Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-07-Speech-3-454"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100707.30.3-454"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this debate. Mrs Damanaki, my staff and I have noted your contributions and your constructive proposals and I shall be happy to return to these in the coming weeks.
The issue at stake there is market value and certain possible changes. Clearly, if BP is based in Europe, we can hold it to account, while a change in the shareholder structure would tend to weaken Europe’s position in all questions of safety between policy and private business – I will not go into the assumptions that might be made in relation to Chinese state-run companies.
We shall be happy to report back to you in the coming days through the coordinators for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and I shall then return to this House in the autumn with our comprehensive proposals.
I should like to comment specifically on four points. Firstly, while respecting the competences of our Member States, I would expressly advise them not to implement new approval procedures at present. I believe that a moratorium on processing applications for new drilling rigs and making the relevant decisions is a reasonable response at present and that for this reason, new projects can be put back to a later date.
We are working on an energy strategy for 2020-2050. The decisive factor here is the role that oil will play in the coming decades. The fact is that the worldwide trend is towards greater demand for energy from oil. I have my doubts about whether more oil is needed in Europe. My aim in our strategies for 2020-2050 is to manage with less oil and to justify this approach and make the appropriate provisions. In other words, I am looking for a way out of oil consumption. This can be achieved in industry, private households, heating and other areas, such as oil-powered generation of electricity, but clearly, one area remains sensitive: the transport sector. Despite the expansion of our rail networks over the coming decades, oil will continue to be the key source of energy in air transport, for both passengers and cargo, and in the surface transport of heavy goods. Energy efficiency can be increased, reducing demand, and some demand can be shifted or avoided, but without oil, air travel and road transport by heavy goods vehicle will be impossible in the coming decades.
As far as cars are concerned, we are also pursuing the theme of renewable energies in the transport sector, setting ourselves a target of 10% renewables by the year 2020. At present, there are over 200 million cars registered in the Member States of the European Union. If we succeed in moving five million of these to electromobility by the year 2020, this will be an enormous success.
However, this still leaves 200 million running on oil with diesel and petrol engines. In other words, electromobility is on the way, but, whatever efficiencies we may achieve, oil will remain essential in the decades ahead if one accepts current individual mobility patterns and if one has an interest in car production. For this reason, we will continue to need oil for a relatively long time into the future and should not allow our dependence on third countries to rise to 100%, particularly since third countries often fail to satisfy our control and safety requirements to the same extent as Member States and the companies working here in the European Union.
I would also like to mention liability and damage. I support full compensation and the principle that the polluter pays, whether culpable or not, as well as corporate liability, up to and including personal liability.
Establishing preliminary solutions right from the outset would generalise the principle that the polluter pays and cause some of the costs to be passed on to the public, thereby reducing the companies’ interest in avoiding damage.
Secondly, we should look at the question of whether we should propose compulsory insurance according to the cause and extent of damage. Thirdly, the question arises whether tax legislation in our Member States makes enough provision for possible liability and damage, and then fourthly, in my opinion, comes the question of the contributions to be levied in forming the fund.
Finally, I would like to consider the topic of employment. BP, Shell, Total and others are large European employers that provide huge numbers of jobs, meaning that people’s livelihoods are at stake. I believe it is important to sustain jobs in the energy sector. I do not intend to speculate here, but the business sections of the European press are full of the question whether BP will remain an autonomous global company based in Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples