Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-10-Speech-1-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030310.6.1-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at last we have reached an agreement so that this directive can be approved and we can therefore offer a stable framework for companies which are investing in these fuels.
The objectives set in the directive are ambitious, but achievable. The action plan proposed by the Commission sets an objective of 20% alternative fuels by 2020. Some may believe that this is unrealistic, but they also thought this of the directive promoting renewable energy which was approved two years ago. This directive established clear time limits and objectives and continued the support systems. Despite opinions to the contrary, the growth in these forms of energy has been astounding.
This directive is forward-looking and will open the door to the development of other fuels and technologies. I have absolutely no doubt that, with will and solidarity, we can create a market for biofuels which ensures that they are competitive in the future. I would therefore ask this Parliament to support the approval of the report next Wednesday and I trust that the Council will reach an agreement as soon as possible on the directive on the taxation of energy.
I would like to stress and express my gratitude for the cooperation of the various rapporteurs – Mrs Rothe, Mr Kronberger and Mr Clegg – which has been excellent. I trust that on Wednesday we will all support this directive.
The final text is not the one Parliament would have liked, since at first reading it stated its desire for binding objectives. However, we have shown a significant degree of flexibility in order to bring ourselves closer to the Council’s position and this has taken the form of nine amendments. Of all of them, I would like to highlight the one relating to the reasons for which a Member State can have different objectives to those in question and I would respectfully ask the Commission to verify compliance with this Article 4 of the directive.
Commissioner, I congratulate you on this second directive to promote alternative and renewable energies which respect the environment. But I genuinely regret not being able to extend these congratulations to other members of the Commission, who are resisting proposing coherent measures which, from the point of view of other policies, would assist compliance with this directive.
I am referring specifically to the Environment Directorate-General, which, since 1998, has been due to establish technical specifications for biofuels and captive fleets, as laid down in Directive 98/70/EC. Establishing these specifications is urgent and inexplicably the opportunity to do so was missed on the occasion of the recent revision of the aforementioned Directive 98/70/EC.
Everything suggests that we will have to wait until 2005, when this directive is going to be reviewed, to have clear specifications. I hope that this is not the case and that the problem can be resolved sooner. For as long as these specifications do not exist there will be no quality standards to apply to biofuels. This is a significant vacuum in relation to the quality of marketed fuels.
It is a paradox that the Environment Directorate-General should make proposals to reduce the sulphur content of all types of fuel and not make the least effort to promote the marketing of alternative fuels, which significantly reduce emissions and which contain no sulphur.
As for the Agriculture Directorate-General – what can I say? – it has recently presented a mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and this establishes aid for energy crops of EUR 45 per hectare, considerably lower than that for other crops and a more than insufficient maximum guaranteed area of one and a half million hectares for the whole of the European Union. Furthermore, it is proposed that 10% of land must permanently be left fallow and energy crops will not be able to be produced there as they have been until now.
It should not be acceptable that, on an issue such as the one we are dealing with, with benefits for such diverse sectors as emissions, the replacement of oil and rural development, Community policies display such a flagrant lack of coordination. Meanwhile, in the United States, Brazil or South America biofuels are receiving decisive and coordinated support from those governments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples