Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-12-Speech-1-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051212.17.1-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, of all Europe’s energy sources, energy efficiency is the most important, and the fastest and cheapest way to achieve our Kyoto targets; not only that, but it also gives us a chance to invest in Europe and create jobs, rather than handing over money to foreign countries or to the Arab world in return for oil and gas. This directive not only brings the day closer when we can develop this potential, but also complements the opening-up of Europe’s gas and electricity markets. Alongside competition in the production and sale of electricity and gas, this directive will make for more vigorous competition in relation to investments in energy-saving technologies, in what are called ‘negawatts’. Particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises, this market is potentially worth billions.
What is good about this directive? One good thing in it is the concept of national action plans, the first of which has to be submitted by June 2007, after which the Commission will have six months in which to suggest any improvements that it thinks necessary. After three years, an assessment or evaluation will be carried out, and the next plan will then be drawn up, which will incorporate the lessons learned, not only from the successes and failures of one national plan, but those learned from the successes and failures of 25 or 27 of them. That means that we, in Europe, can really get serious about saving energy.
We should not, however, harbour any illusions about this: when debate turns to energy efficiency, it is often the case that people invoke a general consensus – one that I, however, do not believe actually exists. The real reason why the big energy companies, like RWE and E.ON, fought this directive tooth and nail behind the scenes in the Commission, in this House and in the Council, right up to the very end, is that the prospect of a market in the saving of energy terrifies them. It is for that reason that these companies, aided by their sympathisers in parliaments and governments, have seen to it that none of the targets are binding. While I do regret this, I have not yet given up hope that all of them – particularly, in future, the members of the national parliaments – are capable of learning and will imitate the Danish model: a binding 1.7% is what we need in the other countries too."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples