Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-628"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.40.2-628"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, I am grateful to Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development for the intensive debate and for the report that we are debating today. That applies to Mr Bendtsen in particular, but also to other Members who have been involved in this matter for a long time and have shown a high level of competence.
If we just take stock of the interim situation with regard to the three 20% targets that we have been set – CO
renewable energies in the energy mix and greater energy efficiency: with regard to CO
and renewable energies, we are making good progress, but where energy efficiency is concerned, we are just beginning. If we do not take action, we will not meet the target. That means that, although we have been set a target – Parliament, the Council, all European institutions – our progress, particularly after the crisis, is not likely to result in 20% more energy efficiency; instead, as things currently stand, it would only be possible to achieve a maximum of 8, 9, 10% in ten years’ time.
My second point is that I am not completely happy with the term energy efficiency, because no one except us understands it. If you ask your neighbours or your friends, they understand energy saving, but energy efficiency is just some sort of technical term. In fact, the issue we have with regard to this target is that what actually needs to be achieved has not yet been conclusively defined. We have an overall assessment of energy consumption for 2005, supplemented by data from 2007 on account of the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria, and that year is the starting point. The level of consumption referred to there is well-known. At that time – it was before my time – all decisions reflected a normal forecast, in other words, an energy demand that would increase, and from that, in turn, 20% was deducted. If energy savings are disregarded, will our energy demand actually increase, I ask myself. In my country – Germany – probably not. However, in new Member States – I only need to mention motor vehicles, the number of cars per inhabitant, housing sizes, industrial development – it certainly will increase. However, up to now, there has been no objective report that assesses the forecasts. Twenty percent – of how much, we do not know. We have PRIMES and other models – I have doubts about many of the predictions of the figures. For example, there are founder members of the European Union who claim their energy demand will increase sharply by 2020 without energy savings. The deduction of 20% gives exactly the same figures as those from 2005. That is surely not possible. That means, first of all, that we need figures, perspectives and forecasts that have authority. We want to produce these by February or March.
I am counting on the Heads of State or Government to take this matter just as seriously in February as they did before the crisis, as it seems to me that, as things stand, the Member States will not vote for binding targets. They may achieve a majority in Parliament, but the Member States want to work on a voluntary basis and they are still a long way from agreeing to the binding targets decided on two or three years ago. Thus, we need to clarify what the forecast for 2020 is without energy efficiency – more from a purely theoretical point of view – and then simply cut it by 20%.
Then we need to ask: where do we start? First of all, in the area of building stock. In the area of housing, work and industry, it is existing buildings where we have the most to do. In this regard, I see public owners – municipalities, states – setting an example. In other words, efficiency must, first of all, be sought wherever the state owns property. Secondly, we have structural programmes at European level and we have different refurbishment programmes in the various countries. We have to link these two together. We will perhaps have to provide less money for paving market places and have fewer bypasses, but instead, we will cofinance more energy efficiency. I also consider this to be a crucial objective for the next budgetary period at European level.
Then comes the subject of transport. It goes without saying that we have to make savings there when we know that there are some Member States in which there are 550 cars for every 1 000 members of the population – petrol and diesel engines – and others where there are 100 or 120. This will be harmonised, but not at a level of 100 cars per 1 000 citizens in Germany, but at 400 to 500 cars per 1 000 citizens in Europe. We therefore need more energy efficiency in the area of transport. Incidentally, the most efficient form of transport is the one that is avoided. Thirdly, there is industry and, fourthly, the energy sector.
The question of the binding nature of any such measures has been discussed at length in the European Parliament. We brought this issue up at an informal lunch in the Energy Council a few weeks ago. I can tell you that the Member States and the energy ministers are handling the subject of energy efficiency very sensitively, but are not yet prepared to take a decision on binding targets. Incidentally, consider an emerging Member State like Poland: will it manage minus 20%? I doubt it. Or consider a saturated Member State like Germany, Austria or Italy: how would we get Austria or Germany, for example, to accept a cut of 30% so that Poland can adjust its economic development, number of cars per citizen and whatever else to the targets? In this regard, we still have some tough discussions ahead of us with regard to how this will be implemented in detail in the various sectors – industry, the energy sector, transport and housing – and in the Member States.
I will now take the report on board and I thank you for its contents. I want to debate this matter on 4 February in the European Council in order once again to see clearly how seriously the governments are taking this and I will then come back to you with a concrete proposal for a new energy efficiency plan. I am sure we will then have sufficient opportunity in spring and summer to discuss everything, including the question of binding targets.
Bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, perhaps a two-stage plan might be the right approach. Stage 1 would be voluntary. We will expect national energy efficiency action plans to be provided on an annual basis and we will specify what we expect each year in terms of achieving the targets, but we will not wait until 2020. Instead, if appropriate, we will switch after two years to binding targets if we notice that in the first two years, the voluntary phase has not resulted in progress towards 20% in the Member States. Thank you very much for today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples