Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.12.3-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, after such a challenging and interesting debate, I would like to take the liberty of speaking a little longer than usual to end the debate.
In the situation we are currently facing, we would usually look to history for courageous decisions which have been taken on energy policy. So far I have found one: it was before the First World War, when Winston Churchill, who at the time was responsible for the Navy, decided to change the fuel for the British Navy from coal – which was domestically produced in Wales – to oil. When asked about security he said that diversity was the answer. We face as big a challenge as he did. However, we should also have courage. Neither OPEC nor Russia hold the ace in our poker game. We do.
I believe that, in the current challenge, the most competitive advantage will be that part of the world will not only be energy-efficient, but will also be capable of managing demand. This is the key to success. Otherwise, even with the best diversification, we will not be sustainable. This is a key challenge that we have to face.
The second important issue is that, if in a more complex environment – not just one in which we switch from coal to oil – we would like to be successful and achieve the goals we have agreed on, we should be aware that we are able to achieve them, just as we have been able to achieve our previous goals. This is crucial.
Solidarity is extremely important. However, we should all understand that solidarity imposes some ‘homework’ on us to prepare for this, and that there is a price to pay. We should believe that, for example, the power bridge between Lithuania and Poland is not only a commercial issue, but also one of solidarity. It should be built, but not on the basis of commercial arguments.
I heard a lot of sceptical remarks in relation to markets. However, the market actually provides the strength of the European Union. There is a lot of emotion about national champions. However, each case will be judged on the basis of European competition law. If there is a need to strengthen the law, that is a different story. Debate will always make emotions stronger. But the law will be applied exactly, and competition will prevail.
New technologies are definitely necessary. The price of oil is actually stimulating development. I recently received a very interesting proposal concerning super-grids that bring together many offshore wind farms. When you meet representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises dealing with renewables and heating and you ask them what they would support, they claim that oil prices should stay where they are. This gives more diversity and stimulates technological development among our researchers. But, this again brings us back to the fact that we will only be as strong as our will. If we are weak and do not believe in it, nobody else will help us – neither Russia nor Saudi Arabia. We must help ourselves.
In this respect, I believe that such debates are necessary. The strategic EU energy review will provide for a very competent debate and for the right decisions to be made. But I still believe that the basic answer lies in our strengths as a Union: i.e. in democracy, our vision in international relations and the market. But for the market to work, we should provide for stable and predictable investment conditions. The market will then provide what is asked for.
Thank you very much for your debate. I really believe we will come back for the debate and agree on the content of a European energy policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples