Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-17-Speech-4-081"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-09-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Energy security (Nabucco and Desertec) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090917.3.4-081"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-09-17-Speech-4-0822
lpv:speaker	lp:Herbert Reul2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2012-02-12)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-21--2014-06-30)3 substitute; LIBE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 chair; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is not before time that the security of supply is recognised as a key energy policy issue. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it is sometimes made to appear in political debates. We are talking today about two projects: Nabucco, a very tangible project that we can work on, and Desertec, an interesting project or an interesting idea or a vision and no one can yet judge precisely whether, where and how it can be put into effect. We need to concern ourselves with concrete matters and work on those. We must also promote visionary projects, but we must guard against believing that there is only one solution to any particular problem or only one strategy for solving the problems. Thus, the point made by many fellow Members here is absolutely right: there is not just one answer, there are many solutions to these problems. These include, for example, the fact that we must not allow a very intensive debate on the CO problem to make us increasingly dependent on gas, which then brings us problems once again because we need new pipelines. We must say ‘yes’ to the coal policy, and that is why we need new power station technology. We must say ‘yes’ to CCS, ‘yes’ to nuclear power and to renewable energy and ‘yes’ to energy saving. It is not a question of one thing or the other, but of doing all of these things together. Anything else would, in my opinion, be immoral and irresponsible and I believe we would not be doing ourselves any favours. This also relates to the question of the source of supply and transport routes. Here, too, there is not just one answer. Anyone who believes that they can simply rely on a debate about pipelines is mistaken, of course, for if we want fewer dependencies we must keep a variety of options open, including LNG, and set about dealing with these. The question then remains – and it is a very important question – as to how we ensure that the necessary capital is made available to implement the required projects. What is the use of wonderful plans if there is no one willing to invest in them? Therefore, the way in which we pursue our energy policy and how we deal with those who we expect to invest in the projects is important. Companies must be encouraged. We must guard against believing that we can force everything to happen and predetermine every last detail. Last winter many solutions worked without any political decisions being taken because clever people cooperated wisely in different places and because the Commission provided helpful mediation."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"2"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph