Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-24-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070924.16.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to start my closing words of this debate with what Mr Vidal-Quadras said: there should not be a feeling of winners or losers in this policy area because renewable policy is definitely one that we need, for three basic reasons.
First of all, climate change: without renewable energy sources it is rather naive to expect that we could master the climate change challenge. Second, competition for energy resources: the world is growing, people are living better and energy resources are even scarcer and the run for energy resources could also be geopolitically dangerous. Third, let us not be misled by the costs. We have a rather nice situation today, because, at USD 80 per barrel of oil, we have an exchange rate going up to EUR 1.4. So as a result, we have been sheltered from the oil price increase. But these are not related processes; it is just a coincidence. We saw that, when the euro was launched, the expectation was one to one. If we stayed at the same exchange rate, we would have energy resources today 50% higher, and then a lot of parliaments would be discussing emergency aid. So, economically, we also need renewables.
Is it a lot to ask for this technological breakthrough? And it is not subsidies which we are calling for, it is investment aid, because 20% of final energy consumption is not 100%, it is not 50%: it is just one fifth, and we need this technology to be applicable.
So, why do we need Europe? Because it has scale and scope, and also there have been calls. There is potential in the Member States that are not rich, at least in GDP per capita terms. There are Member States where there is not so much potential and we need to find the way to use the whole potential of the European Union. The richer countries could invest in the countries where there is more potential, because, as a result, we will all benefit by having new technology which powers us from clean energy sources.
I quoted Gordon Brown not because of any political affiliation. I quoted that, even the UK, where today there is not so much penetration of renewable energy, there are calls for this policy – meaning this attitude – and that we need binding targets because, to achieve a long-lasting policy goal, only binding targets matter. If they are just indicative targets, we just measure until the next elections and so on. If they are binding, it means long-term policies are in place that facilitate investment and that facilitates the rules of application.
Now, on the challenge a lot of you put forward about food energy sustainability. Well, I would like to dispute that at this stage renewable energy has any considerable impact on food prices. There is definitely more growth in welfare in the world. People are eating better: in India, in China, in third world countries as well. So everywhere in the world people are asking for more resources and it is fair to ask. Definitely, the world market price answers with higher prices. It will increase the production, but it will not change basically that we will have low oil prices or low food prices again. It will stay reasonably high and, for this reason, this challenge does not come from renewable energy sources.
At the same time, I am from the part that believes that we need defined sustainability criteria and we will do this in this directive, because the counter-argument could be that there already is water legislation, waste legislation and soil legislation. ‘Why do we need an additional source of bureaucracy?’ some people ask. I believe, if we are embarking on particular policy areas that are contested from the point of view of society and from the political groups, then we need to provide an answer. And certification, if even sometimes cumbersome, is needed to really provide an answer that none of the energy resources will be provided in an unsustainable way. But, I really believe that the report is very well balanced. It is very well balanced between these challenges and I hope very much that in the House it will find broad support, because this broad support would mean better support also for the Commission proposal at the end of the year.
So, it is well done and I would like to again thank the rapporteur and all the rapporteurs in the political groups and different committees, because I think it is well done. It is exactly the equilibrium that we need, and now we need broad support."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples