Paris, 04/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 3 July in Paris, the EPP-ED Group at the European Parliament discussed, as part of its study days, the promotion of energy sources that are low in CO2 emissions. Members of this group and experts were divided over this and generally defended the Commission's goal of giving the EU a common foreign policy for making energy supplies secure.
Gunnar Hökmark of Sweden, Vice-President of the EPP-ED Group at the EP, said that, at the time when the EU is discussing how to reduce CO2 emissions, in Saudi Arabia people are recommending that oil exploration be stepped up, with the impact of increasing CO2 emissions. High oil prices may be considered as a tax on CO2 cashed in by a number of regimes (Russia, some Arab countries, etc). We must ensure that the alternatives to oil are commercially viable. Should one reduce from 10-8% the objective (to be reached by 2020) of having a minimum share of biofuels in total fuel consumption used for the transport sector for each member state? One must not put the cart before the horse, however, but deregulate the market, see if more can be imported while ensuring that biofuels are not produced to the detriment of forests. It is also necessary to ensure that taxation on renewable energies is carefully adapted to CO2 criteria. Finally, one must ensure that the energy market is able to function for using all the sources of energy available - including the nuclear option. In Germany and Sweden, a plan for discarding nuclear energy is on the agenda, which will only worsen the problems depicted by experts on global warming.
Angelika Niebler (CSU), who chairs the committee on industry, research and energy at the EP, spoke in particular of energy savings and energy efficiency. In Europe, we are in a better situation than in the United States in this field, but we can still do much better. It is necessary to: - encourage research (€2.4 billion available under the 7th framework programme for research, technological platforms, etc.); - increase energy efficiency (insulation of buildings, replacement of traditional light bulbs, cleaner fuels for motor vehicles) and reflect on what could be imposed on citizens and industry; - reflect how to convince our companies to protect the environment and ensure supply security; - and teach the young how to use energy efficiently.
John Bowis of the UK expressed scepticism about biofuels. Focus must be placed on renewable energies and especially on biomass which can be transformed into electricity. Paul Rübig of Austria asked how correct carbon charging can be obtained.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Research on the impact of climate change (PIK) said a platform was needed for a solar energy project between Europe and Africa. On climate change, he said China and India should be convinced to make progress in emissions reduction. Biofuels, even of the second generation, allow only 10% of primary energy to be used. “I have nothing against nuclear energy. I just think we can use it more safely”, he added.
Françoise Grossetête of France felt that the oil price crisis provides Europe with an opportunity to try to rid itself of the “all fossil fuel” situation. It will take 25, 30 or 40 years, however, to reach new effective technologies, as wind power is not the be all and end all, and carbon capture is not yet perfect. Nuclear power is essential if the rise in temperature by the end of the century is to be kept below 2°. What criteria should be met before one can say an international agreement is a good agreement? Or should there be a fixed price for carbon to be taken into account.
Eija-Riitta Korhola, member of the EP's temporary committee on climate change, concluded the debate on this theme by saying: - the emissions trading system (ETS) currently being revised can help us as long as we agree on clean energy needs (a system unilaterally decided by the EU should be avoided as it would penalise enterprise); - and nuclear energy is not the solution but is only part of the solution.
A common foreign policy for secure energy supplies. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, External Relations Commissioner, stressed the importance of the project to include energy supply security in the European security strategy. The French Presidency will “play a key role” in this, the Commissioner welcomed, saying: “We must work together for increased transparency between EU countries on information exchange and Community principles for ensuring supply security should be developed”. She went on to specify that the energy and climate package should allow energy spending to be cut by almost €50 billion in 2020 (taking into account the fact that a barrel of oil costs $60). “But we mustn't delude ourselves” - even once a package of measures is applied, it will still be necessary in 2020 to import over 50% of our energy in various forms, but above all in hydrocarbons. These supplies come from Norway, Russia, the Middle East and Africa. The problem for the EU remains and will remain that of managing energy dependency and security of supplies (especially gas), explained Ms Ferrero-Waldner. She went on to recall the agreements signed with partners to the east (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan), the support that the EU gives to developing a trans-Caspian energy corridor and to the rehabilitation of Russian gas transit infrastructure through Ukraine. To the south, agreements exist with Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan (with a view to a Euro-Mediterranean energy market). Also, the EU is examining new projects for interconnection in the Middle East (Iraq, Gulf countries). These efforts to diversify supply sources will only be effective if they have outlets in the EU (such as the Nabucco gas pipeline project).
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski of Poland, who chairs the EP committee on foreign affairs, said when concluding the discussion that “the external dimension of energy security is under-estimated”. Efforts are being made in this field, the Commissioner has spoken of them, but they are insufficient. Bilateral agreements proliferate and “we are faced with a real Russian offensive, but we are on the losing side and prices go on climbing”, he said. One cannot support the Nabucco project as well as the South Stream project (Russian-Italian southern gas pipeline), he added, saying “one rules out the other”. (L.C./transl.jl)