Debate contributions by Peter LIESE

Madam President, Dear colleagues, I would like to thank Ursula von der Leyen and Wopke Hoekstra for meeting the demands of the EPP. And I think there's too much gossip and too much know-it-all here in the hall. The Greens are no longer there, but you can tell them: I am skeptical if Green MEPs know better what is good for the industry than the industry itself. I'm skeptical. I ask Michael Bloss if he actually coordinated his speech with the Prime Minister, who is essentially in favour of the proposal. The FDP colleagues: Meckering is easy, but Mr Wissing was celebrated for a recital on the subject E-fuelsIt has had no effect to this day. I do not think it is fair to criticise the Commission now for taking a giant step towards technological neutrality and relieving the burden on the economy. But my main message goes to the right, the Russian, the fossil friends in this Parliament. One must be quite far from the truth if one is to regulate CO.2Cars are responsible for everything that goes wrong in the German, European automotive industry. The fact that the Chinese build their own cars is not due to the EU. The fact that the companies themselves have made serious mistakes up to criminal conduct is not due to the EU. And Donald Trump, your friend, is making our lives difficult. This is not due to the European Union. I think the proposal is a good basis. We can improve it, especially in the case of green steel, which must come beforehand, but we must reconcile climate protection and competitiveness.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Climate protection remains a priority. Despite all the crises, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to take care of the issue. But we need to be more careful that we are truly role models for others in the world. Only the world can win successful climate protection. We should stick to the goals we have already decided. But we need to change our policy: We need to become technology neutral. We need to become more flexible, more pragmatic, take industry and people with us better than has been possible so far. And then not everything goes at once. Some things that have nothing to do with climate protection may also have to lag behind in environmental policy. The text is good. Alexandr Vondra, maybe the text would be even better if your group had stayed there and co-negotiated. Complaints are not constructive politics. Please come to the table and it will get even better. Ladies and gentlemen, the Paris Climate Agreement is alive. Only the United States has left. Argentina is also in the loop, partly because the Commission – Ursula von der Leyen, Wopke and others – insisted: Mercosur will only exist if the Paris Agreement on climate change is respected. The problem we have is with the future targets for 2035 and 2040. Many of us in the Group, including myself, have a hard time dealing with the 90 percent. But now we need a quick NDC. And the resolution states that this is at the upper end of the Range must be. And the EPP will support that. We need an ambitious NDC And we need him very quickly. Otherwise we don't even have to go to Belém. So let's vote for it tomorrow.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Some pretend that the ban on combustion engines is at the heart of European climate policy. That's not true. No, no, no, that's not true. Emissions trading alone is worth 25 times as much. Even if we have the CO2If legislation for cars were to be abolished completely, that would be only a small part. But I don't want to completely abolish them. I want technology neutrality, and then that has no impact at all on the achievement of our climate goals. But the other side is also wrong. It is not that the crisis in the European car industry is totally or even mainly caused by European legislation. Neither VW’s management mistakes nor the mistakes of the traffic light government in Germany – cancelling support overnight – nor the fact that the Chinese simply now have their own car industry and no longer buy European cars can be blamed on the European Union and our legislation. That is why we must finally get rid of this painful issue. People are annoyed by endless controversy. We want technology neutrality, but we also want climate neutrality. And that's possible! To the partners in Berlin, to the coalition parties, I call: Agree! People are annoyed by the argument. And I call on us – all political groups, especially those in the middle: Let's agree, people are annoyed by our quarrel! Let's finally make a regulation on technology neutrality and climate neutrality. Then the issue is gone, and we can focus on the real problems.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to express sympathy and solidarity to the victims in all countries, including on behalf of the entire EPP Group. In the second place, a big thank you to the helpers, also and especially those who helped outside their home country via rescEU. Thirdly, I would like to call on the Member States to take the issue of rescEU even more seriously, both as donors and as recipients. My own Member State has always been critical, and I am very grateful that last year, when there was a forest fire in Saxony-Anhalt, Minister Sven Schulze asked for help from the EU and that it came, even though Germany was skeptical for a long time. I believe that in Spain, too, help could have been requested more quickly this summer. Last but not least: climate change. Of course, we need to talk about climate change, but that must not be our first sentence when we see concrete victims. Nor can I, as a doctor, come to a patient with a heart attack and say: First of all, you need to change your diet. Concrete assistance is first and foremost – this must also be politically clear. When we talk about climate protection, we should talk about the international dimension much more than before. I sometimes have the impression that the question ‘Climate target for 2040: 90%’ saves the global climate alone. We are talking far too little about the preparation of Belém and, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we are talking too little about the 2035 target. What is discussed there with a maximum of 72.5 percent, that is not enough for me; We should focus more on that. So firstly, global climate protection, and secondly, very fast, concrete help.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Water is life, and drinking water is our most important food. And we should not forget in the debate on difficulties that drinking water is also the most controlled food. It is even more controlled than mineral water, and the limits are stricter. It also protects the environment when we drink drinking water and not bottled water. We have some challenges: These include PFAS, the so-called eternity chemicals. I had to experience for myself that values were found in my constituency in the Ruhr, which led to the fact that one was no longer allowed to fish, that parents were not allowed to give the water to the children. And of course you have to intervene. In this case, it was a criminal act. We should ban PFAS wherever there are alternatives. But we have essential applications. This applies to hydrogen, to the energy transition, to medical devices, to vaccines. Therefore, there must be no blanket ban. And we also need to look again at the Urban Waste Water Directive. We want to strengthen pharmaceutical production in Europe again, but here we are unilaterally burdening an industry that we still need, and we ask the Commission to recalculate. Last, but not least: As a CDU member of parliament from the region of Friedrich Merz, I have a lot of reason to celebrate today. But as a doctor, I tell everyone: Every glass of wine and every glass of beer has a glass of water, preferably European drinking water.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Reducing energy costs is an absolute necessity: Our economy, as well as our citizens, suffer from high energy costs. And for the goals we have politically – climate protection, independence from imports – it is absolutely necessary, above all, to reduce electricity costs. Electricity is the energy of the transformation to climate neutrality. Whether for heating, mobility or industrial processes: Not always, but most of the time the answer lies in electrification, and that's why it's crazy that we have such high electricity prices. I know people who went to work in a climate neutral hybrid every morning in 2022, and then they saw their electricity bill and sold the hybrid because we didn't have control over electricity prices. And there are people who say - especially in your group, Commissioner: ETS 1 can't be ambitious enough, but we don't want ETS 2. This is exactly the opposite of what we need for the transformation – we need low electricity prices. And electricity is also the energy to make us independent of Russia, Azerbaijan, Qatar and other problematic suppliers; That is why electricity costs have to go down. But costs are always the product of price and consumption; In other words, if we reduce consumption through energy efficiency, then the costs will also go down. And that is why what you said is so important, Commissioner: We also need energy efficiency. And I ask you to work even more intensively with the European Investment Bank, for example to have a frontloading of ETS 2 revenues, so that we can help people with low and middle incomes in particular with energy efficiency as quickly as possible.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Employees in the automotive industry and suppliers are worried. A key industry in the European Union is in a serious crisis. The main responsibility for this is borne by the national governments, which, for example, as in Germany, stopped funding overnight, and of course also by the companies that have made serious management mistakes. Nevertheless, I welcome your pragmatism, Commissioner. We need to be flexible on the 2025 target now – this is not overambitious, but it is important at the moment to give a discharge and not to pay penalties to the industry. As a second step, we need technology neutrality as soon as possible – the ban on combustion engines must be removed. But we need immediate targeted support, targeted support also for people with middle and low incomes. I welcome your idea of leasing, but you should go further. Firstly, you are only talking about the Climate Social Fund: National revenues from ETS2 are much larger than the Social Climate Fund. And please talk to the European Investment Bank so that we can do this funding immediately and not only in 2027 when the ETS is introduced. My last word is pooling. When we introduced this, it was an instrument to give flexibility to European industry. If we do it now, as the law says, and don't accept your proposal, it will lead to money going to China and Tesla. This is also why it is important that we accept your proposal quickly. No money for MuskDear friends!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is extremely important that we do not now talk about further requirements for the industry, but that we even reduce requirements in a targeted manner. If something is important, for example, if you do not want your pants to slide down, you can also install double fuses – suspenders and belts. But we have so many belts, so tightly strapped, that the industry no longer has air to breathe. That's why I'm in favour of keeping the frame, but loosening those tight belts. That's why it's good that the bus was also decided on the same day. We need energy. If someone is to perform and the transformation is a huge achievement, then he does not need a tightly strapped belt, but energy. That is why it is so good that the Commission Clean industrial deal He said: We need more electricity, and we need cheaper electricity. Electricity is the energy of transformation, and electricity is also the energy that makes us independent of Russia and other problematic suppliers. Therefore, please implement all these elements with massive force. We need to speed up the process. The head of a large steel plant told me he wanted to decarbonize, but he needed 50 permits from a lot of different authorities. That is why what Christian Ehler started in the last period must also be: Net zero industrial deal – are now being carried out, not only for batteries but also for steel mills.

(Start of the answer when the microphone is switched off) That is why I understood what you said, Madam, but I did not understand your accusation on the matter. I was just there talking to Mohammed Chahim, the S&A/D rapporteur for CBAM, and I am of course also talking to the colleagues of the Greens, and I am also talking to the colleagues of Renew. I am sure that at CBAM we will find a very broad majority that includes the pro-European forces, at least once the Leyen coalition. I think this is the right thing to do, and I would be delighted if Social Democrats and Greens reacted as constructively to the Commission's proposal on the other issues as they did on CBAM.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Businesses, and citizens in particular, are groaning under excessive bureaucracy. A company representative from my constituency recently told me on the occasion of the omnibus that he is responsible for sustainability in the company, but he is no longer able to plan energy efficiency projects at all because he has to fill out reports for the European Union all day long. That cannot be the point of our legislation, that paperwork is before real environmental protection. That is why I support the European Commission's proposals. I would like to say once again, in particular, because the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is in charge of supporting the proposals for CBAM. We need a border adjustment mechanism to protect our companies that have embarked on the path to climate neutrality from cheap, dirty imports. That's necessary. But if a medium-sized company orders a package of screws, then we do not need any reporting obligations for it. Or a 16-year-old teenager who ordered a spare part for his moped and then receives a questionnaire about CBAM – that's absurd! We need to focus on large quantities. This is what the Commission proposal does. That is why we should adopt this proposal as soon as possible, simply simplify it.

Madam President, Dear colleagues! The US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is a disaster. Unfortunately, I am afraid that we will not be able to achieve the 1.5-degree target in the long term, especially through this exit. But for me, that doesn't mean we should give up. Every tenth of a degree of global warming that we collectively prevent globally is important. The Paris Agreement speaks of below two degrees. well below two degrees – and I think we can do that. Let's remember Trump I: In the time of Trump I, the EU decided on climate neutrality, and many states around the world followed us. So I don't think we should give up. But we need to get better. We need to have less bureaucracy in Europe. We need to eliminate bureaucracy, we need to become technology neutral. We have to do climate protection with the people and not against the people, with the economy and not against the economy. That's why it belongs together: Competitiveness, less bureaucracy, but still climate protection together with the vast majority of countries in the world that adhere to this goal.

Mr President! Dear colleagues! It is true that the Commission is gearing its policy more towards competitiveness and that we are reducing bureaucracy in concrete terms. This does not mean that we have done everything wrong in the last period. A lot of things were right, and I'm fighting to get us to the heart of the matter. Green Deal and, in particular, the climate goals. But we have to throw off ballast. If something is very important, then you can also install double fuses, such as belts and suspenders. But what we have done is not just belts and suspenders, different systems to achieve the climate goals. I still consider the ETS to be the most important, but additional measures can also be adopted. Only: We now have so many belts and so many belts that are so tightly strapped that the economy and people no longer have air to breathe. That's why we need to loosen up. We need to relax and focus on what is really needed. That is why I support the adherence to the climate goals, the adherence to the core of the Green Deal – but a massive reduction in bureaucracy and a stronger focus on competitiveness.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The data is indeed frightening: We passed 1.5 degrees last year. While it is still formal that we can achieve the 1.5-degree target in the long term over a period of 20 years and perhaps in the future, we must be honest: Unfortunately, this is not realistic. Above all, because during these hours in Washington, a US president takes office who is actively fighting climate change, in a situation where even if the best plans of the Americans had been implemented by Joe Biden, we would still have had 2.5 times as much per capita emissions in the US in 2030 as in the EU. So we really have to be realistic, but do we have to put our hands in our laps? I say: No. Every tenth of a degree counts. The Paris climate target also speaks of well below two degrees – below two degrees – and we can do that. The international climate process has already survived Donald Trump. We decided on climate neutrality in his first term as EU, and many followed us. But I think this time, when things get tougher, we'll only make it when we get better. We need to make climate protection technology-neutral, cost-effective and, above all, with less bureaucracy. Only then will we be a role model. That is why I strongly support the European Commission's plans for a Clean industrial deal for the omnibus, in particular for cutting red tape, and Competitiveness compass. I am frightened that here in this House many who support climate protection think that this would be bureaucracy. There are letters from groups that say: by no means remove anything from it. Printing on paper is not climate protection. We have to do it, but with less bureaucracy.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, we must maintain the core of the Green Deal, but pay much more attention to competitiveness and drastically reduce bureaucracy in achieving the objectives. The core of the Green Deal, Above all, these are the climate goals. It has been said several times today and the EPP reiterated last week: We want to stick to the climate goals. We owe this not only to our children and grandchildren, but also to the companies that have invested in climate protection. The core of the Green Deal is the ETS, and it was said here that this is a sacred cow. No, it is simply the most successful instrument. It brings the most, and it gives people freedom. That is why I am also very surprised, not to say horrified, by a paper from the Czech Republic – the Presidency of the Council that the ETS2 created with us – which now say that we want to postpone it. Moving doesn't solve any problems! We have to get to the root of the problem, namely that the Member States do not return the revenues from the ETS to people and industry in a targeted manner. We need to talk about it and help people and industry. We need to cut red tape. Ladies and gentlemen, I know a steel plant in Germany that wants to decarbonize, but the boss tells me they need over 50 permits from different authorities. And if an authority says no – that's not the way it is, but differently, with less bureaucracy, it's the way it is.

The protection of children is particularly important to us as the EPP, and that is why we have proposed an amendment precisely to this effect, namely that we do not want to introduce children and young people to the e-cigarette. We have to be strict. But the fact that someone would have used an e-cigarette at another table in an outdoor restaurant would not have bothered me in the slightest when my children – they are now adults – were small, because I also cannot imagine a theoretical scenario where in an outdoor restaurant someone who is distant from the children and who does not blow directly in the face causes any health damage. That's why I can represent this in good conscience.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I don't smoke, and I don't advise anyone to start smoking. Anyone who smokes can do nothing better for their health than quit. We should support people in this. Nevertheless, I cannot support this resolution in this way, nor do I support the Commission's proposal for Council recommendations, which is the reason for the whole discussion. It can be said that these are only recommendations, nothing is forbidden. But the debate makes sense, and the Commission wants the bans. I do not wish them to the extent proposed by the Commission. The use of an e-cigarette can actually help heavy smokers get away from tobacco, and they then do not reduce their health risk to zero, but drastically reduce it. To say to these people: You are also not allowed to use your e-cigarette in outdoor restaurants, which is rightly met with resistance, and it is not proportionate, and Mr Andriukaitis has also not talked about vaping and e-cigarettes. There is no scientific evidence that passively harms e-cigarette smoking outdoors, and as long as that doesn't exist, we can't discuss bans either.

