Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-23-Speech-4-485"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090423.69.4-485"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur. I admire and value his dedication and commitment, and I also very much appreciate his rapidity. As far as I am concerned, it could all have gone a bit faster, and it is unfortunate that he was so seriously held back.
Europe is now wrestling with an economic crisis, but we have all, in fact, been wrestling for many years with a lack of innovation. Other continents are often more innovative than the European Union. The United States is so because it invests much more money – from the public but also from the private sector – in research and development. Japan is highly innovative, partly through its ‘top runner’ approach. Our directive on ecodesign aims at innovation. This is good for the environment as well as for the economy.
should indeed stand for the most environmentally friendly products.
Innovation must take place in several directions: lower energy consumption, less pollution from production and consumption, much better handling of natural resources and attention to reusing or recycling products at the end of their useful lives. It is not simply about energy-using products, but also about energy-related products, and I am fully in agreement with the rapporteur that it should in fact be about all products.
Resources, in other words, are important. If, within twenty years, there will be nearly nine billion inhabitants on this earth, and if they all want a reasonable level of prosperity, then it is essential to handle natural resources well and sparingly. There are inspiring concepts, such as the cradle-to-cradle concept put forward by Michael Braungart, radical ideas to make possible a complete reuse of materials.
Today, the important question is: does the directive on ecodesign actually work? The best-known example from the directive on ecodesign is the ban on incandescent light bulbs, an unpopular but very positive decision. Unfortunately, there is still some confusion about the energy-efficiency of LED bulbs, as they turn out to be somewhat less advantageous than manufacturers made it seem.
Another regrettable example of the directive on ecodesign is energy labelling. You now have AA, A+, A20, A40, and soon all products will have some type of A rating. Meanwhile, it is completely unclear what that means, which is hardly a good example of ecodesign.
Fellow Members, this revision cannot, unfortunately, solve everything. We are stuck with our own procedures and agreements and this is a missed opportunity indeed. Hopefully, the evaluation will provide an opportunity for improvement. It is important that the directive on ecodesign be thoroughly evaluated soon. Does it really bring about the innovation we are seeking? Does it place the European Union and European manufacturers at the top of the market? Does it save energy? Does it reduce waste and the use of natural resources? And most importantly: can the effect be extended to non-energy-related products and to all products?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Made in Europe"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples