Raül Romeva i Rueda

El mateix dia que el Parlament aprobava crear una Comissió especifica sobre el canvi climàtic, ahir, dues companyes del Grup Verds/ALE, Caroline Lucas i Jean Lambert, del Green Party of the UK, presentaven un informe sobre el cost ambiental que suposa mantenir un Parlament Europeu que es mou entre dues seus: Estrasburg i Brussel.les. Veure la nota de premsa de la presentació. Per a qui defensem de manera fervorosa acabar amb la injustificable despesa i l’elevat cost ambiental que comporta mantenir dues seus (veure apunt anterior Sessió plenària a Estrasburg (juny06), mentre creix la campanya a favor d’una sola seu del PE), aquest estudi aporta nous arguments que enforteix la nostra posició. En la versió resumida de l’informe es posa de manifest el següent (segueix…):

European Parliament two-seat operation: Environmental costs, transport & energy

Executive Summary

The European Parliament has two seats and meets regularly in both Brussels and Strasbourg. The duplication of facilities and the demands made on MEPs, staff, journalists and assistants imposes significant financial, environmental and organisational penalties on Europe’s Parliament. The financial penalties are estimated to be over 200 million Euros each year.

This report has carried out a systematic analysis of the use of energy in buildings, transport and purchases associated with the Strasbourg operation and has used widely accepted methods and techniques to convert these details into estimates of the CO2 impact of the two-seat operation.

We have carried out the analysis focussing on Strasbourg and on the CO2 impact of the Strasbourg operation. The total CO2 inventory associated with Strasbourg is 18901 tonnes pa.

This total is significant in several respects. It is large, it is avoidable and it would be prudent for the Parliament to set a clear example in reducing these emissions especially at a time when the European Union is taking a lead in advocating cuts in greenhouse gases. Not to "put its own house in order" is to send all the wrong signals at a time when convincing leadership is needed if the Union is to be successful in heading off the worst consequences of climate change.

We are confident our calculations are correct but in two respects they must be regarded as interim. Firstly we have not had access to high quality data on all aspects of personnel and transport. We have used such data as were available and made clear our assumptions and scenarios. Secondly we have not carried out a compensatory analysis for any additional energy expenditure in Brussels if the Strasbourg operation were to cease. This requires more detailed energy and operational practice information than was available to us but we are confident that any compensatory changes of this kind will be minor.  

The Strasbourg operation imposes a very large climate change burden. There are reasons why Parliament has evolved this way but the urgent need to take action on climate change requires a change of plan. Not to change historical operational practice sends a very clear message to millions of citizens and thousands of businesses that they need not try very hard to change behaviour if this change is inconvenient. This would be a serious mistake at a critical juncture in the climate change policy debate. The conclusion that follows from this is that on climate change grounds the European Parliament should concentrate all its activities in Brussels and bring the Strasbourg operation to an end.

Font foto: Parlament Europeu