Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.7.2-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, rapporteur, Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ahern, for the dynamism with which she has taken up the work of the previous rapporteur Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz on the multiannual programme to promote energy efficiency, SAVE II for the 1998-2002 period, and has prepared it for the second reading in this Chamber. In addition, I would like to thank the Commission for the preparatory work it has carried out. SAVE, the joint programme for energy efficiency and energy savings, is an important and necessary part of the European Community’s strategy to promote efficient energy consumption and also to reduce CO2 emissions.
The SAVE programme is to be supplemented as a policy instrument by the specific programme covering issues relating to energy, the environment, and renewable energy technologies which forms part of the fifth framework programme for activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration. A number of objectives relating to the emission of greenhouse gases were set in Rio de Janeiro and Berlin. In addition, the EU undertook to comply with a number of important statements on this subject in Kyoto.
The time has now come to turn the fine words uttered in Kyoto into deeds. The EU is in a position to take on the mantle of pioneer and under no circumstances must Kyoto be allowed to degenerate into a pointless paper exercise. That is why I would like, on behalf of our group, to urge the new European Commissioner to produce more far-reaching proposals which will enable the Kyoto objectives to be realised. What we need is for Commissioner Bolkestein to finally get round to a decision on the eco-tax at a European level.
Mr President, there is every chance that the EU will fail to meet the objectives relating to the reduction of CO2 emissions. The SAVE programme can provide a counterbalance to such developments. But then again, one should not expect much of this programme. What is more, the budget is very low, which is why our group warmly welcomes the rapporteur’s proposal to increase the SAVE programme’s budget by EUR 4.4 million to EUR 68.4 million.
However, we must not set ourselves unrealistic objectives. It will be possible, between now and the year 2000, to bring about a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of between 180 and 200 million tons by further improving the energy intensity of the final demand by 5% as compared with normal expectations. The rapporteur proposes improving the energy intensity of final consumption by one and a half extra percentage points per year over and above the percentage that would otherwise be attained.
Mr President, our group believes that this is an unrealistic aim. Indeed, it has become apparent that one extra percentage point per year will be quite difficult enough to achieve. That is why we intend to vote against the rapporteur’s proposal on that point and opt for one per cent. Should it become apparent, in the fullness of time, that it is possible to achieve more, then of course we will be the first to raise the target. But we must take care not to present households, energy companies and the like with objectives which, of course, sound marvellous in practice but which are just not realistic. That would be very demotivating for those who have to do what is necessary to meet these goals.
My group feels that some of the proposals made by the rapporteur go into too much detail. The rapporteur has placed the main stress on legislation. We believe that only a framework should be created at European Union level. According to the principle of subsidiarity, a considerable proportion of the measures for increasing energy efficiency must be taken at national, regional and local level. That is why the PPE group will reject those amendments that prescribe an overly rigid framework. Instead of this, I feel that it would be a much better idea to draw up various incentives measures which will encourage governments and the business community to conclude voluntary agreements, for example.
Experiences in my country have shown that in many cases more is achieved as a result of voluntary agreements than as a result of obligations imposed by legislation. It is better to make use of the resourcefulness of the parties involved than to impose obligations on them in this area by means of legislation. Mr President, to conclude I would like to touch on another important theme. I wish to emphasis anew the importance of the proposal to throw open the SAVE programme to associate countries in Central and Eastern Europe. A very great deal remains to be done in Central and Eastern Europe. The energy sectors in these countries are lagging far behind the EU Member States when it comes to energy efficiency.
There is also still a huge amount to be organised in terms of legislation. But when it comes to saving energy, these countries stand to achieve so much more than EU countries by employing the same efforts, which is why the returns would be so much greater. I therefore hope that energy companies in EU Member States in particular, that have a great deal of experience of projects in the field of energy efficiency, can share their knowledge with these countries and, Commissioner, it is my special hope that these energy companies then have a real chance as far as projects are concerned and are not just shoved aside by American companies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples