Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.5.1-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, that the promotion of biofuels makes sense is, I think, something about which there is general agreement, not only because of the utilisation of alternative raw materials, but also in view of the CO2 target, which, however, we must not overestimate. I would warn against seeing it as unique among the CO2 problems, because biofuels are significantly more expensive and the potential for saving CO2 is comparatively slight and comes at a high price.
I see this issue as having to do with alternatives for agriculture, and as not just being about greater self-sufficiency in energy supply, but also being an opportunity for our farmers to offer alternatives that strengthen our own energy base at a time of growing problems with surpluses. That, indeed, is why the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy adopted Mrs Ayuso's very fine report by a large majority. We have also, Commissioner, tabled a number of amendments. It would of course be splendid if the Commission were to take them on board. The first has to do with the issue of mandatory blending. It is our opinion that it is not the incorporation of additives that is the solution to the problem, but the achievement of an overall objective, whether that be by the use of a biofuel as the sole fuel, as is already possible with my diesel, for example, or whether it be through alternatives. That is one point: yes to the objectives, but not in the form of mandatory blending.
A second question is that of how assessment is to be carried out, and Mrs Rothe has already mentioned this. What she and Mrs Ayuso again emphasised in Amendments Nos 68 and 69 has been incorporated into many individual amendments by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Even before the market share of biofuels has exceeded 2%, we want to have a report on the measures' impact by 2006; in other words, we want a clear eco-balance sheet, we want a clear balance sheet covering CO2 and the alternatives. Prior to any binding increase to the 5.75% that is sought after and is in any case approaching the limit of the surfaces in the European Union according to current models, we want a balance sheet and then a report from the Commission every other year. If any agreement can be achieved by means of this package, then the proposal is a good one and we are making progress. If the Commission is able to agree to this, a broad majority will be the result.
Exemption from duty is a much more difficult matter. My experience in this House since 1994 tells me that, on fiscal issues, the Member States persist in adopting a self-centred approach, and that any agreement on uniformity in the taxation of energy is still a long way off. A directive on the subject has been in existence since 1992, and six Member States have implemented it. In my country, last Friday, the upper house of the German parliament decided in favour of full exemption from taxes, which is a very far-reaching thing, but one that is not on the agenda in other Member States. I therefore have little hope that the Council's second directive, on which Parliament can only be consulted, will pass into law in the foreseeable future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples