Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-14-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080114.14.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to add to the debate by introducing two figures, so that we all know what we are talking about. There are now 700 million cars in the world at a time when oil prices are at 100 dollars. Last week Tata Motors brought out a cut-price motor car that averages five litres per hundred kilometres, but five litres is still a lot for such a small car.
This all goes to show that in the years to come hundreds of millions of private cars will appear on the roads of the emergent nations – China, India, other Asian countries, South America and the African states. In the light of such a scenario, we are surely not planning to protect those European manufacturers who believe that they have to market two-tonne limousines with fuel consumption rates of seven, eight, ten litres or more, simply because we have a so-called competitive advantage in this area.
I find the current debate to be nothing more than a fiasco. Mr Ferber of the CSU recently threatened Commission President Barroso that his CDU/CSU Group would not support a second mandate if Mr Barroso continued to back Mr Dimas in opposing the German automobile industry.
Mr Verheugen, if you pardon my saying so, you surely cannot be cross with Mr Sarkozy. Why are you cross? Because he and Mr Prodi wrote a letter that sought to ensure that the Commission would not set the growth curve at 80, as the German car industry wanted, but that a compromise would be found. I find what Mr Prodi and Mr Sarkozy did in relation to this debate to be absolutely and completely legitimate. Nor am I surprised that here again an FDP politician has naturally fallen into line behind the German car lobby.
If I may say so, Mr Chatzimarkakis, your report falls behind what Chris Davies produced, because instead of footprint you are now giving priority to vehicle weight, and because instead of 125 grams based on vehicle technology you are now calling for an integrated target of 125 grams. This means that today Parliament has backtracked somewhat. As for the argument about a timeline, what are we doing there? By setting the date 2012 we are only trying to bring more quickly to market technology that already exists.
The most important element is missing: where is the target for 2020? Mr Verheugen, you are calling for a solid framework. How should I, as a car-industry manager, know which direction to go in when Europe’s policy-makers fail to set any terms of reference specifying how energy efficient I should be by 2020. There is no mention of this either in the Commission’s proposal or in yours.
If this Parliament is to do anything when it comes to the report on the legislation then it should produce a proposal on where we need to be by 2020. That is what we need: stable, long-term planning."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples