Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-065"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-05-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Energy labelling and standard product information (recast) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090505.4.2-065"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-05-05-Speech-2-0662
lpv:speaker	lp:Satu Hassi2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Vihreä liitto (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; ENVI (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my sincerest thanks go to Mrs Podimata for her quite excellent work, which I fully support. The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy has supported clear, consumer-friendly energy labelling, which I would like to see preserved, as would the Committee. It is important that the consumer can always have confidence that equipment in Category A absolutely always reflects the best technology – the most energy-efficient technology – there is on the market. The EU energy label has been a success. It has rid the market of energy-wasting equipment, and that model has been followed in such countries as Brazil, China, Argentina, Iran, Israel and South Africa. It is very unfortunate that the manufacturers of equipment now want to make this successful and clear system of labelling an unclear category, and that the Commission is inclined to support this. The new model being promoted by manufacturers would be the equivalent of continually calling a record in sport going back decades the world record, and when the record is beaten, calling it the world record minus 5%, the world record minus 10%, the world record minus 20%, and so on. It would make no sense, and the same system of clarification that we use when we speak of world records should also continue to apply to energy labelling."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph