Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060214.27.2-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Member, what Europe needs is a coherent energy policy, an energy policy that is geared more to our common interests. We must learn the lessons, on the one hand those from the realm of climate protection, on the other those from the marked rise in the prices of fossil fuels – due not only but mainly to a shortage of refinery capacity, plus hurricanes, plus geopolitical difficulties – and also the lessons from 1 and 2 January this year when, for whatever reasons, the quantity of Russian natural gas flowing to Europe through Ukrainian pipelines was greatly reduced. Those are three reasons why we should rethink our position.
Once again: we must expect Europe’s dependence on imports, especially of fossil fuels, to increase over the next few years, probably decades. However, that should and must not stop us looking increasingly to renewable energy sources of our own and in the end also tightening the screw of energy efficiency.
That is where I agree with the Commission when it says it is already hard enough to get the Member States to commit to 1% a year; we shall see whether a 2% a year commitment is possible in future. There are still things we can all do in energy efficiency and we can improve things there; the new Member States normally have greater potential in this area. Their efficiency in terms of gross domestic product per unit of energy consumed is much lower than in the countries of the EU 15, where they began to break the link between energy consumption, gross domestic product and growth back in the 1970s as a result of the 1973 and 1974 oil shocks.
We need a coherent energy policy that does not overlook any of the possibilities already mentioned: renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency, but at the same time also diversification in fossil fuels, that is in gas, and of course also diversification in pipelines. The basic problem was not the shortage of gas, the basic problem on 1 and 2 January was that there is only one pipeline through Ukraine supplying a lot of European countries and that 80% of all the gas coming from Russia to Europe flows through that pipeline.
It is certainly sensible for contracts to be concluded between the companies in Germany and Russia. It is certainly very important that the European Parliament and the European Commission should also support the Nabucco gas pipeline project that could bring some 12 billion cubic metres of gas a year to Central Europe from the Caspian Sea via Turkey from 2011 and around 30 billion cubic metres of gas a year from 2020.
In the matter of gas, however, we should not forget liquefied natural gas, either; apart from a few southern Member States, Europe has not set much store by it up until now. We need that as well if we are to reduce our dependence.
I also very much welcome the announcements made by Russia and its finance minister at a recent G8 summit in Moscow that they are going to reconsider or abolish Gazprom’s export monopoly. Unfortunately, they did not say when that would happen, but there was the announcement at least. Cooperation with Gazprom has stood the test of time, it is true, but this means that we will also be able to speak, negotiate and work with other Russian partners some time in the future.
As I see it, the route Europe has taken so far in liberalising and deregulating the energy sector has been important and correct. It, too, has helped to stabilise prices in particular, but in the next few years we shall have to walk a tightrope between greater security of supply – and ultimately also giving investors the security of recovering their investments through long-term contracts – and nevertheless creating more of a European internal market in energy, also integrating South East Europe, Ukraine too, and perhaps even Russia. If we cannot do that through the Energy Charter, then perhaps it will be possible through the Energy Community, and that is a concrete proposal that the Commission will probably be presenting in the next few weeks.
We must take all these approaches. Energy policy is top priority, and the last few months have shown us just how important it is."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples