Proposition 54K3416

Proposition de résolution visant à repositionner la Belgique dans le débat climatique.

General information ¶

Authors

DéFI Véronique Caprasse
Ecolo Georges Gilkinet, Jean-Marc Nollet, Sarah Schlitz
Groen Meyrem Almaci, Kristof Calvo
LE Michel de Lamotte
PS | SP Daniel Senesael
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

UN Conference sustainable development climate climate change environmental policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

∉ PP

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Dec. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Ms An Capoen and Mr Michel de Lamotte.

Mr. Speaker, I was instructed to submit a verbal report, but thanks to the rapid operation of the services of the Chamber, I can refer to the written report with a safe conscience.

You and the services were praised, Mrs. Capoen.

Mr Nollet has the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last ten days, we have held here two debates on the same subject, then organized an exchange of views with the Prime Minister, before also discussing them during an interpellation. I would not want to minimise the time of the vote that is approaching. Behind this text and the commitments made there, there are new advances. You know that Parliament has already done useful work on this subject, participating in the preparation of an interparliamentary resolution shortly before COP24. This document already contained several targets for 2050, which are included in this proposal.

That said, we are going further. Once again, the House shows the government the path to follow. Unfortunately, the latter has experienced, at least, some road mistakes, especially in recent days. Indeed, as we have already indicated, the federal government has placed our country at the bottom of the European peloton, so that we find ourselves in the only company of the Czech Republic in terms of voting on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Would I dare to say, Mrs. Minister, that we will now turn exclusively towards the future thanks to this new signal of departure that will be given here, I hope, as it has been recently in the commission?

In fact, we voted on the proposal for a resolution with a very large majority.

This text contains three points.

First, we ask the federal government that Belgium join the group of ambitious countries. We know that it missed the car at COP24, leaving other Member States to show ambition in this area. Whether the representatives of our country arrived by train or airplane, and sometimes late, it is always that the signature of Belgium did not appear at the bottom of the call for an ambitious project.

This has been pointed out, not only by your colleagues, but also by the 75,000 protesters who have recently mobilized peacefully in the streets of Brussels. They wanted to say how much what the federal government has done over the last four years is not up to the climate challenge.

Things are changing now and that is good. Others besides me will speak in this tribune and ⁇ insist more on the second point of this resolution. The second point is numbered, and this is rare in our resolutions. It is rare to see commitments as precise as those that are now in the text that will be submitted to your vote soon.

I will mention two figures. The first is the goal that the federal government will now have to defend at the European level. The aim is to ⁇ a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55%. The second figure is the one that targets 2050, with a reduction of these gases of at least 95%. Yes, these numbers are ambitious, but yes, these numbers are necessary if we want to address the climate challenge and if we want Europe to do its part of the work, given its historical responsibility in this matter.

This second point, Mrs. Minister, you will be charged with going to bring it, both to the consultation committee, as you began to do, it seems, Wednesday, but also, as soon as possible, at the European level. I am proud, dear colleagues, to point out that at the initiative of the ecologists, the Walloon Parliament has adopted a similar resolution today, unanimously, in order to ⁇ these same numbered objectives.

This is the third point that I would like to emphasize today. In fact, he is committed for the next. You know, Mr. Thiéry, this is a long-term work, which has already led us to the interparliamentary committee, and which brings us together here in plenary session, through COP23, in particular, where we were present, also with Mr. Senesael.

It is factual!

Yes, this part is purely factual. Mr. Senesael will confirm that we were together at the same COP. The third point on which I am referring is very important. The National Energy-Climate Plan that was adopted in the Consultation Committee is totally insufficient, you know, Mrs. Minister. You confirm that what you have done is insufficient. What the government adopted yesterday in the consultation committee, the National Energy-Climate Plan, does not reflect what is in the resolution. That is why the Prime Minister has committed here even to the rapid updating of the National Energy-Climate Plan.

Currently, the target you have set in the National Energy-Climate Plan is 35% less greenhouse gases. It must be imagined that what the Parliament will adopt today imposes you a famous upward revision since we move from less 35% to less 55% at the European level, which means about less 50% for Belgium. I have not made the exact calculations but you will make the precisions that you find useful soon.

The same applies to renewable energy where, for now in our proposals for the National Energy-Climate Plan, we turn around 18%, while much higher figures need to be reached to meet the climate challenge.

My call, Madame the Minister, aims to ensure that the vote on this resolution constitutes a new starting point for the National Energy-Climate Plan that needs to be adjusted very quickly, including with this government in current affairs. From this point of view, my group as a whole, but I believe it is the case for other groups as well, stands at the disposal of this minority government to make the National Energy-Climate Plan evolve in the right direction, so that in two or three months, we will be at the appointment fixed by the Prime Minister of an adjusted national plan and at the height of the ambitions contained in this resolution.

It is with great satisfaction that this resolution has been widely adopted in the committee.

I will not extend myself to those who are still skeptical and who still resist, since they are not in sufficient number. Moreover, they are no longer in sufficient political power to block this vote that, for months or even years, you have not been able to follow, probably with regret, Mr. Thiéry. Let go today! Today, you can join the "good side of history", to resume the words of the prime minister, on a theme that is dear to us, which is dear to you too, I hope, and especially on a theme that engages us in relation to future generations. The vote will take place, but it is just beginning. It is the translation into concrete measures that will count and it is at the height of these measures and the height of their ambition that we will all be judged in the coming months. This is only a starting point.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this is a bit of a bizarre discussion, because we have already spoken about the resolution this week in the context of the interpellations on the same subject and now do it again today. I’m not going to tell you anything else now than then. My work is not so short. There are others who can do it better.

For us, it remains a matter in which action needs to be taken. It is very easy to push percentages forward without attaching a package of measures to it, because then it remains in the dust. Therefore, we would have much rather discussed what measures should be taken, where those percentages are realistic and feasible. This is a matter that is reversed here. We explained this last time too. First, a goal is set. Only then will be seen how this will be achieved.

I know the measures contained in the Flemish climate plan, but so far very little is known about the other measures that will be taken. That’s measures related to –35%, a fine translation of what has already been pushed forward by Europe in the past, in view of Horizon 2030.

In order to move forward in this debate, I think it is appropriate, Mrs. Minister, that you explain to us how far you are today with the implementation of your commitments for the burden sharing of 2020. You have taken that commitment. You have made the effort commitment that you would take support measures for 7 000 kilotons, new PAMs (Politics and Measures), in addition to what has been done for years in the field of renewable energy, at the level of the NMBS. I would like to hear from you what is already in the 7 000 kilotons measures today and how far we are in this regard. Will we get those 7,000 kilotons or not? I would like to explain more about this so that we at least know which game we are playing.

After all, we can increase the target, but if it turns out that today, in connection with those 7 000 kilotons, we are not really where we should be, in so far as this must be done at the federal level, then I would of course first want to know what we are doing in relation to the West. I find it interesting to hear that.

It is clear that we will not approve this resolution. At the vote, we will abstain because we believe that there is absolutely no clarity today about how the measures will be implemented.

We also know that the majority of these measures must be translated by the regions, which has also been very clearly highlighted in the committee. It seems to me that it is just as convenient for the Wests to have their words about it, so that they can get to work with it. I know that the Waals Region has also set itself on the 55% line. I have heard that the resolution in the Brussels Region has not yet been dealt with in some way and in the Flemish Region the resolution has not been dealt with. Nevertheless, I think it is important to look at what is possible at regional level. The Flemish figures were recently ⁇ by Minister Schauvliege and they are therefore known. Compared to 2005, the peak point, Flanders is 0.5 % better. So we are still very far from that 55%. It took ten years to ⁇ an improvement of 0.5%. There are still twelve years to complete the remaining proportion, namely 54.5%. Without a clear policy opposite, it seems to me a very strange story.

Those who read the current Flemish climate plan know what it means to go to 55%. This means, among other things, that around 9 to 10 million tonnes of CO2 in Flanders must be extra saved. In proportion, this is equivalent to the emissions of all buildings in Flanders. By 2030, all buildings in Flanders must be climate-neutral in order to ⁇ that percentage. This seems to all of us to be quite extensive commitments.

We like to see accounting. It is digitized, in the sense that there are numbers in the resolution. However, I miss a quantification of the effective measures, which I am very curious about. This work is mainly for the regions.

Mrs. Minister, I would like to hear from you what you will do at the federal level and how far it is with the 7 000 kilotons, about which the measures should have been on the table already in 2016.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mr. Nollet and his colleagues for initiating this resolution proposal, which we have co-signed, because the latest IPCC report is unambiguous: all sights are red and, since the pre-industrial era, the global temperature has already increased by about one degree Celsius. Without reversing the curve of greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature rise could reach 5.5 degrees by the end of the century.

In other words, the status quo leads us straight to the catastrophe, and it is not tomorrow that the negative consequences will be felt: it is already a daily reality everywhere on the planet. Temperature records beaten year after year, heat waves, flooding rains, devastating hurricanes testify every day that climate change is no longer a prediction but a reality experienced by populations across the planet.

In the face of climate emergency, we must go faster, stronger and farther. Without strong political measures, it will be impossible to respect the Paris Agreement. This is the fundamental message of this resolution. The Socialist Group supports this text, which joins the demands we have made for months. We advocated the inclusion of this target of reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 in the interparliamentary resolution voted in October.

At that time, our efforts had been systematically blocked by some. But I see, today, with pleasure and even happiness, that a large majority supports this renewed ambition. I hope that this is not just of opportunism and that this support will be realised by actions in the coming months and years because, let’s not be mistaken, this resolution is indeed a starting point. It implies that the Belgian diplomacy will go looking for European allies to move all the EU member states.

It also involves that the federal, Mrs. Minister, and the Regions set up budgets and measures that will accelerate the reduction of our polluting emissions. This goes through investments in public transport, building insulation, sustainable agriculture, etc. In fact, it comes through a change in all aspects of our lives. This is a major challenge, but it is also and above all an extraordinary opportunity to redefine our model of social development.

Environmental protection must go hand in hand with improving the social conditions of our populations. We must therefore seize our potential in terms of education, technical skills, technological development and citizen consciousness to reinvent our modes of production and consumption so that they are compatible with a high level of social well-being and a healthy environment.

This resolution thus traces the horizon for 2030 and 2050, but much remains to be done. I therefore hope that my colleagues who today support this text will be there tomorrow and after tomorrow when it is necessary to liberate budgets, take courageous measures and oppose the lobbying of automotive, finance or fossil fuels.

The future is not what will happen, but what we will do. And, like Churchill, I like to say to you, before the end of the year, that: "It is better to take change by hand before it takes us by the throat."

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, Mr. Nollet, what considerable progress since COP21, when everyone thought that, after the resolution on which we had worked together, everyone was cooked! Ultimately, we realized that in the meantime, we had been able to work together on the development of a resolution that we presented on behalf of our country in Katowice – a first for our country as well as for our federated entities – knowing that it was not, for some, ambitious enough. It is true that ambition is one thing and achievement with the means that go hand in hand is another.

I will recall what I have not yet heard from my colleagues: our country – ⁇ the federal level – has not remained without doing anything. This is a fundamental element because, of course, climate is an extremely important topic, but we should not scare the population under the pretext that we are doing nothing.

I would like to recall five fundamental elements on which we have evolved lately.

1 of 1. The Federal Energy Strategy intends to implement the Paris Agreement.

2 of 2. There is not enough talk about it, but nevertheless the progress is considerable: the offshore wind turbine that will allow by 2030 to produce energy equivalent to, roughly, four nuclear power plants. This is also an achievement of this government.

3 of 3. We also talked about burden sharing. It is clear that, every year, the burden sharing will need to be revised to make sure that everyone respects their commitments.

Nevertheless, it was under this government that our federal minister managed to find an arrangement with the federal entities. This should also be ⁇ .

4 of 4. A fund, of the order of 30 million in 2018, was created to support approximately 30 energy transition initiatives.

5 to 5. Belgium was the second European country to issue green bonds, for an amount of approximately 4.5 billion euros. This will allow us to finance our transitional policies in many sectors.

I believe that these five elements, which have not yet been recalled today, deserve to be cited.

Of course, we still have a lot of road to go. The resolution proposal presented today is very ambitious. As you said, Mr. Nollet, there is no question of minimizing it: it is good to have intentions, but then you have to put them into practice.

We could be blamed for not being more ambitious since September. A number of events occurred in the meantime. The march of 75,000 citizens in Brussels, who demand even more ambition, cannot leave anyone indifferent. This march, which I participated in, is in the memory of all those who were there. It was about showing the people that if we don’t act, there will be a big problem for the future. To the population, to those 75,000 people who moved to Brussels to show their concern in the field, we must say that, yes, we went well; yes, we are moving forward. But indeed, there is still work to be done.

The second element that brings us to this more ambitious resolution proposal is of course the official IPCC report. When we met in an inter-parliamentary committee to discuss the resolution to be presented in Katowice, this report was not yet officially available.

As you can see, the figures presented by Mr. Nollet – I don’t recall them – are even more ambitious than those included in the IPCC report. This is worth pointing out.

Then, at COP24 in Katowice, things were extremely clear. Experts from all walks of life have made us aware of the urgency.

These are, of course, the reasons why we will support this proposal for a resolution. That said, we did not forget that we insisted on the need for a socio-economic impact study. Indeed, as I said in the introduction, it is very good to be ambitious, but it is even better to know how we will be able to finance these ambitions. As agreed, the government did not wait for the vote in the plenary session to forward the latter to the negotiation committee.

Finally, I would like to remind you of two aspects.

First of all, as the Prime Minister recently recalled, our will is to set up a federal climate agency, which will be responsible for reconciling all stakeholders. I think, Mrs. Minister, that you will have the opportunity to tell us how difficult it is, even today, to gather a consensus capable of helping the three Regions to find themselves there in order to accomplish the acts for which they have committed themselves in this area.

Then, and the Prime Minister also touched a word, it was at the initiative of the Walloon Parliament and – more precisely – the Walloon government that the will was expressed to organize the COP26 in Belgium to testify to the determination of our country in the climate theme.

It is for all these considerations that we will support this proposal for a resolution, the subject of which – I will conclude with this, Mr Nollet – must not be the exclusiveness of ecologists, but rather a work shared among all the factions of our Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my presentation on my bench because we have been discussing these issues for two days. I see many colleagues confirming knocking. I think the views are very clear.

We will support this resolution, because we have approved it.

The main reason for this is that we believe that the interparliamentary resolution was not ambitious enough. It was a first and important step, as the various parliaments in this country finally gave green light to a more ambitious climate policy, but it wasn’t ambitious enough. Not only do we say that, but the 75,000 people who argued two weeks ago have made it very clear. We need to be more ambitious. Not only do they say that, they are supported in this by scientists. When one asks why those numbers should be included and why we should be more ambitious, Mr. Wollants, it is because it has been shown that we will not reach the goal with what we would do now.

The goal is to save the planet. This may sound a bit pathetic, but it is. The scientists have warned in their latest report that if we do not move towards a temperature rise of 1.5 °C instead of 2 °C, this will be disastrous. You can say that there are no measures against this. One always formulates goals first and then one must find the measures that ⁇ those goals. This will indeed have to happen together with the Regions and the Communities and with everyone. It is good that we are aware that it must be, that this is the goal. If we do not do this and if we continue to pray, it will have far-reaching consequences.

Second, we must not only have an ambitious climate policy, but it must also be an ambitious socially just climate policy. That was also very clearly stated by those 75 000 people who have protested.

I would like to warn you, Mrs. Minister. We are 100% in support of the objectives in that resolution, but one must be aware that those objectives will not be achieved by merely raising taxes. It will have to be a spread and the strongest shoulders will have to carry the heaviest loads.

I hope that this government, the next government and the next parliaments will be very aware of this.

Everyone will have to contribute their stone, but the most vulnerable will also have to contribute the least or will have to receive support from the government. One must be very aware of this.

I would like to thank all colleagues, but first and foremost the colleagues of Ecolo-Groen. They initiated this resolution. It will be a new step if we can approve this here, almost unanimously. I hope that we won’t get a new Fossil of the Day award.

Mrs. Minister, you said that this resolution will help you in future talks with the Regions. I wish you a lot of success!

I have a few questions, not just on the agenda.

A draft resolution calls on the government to take certain actions. There has been a lot of debate over the past few days about what the nature of the government is. Obviously, it does not have full powers. Since it is still difficult to approve proposals of resolutions now, proposals requiring the government, which is not there, but a government in ongoing affairs, to act, we will not approve this proposal of resolution.

By the way, how should all this be financed? Of course, it is very easy to submit proposals for resolutions and to set goals, if one does not make a financial picture. One of the next items on the agenda is a budget with provisional appropriations. With such a budget, a government should not take new initiatives. We have a government in ongoing affairs.

Are we against climate policy? Absolutely not. Resources must be allocated; work must be done on this. But a closer examination of the proposal raises the question of who will pay for all that. I agree with the objectives set forth, which I also want to ⁇ together, but we should not be naive. We must be able to determine whether anything is at all feasible and how we will cost it.

Nine chances out of ten companies will be answered that they will not participate, because otherwise their competitiveness will be compromised. If one wants to put such initiatives on the roof, one must ensure – I add colleague Temmerman at that point – that the invoice eventually does not reach the ordinary man. Everyone is for the climate and one wants to contribute, but some things must be feasible.

So it consists that you need to calculate what budget you need to ⁇ the goals and examine where you will get the necessary money. These are important questions. Without a response to this, the resolution proposal makes no sense at all.

The Government is instructed to address the authorities that have to deal with this. Therefore, it is a question of cross-ship federalism, because most of those matters will have to be realized by the Regions and Communities.

For us, the climate is important. Steps must be taken, but in a realistic way, with figures, a route description and a financing plan. Then we will be the first to join in that story, but we cannot support the proposed approach with a request to a government in ongoing affairs, which must work with a budget that does not allow new initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this resolution is a good resolution and we can also hope that it does not remain at this stage. This is ⁇ , one can say, a first victory for the 75,000 protesters who marched on the streets of Brussels on 2 December last year and who gave a very clear signal. They will not give up until Belgium is more ambitious in its climate goals. Another demonstration is scheduled for January 27.

Even Mr. Thiéry, a liberal, recognizes the role of the street voice, which is quite interesting. Don’t take this comment as an attack, it’s a compliment, Mr. Thiery!

This, however, opens up the right to interruption.

I would like to add that this was a peaceful approach. In addition, Mr. Van Hees, the current debate, we have had it several times, among others in committee. If I have a good memory, you may have been protesting.

I admire your insight, Mr. Thiery. This proposal shows the necessary increase in greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030 and can only be welcomed. Indeed, the absence of this intermediate target for 2030 was one of the criticisms we had made regarding the interparliamentary climate resolution adopted a few weeks ago in the House.

Mr. Nollet may remember the little controversy we had about this and about the 2030 target versus the 2050 target. It was considered, and is still considered, that one cannot have an ambitious goal for 2050 if one does not have an ambitious goal for 2030. It is not credible to set a very small goal for 2030 and to declare that all efforts will be agreed between 2030 and 2050. The resolution eventually joins this idea. In this regard, we can only be satisfied with the text of this resolution.

Another strong message from protesters and the climate movement in general is ⁇ less enthusiastic: that of demanding systemic change to address environmental challenges. This may be less. And what is found less is the necessary questioning of current policies. This is somewhat lacking in the resolution. The analysis of this government’s achievements in reducing greenhouse gases results in an increase in emissions rather than a reduction in emissions.

If we want to control the effects of this climate change, experts have calculated that we will have to multiply our climate ambitions by five. And, as the IPCC said, this requires "radical and rapid transformations in all areas of our society." In this sense, the PTB introduced two amendments to supplement this resolution. For the PTB, if we want to save the planet, we must break with this market logic that is the main explanation for the failure of climate policy so far. The ecological crisis requires a collective, global, planned, coherent approach. This planned approach involves, in particular, replacing the ETS system for pollution permits by binding maximum emission standards set by sector by sector. Each year, these standards should be increasingly strict, at the rate imposed by the change in the amount of CO2 we can emit to stay below 1.5°C.

The other amendment also comes from a criticism we had made to the interparliamentary resolution adopted a few weeks ago. If we introduce this planned approach, we can abandon the idea of introducing taxes, such as carbon tax.

Mr Van Hees, Mr Thiéry wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. President, I hear Mr. Van Hees come with two amendments, ⁇ even three. I do not know anything. I can already tell Mr. Van Hees that, unfortunately, I do not think that we will vote for his amendments, because we did not have time to examine them. However, if he had come to the committee to present them, ⁇ we could have taken them into consideration.

Mr. Thiéry, I think there is a small concern, because for four years that the PTB has discovered the parliamentary customs, at each plenary session, at the last minute, we receive a flop of amendments that must be analyzed, on which one must make a decision and on which one must take a position in a record time. Here, you justify the introduction of our amendments in the plenary session to say that you will not vote for them. Sorry, but if you have any substantial objections to these amendments, they would have come better than your formalist arguments! These escapes do not grow you and do not grow your MR, but you still have some time to change your mind on these amendments.

The second amendment is that it is necessary to abandon tax ideas such as carbon tax. So far, only the PTB is against this kind of tax, but ⁇ the yellow vest movement that was born in France just against the carbon tax will make the minds evolve. Indeed, when you look at the countries where the carbon tax is applied, it simply consists in adding to the excise taxes new forms of additional excise taxes that only increase a tax that is both socially unfair and completely environmentally ineffective because they are alibi taxes.

If we underfinance the SNCB on the one hand, we know that people will be forced to use their car and consume fuel. The evidence of this inefficiency is that these taxes are budget-effective. They cannot be both budgetarily and environmentally effective, because if they are budgetarily effective, it means that we have not been able to change consumer behavior. This is why we introduce these two amendments.

Mr. Van Hees, the Communists claim to refer to the IPCC report. The Communists claim to speak on behalf of the 75,000 protesters.

But when it is known that, in the IPCC report, it is called to a signal taken and therefore to a taxation of greenhouse gas pollution, that the protesters themselves claim the establishment of a signal taken and therefore a taxation of CO2, it is not easy for me to understand the coherence of your approach. When I see that the people who marched on Brussels, to take back your terms, claim things and that you do not relay them here, I do not know how I should interpret it. What is the consistency of the Communists in this matter?

With your second amendment, you want to remove the ETS system and install standards. In fact, standards already exist for a whole range of pollution. The advantage of the ETS system is that it supports companies, countries, regions, municipalities that go beyond the standards.The latter can then capture, in the form of financing, an advantage that others must pay because they just meet the standards.

I do not understand why you do not want to set up a system from a theoretical point of view. Here, you remove the entire system. I am not saying that it should not be changed. There have been proposals in this regard. But you remove any idea of working on the received signal. In other words, you prohibit the possibility of supporting more those who go faster than the standards.

I understand that in a planned system, it is difficult to imagine. But in a system where you trust the actors and support the actors who go faster than the standards you want to impose (and I understand that at some point there is a need for standards), I can’t follow you. A planned system is not the solution in this kind of situation when actors go beyond planning.

I would like to thank Mr. Nollet for this clarification. I also see that he is applauded, including by the liberal banks, which effectively shows that convergence is possible for the future.

Beyond that, Mr. Nollet, you tell me that the protesters have demonstrated against what we have proposed. This is not what it is about. The protesters proposed to change what has been done so far and which is ineffective. And what has been ineffective so far? This is the market, because the market has not worked, both in terms of energy production and in terms of emissions reduction. The market, especially the ETS system, has not worked because it constitutes a permit to pollute. Industry is given the opportunity to pollute, and carbon taxes follow the same logic, that if you can pay, you have the right to pollute.

We do not have the right to pollute. Pollution must be prohibited, and to do so, a plan is needed. There, there are divergences, it is believed that planning is the only credible solution to advance on the environmental level. I want it as proof that, so far, the market is the path that has been followed, and we see the failure that this represents in Belgium. In recent years, emissions have increased rather than decreased, this is the reality.

I cannot follow you at all. You are in the caricature when you say that the market has not worked. I am talking to you about actors, actors who go faster, firstly, than your standards and, secondly, than the market. These actors must be able to support them; this is what is proposed here in this mechanism. You reject this type of mechanism. I am not with you, no matter.

I try to understand the pure consistency of your reasoning. You say that bad behavior must be punished. In this case, explain to me why you do not want to pursue the policy of city centers where cars are banned because they are punished through parking taxes. Why does the PTB reject, in Charleroi for example, the policy we support and which consists in prohibiting or financially sanctioning polluting behaviors in the city center? I do not understand why the communists reject this form, which is in coherence with what they say.

The situation is complicated. I am pleased to see that you will join us on the final vote of the resolution, at least I hope, but you must understand that it is not because you make great speeches on the environment that your proposals are concrete benefits to the environment.

The liberals were a little less applauded. Some of them did it. Here it is good!

Respond to consistency.

The consistency is always the same. Why are we against penalizing citizens through, for example, paying parking in Charleroi? Because there is no solution offered to those who want to take another means of transport than the car.

Public transportation is broken. They advocated the free of charge. For this, we were alone. If there is no solution at that level, people are forced to take their car. This is seen with this federal government that has reduced the dotation of the SNCB. On the one hand, public transportation is broken and on the other hand, people are paid for not having the opportunity to take them. People are punished. This is the problem of environmental policy focused on the logic of making people pay. It is anti-social and ineffective from an environmental point of view.

Mr. Van Hees, you say that it is anti-social to pay those who have their wagon, in Charleroi, in the city center. Do you know who doesn’t have a car in Charleroi? The poorest, the pensioners; those who do not have the means or those who make the choice of not having them – you are right, Mr. Laaouej, there are also. But it’s not the latter I think of. I think of those who do not have the means to buy a car.

You say today that with your policies and your proposals, you give gifts to those who have the means to buy a car and you forget that those who do not have the means, they would need to benefit from taxes that are revenue for the municipalities concerned. It is also in this that I fundamentally differ from your communist system.

I think you take a small category of people who don’t have a car. Many people have a job and have a car because they are forced to do so for their job, and they have a miserable salary. Today, it is not only people who have no jobs who live in poverty. More and more, these are people who have a job, who have a car to get there and who have a miserable salary. This is the reality of Belgium, Mr. Nollet. You may not know it, but it is the reality of working poors, as they are called in the United States, where people have jobs but are poor.

I will take my example, if you allow me to take a personal example. In order to take the train to get to the Chamber in Brussels, I am obliged to go to the station. The small country station to which I am going is getting less and less well served. The last trains of the day were cancelled. I am forced to go to La Louvière or Charleroi. People are pushed to travel to big cities, ⁇ through the railway desertification policy. This is also a reality.

This is the reality experienced by people: having to take their car to get the train, for those who have the possibility. Many people do not have the opportunity to take the train because of their schedules.

Mr. Speaker, among all the caricatures about the climate, I will tell my story.

My mother is 78 years old, is poor in her legs and has no car because she has no money for it. She does what so many people who have a small pension do and don’t get along with it: she asks if she can ride with someone, if we take the train together, or we rent a cambio, a part-car — which, besides, is a wonderful initiative. Collaborating, then, is called, to make sure it hits where it should be reached and that it is affordable — for those with a small wallet. I have two children, both born prematurely, one ten weeks and the other five weeks. Since their birth, they have used the aerosol and then seamlessly switched to the buffer. One is now eight years old and the other is eleven. My children are extremely grateful to their grandmother, who, despite her small wallet, still thinks about how it could be differently.

One pretends that thinking about ecological measures cannot be done without saving the most vulnerable. I have a lacquer on it!

Air pollution in Flanders today costs us an average of 7.5 months of our lives. Let me also talk about the cost of money. Air pollution costs us, here in Belgium, 8 billion euros a year. This is the cost of air pollution. Green and nature create jobs. The net effect of choosing a different economy means 60 000 additional jobs. That is the net effect, and that is, therefore, not calculated as in all the damages scenarios that are set out here, calculated what would eventually disappear. That effect is net positive, Mr. Wollants. This year’s drought has cost agriculture €270 million. That is the cost of climate change, only for agriculture in Flanders. The damage caused by the floods worldwide cost €90 billion in terms of economy and infrastructure. Then there is the National Park Hoge Kempen, in Limburg, a fantastic economic story. One comes from China to see how one can convert the coal industry into a positive story. That park has a positive effect on the living environment and the lives of low-skilled people with a small salary. So the story about the cost price and how realistic we need to be in the climate debate, I am more than tired. Waiting with interventions and taking a different path costs us billions of dollars each year.

Realism in the climate debate? Yes, please, but make the account honest. Make an honest bill and go after what it already costs us today.

The change needs to be now. We are still far from the one-and-a-half degree that is about to come with all that we have already emitted. In that case, you will find that all calculations, from the VITO, the Planning Bureau and all serious economic research centers, indicate that intervention will have a positive effect.

Of course you have to want. Yes, there is an effort needed. And, yes, they must be social. The transition will be socially fair or it will not be, I agree. But it is the socially vulnerable who are the biggest victims today.

Yes, Mr. Wollants, it will require strong efforts. There will be a change of age. But holding on to outdated technologies will only backward us in terms of competitive level. So stop standing on the brake and act as if this is a story that is only negative.

I repeat, as I said in the committee, that in Europe we spend 1 billion euros every day on energy and on foreign dictators. Imagine what we can do with that money if we invest it in a circular green economy at the service of our citizens!

So I have my stomach full of it to constantly hear what it will cost. Yes, climate change costs us indeed a lot today: tremendously much in terms of our health, tremendously much in terms of economic impact, tremendously much in terms of food supply and also tremendously much in terms of adaptation, of the lack of green and nature.

President Kennedy once put forward a plan. When he said “we’re going to the moon,” he didn’t always cite all the considerations to ⁇ not do it. He said a moon landing was his ambition and that America would do it. Well, that’s what we say today about the climate resolution: that’s our ambition and we’ll do it. If President Kennedy had not had that ambition and one would not have flown to the moon, nothing would have changed. But if we do not change things now, then we know what the outcome will be.

If you still want to look your children and grandchildren in the eyes, then you can restrain yourself again. This is about the fact that there is no planet B. We cannot live on the moon, let alone on Mars. So we will have to do it with this planet.

The times are changing and some people have difficulty with it. Some try to stick to another story that didn’t work on it and continue to think equally categorically in the same way. The stories of the past must be left behind. You may have missed it, but this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics went to Mr. Nordhaus. He has written very good things about the environment and its impact on the economy. In the economic world, the spirits are mature. I would like to say very explicitly to the colleagues of the other parties, with the exception of the N-VA, that I am very pleased that the minds in this Parliament have finally matured. I am pleased that the 75,000 people who came out on the streets and stood in smaller numbers here in front of Parliament last week, and their children, who have already stood here in Parliament, have finally been heard.

Let us take that step. Let us approve this resolution. Let us work together, not to see what is all ahead of us and how high the mountain is ahead of us, but to climb that mountain and enjoy the view together. That is our call.

Do you know what? We are ready to undertake this effort. By not doing this, you will remain lonely down. I would rather not be there if it flooded.

I would like to express in a few words a point of view that I have had the opportunity to develop in the committee. I will summarize it here, knowing that this is a resolution.

I welcome the existence of this resolution and the work that has been done around this very important issue. For me, it is the continuation and the most precise expression of the interparliamentary work you have carried out in a previous framework. I used these instruments in the cenacles where I had to advocate the cause of the climate to manifest the will of Belgium to tend its ambitions towards milestones much stronger, much stronger and much faster.

I have heard some criticisms, though legitimate, which need to be corrected. Mr. Thiery did it in a beautiful way. He recalled what was the action of this government through your servant throughout these four years to advance the cause of the fight against global warming. In this context, I have already had the opportunity to do what you asked us to do through this resolution at the beginning of the voting in the committee. Indeed, yesterday morning I was in the Conciliation Committee and, with the Prime Minister, I forwarded the content of this resolution to the members of that Committee, i.e. the regional ministers within the framework of this institutional forum. I received from them a positive welcome, though not yet unanimous, which allowed me to speak about it yesterday to my colleagues European Energy Ministers meeting in Brussels within an informal Council. We talked about various topics, including increasing European ambitions in renewable energy.

I have had the opportunity to signal to all my colleagues that we are going to address the European Commission the National Energy-Climate Plan of Belgium and that we will surely, in the coming months, address advances to this Plan as long as we manage, as part of our monthly meetings with regional colleagues, to establish a series of measures that put us in line with the ambitions contained in the resolution that I spoke to them in the Conciliation Committee.

The European Commission has welcomed this proposal in a very favourable way since in the work it will carry out during the year 2019, it will examine the proposal made by Belgium, which is in the project state, and it will make its recommendations there.

In this regard, a specific point that was recently raised by one of the speakers concerns, for example, the percentage proposed by Belgium in terms of renewable energy on the gross final consumption of the inhabitants of this country in 2030, that is, our burden sharing 2021-2030.

However, I would like to remind you that this percentage, if it is linked to a 35% reduction in greenhouse gases and if it appears to be less than the increased ambition of the EU renewable energy directive, which rises to 32%, is not mandatory or binding or binding in the head of each European country. Thirty-two percent are to be carried out across Europe.

The European Commission, which will receive all the National Energy-Climate Plans, will examine the proposals made by all countries, knowing that some of us, within Europe, are very advanced or have a territorial and maritime possibility that allows them to have a much stronger wind deployment than ours. This is the first point I wanted to emphasize.

The second point I wanted to emphasize is that the increased European ambitions in energy efficiency to 32,5 % and in renewable energy to 32 % already sets the threshold much higher than -40 % reduction of greenhouse gases, by the very fact of increasing these efforts in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Therefore, to reach the 55% bar, the effort is much less important if, and only if, we carry out strong actions that will add to those contained in our National Energy-Climate Plan to enable us to realize together, at European level, high ambitions in 2030, such as those contained in your resolution.

I feel, in the content of the debates, that this resolution will be voted by a very large majority. I appeal to the group that abstained in the committee, although not all the groups were present. Mr. Van Hees, your group was not present. I say it.

You wanted to resume a debate in which you could have participated in a committee. We regret your absence.

As for the N-VA, which participated in this debate, I would obviously like to invite its members to take inspiration from this momentum towards more ambition. This does not mean that in parallel, actions will not be carried out – actions that we will have to work on, all together. In any case, ambitions are needed to give the appropriate impetus to develop voluntary initiatives taken with civil society, ⁇ and institutions of our country, so that Belgium again becomes a leader in this field.

That is why I invite all parliamentarians, regardless of their political faction, to support this proposal for a resolution that will enable us – the regional ministers and myself – to continue Belgium’s ambitious work.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I would like to say, first and foremost, that I find it surprising, however, that a picture is placed here as though there should be absolutely no requirement for a goal or for measures and no examination of how this should be achieved. This is all the more surprising when we know that we have achieved half a percent in the last 10 years and another 54.5% must follow. Apparently, we should not discuss what measures are exactly desired and who will pay for it. I think Mrs. Temmerman’s appeal in this regard is ⁇ appropriate. We need to look at how we can ensure that the account does not end up with the wrong people. Apparently, here we are looking at who should be justified with the moral finger from the high moral tower. Then it is said that a resolution must be approved without knowing the numbers and without knowing who will pay for it. Such cases are free punishment.

Mrs. Minister, I had also asked you to explain for a moment whether you have reached that 7 000 kilotons. You have been assigned in the cooperation agreement to formulate additional measures for 7 000 kilotons by 2020. This comes in addition to what is happening in the offshore, because that is formulated in other goals. You know the agreement as well as I do. The question is whether you have reached this number. If not, it is already too easy to make all sorts of claims and formulate suggestions. Per ⁇ I will have to formulate this in a question to you or your successor.