Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-666"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.40.2-666"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to start by endorsing Mr Swoboda’s comment that implementation takes place on the spot – regionally and locally. In fact, we have manifold, mostly positive experience of refurbishment programmes – often with each euro of public money attracting six or seven euro of private investment. We will also need to examine whether our regional programmes can be involved in this. I find it difficult to imagine that a local authority would apply to the Commission directly for funding, but opening up the regional programmes to a greater extent to the vigorous refurbishment of the building stock would seem to me to be a very important step for the next funding period at the latest.
There is then also the question of an interest-rate rebate on loans. Do we want to use public structural banks to reduce the interest rates for loans relating to the refurbishment of buildings? There is also a point I would like to make in relation to building stock. It has been said a number of times that if you increase energy efficiency, you save money. That is true, but not immediately. If we look at Europe’s housing stock, we can see that, on average, the required refurbishment for each dwelling – from windows, to active and passive insulation and right down to appropriate electric equipment and appropriate improvements to heating systems – would amount to EUR 30 000 to 60 000 per dwelling. You do not save the money in the first year. The result of this is that we need to invest for the next 10 years in order for energy expenditure to be reduced and reinvested for the next 40 years. In essence, this represents an intergenerational contract in reverse. Hitherto, my generation has built up enormous debts, as evinced by the currency problems we have been having. Now, for the first time, we have the opportunity to invest, through energy efficiency, so that in forthcoming decades, our children will reap the rewards via lower expenditure on energy. Can we do this? Are we ready to do so? I am counting on you. We need to lay down new priorities in relation to budgetary issues. Anyone who brings up energy efficiency refurbishment within the European budget also needs to address it from the point of view of the consequences. We will not receive any more money, so where do we want to reorganise? That will be the crucial issue in relation to this subject at the European budgetary level, too.
I have a second issue to raise as well. Two Members of this House, Messrs Jadot and Eickhout, have said that the basis is clear. I have to disagree, however: it is not clear. I say that with the decisions of the European Council on the table here. Incidentally, the last decision by the European Council from March of this year, which stated – and I quote – ‘and moving towards a 20% increase in energy efficiency’ is, in itself, something of a reduction in consistency. This is because ‘moving towards 20%’ also means that 18, 19 or 17% would also be sufficient. I am sticking by 20%, unchanged, although the European Council adopted something of a retreat from this for the first time in March. The decision of March 2007 refers to projections of energy consumption in 2020, which were to be cut by 20%.
The body that supplies Europe with studies in this regard is PRIMES. I will cite three columns of figures to show you what problems we are facing in this connection, which have not been raised so far. Italy’s energy consumption for 2007 was 173 million tonnes. The projection for 2020 was a rise to 208 million tonnes, from which the 20% was then to be subtracted. That then leaves Italy roughly where it was before. The projection goes up and the 20% is subtracted.
Or let us take the example of a really small country – Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s energy consumption for 2007 was 4.6 million tonnes. The forecast demand rises to 5.6 million tonnes, but that is then reduced to 4.5 million again. Or let us take Portugal as an example. The consumption for the reference year was 23.8 million tonnes, which then increases to 30 million, before being brought back down to 24 million. We urgently need to discuss the projections. This is the crucial point and it has been dealt with too briefly in the debate overall, country by country.
Many of you have risen to advocate binding targets. I am an optimist and a realist. If we in the Commission were to put forward a binding target for each Member State, these would, today, be rejected by the Member States, of which we are all also citizens. There is thus no chance of us doing so, as we would then achieve nothing at all. Perhaps a two-stage plan, where we take the Member States with us, would be more realistic and more pertinent. In such a plan, I would instruct the Member States to now create national efficiency plans on a voluntary basis, but the 20% would apply all round. If we observe in two years’ time that we have not made sufficiently consistent progress, then we will issue binding targets, which the Member States would then presumably not be in a position to reject. I ask you all to examine whether this – including to the knowledge of your governments – would not perhaps be the better European route for our common targets.
Whether binding or voluntary, national action plans are required. We can examine the contents, the consistency and the impact of the plans from a policy point of view. We will also certainly not accept unchanged any plan whose contents do not meet our specifications. We would send back any such plan on a policy basis.
Thank you all very much for today. I would be happy to return here to Parliament in March in order to formally launch the debate with a proposal. The report is an excellent first step towards this."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples