Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-24-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070924.16.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, may I first commend Ms Thomsen on the work and commitment that she has put into this report. Mr President, you will not mind me reminding you that we come from a party that thinks ‘green’ but votes ‘blue’, and that leads me to a general statement that we are all in favour of renewables as a general principle. However, we support realistic, achievable renewables, not expensive subsidies for unattainable targets. And it has to be said that this year the Commission and the Council have set some very ambitious targets.
I want to reflect a little on the dilemma posed by large-scale hydro or tidal schemes, or a massive shift into biomass energy crops, because each has advantages, but each also has environmental implications and costs. For example, in the region I represent, the Severn Tidal Power proposal has huge potential for electricity generation but an equally huge cost. The last estimate was EUR 20 billion, which is quite a lot to anybody. That cost is justified, however, partly by CO
emissions saved and partly by flood damage prevented, and the value of the electricity generated is only a small part. Then we have to consider the huge environmental impact of such a scheme on the Bristol Channel and its associated features such as the Severn tidal bore, a special feature, and the surrounding wetlands. So it seems to me that there is a dilemma, a conflict between the two interests, and the same applies to converting a lot of land to produce miscanthus or other energy crops.
We must be realistic about legislating for binding targets which cannot or will not be met. We in the European Union have a long record of adopting admirable targets and then failing to achieve them. If we continue in this vein, we risk bringing the legislative process into disrepute. If we adopt regulations requiring changes in people’s behaviour, then it seems to me we must will the means, either by providing enough time for change or by fiscal incentives in combination with a regulatory stick.
Finally, let us not forget the huge potential of energy efficiency; but that is for another debate."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples