Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-305"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Atmospheric pollutants2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.14.2-305"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-3062
lpv:speaker	lp:Peter Liese2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I too would like to thank the rapporteur. Now to the issues: it is obvious that there are differing opinions in this House on whether the proposal of the European Commission is too ambitious. Many are saying that it cannot be implemented using current technology or only at an exorbitant cost. The Commission itself says that the proposal can be implemented cost effectively. I find it interesting that the European Commission is assuming in this that energy consumption in the European Union will increase by 8% in the coming years and that there will be no change in the proportions of energy forms used and therefore no reduction in the proportion of fossil fuels. In my opinion this is not ambitious; if anything, the opposite. We in this House have always agreed that we must reduce the proportion of fossil fuels and that we must save energy. If we do not achieve this, then this is a declaration of environmental bankruptcy. If the perceptions of the European Commission as regards this basic assumption become reality, then there is no need for us to talk any further in this House about climate protection. We must increase energy efficiency, improve energy saving and promote regenerative energies whilst, at the same time, recognising that nuclear energy produces neither CO2 nor SO2 nor NH3, volatile organic compounds or NOx. If we are honest about it, I think that the two ideas are not mutually incompatible and for this reason I would also like to expressly oppose certain Member States demanding exemptions under the directive if they renounce nuclear energy. This cannot happen within the context of collective environmental responsibility. All the same, I would like once again to stress the fact that the Commission proposal is not too ambitious, but if anything a little too unambitious. I will support it tomorrow in the vote and I hope that the majority of the House will do the same."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph