Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-11-Speech-4-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100311.2.4-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, first of all I would like to thank you for this discussion. I followed it very closely and there are many things which we will certainly take into consideration when developing our future work.
The next thing I would like to mention is that we will start all but one initiative – the Smart Cities, which came later, on your initiative, and which talks predominantly about resource efficiency – during 2010, but do not think that the things we are talking about here are not ongoing already: they are, especially in research. The Research Alliance has been working for a few years on this item already.
The last thing I would like to mention is that, with the SET Plan, we are actually starting something very specific at European Union level. You know that, during my previous mandate, I fought very hard for a European research area. At European level we deal with approximately five per cent of research money, so unless we join our forces at EU level – meaning Europe level – and avoid duplicating our efforts, we cannot count on real success. Do not look only to the European budget. We should put the money together to step up our research capacity.
The SET Plan is the best example we currently have of joint programming at EU level. Other activities are also coming, and rightly so, but I think we should not underestimate what is happening here. Here we are talking about public-public-private partnerships, which are very necessary and one of the issues to which I would draw your attention for the future. There is also the Financial Regulation where you will discuss it. It has to allow risk-taking if we seriously want these questions to be addressed.
I think we are behind one of the major new developments in Europe when we talk about the SET Plan, about joint programming, which is behind this. We have here the European Energy Research Alliance – the best research organisations opened outward – which is already working together today on all these major issues.
My final message is that I think it is our major duty to put our political weight behind this programme.
Let me start with a short story. After the 1970s oil crisis we saw enthusiasm for innovation adding a competitive edge, even respecting the environment, on an unprecedented scale, but this was short lived. After oil prices had fallen consistently for long enough, investment in R&D and deployment was dropped, market case for new technologies removed, shifting consumption patterns, and we were pushed into a period of tricky comfort where we depended on cheap foreign energy. It was a period with the illusion of sustainability.
By the way, energy R&D investment immediately after the oil crisis was approximately four times higher than currently or some years ago.
And where are we today, after that period of reluctant and irresponsible development lacking a proactive approach? Reacting to climate change threats and trying to solve energy security dependence, so I do believe that a proactive vision is a realistic and necessary approach and not a daydream.
In this context – the things underlined in the paper we adopted a few days ago: the European Union 2020 Strategy – we see no alternative to green growth. We need more clean industries, not more cleaning-up industries. We need incentives, prices, costs and the right signals. We need to focus on energy efficiency; we need to focus, if you like, on resource efficiency, which is one of the major things included in EU 2020.
I shall turn now to the second issue, which is the SET Plan that we are discussing. All the estimates presented in the SET Plan for the financing required are based on technology road maps. This was a very serious piece of work. If you look at the proposals, what we envisage, how we estimate the financing needed for the future, you will find the following figures: wind: 6; solar: 16; bio: 19; CCS: 13; nuclear: 7; smart grids: 2; fuel cells and hydrogen: 5; Smart Cities: 11; European Energy Research Alliance: 5, and basic research: 1. If you add that up, it comes to 75.
I would remind you that there is a figure of 7 for nuclear. I have to be fair. Fusion is not included, and fusion is, again, a serious figure which should come, but if we look at this picture I think that our message from the Commission side on where we should put the bulk of our investment is pretty clear.
The next issue is the sources of finance and the road maps. The main sources, as I said in my introduction, will have to come from where the main sources are, and that is industry and the Member States. This means the European Union budget, current and future financial perspectives, the European Energy Programme for Recovery, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and, of course, use of the other instruments that exist, and the European Investment Bank especially should be considered in this respect.
There is a serious question of the structure of the investment for the various initiatives proposed. I think it is obvious that the internal structure of public and private investment will not be the same because of the market proximity, because of the market failures you face in various types of technologies, which would need to be addressed, but I do believe that what is in front of you is a serious case, especially when you start discussing the next financial perspective, and that we have to rethink what our priorities are and how we should invest in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples