Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-12-14-Speech-2-636"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101214.40.2-636"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of his work and, in principle, clearly, to support the adoption tomorrow of the report adopted in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.
Let us come now to the unbelievable potential associated with energy savings, a point that has been made here. Reports from the European Commission itself say that if we called a halt to our excessive energy consumption, if we reduced our energy wastage by 20%, we could create one million jobs, we could save almost EUR 1 000 per European household, and we could clearly reduce our external energy bill.
A 20% energy saving or reduction in Europe is the equivalent of 15 Nabuccos in energy terms, and we are currently missing that target. Mrs Hall made this point, and the way I see it, we have trouble calculating. If reports show today that we are far from achieving 20%, then we can evaluate the savings that we make or do not make each year. We also know that this eco-design or eco-labelling approach for cars and so on does not result in overall coherence and does enable us to obtain the results that we are seeking.
I am a little surprised at the debate that we are having here. Excuse me, Commissioner, but when you say that we have a problem in defining energy efficiency, this is perhaps true from a theoretical point of view, but the climate and energy package is very clear on the objective. It says that energy consumption must be reduced by 20% below the baseline level. This problem does not have to do with the definition of energy efficiency. There are energy levels that we need to return to – that is what the climate and energy package says.
We are told that we do not need a binding objective. We are thus making one on renewables. A few days ago, in Cancún, the European Commission negotiated a binding agreement on climate change and tried to defend the Kyoto Protocol, and in this House we are citing the arguments of the United States and China by saying: ‘We will go for voluntary targets, and then, if one day we realise that they are not working, we will create binding targets’.
With regard to the report under examination, a number of Members have proposed strengthening the part on building. There is scope to take a large-scale European initiative on building, which nevertheless accounts for 40% of our energy consumption; we can go much further on renovation.
Finally, citizens are today facing the cold. They are paying very high prices for their energy. If Europe emerges from the crisis, energy will be much more expensive internationally. Citizens will be confronted with a two-fold increase in energy prices. We must move much more quickly, and I would also ask you, Commissioner, to please stress to Mr Van Rompuy that the 4 February meeting should also be a meeting about energy consumption. From this point of view, the road map that he is proposing today is outrageous."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples