Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-14-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061214.3.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at the start of this debate we had the situation of January 2006, as Mrs Morgan pointed out. It has become clear that Europe is tremendously energy-dependent. In the year 2000, Europe’s energy dependency was 50%, in 2030 it will be around 70%. This means that security of supply is assuming a new, dramatic importance. It also means that foreign policy needs to be refocused and new conclusions drawn in the matter of securing and using our own energy resources. Finally, it also means that we need to rethink the issue of fine-tuning these three objectives of security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness.
I do not believe we need only to put forward new ideas and concepts; as Mr Langen has already said, we need to try gradually to change reality. We must put more value on the question of implementation and change. What use are all the proposals if in reality hardly anything changes? I am therefore very glad that with this report, we have contributed rather more realistic ways of looking at things. We cannot demand reliability of investors and we cannot demand that undertakings invest more if we do not also offer reliability in the long term on the political side. Constantly new proposals and constantly new institutions will not get us any further. It also means, for example, that we should stop and think first when it comes to ownership unbundling. Let us implement stage 1 before starting stage 2, because I have my doubts as to whether the expropriation or nationalisation of networks is the right solution.
The answer to the problem will not be a single solution but variety. Energy efficiency yes, renewable energies yes, but we must also recognise that these offer only limited solutions to our problem. There is no changing that. If we want to reduce CO2, we must also invest more in nuclear power. We do not want any subject to be taboo here; we want openness, variety, diversity, flexibility and realism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples