Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.3.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate, which began with the subject of gas and gas storage, has taken on a more general character and has expanded to cover energy policy as a whole. Of course, it is true that we are dependent on gas. However, this applies not only to gas, but also to other energy sources, including oil to just the same extent, coal from the world market and nuclear raw materials. Even in the case of renewable energy, our dependency on countries with storage facilities, such as Switzerland and Norway, is growing. Europe is dependent on other states. For this reason, the subject of energy efficiency, in other words, using our energy in a more targeted way and not wasting it, will become increasingly important. Over the coming months, we will want to discuss our conclusions with you in detail.
The subject of the energy community has also been brought up and I believe that the European Union must become a more effective energy community based on solidarity. The approach taken by Mr Delors shows us the direction in which we should go. However, my advice is that we should use the new instruments over the next few years; in other words, we should make active use of Article 194 as our legal basis, as well as exploiting other opportunities, in order to create an internal market. We do not yet have a genuine internal market for electricity and gas. The Member States, some of them more so than others, make fine speeches about the internal market, but they do not actually do anything about it and, instead, focus on their own national industrial policy. They should be using these instruments. In four or five years, we will then be in a credible position to talk to the Member States and the general public about developing our legal basis further.
As far as the energy community is concerned, I believe that Switzerland, Norway, Serbia, Croatia – and the countries of the former Yugoslavia in general – together with Morocco, the Maghreb countries, the Middle East, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, belong together in a close-knit energy community, with the addition of Turkey in particular.
There have been calls for a forecast for the energy and gas market. We want to put forward a range of different alternatives as part of the Roadmap 2050. It is clear that as long as the energy mix is primarily a matter for the Member States, we are dependent on the sums done by the politicians in the Member States for our forecast of how much gas will be used to generate electricity and what our gas requirements are. We will not have sole responsibility in this area. Nevertheless, we want to make a proposal concerning our gas usage over the decades to come. We are currently using more than 400 billion cubic metres of gas. In 2030 or 2040, will that figure have risen to 500 or 600 billion or fallen to 300 billion? This is a very important question when it comes to predicting our infrastructure requirements and our dependency on other countries.
On the subject of dependency, we must remember that we still have significant gas deposits of our own. However, they will run out in the next 15 to 20 years. The Netherlands is a typical example in this respect. It is true that we are primarily dependent on Russia, which is currently responsible for 25% of the European gas market. A quarter of our gas comes from Russian deposits. This is a large amount, but it is still a manageable figure. However, it is clear that the equivalent figures for Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania range from well over 50% up to 100%, while for Portugal, the figure is zero. We have an East-West divide depending on each country’s proximity to or distance from the location of the gas deposits in Siberia. We receive significant supplies from Algeria and from Norway and we should also highlight the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) which comes from Qatar in the Middle East, either by ship or via terminals.
With regard to our dependency on Russia, I regard Russia, despite all its problems, as a partner. The ten-year EU-Russia Energy Dialogue will be taking place in November. The fact is that we are mutually dependent. Why is this? As the Russians are responsible for more than 50% of the financing for the Nord Stream pipeline, which involves an investment of more than EUR 4 billion, it is in their interests for the gas to flow through it, otherwise the investment would not be profitable for them. In addition, the Russians want to sell us gas so that they have European currency available to buy cars, industrial plants, machinery, high-tech goods and expertise to develop the Russian economy. Therefore, I believe that if we act together, we will be in a situation of mutual dependency, rather than being laid open to blackmail.
The next area which we need to look at is diversification and reducing our dependency on other countries. On the one hand, we need to ensure that existing pipelines are renovated, so that our technical dependency does not increase. On the other hand, we must focus on new areas. I believe that we should be dependent on the Russians with regard to Russian gas. The Russians should be our partners when it comes to selling and trading in their own gas, but not in the case of gas from third countries. The largest gas deposits are in the Caspian region. While I feel that Russian gas is closely linked with our partner Russia, I do not believe that our supply of gas from the Caspian region should come to us via Russia. The Russians should sell us their own gas, but not trade in gas from third countries. Gas from Algeria and from Norway is not supplied to us via Russia. Therefore, the European Union must establish a direct connection with the Caspian region which is as short as possible, has no detours and does not make us unnecessarily dependent on the Russian trading system. However, to achieve this, we need solidarity. I would therefore like to ask all the Member States, including Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland: Are we prepared to work together to find a solution in the southern corridor which is in the European interest? Or are we divided? That is the crucial point. If we are united and are not prepared to take up other offers which, to a large extent, are not in the European interest, we can achieve a breakthrough in the Caspian region. We are working very hard on the Nabucco project. We hold working sessions every week and, on 1 October, there will be a top-level meeting with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. We cannot make the decision ourselves. It will be made by the investors. However, we can do everything possible to ensure that we act as moderators for the decision involving the Member States and our neighbouring countries, including Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. I remain of the opinion that Nabucco is on the right track.
You say that we need to invest more. That may be the case, but I can promise you that we make proper use of every euro allocated by Parliament and the Member States in the European budget for cofinanced infrastructure, in areas where it would not be profitable for us to go it alone. You will be making the decision for the financing period in the near future. We need to talk about priorities in this respect. If we want to spend more money on infrastructure, we either need to bring in more money, which does not seem entirely feasible, or we need to spend less money in other areas. I will be interested to see how this process between the different working areas, including those in Parliament, will function.
Thank you once again for your support. You have made progress in this area and together, we have convinced the Member States. I am pleased to be able to say to you all that we will implement the regulation quickly and, in the report which is planned for four years’ time, we will analyse its strengths and weak points and present our final conclusions as to whether it will make sense to develop the regulation further and expand its content."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples