Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-02-06-Speech-3-688-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20130206.38.3-688-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, we have gone to climate change conferences in the past and one of our strategies has been to lead by example. That is why we look at the range of initiatives that must be taken and we see, for example, carbon capture and storage, something which we are told will be necessary to reduce our emissions by 2050 by up to 25% globally. And so in 2007 our governments said they wanted to have up to 12 CCS projects in operation in the European Union by 2015. And what have we got six years later? Not even one project identified and going forward. We have slipped back appallingly. It has been a European failure. We have been far from taking a lead.
But projects are going elsewhere. There are 17 CCS projects either in operation or under construction across the world, saving up to 37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The majority are in the United States and Canada. We criticise those countries over greenhouse gases but they are doing something. We criticise China over its fossil-fuel power stations but under their ten-year plan, their five-year plan, say up to 10 CCS plants will be developed. So we are being left behind here on an advanced technology. We cannot afford that.
Now there is no blame. There is a lot of disappointment amongst the Commission officials and amongst companies. One of the reasons for it is the collapse in the carbon price which has sucked out the economic drive behind CCS, but there are things we must do. I do not think the division between DG Climate and DG Energy over CCS helps. I think the NER300, our funding mechanism, is too inflexible and there are really only two projects around in Europe that it could fund in future, so there is no point in that. We have placed too much reliance on the carbon price, not enough on direct subsidies. We subsidise renewable energy and yet CCS can save vastly more CO
emissions in the atmosphere than renewables. And finally, we need to use binding instruments, regulatory instruments, targets. We need to drive forward this technology. We cannot afford to be left behind."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples