Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.6.1-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, as has already been noted, the EU is at present dependent on imports for 75% of its crude oil. If we stick with our policy of burning crude oil in an uncontrolled way, this dependency will increase to 95% by 2020. If we were to draft a treatise on the risks and dangers of such dependency and on it effects on the economy and the environment, such a treatise would run to thousands of pages.
It seems likely that we will shortly reach the limits of the world’s capacity for supplying oil. The various prognoses by partisan institutes that essentially exist to do work commissioned by the crude oil interests should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. What is beyond doubt is that the overall availability of crude oil has decreased worldwide since the year 2000. The fact that we in the EU are starting to think in terms of solidarity and about security of supply is therefore something to be welcomed as a matter of principle.
The problem needs, though, to be seen in the medium and long term context; it will not be capable of being solved without the development of alternative fuels and alternative propulsion technologies, or without changes in our overall patterns of mobility. The EU must develop independent technologies to exploit bio-energy fuels derived from renewable primary energy sources, and, at the same time, make full use of the potential for 18% savings in energy. This is where it would, without doubt, make sense to make the optional goals binding.
The amendment following up the idea of the crude oil price being fixed in euros in future is a very interesting one, but there will have to be some serious thinking about what that means in terms of global politics and economics in general. I think it likely that it will not be an easy route to take.
The EU’s consumption of natural gas is also increasing steeply. If crude oil becomes a scarce resource, that is to say, if it is no longer present in sufficient quantity, the demand for natural gas will increase by even greater leaps and bounds, but those who believe that natural gas can simply replace crude oil as a resource are in a state of perilous error. We cannot solve our energy problems by changing from oil to gas.
Recent years have, however, seen great progress in the development of renewable biogas. The essential fact is that we have not yet sufficiently registered this. As the technologies are comparatively new – indeed, for that precise reason – they need massive support from the EU’s research funds. Biogas is a storable and renewable energy source and hence of especial strategic usefulness and value. Biogas can be extracted on a local and decentralised basis from biogenous materials such as grass, biological waste, and wood. Today, we take relatively low prices for gas and oil for granted, but I believe that, now that shortages are becoming apparent – and oil and gas prices have trebled in recent years – locally-produced renewable energy sources will become a much more competitive proposition.
Let me now turn to security of supply. In terms of the way things hang together generally, I believe that the question as to whether the EU should require security stocks of 90 or 120 days’ worth of crude oil is a relatively insignificant one. The argument that cost considerations militate against keeping sufficient security stocks for 120 days is one that we could certainly discuss. Quite apart from that, however, it strikes me as illusory to believe – a belief expressed by the Commission in its proposal – that increasing security stocks from 90 to 120 days’ worth will help enable us to pursue a proactive crude oil price policy. If there were to be a real shortage of crude oil, even 120 days’ worth of it would bring only minimal relief. Here, too, it has to be stressed that we have to set out how – on the one hand – we are going to reduce overall consumption of crude oil and natural gas and, on the other hand, to push through the production of substitutes on a sustainable basis.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate something of which I am profoundly convinced, and which has manifested itself in the last few years, that the price of energy can change dramatically over the coming years as a consequence of decreased availability and of the increasing instability in the crude oil-producing countries. We see this now in the Middle East, we can see it happening in Central Asia, which is a potential trouble spot, and we see it in Africa too. I therefore basically welcome all three positions as provoking thought – an expression that has, I believe, already been used by those on the other side. For thought-provoking is what each of them is – whether in the right or wrong way I consider less than crucial – and from them we must develop a long-term energy strategy for Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples