Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-15-Speech-4-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011115.5.4-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Chichester report seeks to present a ‘European strategy’ for the security of energy supply. It is very difficult, however, to discern in the resolution, even one clearly stated guideline. It could be saying anything and its opposite.
The resolution dodges the real issues underpinning a ‘strategy’. Is it possible to restructure the energy sector without a real concerted public policy that is supported and has been fully discussed?
Can we leave things up to the ‘market’, in other words, to the whim of private financial interests?
Is energy a ‘common asset’ or just a commodity? To what extent is the nuclear risk acceptable?
The resolution is dotted with pipe dreams. For example, in order to permit the renewal of nuclear power stations, it calls for “appropriate measures” that will guarantee the “elimination” of radioactive waste and the “safety” of the power stations. This is asking the impossible.
Apart from being confused, the Chichester report falls in line with neoliberal policies.
Paragraph 18 wants to “promote further market opening in the EU” and paragraph 42 considers that “it is essential to complete the liberalisation of energy markets’’.
Whereas only a public service policy can meet social and environmental requirements and guarantee “sustainable development” in this economic sector.
We are voting against the motion for a resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples