Hello. My name is Carl Schlyter and I am an MEP from the Green Party. All parties in the Swedish Parliament are represented in the EP. We are divided according to groups, not nationalities. We sit with MEPs of similar political affiliation, from all EU-countries. I sit on the Environment Committee as well as the Committee on International Trade. But I focus on the Environment Committee where I am Vice-Chairman. It deals with more legislation than any other in the EP. Today, you will represent developing countries and industrialised countries. Industrialised countries are trying to reduce their impact on the climate. But if we succeed and developing countries become industrialised, this will lead to a role reversal where nothing has changed. Everyone has to take responsibility. But of course developing countries will need our help financially. You said both groups should take the same amount of responsibility. Yes, we need to take responsibility, but this requires a budget. Do you as industrialised nations feel you should give us this aid, so that we can take responsibility? The developing countries need help. The cost has to be distributed fairly. We have more money and will have to pay the lion's share. Still, everyone has to contribute, even if they didn't cause the problem. You are willing to give aid. Does the whole group agree on that? If this was Copenhagen, I would be seriously shocked. Governments, assuming that you are from different countries, tend to say things like, 'Yes, perhaps we should pay, but not too much, and not right now...' This is a step forward. You are willing to help, if they also make efforts. If you receive money from them, are you also prepared to take action? I wonder why we have to take responsibility. You seem to be shifting the burden to us, but we are not to blame here. What is our responsibility in all this? You still have high emissions. Our emissions are probably even worse, but everyone has to take responsibility. We can't look at the past, but we all need to work to solve the problem. We can't disregard history. You suppressed us during colonialism. We can't remove that from the equation. Besides, you are responsible for the majority of emissions. Sure, we can share in the work, but we have the right to development. You have already taken our resources, and we can't start from scratch. History doesn't just disappear. I realise the importance of history, but right now we all need to cooperate. You need more financial help, since you are developing countries. We need to take responsibility for what we have caused. But in order to reach a solution where we all benefit, we must be prepared to cooperate. Hence we need a common plan. I believe we should start by giving you... ...financial help. The things we have destroyed might be harder to replace. How do we go about this? If both groups are to take responsibility... It might be largely financed by this camp. What does this responsibility mean? What is fair? We have taken a lot from them, but new technology is needed. Their development has to differ from ours. We can't have another lengthy period of high emissions. New technology is needed. -Is technology the solution here? A lot of climate problems can be solved with the help of technology. But individuals also need to make sure they reduce emissions. We can't assume that the powers that be will provide solutions. We need to use our cars less. I read that most car journeys in Stockholm are shorter than 1-2km. We need to be more ambitious and not just...lazy. I wanted to mention my preferred solution. We need to tax these things. This is also about lifestyle. It will not be possible to solve everything with technology. Your consumption is still too high. With the help of taxes and fees we can promote a better lifestyle. If developing countries need better technology, this has to be financed. Are you prepared to finance this, as we lack the resources? You don't want us to reach the same level as industrialised countries. The key question is, who will finance this? Your development can't take the same form as ours. That's pretty logical. But you also feel that they have the right to development, but in a more energy efficient manner. Today we have some forms of cheaper technology. Wind power costs are on a par with those of nuclear power. The only way is to allow deductions for developing nations who want to use these patents. That would turn the whole thing upside-down. Richer countries could pay the real fees, and developing countries pay less. They can't possibly cover both patent and construction costs. Do you have any solutions for this? You need to allow us onto your markets. As EU representatives you exclude us. The world's 50 poorest countries pay no custom fees, but have nothing to export. When they become rich enough to compete, they are blocked. You don't allow us to share your wealth. Cows are subsidised with 3 dollars per day, whereas we get much less. Are you prepared to give up some of your wealth? Wealth certainly needs to be shared more equally on a global scale. This is part of what we need to solve. This needs to be more even. If developing countries gain wealth, they have more power to provide their own solutions. But this is of course difficult. When we speak of financial aid and patent fees... If we cover these, that is a form of financial aid. That could form part of our help to developing countries. We have to stop focusing on financial gain when it comes to the climate. We are constantly thinking of financial gain and wealth. That has to stop. On the other hand, people voted for you for different reasons. Most of them want things to get better. -And what defines 'better'? Today, I feel there is a lot of overconsumption. At Christmas we tend to buy a lot of things we don't actually need. We don't have to lose out on prosperity just because we decrease consumption. Both can be kept at a moderate level. How can you remain in government and make decisions at this conference without disappointing voters? Do you think others agree with you? More and more people are prepared to reduce their consumption. Perhaps not now, in many countries. -Consumption is a status symbol. Society is driven by this. The problem is... People might agree that non-material things are more important, but society focuses on the material. That needs to change. If companies don't make money, unemployment will increase. It's like a vicious circle. If we decide to reduce our consumption, certain companies might begin to do much worse. That in turn can lead to unemployment. But we need to be happy with what we've got and consume less. It's time for you to make suggestions. What measures can be taken? Now we're back in reality. What would you demand of me? I'm going to Copenhagen on Thursday. What should I tell heads of state and journalists? What would you suggest? Can we draw conclusions about what needs to be done? Be specific. Make it as easy as possible, on a basic level. It should be easy for consumers to make these choices. Policy tools for consumer responsibility. I think this should be achieved via taxes on unhealthy things. I'm in favour of taxes on CO2 and other harmful gases. Obviously, companies want to make a profit. With this tax, they would need to adjust in order to maintain profits. We have to illustrate what countries will gain by signing this contract. We need to have an organisation that keeps track of this. It's all about knowledge. Show the advantages of striving for a better climate. I feel that... It's a bit silly that we say things like, 'We refuse to do anything until the US agrees to act.' It's on a playground level. We need to move away from this. We need to act without waiting for the US. Things have to happen without a new initiative from Obama. We are too dependent on each other. It needs to be our responsibility to act here and now. We should not be tied to anyone else. I think that... People say that we must maintain economic growth in the West, as this will lead to technology which can solve the climate issue. It seems optimistic and naive to assume that things will work themselves out. We need to slow down and not rely on possible future technology. We should adjust our policies to the current facts and not what might happen. My name is Magda Rasmusson and I live in Stockholm, Sweden. I'm 17 years old and I really enjoyed this debate. Everyone should realise the importance of this and act now! Hello, my name is Andreas. I'm from Sweden. My personal opinion is that individuals should take responsibility and not rely on those in power to solve the problems. We need to set our own limits. Hello, I'm Magdalena Jönsson from Stockholm, Sweden. I hope that politicians take action at the climate summit. It's high time. I'm Hannes Skugghall from Kärrtorps Upper Secondary School in Stockholm. I believe that the Copenhagen summit has huge symbolic value. It is definitely a step in the right direction and follows the right path. But I think that this is a problem of our times where the solution lies beyond our times. The conditions are not in place to tackle this problem. Swedes, Americans, Frenchmen can say what they can do without. It's harder for an Indian, Chinese or Thai to dispense with things they lack. First we need to ensure that conditions are in place to tackle this problem. It's our responsibility, our world and we must unite.