Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-16-Speech-2-402"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081216.38.2-402"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my group started the negotiations full of enthusiasm, because we wanted to secure good conditions for carbon capture and storage. CO
is better off underground than in the atmosphere. The question is whether the present result of the negotiations would benefit the environment. We do not believe that it would.
It is unfortunate that Mr Davies was not the rapporteur for the Emissions Trading Scheme Directive, for his persistence with regard to financial incentive measures would have been fitting. When he did decide to join in the game of chess on the board of emission rights, though, he appeared willing to sacrifice many pawns, including, in the end, his king, on his own chess board.
Accordingly, no maximum CO
emission value has been agreed upon for new power plants. What was said, though, is that the power stations must be capture-ready. What does that mean? After all, without a definition, all we need is space the size of a football pitch. The upshot of this report is that no single restriction is stopping the development of ever more and exceptionally polluting coal-fired power stations, in which case the football pitch serves as a fig leaf for a distant future.
I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, though, on the introduction of a 20-year liability period and a fund which will finance the monitoring of closed sites for 30 years. This is offset, however, by the fact that this directive does allow CO
to be pumped into the ground in order to recover more gas and oil, a process known as enhanced oil recovery. This is a very bizarre element of the climate package, because this process ensures, naturally, that more CO
is emitted. Thanks to the Davies Fund, therefore, oil companies can now benefit from incentive measures for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to use, and exhaust, their oil fields for longer.
Shell will be satisfied, the environment will not. That is why my group will be voting ‘no’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples