Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-23-Speech-2-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101123.5.2-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There are several arguments against such a rapid discontinuation of subsidies. I refer primarily to social and economic consequences on a regional scale. It is important that we spend subsidies to facilitate mine closures properly: to ensure that the employees concerned are retrained and redeployed in other sectors of the labour market. Appropriate environmental rehabilitation is also imperative. Without these, there is a risk that the EU will save less money on discontinued subsidies than it will have to spend on damage mitigation. It must be considered carefully whether it is useful to close coal mines at all, if all we achieve in doing so is that the remaining power plants must substitute domestic coal with coal imported from outside the common market.
Is it expedient to close coal-fired power plants, one of the cheapest sources of electricity, when the alarming signs of energy shortage are beginning to be noticeable around the world? We must also think of the increasing energy demands of the European Union, as well as the role of coal in energy security. We must not allow facilities like the Hungarian Vértes Power Plant and the Oroszlány mine to close without carefully drafted and detailed plans. These plans must resolve the situation of the employees, the rehabilitation of the environment, and must demonstrate, through well-founded impact assessments, that closure is inevitable and represents the best option to reduce pollutant emissions. The green growth programme must not entail any measures that would cause severe economic and social problems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples