kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
obviously it is unfair to penalise the manufacturers of the base vehicle when they are not responsible for what happens to the vehicle at a later stage of its production.
the proposed legislation has been expected ever since similar legislation was passed concerning passenger cars.
it balances the need for improved environmental standards with realistic and achievable targets that will not prejudice manufacturing industry nor pose a risk to jobs in the
union. generally i am not in favour of first reading agreements believing that they are best avoided if at all possible.
because of this it has been my belief throughout the process that it is crucial to have an ambitious but realistic long term target and an appropriate short term target that takes into account both the needs of industry product cycles and the need for environmental improvement.
in the end the package that we have all agreed on and which is before you today has a fairly sensible compromise position of one hundred and forty seven g co two km. given the higher costs of reducing co two in lcvs compared to cars and the longer development and production cycles needed
the fact that by reaching this compromise figure we are being attacked on one side as being too pro industry and on the other as being too environmentally friendly suggests to me that possibly we have just about got the balance right.
while i appreciate the efforts of some meps to blunt the worst excesses of this co two hysteria the plain truth is that anyone who even gives credence to the threadbare hoax of man made global warming is a collaborator with the deadliest scam in history.
every day wasted talking about limiting emissions of nature's most important fertiliser is a day lost in the struggle to sustain more and more people on less and less energy.
the second is the car park beneath us porches mercedes bmws suvs a showroom of gas guzzling luxury from the people who tut tut in disapproval at many white vans and plot to make working lives even harder with speed limiters and financial penalties all for a dogma based on discredited statistics pedalled by a clique of bought and paid for academics funded and hyped by super rich vested interests in the green industrial complex
no it is not particularly as it is diverting attention from the real crisis not that we are releasing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels but that we are beginning to run low on the oil which powers our civilisation.
yes deadly because it is not only robbing ordinary people and de industrialising the west; it is also right now starving to death hundreds of thousands of the world's poorest children as food crops are replaced by taxpayer subsidised biofuels.
al gore prince charles shell and goldman sachs all of whom stand to steal a fortune from the taxes harvested through wind factory subsidies and carbon trading.
the potential savings to business are greater and i wish the epp would recognise this.
we should be driving forward that ambition.
i hope that the commission will come back in its review in a couple of years' time and ensure that this ambition has a chance to be properly realised.
in practice of course it is the same but one is seen as a cost to business and the other as a saving.
this will mean an average emission reduction in the van fleet of twenty eight over thirteen years.
in addition this regulation will close a major regulatory gap between cars and vans and therefore minimise potential perverse effects on the regulation on co two in passenger cars.
the compromise will also generate lifetime net savings for consumers mainly small and medium sized enterprises of over eur two two hundred per vehicle. moreover the targets will stimulate innovation in industry and enable manufacturers to take advantage of the transition to a low carbon economy and thus enhance their long term competitiveness.
nevertheless this compromise still represents an important step forward.
transport must make a substantial contribution to the eu's overall co two targets.
the level of the penalty for non compliance the excess emissions premium' has been lowered; and the ambition of the long term target has been decreased.
large cars will not be able to escape the co two emission standards simply by changing the vehicle's category to van' when type approved.
it will therefore not come as a surprise to anybody if i say that i would have preferred a more ambitious outcome and many of you probably share that view.
this is of course not sustainable.
let me be clear the compromise package resulting from these interinstitutional discussions is less ambitious than the commission proposal on a number of points. mainly full compliance with the short term target is delayed by one year;
in view of the expected growing demand for light commercial vehicles the increased efficiency will represent an important contribution to the reduction of transport emissions.
by two thousand and twenty it will bring down the average co two emissions of vans from the two thousand and seven baseline of two hundred and three grams of co two per kilometre to one hundred and forty seven grams per kilometre.
let us not forget that this regulation should give manufacturers a first mover advantage in world markets where similar co two standards are likely to follow and the demand for efficient vehicles is expected to rise.
this regulation is one more instrument that will help the member states to meet their two thousand and twenty commitments to reduce co two from sectors outside the eu ets.
is he prepared to stand on that platform in the elections in three years' time?
we are setting the most challenging targets in the world by far much tighter than the rules in the states or anything that exists in china or the far east.
mrs wils compared this regulation with the passenger car regulation.
in my view that is a false comparison.
i have to say that i would have a little more respect for the remarks that he made if indeed the efd group had bothered to send a single representative to any of our trialogue meetings or to any of our shadow meetings to make the point that they are fond of quoting on behalf of small businesses.
it produces the best balance first of all in favour of costs for businesses but also in terms of environmental improvement.
whatever view you take of climate change fuel efficiency using precious resources more efficiently has to be a good thing.
mr president why does the honourable gentleman not understand that this measure is designed to improve the fuel efficiency of light commercial vehicles?
that means reducing the costs of driving them mile by mile at a time when fuel prices are at a record high.
it found they were likely to be more beneficial to businesses than even the commission had estimated. the net savings on running a vehicle when fuel prices are at record highs are greater than any potential increase in the cost of the vehicles net savings for businesses and lower prices for consumers. this is what the uk independence party is so determined to fight against.
the interim agreements do not yet include all acp countries.
we have signed a full economic partnership agreement with the caribbean region whilst we have negotiated interim agreements with countries and regions in africa and the pacific.
all of this will use the institutions established to implement the agreement to ensure transparency and the participation of parliamentarians and civil society.
however we do acknowledge that protection the legitimate use of measures to protect sensitive sectors and emerging industry is a valid and essential policy tool.
acp countries will only open their markets gradually with the possibility to maintain exceptions. the commission does not see our commitment to the epa process ending on signature.
at the same time we welcome the fact that the report acknowledges that the development objectives and outcomes of the agreements are a much wider issue than just financial support.
building up supply side capacity to trade and engage in goods and service sectors underpins the economic value of a trade agreement.
in anticipation of the epas these programmes include considerable support to help our african caribbean and pacific partners make the most of the agreements direct support for the implementation of the agreements and indirect support to build up infrastructure and productive capacity.
the commission's view is that protectionism is never a valid policy option.
this is why the epas contain all sorts of flexibilities and in particular exclusions and asymmetrical commitments for the acp side as called for in the report.
on the eu side our markets are completely open for acp products with increased cooperation to meet technical and health standards and facilitate trade.
the commission therefore welcomes the report by mr schrder and will provide a detailed reaction to the points raised in due course.
the pace of these negotiations will be set by the regions concerned to ensure those objectives and coverage match their own integration processes capacity needs and political priorities.
this is the start of a process of enhanced dialogue careful implementation monitoring and evaluation of the effect especially as regards the development impact.
the reforms offset shifts in the tax base due to liberalisation and are in themselves valuable steps to ensuring sustainable public financing in the acp. another essential objective is to support regional economic integration in the acp.
mr president what we are discussing today is decisively the first step towards achieving the energy union strategy and also a very important pillar of the eu's pledge for cop twenty one in paris.
under the current phase three trading period free allowances are allocated too generously and in an inflexible manner. handing out free emission allowances that exempt industries from reducing emissions is definitely not a solution.
having said that the ets as a main pillar of eu climate policy needs to be a very reliable instrument which can help us reduce emissions and fight climate change.
free allocations alone cannot solve the challenges the ets poses for industry and this is an issue that we need to pay attention to in the upcoming discussions.
it raises the question of why we need additional huge capacity to be built when the current transport capacity for russian gas to europe is used at only. fifty why do we need such big capacity if we want to preserve the transit route through ukraine?
for projects in the field of energy security we look for the solutions which offer comprehensive security for all member states for all european countries and not just for a
we believe in the integration of our energy systems and we are ready to look for solutions which would be beneficial and positive for the whole of europe and all european countries.
finally the revision of the eu emissions trading system for post two thousand and twenty reflects our deep commitment to decarbonisation and to the cop twenty one conference in paris.
i think that we all agree on the need to boost innovation in the market and address the drop in carbon prices. therefore i am very glad to say that the four elements of the summer package directly address these concerns. the new electricity market design will provide a truly european dimension to security of supply. it will offer clear price signals facilitating investment and better integration of renewables.
let me conclude by saying that in order to keep up this pace and to maintain our ambitious plan we need to continue strengthening the dialogue we have between parliament and the commission. for all these reasons i would be happy to pursue this exchange of views in november following the adoption of the state of the energy union report.
the summer package was therefore presented just two months
therefore we must use free allowances in a smart way and in such a way as to ensure a healthy and innovative industry in the european union.
will therefore try to avoid technicalities and explain what makes the summer package such an important milestone in the energy union's roadmap.
however we also have to underline that the number of free allowances available under the eu ets is limited and will continue to decrease.
we will also continue supporting the development of low carbon innovation through an innovation fund and will modernise our energy industry in lowerincome member states through the new modernisation
in fact the summer package illustrates the commission's determination to decarbonise our economy and to give consumers and our citizens a central role in europe's energy transition. as members will know in the past months i have been visiting our member states in the framework of the energy union tour.
as a reminder this will be the first edition of an annual report on our overall assessment of how we are coping with all five dimensions of the energy
the set plan is however only the first step towards a comprehensive research and innovation strategy including energy but also transport and industrial policy.
by the end of next year we will deliver ninety of these actions because we want to make sure we have enough time to work on the proposals with parliament and with the council to turn them into actual legislation before the end of the commission's mandate.
first the energy union needs to facilitate the transition to a sustainable decarbonised economy based on energy efficiency renewable energy and smart infrastructure.
finally we want the energy union to guarantee secure stable and affordable energy for european industries and citizens with a particular emphasis on job creation and an issue close to my heart tackling energy poverty among our most vulnerable citizens.
the energy union will need to ensure security of supply enhance the creation of highquality jobs and develop new export markets through further investment in research and innovation.
as a group we came up with several messages.
seem to be incapable of facing reality and admitting we were wrong?
often these go to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards and that arguably drives up emissions.
two we have been obliged to offer derogations to energyintensive industries to mitigate the effects of carbon leakage but this negates a large part of the ets system and leaves small and medium sized businesses carrying the burden. why is it that we in this house and other eu institutions
mr president the ets has been in place for ten years and has totally failed to deliver the intended price signals in the market.
here we are yet again tweaking a failed ets system.
data hubs get the dsos to share information publicly about the different suppliers and their possibilities and also about the way that consumers can switch between them.
it is a great pleasure to take forward this particular dossier and i look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber to try and deliver upon that.
i do not think that i am revealing any secrets when i say that there will be challenges ahead but like navigating through a quagmire we must make haste slowly step by step one step at a time.
the un negotiations will set the framework for our discussion so i would not propose putting pen to paper before then we must let them be our guide through that particular quagmire.
but we should use the time right now to learn more to talk more and to reach out to those who will be affected for good or ill by whatever proposals emerge from our discussions.
let me finish by saying that together in this house i believe that we can make significant progress.
my late mother had an ability to cut a cake and convince all her children that they each had the biggest part.
mr president the commission's summer energy package contains some sensible suggestions that will help the internal market for energy.
i was pleased to see the opening of a public consultation on a new market design for the european electricity system and i look forward to its conclusions.
i also welcome the commission's decision to revert back to the a to g system for energy efficiency labelling.
this system is well recognised by consumers and saves them energy and money.
it is though important that the eu be consistent in its approach to energy efficiency.
the recent european court of justice ruling against the united kingdom's preferential tax rate for energy efficient materials runs counter to the commission's drive to reduce emissions. member states should be free to impose lower taxes on energy efficient products so i would urge the commissioner to amend the vat directive to allow this to continue.
they support shale gas.
far as i can understand that study was presented at the oireachtas committee on the environment today in the republic of ireland and i think it is important to point out that the organisation that did that study and which was commissioned to do it cdm smith are actually involved in the fracking and the shale gas industry.
they will say it is fine because that is what they do as a business.
all our water courses are connected. i find it interesting that ms clune talks about a study that is coming forward from the epa as.
they led the move into poland.
the report says cooperation should adhere fully to international human rights standards.
but as we see and as we in this house know because we are always legislating on it the real top tables are global rather than european.
it disrespects parliament but it is also an insult to the eu as a whole.
and the european union adheres to the very principles of the rule of law transparency and self determination.
this parliament must condemn the most recently announced blacklist banning eu politicians including nineteen meps from entering russia. it is a breach of international law violating universal standards and impeding transparency by the russian leadership.
they die because they have to choose between heating and eating.
in my own constituency tilbury power station was one of those victims and hundreds of jobs were lost as a result. if you look at the wider effect on energy prices we face the chilling prospect of ten zero to twenty zero people mostly older folk dying every year.
the large combustion plant directive has closed the power stations in the united kingdom that provide us with a third of our energy.
we are going to face this question at a referendum.
they are called excess winter deaths and that is a horrifying euphemism if ever i heard one.
the main language that people learn to speak first is english so that there is a disproportionate number of people who want to come to the uk.
but there is this fear of confronting russia which wants to subvert the order of peace and security in europe by using force and more and more heavy weapons.
mr president i voted against this report. it is fairly obvious what sort of an individual vladimir putin is not a very nice individual but unfortunately the european union at this stage has given up any right to lecture anyone on sovereignty.
i say that as someone who comes from the republic of ireland where we had a referendum on the nice treaty.
you brought in the eu commission tanks with your money and you forced us again to change our vote.
on ttip you are undermining sovereignty.
this union should shut the hell up about sovereignty until it learns what it really means.
saying these things does not mean that you support any particular foreign policy;
it is simply acknowledging the truth about the unhappy developments in that country.
i have to say i was surprised by the alignment of forces in this chamber who are reluctant even to point out what is happening internally in russia.
there are some eurosceptics who have got themselves by a bizarre kind of my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic into lining up with one of the most repressive regimes in this part of the world.
the reason i am against the brussels racket is precisely because i believe in freedom democracy and the rule of law and when i extend that logic to what is happening in the kremlin i know whose side i am on.
mr orbn is a democratically elected prime minister with a two thirds majority in hungary's parliament. i suspect that there are not many parties or politicians in this chamber that have had the same support he has in his nation state.
of course the energy mix of every country is a matter of national competence.
i say to the british people if you want your voice to be heard if you want direct democracy on a whole range of subjects where referenda could really make a difference if you want freedom then when this referendum does come on our membership of the eu take note of the example of how they have treated hungary and let us get out vote to leave!
within the first few minutes of any debates i heard on russia there were those here seeking further sanctions.
i then heard those who wanted to increase military action.
during the course of my time here i have seen debates and motions which are allowing an eu army to have funding for even things such as drones.
in this debate today i have actually heard people suggest that those who advise caution on how we deal with russia are called idiots or indeed those who are funded by the russian empire itself.
i am neither one of those but i do take heed of the fact that in this particular motion there is very careful phraseology that would actually decline and reduce our ability for free media.
there is an ability to increase disinformation through different kinds of campaigns.
there is an ability to control the funding of political parties by the commission.
there is an ability to build vehicles that would issue propaganda against the russian countries. this is what i heard once before in the soviet empire.
this is about the european union seeking to build its own empire. for that i believe that we have the language of dictatorship not democracy within this chamber.
firstly we do not believe that the commission should legislate over how political parties are funded or anything along those lines simply because that is a matter for individual nation states.
so we stand on that point of principle not necessarily against the evils which it tries to stop. secondly we believe that the oral amendments are a bad procedure in general.
if you have got to try to decide within seconds how are you going to vote on something?
are we going to vote in favour or against? that can very easily lead to some very bad decisions being taken.
already we have made good progress particularly in the cap where greening was an essential element and indeed a lot of measures now at member states level are being put in place to reduce emissions through agriculture.
but during that debate there will be many occasions when arguments will be put forward that by leaving the european union the united kingdom will not have a voice within the european union or indeed across the world.
here today in this motion we see iceland a smaller nation than the united kingdom iceland with less gdp and less influence in the globe than the united kingdom entering into an agreement with the european union on a matter that is crucial for the people of the world how we deal with our environment and how our international
there is no one in this chamber who wants our children to fry. that should not need saying but given the tone of the debate it evidently does.
the argument is about what is the best approach in order to steward our resources does it necessarily have to involve more bureaucracy more wealth redistribution higher taxes and more decline of state sovereignty?
now obviously if you happen to like all of those things anyway it is easy to persuade yourself that there is no other method to control climate change.
but i would suggest that the facts about the environment suggest something different.
the countries which have done the most to improve environmental and ecological standards are the ones which have become wealthy and have therefore been in a position to do it.
in fact the best thing to have happened for the environment was the collapse of the berlin wall and with it the smokestack industries which was exactly what those in the left of this house supported at the time.
personally i think that as far as renewables are concerned wind power is a bit of a dead end in the uk certainly until the storage problem has been sorted.
but none of this is really the point.