Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-14-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061214.3.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall begin with Mr Seppänen’s report. The rapporteur has once again demonstrated his great experience in this field and his capacity for reaching consensus, by achieving a large majority in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. I believe that the result is excellent, and we must avoid veering away from it by adopting amendments that run counter to the spirit of the proposal.
With regard to the Morgan report, I would like to stress a curious fact, and that is that the contribution of nuclear energy has been completely ignored. I believe that certain Members prefer not to deal with the issue, in the hope of avoiding a controversial debate, but we must be courageous and once and for all acknowledge, objectively and without reservations, the significant contribution that this source of energy makes to security of supply and combating climate change.
I would like you to listen carefully, Mrs Harms, to the words of the co-founder of
Patrick Moore, and I quote: ‘Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply cannot replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal’. That seems to me to be an irrefutable argument.
I agree with you that Iran, with its nuclear enrichment programme, is a very serious threat to world security and stability, but the correct conclusion to be drawn from this is the opposite of what you propose, Mrs Harms. The conclusion is that we must increase our energy independence. In other words, precisely the opposite to what you are advocating. We must stop looking at kilowatts in political terms. We are not talking about right-wing kilowatts or left-wing kilowatts. We are talking about sources that emit greenhouse gases and sources that do not. Renewable sources of energy and nuclear energy must be seen as complementary and not as incompatible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Greenpeace"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples