Video Library

Q: First off, what was your reaction to the debate this evening? Is there something that we should have talked about that we didn’t talk about?

A: Personally I think the most essential elements were mentioned, being we need a clear view, we need a clear road map and we need stable regulation and a market-based solution. I think these are the elements that were brought to the table. We had a good discussion, not everybody agreed on everything which I prefer; I hope the Commission got the message on how we as an industry see the challenges ahead and what we expect from politics in order for the private sector to invest in policies they are developing and we need clarity; we need visibility on where we can get a return and how we can contribute in the low economy. These points were discussed and reviewed, so that’s all [...]

Q: How would you class the discussion today? Do you think there were some points which weren’t made, some issues which you think weren’t treated well enough, what was your critique of the event?

A: Well, I think that it was a very good event. Many points were discussed, many issues were touched. I would say that the event was successful and the stakeholders were representative of different sectors. We had representatives of institutions, the business sectors and the parliament, so it was a good representation of all the possible stakeholders. It’s a really good event to give the opportunity to policy makers, decision makers and the stakeholders to get together to discuss about relevant dossier, [0.58] road map that have an impact on the life of every citizen and business sectors and for all Europeans. So we really[...]

Q: In the discussion, 90%, 60%, 80%, there were some very high numbers being discussed at the moment in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions; we talked about efficiency, renewables, CCS, nuclear. In your opinion what kind of role can wind really play by 2050? What kind of percentage could you really, realistically, counting onshore and offshore, get to?

A: You are talking about in electricity production percentage, so that would be 50% for wind energy counting both onshore and offshore. We’re looking at 100% renewable system so you lose all the rest. You make use of the solar in the south but also, like I said during the debate, in countries that have less sun – so like Germany, today Germany is the first solar country – and you use a lot of wind across all of Europe. You develop a super grid across the North [...]

Q: Do you think that the existing ETS scheme will effectively ensure the CO2 reduction?

A: Well, for WWF we’ve seen the Emissions Trading System in Europe evolving over the last year, but unfortunately, it’s still not delivering what it actually should and that means a long-term decarbonisation within Europe. By 2050 we need to aim for about 95% of emission reductions and at the current pace, the Emissions Trading System will not deliver on this. While it has set the carbon price which is important in Europe, it will not help us yet to reach these long-term decarbonisation goals.

Q: Do you think that the current ETS system lacks credibility?

A: I think the ETS needs to be improved on several points. For example the focus should be on domestic, internal, European emission reductions instead of[...]

Q: What was your reaction to the debate? What do you think was good that was talked about; what do you think we should have brought up; what issues were not discussed enough?

A: I think the debate was organised very well. Many issues on the energy topic were covered and many questions were very relevant for the energy debate regarding the energy future until 2050. I really liked that many people put the emphasis to the 2030 milestones, which I think is relevant because 2050 is long enough for energy analysis but it’s too long for the policy.

The things I didn’t like was maybe that there is still a gap between people that are good in pricing mechanisms and know how these things work, the ETS, and people who don’t! So you feel in the debate that there is still a gap between the groups mainly favour[...]

Satu Hassi: Personally, I think that we should differentiate also between different sources of conventional crude oil, because it’s a fact that there are big difference also there. So we need scientifically based default values for all types of fuels, otherwise the whole commitment of reducing the lifecycle carbon footprint of our transport fuel by 2020 is undermined. I think this is the most important issue I wanted to say.

Samantha Gross: A critical thing to take away from this whole discussion is that the conventional and unconventional designations that you often hear applied to crude oil are really not good indicators of the GHG emissions associated with the crude oil. They’re sort of code words that the industry uses for how crude oil is p[...]

Question: What do you think the importance of today’s debate was?

Patrice Wellhoff: Well, what I think is these debates that you create and that you present are very important, because we are facing a real energy challenge, and people outside don’t really see how important it is. The more we wait, the more urgent it becomes to do something, to react and this creates actually a feeling of emergency, a feeling of urgency that puts the attention of people towards finding a solution now, because the more we wait, the more problems we are going to face.

Question: So what do you think you’ll be taking away from the debate today?

Pierre Noël: I think Brussels is probably spending too much effort and time on something that is not key and central to our climate policy. I believe that this idea of having different reference values for the carbon intensity of different types of crudes coming into Europe doesn’t really fit with our place in the global oil market. It doesn’t really fit with the way the market works. It’s very difficult to know where the oil comes from and I think it’s poor value in terms of reducing carbon emissions. I think we should keep doing what we’ve been doing for many years, which is tightening the efficiency standards for cars, which is probably the best you can do [...]

Question: What role do you feel oil sands can play in our future energy mix?

Satu Hassi: Basically I think that fossil fuels as a whole should play as small a role as possible and a decreasing role. Of course, naturally I also think that the fossil fuels with the biggest carbon footprint, like coal to liquid and tar sands and other so-called unconventional fuels, should play as small a role as possible.

Question: I think you may have answered this is in the first question but I’ll ask it anyway. How significant is the energy intensity of oil sands production as a barrier to larger scale development and supply?

Satu Hassi: I can’t say if it’s a barrier, bu[...]

Jeffrey Seisler

Well, what I was saying is that there are two categories of biofuels. There’s the liquid category and then there’s the gaseous category, and a lot of the problems that people are bringing up legitimately with liquid biofuels don’t exist with the gaseous biofuels. The sustainability issue is not something that is worried about for biogas because it’s being made from garbage. Nobody wants garbage. They don’t want sewage. They don’t want agricultural waste. So these are materials that don’t have a problem with the sustainability definition because it’s [...]

Marco Sorgetti

Well, certainly the fact that there was nobody from agriculture is a pity, because it would have been interesting to hear the views of people that are professional in growing crops. I think that the solution is a big term, but it may come only from the contribution of everybody into this debate, including the agricultural aspect but also the policy has to tell us where we have to go. I made a point that we need precise elements for calculating the C02 footprint. This is really, really important, and we need a robust and reliable way of makin[...]

Michael Fiedler-Panajotopoulos

I think one should not look for the revolutionary solution and see the way ahead as a puzzle, and we should try to create the pieces of the puzzle one by one and have part solutions. One of those is, for example, waste to energy. What we are currently doing is producing a second generation biofuel from used cooking oils.

Raffaello Garofalo

Well, I think the question is more to know whether biofuels are or are not an opportunity for transport of the future, and the answer, as far as I think, is yes. Of course, you have to distinguish on what are the good aspects of biofuels and the bad ones, and our industry is very much committed in order to improve the profile and the sustainability and carbon profile of every kind of biofuels We are investing [...]

Ron Van Erck

My name is Ron Van Erck, I work in DG Energy in the unit which is responsible or dealing with the Renewable Energy Directive, and we commissioned a study that looks at local acceptance of renewable energy projects, and more specifically what can be done to improve that local acceptance,

The preliminary conclusions when we look and assess these different types of schemes and what works and what doesn’t work and so on, is that first of all the transparency when applying such mechanisms and political support are key. Furthermore it is important that the returns are directly to the local community. Furthermore it appears that the more indirect and softer mechanisms such as tourism, prestige and stimulation of the regional economy seem to be quite effective in general. Direct involvement of[...]

Ron van Erck - policy officer, DG energy, European Commission

I shall begin immediately since our Commissioner, or the Commissioner, has to go quickly. Thank you for the invitation to speak here. My name is Ron Van Erck, I work in DG Energy in the unit which is responsible or dealing with the Renewable Energy Directive, and we commissioned a study that looks at local acceptance of renewable energy projects, and more specifically what can be done to improve that local acceptance, and I’m here today to share very briefly what it is that we are doing and our preliminary findings, and to invite you all to our seminar on 18th November, which I’ll come back to in the end. The study is called Reshare, and as everybody I’m sure is aware, Europe committed to the so called 202020 strategy, three targets for 2020.[...]

Connie Hedegaard

No, but basically I think that there is not such a big difference; if I am a citizen and there is a grid coming through my back yard, there is not such a big difference whether it’s cogenerated electricity that runs through that grid or whether it’s renewable generated electricity that runs through the grid, so I would say that the planning efforts, the information efforts, all these kind of things will have to be the same, and then I think that technology will help us to a certain degree because the new development in the pipelines in all these, (I do not know all the English vocabulary here) but you know when you have these transmission lines that you can see and which is very much harming the landscape, there to a much larger extent you can start to put them into the soil and that is equ[...]

Simon Taylor

In the last five years you’ve seen a ramping up of unconventional gas production as the technology’s got to a point where it can be commercially applied and you can seriously make money out of unconventional gas. That’s partly to do with rising gas prices; it’s partly to do with increasingly effective technology at lower prices. So you’ve seen a situation by 2008, half of US gas production was unconventional, and in 2009 the United States became the largest gas producer on the planet, beating Russia, so replacing Russia as the number one gas producer.

Exploration going on – a whole series of European countries. Perhaps the most interesting is in Poland where you’ve got about 50 exploration licences operating in parts of Northern Poland. Currently the best estimate are about[...]

Jeremy Wilks

This evening you mentioned something very important. You said the key words ‘gold rush’, a 21st century gold rush. This unconventional gas could be a 21st century gold rush. In any gold rush there are winners and there are losers. Can you specifically say who you think the winners and who you think the losers would be?

Lena Kolarska-Bobinska MEP

There is a gold rush. We still don’t know who will be the losers, so generally we see the shale gas as a win:win situation, at least Poland is thinking about shale gas as an important source of economic support for the region and for Poland, but specially it’s perceiving it in the geopolitical terms as a way to become more independent of gas supplies from Russia. We think that this is also an important issue in the[...]

Jeremy Wilks

… the question tonight regarding the likelihood, in fact the question of this evening was wrong, it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when, and it’s all going to happen. This gas that we’re talking about, which is hidden underground, is soon going to become reality for Europe. Tell me about that.

Dr. Jeffrey M. Seisler

Well all of the energy sources, the forms, the unconventional sources, are linked to the price of oil. Everything is compared to oil. So when the price of oil tends to go up then more exotic, more expensive forms of export begin to become economical, and I think the same thing is going to happen with what they’re now considering unconventional. Very typically fuels and technologies that are at one point in time unconventional [...]

Jeremy Wilks

You’re not really sitting here being the environmental spokesman because it makes you feel happy; you’re being the environmental spokesman ‘cause that’s a really serious issue. It seems to me, doing my research today … we’re not recording this I don’t think … a dangerous business.

This is not the US, where unconventional gas has been well developed. This is Europe. We do things differently, we’ve got a dense population, we have got a lot of environmental regulations. Do you think that actually all of this will turn into hot air, that EU regulations will stop this in the water, or do you think that a way will be found between the regulations to actually go forward with this exploration?

Stephan Singer

What we have observed as WWF is tha[...]

Tim King: We have become totally profligate in the way in which we convert primary fuels into useful energy. Roughly one tenth of the energy we burn as primary energy ends up as useful energy. Now, thermodynamics means that we can’t convert all of that into useful energy but we can certainly massively improve the ratio.

So whatever we do, whether we look at a figure like this in which we’re trying to reduce emissions from road transportation, we can divide it up into fuel consumption; that means the efficiency with which we use the energy and carbon footprint of the fuel that we’re using. So the first is fuel consumption – energy efficiency in terms of taking primary energy and putting it into the actual transport mechanism. There the big wins lie in terms of engine efficiency, weight reduction and design, design incl[...]

Chris Slatter: My sense of tonight was that there was lots of aspiration, lots of hope for inspiration but I didn’t hear too many real solutions. What do you feel about that?

Sandrine Dixon-Decleve: I actually tend to agree with you. The last few weeks actually we’ve seen two road maps. One which is being presented by DG Transport and the other which is being presented by DG Environment. And I think coming out of those two road maps to 2050, we’re still having difficulties in coming up with what exactly are the clear solutions? And also what percent of those solutions do we need to focus on? Should we be focusing on non-technical measures? Should we be focusing on new technologies? Where should we put our money? And where should we put our policy and our public effort?

And I think that’s where I’m still ha[...]

Chris Slatter: Now you said something quite controversial tonight which you slipped in whilst the rest of the audience didn’t appear to be listening, or perhaps they were on their way home. You said that by 2014, you believed that cheap oil would be gone. Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?

David King: What I said was that we had just produced a report, a detailed analysis of oil reserves, and looking at oil production against oil demand, using the International Energy Agency’s figures for oil demand stretching into the future. And quite simply, we’re concluding that production cannot meet the oil demand, as predicted by the International Energy Agency, beyond about 2014 / 2015.

Now what does that mean? That means normally, as the [??? 1:01] and demand come into collision with each other, the pr[...]

Chris Slatter: You're a representative of the automotive industry, one of the largest companies. Do you think that the industry as a whole is responding quickly enough to the need to reduce emissions, to produce vehicles that are low carbon producing?

Nicholas Hodac - General Motors: You will notice over the last few years that the automobile industry has more and more produced lower emitting vehicles, and not only lower emitting vehicles but also vehicles that run on alternative fuels – biofuels, CNG, LPG. And now we see a lot of development of other electric vehicles.

The real challenge is twofold. The first one is the issue of affordability. We need to bring technologies on the market which people can buy. Secondly is the infrastructure. It doesn’t make any sense for us to bring alternative fuel vehicles on t[...]

Chris Slatter: What messages are you getting from your organisation about reducing emissions?

Marco Sorgetti: Well, we have started, first of all, a work group which is called Sustainable Logistics Advisory Body for the entire organisation. And in this group, we have started a campaign on best practices, which has been assembled in a guide that has been now published, and it’s on our website, a free download.

We produced two guides last year, one on security for freight and one on best practices in logistics. This is not reinventing the wheel, it is putting together all the existing best practice that we find. And we’re now producing some innovation in this year by putting the industry together to show what the industry can produce in terms of savings, in terms of better use of resources, with a bottom-up approa[...]

Jo Leinen: No doubt Copenhagen was a deep disappointment for at least the Europeans. I don’t know for the rest of the world but for us in the Parliament in the EU, it was a disappointment and we could say, compared to our expectations, it was a failure. We have no binding global deal. We have no real commitments. We have a piece of paper called Copenhagen Accord, which was even not accepted by the conference but was noticed that it exists, and the weak basis of this document could be seen in the next days. There was a date given, 31st January, for the 192 members of the UN Convention to give their targets for CO2 reductions and the General Secretary, Yvo de Boer, had already to tell us that it was not meant so seriously, the 31st January but one could do it later. And looking at different cultures in the world what means later, it co[...]

euronews: We’ve heard lots of suggestions tonight about how we might move forward in the business of mitigating greenhouse gases. What single act do you think would actually have the most impact?

Libor Lochman: Obviously, since the situation is that we’ve heard a lot about the intentions to reduce the emissions, in general in industry in Europe and worldwide, we have set an ambitious target by 2020 to reduce by another 20% or 30% C02 emissions. For me, the important question is: if all the industrial sectors are reaching that target, what do we do with the transport? Because what we see, what we witness today is that transport emissions are growing. So the point that we need to address is: how to tackle the transport emissions to reach the overall target of 20% or 30% reduction of the C02 emissions in general?

e[...]

euronews: So my question is: you work for Business Europe, what role has business to play in mitigating climate change?

Folker Franz: Well, if you like it or not, in the end, it will all come down to innovations made by companies around the world when we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

euronews: What will drive that process forward? How will you increase investment in the business side of actually implementing some of these changes?

Folker Franz: Well, one part definitely is predictable legislative framework which, to some extent, the European Union actually has with its Emission Trading Scheme. There is a price of C02 in the European Union which has as an effect that companies in Europe price in their emissions, their future emissions, when they decide about investments. So that’s actually very[...]

euronews: So do you think, as the spokesperson for the WWF, that the Copenhagen climate conference was a crushing disappointment?

Sanjeev: WWF is not entirely happy with the outcomes from the Copenhagen discussions. However, we’re not prepared at this stage to say that they’re a crushing failure. The Copenhagen Accord is something that we can build upon and develop and turn into a legally binding instrument. We need to seize this opportunity and move forward rather than take a step backwards, as the fear is that we may be left with nothing.

euronews: Should we be relying on the political process to solve this problem as much as we are?

Sanjeev: The political process has caused this problem. The political process is stalling this problem. The political process is the only way in which we can solve and f[...]

euronews: So my first question is: were you disappointed totally in the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference?

Remi: Well, two stage question – two stage answer. First, yes, of course because there has been in Copenhagen a real lack of leadership and a real proof of lack of political will. On the other hand, I’m not disappointed because we knew this would happen. We knew we could not go for a politically binding agreement in Copenhagen, partly because of the US, mostly because of the US lack of domestic legislation that was preventing the negotiators from actually agreeing to something that would be legally binding. So, yes, lack of political will has been evident and, no, the process is carrying on. It’s moving onto Mexico and it will be hopefully concluded there.

euronews: How do you think the busines[...]

euronews: Let me first ask you: do you think Copenhagen was a crushing disappointment?

Meghan Sapp: For us it wasn’t. It was the first time that the Africans got together as 53 countries and stood up to the rest of the world and said, no, we’re not going to let you dictate what we’re going to do.

euronews: Do you think that the OECD countries should export their technology and donate it to less well developed countries in order for them to promote their own green revolution?

Meghan Sapp: Aid has proven to not work in any situation. This is something that’s going on in the developing communities, this question about aid. What needs to happen is technology transfer, but it needs to happen in a private sector situation. We need to find ways in order to encourage investment and to look at ways in order[...]

Paul Hodson, European Commission: The heading of this session is Future Biofuels, and it’s clearly, from our perspective, quite difficult to say what that future will be, because in a sense we’ve done our work for the moment: we’ve established, as a contributor to the legislative process, a framework, and that framework is established and it’s now going to be played out by industry and by member states.

Sven-Olav Ericson, Sweden’s Ministry for Enterprise, Energy & Communications: What we see is sort of a cleaning up where bad first-generation biofuels are expelled, good are expanding up to their resources and second generation are coming in.

Claude Turmes MEP, European Parliament: The pressure on arable land will increase to feed the world population, and it’s really useful for you, and I did this, to re[...]

The use of biofuels is a very good idea but there are two sets of biofuels; one is from liquid sources and the other one is from gaseous sources. There’s been a large debate about the sustainability of a lot of the liquids, some of which, as we heard, comes from the food chain sources, questions about land use. The concern that my stakeholders, constituents that I deal with in the gas industry, has been that a lot of the emphasis has been on liquids, at the expense of biogas. That’s it’s not fully in balance in some of the policies that’s been set; whether it’s the Fuel Quality Directive or the Renewable Energy Directive. And biogas has the potential to replace about 20% of the transport fuels in Europe, and it’s coming from 100% sustainable sources, namely agricultural waste and urban waste, and from waste in the water pur[...]

We need to recognise what added value biofuels can bring, and not just look at the negative elements. If you look for negative elements, you always find negative elements. And in the particular case of European production, we provide fuel and food, and especially the element of food has always been underestimated. It’s not been recognised in the public discussion on biofuels. And, therefore, what we are saying, ‘people look at what we can do.’ We can produce animal feeds that will replace soy imports. We are importing in Europe over 40 million tons of soy that is coming from South America, from North America, and we can replace a substantial amount of that soy import.

Comment:Visions: Where is this perception coming from that biofuels are bad?

I guess that we had the very, very bad luck that the biofuel issue [...]

Biofuels is very much a social problem, in that it’s not just people worrying about what the exports are doing for biofuels. It’s that people need to have better technology to be producing more food. It’s all about co-production; it’s not just fuel. It’s fuel, it’s food, it’s fibre and for the last 30/40/60 years, there’s been a massive under-investment in agriculture in African countries. So farmers, they may overproduce maize one year and then the prices go down locally and so then they underproduce maize the next year; and those years that they do overproduce, there’s nowhere for their food to go, the maize rots in the communities. Whereas if they had opportunities for other products to be doing with their maize, perhaps for ethanol, perhaps for biogas, perhaps for other local community based energy sources, they w[...]

I think that biofuels are part of the solution but they’re only part. If you look at transport, clearly transport is one of the key emitters with regard to CO2. Biofuels are a transition: first generation will get us there a tiny bit; second generation could get us there further. It is a type of solution that we need in the near term but in terms of the long term, I think we really need to look at other solutions.

Comment:Visions: As part of an energy mix though? You’re not dismissing biofuels?

No, not at all. There needs to be a total energy mix. If we’re talking about diversification, we need to look at gaseous fuels, we need to look at electrification but the fact of the matter is that electrification is not yet here. So we do need biofuels, again, as a transition and then second generation, we’ll see wha[...]

The future of biofuels is great. Solid biofuels, liquid biofuels for transportation. I think it was obvious from tonight that we will require biofuels to be beneficial [sic] from greenhouse gases, in a full life cycle perspective.

Comment:Visions: How much will we rely on them do you think, in the future? Let’s go 20 years into the future, what part of our energy mix do you think they’ll take?

We are talking renewable energy, including renewable electricity, here. So I think, say, ethanol made from wheat will be a smaller part of it. There will be biogas from wastes, sludge – a very good thing, a double environmental benefit. There will be good sugar cane ethanol from productive areas.

Comment:Visions: One thing that I’d like to focus on personally is the fact that we’re probably in Europe going [...]

Dana Spinant: To my right, I have Mr Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, an MEP and Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr Saryusz-Wolski is also the host of this evening’s debate. I thank you for this, I’m very grateful. We have the pleasure to have with us Mr Alexander Krestiyanov who is the Russian Deputy Ambassador to the European Union; welcome Mr Krestiyanov. Mr Volkan Bozkir who is the Turkish Ambassador to the European Union, welcome, and Mr Fabrizio Barbaso who is the European Commission’s Deputy Director General for Energy and Transport in charge, among others, of security of energy supply.

First, the European Union should speak with one voice. So the European Union vis-à-vis supply in transit countries should act as a single unity.

Volkan Bozkir: The[...]

Charles Watson: We’re talking about serious geopolitical issues and how nation states evolve, how demand for energy in India is a lot more than it was ten years ago. So the global equation changes over time and any particular solution that the EU comes to see as a solution has to be robust, in a sense, in the short run and the medium run and the long run, but also we have to understand that it has to evolve over time.

Comment:Visions: Are we right to limit this debate to Europe or is it more of a global challenge?

Charles Watson: Well, it’s related to the previous question. It’s clearly a global challenge. If we think about gas, just for a second, the prices of gas that were almost negligible in some parts of the world five or ten years ago because the gas was just flared upwards and lost, that gas is captured[...]

Comment:Visions: What did you think of that debate in there?

Jan Haizmann: Partly interesting.

Comment:Visions: Which part was interesting?

Jan Haizmann: I liked the comments of our Russian colleague and I appreciated the debate ignited by our Chairwoman.

Comment:Visions: Were we right to limit the debate to Europe only?

Jan Haizmann: No, because the gas market is not a European market, it is in fact a regional market going across the European borders. As some of the participants have mentioned the gas sources are somewhat limited when it comes to ownership. The ownership is outside Europe so it would have been maybe better to include some other regional players to contribute to the debate.

Comment:Visions: In order to achieve an agreement that will assure energy security, it[...]

Comment:Visions: Are we right to limit the debate on energy security to Europe alone?

Alexander Krestiyanov: Surely not. Energy security is a complex question and this issue involves also countries which supply gas and transit countries. So in order to resolve the issue of energy security, we have combined all three actors, three types of actors, together – suppliers, consumers and transit countries.

Comment:Visions: It seems to me that while Europe may achieve energy security, having one continent that’s secure in energy while others do not have energy security is inherently dangerous. Do you agree with that?

Alexander Krestiyanov: Yes, I agree and I do not agree, really. Energy security is indivisible. So the energy security of the European Union depends on the global energy security, and global ener[...]

Comment:Visions: I wanted to ask you whether we are right to limit the discussion on energy security to Europe alone?

Viacheslav Kniazhnytskyi: No, you shouldn’t just limit in general because you can’t solve problems on your own. Energy security issues, these are issues you see which cannot be solved only in Europe because not just to mention only the supply countries but in general, the framework of the international cooperation. So please don’t do that.

Comment:Visions: I was stimulated and pleased to see a lively discussion between the Ukrainian and the Russian representatives on the panel but what it said to me was that achieving agreement is going to be very difficult. Do you agree with that?

Viacheslav Kniazhnytskyi: It was not a discussion between Ukraine and Russian here on this panel but in [...]

Comment:Visions: There was very little mention of renewable energies in this discussion. Is renewable energies one of the solutions to solving energy security?

Jacques de Selliers: Well, certainly energy diversification is. That includes renewables and that probably includes nuclear, as long as the public acceptance of nuclear increases, but what it also includes is diminishing, reducing our consumption by insulation in the buildings, but also by switching to battery electric vehicles which will allow substantial energy saving and substantial diversification of the type of energy we consume.

Comment:Visions: Where is the power going to come from to power those battery operated electric vehicles?

Jacques de Selliers: Well, of course, from electricity and, as we all know, electricity doesn’t come from petr[...]

Chris Davies: I think a lot of ground has been covered in the past 12 months. I think the most recent figures within the last few days showing the extent to which Europe’s reductions in CO2 emissions have partly been at the expense of the increase in CO2 emissions in China, which of course is hugely coal dependent, does remind us that if we don’t deal with the issue of emissions from large fossil fuel power stations, then we are stuffed in terms of dealing with the problem of global warming. I want them to grab the money that’s going and just spend it as fast as they can and get these projects going, and then let’s look around and say, either it’s up to the private sector or we’ll need more public support but let’s get going and get these projects underway.

Piotr Tulej: I think no project will happen in Europe u[...]

I think society, or humanity as a whole, should look into the way how we live and organise our life, especially in the civilisation in the developed countries, meaning Europe, United States, Australia, to give and set a good example for the developing countries and the emerging countries and the emerging economies. The way how we live so far is not truly sustainable, there are many potentials how to save energy, and at the same time having said that, there are scientific potentials looking in the science of how to create new sources of energies, and those two issues, those two sides, usually goes hand in hand, like left and right hand, needs to be explored.

Q: Which particular alternative resources or energy resources would you be looking at?

A: I’m sure scientists are working on a number of possible solutions, fu[...]

It’s essential that we are able to demonstrate that CCS works properly if we’re going to implement it and make it a commercial reality by 2020. One of the key platforms that’s been involved is the zero emissions platform, which has undertaken to outline the criteria and the details by which we can make that happen and make it a reality. It’s imperative that we do this in a serious fashion, in a structured fashion, and that we support it as it needs to be so that we can roll it out and make sure that we are combating climate change using CCS commercially by 2020.

The issue is one in which, unless we win the argument of persuading people that it’s the right thing to do, this whole thing could fail. And although they’ve talked about carbon capture in power stations, and that’s the most vital aspect, there’s no doubt about that, they haven’t talked about all the benefits you get once you’ve done it. Because once you’ve done that issue, you’ve captured carbon out of the power stations, you’re then able to expand into electric cars and fuel-cell cars, which is your transport system. Because until you do that, every bit of energy you create is still going to push carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, whether it’s fuel in your car or outside. So once you’ve got your carbon capture, then you can actually do it for your electric powered cars and your fuel cell, because you’ve got t[...]

What I feel could be interesting to investigate is why companies who are able to take out of the revenue streams and increase the profit by just increasing passive are asking for money from the Commission, because they could do that themselves. In my previous life, in industry, you only did do things like that if you find it’s not feasible. In the meantime renewable energy companies in emerging industries like wave and tidal energy have no revenue streams to use for funding in their development, so maybe the money is used in the wrong way.

Yes I think it’s important to recognise that all low carbon energy solutions will cost more than otherwise. The issue with CCS though is that it’s a new technology and there’s early mover addition to the additional cost of it being a low-carbon solution. Actually CCS is really very cost-effective, in that its cost per ton of CO2 emissions saved is actually quite low, although in the first instance, the first projects that are built will cost quite a lot more because of the technology risk associated with new projects. As time goes on of course, the cost will be passed through to the consumer, as will the same cost from renewable energy, nuclear power and other technologies

Michel Barnier: A la question que vous avez posé avec votre boîte… Moi probablement, j’aurai répondu que l’agriculture peut contribuer davantage qu’elle ne le fait aujourd’hui.

Michel Barnier: To the question you have just asked with your voting pad… I would probably have answered that agriculture can contribute more than what it is doing today.

Dana Spinant: Donc vous auriez voté NON?

Dana Spinant: So you would have voted NO?

Michel Barnier: Si c’est OUI ou NON, c’est toujours un peu trop tranché mais je peux dire on doit faire plus et nous voulons faire plus avec les agriculteurs, par contre eux, ou pas sans eux, avec eux, avec les producteurs. Et on peut faire plus et on doit faire plus puisque, pour moi, mesdames et messieurs, bien avant d’être Ministre de l’Agricult[...]

Q:Now you expressed some views earlier to me that you believe that biofuels, the production of crops for fuel, could adversely affect our ability to feed ourselves in the future; expand on that.

A:I think that there is a real danger if we don’t put limits to the production of biofuels. We have to produce a bit of biofuel to be more independent for energy. And I think that the position of the French Minister Barnier, who presides now in Europe concerning this matter, is very good. He explained that we consecrate to put only 7% of the European area in biofuels. It’s a good decision because it preserves a bit of independence for energy and it preserves at the same time the possibility to consecrate 93% to food. So I think that we have to preserve this balance in our politics.

Q:Now in your work, you are a specialist in agricultural finance, is that correct? Do you think that in the current economic climate, it is possible for farmers to adopt more environmental practices which may mean a reduction of yields?

A:It’s difficult to say that they are ready to reduce the production. I think that because of the elementary goals, we should have to produce more - maybe not European farmers only but all farmers in the world. I think that they need more incentives from the governments to reach the environmental goal and the economic goal at the same time.

Q:It’s a fact that many small farmers or farmers with smallholdings are leaving the land because it’s not viable. Is this your experience at the bank?

A:We try to answer to any situation but it’s true that in France, from the thi[...]

Q: Coming from the Ukraine, you have a lot of experience of agricultural production, particularly bulk production of grains. Do you think that the production of grains can be sustainable while maintaining the huge yields that are necessary?

A:Yes, you’re right - Ukraine used to be the bread basket of Europe and we are getting back to our, I would say, specialisations which countries can have in the international market. The experience which we got last year gives us the following conclusion; the point is efficiency. First of all, efficiency - how we use resources which are available. So that the more efficient is the agriculture, the more options we have then to decide what we will do and in which direction we will develop agriculture, as it should be crops for biofuel or it should be food or it should be something else, so[...]

Q:Have you noticed or seen any changes in Polish agricultural practices in the last 20 years, taking into account environmental concerns?

A:Definitely. We are under a huge restructuring impact regarding our accession to the European Union and, because of that, we are fully or hugely influenced by all the changes that are experienced by all the member states of the European Union.

Q:Are you in fact adopting any environmentally friendly practices in Polish agriculture?

A:Well, yes, as well as all the member states that apply, within the CAP, of course.

Q:What environmental practices are being adopted in Polish agriculture?

A:That’s a good question. I think I need to first think it over. I would have to refer to our conference that we have experienced to date. So we have to abide by the [...]

Benita Ferrero-Waldner: Climate change is a threat multiplier that will have consequences and increased risks for societies in nearly all parts of the globe. But the good news is that the European Union is uniquely well placed to act. And now to immediately turn to our action. I think, as in many other areas, there is a direct link between the level of ambition of the EU’s internal agenda on climate change and energy and also our credibility externally. Our objectives, set out in the new integrated climate change and energy policy, that were agreed at the Spring European Council, are clearly ambitious. And there also the political commitment to delivering them, I can say, is really strong.

Climate change is, of course, a global phenomenon and, therefore, requires global action. And, as I’ve said, our international influen[...]

The first question I drew from this is we have $140 barrel oil at the moment and we don’t see people changing their lifestyles too dramatically, and the question I asked is, at what point do we change? And it’s a very difficult question because we do adapt. We do adapt our lifestyle gradually and we continue to have unsustainable lifestyle practices. So what we have to look at as a policy maker position is, do we go forward and accept that people are not changing lifestyles and wait until the coming catastrophe? Or should policy makers come in and change somehow? And that takes a lot of courage.

Now one thing we’ve noticed is people do change, adapt their lifestyle to taxation measures. Plastic bags are now taxed and people are using far fewer plastic bags. Rubbish bags are taxed and now suddenly recycling has gone up, [...]

So I basically think that we and the politicians are still in denial about the urgency of the problem. I think it’s much more urgent, much more dire the situation than it is sometimes being discussed and especially politicians to have a tendency to sort of appease the citizens - well, everything will fix itself if we have the right technologies. Therefore, consumers are not really ready to change their lifestyles. And I think as long as we don’t see that technology innovation and lifestyle innovation are necessary, then we’re not going to move on the climate and energy crisis issue.

I think the most important point of this debate is basically the understanding of points where some certain partners, industrial partners or partners or behaviour which need to be changed, to basically fight climate change and possible sustainable development. And with that, things which are more important than quick decisions like technological changes or certain gaps like 20/20 gaps to reduce emissions. And, for instance, I would say about strategic changes, strategic changes become more important than tactical decisions. And if you are successful to change these partners to make them more positive and more sustainable and more climate friendly, it would be like necessary preconditions and all technological decisions will come by itself.

The future of electric cars is huge. Why? Because 80% of the transportation is done for a very short distance like typically less than 50km and with one person in a car. So this is exactly what electric cars can do. They can carry people for short distances and they have an excellent energy yield. They are zero pollution in the cities so you get clean cities. They have virtually zero noise, so you have noiseless cities. And they allow to reduce strongly the oil dependency if the electricity is produced from other sources than oil, of course.

One of the chaps mentioned that to buy a nice looking electric car would cost $100,000 - maybe people aren’t ready yet to invest that amount of money. Yes. Well, that’s a Ferrari like car, the Tesla car is really a car that no one can afford except for very rich people. But there are[...]

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 [...]

Chris Slatter: You've just spent two hours listening to various experts on carbon capture and storage and you raised some doubts about whether the current commercial model is actually workable. Would you like to expand on that?

Jason Anderson: What concerns me about the Commission's proposal is that it's essentially saying to industry, first develop some demonstration projects and then later rely entirely on the Emissions Trading System to finance the commercialisation of the technology. And there's two problems with that. The first is that the commercialisation element in the future is going to rely on an uncertain price signal. The technology is expensive at the moment - we're anticipating something along the lines of a sustained signal of 40 Euros a tonne, or something higher than that potentially to develop CCS. If you do[...]

Chris Slatter: You've said some fairly forthright things out there; you talked about energy security and climate change; you're in favour of further debate etc. Do you think we've got anywhere today?

Sandrine Dixson-Decleve: I think it's a good question. I think we have gotten anywhere today. I think that there are a variety of different issues that we're confronted with at the European level. If you look at energy security, right now at least in terms of the package of legislation that we have, we're looking at renewables, we're looking at trying to reduce our climate impact actually from energy and then within that package, we also have the CCS option. Now the CCS is in terms of new technology development, whereas the renewables we're looking more already now at trying to set targets so that we actually use more renewable e[...]

Chris Slatter: Now during the debate that we've just heard, you were concerned that while we may bring in mechanisms in Europe to adopt CCS, that countries like India and China, there was no mechanism to make them do it. Would you expand further on that?

Eivind Hoff: Well, what I wanted to say is that it is crucial that the EU helps India and China to get demonstration plants, and when the Commissioner is saying that the Chinese are telling the EU that you guys do it in the EU first, well, then it means that the EU is not doing what we want, which is to put money on the table. Because, of course, the Chinese would like to see this new technology as soon as possible in their own country, but they have a massive developmental challenge and therefore don't have the necessary funds necessarily that we in Europe have to cater for [...]

Chris Slatter: You had some quite forthright things to say in the debate on the floor. What exactly is your point of view on this whole subject of carbon capture and storage?

Marco Sorgetti: Well, this is an interesting technology which is certainly offering some alternatives and it could be a bridging technology for a period. We think that everything that is available has to be put on the table and developed. The problem is just simply too great to be dealt with with one technology. We need everything and we need everything to be working and to be given a chance. That is why I talked about why don't we think about market failure into putting everything on the table on an equal footing. We really need to develop everything if we want to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Chris Slatter: How do you think some of[...]