deal on financing will be crucial to achieving an agreement in Copenhagen. To move forward in the negotiations, the EC issued in mid-September its own proposals on finance. One of them is the need for short-term international public funding for climate to be scaled up for the period 2010-2012 to respond as a priority to urgent needs identified in the most vulnerable developing countries and, in particular, LDCs, SIDs, and African countries as defined in the Bali Action Plan. Another one is the readiness of the EU to take on its fair share of the estimated financing requirements, public funding contributions being based on preferred criteria of ability to pay and responsibility for emissions. This may lead to an EU contribution between EUR 2 billion and EUR 15 billion annually in 2020. These proposals will be discussed by the European Council at the end of October and will hopefully be the basis for a fully-fledged EU negotiation position on finance. But action by the EU alone is not enough. We strongly hope that other developed countries will follow our paths as the pressure grows before Copenhagen. We count on developing countries as well. They have to take the opportunity offered by climate financing to fully integrate adaptation into their development strategies and to move gradually to low-carbon development paths for the longer term. Although the focus has been, up to now, on adaptation for the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries, there is some ground to promote the design of low-carbon development paths (i.e. mitigation), which are compatible with poverty reduction objectives in those countries. A specific focus on mechanisms to avoid deforestation and promote sustainable management of forests is crucial. Indeed, the fight against tropical deforestation is the largest immediate mitigation challenge for the LDCs, and they can be beneficiaries, through mechanisms such as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation schemes, of its international financing. Similarly, ensuring in the future a more balanced distribution of the CDM (clean development mechanisms) investments in favour of the LDCs should also be part of the current reflection on the reform of this mechanism. Finally, a word on the delivery channels for climate funding. We as the Commission are not in favour of creating new funds. New funding for climate should use existing and potentially improved delivery channels, promoting a decentralised bottom-up governance structure in support of country-owned actions. Karl-Heinz Florenz Mr President, I am very pleased to see you here for this debate, particularly as you are a former member of the Committee on Climate Change. President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, it is absolutely right that the European Union should send a clear signal to Copenhagen. Over the next 50 days, however, it is not so much in Copenhagen, but behind closed doors at the conference that the real activity will take place. I have been involved with this since the climate conference in Rio in 1992. The mood before these conferences is always the same, but there are also opportunities. Commissioner, I would like to see you engaged somewhat more enthusiastically in putting your US colleagues under a positive pressure to negotiate, as you continue to exude a certain phlegmatic quality that we need to work on. I think it is right that we should not start with some sort of financial competition now. One party says 15 billion, another says 30 billion. There are some who simply put up the money, who want to put 150 billion on the table each year, starting now. Let us develop criteria for how the money is used. We will then be able to provide a large contribution from Europe, but it cannot be a bottomless pit. Enough has been said about the crisis. I would like, however, to once again go into the opportunity that the industrialised world in the United States and Europe has. If we lay down the right standards, we will be able to develop efficiently. That will then enable Europe to sell efficient machinery across the globe, for example, to China, where, at the moment, for example, energy is produced in the most inefficient ways. I also do not see only the threat of climate change but also very much the opportunity to drive forward business and the economy through developing ultra-modern technology. We must seize this opportunity, we must be much bolder and we must act as entrepreneurs, as political entrepreneurs, because if we do not do so, then we will be being neglectful and we will have chosen the wrong path. Commissioner, I wish you a great deal of luck and all power to your elbow! Go forward positively! Take the Americans and the Indians with you, and we will already be half way there. Véronique De Keyser Mr President, climate change is responsible for more than 300 000 deaths each year. It affects 325 million people, and more than 90% of the people affected, more than 90% of the deaths, are in developing countries. The economic losses due to climate change are estimated at more than USD 125 billion per year and, once again, 90% are borne by developing countries. These countries are being hit at the same time by the financial crisis, climate change and the extremely unequal mechanisms of a form of unbridled capitalism that plunders them in every corner of the world. So, what are we calling for? Firstly - and it is true, as you said, I am addressing the Council here - large-scale and long-term action to combat climate change, which means having a new, more ambitious Kyoto Protocol, and that is why the Copenhagen Summit in December is so important; secondly, an increase in the financial aid for the commitments already made so as to attain 0.7% of GDP by 2015; and, lastly, thirdly, legal protection for these new environmental refugees who are starting to flood in. For what are we going to do with them? To where are we going to return them if, by chance, they want to enter Europe? To Libya, as this trade agreement that I invite you to study, Mr De Gucht, this future agreement that we will have with Libya, proposes? We absolutely must establish a proper plan and proper means of managing the flows of environmental migrants and we must bridge the legal gaps that affect the protection of these migrants. I believe that we have a huge responsibility because it is clear that there is much more at stake here than solidarity; we really are dealing with the future of this planet. Corinne Lepage Mr President, we MEPs have a twin responsibility towards, firstly, our citizens, who expect us to make real efforts in Copenhagen, and, secondly, the countries of the South, of which Europe has always been a supporter, if not the supporter, at international level. We must send out a genuine message to the countries of the South by means of a clear financial commitment that will permit an aid package to be agreed on in addition to development aid, which absolutely must reach the agreed level, i.e. 0.7%. The Union's contribution should not be less than EUR 35 billion per year by 2020 and, from 2010, between EUR 5 and 7 billion should be made available to the countries of the South to cover the most urgent requirements. My second point concerns the method of financing. We will not limit ourselves - we will be unable to limit ourselves - to the existing funds alone. Other methods of financing will have to be found, because if there is no money in Copenhagen, then there will be no ambitious agreement in Copenhagen either. This will most probably mean - even though the subject is very controversial - that we will have to raise the issue of a tax, a kind of 'green Tobin tax', to finance the fight against climate change. Thirdly, on the matter of deforestation, which I would point out accounts for 20% of today's greenhouse gas emissions, it is absolutely imperative that we uphold the target of zero gross deforestation by 2020. I would draw your attention to the difference between gross deforestation and net deforestation, which would enable primary forests to be replaced with poplars, the idea being that it produces the same result. We all know that it does no such thing. It is true that we do need to be realistic about our industry, but we also need to be realistic about our survival and that of our children. Eva Joly Mr President, Mr Carlgren, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that the world's future will be at stake in Copenhagen, but before that, it is the credibility of the European Union, as the global leader in the fight against global warming, that will be at stake at the end of October in Brussels. The Member States must make climate-related financing proposals that are proportionate for a tragic situation. Together with the commitment - which I hope will be ambitious - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the issue of financing and of reducing and adapting to climate change in developing countries will represent a major theme in the forthcoming negotiations. The figures speak for themselves: 100 countries, most of them poor, account for only 3% of global emissions. Although developing countries have contributed the least to these greenhouse gas emissions, they are already the worst affected. According to a recent report by Oxfam, 26 million people have already been forced to migrate due to the effects of climate change or other forms of environmental damage. By 2050, these climate refugees could number more than 200 million. The effects of climate change could destroy the progress made in some developing countries and could quite simply prevent the Millennium Development Goals from being achieved. This is therefore not a question of charity. It is a question of us accepting our full responsibility and laying the foundations for a fair and peaceful world. The European Union's current strategy is unworthy of the ambitions declared by the leaders of environmental diplomacy. It must lay its cards on the table now in order to relaunch the negotiations. The Union cannot reasonably pledge less than EUR 35 billion in public finances. It goes without saying that these funds can only supplement those already pledged for official development assistance, all the more so because the commitments made in this area are not always honoured by our Member States. Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the future of our planet is in our hands. If we do not stop the damage being done to our environment and the inequalities, we can fear the worst. We have a choice between an ambitious and proactive Europe and a timid Europe that is aligned with the United States, which cares little about the fate of developing countries. I urge you to make the right choice. Miroslav Ouzký Mr President, Mr Carlgren, Commissioner, I would like to begin by responding to the previous speech. I do not believe that the European Parliament or the European Union should restrict themselves to modest ambitions in this area. A year ago, we completed the preparation of a climate package which is clearly the most advanced and most ambitious of its kind in the world. We should also acknowledge the fact that it will have perhaps the greatest economic impact of any legislation that has been passed here in the last decade. When I read through the declaration drafted by the European Parliament for Copenhagen, I see things there that I like. The declaration talks of the need to strengthen the role of the European Parliament, of the need to get ready for adaptations to climate change and we can surely all agree with the article on deforestation, in connection with which I would like to stress that deforestation is not, and has not been, a problem just of the developing world, but is also a European problem, so we must focus our attention on it. What is missing, however, is a reference to the need for global agreement, as has been pointed out both by the Council representatives and the Commission representative who is present here. Without a global agreement, we will go nowhere. We talk here about assistance for the poorest countries, which is all very well, but if you look at the current numbers for greenhouse gas production, you can see clearly that even if we were more ambitious in Europe and actually disconnected all of our energy sources, it would not change anything at all in terms of climate change as it is simply impossible for us to slow down this phenomenon. We know there is a need today to talk not only about China, which is repeatedly mentioned, but also about other rapidly developing economies such as Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and particularly India. I cannot imagine what India's next steps will be and what I have heard so far has not, I must admit, been very pleasing. I would like to emphasise in this Chamber that if we do not reach a global agreement, then all of our efforts will simply amount to a burden on the European economy and a masochistic annihilation of European competitiveness. Bairbre de Brún Mr President, we must give support to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change - a phenomenon for which they are not responsible, but as a result of which they are suffering disproportionately. Developing countries do not have the resources to combat climate change that we have in Europe. As we turn our attention to the United Nations negotiations in Copenhagen, what we need is solidarity that is real and practical. This solidarity must be demonstrated through financial and technical support. This support must be in addition to our Overseas Development Aid. We should not give something with one hand while taking it away with the other. The countries must have a full participatory role, no matter what financial mechanisms are in place to distribute this financial support. One of the most important ways in which we should measure any deal made in Copenhagen is to look at the way in which it helps the developing world deal with the challenge of climate change. For example, significant help to combat deforestation will be vitally important in a comprehensive agreement. Without financial solidarity and the transfer of technology, we will not see the progress which we all need. There is no doubt that climate change is accelerating. No further time can be wasted. If climate change is not dealt with, it will result in disasters all over the world. The economic recession should give us the courage to move more quickly towards a green economy. Our scientific approach should not be changed. We should not back down from the courage and political will we have shown hitherto. Actions that will be carried out at international level must be ambitious and tied to the scientific reality of our own weather, and we most move ahead with the understanding that it is not the developing countries who created that problem. We created it ourselves. Anna Rosbach Mr President, last night, to great applause, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted a Christmas list for the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. The list includes a lot of well-intentioned, large and heavy presents. But, dear Santa Claus, a.k.a. the Commission: is there any chance at all of all these well-intentioned desires being realised, when 500 million US citizens have health, pensions, jobs and welfare on their agenda, and 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians just want the same living standards that some of us here in western Europe have? We have no influence on what the Sun does. As we all know, it determines a great deal of the climate on our planet. To put it another way: what can the Commission realistically do to make all 6 billion people on this Earth use fewer resources, not in the future but right here and now? Nick Griffin Mr President, there are two overriding themes in this place: first, concern with the growing gulf between the political elite and the ordinary taxpayers. Second, a hysterical obsession with man-made global warming. These two themes are intimately linked. The global-warming fixation is a classic example of how the political class here is out of touch with the little people who have to pay the bills. While the EU backs the Copenhagen proposals to further the deindustrialisation of the West and the corporate domination of the Third World, a growing majority of ordinary people regard climate change as an elite scam - an excuse to tax and control us and to impose internationalist dogma and global government at the expense of the nation state. Can you not see the danger in this growing gulf? It is time to look at the facts. Man-made global warming is an unproven theory based on manipulative statistics. The so-called consensus on the issue is the product not of debate but of the suppression of expert dissent. Before the political class and the green industrial complex dare to impose a single new tax, poisoned light bulb or useless wind farm on the ordinary taxpayer, they need to try to convince the public that global warming is man-made, that returning to the warmer climate of medieval times would be a bad thing and that there is something that Europe - as opposed to the United States, China and India - can actually do about it. Either hold a debate and close the gap between you and the people, or do not complain when we nationalists - the ones who listen to the people - close it for you. Andreas Carlgren Mr President, I would like to thank more or less everyone who has taken part in this debate for the support you are giving the EU in its highly important work in the climate negotiations. The EU has a vital responsibility. We will really need Parliament's support if we are to successfully play our part. The efforts and views of Parliament are crucial to this work. Can I also state outright that I very much appreciate the fact that development issues have been so central in this part of the debate. I agree with Mr Florenz's comment that it is incredibly important that this does not simply become a 'beauty contest'. It is not a London auction in which our task is to outbid each other. Rather, it is about creating a robust architecture that genuinely creates foreseeable and extended initiatives for developing countries in the long term. In this context, the very strong work of the EU is vital. Consequently, I also agree with Mrs de Keyser's challenge to developed countries to finally meet the 0.7% goal for development aid. Ultimately, this is a matter of solidarity. As one of the wealthier regions of the world, the EU has good reason to demonstrate its strength and solidarity. I would also say to Mrs Lepage that I absolutely agree that there is a need for new, increased and foreseeable initiatives and resources. However, Official Development Assistance will also play a part in ensuring that development issues are integrated with climate policy. Consequently, both ODA resources and new funding will be required. One crucial development issue is ending the deforestation of rainforests. I would like to see strong support in Copenhagen for initiatives to combat rainforest deforestation and to promote reforestation and sustainable forestry. The system currently being constructed under the name REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) will be of vital importance in this context. I believe that those who deny the climate problem are actually passing on the bill to the ordinary people. Moreover, it is a way of hiding the problem and of hiding the reasons why ordinary people are having to pay the price of climate degradation. This is the case in developed countries - and it is even more the case in developing countries, where the very poorest are likely to be those hit hardest by climate degradation. That is why we are turning to the group of developed countries as a whole. As Mr Florenz says, we need to cooperate with major nations such as the US. However, pressure is also needed to increase efforts to drive home the message that emissions must be sufficiently reduced. That is why it is so important for the EU to get to the heart of the emissions problem, i.e. the actual increases in emissions. We have the most ambitious and the most far-reaching targets in the world. It is now a matter of making sure that we get others to join us in taking measures at the level required to save the climate. The economic crisis provides an excellent opportunity to increase investments in green initiatives; in other words, in new green products, in new companies with green production, in growth companies with green production, and in new jobs created through green initiatives. It is also a way of rejuvenating our economies. We must take the lead in the offensive towards a low-carbon society, which will also create the conditions for real development opportunities in developing countries. We must make it possible for developing countries to bypass the fossil fuel-dependent economies route taken by the developed countries and to create low-carbon growth for the future instead. It is also a way of finally turning to the rapidly growing developing economies and telling them that developed countries have a responsibility for the poorest and most vulnerable; but the fastest growing economies among the developing countries - and China already accounts for the world's highest emissions - must also shoulder their responsibility and make a contribution to solving the climate problems. With this approach, Europe will be able to play a vitally important role as we lead the way towards an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen. Karel De Gucht Member of the Commission. - Mr President, firstly, what I have noticed in the debate is that all political groups agree on the principles that we should put forward in Copenhagen. I think this is a very important feature. It is not very common in a Parliament with so many political parties and political groups to nevertheless have unanimous support for what you are proposing. Secondly, Mr Florenz and others have said that there should not be a competition to put bids on the table - it is about commitments. This might be true but, on the other hand, I think it is important that we have put a bid on the table and said that we are ready to do this, provided, of course, that we get the green light from the European Council later this month. This is not simply a competition. It is about an engagement of the European Union. We look forward to the other political and economic heavyweights also putting bids on the table, which has not been the case up to now for several of them. We understand that the situation of the United States is not very easy at the moment but it is important that they put a bid on the table so that we can negotiate. Otherwise, the deadlock that we fear we are in at the moment will continue. (FR) I believe that it is true that developing countries are the worst affected, both by the economic crisis, for which they are not responsible, to say the least, and by climate change. We must offer developing countries a substantial amount of support in this regard. However, we will not only have to support developing countries in this spirit, but we will also have to be courageous with regard to our own industries and our own economic operators. When people talk about deforestation in developing countries, this too is a responsibility of our countries, of the European Union. I believe that, following Copenhagen, we will have to acknowledge the need to adopt laws with extraterritorial aspects so that we are not confronted with a situation in which, on the one hand, we are financing the adaptation to climate change and the mitigation of that phenomenon and, on the other, economic operators are having an opposite effect in developing countries. A last word on ODA: I think that this is a very important topic that we will also have to tackle amongst ourselves, because one of the biggest fears is that the 0.7% of GDP would be reached by adding adaptation efforts. Already now, ODA includes many topics which constitute adaptation, and that is quite normal. That will continue, of course, but we should find a measuring mechanism by which we can clearly distinguish the present efforts we are making from the additional efforts which have to be made for climate change. That is something that we will certainly have to come back to after Copenhagen. Corien Wortmann-Kool (NL) Mr President, following 10 years of discussion, we are now approaching the Copenhagen climate change conference. We have 50 days left in which to reach an ambitious agreement with binding targets, not only for Europe but also for the United States and countries such as China and India. An ambitious agreement requires adequate financial resources - as was mentioned a moment ago in this debate - and these not just from the European Union. All countries will have to provide financial resources so that developing countries, too, can participate in a climate agreement. After all, solidarity with the very poorest must be firmly embedded in any climate deal. The Commission has rightly taken the lead on financing, but what Mr Florenz was mainly driving at was that, in this House, we are pretty much trying to outbid one another as to who gives the most, and the question is whether this is really helpful. You have rightly challenged the Member States to participate, and I also commend the Swedish Presidency on its efforts. Yet the United States and the emerging economies, too, must put their hands in their pockets. You can count on our support. Much remains to be done in Europe, too, however. Although we are among the world leaders when it comes to our emission standards, we are lagging far behind the United States in terms of private-sector investment in technological innovations and sustainability. I see positive incentives for green investments and innovations by enterprises as more promising than a new European tax. After all, particularly at a time when we urgently need more activity and employment, European investors and enterprises must be increasingly challenged to do their bit towards this necessary transition in Europe and worldwide. Marita Ulvskog (SV) Mr President, Mr Carlgren - who is representing the Council here today - started by saying that many people are tending to give in to pessimism ahead of the Copenhagen conference. I can only agree, and I really hope that a majority of the European Parliament can ensure that the pessimists that Mr Carlgren must do battle with within his own Presidency government and on the Council are not allowed to have the casting vote. We have to resolve two specific issues if we are to prove the pessimists wrong. The first, which has already been mentioned, is, of course, the financing of climate efforts in developing countries. The Commission's proposal is quite simply not enough. The EU's contributions to developing countries must be at least EUR 30 billion per year by 2020 and we must provide substantial support for restructuring measures as early as 2012. Naturally, this support must be in addition to regular aid. Reallocating money that has already been promised would only jeopardise our ability to reach a global climate agreement. I would like to ask Mr Carlgren whether he has the Council's backing for his high ambitions. Secondly, we must take the two degree target seriously. If we are to succeed in this, it is not enough for the developed world to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 20%. I would therefore like Mr Carlgren, as the Council's representative, to once again state his position on this matter. Many of us consider it necessary to reduce emissions by between 30% and 40% by 2020. What level of ambition does the Council have - and does Mr Carlgren have the Council behind him? Charles Goerens (FR) Mr President, there are, in my view, three essential points in this debate. Firstly, the Copenhagen conference is a gamble on the future. The gamble has not yet paid off, as the Presidency has just pointed out. I will not go so far as to say that everything depends on the European Union, but without determination and credibility, as Mrs Joly has just mentioned, nothing will be achieved in this area. My second point is that we must be careful not to add confusion to uncertainty. The European Union must remain credible when it comes to the impact of climate change on developing countries. It made a commitment in 2005 concerning the level of official development assistance, which must reach 0.7% in 2015. Skimping on that objective is out of the question. There can be no question of diluting that promise, either through a reduction in the commitment as I just explained it, or through a reallocation of the amounts paid in official development assistance for the purposes of combating climate change. It should be pointed out that the sums that are due to be announced in Copenhagen as being earmarked for developing countries must be additional funds. The sum of EUR 35 billion has just been mentioned; we are talking here about an additional EUR 35 billion. The European Union would be well advised not to allow the slightest doubt to remain about its determination to fight for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, on the one hand, and against climate change, on the other. Were the European Union to deviate from this path, it would amount to a political breakdown that would undoubtedly undermine developing countries' confidence in the European Union. If we even manage to agree on this point, this debate will not have been in vain. Thirdly, we need the United States, China, India and all of the industrialised countries, but we also need emerging countries and, of course, developing countries. To that end, it would be wise to think about new North-South partnerships, particularly in the area of alternative energy production. The use of solar energy to generate electricity in the south of the Mediterranean can become, if we so wish, one of the major North-South projects, in response to the economic crisis, on the one hand, and the climate-change crisis, on the other. This should not, under any circumstances, undermine the efforts that must be made in the context of combating deforestation, for example, where the responsibility - I am also keen to point out - of emerging countries, some of which are members of the G20, is overwhelming. Satu Hassi (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a Finnish poet compared humanity to passengers on a train who are on a journey to hell, but who focus their attention on squabbling over a seat in first class. Once again, this is a time for EU leadership. The best way we can help break the deadlock over climate talks is for the EU Summit next week to make an offer to finance climate measures in the developing countries. Yesterday, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety gave its support for a figure of EUR 30 billion as the EU's share of financing. It is obvious that the EUR 2-15 billion proposed by the Commission cannot be enough. If we are honest, we must recognise our historical responsibility for climate change and that our emissions per capita are still many times greater than those of China or India, for example. Peter van Dalen (NL) Mr President, the climate change summit has to succeed, and so Europe must speak with one voice and set its sights high in the negotiations. Copenhagen is important because God's creation is highly vulnerable, and is deeply affected by man's actions. Special attention is required for developing countries. People in these countries make barely any contribution to climate change, but it is they who bear the brunt of it. Crops wither or are washed away by flooding, villages are destroyed by cyclones, the development of whole regions is set back years in a single night. Our industrialised countries have greatly contributed to climate change, and therefore bear responsibility for providing developing countries with adequate and sustainable financial and technical support. The Bali Action Plan put that well. Therefore, it is also important to make sufficient European funds available; after all, that is what this is all about. That is why we are saying that an annual minimum of EUR 15 billion must go into the Climate Fund, plus a contribution from the other major world economies. They, too, must face up to their responsibilities. Finally, I am pleased that the President-in-Office of the Council has drawn attention to deforestation. We consider this an essential area. Combating deforestation is the best way of reducing CO2. Kartika Tamara Liotard (NL) Mr President, deforestation is often somewhat neglected when climate issues are debated in the light of development aid. Fortunately, this is not the case in today's debate in this House. Forests, including the tropical rainforests, counteract a substantial proportion of CO2 emissions. Land-use change, such as deforestation and destruction of the rainforest, accounts for at least 18% of contemporary CO2 emissions. An equally sinister result of deforestation is that many indigenous peoples in developing countries are driven from their territories and are no longer able to meet their subsistence needs. Nor does the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) work; that is, the financing of projects in developing countries in order to be able to emit more CO2 ourselves. Unfortunately, it is still the way of the world that the interests of rich countries and major industries are deemed more important than social and economic justice. Deforestation must be stopped, but industrialised countries are morally obliged to give developing countries financial and technical support with this. Oreste Rossi (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday evening, the Lega Nord delegation was the only political party which voted, in committee, against this resolution. We voted against as we consider it to be euro-folly. At a time of industrial crisis such as the one we are experiencing, with the loss of competitiveness and jobs, the idea of funding the technological innovation of third countries that are developing countries equates to sounding the death knell for European businesses. This text lays down an appropriation of EUR 30 billion a year until 2020 for countries such as China, India and Brazil, which are our most dangerous and dishonest competitors, and, at the same time, asks our industries to further cut emissions, with serious economic consequences. We cannot transform the legitimate battle to protect the environment into a war between poor peoples. As long as there are countries like China, which make unfair competition their industrial policy, there can be no eco-sustainable global market. We in the Lega Nord support the workers, the businessmen and women who, on a daily basis, have to fight the mammoth industrial groups of countries which have no concept of rules. 'Yes' to the environment but 'no' to funding our competitors at the expense of our workers. Zoltán Balczó (HU) Mr President, opinions vary as to what extent mankind influences climate change. My view is that we do have an influence, and the purpose of the Copenhagen climate conference is to mitigate this. I strongly believe that the outcome will be decided in the political domain. What means can we use to successfully persuade the biggest polluters to cut their emissions? We will not do it by promoting the strong message from Europe that we will make cuts of not 20%, but 30 and 40%. We must get the biggest polluter in the world, the United States, to reduce its large-scale pollution. A decision implementing such an amendment was actually proposed in the relevant committee. There were many people who optimistically expected that Barack Obama would bring about major changes and travel to Copenhagen. However, he attended the International Olympic Committee meeting to campaign for Chicago instead. Without success. The European Union's leaders act on behalf of 500 million people on many occasions unnecessarily. The question is why they are not daring to act more decisively now because it is only with their intervention that we will be able to achieve success on a global issue, something which cannot be done at a local level. Filip Kaczmarek (PL) Mr President, it was with great unease that I received news of the meeting of finance and environment ministers, and specifically of the draft final document, which does not contain a solution to a key question: how does the European Union want to support the poorest countries of the world in their efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions and adapt to climate change? This is, indeed, a key matter. In the draft document, there is not even a repetition of the sums which the European Commission is proposing - that the needs of developing countries in this area are estimated at EUR 100 billion annually to 2020, and what the EU's contribution to that amount might be. What is more, there is no decision as to what mechanism of cofinancing by Member States would be introduced, and we know that proposals on this are very diverse. Of course, we can understand arguments which say that we should be cautious about making specific declarations, and that we should wait for proposals from other countries, especially those which have strong economies. If, however, the EU wants to be a leader in the fight against climate change, it must present specific proposals and specific solutions, especially because part of the problem is our internal affair, as is the cofinancing mechanism. It is our duty to negotiate a fair agreement with developing countries. The poorest countries of the world have contributed to climate change to the least extent and, at the same time, are bearing the greatest consequences of that change. The significant dependence of many of the poor countries on agriculture and fishing, and also their weak infrastructure, leave them in a very difficult situation when it comes to climate change. Over the last four years, Africa, which is the poorest continent and one of the most exposed to the consequences of climate change, has received less than 12% of the funds which are available for fighting climate change. This is not the way to persuade such countries to become involved in the process. Thijs Berman (NL) Mr President, in the Pacific region, thousands of people are having to move because their islands are being flooded; in Sudan, the livestock is dying of thirst. Everyone has seen the pictures, and the most important thing with regard to these and other effects of climate change is that the polluter must pay. In Copenhagen this December, the world faces the historic task of giving substance to those words. However, Oxfam calculates that, to date, three quarters of changes in poor countries have been made by the countries themselves. Meanwhile, the oil disappears unhindered from these developing countries, often without fair payment reaching their treasuries. In the future, climate change will cost developing countries more than EUR 100 billion per year. This money goes not towards development but merely towards creating the preconditions for development, as a Pacific island may just escape submersion thanks to climate policy, or desertification may be prevented, so that people can continue to live and work where they want. Of course, there are climate measures that can also stimulate the development of poor countries. Planting trees helps to combat desertification. At present, however, money for climate policy comes mainly from development-policy funds, and that is unacceptable. 'No new funds,' says Commissioner
{'language': 'en'}