Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.5.2-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you very much. Parliament has taken receipt of a report on this subject produced under the tutelage of Mr Chichester and I would like to congratulate him on it. It is a good report. Another way in which the European Union seeks to further environmental policy in the field of energy is by setting up programmes promoting the efficiency of installations.
But I want to again make clear today that the most important environmental policy measure we have taken to date was when we abolished the monopolies and introduced competition in the directives on gas and electricity of 1996 and 1998. For it is only under such circumstances that the former monopolies are forced to shut down all their unprofitable installations and pass the consequences of this onto the consumer in terms of costs. Only now do they have an incentive to operate their installations as efficiently as possible. I also want to draw your attention to one aspect in particular. It is only when a sector opens up to competition that variable rates can be set, something we are all familiar with in the case of the telecommunications sector. Variable rates will lead to consumption over a 24 hour period being corrected and as such better use will be made of the installation capacity and fewer installations will be required. In other words, it will not be necessary to produce as much energy and that is the most significant contribution to environmental policy to come out of these directives.
Hence the observation, incidentally, that the deliberations put forward by the previous Commission on the so-called integrated resources planning – an expression I really dislike – will die a death for this very reason, because there is no need for regulation. For the energy suppliers and distributors will endeavour of their own accord to manage demand appropriately.
When it came to adopting the directives, the PPE Group stressed that as far as we were concerned there was still a lack of harmonisation of environmental policies. That is why we have this report before us today, and we await further initiatives from the Commission. I would also like to remind you that these directives provide for priority regulations with respect to the supply of electricity from renewable energies and combined heat and power systems. These will all be of obvious benefit to the environment. What we still lack though and what the previous Commission failed to achieve, and what we hope will be achieved in the end, is a European directive which does not just provide for the regulation in technical terms of the supply of electricity from renewable energy, but which also clearly sets out, in accordance with European competition law, models that show how electricity produced by this method can be promoted in a manner which meets Community requirements.
I see Mr Linkohr sitting just across the way. We were unable to support the proposal he put forward at the time in every last detail, but we are agreed on the line of approach, i.e. that European legislation must be drawn up in this area. I would also like to say in this context that we are soon to enter into very careful deliberations with the Commission, in Committee, on what else needs to be done in regulatory terms in the field of gas and electricity, for contrary to all declarations, we still do not have a European market, to a large extent we still have 15 individual markets. This situation must change!
Finally, I would like to make an observation of a rather personal nature. Whosoever believes that environmental protection can be achieved by introducing a CO2-tax will find no credence with me at any rate. This is a quote from the Secretary-General of the IAEO who recently held forth before us all, stating that he knew of no examples to support the contention that linking taxation with the emission of harmful substances really does make a difference in terms of less energy being used and achieving reductions in the emission of harmful substances. Consequently, and until there is evidence to the contrary, I will continue to regard all deliberations in respect of CO2 as nothing more than an increase in taxation by the backdoor, and I personally would only be prepared to support this if other taxes were to be cut in advance, rather than just an announcement made."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples