kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we recognise that we have a problem with energy poverty and we are also proposing how this should be tackled.
the commission will launch dynamic and robust governance for the energy union for our climate action and as i said also for our infrastructural build up and of course parliament will be a key partner in this effort. if you study carefully our roadmap our action plan and all the legislative proposals which are proposed there it is very clear that they have to adopt it through the ordinary legislative procedure
i think that also in the commission we agreed that we need to improve the governance of how we manage how we follow up on our infrastructure projects how we can make greater coherence in funding from different sources.
level. we want to do it within the framework of the current treaties;
we want to remain the world leader in the next generation of renewable technologies including storage how to store the energy which is produced by the renewable sources.
what we need now is to use the political momentum to increase the political will in the european union in our member states to implement this strategy and to work on this together with the support of our citizens.
i think that there was overwhelming support for our key priorities like guaranteeing the security of supply working much more on the completion of the internal energy market putting the energy efficiency first principle into real use continuing our decarbonisation efforts and being very focused in what we do in research and innovation
we should increase the competition on the internal energy market because it should drive the prices
we want to help our cities to become smart and we also want to focus our research on how to make our transport much more sustainable.
welcome the fact that the energy union is considered as a priority by the new commission.
but we definitely need also to focus on what we already have increased internal production increased energy efficiency and new and better inter connected infrastructure.
mr president the energy union can and should become the main driver in transitioning europe from a fossil fuel powered past to a future built on sustainable renewable energy sources and smart energy efficiency.
the europe of tomorrow must become completely independent of russian gas and oil from the middle east.
to realise this goal we need concrete action and strong legislation with this parliament.
we also need a focus on two key areas we need a strong strategy for shifting from gas to electricity as a main energy source for space heating in europe and we need a frontal attack on the energy bottlenecks that can be found throughout europe which are hampering the single market. these areas are crucial to ensuring that renewables such as wind and solar become fully integrated into the european energy mix.
if we create a single market for energy then our constituents will benefit from the lowest possible energy prices that a free market can deliver.
lower energy prices across europe will help our businesses compete and will create jobs.
the key to energy union is interconnection.
if my constituents in bristol plymouth and gibraltar are to be enabled to purchase their energy from any supplier in the eu we need to properly integrate the european energy market and a properly functioning market is the best way to give every member state energy security.
i want the eu to be so well connected that it does not matter if mr putin turns off the gas because we can import what we need through lng terminals and supply the whole market.
mr vice president the united kingdom joined the common market to trade.
i hope that today's proposals will be the first step in ensuring that we do have one as soon as possible. we have also learned in recent times that it is very dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket particularly when that basket is a russian basket so we have to diversify supply in particular to ensure security.
in the united states.
there is reference in the document to storage of lng which is no doubt important.
but there is not a single mention of storage of renewable energy.
if we are to be an energy union moving ever toward renewable energy we have to find a way of storing it.
pump action hydro is one method but we are going to have to put a significant amount of work into understanding how we can ensure that all the energy we create is either stored or used.
i think that is ready to go it is shovel ready.
if we can make significant progress on that in the coming year i think we can actually do good. we can ensure that renewables conventional and unconventional energy in the uk in the netherlands in belgium can actually begin to contribute to certainty and it is that certainty which will allow us to plan and turn our eyes from the east towards the west.
the purpose has not changed secure sustainable and affordable energy for our citizens and businesses. we have the same principles and tools like european law and funding.
in light of these shortcomings i share the opinion that the belarusian authorities have to put forward a comprehensive reform of the election law and processes and to apply it before the next presidential elections.
two thousand and sixteen people to people contacts including youth exchanges will continue to be further encouraged through programmes such as eu most erasmus horizon.
we have recently observed an increased willingness by the belarusian authorities to engage with the eu in the dialogue on human rights issues.
finally honourable members we are now close to finalising the joint eu belarus partnership priorities which will be the first document of this kind between the eu and belarus an important building block in our relations setting the strategic frame for our cooperation in the coming years in which human rights issues play a very important role.
the aim is of course to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are followed.
the participation of representatives of civil society and experts in the discussions of the coordination group has become a standard feature which is a positive development and this confirms our support to and the involvement of the civil society which will remain an essential part of our policy.
there were a few questions by some of you on the belarusian nuclear power plant in ostrovets and i will take this opportunity also to reiterate that nuclear safety issues are an overall eu concern even more so when these facilities are being constructed on an eu border. full transparency on the construction process and full cooperation with relevant international organisations the eu and neighbouring countries are of utmost importance.
we will highlight again the need to resume as soon as possible the work on serious comprehensive and inclusive reform of the electoral framework in line with osce commitments and other international standards and we will continue to call for the introduction without delay of a moratorium on the death penalty and the need to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
tangible steps taken by belarus to respect universal fundamental freedom rule of law and human rights will be key in shaping our future relationship with that country and we will continue to closely observe action by belarus with regard to freedom of expression and assembly as well as securing a framework for a free and independent media as we take forward a policy of critical engagement.
resumption of the eu belarus human rights and other sectoral dialogues;
this increased willingness for debate has unfortunately not led to any measurable legislative improvements in the human rights situation in the country notably also on the electoral framework that you referred to. we will therefore use the opportunity of the dialogue to reiterate again that democratic principles and fundamental freedoms of expression assembly association including freedom of media
we are very attentive as you are and thank you for that to the human rights situation in the country.
the release of remaining prisoners in august two thousand and fifteen was a long sought step which represented important progress in our relations.
however the preventive arrests and detentions that took place in the run up to the commemoration were in contradiction with belarus' stated policy of democratisation and its international commitments.
while far from being sufficient in recent years belarus has taken a number of encouraging steps.
honourable members thank you for putting this on the agenda it is indeed important to talk about belarus.
since most of the restrictive measures were lifted in february two thousand and sixteen eu belarus relations developed further. as for the commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of belarus independence the granting of official permissions by the authorities to hold a meeting and a concert on twenty five march was recognised as a positive development.
they continue to be driven as many of you referred to a policy of critical engagement from our side.
we will equally continue to call for the belarusian authorities to engage in constructive and open dialogue with the democratic opposition and civil society organisations to remove restrictions for political activities and ease procedures for registration for political parties and independent organisations in belarus.
these include a pro active participation in the eastern partnership;
that has been resumed upon belarus' initiative and the next meeting will take place in june this year in minsk.
the european union is ready to assist belarus in its reform efforts.
the eu is using all four as an instrument that we have to address the construction in ostrovets.
our work in the biannual format of the eu belarus coordination group will allow us to monitor progress in our political relations and cooperation and the fifth meeting is confirmed it will take place next week in minsk.
the eu is in particular financing experts who are assisting the belarusian national regulator during the construction of the power plant and through working with belarus in the area of nuclear stress tests.
and the signature of the mobility partnership in october.
despite eu sanctions and multiple efforts to engage in human rights dialogue no electoral reform has been attempted and the opposition media and ngos continue to be oppressed by president lukashenko's regime.
but reports have been made of opposition leaders supporters and bloggers detained and the independent news website charter ninety seven is still blocked.
it was hoped that there might be a marked change in the government's approach to the repression of its people they still have the kgb by the way.
the door is ajar to constructive dialogue and cooperation but sanctions should remain in place from the eu until real progress is made for the belarusian people.
it seems that any promises made by lukashenko to work towards a thriving democracy in belarus are paper thin.
madam president this report makes clear that parliament supports critical engagement critical engagement based on concrete steps towards implementing full democracy and human rights in belarus.
we want to see a road map for eu belarus relations with clear benchmarks so progress can be measured effectively. we should continue to provide support and financing for human rights defenders and civil society organisations in the country and we must condemn breaches of these basic principles as well as fostering people to people contacts.
the eu is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy.
we must be proud defenders of those principles at home and abroad.
the people of belarus have the right to expect us to deliver on these values for them.
that is exactly what we should be doing and the biggest reality is that we have almost half a million european citizens dying every year from poor air quality plus a bigger number with chronic respiratory diseases.
with regard to a number of other proposed amendments many improve the original proposal. however i would make two last comments.
on the overall ambition i share the rapporteur's concern that if the position of this house is too far from that of the council this will jeopardise the chances of agreement.
it was also encouraging to note that we all agree on the objectives and it would be a big pity not to agree on how we can achieve these same objectives.
but if the interim targets become binding this could in some cases lead to disproportionate costs.
it is important to keep the level of ambition for ammonia in line with the overall objective and to retain methane in the proposal.
let me conclude by making some final remarks.
furthermore exposure of eu citizens to mercury is largely due to emissions from third countries. the commission is preparing the ratification of the minamata convention on mercury which is expected to curb those emissions and thereby reduce exposure of eu citizens to this toxic substance.
we all acknowledge that we have a serious lethal problem so let us all come together towards a much needed responsible solution.
we keep reminding each other that we need to be more realistic and that we need to look more at reality and i could not agree more.
i call on your support today to pave the way for a viable agreement between the co legislators during the first reading.
hence i would support a solution based around the original commission proposal. with regard to reduction commitments for mercury as emissions from all major sources are regulated under the industrial emissions directive reduction commitments under the nec directive would not further reduce emissions.
given that the assessment does not fully reflect the latest state of play i feel the latter message should carry more weight.
non action does the same.
first this is not just about a better environment it is about avoiding and reducing further deaths as a result of our non action.
poor air circulates around us all and is as likely in the countryside as it is in the cities.
this is based on robust evidence commissioned by this house which showed that we can prevent more people dying prematurely.
ninety percent of all europeans living in cities are exposed to levels of air pollution deemed damaging to human health.
but the air in here is not what all our citizens have to breathe on a daily basis.
delaying action on this simply causes more pollution.
so it is important that every part of our economies take action to share the load to make the air cleaner and safer in europe by.
we must all play our part.
governments must step up their efforts to comply with better air pollution measures and the two thousand and twenty five targets mean member states can start planning now.
this is not just an issue with the motor trade but vw has highlighted to the public what is happening to the air we all breathe.
this is not designed to target any one sector unfairly and that includes agriculture.
in my own country the uk it is estimated that fifty five zero people are dying from poor air quality every year.
i supported a high level of ambition during the committee stage and will continue to do so today.
air pollution across europe kills ten times more people than all road traffic accidents. more people die from poor air quality than from smoking.
when we think about air pollution we think of the short term episodes in big cities like paris and london.
two thousand and thirty these figures are supported by a solid and a substantial impact assessment by scientific evidence and by cost benefit analysis. to give the best prospects of early resolution i would ask parliament as i have already asked the council in
agricultural emissions make the largest relative contribution to
for instance the major air pollution problem in paris in the spring of two thousand and fourteen was predominantly caused by agricultural pollution.
to conclude the commission proposal represents a balanced and a cost effective distribution of effort.
with regards to methane where some members have concerns this is increasingly driving background concentration of ground level ozone in the eu and has a strong climate impact.
to achieve this efforts are needed from all sectors.
the commission proposal is a well balanced package and represents a major reduction in health impacts of fifty two by the year.
i will take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the rapporteur julie girling and her colleagues from the environment committee for their commitment and for their hard work on the proposal.
every year because of poor air quality not to mention the increasing number of chronic respiratory diseases. the severe air pollution episodes in north west europe in the spring once again demonstrated that pure air is as much an environmental as a health concern.
every month that passes we are delaying the implementation of policies that could save lives that could reduce respiratory problems and that could reduce the cost of health care and absenteeism from work.
the situation is unacceptable. however it is avoidable. this is why i am so keen for us to make progress in the negotiations on the directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants.
this proposal is a key part of the commission's clean air policy package and an important deliverable for the seventh environment action programme.
that is why i very much hope that we meaning parliament the council and the commission can come to a viable agreement during a possible first reading.
to move forward sectors that have so far contributed little will need to do more.
the proposed reductions will help us argue for similar reductions across the hemisphere.
we focus on applying good practice and existing technology in large industrial farms while providing support for implementation under the rural development programme.
the implementation costs are far outweighed by the benefits to society including reduced healthcare costs increased productivity and opportunities for new jobs in a developing green economy.
it is important to counter some claims being made on the impact of agriculture.
there is no need to change to structure of the agriculture sector.
that is the key message of the review of the nec directive that will be voting on in a couple of hours.
across europe farmers are concerned about demands to decrease output of ammonia.
so in december two thousand and thirteen the commission published its clean air package which includes the nec directive.
the public are demanding action in this area following the recent revelations from the car industry.
i still feel strongly as your rapporteur that this is a key issue that is best tackled at eu level.
we do know that many member states including some of the biggest have not yet presented their positions.
i passionately believe that better regulation and good air quality are not mutually exclusive and this is why i fought so hard to keep this proposal alive.
it is what they demand and it is what they deserve.
this proposal was accompanied by a three hundred and fifty two page impact assessment.
we do not currently have a position from council on this file.
this file has had a difficult passage through the process. parliament agreed to commission an additional impact assessment of our own which was finally published in october two thousand and fourteen after the european elections.
that means not supporting the environment committee's position on lower ceilings across all pollutants and supporting amendments on ammonia.
the ep should be ambitious but also pragmatic. let us strike the right balance and get this dossier moving quickly towards trialogue.
the reason why is obvious but let me spell it out air pollution is the number one environmental cause of death in the eu.
that is why i have proposed an amendment asking for a review of ammonia targets by two thousand and twenty two in line with scientific evidence and a new article on access to funding calling on the commission to support farmers through its mid term review of cap greening.
this has an enormous human and economic cost tens of billions of euros in days lost at work and even more spent on health care bills.
my report pushes the commission to ensure that the rde legislation is agreed as soon as possible.
the proposal i am supporting delivers a fifty two improvement in health outcomes.
if they are going to achieve this they will need help both technically and financially.
over four hundred zero of our citizens die prematurely each year and millions more suffer debilitating illness medication and hospitalisation.
this will help all levels of government in member states including the regional and sub regional authorities that have engaged so vigorously in the lobbying process. frankly this is the first time that i have ever experienced this so starkly with regional authorities a real bottom up demand for action.
it rejects the commission's proposed flexibility for shipping has added mandatory targets for two thousand and twenty five on all pollutants offers vastly improved access to justice for citizens affected by poor air quality as well as improvements on national air pollution control programs and reporting.
so to those of you who are thinking of voting for even tougher targets let me just say think very carefully.
at the same time the commission's work programme suggested that they were considering withdrawing the whole proposal and a lot of time and effort went into ensuring that this did not happen.
let us not play to the gallery.
there will be very many people here who will say that this is not ambitious enough that we need to push further but i would like them to take another look at the facts.
i do not want to be responsible for any more delay let us give our citizens a rapid route to improved air quality.
air pollution does not stop at member state borders.
they are waiting for this plenary vote to see where parliament will go so let us not signal intransigence.
this is a very important point for me because having invested so much time and political capital into making sure the proposal stayed on the table it really is imperative that we vote responsibly today finding a consensus that garners broad support on all the key issues.
air pollution also hits the natural environment through eutrophication and acid deposition.
we all agree that nox must be dealt with urgently.
what more evidence do we need that this should be done at the national level and should not be done at the european level?
madam president i would like to congratulate ms girling for the hard work that she has done on this report.
even the ipcc has recognised the importance of inviting proposals from independent countries rather than imposing them top down.
however unlike ms girling we take the view that these decisions and these targets should be taken and set by democratically elected parliaments at the national level and not by unrepresentative unaccountable bureaucratic institutions in foreign countries.
this eu plan has different targets for different pollutants in different countries.
in december we have the un climate conference in paris.
we in my country know that we shall not have the right to make those decisions until britain leaves the european union.
we in my party share her concern about sox and nox and particulates because unlike co two they are indeed genuine pollutants that damage human health.
we are an amazing adaptive species. we have conquered diseases we have extended our life expectancy and we have even landed on the moon.
if you think about that over a decade that is some seven million people.
and here is the vital point a principle that every contributing sector must play its part in reducing harmful emissions.
quite simply the cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of getting to grips with this issue.
if we set ourselves this ambition there is no limit to what we can achieve.
although we have not always agreed on everything the spirit in which we conducted our conversations has been amicable and productive.
that is why we are here today supporting strong binding and crucially linear targets to reduce the harmful emittents;
it runs into hundreds of billions of euros.
additional standards on vehicle testing;
i refuse to believe that it is beyond our wit to grow our economies travel the world and farm our land without poisoning the air.