Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000330.4.4-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The final text of Mr Turmes’ report is bound to disturb anyone committed to a rational energy policy based on environmental conservation as the vital imperative.
Of course, there is no problem with the general aims of the report. The current situation and its share of disasters now regularly oblige us to recognise the importance of what is at stake, and there is no difficulty at this time in making fishermen, oyster farmers and other operators on the French coast see the advantages of doing away with an energy policy whose conditions require unregulated rusty boats to transport carcinogenic oil waste under flags of convenience.
At that point, however, under the dual influence of the compromises so dear to this House and the environmentalist creed which takes off from confirmed observations into flights of utopian fancy, Mr Turmes report becomes a truly labyrinthine system, producing absolutely everything but the simple promotion of renewable energies.
So we will pass over in silence, out of charity, the side-effects of the rapporteur’s proposal for the creation of a tax on CO2 emissions, which highlights the environmentally-friendly nature of nuclear energy and how ‘clean’ it is, thus contributing to the preservation of the ozone layer. We are delighted at this possible interpretation, but we doubt whether that was your intention.
But, on the other hand, we must emphasise that from your first paragraph onwards you are proposing nothing less than the creation of a European tax. The adoption of such a measure would be regarded as creating an extremely serious precedent by anyone opposed to a standardised European taxation system.
But your egalitarian fancy turns into doctrinaire blindness when you express the wish to see restrictive targets imposed on the Member States, supported by sanctions if these targets are not achieved. This type of challenge is not appropriate in an area which has not yet officially ceased regarding the Member States as independent nations, freely implementing policies of their own choice.
You have the merit of having shown your hand, although in a rather peremptory way, by affirming that the Member States recognise that it is necessary to promote renewable sources of energy as a priority. We believe it is indeed necessary to promote these renewable energy sources, but that the priority is to draw up an overall energy plan which treats existing sources with some respect and, in particular, includes the adaptations of nuclear infrastructure needed for greater safety. Because, actually, its total eradication, which you seem to be so keen on, is impossible without exclusively handing over seven-tenths of the surface of the planet to the development of the replacement energies, as you define them.
That simple observation is all it takes to condemn a text where good intentions are not enough to mask federalist logic and a dangerous lack of realism."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"You ingenuously demand the uniform application of Community guidelines on state aid, with all Member States and all energy subject to the same provisions. You hope thereby eventually, well, as soon as possible, really, to impose not just common but identical energy policy on Northern Finland, Central Spain, the Southern Alps and the outermost regions of the Union. It is symbolic, and really rather distressing, that the only amendment tabled at the sitting emphasises the specific nature of island situations, proof of the lack of discernment to which your frenzy to impose your idea of energy policy drives you."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples