Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.5.1-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we all recognise the need to cut greenhouse gases and we all want to see policies on cleaner fuels. The question is how we can achieve these objectives. In my opinion, the Commission's proposals on promoting the use of biofuels for transport are not necessarily the best way of achieving those objectives.
Firstly, by restricting the scope of the directive to biofuels, we could hinder rather than help achieve our overall environmental objectives. We need a broader-based strategy to cover all renewable and carbon-beneficial fuels. We need to cut carbon emissions quickly and as cheaply as possible.
Secondly, mandatory targets in the first instance are too restrictive. Member States need to be encouraged to negotiate targets in line with their own particular circumstances and the environmental performance of fuels suitable to their geographical areas. We should also bear in mind that many high-energy biofuels may be better used in heat and power production rather than transport – another reason for allowing Member States to develop their own biofuel strategy.
In any case, if we do get agreement on reduced rates of fuel duty for biofuels, that would make mandatory targets less necessary. So I agree with the compromise position which has been outlined this evening, which calls for indicative targets with the Commission able, at a later date, to introduce mandatory targets if we feel progress is not being made.
I would warn colleagues about some of the remarks that have been made about security of supply. I endorse what Mr Linkohr has just said. We may well end up needing to import many of these biofuels. Brazil and the United States have competitive advantages – lower land values and certainly a better climate. Therefore, we could end up being protective of our biofuel industry and replacing one form of agricultural policy with another one. That is the last thing we want to achieve because, in many areas, I suspect this is an agricultural policy not an industrial policy, and, of course, we must not underestimate the importance of genetic modification in meeting the biofuels targets that we require."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples