Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-03-08-Speech-2-778-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110308.32.2-778-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, let us try to forecast where the gas market is going. Today, we have presented our communication about the Energy Efficiency Plan which involves a focus on saving energy, using it more efficiently and not wasting it, along with the security of the energy supply.
Secondly, we also have a growing requirement for energy within the European Union. Just one example of this is mobility. In Germany, there are 520 diesel-engined vehicles for every 1 000 people. In the new Member States, the figure is below 200. These two figures will converge, but they will move up rather than down towards the level in Poland.
Thirdly, our own deposits of gas are shrinking. The amounts have fallen significantly in the United Kingdom during the last decade and will do the same in the Netherlands over the next decade, which means increasing dependency. In addition, a lot of our hopes are, of course, pinned on gas. Why is this? Although it is a fossil fuel, it is far more environmentally friendly when it comes to CO
emissions than coal or oil and much more flexible than nuclear power and coal. For this reason, gas is essential in order to ensure that electricity can increasingly be generated from renewable energy sources. If we look at the subject of the base load, it is currently around 8 000 hours per year, while the figure for wind power, depending on the situation, is between 2 000 and 5 000 hours and for solar energy between only 600 and 2 000 hours. This makes it clear that we need gas. If we want renewable energy, then gas is its logical partner, however difficult that may be for many people to accept.
I am therefore working on the basis of an annual requirement of 600 billion cubic metres in Europe, rather than 300 billion. This will result in a dependency level of 80%. For this reason, we must first diversify and modernise our transport routes, so that they meet the latest technical requirements. We must also eliminate islands, develop our storage capacity and diversify our sources. This means that, alongside Russia, Norway, Algeria, Qatar and Libya, we should also obtain gas from the Caspian region. Gas from this area can be brought into the European gas market via the Turkey-Greece-Italy Interconnector (ITGI), the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and Nabucco. In the interests of diversification, I do not exclude the possibility of using gas from rocks in the Member States. This process is only just beginning.
However, there is the question of whether we need regulatory intervention from Europe. Why might this be the case? Let us assume that Poland hands out licences arbitrarily and this puts the groundwater or the soil in Poland at risk. This would be unlikely to have any major impact outside Poland’s borders. We need to look at the following question, if we do not want to take ourselves too seriously. Do we not trust the government in Warsaw to ensure that there is clean water and clean soil for the sake of the health of its citizens and to protect ownership rights? I trust every democratically elected government in Europe which is accountable to a parliament and to the public to do this. Therefore, if we are serious about subsidiarity, we need to consider why a borehole in Poland should be controlled, authorised or rejected by Brussels and not by Warsaw. I have fundamental confidence in the national governments. I do not distrust them. Nevertheless, I am happy to discuss the subject of common regulations.
We must investigate whether the European regulatory framework is sufficiently comprehensive and whether environmental law, soil conservation law, groundwater regulations, health and safety at work for the employees involved and people in the area and ownership rights will all be guaranteed. I do not know, but I suspect that what my spokesperson said is right. There is room for improvement in the European regulations. That is true in all areas. It applies to the quotas for women and it also applies here. For this reason, we will investigate the possibilities for improvement. We will also ask the Member States to give us a common, coordinated list of authorisation requirements. All this has been happening without any definite conclusions being drawn. The USA is similar to Europe in some ways, but not in others. It has a quite different population density and, therefore, subjects such as local residents, health and safety and groundwater play a quite different role than in densely populated areas in central Europe, such as Poland, Germany or France.
We will commission an expert report which will involve investigating what the risks are on the basis of typical applications for test boreholes within the EU and whether the legislative framework in the European Union is up to the job, whether the legal regulations in the Member States are adequate, and whether, and if so where, we need to introduce improvements at an EU level. I advise everyone not to bring emotion into this subject. In reply to the French Member of this House who said that their interests were not being protected, I would say that in France, my interest in seeing the highest possible levels of safety for nuclear power plants is much more important than trial boreholes for shale gas, at least at the moment.
I would like to make one last point which is off the record. I am very grateful to you for coming here so late in the day and for staying to take part in the debate. I regret the fact that a whole series of Members, and I was a Member of this House for a long time, which is why I can say this, have taken the floor and then left the Chamber. I do not think that there are any important events going on elsewhere. I believe that it is not fair to me or to you to take the floor and then to leave. This sort of behaviour is not good for Parliament’s reputation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples