Jos Delbeke

We really think that the use of fossil fuels is going to be with us also beyond 2020, and that we have to prepare for technologies capable of dealing and using fossil fuels in a sustainable manner. So all technologies are going to be important - energy efficient, renewable technology. We will see also a share of nuclear energy generation in Europe but primarily what we are going to do on carbon capture and storage is going to make a major difference beyond 2020.

So we think that our Directive is a good balance between, on the one hand, the technological potential, the environmental constraints we have to respect, and the management of risks that are related to this technology.

So we believe in carbon capture and storage. I think that part of the package is about the technologies of the future. We want to grasp this opportunity and we hope that, not only the power sector and the oil and gas sector is going to look into that, but also industrial activities, where a lot of carbon emissions are happening, like in the steel sector or in the cement sector, are going to look into this.

Chris Davies:

Simply because of the huge potential this offers to making a real difference. And I may say that I look at some of the other proposals and declarations coming from the Council and I’m sceptical about our chances of meeting the targets being set. I look at these things from the UK point of view and I see, for example, if we look at renewables, that the UK is supposed to go from getting 2% of its energy from renewable sources to 15% within 13 years; and I don’t see any chance of my country achieving that target as things stand at the present time.

Mahi Sideridou:

A new coal plant is being built and we say don’t worry, it’s capture ready. This term is actually absolutely meaningless, technically, financially. It just means that at some point in the future, yes, carbon capture and storage comes online, then this plant can be equipped with it. Then the consequence by accepting this terminology is that we’re actually accepting a green-washing of a very polluting power station.

The reason Greenpeace does not support carbon capture and store, the reason why we do have concerns about this technology is because we think that it could potentially be a political or a financial distraction. We’re now hearing that state aid guidelines are being amended so that it can be allowed. Public money should be going into this end of type technology that should actually be privately funded rather than publicly funded. So we have a lot of concerns that this technology will be this false hope which will actually undermine efforts to stop climate change rather than support them.

Martin Brough:

Whether CCS within that framework would actually work or not, I’d be very reluctant to go down that road because I think this is precisely what we should be trying to avoid predicting - is trying to pick the winners and say we need a target of X gigawatts by 2020 or 2040, other than the initial start-ups schemes just to prove the technology works. But, as I say, to me, the politics, the legal side and the science is moving on apace, but I think the economics has to catch up.

Hans van der Loo:

Now I come to CCS, and I would like to begin by saying it is not a silver bullet, I agree with that. It is certainly not a silver bullet. It's part of the bouquet of solutions. In actual fact, the three hard truths that I just mentioned to you, they came under a lady's name called TINA in the old scenarios, and TINA was There Is No Alternative to globalisation and demographic growth; those things will happen. And TINA has actually got a daughter and we will put her daughter up for baptism on 7th April here in Brussels and I can give you a scoop. The daughter's name is TANIA and TANIA stands for There Are No Ideal Answers.