Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-11-Speech-4-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-03-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Investing in Low Carbon Technologies (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100311.2.4-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-03-11-Speech-4-0142
lpv:speaker	lp:Claude Turmes2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, I think this SET Plan is basically an empty box because there is no money behind it. We really have to think about where the money could come from. What is worse is that the instruments the Commission had – the NER300, the Recovery Plan and certain funds available today at the European Investment Bank – are more prioritised for those so-called low-carbon technologies that are the least efficient and present the highest risk. In 2008 and 2009, more than 70% of all investments on the market in Europe were already in renewables: wind, solar, biomass. So how can it be that we are designing a SET Plan – and earmarking money at EU level – that basically gives a lower share to renewables than the market is already uptaking today, while diverting the money to carbon sequestration and to nuclear fusion, which is not addressed in this paper but which receives by far the largest share of EU money? Our problem is that, because of certain lobbies, we do not have the courage to set the right priorities, and I think that even the IEA, which is not a green grass-root organisation, is extremely clear about the priorities. Fifty-five per cent of all CO reductions will come from energy efficiency. Why did we allocate zero euro to energy efficiency in the EU recovery package? Thirty to thirty-five per cent of CO greenhouse gas reductions will come from renewables, while at best only 10% will come from carbon sequestration and 10% from nuclear. That is according to the IEA, not a green grass-root organisation. So, even in Europe, in terms of how we allocate money we are behind what the IEA is telling governments. The only way out is to set clear priorities. Number one: energy efficiency; number two: renewables, because they reduce carbon without posing a risk; and then the other technologies."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2013-06-09)3 member; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Déi Gréng - Les Verts (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2012-02-05)3 substitute; IMCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 vice-chair; G/EFA (2009-07-14--2012-01-31)3 substitute; EMPL (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"2"1 "Claude Turmes,"1 "on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. –"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