WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of European products against American commercial advantages arising from the rejection of the Kyoto climate convention.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: climate change, environmental policy, reduction of gas emissions, stratospheric pollution

C 40 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

financial sustainability and capacity to meet their social objectives, to improve the incentives provided
to older workers to stay in the labour market and to cater for changes in society and the preferences
of individuals. The Commission also stresses the need for broad dialogue and consensus amongst all
parties concerned.

(1) COM(2000) 622 final.

(2002/C 40 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Protection of European products against American commercial advantages arising from the

rejection of the Kyoto climate convention

1.
Does the Commission share my belief that the USA, which are responsible for 25 % the world(cid:146)s
climatic problems, will for the duration of the current Presidential term of office ending in 2005 continue
to refuse to adhere to the commitments made at Kyoto in 1997 regarding CO2 emissions and the warming
of the planet resulting therefrom in order to protect the climate?

Does the Commission consider that a viable protocol can be drawn up in the short term without the
2.
participation of the USA leaving the possibility open for the USA to adopt it under a future government?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that American undertakings will enjoy an advantage on the world
markets, both because they shall not have to take the same measures as their European competitors and
because their profit margin will not be reduced through environmental taxes, so that they shall be able to
supply similar goods at a lower price than European countries adhering to the climate convention?

4.
In this regard, can the Commission provide a forecast of the commercial advantages which the USA
is likely to enjoy in the short term by leaving later generations to shoulder the burden? Does the signing of
the Kyoto convention entail any advantages for the European economy vis-(cid:224)-vis that of the USA?

5. What does the Commission intend to do to counteract the American commercial advantage over
Europe resulting from a deficient government policy which in practice constitutes concealed state aid?

6.
Does the Commission have a preference for import levies or for export subsidies in this regard? Does
the position of the WTO play any role in this respect? What does the Commission base any such
preference on and how shall decisions in this regard be taken in future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission hopes that the United States will at some stage come back into the Kyoto process and
Protocol. The Community will take the lead by implementing the 8 % reduction commitment and working
towards ratification. At the same time it will continue diplomatic efforts and work with other partners to
achieve entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002.

The outcome of the second part of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change in Bonn in July, represents a major step forward towards the entry-into-force of the
Kyoto Protocol by all Parties who support the Protocol. It contains no particular impediments to a future
ratification of the Protocol by the US. Although demonstrable progress has to be achieved by 2005, the
Kyoto commitments will constrain countries(cid:146) emissions only as of 2008.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/89

The competitiveness of countries and companies is a complex issue and determined by many factors
besides environmental standards and policies. The Community and the United States both have a long
history of ambitious environmental regulation and nevertheless their economies are competitive and their
companies successful in world markets. Taking into account that President Bush has indicated that he will
take a leadership role on climate change,
it will depend also on what domestic intiatives the US
government will undertake in order to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the Commission will present by end-2001 a proposal for Community-wide carbondioxide
(CO2) emission trading as an element of our policy mix to implement Kyoto. Emission trading, with its
inherent incentives to cost-minimisation, will ensure that the impact on European business to achieve a
given target will be reduced. A recent study by the Commission concludes that the Kyoto target could be
implemented at a total cost to the European economy of about € 3,7 billion per annum, corresponding to
0,06 % of expected gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010.

The implementation of the Kyoto commitments will also provide benefits for Europe(cid:146)s economies. In order
to implement Kyoto Europe(cid:146)s economies will e.g. become more energy efficient and renewable sources of
energy will gain a higher market share. The development of new energy efficient products will provide
export opportunities for European business, in particular when other countries increase their efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In view of the prevailing political uncertainties at this stage therefore, a commercial advantage to US
business cannot be confirmed. Hence no particular measures are planned.

The question on import levies or export subsidies is not relevant at this moment.

(2002/C 40 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1719/01

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: EU(cid:146)s White Paper on youth policy

Hitherto the European Union has not had a youth policy as such. EU measures affecting young people
have mostly taken the form of youth and student exchange programmes relating to the freedom of
movement of young people, and financial support for various projects. During the Finnish Presidency in
the
autumn 1999, Mrs Reding,
Commission was launching a process which would lead to the publication of a White Paper on youth
policy in autumn 2001.

the Commissioner responsible for youth matters, announced that

The European youth forum (cid:129) and European young people in general (cid:129) have noted with satisfaction the
recent news that the Commission is not abandoning its plan to publish the White Paper under the Belgian
Presidency. A White Paper is not a legally binding text, but its influence in a given section can nevertheless
be significant. In this case it could be of great importance in developing a comprehensive youth policy for
the EU.

Throughout the preparation process, the Commission has stressed the importance of listening to young
people. For over a year now,
thousands of youth organisations, youth workers, civil servants and
thousands of young people from various European countries, have been
researchers and tens of
participating in the different stages of this process. The credibility of the European Union in the eyes of
young people is now at stake. A lot has been said about the attitude of young people towards the
European Union, particularly after the low turn out in the last European Parliament elections. That being
so, it is important that the White Paper should be published, that it should put forward the Commission(cid:146)s
plans for improving the living conditions of young people with the help of the various EU policies and