Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-11-Speech-2-083-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120911.5.2-083-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to comment on the interesting and constructive contributions in five points.
We, as the Commission, have now tabled a proposal, in July, and decided to postpone the release of certain CO
emissions allowances that were to be made available each year over the course of the period up to 2020; in other words, not to make them available next year or the year after, but rather at the end of the decade, in order to achieve a certain change in supply and demand and thus also to send a price signal. Counter-argument number 1 is that all this is harmful to planning certainty and undermines the confidence of all players. Counter-argument number 2 is that the target of a 20% reduction in emissions will be achieved by 2020 even with a price of EUR 6. In other words, even without changing our current ETS system, the allowances are sufficient to achieve a 20% reduction in emissions – whatever the price at which they are made available.
This autumn, we will have to decide – Ms Hedegaard is leading on this, we are helping – what allowances will not be placed on the market in 2013 and 2014; in other words, what allowances we will hold back. In truth, however, it is not a matter of whether we postpone the release of certain CO
emissions allowances onto the market, as is our current proposal which is based on the applicable law, but rather it is a matter of whether we decide not to release allowances onto the market at all over the period up to 2020; in other words, in practical terms, creating a shortage of emissions rights overall and not simply postponing their release onto the market. This is a matter that will be discussed in the Commission and we would also like to discuss it with you in the autumn.
That is our own problem that is internal to the EU. Let us not be under any illusions, however. There is also an external problem. At the time the ETS was created as a market instrument for reducing CO
emissions in Europe, we also had an external expectation. We, the European Union, were pioneering this, and our partners in other regions of the world would follow. So far, it seems we were largely mistaken. Australia is following in our footsteps, but with unimaginably low volumes. Have you, like me, been following the election campaign in the US, in Washington? The subject of CO
and climate change is playing no part in the American election campaign. Consequently, we must assume – whoever wins the election – that there will not be a majority in the next Congress for binding CO
emissions reduction targets, for binding worldwide climate change. I have no hope of this.
China – likewise. Russia – likewise. India – likewise. We have the problem that we, the European Union with its 500 million inhabitants, are responsible for just about 11% of worldwide CO
emissions. Since we have no partners, the question of where we go from here is one that must be asked not just internally, but also externally, and it must be about how we get others on board.
Those are the key points. I believe that the legislation that we have before us today puts Europe on an innovative yet pragmatic course that will, in the end, benefit our citizens, that will not harm our economy, and that can be checked by us and implemented by the Member States without a great deal of red tape. We will be happy to report – whenever you would like us to, but within the next two years – in a progress report whether the Member States have kept their word when it comes to implementation and what progress we are making. If necessary, we may yet have a binding general target during the period of office of the Barroso II Commission, as was mentioned by Mr Reul, and which was generally considered a priority in Parliament, but which it was not possible to get the Council to accept.
Firstly, it was asked why we are enacting legislation at European level at all. Firstly, we have common climate change objectives, and energy efficiency is an important instrument for better climate change policy. Secondly, we have an internal market. That is why energy targets at European level make sense. Moreover, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency is a target that was developed and adopted jointly by Parliament – by you – as well as by the Council and the Commission. Since this decision was made in 2007, we have not really made much progress. That means it is now necessary to arrive at binding European measures if the objective on which you decided, which is greater energy efficiency by 2020, is to be achievable at all.
Secondly, the subject of buildings and efficiency is of great significance, not only as regards industrial buildings, but also public buildings, infrastructure and private buildings. We have a problem here. If you take a normal building and renovate it so as to be energy efficient from basement to roof – using state-of-the-art materials and windows, using ICT, using the most efficient modern condensing boilers with the highest energy efficiency, then you will only get a return on your investments – in other words, you will only recoup the costs – in at least 15 or maybe 25 years’ time, as a result of lower energy bills for heating and electricity. In other words, it is an investment for the future.
Now imagine a mayor. He is up for re-election in two years’ time. Why should he invest now in renovating nurseries and schools and the town hall when it is not even the next mayor, but the one after that who will reap the benefit? He will probably consider visible renovation of the market place, of old buildings and the pavements, or providing more staff in child care and provision for the elderly, as being more important. We are talking here, then, about an altruistic investment for the benefit of the next generation.
That is why I think it important and necessary to make billions available in our European structural programmes each year for cofinancing in our proposed budget that you will be debating in the coming weeks for the budget years 2014-2020, and to encourage our Member States and our regions and local authorities, which call in the funds, to attach great importance to the subject of energy efficiency. I believe that here, we must provide a carrot, an incentive in the best sense of the word, in order to steer national and municipal budgets more towards energy efficiency in the building stock.
Thirdly, Mr Turmes, we will be tabling a binding proposal on condensing boilers in a few weeks’ time. The final hearing was a few days ago. I am also prepared to engage in bilateral talks, but we will be consulting on our proposal in the Commission during the autumn and will then reach a decision by the end of the year.
Fourthly, value-added tax is naturally a sensitive subject. Like you, I can see that it would be desirable if a lower rate of tax were to create an incentive for energy-efficient appliances and for buying such appliances. However, this is not a matter of policy, but rather a matter of the interpretation of applicable law. I will therefore take up this matter again, but when I made enquiries a few days ago, I found that there was no room for discretion by the Commission and that rather account could only be taken of the objective that the government in London is pursuing by an amendment. I will be happy to provide you with a letter in the coming days, Mr Turmes, showing that there is no room for discretion and why this is the case. It there were, we would be using it. It there is not, then we cannot use it. The only possibility, then, is to amend the appropriate European law.
My final point concerns the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which was mentioned by Mr Liese and others. When the ETS was introduced – that was you, I was not even here yet then – there were certain expectations, such as the expectation of creating an incentive in the market for reductions in CO
emissions. There was also an expectation that it would trigger investments in the energy sector, in industry and also in the private sphere in new technologies that would prevent CO
emissions. Finally, there was an expectation that was not shared by all, but which was assumed in many budgets, that new sources of income would be created to finance sensible new work and expenditure.
In the long term, ETS revenues in the years 2006 to 2011 averaged EUR 16, 17 or 18; at its peak, it was up to EUR 30, and it is currently EUR 6 to 8.50. A price of EUR 6 to 8.50 is not enough to send a price signal. That means that there is really no longer any incentive for investing in reducing and avoiding CO
emissions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples