Trade and Industry written statement – made at on 29 November 2006.
Malcolm Wicks
Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry
Lord Truscott represented the UK at the Energy Council in Brussels on
Informal discussion over dinner on the eve of the Council reinforced the unanimous view that energy mix was a matter of subsidiarity. Views on an appropriate overall CO2 reduction target were mixed, with two member states particularly cautious. Lord Truscott underlined the UK's emphasis on the broader climate challenge that ambitious action on energy efficiency could help meet.
In the Council itself, Commissioner Piebalgs presented the Energy Efficiency action plan as a key element in the battle against climate change, with the aim of achieving 20 per cent. savings in energy use by 2020. Priority areas include product standards, labelling and education, buildings and transport, added generation efficiency and directing more structural funds towards energy efficiency. He added that transport had huge potential—the 120g/km CO2 target for vehicle emissions, while not mentioned in the conclusions, remained valid. What was needed now was ambitious and effective action. The Council adopted conclusions on the action plan (15210/06) after one member state registered its preference for binding targets.
In the policy debate that followed, all member states supported the action plan, with significant support for the more focused priorities that offered the most added value in the Conclusions. Many member states emphasised the importance of education and the need to give member states maximum flexibility to address their national situation, to engage industry, financial institutions and the public sector at all levels and to mobilize Community funding opportunities. New member states particularly focused on access to funding. Two major member states supported market mechanisms, one arguing for legislation on transport efficiency and for an EU-wide white certificates system.
On renewables, while many reinforced that energy mix was for member states to decide, most supported a general 20 per cent. target of renewables by 2020. Only two member states wanted this to be binding; several wanted this to be at EU level only, with differentiated targets for member states. Most wanted flexibility for member states to use the most competitive technologies. Use of market mechanisms, particularly the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and the need for a sustainable and predictable framework were also mentioned.
On the international dimension, there was considerable support for an International Framework Agreement on energy efficiency (IFAEE). All supported more EU leadership and effort internationally; international organisations or bilateral dialogues, particularly with the US and China; and research and technology transfer, especially with emerging and developing countries. In response, the Commission agreed with the points made on energy efficiency, emphasising the need for leadership both within the EU by the public sector and by the EU internationally. The Commission would call a meeting to discuss an IFAEE in January. On renewables, they would look at some of the new ideas but continued to believe that a well-justified mandatory target was appropriate.
The Presidency and Commission summarised progress on a range of international dossiers including Russia where, despite lack of agreement on the post-Partnership and Co-operation Agreement mandate, the Presidency would rearrange the energy Permanent Partnership Council for before the end of next month. The Commission said it would continue with a robust approach to the range of energy discussions with Russia, based on the principles of the Energy Charter Treaty.
The Commission also noted that the creation of the proposed energy security correspondents network should be agreed by Council conclusions before the end of the year. Commissioner Piebalgs emphasised it would be a light structure, involving no duplication and would operate on an entirely voluntary basis. Member states were invited to nominate two members.
Responding to a request from one member state, the Commission confirmed they would consult on the new environmental state aid guidelines early in 2007.
Annotations
colin preece
Posted on 4 Dec 2006 4:29 pm (Report this annotation)
David
David
To be honest I am very disappointed with your reply. You say nothing of lowering carbon footprints or creating the industry to do so and if I am talking about millions of pounds to establish those industries, what does it matter as long as those footprints are minimised and not only our regions children but potentially the worlds children have a future to look for ward to?
Lambread Ltd has given A.W.M. a viable way to minimise the carbon footprint of the west midlands transport system and also a way to minimise the footprint of all regional and local government with tree free paper making, with all processes carried out in the region. That the same processes could be carried out nationally also makes your return email almost like a stub of contempt.
How many jobs do you think hemp will create? Would it indeed make a difference to our regional farmers income? Not only will it create employment, unlike the jobs that are on the job market at the moment, hemp jobs are jobs for life, or could well be if an individual chooses it to be that way. You know this business idea is the most logical option as far as minimising carbon footprints is concerned but instead of perhaps referring Lambread ltd ideas and business plan on to your colleagues or at least someone with a knowledge of sustainable human and environmental development you beat about the bush and send Lambread a list of loan providers, many of which Lambread have already made contact with over the past two years, with much the same response as you. Lambread needs AWM on our side and playing the same tune. If AWM is not going to say yes to hemp in our region, AWM condemns our region to fewer jobs and a carbon footprint that will make no difference to the effects of global warming.
You say you know nothing about the hemp industry. Just type in the word hemp in google and get educated. If you choose not to teach yourself what hope is there for the masses. Like you can't be bothered to back Lambread and learn, they can't be bothered to teach themselves how to recycle? Am I bovvered you betcha I'm bovvered!
You know now the potential of hemp thanks to Lambread communications with you. Have you had any other industry contact you or anyone at AWM with such a proposal ever? Is the proposal logically that simple your brain cannot understand it? Is your brain trained to complicate things because it has been told there are no simple solutions?
The technology already exists for grain seed for ethanol; the process for extracting ethanol from hemp seed is exactly the same. The bi-products are the same except for the fact tree free paper can be processed industrially from hemp fibre or even just the hemp herds. The hemp fibre can then be used for textiles.
We in the west midlands need to be growing as much biomass as we can and the best biomass is hemp. AWM needs to help Lambread ltd educate the region truthfully about the attributes of the cannabis hemp plant and stop beating about the bush.
To be honest I am shocked by your response. You have done nothing to help. Like JC+ we feel as though you have thrown Lambread Ltd back down the ladder with contempt as have all business start up providers in the past few years. I class them as being guilty of crimes against humanity for suppressing the hemp industry and that includes malcolm wicks of the dti.
Some researchers believe the effects of global warming will be irreversible in 9 years time if humanity does not reduce its carbon footprint. I beg you to wake up. 32,000 hectares lay fallow in 2002. I saw somewhere over 300,000 acres of marginal land lies unused annually in the UK. Lambread ltd wants farmers to use those lands productively, locally, regionally and nationally. And when lambread thinks of the unused land internationally that could be used for hemp production, Lambread sees a reduction of the earth's global carbon footprint being the difference between the life or deaths of billions of people. Hemp has to become a major tool in the reversing of the effects of global warming before 2015. If it is not, we at lambread see very little hope for the future of the world's children and indeed humanity as a whole.
Hemp, political suicide? Not if AWM joins Lambread and tells the whole hemp truth!
A world without global hemp production? Human and environmental genocide by the few who kept hemp hidden and couldn't be bothered to tell the truth for what-ever reason. Do you want to be one of the few who keep hemp hidden behind a bodyguard of lies?
Colin Preece
Lambread Ltd.
colin preece
Posted on 4 Dec 2006 4:34 pm (Report this annotation)
David