Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-24-Speech-1-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070924.16.1-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Thomsen has delivered an outstanding report on renewable energy and I wholeheartedly endorse her commitment and the stated target of 25%.
Combating climate change is an enormous challenge, but it offers great opportunities too. Opportunities for new technologies and clean and renewable energy. In addition to established sources such as wind turbines and solar panels, we shall probably also have energy sources such as high-altitude wind power from one kilometre up, sun reflectors, tidal power, wave energy, geothermal energy and algae fuel technology. It is an exciting trend and I welcome it. Investing in renewables brings more advantages than merely reducing CO
. It reduces our dependence on non-EU countries, it breaks the power monopoly of the energy giants and it leads not only to huge innovation but also to more new jobs, about a million of them.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is of course all very well, but it also needs good policy. There are three points of importance here. Firstly, the need for decoupling. Total decoupling is an absolute priority if renewable energy is to develop rapidly. At the moment it can take a long time for a wind turbine park to be hooked up to an electricity grid and that is unacceptable. I hope the proposals which the European Commission has put forward this week can be made a little more robust, that we can resist the pressure of the energy monopolies and ensure that the proposals do not get watered down.
Secondly, there are biofuels. We have good ones and bad ones. At present everyone seems to be focusing on the bad ones. With good reason, because there are grounds for questioning the usefulness of some biofuels which bring hardly any environmental benefit. Some biofuels are very detrimental to biodiversity and to food prices. But under strictly controlled conditions biofuels can help towards a more sustainable system of energy supply, subject to guarantees that tropical rainforests will not be felled in order to fill up our cars. I agree with the paragraph in Britta's report which says that clear criteria must apply to this 10% level of biofuels in the energy mix. In my report on the Fuel Quality Directive I put forward proposals on this and I look forward to hearing your reactions.
Lastly, the matter of subsidies. Regrettably, subsidies are still given for the production of fossil-based energy. Over the last 10 years the European coal sector has received about 50 000 million euros in product-related aid. Aviation fuel is free of duty, a hidden subsidy. The inclination is now to give generous subsidies to renewable energy. That is not the right thing to do. We must end the subsidising of fossil fuels as soon as possible. Instead of giving subsidies we must compel energy producers to draw a substantial part of their production from renewable sources. Then there will be no need for subsidies. We must be careful not to replace our addiction to oil with a new addiction to subsidies."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples