The MEPs who, at the plenary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday 13 December, took part in an initial debate on the package of clean energy measures that was presented by the European Commission on 30 November (see EUROPE 11679) highlighted, in more or less restrained terms, the shortcomings of the package.
From the EPP Group, Françoise Grossetête (France) said she was happy with the measures on energy efficiency and eco-design but she stressed the need for “a mix of energy sources” other than renewables, and she mentioned nuclear, geothermal, hydro and biogas. “Fossil fuels will inevitably remain important sources but alternatives to coal gas must be a priority”, she added, calling for efforts to be stepped up in research into storing the energy generated by renewable sources and in financing carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. In this area, Grossetête regretted that there are only four CCS projects in Europe, including only one that is operational in Norway. Markus Pieper (Germany) urged that “the shift to green energy should not be hindered by energy-saving obligations”, arguing for indicative targets.
For the S&D Group, Kathleen Van Brempt (Belgium) called for a greater level of ambition on renewables and energy efficiency and for guarantees on access to heating and electricity for all citizens. “We welcome the binding targets on energy efficiency and renewables but the level of ambition proposed is still too low”, opined Van Brempt, underlining the S&D’s desire for a 40% energy efficiency target and a more ambitious objective on renewables, accompanied by national targets. She also criticised the continued support for fossil fuels within the framework of sustainable transition. Flavio Zanonato, Italy, said that, in his view, the phased decarbonisation proposed by the Commission was “a little too slow”.
Within the ECR Group, Zdzislaw Krasnodebski (Poland) said he had “some difficulties” with the role of renewables compared with other energy sources. Julie Girling (UK) argued for specific measures to resolve the problems related to “outdated and heavy” urban heating systems in some regions of the EU and to deal with the issue of heating detached homes, in terms of both changing consumption patterns and health. Anneleen Van Bossuyt (Belgium) argued for an energy efficiency target of only 27%, to be re-assessed in 2023 and she felt that the Commission’s proposals to remove trade barriers on the electricity market were inadequate.
Morten Helveg Petersen (Denmark), speaking on behalf of the ALDE Group, called on the Parliament and member states to go for “as ambitious a reform as possible”, taking the view that the EU had “a unique opportunity … to break free from Putin’s gas and the sheiks’ oil”. “We need green energy in electricity sockets across Europe. Until we reach 100%, our target must be upwards. I want to see the Parliament’s approach even more progressive and more ambitious than the Commission’s. We can and must go further, we have to take the global lead in renewables and energy efficiency, and ensure that legislation is promoted and implemented for the benefit of all European citizens and especially for the climate”, he stressed.
For the GUE/NGL, Neoklis Sylikiotis (Cyprus) criticised the weakness of the goals proposed for energy efficiency and renewables compared with what the Parliament is calling for. He also condemned “the lack of real initiatives to address energy isolation and the sacrifice of the environment and people’s needs for the benefit of large energy groups”. Katerina Konecna (Czech Republic) called for more to be done on energy saving, arguing that this was the “weak point” in the package and that the package offered very few proposals on energy poverty. “Energy is a right for all citizens”, she stressed.
Claude Turmes (Luxembourg), for the Greens/EFA Group, welcomed some good proposals but regretted a lack of overall vision. “Why call the package ‘Package for clean energy’ and not ‘Package for green energy’? The future is renewable energy”, he said, berating the Commission for estimating the cost of renewables as double their real cost. Turmes was also critical of the unequitable treatment that the package reserves for different energy sources, leaving it to the market to pick up the baton from support systems for renewable energy but not for subsidies to coal and nuclear power.
Dario Tamburrano (Italy) of the EFDD Group criticised the retention of subsidies for fossil fuels, railing against a bill of €300 billion annually – or €600 per person – that tax payers have to foot. “It’s a disgrace! Fossil energy is dirty, deadly from the health point of view, and from the geopolitical point of view it’s suicide”, he argued, pointing a finger at the EU’s firmness of stance on budgetary stability but not on subsidies for dirty energy. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)