Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-17-Speech-4-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090917.3.4-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it would be difficult for me to answer all the questions raised, but I would like to emphasise a couple of points.
Thank you very much for this debate. I will be very happy also to answer questions in the ITRE Committee, or in any other committees that would like to discuss energy issues in more detail.
First of all, the policies we follow in the energy sector seek to promote the wellbeing of our citizens and our industry. What we are looking for is a secure supply of well-priced and clean energy. This is our overarching goal.
Secondly, we never make any side deals when we are discussing energy agreements. There are no compromises either on enlargement or on human rights. We work from the point of view that interdependence in energy supply is the most important thing and is beneficial for all – for suppliers, transit countries and consumers. It takes time to convince our partners, but that is the only way to achieve stability.
Thirdly, even if it sometimes seems that we are slow, I think that basing ourselves on the industry proposals, and on support for industry, is crucial because that makes us strong. Perhaps it does not make us a speedboat in the energy ocean, but it makes for stability. When we make a change, we have a much broader basis for it, so we are much safer. All the projects have been well checked for cost efficiency and future viability. So I believe that is the right support to give.
The next area where we have a weakness, and which we are continuing to discuss, is external energy policy and coherence. It is true that there is a lot of controversy – or at least perceived controversy – and, as a Commissioner, I would definitely be happy to see a more coherent external energy policy.
The motion for a resolution addresses exactly this issue because, although there is no in-built conflict between Member States, there is perceived conflict. All the activities pursued by the Member States also benefit the European Union. So we should follow this up and really try to build a system where we speak with one voice, not only verbally but also in terms of the points of view that we want to emphasise. For this reason the second strategic energy review is still very important. All the points that we put forward in the second energy review are still there.
At the same time, from the Commission’s point of view, we clearly see that we cannot afford to move from interdependence to dependence. That is why we particularly support diversification projects like Nabucco and LNG – not that they completely change our relationship of interdependence with other countries, but they give us additional safety margins. So that is what we are doing, but at the same time we definitely take note of what happens in the energy world.
Regarding the point on nuclear energy, we have moved away from this option. We have adopted a Nuclear Safety Directive but it is very much a national and very sensitive point. I really believe that, from the Union point of view, we should build upon the cooperation of nuclear safety regulators and try to establish a safer and more coherent system. But I doubt that we could go further than that.
Last but not least, I really believe that these issues and debates very much help to shape energy policy, but there is no single instrument that provides for it. There are many instruments, and we will come back to this debate in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples