Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-15-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070215.4.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the recent rise in the cost of energy has reached unexpected proportions. The rising price of energy is pushed up further by the increased requirement for energy resources of new major market participants, especially China. Furthermore, energy resources are made more expensive by the increased cost of their production, and by the geopolitical instability of petroleum-exporting regions. Rising costs are also influenced by Russia's policy of using energy as an instrument for exerting economic and political pressure on its trading partners. This year, world petroleum prices have increased by almost 15%. In addition to the factors I have already mentioned, other influencing factors were the OPEC decision to reduce petroleum production, and unexpectedly cold weather in the USA.
As mentioned in the report, energy price increases, as an external factor, caused repercussions in the economies of various EU countries, both in the euro zone and among the new member countries. My country, Lithuania, whose economy depends very much on the import of energy resources, exceeded the Maastricht inflation criterion by 0.07% due to an unexpected rise in energy prices and, therefore, failed to become a member of the euro zone, as it was hoping to do from the beginning of this year. Increases in the cost of energy resources cannot really be predicted, and this will have an influence on the possible admission dates of candidates to the euro zone, apparently pushing them further into the future.
Do we just observe the influence of rising energy costs on the EU economy or do we need to draw conclusions from it? If the price increases were sudden and unexpected, and objective, then why are just the member countries being blamed for the consequences? Europe only started talking about a common energy policy after the Ukraine-Russia crisis of 2006. The conflict between Belarus and Russia at the beginning of this year over natural gas and petroleum appears to be successfully resolved for the moment.
It is pleasing that the report contains a whole chapter urging Europe to act now and invest in innovation, the energy infrastructure, renewable forms of energy, technology platforms and a transition to clean energy. I am of the opinion that, given the energy situation in the EU and the world, and our concern not just about the prices but also about the influence on climate change, we should also discuss the use of safe nuclear energy as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Euratom this year.
The author of the report urges that the greatest priority be given to the creation of an energy market for Europe proper and the Mediterranean basin. What is 'Europe proper'? What ever happened to neighbourhood policy, embracing cooperation not only with Mediterranean countries but also with the eastern neighbours of the EU? Why is the European Union negotiating with Russia, trying to arrange a new Treaty of Cooperation between the EU and Russia? Do we decline to accept Russian petroleum and natural gas since we do not have a common EU energy market? I believe that the new eastern EU member countries find the author’s narrow view unacceptable."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples