Doslovno izvješće

Ponedjeljak, 15. prosinca 2014. - Strasbourg

16. Provedba Direktive o kakvoći goriva (rasprava)

  President. - The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on implementation of the Fuel Quality Directive (2014/2995 (RSP)).

  Carlos Moedas, Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner Arias Cañete regrets that he is not able to be here today. I hope this long discussion on the calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Article 7a of the Fuel Quality Directive can come to an end so that Member States can start to transpose these elements of the 2020 climate and energy package.

We must now ensure that the Member States can put mitigation measures in place to achieve the 6 % greenhouse gas reduction target in fuels by 2020. The Council has reached a qualified majority on the Commission’s October proposal. However, I understand that some Members of this Parliament consider the proposal unambitious, claiming that it will not prevent unconventional sources of oil such as tar sands coming onto the EU market.

The Commission would like to recall that the purpose of Article 7a of the Fuel Quality Directive is to reduce the carbon content of fuel used for road transport. The aim of the directive is not to discourage the use of any specific type of fuel but to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to achieve the 6 % greenhouse gas reduction target by 2020.

The Commission is convinced that the Fuel Quality Directive’s greenhouse gas reduction target can be implemented effectively both domestically and abroad through the proposal. The new Commission proposal agreed by the Council is thus a balanced and workable compromise as it delivers the objectives of the basic act while addressing key stakeholder concerns in an adequate manner. However, the Commission will be evaluating the experience with Article 7a of the Directive as part of its better regulation programme for the period after 2020. All options will be analysed to bring down greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels in line with the overall target of achieving a reduction of at least 40 % by 2030. All stakeholders, including Parliament, will be invited to bring forward their views among others at the Conference to be organised in the course of 2015.

  András Gyürk, a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Köszönöm szépen a szót! Elnök Asszony, tisztelt Biztos Úr, Képviselőtársaim! Az Európai Unió klímaváltozás ellen irányuló törekvéseinek fontos eleme az üzemanyagok üvegházhatásúgáz-kibocsátási szintjének csökkentése. Az Európai Unió úgy is mint nemzetközi szintéren úttörő szereplő ebben a harcban, nem engedheti meg magának, hogy kitűzött céljai ne teljesüljenek.

Ugyanakkor ezen célok megvalósítását az ipar érdekeinek figyelembevételével is kell elérnünk. Olyan szabályozásokat kell alkotnunk, amelyek a lehető legkevesebb bürokratikus teherrel sújtják a gazdaság szereplőit. Egyszerre vagyunk ugyanis felelősek a környezetünk védelméért, és a kontinens versenyképességéért, a munkahelyek megőrzéséért. Véleményem szerint a Bizottság javaslatában ezek a szempontok megfelelő módon ötvöződnek.

Fel szeretném hívni azon képviselőtársaim figyelmét, akik a Bizottság javaslata ellen kívánnak szavazni, hogy ezzel a legjobb szándék mellett is öt év munkáját kockáztatják. Ez egy kompromisszumos javaslat, tehát távolról sem tökéletes, de hosszas egyeztetések során sikerült konszenzusos megoldást elérni, aminek eredményeképpen elindulhat végre a kibocsátáscsökkentésre irányuló munka. Az, hogy a forgalmazók az általuk ténylegesen használt alapanyagok üvegházhatásúgáz-kibocsátási szintjeit jelentsék, jól hangzik. Azonban ennek gyakorlati megvalósítása sajnos nem tűnik reálisnak. Egyfelől nem ellenőrizhető, hogy a kitermelő országok hiteles adatot bocsátanak-e az EU rendelkezésére, másfelől a szükséges igazolások beszerzése az iparági szereplőknek aránytalan adminisztratív terhet jelentene.

Továbbá ez a módszertan azon piaci szereplőket is versenyhátrányba hozhatja, akiknek eszük ágában sincs például kanadai olajhomokot importálni, de korlátozott lehetőségeik vannak alapanyagbeszerzés tekintetében. Az átlagos általános érték véleményem szerint jó eszköz ezen problémák áthidalására.

Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Javaslom tehát mindezek alapján, hogy fogadjuk el a Bizottság javaslatát! Egy esetleges visszautasítással ugyanis a 6%-os kibocsátáscsökkentési cél is veszélybe kerülhet. Köszönöm szépen a szót, Elnök Asszony!

  Matthias Groote, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir hatten im Umweltausschuss eine interessante Debatte zur Kraftstoffqualitäts-Richtlinie. Es ist gerade gesagt worden, dass wir hier realistische Werte haben. Wenn Werte von 2011 auf 2014 um 40 % reduziert werden – um 40 %! –, dann muss einen das stutzig machen. Da muss man sich mal überlegen: Was ist der Grund? Sind irgendwelche umweltpolitischen Aspekte neu dazugekommen? Nein, ich glaube nicht.

Ich glaube, dass es etwas mit Verhandlungen zu einem Freihandelsabkommen zu tun hat. Ich kann nur sagen und davor warnen: Wenn das in Zukunft auch so laufen soll, dass Gesetze, die im Rahmen des Klima- und Energiepakets auf den Weg gebracht worden sind, im Komitologieverfahren so verwässert und kaputt gemacht werden, dann können wir demnächst einpacken, dann werden wir als Europäische Union in den internationalen Verhandlungen nämlich zur Witzfigur.

Darum sollten wir uns entweder zusammenraufen, sodass es einen Kompromiss gibt und die Kommission heute noch einmal eine Erklärung abgibt. Ich finde es ja schön, dass Sie heute da sind, aber ich hätte eigentlich jemand anderen erwartet – oder zwei hätten da zur Alternative gestanden, aber gut, dass Sie da sind –, mit dem wir diskutieren. Ich hätte mir gewünscht, dass die Kommission mit einer klaren Ansage hierherkommt, wie wir die Kuh vom Eis kriegen. So bleibt uns nur die Möglichkeit, Ja oder Nein zu sagen. Und das Pendel schlägt gerade in Richtung Nein, weil wir nämlich für zukünftige Verhandlungen über Freihandelsabkommen die Blaupause für alle internationalen Partner liefern, die mit der EU etwas verhandeln wollen. Senken wir doch einfach mal die Standards! Man muss nur doll genug lobbyieren, dann kriegt man das schon hin. Politisch muss man Nein sagen, umweltpolitisch, klimapolitisch muss man dazu Nein sagen. Und so geht man am Ende des Tages auch nicht mit dem Parlament um! Es ist eine Frechheit, Werte so dermaßen durch den Reißwolf zu ziehen, wie das hier in den letzten drei Jahren gemacht worden ist. Eine Frechheit ist das!

Președinte: ADINA-IOANA VĂLEAN
Vicepreședintă

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Mr Groote says that we can only say no. Well, in actual fact this decision on the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) is being considered under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, as it relates to pre-Lisbon regulatory procedure and this has not been aligned.

This means that the objection must be justified. It is not a question of saying yes or no. The objection must be justified on one of three grounds. The proposers of the objection have chosen ground number three, that it is incompatible with the aim and content of the basic Act. This suggests that the measure is inappropriate for accurate estimating and reporting of the volume, type, origin and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels supplied.

Whilst for me also it does not go quite as far as some Members would like, the case for grounds under point 3 is not proven. I think there is much to recommend the Commission’s proposal. The proposal requires major fuel suppliers to disclose the trade names and volumes of the crude oils they import. This is a positive step and will provide a level of transparency to the public that does not currently exist in the EU. As trade names are generally associated with crude oil types, the tracking of this information will allow for a simpler updating of the EU fossil fuel mix’s carbon intensity in the future.

Furthermore, with the Fuel Quality Directive currently not included in the Commission’s post-2020 Energy and Climate Framework, the adoption of this objection will only serve to undermine the credibility of the FQD by forcing additional institutional delay on a piece of legislation set to expire in six years. I think this would be a poor way forward and that the better compromise – and Mr Groote is looking for a compromise from the Commission – would be for Parliament to move forward with the Commission’s proposal in the spirit in which it has been offered, that is, as a way forward, and make sure that we get somewhere in the next several years, and do not just leave this lying in an interinstitutional wrangle.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, it was this weekend that I returned from Lima where the climate summit took place, and I must say that I was impressed by the broadly shared determination to fight climate change. But the Lima outcome also made it clear that we still have a very difficult battle against climate change ahead of us. Let us face it: the world will emit more CO2 tomorrow than today, and more the day after tomorrow than tomorrow. For that reason, it is crucial that public policy pushes investments towards a low-carbon economy. As regards the Fuel Quality Directive, differentiation between different feedstocks is crucial, but the current implementing measure does not do this any more. So highly polluting Nigerian crude or tar sand oils from other parts of the world are treated equally with much cleaner feedstock oils. That is against the objectives of the Fuel Quality Directive, and for that reason I tabled – together with a few other groups – the objection.

I am, therefore, extremely disappointed by the statement from the Commission here today. I expected a much stronger commitment to the objectives of the Fuel Quality Directive. I really do not understand, after seeing your 2011 proposal, how you can defend a completely contradictory proposal after the Council rejected your first proposal. I really do not understand how you can defend both. It is absolutely clear that we have to steer investments, and we can only steer investments in the right direction if we encourage them in the right direction and discourage them from taking the wrong direction.

  Paloma López Bermejo, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora Presidenta, quiero empezar con una pregunta: ¿cómo puede ser que la propuesta del Consejo coincidiera con las negociaciones del Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Canadá? Pregunto esto porque su texto responde exactamente a lo que exigía el lobby petrolero: abrir de par en par las puertas al petróleo de las arenas de alquitrán canadienses.

Saben bien que este combustible emite muchos más gases de efecto invernadero que el refinado del petróleo convencional —lo saben porque así está escrito en los informes de la Comisión, en sus informes—. Resulta lamentable que no vayan a penalizar estas importaciones, pero es todavía más grave que ni siquiera intenten controlar el aumento del consumo de este petróleo tan nocivo.

Como venimos denunciando, la agenda de libre comercio del Consejo y la Comisión, los acuerdos con Canadá, con Estados Unidos, están condicionados a eliminar las leyes que protegen a la ciudadanía europea de los abusos medioambientales, y esto es un claro ejemplo de ello.

Estos retrocesos agravan las inconsistencias de las políticas de eficiencia energética de la Unión. Incluso si se aplicaran correctamente dichas políticas, los imperativos de la acumulación y el beneficio conducen al mercado a devorar las mejoras de eficiencia: lo que se ahorra acaba dilapidándose en formas de producción y consumo insostenibles, ambiental y socialmente.

Así, por ejemplo, la intención de reducir las emisiones apostando por los biocombustibles acaba convirtiéndose en acaparamiento de tierras y graves desequilibrios en el ecosistema agrario y la alimentación humana. No nos sirven parches; es posible una alternativa sostenible.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I do not think that any of us here, any of the parties that filed an objection to this proposal, are against the Fuel Quality Directive. Let me be very clear, we are strong defenders of the Fuel Quality Directive. We think that, theoretically, this can be a very efficient tool. But that is the problem, we say theoretically, because with this proposal the Commission is deliberately weakening the proposal. It is weakening the effectiveness of the proposal, and I say this also to my colleague Julie Girling, who is saying you can only object on legal grounds.

If you read the impact assessment, with this proposal the Commission is deliberately taking away one of the options to achieve the 6 % reduction. Because of this proposal we can no longer differentiate between different feedstocks which is one of the three ways by which we can achieve the reduction. So this is literally taking away the efficiency of one of these measures, and that is what we are against.

And this is very interesting, because if you read the impact assessment – and we are talking about better regulation, tomorrow the Commission will present a programme on better regulation – the most efficient proposal should be the proposal from 2011. That is in the emissions impact assessment. So why is the Commission not following its own impact assessment, not following its own proposal of 2011? Has the world changed? No, if you read the impact assessment all the values are the same as in 2011.

So we can only start to guess what happened, and indeed I come to the same conclusion as my colleague Matthias Groote. This is a consequence of the Canadian lobby. Probably all of you have been called or received e-mails from the Canadians saying that we really should support this measure. Why? Because now we can no longer differentiate between the fuel types and therefore the door will be open to tar sands. And that, of course, is the biggest problem: we are defending the Canadian lobby here. And let me say to the Canadians, who are probably listening, this is not against Canada. We just want to have differentiation between different fuel types. If the Canadians can show they can produce a clean fuel type, even cleaner than just normal oil, then they should also get the credit for that. So you need differentiation between fuel stocks. If you are more polluting it should be counted as such. If you are less polluting it should be counted as such. That is what we call better regulation, and that is not in the proposal.

This is really going against the core of the Fuel Quality Directive. I agree very much with my colleague, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy. I was hoping that the Commission would get the point, that the Commission would realise that the Fuel Quality Directive and its methodology is something that is important and should be preserved. However, the Commission has only said we will review, we will organise a congress, and that is it. Sorry, we really want to hear more. How is the Commission going to make sure that after 2020 we will have a proposal that takes into account the differentiation between different fuel types so that the good ones are rewarded and the bad ones are not rewarded? That is what we are aiming for.

And to my colleague from the EPP who said that this will throw away five years’ work, I say no, it is this proposal that is doing precisely that because officially the Commission is saying this methodology will end by 2020, and they are now just making an empty proposal. So if you really are concerned about the methodology then we should really fight for the proposal that was on the table in 2011 which does differentiate between different fuel types and which is even supported by ePure – not always my friends when they do their biofuel lobbying, but they also see that they are no longer being rewarded and are therefore saying that this time they agree to us objecting to the proposal. And I think that is also important for my Christian Democrat colleagues. So therefore we object, and unfortunately, Commission, you do not allow us to do anything other than to vote against this proposal, to object to this proposal, with pain in our hearts.

  Piernicola Pedicini, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io, avallo tutto quanto è stato detto dal collega Eickhout. Aggiungerò, qualche dato tecnico, se possibile, perché non tutte le fonti fossili da cui vengono ricavati i carburanti sono semplicemente inquinanti per l'ambiente e per la salute: alcune, sono anche peggio! Sono devastanti, per l'ambiente e per la salute. Sto parlando di sabbie bituminose e di gas di scisto (shale gas). Uno studio da poco pubblicato sulla rivista Atmosferic enviroment ha dimostrato che, nella grande area petrolifera di trasformazione delle sabbie bituminose e di processamento dei prodotti chimici in Canada, sono stati prelevati campioni di aria in cui i composti chimici organici volatili hanno fatto registrare livelli fino a 6 000 volte superiori quelli normali.

I livelli sottovento di 1,3-butadiene e di benzene, che sono potentissimi cancerogeni, risultavano 322 volte superiori a quelli sopravvento e nella popolazione che abita in quelle zone le cartelle cliniche raccolte in poco più di dieci anni hanno certificato un considerevole incremento di leucemie e linfomi non Hodhgkin, specialmente man mano che ci si avvicinava ai pennacchi di inquinamento. Nonostante ciò, però, la proposta della Commissione per il calcolo delle emissioni non prende in nessuna considerazione le sabbie bituminose e lo shale gas.

Onorevoli colleghi, voi, per la maggior parte, siete stati votati per difendere i cittadini e il loro proprio ambiente: ma come fate a sopportare ancora – per chi lo ha fatto – una Commissione che fa simili cose?

  Jean-François Jalkh (NI). - Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et la réduction des gaz à effet de serre font partie des grands débats écologiques mondiaux du moment, comme vient de le démontrer la conférence de Lima sur le climat, qui s'est achevée ce week-end. Dès lors qu'il s'agit de dépasser le stade des incantations et des bonnes intentions, le débat se complique.

Si le sujet était moins grave, je serais tenté de dire, avec une pointe d'ironie, qu'il devient d'une simplicité mexicaine, pour ne pas dire péruvienne. À Lima – et dans la perspective d'un hypothétique accord mondial fin 2015 à Paris –, les intervenants ont débattu du sexe des anges, avec force références juridiques, pour savoir si la solution résidait dans un traité international contraignant ou dans un simple protocole, plus souple pour les pays en voie de développement.

La directive de la Commission dont nous discutons aujourd'hui est l'un des volets de la politique des institutions européennes sur le climat et l'énergie. La Commission propose cinq grands axes de calcul des contraintes qui s'imposeront aux producteurs de carburants pour réduire l'intensité des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Elle s'appuie pour ce faire sur des considérations hautement techniques. C'est ce mode de calcul qui est contesté par nos excellents collègues Gerbrandy et Eickhout.

Les deux camps en présence partagent au moins un point commun: tous deux s'abritent derrière des considérations hautement juridiques et mathématiques pour dissimuler des motivations partisanes, qui prennent le pas sur la nécessité d'une réelle politique écologique.

Nous reprochons au mode de calcul de la Commission d'être le reflet des intérêts bien compris de l'industrie pétrolière nord-américaine. Le ministre canadien des ressources naturelles s'est d'ailleurs publiquement engagé contre une législation européenne qui serait soucieuse d'approvisionnements conventionnels, en nous rappelant à nos obligations en matière de commerce international.

Quant aux auteurs de l'objection faite en vertu de l'article 106 du règlement, ils cherchent un prétexte pour se démarquer de cette majorité parlementaire de plus en plus discréditée et impopulaire, à la suite du soutien qu'elle apporté à Jean-Claude Juncker. Ils en restent pourtant l'un des piliers: la soupe n'est peut-être pas bio, mais elle est bonne.

Notre vœu est que la politique écologique de nos pays obéisse à des critères d'intérêt général exempts, par définition, d'esprit boutiquier ou mercantile.

  Jo Leinen (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Das ist keine effiziente Umsetzung der Kraftstoffqualitäts-Richtlinie, sondern das ist eine gefährliche Verwässerung eben dieser Richtlinie.

Ich schließe mich der Kritik an, die hier vielfach geäußert worden ist. Was hat Sie dazu gebracht, diesen Richtungswechsel zu vollziehen? Noch vor kurzem haben Sie Analysen gemacht, die eindeutig gezeigt haben, dass die Teersande in ihrer Klimabilanz wesentlich schlechter sind als übliche Treibstoffe dieser Art. Was hat sich da verändert? Ja wohl nicht die Sachlage, es sind dieselben Teersande und keine anderen, sondern wahrscheinlich hat sich Ihre Politik geändert. Das kann also hier nicht akzeptiert werden, weil es auch nicht einleuchtend ist, warum wir das tun sollen.

Wir wissen, dass der Kraftfahrzeugverkehr einen hohen Anteil hat, dass wir hier etwas tun müssen. In den 90er-Jahren wir schon gesehen, dass schmutzige Kraftstoffe auf den Markt kommen, und genau deshalb wurde ja auch diese Richtlinie so gemacht. Wir haben das genau gesehen, dass das auf uns zukommt mit den neuen Technologien – bei Teersanden, bei Schiefergas –, und wir wollten differenzieren zwischen den besseren Treibstoffen und den schlechteren Treibstoffen. Es ist nicht glaubwürdig für unsere Politik, wenn wir jetzt einknicken.

Man hat die Lobby ja gesehen, man hat sie gehört, man hat sie auch gespürt, aber wenn wir hier einen Präzedenzfall schaffen, dann wird das Schule machen. Dann kommen andere, die Ähnliches wollen, und wir können keine Politik mehr machen, die dem Klimaschutz dient, sondern nur eine, die Klientelinteressen dient. Dagegen wehrt sich dieses Parlament.

Ich glaube auch nicht, dass der Aufwand für die Marktbeteiligten so hoch ist. Man kann diese Differenzierung mit einfachen Mitteln machen. Im Zeitalter des Internets ist es überhaupt nicht schwer, das zu verfolgen. Also müssen wir das ablehnen. Wehret den Anfängen! Kein Präzedenzfall für die Verwässerung unserer Politik!

  Nils Torvalds (ALDE). - Madam President, if the Commission Work Programme is identical to the leaked paper we have already seen, then the headline of the third point includes a promise of – and I quote – ‘a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy’. But to judge how forward-looking this issue is we should take a short look at history. Almost eight years ago the EU decided, as a step towards the then upcoming Copenhagen Conference, on the climate and energy package. The Fuel Quality Directive is the only law from this package that has not been implemented.

Considering the fact that 2020 is already almost round the corner and that we are approaching the Paris Conference next year, Europe needs a swift and strong implementation of this directive in order to be able to move forward towards the leading low-carbon society it intends to be. In order to be meaningful, a life-cycle approach has to be based on accounting that is accurate and possible. Proper accounting for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions is therefore crucial to achieving this. Europe is already lagging behind its targets and investments are at a standstill. Developing policies and markets for highly greenhouse-gas-intensive fuels will not be the solution for Europe’s need.

  Julia Reid (EFDD). - Madam President, I am delighted to say that for once ordinary people are benefiting from an international development: oil and gas prices are falling. This is happening because friendly countries like the USA and Canada are opening up new fuel sources bringing down energy costs. One result is that we become less dependent upon unstable countries and unfriendly regimes. Another is that fuel costs come down for hard-pressed working people living through austerity. Good news for a new year but not of course if you are a Green. They want to do all they can to torpedo these developments.

The Commission must not press for any agreement or sets of targets which will reduce or even reverse financial relief for hard-pressed taxpayers. It is after all the EU which created a currency full of structural flaws with disastrous consequences for the standard of living of millions. They must not compound their errors in the name of fighting climate change, especially as in recent years the climate has stubbornly refused to match the apocalyptic and dystopian forecasts.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). - Köszönöm szépen a lehetőséget! Tisztelt Elnökség! Azokkal a képviselőtársaimmal értek egyet, akik ebben a hosszú-hosszú, immár több mint öt éves vitában azt mondják, hogy az eredeti célkitűzéshez képest a Bizottság javaslata most valahol máshol tart, és megvallom őszintén, hogy én magam is azt hiszem, hogy ezalatt az idő alatt ez a kompromisszum azért hajlott egy adott irányba, mert az erős lobbycsoportok bizony le tudták tolni a viszonylag gyenge civileket.

De ezzel együtt én azt gondolom, hogy az igazi megoldás az nem feltétlenül ennek a mostani direktívának a keretei között van, hanem az, hogy amit nem a föld alól hozunk ki, hanem itt a napsütés révén a földön termelünk meg – a bioüzemanyagok – ezek jelenthetik tulajdonképpen az igazi megoldást. Ezeknél nincs az a vita, ami a föld alól előhozott különböző eredetű és minőségű ásványi anyagokkal kapcsolatban viszont megvan. Úgyhogy köszönöm a figyelmet!

  Catherine Bearder (ALDE). - Madam President, it is so disappointing that the Commission has felt pressured to propose a weakened response to tar sands oil in the Fuel Quality Directive. The revised proposal ignores several recommendations of the European Parliament, including a differentiation between different fuel feedstocks. The Commission has also failed to recognise the results of its own impact assessments. As a result, highly polluting fuels, such as tar sands oil, will now be reported with the same emission values as conventional fuel stocks. And companies will be prevented from being able to report, even voluntarily, on real fuel emissions.

Rather than investing in cleaner fuels, the EU is opening up its market to dirty tar sands oil. This could mean nearly 7% of transport fuels in the EU are likely to come from Canadian tar sands by 2020. Mr Commissioner, please develop new proposals to extend the Fuel Quality Directive beyond 2020, taking into account the highly polluting nature of tar sands oil. If the EU is serious about leading the global fight against climate change, it must show it is serious about reducing emissions from the transport sector. We can only do that when we know what we are burning.

  Marju Lauristin (S&D). - Ma tahaksin juhtida parlamendi tähelepanu selle direktiivi ühele teisele küljele, mis ei puuduta sugugi mitte teemat Kanada, vaid puudutab teemat meie Euroopa enda kütusetootjad, kes otsivad teid ka mitmesugustest erinevatest kütuseallikatest keskkonnasõbraliku toote saamiseks. Üks nendest on Eesti põlevkivitööstus, kus tehakse suuri jõupingutusi selleks, et toota põlevkivist ka loodussõbralikku õli, sealhulgas madala väävlisisaldusega kütuseid.

Direktiiv soodustab sellist alternatiivsete otsingute teed ja samas annab see tootmine Eestis tööd tuhandetele töölistele Eesti idapiiril, s.o Venemaa piiril, ja need töölised on põhiliselt vene vähemuse liikmed. Ettepanek lükata tagasi komisjoni direktiiv toob Eesti jaoks kaasa selle, et selles väga tundlikus piirkonnas on tegemist kardetavasti tööpuuduse kahekordse tõusuga, kindlasti sotsiaalsete pingetega ja kuna tegemist on väga sensitiivse Venemaa piiril asuva piirkonnaga – ja tuletades meelde Venemaa tõusvat agressiivsust Läänemere ümber – ma loodan väga, et parlament võtab arvesse, et ka see on keskkonnaprobleem, kui tõusevad sotsiaalsed pinged ja suureneb militaarne oht.

  Fredrick Federley (ALDE). - Madam President, I might still be young and I might still be rather naive, but I do hope for a better tomorrow. That is why it hurts me so badly when we can see that the progress made by the Commission over the last four years has really been deteriorating. The proposals that we have on the table now are worse than they were three or four years ago, and the Commission is taking away the incentives for those who are not doing so well to do better. That is perhaps one of the hardest things to actually accept here, because we must believe that there is a possibility to do good. We are not prohibiting different kinds of fuels; but what we are saying in this House is that we need to have different regulations motivating those who are not doing well to actually do better. I am afraid that it is a sign of the new Commission. What we will probably hear tomorrow is that several items of great importance for the environment will be withdrawn. I do hope, Mr Commissioner, that I am wrong and that you will prove me wrong by doing better for the environment and for the future.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la proposta della Commissione relativa ai metodi e agli obblighi di comunicazione ai sensi della direttiva sulla qualità dei carburanti presenta diverse lacune. Essa non permette la differenziazione tra l'intensità dei gas a effetto serra e di materie prime diverse e, di conseguenza, nemmeno la comunicazione delle reali emissioni dei singoli carburanti. In base ai nuovi metodi di calcolo proposti, alle sabbie bituminose canadesi, che rappresentano livelli di inquinamento alti, viene attribuito, ad esempio, un valore medio di intensità di gas ad effetto serra inferiore al loro valore effettivo di emissione e ne viene dunque favorirà l'importazione nel mercato europeo.

Alla luce di questi elementi, credo quindi che l'obiezione che è stata presentata alla proposta avanzata dalla Commissione europea, relativa all'implementazione della direttiva sulla qualità dei carburanti, sia da considerarsi legittima. Tuttavia, credo che anche nel valutare la proposta della Commissione non si debba dimenticare il contesto generale nel quale essa si inserisce, ovvero quello della sicurezza energetica che in seguito ai recenti avvenimenti che hanno interessato Russia e Ucraina, non può non essere in cima all'agenda dell'Unione europea. Penso, però, che la Commissione debba continuare a lavorare per favorire lo sviluppo di combustibili a basso tenore di carbonio e di tecnologie innovative che migliorino le performance ambientali dei fornitori di carburanti.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin! Es geht jetzt hier darum, dass wir die Lebenszyklus-Treibhausgasintensität bis 2020 um 6 % verringern wollen. Das ist verschiedentlich schon gesagt worden und klar geworden. Es ist jetzt auch eine große Enttäuschung im Hinblick auf die Kommission darüber klar geworden, dass die Ziele nicht ambitioniert genug beschrieben worden sind. Es ist tatsächlich so, dass Sie nach einem fünfjährigen Prozess in der Folgenabschätzung gesagt haben, dass die durchschnittliche Treibhausgasintensität pro Kraftstoff vielleicht ein richtiger Kompromiss ist, dass man dies berichten, dies eben aufzeichnen sollte.

Es muss Verschiedenes berücksichtigt werden, was man dagegen sagen kann, dass es jetzt abgelehnt wird, was Sie gesagt haben. Zum einen ist es so, dass natürlich die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas eine Rolle spielt, auch die Importabhängigkeit, auch zum Beispiel die Frage, ob kleine und mittlere Unternehmen dem immer standhalten können. Mir geht es gar nicht um die Großindustrie oder um Kanada. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass Sie von der Kommission noch einige Antworten dazu geben könnten. Tatsache ist – ich habe jetzt diese ganze Debatte verfolgt –, dass ganz offensichtlich die ambitionierten Ziele jetzt nicht wahrgenommen werden sollen, nicht verfolgt werden sollen. Das ist natürlich nicht im Sinne von Europa.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D) - Je veľmi dôležité, aby boli obmedzované a znižované emisie skleníkových plynov v rámci životného cyklu zo všetkých palív a aby sa podarilo napĺňať ciele Stratégie 2020. Ale čo vyplývalo aj z tejto debaty? Smernica ako taká, ktorá by mohla byť veľmi dobrá a prospešná, sa stala smernicou, kde Komisia akoby nepracovala v prospech, ale skôr proti efektívnosti tejto smernice. Táto smernica musí zohľadňovať realistické hodnoty. A musí mať aj realistické ciele. Zámery týkajúce sa klimatického balíčka by sa nemali znehodnocovať. Komisia musí prísť s celkom jasným a reálnym stanoviskom, ktoré určite dostane podporu v tomto parlamente. Nesmie však znižovať štandardy kvôli politickým obchodom a pod tlakom rôznych lobistov. Táto smernica je dôležitá nielen pre nás, ktorí sa zaoberáme životným prostredím a jeho ochranou, ale je dôležitá aj pre generácie, ktoré prídu po nás. A preto je našou povinnosťou trvať na tom, aby nám Komisia predložila kvalitnú smernicu.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). - Gospođo predsjednice, očekujem da Komisija jasno predloži ono što su dva ključna temelja našeg rada u Europskoj uniji, a to su borba protiv klimatskih promjena, zadržavanje ambicija od 6 % i naravno ono što je s druge strane, čitav jedan resor, a to je pitanje zaštita potrošača.

Ovdje uopće ne govorimo o tom elementu zaštite potrošača kada govorimo o čipsevima, čokoladicama; ovdje govorimo o gorivu koje koriste svi građani Europske unije. Naravno da u tom kontekstu maksimalno zagovaram zeleno gospodarstvo i ulaganje u zeleno gospodarstvo.

Međutim, činjenice i problemi koji postoje u jednom dijelu Europe, govoreći konkretno o Estoniji, nešto je što Europska unije treba uzeti u obzir i pomoći takvom gospodarstvu. Jer, naravno ne možemo ljude ostaviti bez posla samo zbog nekih specifičnih situacija.

  Lucy Anderson (S&D). - Madam President, I think there is a vast amount of hypocrisy in this debate. I find it absolutely astonishing that 94% of the transport sector in the EU is dependent on fuel from oil, and yet the Commission is making arguments here about how this measure is not legally sound and is not appropriate. For one thing, we are putting a lot more investment into research and technology for alternative fuel development, and yet we fight over progressive measures such as this. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Concerning recital 44 of the Fuel Quality Directive: how can it possibly be argued that strengthening what is on the table is not part of the objective of the directive, which is about ensuring respect for minimum levels of environmental protection in relation to fuel. We really need to get our act together, and I endorse what colleagues in the Socialist and Democrat Group – as well as many others – have said on this.

  Kaja Kallas (ALDE). - Madam President, I believe it is important to keep in mind that what we want to achieve with this is a reduction of CO2 emissions. Estonia has the specificity of having an oil and shale industry. It is a polluting industry. This is why investments have been made to restructure the sector and reduce its ecological footprint. Rejecting the proposal of the Commission would endanger the investments made and will likely lead to more pollution rather than less. The bigger picture of energy security in Europe and independence from Russia also needs to be looked at. Rejecting the proposal could have the impact of a shift of production and thus employment from north-east Estonia to Russia, and the risk of political instability would then be high. I am strongly in favour of a greener transport sector but I do not think that rejecting the Commission’s proposal this week will achieve this.

  Janusz Zemke (S&D). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Bardzo dziękuję. Otóż na kanwie tej debaty chciałem bardzo wyraźnie poruszyć dwie sprawy. Sprawa pierwsza – wydaje mi się, że przywiązujemy wielką wagę tylko do jakości paliw, a myślę, że tak samo powinniśmy uwagę zwracać na to, by dostawy paliw były pewne. Zatem ważna jest nie tylko jakość, ale także pewność dostaw paliw. W związku z tym Unia powinna prowadzić wspólną politykę, która oprócz poprawy jakości paliw także bardzo wyraźnie zwiększałaby bezpieczeństwo dostaw.

I problem drugi – przewiduje się bardzo wyraźne zwiększenie środków na badania i na wdrażanie nowych technologii do roku 2020. Myślę, że w ramach owych środków trzeba by w sposób absolutnie zdecydowany zwiększyć i środki i preferencje dla badań, które obniżałyby emisję gazów. Myślę, że to są dwa ważne cele.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - A proposta apresentada pela Comissão relativa à qualidade dos combustíveis é contraditória com a sua prolixa retórica em torno do combate às alterações climáticas e da transição para uma economia hipocarbónica. É uma proposta simpática para os projetos de exploração de combustíveis não convencionais, pesem embora as relevantes questões ambientais que se levantam neste domínio subestimando as emissões de gases com efeito de estufa que lhes estão associados, consabidamente elevadas.

Temo-lo dito e repetimos: a realidade do inexorável esgotamento das reservas de combustíveis fósseis convencionais e não convencionais e os desafios e sobressaltos necessariamente associados à transição exigem que as reservas fósseis restantes à escala mundial, como imperativo da própria Humanidade, sejam geridas com imensa sabedoria, o que significa, antes de mais, que o sejam com muita parcimónia. Nem esta proposta nem a ação geral da União Europeia são subsidiárias deste objetivo.

Relembramos a importância da adoção do designado "Protocolo de Esgotamento", apresentado em Uppsala em 2002 e em Lisboa em 2005, visando uma boa e justa gestão destes recursos e a mitigação da sua carência.

  Giulia Moi (EFDD). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, chiedo che a livello europeo, questa direttiva cambi completamente e vieti le sabbie bituminose in ragione del loro impatto ambientale distruttivo. Chiedo altresì aiuto per la regione Sardegna, dove vi è una raffineria di privati che ha intenzione di utilizzare queste sabbie bituminose. Chiedo che venga rispettato l'ambiente, in quanto si tratta di un'isola a tutela ambientale e a prevalenza turistica.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Carlos Moedas, Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate. I can just reiterate that with this proposal the objectives will be delivered and the target of a 6% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 will be met. The objective of the Fuel Quality Directive is to reduce the carbon content of fuel used for road transport. The aim of the Fuel Quality Directive is not to discourage the use of any specific type of fuel but to ensure the appropriate accounting of greenhouse gas emissions. So I have taken due note of the range of opinions expressed and the concerns referring to the link with the trade agreement, the differentiation between fuel stocks and the extension of the Fuel Quality Directive beyond 2020, and I will duly convey these concerns to my fellow Commissioner Arias

  President. - The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. – Het voorstel dat op tafel ligt is niet ideaal, maar we gaan tenminste vooruit nadat het dossier vijf jaar bevroren was. De 6%-doelstelling blijft overeind, dat is het belangrijkste. Tegen 2020 moeten brandstoffen in de EU gemiddeld 6% minder CO2 uitstoten. De transparantie die er komt, is nieuw en goed. Importeurs moeten aangeven waar hun ruwe brandstof vandaan komt. Sowieso moet de Commissie driejaarlijks rapporteren over de vooruitgang die geboekt is en bijsturen indien nodig.

Laten we nu verder gaan met dit compromis en niet onze hakken in het zand zetten zonder uitzicht op verder resultaat.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – De richtlijn over brandstofkwaliteit verplicht producenten ertoe om de broeikasintensiteit van transportbrandstoffen met 6 procent te beperken tegen 2020. Deze broeikasintensiteit brengt ook de vervuilende factor van de productie van transportbrandstoffen in beeld. Zo is de productie van brandstoffen uit teerzandolie of schalieolie nog vervuilender dan die uit conventionele aardolie. Dat blijkt ook uit een eigen effectbeoordeling van de Europese Commissie uit 2011.

De Commissie wil nu toch alle bronnen gelijk behandelen. Ze gaat daarmee in tegen haar eigen effectbeoordeling én tegen de Europese doelstellingen om CO2-uitstoot te verminderen. Zonder die differentiatie wordt de Europese markt snel overspoeld door brandstoffen uit bijzonder vervuilende teerzand- en schalieolie. De Commissie heeft zich op weg naar een handelsovereenkomst met Canada laten inpakken door het lobbywerk van Canada, dat zijn teerzandolie hier wil slijten. De gelijkschakeling van brandstoffen vertekent de vooruitgang die we zouden boeken in de reductie van broeikasgassen in transport. Een schijnbare daling zou dus in werkelijkheid een stijging kunnen zijn omwille klimaatschadelijk productie.

De Commissie gaat voor het georganiseerde boerenbedrog. Het is, vlak na de klimaattop van Lima en in de aanloop naar die van Parijs in 2015, bijzonder cynisch dat Europa haar leidersrol in de strijd tegen klimaatverandering te grabbel gooit.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Polttoaineen laatua koskeva EU-direktiivi on tällä hetkellä merkittävin EU:n työkalu, jolla pyritään vähentämään liikenteen kasvihuonekaasupäästöjä. Liikenteen päästöt ovat riippuvaisia siitä, mistä raaka-aineista polttoaine tehdään. Jotta polttoainetuotannossa siirryttäisiin pienemmän hiili-intensiteetin öljymuotoihin, raportoinnin on perustuttava jokaisen käytetyn raaka-ainemuodon intensiteettiarvoon. Komissio esitys siitä, että käytetystä raaka-aineesta on vain ilmoitettava aikojen saatossa laskettu keskiarvo eri raaka-aineille, merkitsee käytännössä sitä, että erittäin saastuttavien öljymuotojen – esimerkiksi Kanadassa tuotettavan öljyhiekan – käytön lopettamista ei kannusteta. Jotta EU:ssa voidaan vähentää liikenteen päästöjä, on käytettävä kaikki keinot lisätä kannustimia puhtaampien ja vähähiilisempien polttoaineiden valmistamiseksi.