Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-14-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080114.14.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the significance of CARS 21 extends far beyond the automotive sector. It is also the model for Europe’s future industrial policy. Here for the first time, and by working closely with all the parties involved, we are attempting to reach joint agreement on a long-term, stable framework for the development of one of Europe’s key industries. I am very proud to say that we have been successful in this.
I believe that in the consultation process that is about to commence we shall have to weigh up very carefully exactly what we can and want to ask of manufacturers, consumers and other road users. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to say to you that we are expecting a very great deal of them. Everything that we have already agreed on by way of the Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards, which have already come into force, will make European motor cars much more expensive.
The regulations that we will be introducing to give pedestrians better protection, in other words those measures directed towards vehicle design that will protect pedestrians more effectively in the event of their being involved in an accident, will also cost a great deal of money. The compulsory introduction of electronic stability control systems on European cars will be very expensive too, and on top of this there is the cost of CO2 reduction. We are doing this against the backdrop of a situation in which there is one particular sector of Europe’s automotive industry that is under attack from international competitors, a sector that is already earning the least revenue, where export opportunities are declining and where imports are exceeding exports, namely the small and medium-sized vehicle market.
I am quite concerned for the future of a large number of European manufacturers. I am fully convinced that it is absolutely vital for all industrial products, and this includes the motor car, to be taken to the maximum level of eco-friendly development that is technically feasible. However, I am not of the opinion that we should do this in such a way – and this applies to all industrial products, not just cars – that we compromise the international competitiveness of our industries.
We have to be quite clear about one thing: if by our policies – and I say this with next week’s debate very much in mind – we cause industries to abandon their European facilities and to set up production sites elsewhere in the world, the effect on the environment will certainly not be a positive one, for in these other places they will be then be producing their goods under much worse environmental conditions. If the steel manufacturers were to move out of Europe to Kazakhstan, believe me, in that country the rules are far less strict than here in Europe. The result would be an increase in emissions and at the same time tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs would be lost.
I would appreciate it if these points were not forgotten in the course of the impassioned debate to come. A modern European industrial policy and a modern European environmental policy can demonstrate that economy and ecology are not natural opposites, and that it is possible to solve the ecological challenges of the future by way of a rational economic approach combined with modern technology.
This was the subject discussed by all those involved in CARS 21, which is being debated here today, and this was the ultimate outcome. I believe the result is one that deserves the broad support of the European public at large.
This is all based on a quite clear division of responsibilities. We told the European car manufacturers that they could not expect us to introduce protectionist measures in order to safeguard them from the growing competition coming from other parts of the world. We also said to them, however, that they could count on having a set of stable, reliable and predictable framework conditions and, more importantly, sufficient time – which is something Mr Chatzimarkakis just mentioned – in order to prepare themselves for the mandatory requirements to come.
I should at this point just like to say something about the position of the European car industry: this is one of the very few market sectors in which Europe continues to be the undisputed global leader. It is a key industry for Europe, for technological development, for growth and, last but not least, for employment. I put up a vigorous defence against those voices in Europe who give the impression that there is something immoral, even criminal, in building, purchasing and driving motor cars. The car is part of our European way of life and it must be affordable, it must be safe, it must be reliable and it must be clean. This is precisely what CARS 21 is all about.
The European car industry is not opposed to the ambitious environmental targets that the European Commission has put forward in its proposal. I should at this point also like to make something else quite clear: I am not against them either. The next stage in limiting CO2 emissions from private motor cars – with no ifs, ands or buts – will be to set a European average of 120 grams per kilometre. This is not inconsistent with the 125 grams mentioned by Mr Chatzimarkakis, because 5 grams of this is to be achieved through the use of bio-fuels. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that this will be our next target.
I am also confident that the European car industry will benefit from such a legislator-driven innovation surge in that the sector will not only be producing the safest and best-quality vehicles but also the most environmentally-friendly cars in the world. I have not the slightest doubt that this will happen.
In the course of the debate there were some suggestions made that I did not like at all, namely – and I will not put too fine a point on this – the attempt to pit manufacturers of large cars against those who build smaller vehicles, or to play off drivers of larger cars, those who can afford and wish to own such vehicles, against those who can only afford or prefer to drive smaller ones, the motto being: big car bad, small car good.
The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, introduced a noteworthy argument into the debate when he wrote to the Commission President that the ability to spend a lot of money on a car – in other words to buy a big and expensive vehicle – did not entitle you to produce more pollution. This is certainly an argument worth reflecting on.
I do not live in France but I know that in France there are people who live in large castles and who need a lot of energy to heat these buildings. I also know that in France there are people who live under the arches of bridges and who generate no heating costs whatsoever. Where is the difference? If it is immoral to drive a large car and therefore to cause more pollution than someone who drives a small vehicle, then it is also immoral to live in a detached house and to generate more heating costs than someone who lives in a one-room apartment.
I would just like to draw attention to the fact that while this argument may seem quite convincing at first glance, on closer inspection it would mean that the CO2 issue would, in a roundabout way, lead us down the road to pervasive lifestyle regulations in Europe. That is something we certainly do not want and the Commission does not want it either. We want to retain the entire range of models being produced by the European automotive industry and there is no reason why this should not be possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples