Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
All true. However, is this optimistic? While alternative energy solutions would benefit Europe as a whole, it's probably that some forms of alternative energy would benefit certain countries more than others.

So would a scientific debate about which forms of energy are preferable be overridden by a discourse dominated by statements like "Well, yes, but we have to keep the French ethanol industry" -- or whatever -- "happy, so we're funding that instead." Is it better for the EU as a whole to approach this, or for the EU to say something along the lines of, "All member countries must move over to alternative sources" by a target date?

by DrOrder on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 12:46:25 PM EST
First, thank you for the constructive comment!

Ok, I see your point. The European Union tends to give economical roles to member states, so different power sources will be needed in different states. At the same time, all the states have civil and commercial vehicles, which heavily rely on fossil fuels. So, yes, specific decisions for alternative fuels must be taken by member states, but since the automotive sector is so big and using mostly fossil fuels, a decision for alternative fuels on a EU level should be taken as well  - it's a global problem, surpassing the boundaries of the EU.

An extreme viewpoint of your comment would be "every man for himself", which kind of a misses the whole point of the European Union. But again, you are right that each state should think about specific alternative power sources.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Feb 28th, 2006 at 01:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series