Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.2.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It is excellent that the five billion package promised by the Commission when the economic crisis first began has at last been approved. The cash was badly needed, and I think that the Commission’s chosen priorities of energy and rural support, which means in particular the development of broadband networks, are worthwhile. The 100 million granted for the Estlink 2 submarine cable project will have a special impact on Finland. It is excellent that the Estlink project should have remained on the list, its sum unchanged, right from the time the Commission first put forward its proposal.
The priorities for the energy recovery package, however, are really very irritating – the fact that the Commission’s original idea purely and simply to support power lines, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and offshore wind projects has not changed along the way. Power lines and offshore wind did, of course, deserve the additional cash. The unreasonable emphasis on carbon capture and storage, however, is incomprehensible, especially as this is likely to receive considerable funding from revenue from emissions trading.
Other renewable energy projects should also definitely have had an equal chance to apply for the extra recovery funds, apart from those relating to wind power. Instead of investing in CCS technology, which is an uncertain venture, the emphasis ought to be on renewable energy sources. The various solar energy projects, in particular, would have deserved to receive financing.
There was a statement that came with the package that suggested that unused funds might be channelled into projects to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In the Commission’s original plans, funds would have been earmarked for energy efficiency, rather than using any of the crumbs that might have been left over for this. It is also very unfortunate that the component originally planned for ‘smart cities’ was, in the end, excluded from the recovery package."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples