Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.7.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ahern for her work on highlighting the importance of promoting energy efficiency. Greater energy efficiency will mean less consumption in the medium-term, safeguarding renewable energy sources, less dependence on energy imports as well as less environmental pollution.
I would like to make two points on the draft recommendation for second reading, keeping in mind that the SAVE programme is aimed mainly at strengthening research and the exchange of know how, as well as monitoring the results achieved in the sector (Article 2), despite the limited financial resources.
My points are that firstly, as for today’s discussion on the proposal to set the improvement of energy intensity of final consumption at 1.5% a year – via an amendment to Recital 15 and to Article 1 – I think this goal is certainly ambitious but not very realistic. It is also harmful for the users who have successfully, and with notable efforts, reached the targets set out in the SAVE 1 programme (1991-1995).
As regards this, I would remind you that efficient energy use in the short-term costs firms as much as it does final consumers. So we need to carefully evaluate the objectives for improving energy intensity in final consumption. We might risk burdening our production apparatus with costs that will cause our firms to be less competitive with regard to other international competitors who are not bound by these obligations.
Staying with the aim of making our production system competitive and efficient on a global scale, I will now move on to my second point. I would like to remind you that it is not always effective to promote efficient energy use using extremely restrictive, even intolerable legislative instruments and standards. Saving energy is a complex process, one which needs to develop gradually and is geared to gaining technological and economic knowledge for firms and users alike, but this will take some time.
So, I welcome the awareness campaigns on subjects linked to saving energy, but I do not see how adopting excessively prescriptive legislation could be the most efficient way of improving the energy intensity of final demand. I refer here to Amendment 1 to Recital 11, to new Recital 15a and to Amendment 6 to Article 1.
To conclude, in the light of these remarks, I would like to draw your attention to the need to carry out long-term cost/benefit analyses on the introduction of measures to reduce energy intensity of the final demand. These are very complex areas where the market and its regulations come into conflict with public welfare considerations. These analyses are possible in transparent markets where the individual end user – firm or consumer – can always assess to what point energy use is efficient thanks to gradual progress in the technological and economic spheres, sustained by sound research and as much information as possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples