Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-04-07-Speech-4-202-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110407.18.4-202-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I did not support the resolution, firstly because it did not contribute anything positive in addition to bans, restrictions and a general aversion to nuclear technology. Secondly, it does not indicate any way out of a completely new situation for energy policy as a whole. For example, points 19, 20 and 21 could have introduced new ideas and orientations in terms of integrated thinking about energy efficiency, especially efficiency with regard to energy from primary sources, of which we have the greatest reserves, especially fossil fuels. Thirdly, the radical suggestions it contains require a national referendum, which, in my country, is to take place at the initiative of the left-wing parties. Maybe such a referendum ought to be carried out at EU level. Fourthly, my country, as a result of the EU’s misguided regulations to date, has been forced to halt essential investments in coal power stations, and now the same lobby is saying that we need to halt investments in nuclear technology. So what is left? The resolution points only to energy from renewable sources. In my country, the total capacity of these resources would cover 13%, to a maximum of 20%, of essential needs. Maybe in Sweden the situation is different, as it has large reserves of hydropower, but not in Poland. The case of Fukushima requires a review of the whole of the European Union’s current energy policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples