Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-560-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities - Industrial, energy and other aspects of shale gas and oil (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20121120.31.2-560-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-11-20-Speech-2-561-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; DEVE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 member; ENVI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, if you follow the discussion here, you could almost get the impression that we want one thing, but not the other. This shale gas extraction by no means excludes the development of other energy generation methods; we can still continue with these. We simply need to realise that our energy consumption will increase over the coming years and that we must exploit and examine all possibilities that are technologically available to enable us to meet our needs. This is an essential basis for our work. In view of these facts – that is, that we will be faced with a rise in energy consumption over the coming years – what I am seeing is that a technology which could have the potential to expand our energy mix – for that is the basis here – and increase our security of supply is being condemned with excessive haste from the outset. I believe that, besides reliable studies on the possibility and any risks of shale gas extraction, we need a more objective, less emotionally driven debate. It must also be stressed that as yet there are no studies that indicate that there has been any detrimental effect on the health of the population or that the groundwater has been contaminated. I therefore believe that a moratorium is the wrong course of action. In addition, here in Europe we have legislation that is the strictest in the world. We have a Water Framework Directive, we have a clear message on environmental pollution, and so on. These rules apply precisely to this technology and it is therefore taking things rather far to immediately condemn this technology and describe it as extremely dangerous. Anyone who looks into the technology and really examines what goes on will be surprised at how cleanly this technology is actually run and what impacts there may be for the environment. Nevertheless, I would also say that we cannot compare our situation with that in the United States and Canada. We have a completely different land mass and the way our population is distributed is completely different. This means, firstly, that it is essential that the public is involved and, secondly, that we must of course pay particular attention to the impacts in this area."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph