Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050606.13.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, we are dealing with a subject that is central to climate policy. The energy services directive is intended to supplement the directive on emissions trading by directing savings measures to areas beyond its scope and to continue the energy savings process among end-users.
As the person delivering the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I myself had hoped that this would have provided an opportunity to correct the problems and distortions of competition which the directive on emissions trading contains. Now there is much that is good about the directive, for which I wish to thank Mrs Rothe, but I shall address its biggest problem.
I opposed common savings targets for all Member States to the very last, because I believed they would punish countries in which energy saving measures had already been undertaken for a long time. It is perhaps paradoxical, but when we treat Member States uniformly we accord them unequal status. For that reason, I would have liked to refer the Article relating to savings obligations back to the Commission so that a system that takes account of each country’s different potential for saving energy might be created.
The Committee on the Environment approved the Commission’s equal savings targets. I am not objecting to the ambitious nature of the savings, but their unfairness. Once again they are being wrongly allocated. Some countries have been set a very tough target; others, on the other hand, a ridiculously easy one. My own country, Finland, which has invested in the efficient use of energy for years now, is facing quite a different challenge from that which Poland, for example, is.
In a common market, it is a matter of the distortion of competition when measures that have already been implemented are insufficiently taken into consideration and Member States are not given enough latitude. The proposal mentions taking early actions into account when reducing the fixed common target, but as long as it is not abundantly clear what the savings verification method is, nobody can know what measures will be approved. If my idea had been adopted, a study would have been conducted of the savings potential across Europe, and savings targets would have been allocated on a country-by-country basis, according to each country’s savings potential. This way we would have been acting even more ambitiously than now, and, even better, in a sustainable way.
I regret that what we now have is a weak compromise. The issue may well have been considered urgent, but too much haste can be costly, to the extent that it could lead to conciliation with the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples