Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-18-Speech-3-512-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Taxation of energy products and electricity (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120418.25.3-512-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-18-Speech-3-513-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Hans-Peter Martin2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; NA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Liste "Dr. Martin - für Demokratie, Kontrolle, Gerechtigkeit" (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; CULT (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; ECON (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, of course Brussels is a battlefield! The difference is that, rather than armies, we have battalions of interest groups. We have heard reference to the motor industry. However, the nuclear lobby has been particularly vociferous on the issue of CO . Which brings me to a fundamental problem with this report. As long as a technically neutral approach is not adopted and as long as CO emissions are measured wholly in terms of reduction, nuclear power stations in France and elsewhere will come off very well indeed and will be subject to very low levels of taxation. Of course, that is completely the wrong way to go about things. The fact is that if we actually consider CO emissions on the basis of the energy units produced, then nuclear power stations are by no means as CO friendly as this lobby would have us believe. Comparative figures relating to upstream and downstream processes in uranium production and in the reprocessing of fuel rods show that nuclear power stations fuelled by Russian uranium produce about 65 grams of carbon dioxide per Kilowatt-hour, placing them far behind the renewable energies we all favour, whether hydropower or wind energy. If we approve this report in its current form, then we shall be knowingly buying a pig in a poke. I tabled a corresponding amendment in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, demanding that emissions during the degradation processes involved in the reprocessing of the fuels required for energy production in nuclear power stations should also be taken into account. This amendment was shot down. Accordingly, if we follow the Lulling report, written as it is by someone who openly supports the widespread use of nuclear power, we shall be moving backwards towards a radioactive past, rather than forward into a rational future."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"2"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph