Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-03-12-Speech-1-028-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120312.16.1-028-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the European Parliament has been asked to make a statement on the tsunami and the destruction in Fukushima. After my statement there will be a debate in the form of a round of addresses from Members speaking on behalf of the groups.
In contrast to many institutions, which merely discussed and debated after the tragedy, the European Parliament took action. We welcome the efforts made over the last year by the European Commission and the experts we have here in Parliament to make nuclear power safer.
That includes the voluntary stress tests carried out on 143 nuclear power stations in the EU in all 14 Member States in which nuclear power stations operate. The Commission will be submitting its final report on this in June.
Allow me, at this point, to reiterate my demand that nuclear power stations that fail the stress test must be withdrawn from the grid immediately. I cannot imagine that it makes sense to carry out a stress test and then to continue to operate any nuclear power station that does not pass that test.
I also welcome the report on nuclear waste that we adopted in the House over the last year. For the first time there are binding rules and safety standards for handling nuclear waste right across Europe. In February, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety reached agreement on a report on energy efficiency. Cuts of 20% are to be achieved by 2020 in order to bring about more efficient energy use across Europe. The truth is that that would be an important milestone on the way to achieving our ambitious 20-20-20 targets.
Let us learn the lesson from the Fukushima disaster, which brought immeasurable suffering to the people of Japan, that, irrespective of the often irreconcilable differences of opinion that there are on this issue – in favour of or against nuclear power – we have a common responsibility for ensuring the maximum possible safety of nuclear power. We in the European Parliament, especially, have a responsibility to continue to implement tangible measures in future, as we have in the past.
The warning from Fukushima is clear: not everything that can be done is justifiable.
One year ago, on 11 March 2011, Japan was devastated by a triple disaster. First, an enormous earthquake, measuring nine on the Richter scale, rocked the country. Then, a tsunami with 20-metre-high waves laid waste to a 400-kilometre-long coastal strip. The next day, the first of three reactor blocks at the Fukushima Daiichi power station exploded. A nuclear meltdown occurred – the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
Today, we in the European Parliament are commemorating the 19 000 people who lost their lives, the thousands who lost family members and friends, the more than 340 000 people who had to flee radioactive contamination and all those who lost their house and home for ever.
The dignity with which the Japanese people reacted to this triple disaster moved the whole world. The bravery of the nameless heroes of Fukushima, who entered the reactor and laid down their lives in order to prevent worse from happening, touched us all.
The drive with which the population approached reconstruction impressed us all deeply. The Fukushima nuclear accident initiated a global debate about the safety and the future of nuclear power.
This contentious debate is one that also permeates this House. Every one of us must decide for himself or herself where they stand on this debate. It is a good thing, though – however contentious it may be – that we have that debate in this House. That is because, although the energy mix – the individual combination of energy supplies from different sources – and thus also the decision in favour of or against nuclear power lies within the competence of the Member States – in other words it falls within the sovereignty of the national governments and parliaments – there should still be a debate at European level.
After all, all of us in Europe are connected to the power grids of our neighbours. The energy decisions of one country have an impact on the lives of people in other countries. Ultimately, 30% of Europe’s energy supply is derived from nuclear power – and whether or not that is safe is something that affects us all.
While the earthquake and the tsunami in Japan were tragic natural disasters, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl was man-made. Fukushima could have been prevented. That is the lesson that has to be learnt from this accident.
Leaving aside all differences of opinion between those who advocate and those who oppose nuclear power, there is one thing that is therefore undisputed, namely that we must do everything in our power to ensure the maximum possible degree of safety for nuclear power stations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples