Intervento alla sessione di apertura della Settimana dell'energia sostenibile
#Eusew15
« “Energy efficiency first” is the principle of considering the potential for energy efficiency in all decision-making related to energy. Where energy efficiency improvements are shown to be most cost-effective, considering also their role in driving jobs and economic growth, increasing energy security and reducing climate change, these should be prioritised », reads the Coalition for EEF definition.But in order to decide to give something priority, you need to be able and willing to choose. Sometimes the most convenient and rational choice seems hard. It is like when you go on a diet. Three carrots are by far less attractive than pasta al pesto; it seems you are going to miss something and you think that what you miss now will not be compensated by future gains. This is what some influential people in the European energy debate want us to believe: by deciding to disinvest from fossils, you will miss out growth and comfort; by deciding to save energy in IT, lighting, transport, appliances, housing, industry, you are limiting competitiveness of the EU industry. Competitiveness is seen here only under the limited point of view of the cost of labour and energy, and with little attention to the quality of the product and its attractiveness for consumers and citizens.
Well, most of us here do not agree with such statements. But we need to talk and to convince those out there who do agree with them.
A lot of us participating to this weeks events from different spaces, industry, business, civil society, local authorities, politics, know that it is possible to get out sooner rather than later from of fossil fuel dependency and create jobs; it is possible to get out of the unreliability of old, risky, costly technologies like nuclear and decrease emissions; it is possible to get rid of false miracle solutions like fracking or clean coal and be competitive with the US and the rest of the world. We see some positive recent developments in this respect. Although there is no earmarking for EE, we are encouraged by the strong mandate that the EIB received from European law-makers to support EE projects within EFSI;
EIB cannot afford coming back to the EP and to the Council without a strong lending record in this sector.
Still, we, as business and civil society representatives, have another dangerous tendency to fight.
The hostility of a lot of member states and even some Commission quarters, to elaborate and implement clear and cohesive EU legislation. Indeed, we all know that it was thanks to EU wide legislation that in this old and a bit depressed continent, technologies to go renewable and to become more and more energy efficient became a model for the rest of the world. It was because the target for EE was not binding, that EE is still lagging behind and it was so hard to get a meaningful EE directive.
With all due respect for M. Timmermans,
I am not sure that in 2007 the climate package would have survived his « better regulation » set of rules and the voluntary obstacles that in some cases this agenda seem to pose to the Commission’s capacity of initiate bold common action. This is a risky way to go: thanks to the lack of implementation and sudden changes of policy direction, we are losing ground and relevance not only in terms of attractiveness of our still too fragmented energy markets for future oriented investments, but we are also losing relevance on the international energy and climate scene, in which the so much praised EU leadership is fading away.
So there are still many risks ahead of us and most of all the risk of missing out important opportunities: increasing EE by 40% by 2030 would cut gas imports by 40%, increase GDP by 4.45% and – coupled with more renewables – allow Europe to deliver well beyond 50% greenhouse gas emissions cuts in 2030.
To conclude, Ladies and gentlemen,
we are encouraged by the fact that so many in the Commission and PE, even some in the Council, like and use the concept of EE first. But, to adopt an attractive concept is not enough. We want in the next months to build a strong consensus around the idea that the artificial obstacles represented by the non binding targets approved by the Council on EE and RES must be overcome. We don’t want caps on EE and RES to stop the perfectly possible transition out of fossil and climate damaging emissions and the creation of new quality jobs.
There is only one “cap” we can accept in this respect: the one I am wearing now!
Brussels, June 16, 2015
#Eusew15 « “Energy efficiency first” is the principle of considering the potential for energy efficiency in all decision-making related to energy. Where energy efficiency improvements are shown to be most cost-effective, considering also their role in driving jobs and economic growth, increasing energy security and reducing climate change, these should be prioritised », reads the Coalition for EEF definition.But in order to decide to give something priority, you need to be able and willing to choose. Sometimes the most convenient and rational choice seems hard. It is like when you go on a diet. Three carrots are by far less attractive than pasta al pesto; it seems you are going to miss something and you think that what you miss now will not be compensated by future gains. This is what some influential people in the European energy debate want us to believe: by deciding to disinvest from fossils, you will miss out growth and comfort; by deciding to save energy in IT, lighting, transport, appliances, housing, industry, you are limiting competitiveness of the EU industry. Competitiveness is seen here only under the limited point of view of the cost of labour and energy, and with little attention to the quality of the product and its attractiveness for consumers and citizens.
Well, most of us here do not agree with such statements. But we need to talk and to convince those out there who do agree with them.
A lot of us participating to this weeks events from different spaces, industry, business, civil society, local authorities, politics, know that it is possible to get out sooner rather than later from of fossil fuel dependency and create jobs; it is possible to get out of the unreliability of old, risky, costly technologies like nuclear and decrease emissions; it is possible to get rid of false miracle solutions like fracking or clean coal and be competitive with the US and the rest of the world. We see some positive recent developments in this respect. Although there is no earmarking for EE, we are encouraged by the strong mandate that the EIB received from European law-makers to support EE projects within EFSI; EIB cannot afford coming back to the EP and to the Council without a strong lending record in this sector.
Still, we, as business and civil society representatives, have another dangerous tendency to fight. The hostility of a lot of member states and even some Commission quarters, to elaborate and implement clear and cohesive EU legislation. Indeed, we all know that it was thanks to EU wide legislation that in this old and a bit depressed continent, technologies to go renewable and to become more and more energy efficient became a model for the rest of the world. It was because the target for EE was not binding, that EE is still lagging behind and it was so hard to get a meaningful EE directive.
With all due respect for M. Timmermans, I am not sure that in 2007 the climate package would have survived his « better regulation » set of rules and the voluntary obstacles that in some cases this agenda seem to pose to the Commission’s capacity of initiate bold common action. This is a risky way to go: thanks to the lack of implementation and sudden changes of policy direction, we are losing ground and relevance not only in terms of attractiveness of our still too fragmented energy markets for future oriented investments, but we are also losing relevance on the international energy and climate scene, in which the so much praised EU leadership is fading away.
So there are still many risks ahead of us and most of all the risk of missing out important opportunities: increasing EE by 40% by 2030 would cut gas imports by 40%, increase GDP by 4.45% and – coupled with more renewables – allow Europe to deliver well beyond 50% greenhouse gas emissions cuts in 2030.
To conclude, Ladies and gentlemen, we are encouraged by the fact that so many in the Commission and PE, even some in the Council, like and use the concept of EE first. But, to adopt an attractive concept is not enough. We want in the next months to build a strong consensus around the idea that the artificial obstacles represented by the non binding targets approved by the Council on EE and RES must be overcome. We don’t want caps on EE and RES to stop the perfectly possible transition out of fossil and climate damaging emissions and the creation of new quality jobs.
There is only one “cap” we can accept in this respect: the one I am wearing now!
Brussels, June 16, 2015