Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have now been waiting for ten years, since the Rio de Janeiro Conference, for this moment to arrive. It is true that the absence of the United States makes the Kyoto Protocol less universal than we would have liked. It is also true that the Protocol is less ambitious than originally intended. Nevertheless, the alternative to this small step would be incomparably worse: without the political agreement reached in Marrakech, we would have to waste another ten years in negotiations on drawing up a new Protocol. I am, therefore, pleased that tomorrow we will adopt the Kyoto Protocol and we hope that this can enter into force as early as this year. There is, however, one aspect of the Council decision that concerns me. I am talking about the alleged desire of Denmark to reopen discussions on the burden sharing agreement, which was approved in 1998. Such a renegotiation is unjustifiable, unacceptable and would heap ridicule on the European Union’s international standing. We should remember that, very recently, we censored Russia for attempting to do exactly the same thing. However, in addition to this environmental message that demands that we act, approving the Kyoto Protocol also sends out other political signals that are worth highlighting. Firstly, it has proved that it is possible to regulate globalisation. Secondly, the European Union has demonstrated its capacity for leadership and, in this particular instance, I wish to congratulate Commissioner Wallström on the admirable way in which she has exercised this leadership. Thirdly, it has created a new economic paradigm, the carbon economy. From now on, the price of a tonne of carbon will be quoted on the markets and carbon dioxide emissions will represent a cost to be reflected in the price of all products. The winners will be those able to produce the same things using cleaner technologies. Having assessed the situation, let us now talk about the future. Between 1990 and 1999 the European Union already achieved a 4% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the lack of commitment by the vast majority of the Member States is still a matter of serious concern and the situation is very worrying in some sectors, such as transport, in which it is predicted that emissions will increase by 50% in the next ten years. Given this framework, the community instruments proposed by the Commission are to be praised, specifically the European Climate Change Programme and the directive on emissions trading, on which the European Parliament is due to deliver an opinion within the next six months. However, although we know what the Community strategy is, what role should the Member States play? In my view, the Member States must not fall into the easy temptation of only implementing reduction measures that entail low costs in both economic and political terms. This would basically be an attempt to resolve the problem by cutting emissions in industry and in the energy sector without tackling the transport or civil construction industries. This option would be environmentally dishonest and economically irrational. By avoiding applying the policy to some sectors, Member States would not only be wasting an opportunity for technological change but would also run up a much higher reduction bill for the future. The strategy must, therefore, involve a reorientation of economic polices, internalising the environmental costs of the ‘greenhouse effect’ in all economic sectors. This will only be possible if we introduce certain measures that are considered to be consensual, such as the production of renewable energies, energy efficiency and public transport, in addition to clearly unpopular measures such as ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, an energy tax and a tax on carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector. I shall conclude by thanking the shadow rapporteurs of all the political groups for their cooperation and commitment.

Political group: PPE-DE