Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-17-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081217.16.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have had the opportunity to state several times here that the simple aim of reducing the European Union’s dependence on gas or oil imports could, in itself, justify the promotion of renewable energy sources.
The compromise presented here today, which forms part of the energy and climate change package, is like all compromises: neither all bad, nor entirely satisfactory.
In particular, it is not entirely satisfactory with regard to biofuels, whether second-generation or not. There is an inadequate guarantee with regard to competition with food production, vagueness with regard to any changes to land use, silence on the actual carbon footprint of these energy sources, and so on.
It is not entirely convincing with regard to the ‘guarantee of origin’, intended to identify green electricity in particular, when we are aware of the reality of electricity supply, dubious advertisements on the subject and the significant additional cost for consumers.
Lastly, it is absolutely unsatisfactory in terms of the social consequences. We would like to be certain, as we would, for that matter, for this whole legislative package, adopted at the start of a global crisis that promises to be profound and long-lasting, that the interests of European citizens and workers will take precedence over any other consideration, should the economic situation so require."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples