Proposition 53K1898

Proposition de résolution relative à la conférence sur le climat de Durban qui aura lieu du 28 novembre au 9 décembre 2011.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Nov. 23, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

greenhouse gas financing climate change environmental protection resolution of parliament development aid reduction of gas emissions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 24, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the text we report today is the result of the work of the Special Committee on Climate and Sustainable Development, which was commissioned by the Conference of Presidents to adopt a position of the House in view of the next Durban Climate Summit.

The debates were animated and mainly focused on the formulation of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.

The first part of the discussion focused on the place left to the Regions. by Mr. Calvo considered that the fact of requesting the agreement of the Regions in addition to other conditions made it impossible to ⁇ such an objective. by Mr. Wollants replied that it is logical to ask for the agreement of the Regions, given the competences that are recognized to them in the special laws. Ms. Lalieux then proposed to use the term “concertation” rather than “agreement”. In the same spirit, Ms. Muylle proposed to resume the terms of the agreement reached between the negotiators of a future government. In this text, negotiations between the federal government and the Regions are mentioned.

by Mr. Clarinval estimated that the decision not to extend the life of the power plants now makes the target of a 30% reduction impossible. Furthermore, the absence of a comprehensive agreement and negotiation for a future government allowed her not to support Mrs. Muylle’s amendment. This amendment, however, was adopted by nine votes against two and one abstention.

A second part of the debate focused on the need to explicitly condition the 30% reduction of greenhouse gases to the fact that it does not hinder Europe’s competitive position. This was the position of Mr. Wollants and Clarinval. Ms Fonck and Lalieux opposed that this condition be express. by Mr. Calvo, on the other hand, proposed a separate amendment where economic concerns and access to energy are taken back. The amendment of Mr. Calvo was adopted by the whole committee minus one abstention.

by Mr. Clarinval introduced an amendment aimed at removing the point regarding the establishment of an independent income mechanism to guarantee the financing of the Climate Fund. According to M. Clarinval, this could be a way to introduce a CO2 tax, which he opposes. This amendment was rejected.

The entire proposal was adopted by 9 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence. De Bont abstained in all the votes.

Mr. Speaker, I had agreed with Mrs. Vienne that she would present the full report because it was a limited text. I would like to come to my own speech.

Currently, there is a proposal for a resolution that fits the Durban framework. This is, like last year, another way to explore how we should prepare ourselves to reach an international agreement at the climate conference.

The international agreement we are looking for should actually come faster and faster. After all, the Kyoto Protocol is coming to an end and that urges us to look for an alternative. For me, the most important thing about the Durban conference is that international agreement, or the way there, so that we can avoid the dangerous global warming and stay with the overall temperature rise of two degrees Celsius. Of course, there should also be talks about, among other things, framework measures and funding, but I feel that the international agreement is the most important.

Today there is a resolution that does not directly relate to Durban. The signal we want to give from the House is that we want to develop initiatives in the fight against global warming and in achieving our goals. Like the previous time, the discussion focuses on whether we should unilaterally raise the 30 % target, or within the framework of the European Commission, which in any case takes the step towards the 30 %.

We have worked with the basic text of the Ecolo-Green! group. That text draws on a number of concrete points related to the 30 % target. First, an international agreement must be reached. Secondly, we must give the good example. Third, it is established that we are almost there, but not yet completely. Fourth, we need to take steps forward.

We can succeed in moving to a new level. We can ensure that all countries can follow us.

If we look at the first point, namely the international agreement, we must conclude that the step from the conditional 30 % to 30 % unilaterally will not necessarily make other countries follow us. I explain myself more closely. As the European Union is taking the most steps, we have always offered to go to 30%, if the other Member States would participate. Today we say that we are still opting for the 30% target. This is not a reason for other countries to follow us. This seems to me obvious. However, such a position will not harm the debate either.

I come to the second point: we are almost there. The original applicants said that there are still 4 % to be bridged over, up to 20 %. We must, of course, also say that this applies to the EU-27 and that we are talking about the figures for 2009. In the meantime, we have gone a little further from that goal. If we look at the EU-15, we find that at the moment we are not at 16%, but at 10%, which is actually primarily based on the fact that we have reduced emissions of all greenhouse gases, such as F-gases and ammonia, except that of CO2.

The reduction in CO2 emissions is mainly due – we must be honest in this regard – to the current economic crisis. We hope, however, that we will soon get out of that again, which may allow us to see emissions peak again and the gap grow again. The closure of a number of nuclear power plants – Ms. Vienne has cited it – as part of the nuclear withdrawal will, of course, make it much more difficult for our country.

Furthermore, I would like to point out, like the applicants, that it would actually be a good thing for us to go to 30%. It doesn’t really matter if other countries follow us, because it’s good for ourselves anyway. It is good to save costs, it is good for the competitive position of our companies.

The text therefore contains a lot of good provisions, which we also pointed out at the beginning of the discussion. We want to take a step in the right direction, we can discuss the text and we want to help implement it.

Does that mean we agree with everything? That is another question. We would like to help, unlike CD&V with Mr. Van den Bergh, for which the text can not even be the basis. Mr. Calvo will remember that. I quote from the report: “Jef Van den Bergh reaffirms his group’s commitment to the EU’s approach to the reduction target. This is a conditional increase of the target to 30 % if other countries make similar efforts. CD&V will never be able to agree with any other point of view on this.”But there are more things, which the CD&V would never do. However, I think it is a punitive move that she has changed her mind within a month.

I am, of course, not the spokesman of the CD&V group. I have a lot of ambition, but I don’t have that ambition. I understand that everything is very confrontational for Mr. Wollants, because it is the second time in relatively short time that the N-VA is caught in speed by CD&V. The first was about state reform. CD&V chose to take responsibility and split B-H-V with us. Today we are talking about climate. CD&V stands around the table with the climate progressive parties. You choose the side and CD&V will work with us for a resolution of 30%.

I would like to thank the CD&V colleagues sincerely and with great conviction for this.

Mr. Calvo, I understand that you find this a top transfer, but some straight line would be nice, I think.

Some of the things I just mentioned, which were actually an inspiration from Mr. Calvo, are also behind our hearts. I think the international agreement is important because we know that Europe currently emits only 14% of those emissions. This percentage is becoming smaller every year, even if our emissions remain at the same level as other countries are increasing emissions. That is why this international agreement is so important.

The second point that is important to us is that if our companies are getting better from the goal of 30%, we should do the same.

The third point is that we must keep the emission reduction at the level that is competent for it. We all know that the regions are primarily responsible for the environment and greenhouse gas emissions. This is stated in the special law. The FOD Environment says this too. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed this in March.

So we are here at a level that will decide on the goal that will eventually be carried out by others. If we look at our current target – 15 % in the non-ETS – we must conclude that the efforts to do so have not yet been distributed among the regions. I can also tell you why this is so. The National Climate Commission has been curbed about the approach. This would take place gradually because not all matters can be handled simultaneously. The objectives of the Climate and Energy Package are at a number of different times.

Within that National Climate Commission there have been two cabinets that have formally opposed it. They only wanted to deal with the entire package. This was, for information, the cabinet of Mr. Henry and that of Mrs. Huytebroeck.

Mr. Calvo, you are shaking your head? I would like to give you the report in which it is all read.

If we want a reduction in emissions, it is high time that we let the regions take action to realize something, instead of letting the federal mother-in-law determine a number of matters for which the federal level ultimately does not turn itself. It’s very nice to make the goals as high as possible as long as you don’t have to accomplish them yourself.

Despite all this, we have worked in the working group of the special climate committee on a text that I think could be largely supported by everyone. Mr Schiltz has drafted the text. I agreed with it then. Many parties agreed at the time, but we have come to the conclusion that – again – the Ecolo-Groen group! He could not get there, for a number of reasons.

First, the role of the regions is too large. The Provinces will eventually have to do it all, and yet they want to put them out of play at the federal level.

Second, to reach an international climate agreement. I think that is very important. That 86%, which Europe does not decide on, is exactly the emissions that we will have to take with us to limit the temperature rise to 2°C.

Third, an increase to 30 % can only be achieved if it does not compromise the competitive position of our companies. The applicants suggested that the companies would even progress on this. However, they did not want to link them together. In my opinion, this means that one does not believe that the competitive position improves, but that one fears that it will decline.

I am very sorry, but our group considers competitiveness so important that we want to support an increase to 30 % only if competitiveness is assured.

In itself, our condition is not unreasonable. After all, when I hear the motivation of a number of parties, I must conclude that everyone has committed to the competitive position, but they do not want to link. Under the aforementioned condition, you must also understand that we cannot support the text.

In addition, the text that was eventually replaced is the text that would come from the negotiations and has been agreed between all parties. and green! Maybe they would also agree.

The text goes very far. Furthermore, the text submitted by Mrs. Muylle is not the text effectively agreed upon.

You know that.

I know that.

Mrs. Muylle, we have contacted your colleagues at the Cabinet-Schauvlieghe. They have confirmed that the text is not correct.

Therefore, if there is an agreement, we may be able to read what is stated in the agreement. What you have done is even harvesting that agreement again.

Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to make another attempt to come here to a carried text. We have submitted an amendment that includes the increase to 30%, as well as the international climate agreement and the competitive position of our companies.

We offer the amendment to you. Per ⁇ then we can come to a text that everyone can stand behind. In the current form, we cannot continue with the text.

Mr. President, Mr. Wollants, I thank you for your presentation and also for referring to several points cited during the discussions. However, I would like to introduce some nuance.

When I hear your statement and read the amendment you submitted to the banks, I am somewhat surprised that you include the provision “30% to 30%” in the text. This means that you agree to a reduction at European level of 28 to 29%, but that you link the competitive position to it. In the framework of the resolution, however, we also linked the competitive position to the percentage.

Colleagues, which we have linked to, is a social justice agenda, which we also consider important.

So we were able to connect the two things. We find them as important as you. In addition to competitiveness, social justice is also important. Therefore, in the text presented today, there is a bit more balance.

I would like to thank the Commissioners for their cooperation.

I think that this resolution has been made in a good way and that what is ahead is a good and far-reaching resolution. Based on the start we have taken, there are a few elements in the text – the basic text provided by the colleagues of Ecolo and Green! It was submitted – came that were important to us, so that it has become a more balanced text, especially in terms of efforts that need to be done internationally. I think the previous speaker referred to the fact that Europe only accounts for 10 to 15 % of global emissions, which means that many other actors need to commit. We have been the requesting party to include the percentages, the range that has been internationally agreed – both for the industrialised countries and for the developing countries and not in the least also for the BRIC countries, which should be treated differently than the developing countries – in the text, which for us gives a bit more balance to the text.

A second point added to it is the long-term vision. I hear more and more in the debates that we are moving away from 2020 or 2030 and actually already taking a position with respect to 2050. In that sense, I am also pleased that the colleagues have added to the text our adjustments regarding the percentages and the range to be achieved by 2050 in the context of global warming. I think this only reinforces the text.

The most important element that we would have liked to see changes to the resolution is that goals should be measurable, reportable and verified. Therefore, I do not follow the N-VA colleague, when he says that the text has little to do with Durban. If there is something important in Durban, then it is just that we are going to look at the state of affairs internationally, both for the countries listed in Annex 1 and for those listed in Annex 2. We must be able to identify the accomplishments in the framework of Kyoto and what further needs to be done, such as the mechanisms for the future to measure and verify this. That is the most important point of Durban, colleague, and in that sense the text has also been adjusted.

As a final point, I would point out that we will speak with one voice within the framework of the United Nations. I would like to thank the Commissioners for accepting our proposals.

The above text is, in my opinion, balanced and prepares us to go to Durban.

Mr. Speaker, I am not registered, but would like to respond to Mrs. Muylle’s statement. Otherwise you might take your dreams for truth and think that the Flemish Interest Faction no longer exists. If you are talking about a text that everyone agrees with, of course, you no longer think of the Flemish Interest.

I would like to point out that through this intermediate expression...

Madam, you react to the intervention, but if you want to intervene on the basis, you will be pleased to register. You will have the word in your turn.

Mr. Speaker, I respond to what Mrs. Muylle said.

If this is a question to Mrs. Molly, you are intervening now. If this is an intervention, you sign up!

I respond to the very intermediate statement of Mrs. Muylle.

I would like to point out, as N-VA has also pointed out, that this Belgian left gives a very perverse way the opportunity to take its battle home, after keeping the Flemish Interest even out of the discussions by setting up a special working group under the presidency of Mr Schiltz.

Mr Schiltz did not present at home at the last committee meeting. Then only the only one of the four voting N-VA’ers had to be persuaded to vote against the Flemish interests.

Therefore, Mrs. Muylle held this very moderate presentation.

I think and hope that this has not succeeded, but this resolution could be accepted so thanks to CD&V in the committee with a significant Belgian-left majority.

It still has little value at the moment, because the crucial point, the unilateral implementation of European CO2 reduction ...

Mrs. De Bont, this is no longer a question but an intervention. If you want to participate, sign up like everyone else.

What is your question to Mrs. Moore?

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Muylle says that she wishes to negotiate this with the Communities first. I would like to ask her when she wants to do so, as the suitcases are already ready to go to Durban.

We will do this at the appropriate time.

Now the suitcases for Durban are ready!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. If we want to prevent climate efforts from falling down after 2012, after Kyoto, we must push forward new targets next month in Durban. New goals, but more ambitious goals. Colleagues, 20% is no longer enough, we must raise the barrier and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.

We must, of course, consult with the provinces. They must be able to fully support these objectives. I have heard no one in the committee claim the opposite. However, the federal government must also take its responsibility in this regard. It must be the engine behind a more ambitious climate policy and must try with all its conviction to get the states on board.

Belgium is not an island. A more ambitious climate policy will only have real effect if it is applied on a much larger scale. Ideally at a global level. However, we cannot demand the same efforts from developing countries as from industrialized countries. Let us not forget that industrialized countries are historically the biggest polluters.

We need to agree on a comprehensive approach at least at European level. Belgium should also play a role in this debate.

Of course, we are aware that a heavy economic storm is coming. We must make sure that the European climate policy does not make the European economy extra difficult, but we must also not hide behind the economic difficulties. The forceful reduction of greenhouse gases does not necessarily hinder economic growth. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible to reconcile ecology and economy. The greening of the economy is also a way to realize growth and maybe, colleague Wollants, even a much better way.

The SPA will fully approve this resolution and thank all those who have contributed to it.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on the occasion of this debate, the MR wishes to reaffirm its support for a extension of the Kyoto Protocol. It is important to conclude an international agreement for the coming years in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, we should not hinder the competitiveness of our companies in the global market. The Minister is ⁇ attentive to this issue.

Indeed, it should be noted that, since the Cancun World Summit, several new elements have intervened in Belgium and around the world and will exert an undeniable influence on our socio-economic position. First, the financial and fiscal crises our country faces are more serious than ever. It will become increasingly difficult to use financial margins in favour of these issues, as our country will have to reduce its budget by several billion euros. Social and economic emergencies will increasingly relativize the amounts to be unlocked for these policies.

Then, the current uncertainty around the nuclear output will make financial and energy-related increasingly uncertain the possibility of reaching the greenhouse gas reduction targets. In the event of an uncontrolled exit from nuclear power, we should fear a sharp increase in imports of carbonated energy and a significant increase in electricity tariffs for our fellow citizens. In this regard, the Plan Bureau speaks of at least 21.5 billion investments to be made in the next twenty years to simply ⁇ the current goals. It also mentions an annual increase of 840 megawatts of new energy production. For comparison, this represents 420 onshore wind turbines per year for twenty years!

These figures represent a doubling of the investment made on average in the last ten years in our territory. This goal is very ambitious.

Therefore, it is urgent to put in place a massive investment plan in energy production – in the negative, we will not ⁇ our goals – without suffering from tariff increases and increased imports that jeopardize our energy independence.

Furthermore, in the resolution we voted last year, we had very clearly stated that greenhouse gas reduction targets should be distributed specifically between the transport, building and industry sectors. Indeed, it is obvious that the residential sector is ⁇ lagging behind the industrial sector and that the latter will have to benefit from the investments, the significant efforts it has made in the past. This aspect of things is not clear enough in this text, and I regret it.

Finally, the text of the resolution innovates compared to the text of last year, speaking in point 2.16 of a specific and climate-independent revenue mechanism. At MR, we interpret this as a CO2 tax. Therefore, in order to remove any ambiguity in relation to our position, we have submitted an amendment which is on your table and which provides that in the event that this mechanism, this tax would be established, it should be compensated by a reduction of the burden that weighs on work, so as not to penalize the competitiveness of our companies.

If we get a favorable vote on our amendment, our group will reconsider the vote held in committee and will support the compromise text, as it is a compromise text, as amended. In the negative, we will maintain our opposition.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, at the dawn of the Durban World Summit, it is ⁇ important to be an example in terms of sustainable development, but it is also important to be ⁇ careful not to penalize our companies already very hard hit by crises.

I thank you for your attention.

First of all, I would like to make a technical consideration. So, on page 40, I insist on the fact that the correct version is the Dutch version. Indeed, in the last sentence of point 2.11 there is a small "shell" in the French version of the text.

Dear colleagues, it would not have been responsible for the Parliament not adopting a position before the Durban Conference in view of a “after Kyoto”, a “after 2012” and that Belgium has, in some way, arrived there with empty hands.

While it is only a resolution, it is still an important element in view of the Durban Conference, but also in view of the issues related to global warming.

This "after 2012", this "after Kyoto" must first be defined on a scientific basis. In this regard, the IPCC’s work is “the” reference and must be “our” reference.

The CDH wanted a strong position of Belgium, an ambitious, unambiguous position, clearly advocating for a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 and this without conditionality.

Does being environmentally ambitious mean we are undermining the competitiveness of our companies? No to No! On the contrary, as long as it is done intelligently. Because being environmentally ambitious is completely compatible with the same economic ambition. In addition, several elements testify to this. Indeed, we need a real industrial revolution that promotes future jobs, sectors and green jobs. Increasing the level of European ambition to 30 % will give these companies a breath and create jobs.

We are also in favor of a reduction in the tax on labour and a shift from this tax to environmental taxation.

Finally, there can be no question of accepting that European companies are penalized compared to non-European companies, specifically from countries that do not have this type of ambitions. To name only two, it is true that the United States and China are clearly reluctant at this stage to set themselves an ambitious goal.

However, in order to preserve the global competitiveness of our companies, the most appropriate instrument is an international agreement in which efforts are comparable for all countries. But, if not, the CDH wanted to introduce the possibility of recourse to other instruments such as an import tax for non-European companies of course, then incorporating the carbon component. Thus, European companies would not have to suffer a ⁇ unfair disadvantage compared to other companies.

These different elements testify to the fact that we have been attentive – the challenge is major given the current context – to preserve the competitiveness of our companies and thus to preserve employment.

Two solutions are available to us on the environmental level and on the plan of preserving our planet: to survive or to act. Our choice is clearly to act and not leave a major environmental debt to our children and grandchildren.

We broadly support this text and I hope that, despite everything, we will soon have a very broad majority, wider than in commission. Anyone can change their mind!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Socialist Group welcomes the adoption of this resolution by our assembly. This resolution supports a serious goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is above all a necessity for our environment. Indeed, only a substantial reduction in our emissions will effectively limit the rise in global temperature.

By taking adequate measures today, we avoid negative and irreversible impacts on biodiversity, sea level, economy, and our well-being in general. Therefore, by supporting a 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the European Union, without conditions, Belgium takes a position not only indispensable, but also mandatory and responsible towards future generations.

As the committee hearings reminded us, the positive impacts that such a decrease will have on our society will include reducing energy bills, improving our health and creating jobs.

In this regard, this resolution also recalls a key point for the PS: the importance of organizing a fair transition to a low-carbon economy. It is for public officials to make sure to organize a transition to a greener economy, which actually takes into account workers. Because, let’s not doubt, many sectors are called to adapt to new environmental requirements.

But, generally and as a filigrane of this resolution, it is a carrying vision of a sustainable society project that is drawn, both at the social, environmental and economic level.

Next week in Durban, countries from all over the world will meet in the framework of the UN to discuss the efforts of each. Europe will have to speak with one voice if it wants to have a strong position, that is, to require ambitious efforts from each one, which are part of a common and binding framework.

In order for the European Union to remain coherent between, on the one hand, its objectives and, on the other hand, its means, the Belgian government must now be part of those who support a common European policy of unilateral 30% reduction of greenhouse gases.

It is therefore because we are aware of the challenges for our planet and for future generations that the Socialist Group and I will vote for a text that sets constructive and ambitious goals.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to thank all members of the Climate Committee and its President for making sure that a consensus resolution text could be presented today, and will, if necessary, be adopted during this session.

Although some formations, in the end, did not want to support the text, I think I can say that the will of the majority of parliamentarians who participated in this committee was to find a consensus gathering the majority of the political formations. The new amendments presented today are proof of this. They may allow us to obtain an even wider majority.

After Copenhagen and Cancun, the Durban Conference must represent another important step, which we would like to be decisive, in the fight against global warming.

In a debate like this in this Parliament, there are two ways to approach the issue. The first way is to approach it within the framework of the Belgian "poto-poto", where institutions and regions look at each other as faenish dogs wondering who will start. I do not think this is the best option to answer Mr. Wollants referred to the case of ministers Henry and Huytebroeck. If you have any documents to provide us, I ask you to do so.

I also ask you to compare the figures of the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region within the framework of the “Fast Start”, i.e. additional financial means, and to compare these figures with those from other levels of power. This may cause you to review your copy.

That being said, the second option is to take the height and give yourself broader goals.

I will be happy to deliver these documents. I still have documents, including one that proposes a distribution key, as included in the government agreements of the Brussels Capital Region and the Wall Street Region. Both the Brussels Capital Region and the Waals Region have said carrément njet. When it comes to setting goals, everything is good and well, but when a distribution needs to be made, one does not give home. I think this is not correct.

Just two days ago, the Walloon Region issued another two million in the framework of the "Fast Start", which is not the case for all the Regions in this country. But that is not serious!

By submitting a proposal for a resolution, my colleagues Kristof Calvo and Thérèse Snoy and I wanted to submit a first text of proposal in connection with the Durban Conference. Since this text was welcomed positively by most of our colleagues, a working group could be formed so that a consensus text could be produced. The proposal was approved by a majority of the members of the committee.

The Durban Commission will undoubtedly be a transition conference. After the possibly excessive expectations of Copenhagen and the unanimous disappointment that followed, the Cancun Conference helped to put the multilateral negotiation process back on track. Today, as the first Kyoto commitment period ends in 2012, the Durban Conference opens next week after a year of stumbling in international negotiations.

However, it is essential that the international community set new goals and provide at least a roadmap for the post-Kyoto. In this context, the role of Europe seems to us crucial.

Asking the House to take over the debate on the issues of the Durban Conference, the environmentalists wanted to recall the urgency of action. Reports are multiplying and all indicate the same trend: current commitments will not keep warming below the 2°C limit by the end of the century. If this scenario is confirmed, the consequences of climate change will be colossal and dramatic for hundreds of millions of people around the world and for the political, social and economic situation of many countries.

I would also like to remind you that according to a recent Stern report, the estimated cost of an effective fight against climate change is only 1% of the global GDP, while the impact of letting go would be at least 20% of that GDP.

During his hearing, Peter Wittoeck, head of SPF Environment’s Climate Change Service, was not moving in another direction. Mr. Wollants, when you say that it is the authors who say that there is an advantage in reducing emissions, it was an audition of an expert – you were there too – and the latter clearly mentioned the social, economic, health and environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gases.

I would like to believe you, but I do not immediately see the problem why this should not be included in the text. If the increase to 30 % effectively represents a competitive advantage, why is that not included in the text?

Simply because we have the impression that the emergency is advancing! A year ago, a resolution was voted that your group did not, of course, vote for, and that went in the direction of 30% at European level without mentioning conditions. Also, adding new conditions, while the competitiveness of companies is defended in the text, did not seem relevant to us.

It would be a condition that you now say is fulfilled in advance. Why is it not included in the text? Where is the problem of agreeing to it, if you know yourself that it is already okay?

It is in the text! Kristof Calvo submitted an amendment that takes back the defense of disadvantaged persons and the competitiveness of companies.

The amendment submitted by Mr Calvo concerns the implementation of the European climate policy. I suggest linking that to the increase to 30%. This is not in the implementation, but in the determination of the goal. That is something else.

This is a point identified in the resolution. Competitiveness must be considered for all measures to be taken to combat global warming.

So you don’t feel sure enough to add it to the increase of the goal. That is the only thing I establish. This was also stated in the speech. If you would add it, I think we would support the resolution, but you obviously do not want that.

Mr. Wollants, I want to please you. What I see is that in this parliament, a majority of political formations agree on a text and you cheat on two words. I can continue to talk about it, but...

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The most important conclusion we must make today, Mr. Wollants, is that there is a group of factions that want to take a real step and that your group wants to perform a false manoeuvre.

You intended to include a number of provisions around the 30 % in particular to clarify that that 30 % should not be achieved. That is the big difference between your faction, the Flemish Interest — about a cordon climatique, twenty years after Black Sunday — and our factions. We would like to take real steps, based on German reports for example. Normally speaking, Mr. Wollants, your faction is subjected to German reports, German studies, and German policy. This is a study by the German government that states that six million additional jobs can be created in the European Union and 0.6% additional growth can be achieved if the step is made to 30%.

We have read those German studies and today we are taking a real step rather than a false manoeuvre. That is the difference.

I would, of course, like to respond to the remarks of Mr Calvo.

These studies are coming up again and again. And again and again Mr. Calvo says it will be so. If we then ask to include it in the text, Mr. Calvo says that it will not be realized, because we will stop it.

No, we want to realize that 30%, but let us include in the text what you say here!

I think there was something wrong with the practical work. Can I ask you to submit the resolution to the N-VA banks, so that they can determine that in 2.12 the competitiveness of the European economy is included?

Mr. Speaker, all the formations that will support this text form the hope that the conclusion of the agreement in Durban will promote the necessary return of a more fruitful negotiating climate. For us, the summit must lead to concrete decisions both on a new commitment period in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and on a negotiation timetable for themes that have not yet reached maturity.

To ⁇ these partial but indispensable results, it is essential that the European Union makes its voice heard in Durban. This is the reason for the proposal presented to you today. I will not go back to the different points that make up it.

Obviously, after Durban and the positions taken at the international level, it will be up to Belgium to take on its responsibilities at the domestic level, implementing the ecological transition. These responsibilities will be on the shoulders of the members of the future government. Naturally, environmentalists will be attentive to this and will not fail to question him in this regard.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I can only rejoice that the text presented to us today is the subject of consensus and I welcome the effort made by the various political groups to ⁇ this. It can only be beneficial to everyone that the parliament can give a guideline to a government on ordinary affairs for an event of such an international scale. It’s about the seriousness of our country; it’s about a certain idea of defending international social justice; it’s about the future of our planet.

Let us call a cat a cat. If the climate was a bank, it might have been saved for a long time. I believe that addressing the financial crisis is ⁇ important, let there be no doubt about it. However, it is symptomatic that this afternoon at 14:15 am, under widespread interest, many questions were asked about the financial crisis, but that only at a later hour, and at a slightly less prominent place on our agenda, attention is paid to the climate crisis. The huge attention that, rightly, goes to the financial crisis is inversely proportional to the attention that the climate problem receives.

To stay in the same atmosphere, there is an incredible spread between what is scientifically necessary and what is politically feasible. I refer to the steps taken at the European level, at the Belgian level and at the level of the United Nations. Those who have consulted the newspaper columns of the past months could find that today we are on the way to a temperature rise of 3 to 5 degrees, while climate scientists say we should target a rise of up to 2 degrees.

You have all received the report from the Belgian North-South Movement. If we continue on that momentum, if we choose a business-as-usual scenario, then 250 million climate refugees are threatened to arrive and then we are threatened to face half a billion climate deaths in the long run. You seem a bit sufficient to laugh. You seem to find that humorous, Mr. Valkeniers. My group considers the life of everyone on this planet important, regardless of their culture or background. That is another difference between our group and your group. It is also one of the reasons why we stand on the barricade today for addressing the international climate problem.

I am a young member of Parliament. I could condemn myself to naivety, but I try to keep that within the limits. I know that this resolution of the Belgian Federal Parliament will not solve the climate problem. Nevertheless, I find it a very exciting political debate, because the resolution has an important signal function to the European government and to the citizens, and also because it is an indication of the positions taken in Parliament in other debates and will be taken.

The resolution is an indicator to distinguish, colleague Wollants and colleague De Bont, between the climate progressive groups and the climate conservative groups, between the groups that want to take their responsibility regarding the climate crisis and other groups that want to help our planet with the smile further to the lines, between the groups that see the climate crisis as an opportunity and the groups that choose broken paths, who do not want to take steps in the Flemish economy, the Flemish SMEs, the Flemish employment, the Flemish social justice.

There is a difference between the Flemish factions that consider the future of the Flemish children important, and those who do not, Mrs. De Bont.

Colleagues, as in every negotiation – and if our party gets the chance to participate in negotiations, it seizes that opportunity with both hands – the resolution has been preceded by a compromise project. There is a difference between the original text of Ecolo-Green! The text that predicts. Nevertheless, I think the result can be seen for a number of reasons. It is a valuable resolution with a number of important points.

First and foremost, the Federal Parliament, ⁇ with a loosely pronounced majority, again holds a plea for more European climate ambitions.

The arguments were submitted by the skeptics. I would like to thank Mr. Wollants for his extensive explanation of the arguments used by our group in favour of a greater European climate ambition. That’s good: we’re demonstrating climate leadership, we’re paving the way for the green economy. There are also, very importantly, according to a recent report of the European Commission health benefits. This again brings budgetary benefits. With more ambitious climate policy, we can ⁇ budget savings of 3 to 8 billion in health policy.

I find it somewhat unfair that you accuse me here of being a climate sceptic. You have read the text, which I, by the way, worked out together with CD&V. Do you think this is a text of a climate sceptic? Do you think so?

There is, of course, progress on climate positions in the N-VA. You take the opportunity to listen to the different points of view that inspire you, but it goes too slowly. Unfortunately, our group is not willing to wait for the slowest group in Parliament. Climate science is also not willing to wait until the Flemish Movement has discovered the climate problem, sorry. Our sense of responsibility is too great for that, Mr. Wollants, our green heart is too strong for that.

You say that when we take a position, that would be the reason for you to change your position. You do not feel well that a regional party, which is the N-VA, would possibly dare to go in the same direction. You do not feel that. You do not want it. You do not want to acknowledge that there are parties that are going in the right direction.

I have an incredible...

You do not want it, and that is the only truth.

The use of terms like the “absolute truth”: that’s a bit of the house style of the N-VA. Mr. Wollants, I have an incredible urge for conversion, but I have given up hope to adopt a climate-ambitious resolution together with your group. I gave up that hope after a number of debates. I apologize for this, my energy is renewable, but not endless.

Colleagues, a second important point is the clear commitment to go with the European Union for a second Kyoto commitment period. The Kyoto Protocol is not perfect, but it is the best we have. So let’s especially continue with it, even if other major emitters do not engage in that system.

Thirdly, even in a budgetally difficult period, we are obliged to convert our historical responsibility for global warming as industrialized Western countries into euros and dollars. The resolution chooses to renew the commitments of Copenhagen.

Allow me to tell you a little bit about the Belgian discussions between the Regions and Communities and the federal level. These are conversations, which we all find very important. Now that the Federal Parliament formally supports a higher climate ambition for the European Union for the second time, now that the six negotiating parties, to the extent that it is still available, have committed themselves to put on the table in the Belgian consultation that 30% with strength and conviction, increases the pressure on the Flemish government with regard to their position. The Waals Region, the Brussels Region and the Federal Parliament – today for the second time – are all convinced of greater European climate ambition. Only here is also what the United States is at the international level, a bit of the crossroads, the climate conservative player. This is the Flemish government in the Belgian consultation. All other entities are convinced that Belgium must defend at European level that we go for 30%.

Following this resolution, colleague Wollants, the Flemish Region and the Peeters government are facing the choice. Either one chooses the side of Germany, France and Britain, who have all pledged for 30 percent, or one chooses the side of Poland, the member state that today no longer wants to impose a European climate ambition but first looks at the United States, Russia and Japan. This is the choice that the Flemish government stands for today, and even more after this resolution. Will she follow the path of Germany, Britain, Spain and France, or will she join the camp of conservative Poland?

I hope that, given your important contacts with the Flemish Cabinets, you would like to convey that message.

A second internal issue, colleagues, is the following. Whoever says A, must also say B. Those who express ambition for Europe must also dare to take the necessary steps for internal policy.

The MEPs who say we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 should choose to reduce Electrabel’s nuclear wheat gain and invest in renewable energy and energy saving. The members of Parliament who say that we should spread a path on the European and international level, I hope to hear them also advocate for a climate law on the Belgian level. The MEPs who say there needs to be more European climate ambition, I hope to find back in the debate around taxation to somewhat shake off the 4.1 billion tax incentives for commercial cars in the framework of a major tax reform.

From those same colleagues who today, together with the Ecolo-Green! group, approve this beautiful compromise text, I hope that they will also be willing to contribute to the climate financing that we agreed on in Copenhagen.

For a green group, it is easy to take this position. For other groups, who look at society with different glasses, that is more difficult, and therefore I have a lot of respect for the position that colleague Clarinval has taken today and during previous debates.

It is seeking political and social support for climate policy. You don’t create it on one, two, three.

In any case, with this resolution in hand, I will say to all of you at the internal Belgian and Flemish debates that what we ask of Europe, we must also do ourselves. And we will do it with green! and Ecolo with the same conviction with which we vote in favour of this resolution.

It is thanks to CD&V that this minority and Mr. Calvo have entered this battle. To use his populist words: My children and grandchildren will be grateful to me for not blindly following him to further pull the Flemish majority of this country into the economic abyss.