Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-23-Speech-4-482"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090423.69.4-482"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in reaching the compromise agreement with the Council on the recast of the Eco-design Directive.
By building a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy we can give a new impetus to competitiveness. The Eco-design Directive represents a big opportunity for industry to build more competitive businesses based on green technologies. It creates a level playing field across Europe, reducing red tape and production costs. It also provides flexibility for the industry, as self-regulation measures can be recognised as alternatives to regulatory implementing measures.
Last but not least, relevant stakeholders are consulted and associated in defining and reviewing the implementing measures and assessing self-regulatory measures. From my consultations with stakeholders, I realise that forward-thinking businesses do not wait for regulations in order to become compliant, but take proactive measures. Some do it out of altruism but most do it because eco-consciousness is simply good for business.
However, we need to give the industry the right signals. Even though my vision of extending eco-design requirements to all products is not shared by all my colleagues, I strongly believe that only by shifting to cleaner goods can we stop environmental degradation.
More than 80% of all environmental impacts of a product are determined during product design. An improved product design would avoid waste and provide consumers with more efficient, more reliable and longer-lasting products.
Extending the eco-design requirements to energy-related products such as windows or water taps is the first step towards a more ambitious approach and a sustainable product policy at EU level.
Sometimes even small steps can lead to big achievements. I hope you will endorse this compromise agreement as a way forward and you will continue keeping up the pressure to optimise the full potential for environmental improvement and stimulate the design of eco-friendlier products.
It has been a challenging process, mainly due to the very restrictive nature of the recast. A legislative proposal where Parliament can hardly change anything is not the appropriate framework for codecision. We are no longer an institution limited to giving assent and this is not the way Parliament wants to work with the recast in the future.
However, I am pleased that despite these challenges we managed to reach a compromise that confirms the basic principles of the Commission’s proposal, such as the extension of the scope to energy-related products, but also brings more clarifications and more emphasis on all relevant environmental parameters.
Thus, the compromise improves the definition of ‘energy-related products’ by clarifying which products could be covered by implementing measures, such as window-insulation materials or some water-using products like showerheads or taps. And I insist on the fact that giving these examples does not mean that these products will be covered automatically.
First, they will be subject to specific impact assessment, and implementing measures will be developed only for those products that have significant environmental impact, have significant potential for improvement and are not covered by other legislation that can achieve the same objectives more quickly and with less expense.
Then, the compromise provides for the assessment of the methodology used for preparing the implementing measures to better cover resource efficiency and the life-cycle approach. In times of narrowing natural resources, we must not only aim at energy efficiency but at optimising the use of resources as a whole. Furthermore, we must try to reduce the environmental impact of our products not only during their use phase, but also through their entire life cycle, from raw-material selection to manufacturing, packaging, use and end of life.
Even if for now the Directive is extended only to energy-related products, we should be prepared for a further extension to all products in the future. Both the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Industry have demanded a clear commitment to extend the scope of the Directive beyond energy-related products after its review in 2012.
In response, the Commission committed itself to adopting the current methodology, if needed, with a view to a further extension of the scope to all products. But we could not have any firm commitment for an extension of the scope to all products after the review of the Directive in 2012. I would have liked the Commission to have had a firmer and more visionary approach, especially since we have all the instruments on the table today and this was the best option identified by the impact assessment. In this sense, I believe we missed the opportunity to do more for the environment with less bureaucracy.
There is also the review in 2012. We will certainly not contest the fact that we need to change our consumption and production patterns by switching to cleaner products. Change is needed, but change is also possible without overburdening companies and households."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples