Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-14-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061214.3.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, Members have decided to hold a joint debate on the three reports by Mrs Morgan, Mr Langen and Mr Seppänen. This provides an excellent opportunity to discuss topics of key importance for energy policy just before the new year, topics that brought a great deal of inquietude last year.
The importance of the external dimension is also well articulated in the report. This year, our external policy has taken some very important steps: the establishment of the energy community and new agreements with several producer countries and transit countries, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Ukraine.
I would like to address Mr Langen’s report on a strategy for biomass and biofuels. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Langen for this valuable contribution and his great help to us in the Commission as we look forward on the issue of renewable energy, including bioenergy.
First, the EU, acting collectively, will need to strengthen the legislative framework for renewable energy, committing itself to the establishment of a stable regulatory framework based on ambitious targets. Longer-term, more ambitious objectives up to 2020 will need binding obligations on the part of Member States to guarantee burden-sharing and the development of an internal renewable energy market. At the same time, we should allow a certain degree of flexibility to enable Member States to focus their attention on certain areas on the basis of their specific strengths and weaknesses.
Second, this framework will need to include legislative measures tailored to the specific obstacles facing renewable energy in individual sectors. For example, access to the grid is a key issue for renewable energy in electricity. The existing provision in this area may need to be strengthened. As regards heating, measures are needed to overcome unnecessary planning barriers to solar panels, for example, and to create a level playing field for district heating.
In transport, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the extra cost for biofuels is greater than that of renewable energies in other sectors, but we need biofuels in the energy mix because they are a tool not only for combating climate change, but also in terms of security of supply.
In looking at the detail of the report, there are three basic points that I would like to highlight. First, I welcome the emphasis the report places on the certification of biofuels to ensure that, whether produced in Europe or abroad, they need sustainability standards. I understand the logic behind the proposed ban on the use of palm oil. However, as the work of the round table on sustainable palm oil has demonstrated, the environmental impact of palm oil production can display enormous variations, and this has to be taken into account.
Second, I share the view that second-generation biofuels are critically important. They offer better greenhouse gas performance and improve security of supply by widening the range of feedstocks from which biofuels can be made. However, let us not create a false opposition between first- and second-generation biofuels. First-generation biofuels improve security of supply, too, by reducing dependence on oil, and they also offer greenhouse gas savings compared with conventional fuels. Moreover, first-generation biofuels serve as a bridge to the second generation. As second-generation biofuels come onto the market, they will take over the supply and distribution networks and plants of the first generation.
Finally, I would like to endorse the view that there is a need to do more to inform society in general, and farmers in particular, about the use of biomass and biofuels. We should particularly encourage farmers to venture into the new world of production of farm food and energy grasses.
Now I would like to address Mr Seppänen’s report on the Council regulation establishing an instrument for nuclear safety and security assistance. I wish to acknowledge and thank Mr Seppänen for the efforts made by the rapporteur and by Parliament as a whole to present this report in good time in order to have the new instrument available before the end of this year.
Improvement of nuclear safety has been an important part of our work in central and eastern European countries, as well as in the Community of Independent States, notably in Ukraine and Russia. But we have also made an effort in other countries, such as Armenia and Kazakhstan. It will remain essential in the coming years, as most of our neighbours and emerging economies rely heavily on nuclear power in order to satisfy their energy needs.
Let me begin by addressing the report on a European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy. First, I wish to congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Mrs Morgan, for her impressive work on the energy Green Paper. I also wish to thank and congratulate the draftsmen, Mr Zieleniec, Mr Wijkman, Mr Markov, Mr Ehler, Mrs Tzampazi, Mr Takkula and Mr Vlasák, for their contributions.
Because of the lack of time, I cannot comment on each amendment. However, I should like to highlight some important considerations that prevent us from accepting some of the amendments. I will not address the amendments on which we agree.
In Amendment 3, the rapporteur proposes to add a reference to the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The Commission considers that this is not the objective of this instrument and that it is covered by the instrument of stability.
Amendment 7 states that ‘priority should be given to assisting nuclear installations and activities which are likely to have significant effects on the Member States’. I understand the concerns that have led to this proposal. I would stress that the Community primarily supports improvement in nuclear safety installations close to our borders. However, I should like to repeat that the new instrument has a global objective; a nuclear accident in one place is a nuclear accident everywhere, as direct or indirect consequences will affect the whole world.
Finally, Amendments 27 and 28, limiting the scope of application of the instrument ‘only to nuclear facilities that are or were in operation in third countries on the date of [the instrument’s] entry into force’. While it is clear that we will not provide assistance to the design and construction of new plants in third countries, there should be a possibility to provide assistance vis-à-vis all existing plants. Otherwise, we would lose an efficient instrument to influence nuclear safety abroad.
To conclude, I once again pay tribute to the work of Parliament and all the committees involved on the Green Paper, the strategy for biomass and biofuels and the nuclear safety instrument. I look forward to continuing our joint work for Europe’s energy future.
This document is an important contribution to the Commission’s work on the strategic energy review. Your work over recent months has fed into the Commission’s wider deliberations on the future of energy policy in Europe.
I agree that the European Union needs an integrated, coherent and consistent European energy policy that maintains Europe’s competitiveness, safeguards our environmental objectives and ensures our security of supply.
I also agree on the nature of the climate change challenge. Climate change provides the strongest encouragement for a new energy policy. Energy accounts for over 90 % of carbon dioxide emissions in the European Union, so we cannot tackle climate change without the right energy policies. I agree that the European Union needs to show vision and determination to lead the world in accelerating the shift to a low-carbon economy. At the heart of this must be ambitious but credible targets for further reductions in greenhouse gases beyond 2012. Without a functioning internal market, the emissions-trading system – the cornerstone of our efforts to deal with climate change in a competitive manner – will not work properly, nor will we achieve our aims of competitiveness and security of supply. Therefore, the Commission will keep up the pressure on Member States to implement the legislation fully.
This week, we adopted another package of infringement measures against 16 Member States. At this stage, we are conducting infringement proceedings against 19 Member States, and I believe that shows our determination really to implement the internal market.
In addition, in line with the conclusions of the internal market report and the final report on the energy sector inquiry, the Commission now intends to take action to address the remaining issues under the following headings: ensuring non-discriminatory access to well-developed networks, notably by looking at the issue of unbundling; improving regulation of network access at national and EU levels, which includes better cooperation at EU level between regulators; reducing the scope for unfair competition, through increased transparency and improved access to storage facilities; providing a clear framework for investment; and strengthening the focus of the public service obligation.
However, the internal market can achieve its goal only on the basis of decisions taken by European citizens. The role of citizens is particularly important with respect to our energy efficiency agenda. This is an area where everyone can contribute to a more sustainable and secure world, and we welcome your support for the energy efficiency action plan. Europe’s citizens can also make a difference to the role of renewables in our energy mix, but we cannot expect people to make the necessary shift unless the political and investment plan is right. That is why I agree with the need for a stable and long-term framework for renewables.
Climate change, globalisation and longer-term targets call for a renewed effort on the technology front. We all want to see Europe lead the way in global research, which means spending existing research budgets better, getting them to work as a catalyst leading to increased industry research funding in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples