Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.4.2-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an appropriate and important project to realise energy efficiency and save more energy. It is right that we should focus on methods which we are unfortunately not applying in other areas, namely, using labelling to help the consumer choose energy-efficient products, and, at the same time, to spur competition in more efficient appliances. This decision is wise and right.
The procedure in place up to now was also sensible and it worked well. In this respect I believe that this system of labelling with classes A-G, which has worked well for over 15 years and which was enhanced a few years ago with the A+ and A++ categorisations, must now logically be extended and amended again, because we have new challenges.
However, we should consider things carefully and I would also like to take seriously the reservations which the Commission has put forward. If we do what the majority in the committee here in Parliament have suggested, namely to simply keep A-G, I fear that old appliances will continue to be categorised as A, while new more energy-efficient appliances will only be classified as B. We will therefore either have a transition period for re-labelling – which will lead to confusion – or we will have constant change, constant new labelling.
Therefore the proposal to use minus is much simpler and clearer. We need a procedure which is intelligible to consumers, which will be adopted and which results in consumers continuing in the future to support what had previously been adopted. We need a system which also encourages manufacturers to invest in eco-design. Therefore, in my opinion the Commission’s proposal is the smarter, more sensible one.
Very briefly a second comment, which to my mind is also important: I believe that everything that has been proposed here with regard to burdening media advertising with compulsory information is wrong. It is not acceptable! We must not do this. There is no sense in it! It is also not at all necessary. We can do without it, the information on the label is enough."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples