Compte rendu in extenso des débats

Jeudi 12 septembre 2013 - Strasbourg

14.1. Directive sur la qualité du carburant et directive sur les énergies renouvelables (A7-0279/2013 - Corinne Lepage)

Explicaciones de voto orales

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe mit Freude dafür gestimmt, dass wir über das ganze ILUC-Paket noch einmal beraten, dass wir es zurücküberweisen, weil ich ganz einfach der Auffassung bin, dass wir damit die einheimische Landwirtschaft und damit auch Arbeitsplätze im ländlichen Raum gefährden.

Dazu mein einfaches Lieblingsbeispiel: Wir reden ständig über eine Eiweißstrategie in der Europäischen Union. Ein Eiweißfuttermittel der Wahl ist Raps. Raps muss extrahiert werden, weil Raps im Originalzustand als Futtermittel nicht gut ist. Bei dieser Extraktion entsteht Öl im Verhältnis von 60 zu 40. Öl ist ein typisches Koppelprodukt – man könnte sogar sagen, ein Abfallprodukt. Genau diese Produktionsstrategie hätte man mit der gegenwärtigen ILUC-Strategie heftig benachteiligt. Das ist einfach nicht einzusehen.

Darum bitte ich auch alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen, noch einmal gründlich darüber nachzudenken: In Europa findet ein nachhaltiger umweltgerechter Anbau von nachwachsenden Rohstoffen statt und den sollten wir nicht gefährden.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, this was an important vote that we had in the European Parliament and there is much to be welcomed, although we did not make as much progress as we would have liked to.

But I want to welcome MEPs’ decisions to introduce indirect land use change as a mandatory factor to distinguish between good and bad biofuels when calculating greenhouse gas emission savings attributable to biofuels. I also welcome that MEPs voted to no longer incentivise first-generation biofuels but to encourage producers to shift to second-generation biofuels, using materials such as algae, straw and waste that do not create additional demands for land.

I was disappointed that centre-right MEPs did not support the S&D proposal, as agreed by the EP’s Committee on the Environment, and limit to 5.5% the amount of food- and energy-based biofuels that can be counted towards achieving the 10% share, but instead voted for a 6% cap. I think it is time that the EU moved away from a policy that leads to famine, poverty, land grabs and climate change and towards one that promotes sustainable production of good biofuels, climate action, jobs and prosperity.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, go raibh maith agat agus molaim thú as ucht a rá go mbeidh tú dian ar dhaoine a théann thar fóir leis an am. Ní dhéanfaidh mé é sin tá súil agam. Bhí áthas orm tacaíocht a thabhairt don chuid is mó de na moltaí sa díospóireacht seo agus bhí mé ann ag an díospóireacht sa Pharlaimint agus bhí an-díospóireacht againn cé go raibh sé beagáinín conspóideach ach ag an am céanna caithfear é sin a thuiscint. Bhí moltaí ann nach raibh daoine róshásta leo go háirithe mar atá ag tarlú le foraoisí in áiteanna cosúil leis an mBrasaíl, an Indinéis agus an Mhalaeisia agus mar sin de. Ach ós rud é go bhfuil seans againn dul ar ais agus féachaint air agus molaim mo chomhghleacaithe anseo anois atá imithe, Christa Klass as an jab iontach atá déanta aici agus as an am atá curtha isteach aici ar an obair seo. Beidh seans againn is dócha teacht ar réiteach a bheidh níos fearr do gach duine.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, yesterday Parliament supported a 6% cap as a compromise that ensured we would get the proposal through. I agree with my colleague: 5.5% would be better but that would not have allowed the proposal to get through; 6% did.

I also supported the amendment to ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources in petrol by 2020 is 7.5% of the final consumption of energy and petrol. Bio-ethanol is a better outcome.

The 6% cap is not as restrictive as some people say because it represents 6% in terms of global consumption, and if the state produces, for example, 7%, it can sell its surplus to a state that produces less.

It is very encouraging to see that we supported and will review the indirect land-use change (ILUC) model, using the latest available information, and that this regime will be in place by 2020. This gives industry sufficient time to plan and is positive news for the developing world, which will have to deal with issues like land-grab, water-grab and rising food prices. What we put in place yesterday was just about the bare minimum.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Am votat pentru această rezoluţie. În prezent, Uniunea Europeană cheltuieşte anual aproximativ 10 miliarde de euro în subvenţii pentru a promova producţia de biocarburanţi. Acest cost nu se justifică. Pe de-o parte, arderea de carburanţi bio creşte emisiile de carbon şi contribuie la încălzirea globală, pe de altă parte, subvenţiile pentru biocarburanţi favorizează în special marile exploataţii agricole care funcţionează în regim de monocultură.

Cred că ţintele pentru subvenţiile agricole trebuie să fie micii producători. Am susţinut propunerea de reducere a ţintei de la 10% la 5,5 % (în fine, s-a votat compromisul de 6%) pentru că este şi în interesul României. În lipsa unei capacităţi de producţie suficient dezvoltată, România ar fi fost nevoită să importe biocombustibili pentru a atinge ţinta Strategiei 2020. Sigur, însă, cei care produc biocombustibili trebuie să-şi dezvolte capacitatea de a prelucra deşeuri şi plante lemnoase nealimentare.