Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-01-Speech-1-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020701.5.1-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have on the agenda today two important proposals on issues that are sensitive for the European Union. The promotion of biofuels contributes to the security of supply, and is one of the few possible means available to us in the transport sector. Furthermore, the introduction of biofuels is also one of the few possibilities we have for reducing our dependency on oil and reducing CO2 emissions in this sector. We must also remember that rural development is another perspective which is being strengthened with a view to enlargement. In this context, Mr President, I am going to comment on the two proposals.
Furthermore, with regard to the amendment of Directive 98/70/EC, which relates to the characteristics of fuels, and in order to take account of the problem of volatility in the warmer countries – in the countries of the South of the European Union – we are trying to ensure that, in the context of the discussion which is currently taking place at second reading in this Parliament and the modification which is currently being worked on, there is some room for it. In any event, it is clear that this is a problem which has to be confronted, because otherwise, in the countries of the south, there would be certain months of the year in which the use of certain biofuels, specifically ethane, would be simply impossible.
Today we have the opportunity to agree on a legislative provision which, on some aspects, is less ambitious than the Commission’s original proposal, but which I believe is realistic and which allows us to make progress, provided that – and this brings me to the second proposal – the Council also accepts our proposal on exemption from special taxes for biofuels.
In fact, according to the news reaching us from the Council this issue has also been discussed. It appears that this time the Ministers for Economic and Financial Affairs are prepared to make a real effort to provide significant impetus for the use of biofuels.
I would also like to express my gratitude for the rapporteur’s work and insist that the news I have from the Council moves in the right direction and this will therefore allow us to approve the package, the two measures, with targets that are not mandatory, but merely indicative. I believe that this would be a step forward in terms of promoting the use of biofuels.
With regard to this proposal, the Commission can accept several of the amendments. However, it cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 and 25, because they attempt to impose obligations on the Member States or because they are already covered by the legislation in force, or simply because they are superfluous or inappropriate in the context of this proposal.
Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament’s support for the two proposals with the rewordings and amendments suggested – specifically Amendments Nos 68 and 69 – would represent genuine progress and would speed up the increase in the use of biofuels in the transport sector.
I hope that tomorrow an agreement will be reached that allows for approval at first reading, which would mean that this initiative could be implemented as soon as possible.
I will speak firstly about the proposal on the promotion of biofuels for transport, the rapporteur for which is Mrs Ayuso, whom I would like to congratulate very warmly on the tremendous work she has done. The fact that five committees have participated in the examination of this proposed directive clearly demonstrates the intrinsically multifunctional nature of biofuels.
The situation in terms of the issue we are debating is as follows: the Council has repeatedly discussed these initiatives, both in the Energy Council and in the Ecofin Council. The reality is that the most important problem, as Mrs Ayuso has pointed out, is the issue of whether the targets are to be indicative or, alternatively, obligatory.
In view of the position of the majority of Member States and of the need – which I believe to be essential – to implement a stable system within a stable framework, essentially from a fiscal point of view, to promote the use of biofuels, the Commission could accept a solution similar to that proposed by the directive on electricity from renewable sources being applied to biofuels. Therefore there would be a review clause which would allow the Commission to propose the reintroduction of mandatory targets in the event that the States of the Union do not manage to comply reasonably with the proposed indicative targets.
There are now two amendments, No 68 and No 69, which have been signed by various rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, which, on behalf of the Commission, I can accept, because they could clearly bring the positions of Parliament and of the Council closer together. I would also like to say that I am pleased to accept all the amendments which prioritise the environmental factors in the case of biofuels. Some of you have said that there are not so many of them. I would like to say to you that a minimum saving of 45% in terms of CO2 emissions – and for certain biofuels this is much greater, around 80%, and in some cases event higher – seems to me essential.
I am shortly going to present you with a new proposal to provide a clear framework for the combined production of heat and electricity, that is to say, co-generation, and I would like to point out that we are talking about global improvements in the efficiency of the whole system of 5 or 10% and that the most efficient systems barely achieve a 10% improvement. I would therefore point out that an improvement of 45%, for example, in relation to CO2 emissions, is an element that must be taken into account.
With regard to the environmental aspects, I would like to say that there are certain amendments which we cannot however accept, such as Amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 25 – someone mentioned this one earlier; but I am sorry, we cannot accept it - 37, 41, 44, 60 and 66, because they would imply an additional burden which we cannot take on or because they would extend this proposal too far.
The Commission is aware that energy consumption in the transport sector is a complex issue. Fundamental improvements in this sector will not result from just one measure. We have presented the proposal on biofuels together with a communication on alternative fuels. The target is 20% of alternative fuels, in general, which covers a much broader scope and, in this regard, I can accept all the amendments which take this approach.
However, we believe that the amendments which include other fossil fuels in the provisions of this directive do not fall within its scope and we cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 9, 13, 29 and 30 (in part). Neither can we accept certain amendments which, for example, exclude the use of biofuels in fleets of captive vehicles or which remove content from the proposal, which are Amendments Nos 11, 17, 27, 33, 40, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and part of 19. We need to take a decision on energy supply in transport, we cannot delay any further beginning our work to reduce our dependency on oil. Promotion campaigns and declarations of good intentions are useful but they are not sufficient to change the energy situation in Europe. Our proposal to promote biofuels will open a new market for renewable energy technologies and requires your strategic decision in order to take advantage of its potential."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples