Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-327"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.35.2-327"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this debate assumes that the EU is to be heavily reliant on natural gas for energy. I challenge that, not least because almost all natural gas has to be imported. It places us in the hand of others, not all of whom are exactly friendly. Do I have to recall how Russia cut off the gas supply to Ukraine at Christmas time two years ago?
Meanwhile it must be noted that earlier this very day, Parliament voted to approve investigation into the environmental impact of the proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. This is tantamount to approving a project to bring Russian natural gas direct to Germany, bypassing Poland, thus preserving their supplies and never mind the rest of us. Is that what they call solidarity?
What about alternative indigenous resources? Western Europe is rich in coal, which needs only travel a short distance to a power station. Coal has a bad name, partly for pollution and partly for the extra carbon dioxide it produces per kilowatt as compared to gas.
But you are behind the times. Coal can be much more efficiently burned these days, releasing much less CO
than previous methods. Personally, I prefer not to see it burnt, but coked. Turning coal into coke produces two smoke-free sources: gas and coke, which when properly burnt together produce more energy than the coal they came from, in the ratio of 5:4. Moreover, by thoroughly scrubbing the gas, what are otherwise pollutants are removed. They are in fact the very same by-products we get from oil. And all that is under our feet.
Further, there is nuclear power for electricity. That too has a bad name on account of one admittedly serious incident at Chernobyl, but that was an old Soviet installation of poor design in the hands of operators who tried an unsupervised shut-down which went wrong.
Why are there are doubts about nuclear energy, especially here in France, where nuclear power stations produce 70% of our electricity? Let it be noted that Finland, very environmentally conscious, has just approved a third nuclear plant.
More recently, we have the spectacle of the EU promotion of biofuels which are now being severely questioned. Biofuels are either produced on new land produced by destroying the rainforests, or on converted existing farm land. The former produces more CO
than the biofuels save, while the latter is causing food shortages, especially in the less-developed countries.
Of course we need natural gas, not least for domestic use, but the thrust of these reports is for the supply of gas to the EU to be controlled by the EU itself, by way of regulation. Well, if it is anything like the CFP, where the regulations intended to conserve the fisheries have resulted in their near destruction, then heaven help us all. Without doubt, gas supply regulations will be a red-tape nightmare, just when the Commission has said it wants to cut all that down. How else will you produce a situation where the gas supply is split into two: transport and storage? Surely the most efficient system is for the storer then to supply – but no, you want to divide and increase the bureaucracy.
The report suggests licences for the pipeline operators while at the other end smart meters will be installed so that the consumer can be closely monitored. By whom, exactly? Thus is state surveillance ratcheted upwards, while energy failure is to be a public order issue, giving the police powers of intervention.
Apart from placing the consumer in the uncertain hands of unreliable regimes, these reports extend the power of the state over the individual. In short, it is all about control."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples