/

Back to home page

Europe D66 European Parliament Economy Climate

European Commission misses the point on nuclear energy

   Thu 07/06/2001

D66 is unpleasantly surprised by the European Commission┬┤s criticism of the closure of the last Dutch nuclear reactor at Borsele. "Nuclear energy is dangerous and bad for the environment" retorst D66 Member of Parliament Lousewies van der Laan, " I find it unacceptable that the European Commission takes such a one sided view". Her criticism follows a speech by EU energy Commissioner de Palacio, which indicated that closure of the nuclear plant could jeopardize the Dutch CO2 reduction commitments of Kyoto. " There is no evidence that a nuclear free Holland will do worse than the very nuclear French", replies van der Laan. The text of the question follows below.

D66 is unpleasantly surprised by the European Commission´s criticism of the closure of the last Dutch nuclear reactor at Borsele. "Nuclear energy is dangerous and bad for the environment" retorst D66 Member of Parliament Lousewies van der Laan, " I find it unacceptable that the European Commission takes such a one sided view". Her criticism follows a speech by EU energy Commissioner de Palacio, which indicated that closure of the nuclear plant could jeopardize the Dutch CO2 reduction commitments of Kyoto. " There is no evidence that a nuclear free Holland will do worse than the very nuclear French", replies van der Laan. The text of the question follows below.

The Dutch newspaper the Volkskrant wrote on June 1, 2001 that energy commissioner de Palacio, at a meeting in Arnhem the day before, said:" The earlier closure of nuclear plants as envisaged by the Dutch government was not a good idea." She was quoted saying that meeting the Kyoto requirements would not be possible without nuclear energy. These statements were also repeated in other media.

1. Does the commissioner confirm having made these statements?

2. Is the commissioner aware of the environmental drawbacks of nuclear energy compared to other forms of energy generation based on non-fossil fuels?

3. Is the commissioner aware of the Dutch government's efforts to promote use of various forms of non-fossil fuel energy, other than nuclear energy?

4.Can the commissioner provide any concrete and convincing evidence that the Dutch government's present policy is endangering meeting its Kyoto obligations?

5.If not, lacking the evidence and necessity, what motivated her to promote the narrow interest of the nuclear industry in such an obvious way?

6. Does the commissioner agree that the choice how (as opposed to if) to meet its Kyoto obligations is the prerogative of the Dutch government?

7. What treaty base can the commissioner provide for her interference in the Dutch energy policy?

 

Application: old-lousewiesNL [Reload, Run Tests]
Framework: Wheels 1.1.8
CFML Engine: Adobe ColdFusion 9,0,2,282541
Default Data Source: dev-lousewiesNL
Active Environment: Design [Development, Testing, Maintenance, Production]
URL Rewriting: On
URL Obfuscation: Off
Plugins: None
Route: newsPost
Controller: Articles
Action: displayArticle
Key(s): european_commission_misses_the_point_on_nuclear_energy
Additional Params: page = 1
tagname = economy
Caching Stats: hits: 0, culls: 0, misses: 4
Execution Time: 390ms (action ~390ms, view ~47ms)