Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-05-Speech-3-451"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100505.74.3-451"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the theme of the Lisbon Strategy was competitiveness and it was a very strongly one-sided economic strategy, which, of course, in part has failed. I am therefore very pleased that the theme of the EU 2020 strategy is now sustainability. That is the right way to go and it also involves a better balance between economic, social and environmental developments and needs.
The disadvantage of sustainability is that it is a very general concept that can also lack substance. We therefore need to make it more specific. In this regard, the Commission’s paper is much too vague, as there are too many pieces of the picture missing to allow us to implement it. A resource-efficient Europe is the right approach – we have meagre energy reserves and meagre raw material reserves – but there is a lack of targets and instruments to bring us to this point of resource efficiency in our production and in our consumption. In this regard, I hope that by June we will have something rather more tangible and that we will know precisely what each of us has to do – what the Commission will do, what Parliament will do and what the Member States will have to do.
In relation to this resource-efficient Europe, the environment seems to have been somewhat forgotten, because air, water, land and also ecosystems are resources too. That has been completely lost. I would therefore like to hear more from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in respect of what we want to do in this regard. The biodiversity strategy has failed. A new one has, of course, been drawn up to take us to 2020 and this point must be taken into account in this strategy.
Climate protection has certainly been tossed about many times. I believe that we need to increase our reduction target from 20% to 30% and we need mandatory targets for energy efficiency. This is still too vague – we need to make it legally binding."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples