Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.19.3-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are entering into the debate here, and if I take the points on which your speeches focused, we have a broad energy mix in the European Union, in the Member States and also in Parliament. I have heard talk of everything from 100% renewable energies right up to nuclear fusion, nuclear power and coal. That means that the hot question will be: will we agree on a long-term strategy? Will we get consensus in Europe? If we do, what will the consensus be?
We are currently working on the strategy that comprises the three targets of 20% renewable energies, 20% CO
reduction and 20% increase in efficiency. That is the strategy for the new decade. It is right that we need a long-term strategy. The Road Map that we will present to you as a rough draft next spring will provide this. With this Road Map we intend in the next year to consider the next 40 years with you and the Member States and to submit forecasts for energy requirements, the energy mix, environmental targets and the security of supply for four decades. Not an easy undertaking. Imagine for a moment that we were in 1970 before the oil crisis, before the fall of the Wall and with only a few Member States, and we had to use the expertise that we had in 1970 to shed light on 2010 and the current energy situation. Our estimates would have been completely wrong. Do we know what technical capabilities will emerge in the next 40 years? What new political interests the Member States will have? Nevertheless, I am in favour of the attempt to produce the Road Map 2050.
Then the question of why we need binding CO
reduction targets was raised, and why the Member States cannot do this. It is quite simply because that was what was decided. I accept the 20% CO
and the 30% if we find other partners worldwide. This is a decision by Parliament, to which you belong, and the Council, and I implement it. If you want something different, let me know. I believe that if there were no binding targets, the Member States would simply not comply with them. If we abandon binding targets, the Member States would do less or nothing at all, particularly in difficult economic times.
The subject of energy efficiency was mentioned. In our strategy we are only creating the headings for this. Details of how this is will be implemented in practice and the instruments, measures and financial corridor will follow in the spring when we will have to present the energy efficiency strategy, which you are currently debating.
There have been questions about the internal market. Please trust me and Mr Almunia. We will ensure full compliance with the second and third internal market packages, we will deal with treaty infringement proceedings and do everything we can to ensure that in the next five years gas and electricity achieve an internal market with competition and transparency. In the last few weeks we have been advising the Member States – the Polish Government in the Jamal case, the Bulgarian Government in the South Stream case and with regard to gas supplies to Bulgaria. In fact, the Member States are not always willing or in a position themselves to ensure compliance with internal market rules in their bilateral agreements. Where our advice is sought we provide it, but the involvement of the Member States is also required. There are also large Member States in which the internal market does not work. One country is not far from here and perhaps it is even the country that we are in right now. Thus, I would ask the Members from France: are you prepared to work with me to create an internal market in France and in other countries? I need your support in this – not at a national level, but at a European level.
In connection with the Southern Corridor, the decision with regard to Nabucco, TAP or ITGI will, I believe, be taken in the first quarter of next year. However, a gas infrastructure requires us to discuss the question of how much gas will we need for heating and electricity conversion in the coming decades? It is currently 500 billion cubic metres per year. Will it be less or will it be more? This will also be addressed in the Road Map 2050.
Mr Rohde mentioned the example of China. In my view, China is always good to use as a comparison, but preferably not as an example to be followed. You are right that there has been a great deal of investment in wind energy in China. That is true, but you failed to mention the fact that China is currently buying up the world’s coal and is investing much more in coal. In the last year, China invested more in renewable energies than Germany did, that is true. Nevertheless, the proportion of renewable energies produced in China is falling, because much more is being invested in nuclear power and coal. Moreover, China refers to nuclear power as a form of renewable energy. I do not agree with that. Consequently, a comparison with China is important, but I would seriously advise against holding China up as an example for us to follow in our European work.
Thank you once again. I also need you when it comes to the European budget. Calls have been made for more to be done and for more resources to be provided for research and infrastructure. I go along with that. I take every euro that you give me, but the budget is decided by the Council and Parliament. On the basis of our good experience with the SET plan, with energy research funding and with the economic recovery plan, I trust that we will produce a good proposal for infrastructure and that you will support it so that, in the next decade, sufficient European funding with added value for appropriate European measures in the areas of infrastructure and research will be provided. With this in mind, we certainly have sufficient opportunity for constructive cooperation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples