Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-627"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.40.2-627"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the EU’s target of achieving 20% energy efficiency savings by 2020 could be at risk of becoming yet another Lisbon prophecy. With the current initiatives, it looks like we will achieve 10 or 11%. That is not good enough. We must invest in energy efficiency for economic, commercial, environmental and social reasons. A greater focus on energy efficiency will mean, first and foremost, that we use less energy. This will result in savings and, according to the Commission’s figures, the financial benefits of achieving our 20% target are in the region of EUR 1 000 per household per year.
While China and the United States are now making significant investments in this area, things are moving more slowly in Europe. We are trailing behind. In China, the state subsidises these industries. The United States has fantastic framework conditions for business, whereas European citizens only think about how much luxury we will get for our monthly salaries. There is too little focus on innovation and on achieving results. From a political point of view, we must focus on some areas that can allow us to leave this world a better place than it was when we took it over – areas which will also provide a large economic return, create new jobs and improve our competitiveness.
Energy efficiency also has the additional benefit of providing work for Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises. The three central pillars of the EU’s energy efficiency policy are, as I see it, the national action plans, the product policy and buildings. These are three very different types of policies, and if we start with the national action plans, they have not proven to be very effective, but they nevertheless have a large amount of potential. We therefore need to streamline them and give the Commission the opportunity to use them actively as a tool. The Commission will have the chance to reject the action plans if they are not sufficiently ambitious. This will result in transparency for citizens. However, it is of the utmost importance that we maintain the Member States’ independence and give them the opportunity to decide for themselves where they want to apply their efforts. Thus, in some countries, the potential for energy savings in buildings is greater than in other countries, just as entirely different countries will presumably focus on increased energy savings in connection with production.
The second pillar is the product policy, which concerns both standards and labelling. Standards are, by far, the more important of the two, and it is very easy to demonstrate the size of the savings that will be made as a result of the standards, and again, this will increase innovation.
The buildings policy is also important. Targets will be set in relation to the 2050 road map. Buildings are absolutely crucial in energy and climate policy. Forty percent of energy consumption comes from our buildings. This is an area where savings can be made that will be evident in the final accounts. I am convinced that these three areas will provide an important foundation for competitiveness and innovation for many years to come. Thus, the report recommends a financial instrument for leveraging investments in projects relating to energy efficiency. There are models in some European countries in which investments are leveraged many times over, and the question is whether the EU should not also arrange its finances in this way. I hope that Parliament can agree to adopt this report with a large political majority, as this is important – it is a very important area for Europe and for our enterprises."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples