Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.4.4-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am glad that this debate is proving educational and enlightening for you. Sometimes debates are not exciting; it is much more interesting to talk about dramatic weather conditions and storms in France. But if we want to stop events like that, this is the sort of detailed technical work we have to do.
We in the Socialist Group are against the additional amendments which have been submitted. They are not in line with the aims of the report. But we support those amendments which we signed as part of the compromise, many of which add, as I am sure the Commissioner would agree, sensible definitions. I hope the Commissioner will tell us that this is only part of her aim to increase energy efficiency within the European Union and make our promises more than mere political headlines.
I would like to congratulate Mr Turmes for his very thorough work, his technical expertise and his willingness to engage in proper discussions on compromise with Members from other groups. That is appreciated, and I think it is the responsible way we should work in this Parliament.
If we take our Kyoto and other obligations seriously and want to prevent tragic weather events, we have to work with some sense of urgency. It is eight years since negotiations with the industry concerned and with energy experts began, on ways in which we could use the lighting sector to save electricity. There are many reasons for doing that. It is an extremely sensible investment for businesses within the European Union to have energy efficient lighting.
We have to have an internal market without unjustified, obstructive trade barriers. Our enterprises throughout the single market have to work in the same conditions; there has to be the famous level playing-field, always bearing in mind particular national concerns and circumstances.
Electricity, the Commission reminds us, accounts for 35% of our total primary energy use and produces 30% of our man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Tackling that sector, as well as the transport sector, is essential. It is very appropriate therefore that we look at minimum efficiency standards in any area which uses electricity. We have looked successfully at domestic boilers and industrial boilers, at fridges and freezers and we have some voluntary agreements – about which I might have reservations – in other household appliance sectors.
If I can quote from a study carried out in the United Kingdom at our very well known Building Research Centre: "the production of performance standards, particularly for fluorescent lamp ballasts, appears from this study to be one of the most effective actions which the EC could take to reduce energy consumption for lighting in commercial buildings and is thus worth further consideration and development." That very highly esteemed research establishment decided this was a sector we should work on.
One problem is that those who buy lights are not necessarily those who use them. Those who invest in buildings are not the people who will pay the electricity bills in future years. The huge numbers of lights, however, mean that we have to look to ensure that those purchasers have to make sensible purchases, by ensuring that what is on the market meets the highest possible standards.
We are only talking of newly produced fluorescent lighting ballasts. We are not suggesting that every single one has to be replaced tomorrow or next week. That would be an absurd way to carry on. We are suggesting that, in a very phased, measured and well-considered way, as the current lights in use are replaced, over the next 15-20 years, they are replaced with the best possible technology. A very long adaptation period, that is how we work in the European Union. We do not jump on our enterprises with surprise packages about which they have no warning and which would cause them considerable difficulties.
Mr Turmes has indeed been reasonable. The 800 people employed in manufacturing magnetic ballasts will not lose their jobs next week. There will be plenty of time for a phase-in period."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples