Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-10-21-Speech-2-335-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20141021.21.2-335-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we welcome the fact that the European Council will consider climate and energy policies alongside economic recovery. It is nonsensical to consider them separately. A healthy economy needs low-cost energy. Europe does not have it. Since 2005, energy prices in Europe have risen by 38%. In the USA, they have fallen by 4%, creating tough decisions for households, but also for companies, and stalling economic growth.
Climate and energy policy must be for the long term. It should not be based on short-term reactions. We need long-term thinking, and we need to work with industry, not against it. If we are to achieve a workable policy, it is time to put aside this ideological debate between whether or not you agree with one group of climate scientists or another group of climate scientists. Surely it is time to find common ground. Surely it is time that we find those areas on which we agree. Surely this is the sort of Chamber where different groups can come together. Surely we can agree on less pollution. Surely we can agree on less waste in landfill. Surely we can agree on less dependence on unpleasant regimes, whether in Russia or in the Middle East.
But we can also agree on more. We can agree on more renewable energy. We can agree on more energy efficiency and more conservation, and we can agree on more energy security. So let us put aside those differences and work together. But we have to take a step back and ask the fundamental question: in a modern, digital economy, with high-speed rail and electric cars, what will provide that energy? Wind? Yes. Solar? Of course. Wave energy? Yes. But is that truly enough? Therefore the question – and my question particularly to your group, my green friends – is what fills in the gaps? Some people will say nuclear, but the Greens say no. Some say clean coal. The Greens say no. Some say shale, but the Greens say no. So we have to answer this fundamental question. Blue card me if you have an answer. If not, we will have an energy policy that might emit less CO
but we will also have power cuts, companies moving production outside the EU
and even higher levels of unemployment.
So surely here the key is pragmatism, not setting climate targets which are unreachable and which drive industry out of the EU. Let us not forget that the EU by 2030 will only account for 4.5% of global emissions. We cannot have a ‘little European’ mentality. We have to work with the rest of the world. A solution will not necessarily be from a multinational. It might well be found in someone’s garage by the Bill Gates or the Steve Jobs of the energy world. That is why we need to be pro-market, not necessarily pro-big business. Let us cut the red tape and arbitrary targets that crush these start-up companies at the start. Otherwise, we will never solve this challenge. It is time to reclaim the green agenda for those who believe that being green and pro-growth are two sides of the same coin."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples