Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-07-Speech-3-456"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100707.30.3-456"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me in turn to express my satisfaction with this debate. This was my first debate under this Presidency, and I must say that I consider myself very lucky to have been able to take part in such a rich and lively debate which shows both a very broad consensus amongst Members and a fairly strong convergence with the proposals put forward by the Commission. For my part, I shall ensure that the debate is held at the Council and that this broad consensus and convergence is reproduced there.
We can clearly see, at the end of this debate, how a broadly accepted policy for Europe should look, and we can clearly see that, ultimately, as the saying goes: ‘Every cloud has a silver lining.’ If this disaster, which has occurred a long way from us, enables us Europeans to take stock of our body of regulations, to ensure that these are now strengthened, even though we are not facing a disaster, and to make sure that such disasters cannot occur, well some good will have come of it, and we will at least have the merit of having learnt every lesson we could from it. As many have said, what we will need to do is to review all our preventive rules, to examine them after having cooperated fully, of course, with the sector, with the public authorities and the regulatory authorities, but also – and I am emphasising this point for the benefit of the Commission – with independent experts, so that we can be sure that we have heard all possible points of view on these issues. If necessary, we should continue this process until we have a set of regulations that will almost certainly ensure – because there is no such thing as certainty in this area – that such accidents can never happen again. The proposal being made by the Commission to consider a moratorium is a fundamental proposal and, once again, I will ensure that the Council holds this debate and that a decision is taken as soon as possible.
The second fundamental principle is the polluter pays principle and, therefore, the proposal of a form of insurance which offers two advantages: firstly, it ensures that if a disaster does occur – which we obviously do not want – those responsible for it will not be able to escape their financial obligations. This is crucially important. Secondly, if the insurance system is sufficiently well designed and sufficiently powerful, it will have the advantage of acting as a deterrent so that anybody considering venturing into hazardous drilling activities will be dissuaded by the insurance conditions imposed on them. This is an additional advantage of this type of system.
Then, of course, it will be necessary to revise and review all the regulations relating to liability and the mechanisms for intervening in the event of a disaster. I have already just mentioned that it would be useful to review the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) rules, to ensure that they, and our civil protection mechanisms, provide all the resources we need to react in the event of a disaster. Finally, and above all else, what this disaster reminds us is that we in Europe showed particular foresight when, in December 2008, we adopted the climate and energy package, those famous 20/20/20 targets. It is, in some ways, a happy coincidence that, at the very moment when the previous US Administration was deciding to embark once again on risky drilling operations, in Alaska no less, and in the most extreme conditions, Europe was doing exactly the opposite, and seeking to procure the means for true energy efficiency and for a genuine transition towards renewable energies. We can only be pleased about this, and we must go on saying it; we must go on letting those around us know that this commitment we made nearly 18 months ago is getting stronger by the day.
30 June was the deadline by which all Member States had to submit their national action plans for the development of renewable energies. I do not know if all the Member States have submitted their plans, Commissioner. I am sure that the Commission is exerting legitimate pressure on them to obtain these plans within the time limits. Belgium submitted its plan 48 hours late, for which I apologise, but it has been submitted. These are documents which show that, this time, the fundamental industrial transition is under way; that this time, each Member State has examined all the internal processes required to complete this transition and, at the same time, has acknowledged its potential and the enormous amount of work involved.
The same applies to the assessment of energy efficiency. As you know, Commissioner – as perhaps you also know, ladies and gentlemen – the Presidency is very keen for us to make rapid progress in the area of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the policy of all policies. Renewable energy policies are all very well, but it would be even better if no energy was consumed at all. We know that, when it comes to buildings – and this is in spite of the regulations that we have recently adopted, on the energy performance of buildings, for example – heating, industry and even transport, we can still make huge savings in Europe. This has been demonstrated by a large number of studies.
If we look at the assessments made of the regulations on private vehicles – on cars, for example – we can see how effective these regulations are; they have played a big part in reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, and particularly of oil, by European motorists, which demonstrates how relevant this policy is. As you know, Commissioner, we are awaiting the first results of the assessment of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan so that we can start work on a second, highly ambitious, plan as soon as possible.
We will also re-examine, Mrs Damanaki, offshore renewable energies. As you know, Belgium is particularly keen on the North Sea for obvious geographical reasons. A short time ago, we, along with eight other Member States and another non-Member State, which also happens to have platforms and engages in oil exploration and drilling – Norway – took the initiative to sign, all 10 of us, an agreement to jointly build a wind farm in the North Sea. This is one of the largest ever renewable energy development projects. At the same time, we are also starting to consider the development of other renewable energy technologies on these North Sea wind farms to harness the power of the sea for energy generation. This is another issue to which we will return, although a major debate will still carry on in the meantime, because we will have to finalise the 2011-2020 Action Plan during this Presidency; in other words, we will have to realise our vision of energy for the next 10 years. This means translating those famous targets in the 2020 package into specific, concrete proposals, and providing associated funding solutions. We will also have to start the debate on the 2050 road map, the vision for 2050, which is, without doubt, the cornerstone of all the commitments we have made. Some scientists are saying today that Europe has a serious chance of achieving 100% renewable energies in 2050 if an effective energy efficiency policy is implemented and renewable energies are developed. This means that we will be free of fossil fuels in about 40 years’ time.
This is another debate which we will have to conduct and launch with the necessary ambition."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples