EMBARGO UNTIL DELIVERY
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
PRESIDENCE
DE LA
REPUBLIQUE
Service de Presse
SPEECH BY MR. JACQUES CHIRAC
FRENCH PRESIDENT
TO THE VIth CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THE HAGUE
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000
Your Majesty, Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, Ministers, Heads of Delegation, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I arrive in The Hague with a sense of urgency. Yesterday's hypotheses have turned out to be true. Scientists now have no doubts: global warming has set in, as a result of the prodigious concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past century.
This is a manmade phenomenon, since humans have caused it. It is a cumulative phenomenon, since humans are aggravating it. Happily, however, the phenomenon can still be brought under control, since mankind can remedy it, provided we act forthwith.
It is incumbent upon us all to act vigorously before we reach the point of no return. We must contain greenhouse gas emissions within tolerable limits so as to preserve a hospitable planet for future generations. That is the aim of the Kyoto Protocol. The Hague Conference must make the decisions required to permit its ratification and entry into force as of 2002.
Since 1992, we have fallen too far behind in the fight against global warming. We cannot afford any further delay. That is why, I can confirm to you here, Europe is resolved to act and has mobilised to fight the greenhouse effect. Europe calls upon the other industrialised countries to join with it in this fight. And Europe proposes to the developing countries to join it in a partnership for sustainable development.
The time has come for action. We can all imagine the dreadful consequences, ultimately, of inertia and hesitation, such as the disappearance of regulating mechanisms such as the Gulf Stream which gives Europe its temperate climate. Those consequences include rising sea levels which pose a threat to certain islands and archipelagos, the destruction of coral reefs, flooding of the most exposed coastal areas and deltas, which are among the most favoured places of human settlement. They also include the extinction of animal and plant species leading to an impoverishment of biodiversity.
Not forgetting, of course, increasingly frequent climatic disruption including storms, typhoons, cyclones, hurricanes and floods, leaving a trail of victims and destruction in their wake, the spread of deserts, the emergence of "environmental refugees" fleeing natural disasters, and outbreaks of conflict for the possession of increasingly scarce resources.
These worrying developments, whose main victims are peoples who have already been sorely tried, should not be treated as a source of discouragement but as reasons for acting fast. Without that, we would be guilty of failing to come to the assistance of a planet in danger.
Of course, there are the inevitable difficulties of adaptation and constraints attendant upon the necessary process of development. Of course, we have to contend with pressures from those with a vested interest in taking the easy route or immobility, the immediate interests of those who earn a rent on energy wastage. But we must not allow this to stand in our way. Today, at The Hague, the international community, represented by the world's environmental ministers, has a moral and political duty to move forward in the right direction.
Eight years ago, the Rio Summit aroused high hopes. The developed countries promised to stabilise their greenhouse gas emissions. The others undertook to explore new development strategies.
Eight years later, the picture is disappointing. Everywhere, the situation has deteriorated. The Convention on Climate Change was adopted in the name of the precautionary principle, at a time when scientists were still uncertain as to the nature of the phenomenon. Since then, its confirmation by the International Panel on Climate Change, based on increasingly refined and reliable studies, has still failed to mobilise our energies or determination sufficiently. Similarly, the compromise reached three years ago in Kyoto is still far from bearing fruit. Despite the commitments entered into, despite Buenos Aires two years ago and Lyons just a few weeks ago, everyone has stuck to their positions and their own interests. Everyone is waiting for someone else to make the first move.
Today, we stand confronted with our responsibilities. Are we going to allow our emissions to go on growing even though the IPCC has alerted us to their consequences? Are we going to allow the gap between rich and poor to grow ever wider, with the former adapting their activities at the expense of colossal defensive investments while the latter have no choice but to submit, for want of the means to modify their practise and policies? Once again, the question is: Do we want to control and regulate the process of globalisation in order to make it fairer and more human?
If the South lacks the capacity to act, the North all too often lacks the will.
While acknowledging President Clinton's personal commitment, I want to take this opportunity to remind you of the facts. The United States alone produces a quarter of the world's emissions. Each American emits three times more greenhouse gases than a Frenchman. It is in the Americans, in the first place, that we place our hopes of effectively limiting greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale.
I call upon the United States of America, therefore, to cast aside their doubts and hesitations. The time has come for them to join with the other leading industrialised nations to work together in making a successful transition to an energy-efficient, yet no less thriving, economy. The history of industrial civilisation has long been a tale of the struggle against the constraints of nature, climate, distance, or scarce resources. Today, we must place the creative power of our modern economies at the service of the fight against climate change, the new frontier of our development.
That would be a powerful gesture in the direction of the countries of the South. They legitimately expect the developed countries, which alone emit two-thirds of all greenhouse gases, to take the lead.
They also expect us to reassure them as to their future. We must prove to them that the Kyoto mechanisms will not impede their development. Better, that they will work to their benefit. It is premature to demand quantified commitments from these countries. But the time is coming when their level of economic development will justify this, depending on each nation's progress. Solidarity between North and South means that the North cuts its emissions so that the South can develop while maintaining control over the growth in its own emissions.
Conscious of its responsibilities, the European Union intends to play its part to the full in this common effort. It was in Europe that the industrial revolution, which sparked the tremendous consumption of energy whose effects we are now experiencing, came into being. By their level of prosperity and know-how, Europeans have a duty to set the example by developing more economical forms of consumption and production in terms of natural resources.
This will indeed require a revolution in our way of thinking. We have built our prosperity on abundant energy. Today, we must wake up to the fact that all natural resources have a cost, that all pollution is a form of wastage, that the planet's regenerative capacities are not limitless. Cutting down on our consumption of raw materials, diversifying our sources of supply, recycling waste, new materials, energy efficiency, and the development of renewable energies: these are the choices that ought to inspire us in our policymaking.
In Kyoto, the European Union set itself the goal of emitting 8 percent less greenhouse gas in 2010 than in 1990. Each country made a commitment in proportion to its emissions and wealth. Each country is accountable for its performance to its European partners as well as before the Parties to the Convention.
The Fifteen will ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, in keeping with the decisions of the European Councils. The organs of the Union, and each individual State, have set in train the necessary procedures. France completed them in July of this year and is now ready.
Europe is determined to implement the terms of this agreement. In consequence, the Council, the Parliament and the Commission are actively drawing up common or coordinated policies, in the shape of regulatory and tax instruments, budgetary incentives, research programmes, and educational measures, designed to bring our emissions under control.
Finally, each of us has set about formulating national programmes. The French Government, for instance, last February presented a national plan to combat greenhouse gases, and is preparing to announce additional energy efficiency measures. France has pursued a pro-active energy policy for the past thirty years. One consequence of this has been to limit substantially its greenhouse gas emissions, which are very much lower than those of the other leading industrialised countries in proportion to their population.
How can we avoid a upsurge of pollution now, at a lime of renewed growth? We must tackle at their source those emissions that are hardest to control, namely transport, construction and housing. To be sure, we won't transform structures and ingrained habits in a day. This is a long-term task, and we need to combine progressiveness in our methods with firmness as to our objectives.
Here, in The Hague, the European Union needs to muster its full strength in order to reach a good agreement. An equitable and effective agreement, that leaves room for future developments.
An equitable agreement is one where each party enters into commitments matching its responsibilities. The OECD member countries and the transition countries must effectively cut their emissions. Only then will they be in a position to expect similar undertakings from the developing countries.
An equitable agreement is one that provides for an independent and impartial compliance mechanism, possessing irrefutable data and able to decide remedial political and financial penalties in case of non-compliance. That would avoid the "free-rider" problem, in which a handful of nations make the initial, and most difficult efforts, only to find themselves exposed to unacceptable competitive distortions.
An equitable agreement is one that helps the most vulnerable to adapt to the consequences of climate change, one that lays the groundwork for objective discussion of any possible disadvantage certain countries may suffer as a result of its application.
This agreement must also be effective if we are to meet the targets set in Kyoto for 2008-2012. The countries concerned must channel the bulk of their efforts to curb emissions through national or regional measures. Each country has a duty to build structures that cut its own emissions to a minimum on a sustainable basis. No country can elude its share of the collective effort. Europe has made proposals for the application of this principle, which it holds to be fundamental.
Flexibility mechanisms will complete the national efforts. They should definitely not be seen as a means of escape. The European Union will very closely scrutinise the guarantees surrounding the market in emissions permits and the workings of the clean development mechanism. These must be rigorous, so as to ensure that everyone remains fully answerable for their commitments and that they effectively fulfil them. The system's environmental credibility depends on it, as does its economic viability.
To be effective, this agreement needs to offer powerful incentives to the developing countries, via the financial and technology transfers it helps make possible. We should move pragmatically to hasten implementation of the clean development mechanism, also taking care to ensure that the poorest countries in all of the world's regions really can benefit from it. Let us mobilise for their benefit the funds to be generated by the agreement's implementation, the proceeds of levies and penalties in particular. Let us prepare for replenishment of the Global Environment Facility by giving greater weight to efforts to combat the greenhouse effect. In the name of France, moreover, I propose that its funding be increased. Let us make the effort to curb warming a priority of, bilateral, Community and multilateral official development assistance programmes. In a word, let us conclude a North-South partnership for sustainable development in The Hague.
Finally, the European Union wants an agreement that leaves room for future developments, one that closes no doors. At this time of great uncertainty, we have no option but to remain prudent on the subject of carbon sinks. But if it were to be confirmed that reforestation, the fight against desertification and the fight against global warming can be mutually reinforcing, then we would be wrong to rule out this course, at least for the commitments to come for future periods. But we would still need to set limits and develop rigorous scientific criteria, able to ensure that genuine efforts are being made to cut emissions and of ascertaining the actual absorptive power are taken into account.
There is also the question of international air transport emissions, which are rising in line with the relentless growth in traffic. Here the "polluter pays" principle should apply. That is one of the aims of the kerosene tax long called-for by the European Union. We have no intention of abandoning this.
Finally, let us start thinking about the post-Kyoto period without further ado. Tomorrow, it will be up to us to set forth the rights and duties of each, and for a long time to come. In order to move forward while respecting individual differences and special circumstances, France proposes that we set as our ultimate objective the convergence of per capita emissions. This principle would durably ensure the effectiveness, equity and solidarity of our efforts.
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.
The time has come for an effort of the will. Admittedly, we won't solve every problem in The Hague. But we must go as far forward as possible in inventing mechanisms to guarantee that our efforts are effective and enduring.
This is a time for clear-sightedness and solidarity. It is for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren that we are working here. Our responsibility is to make decisions that will safeguard the chances of future generations. Let us revive the pioneering spirit that inspired the Hague Declaration of 1989.
This is a time for collective ambition. It is up to us to mobilise all of the different actors in society, starting by giving greater effect to our fellow-citizens involvement. As consumers, employees and shareholders, they are perfectly equipped to ensure the triumph of new life styles and less polluting modes of production. That is why, from the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms.
By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage. We are working to give practical expression to the ethical demands of our peoples. That is the measure of the immense issues entailed by an agreement, here, in The Hague. It is the measure of the burning obligation on us to succeed.
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies, Gentlemen, I thank you.
Home | Eco-logic on-line
This
document transcribed by www.freedom.org