Thank you very much, Mr Andriukaitis. You have worked a lot and successfully against tobacco addiction as Health Minister and also as Commissioner, and I congratulate you that you have done this. But when we speak about scientific evidence, we have to be clear. I, also as a doctor, don't know any scientific evidence that when somebody uses an e-cigarette in an outside restaurant any third person has any risk here. So that needs to be clarified. Where is the scientific evidence? Which article? Send it to me, and we talk.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would also like to express my sympathy to the victims of the disaster in Valencia – and the President-in-Office is from Valencia. It is important that we help very quickly very concretely. And, of course, not every weather extreme can be directly attributed to climate change. But it cannot be denied that such events are accumulating and that the whole thing also has to do with the temperature in the Mediterranean Sea. This is also a commitment to climate protection. The election of Donald Trump is bad news for the climate. And that's why we have to react wisely now. We must seek allies to not only keep the climate protection process going, but even accelerate it. And we should be a good example. But that's not what I mean now, in the sense that it's often meant, just raise the targets again, but we really should be a good example – showing the rest of the world that it works. Not to de-industrialize Europe, but to decarbonize our industry. To do this, we need faster approval procedures and less bureaucracy. Germany wants to be climate neutral by 2045. Deutsche Bahn alone needs 20 years to approve a new route. It can't go on like this. And some confuse bureaucracy with climate protection. Often it is the opposite: We need less bureaucracy for more climate protection.

Madam President, in fact, when this resolution was discussed on Monday night, we had some challenges, but we base our work on Rule 136 of the Rules of Procedure, and what happened is a common practice in this Parliament. There was a majority... (Mixed reactions) I listened to you, you may listen to me. (Applause) So there's nothing in the rule that we violated. It was a request of a majority of those that were ready to sign this resolution. And we may discuss this further, but more important, dear colleagues, is the content. Please vote for this resolution. There are patients waiting for us. There are companies going bankrupt if we don't act. Let's support this resolution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The Medical Devices Regulation and the IVD Regulation were not only well-intentioned, they were also necessary. We have had many scandals, for example about the defective breast implants, and therefore it is good that we now have unannounced checks in the companies and better monitoring of the notified bodies. But we have to say today: The EU institutions have far exceeded the target. We have a bureaucratic behemoth with many rules that do not increase security, but cost and effort. This costs jobs and economic strength at a time when the European economy is already in crisis. Worse still, it puts lives at risk. Medical colleagues of mine from pediatric cardiology, for example, already say today that certain necessary instruments are not available. It is therefore good that in the mission letter The Commissioner-designate for Health says that he should tackle the problem. But honestly: I find this wording too lax. Please report this further: There is a lot of evaluation. The Commission has committed itself to present something in other important areas within 100 days of taking office. Here I hear that a proposal may come in 2026. It's too late. My clear request to the Commission, including to Ursula von der Leyen personally: It has to go faster. We need a concrete proposal within 100 days of the new Commission taking office. I have also tried a specialist lawyer before. There is a well-formulated proposal, which you can of course change, but something has to happen quickly. To work, dear Commission, against bureaucracy, for jobs, for health, especially the health of our children.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The automotive industry is one of the most important pillars of the European economy, and the medium-sized supplier industry in particular must be close to our hearts. Therefore, the current development cannot let us rest. The question is: What is it about? At least in Germany there is a survey. People say that, in addition to mistakes in the industry itself, it is the decisions of the Member States that are responsible, an absolutely chaotic support policy and very high electricity prices. This, of course, prevents you from buying electric cars. This means, in my view, that we should not abandon the climate targets, in particular the 2030 target and the 2050 target. They are also part of the EPP's electoral programme. We have a responsibility for the future, for our children and grandchildren. Many companies that have adjusted to climate protection should not let us down right now. But we need to change the method. We need technological neutrality, we need to abolish the ban on the combustion engine. It is possible to operate the combustion engine in a climate-neutral manner. This is possible with climate-neutral fuels such as e-fuels. That we only measure on the exhaust how much CO2 Come out and don't even care what happened before, that can't be right. That is why we need a revision, and we need it as soon as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, within the European Union we have every reason to remain calm. What we are currently experiencing with Mpox cannot be compared and cannot be compared with the COVID pandemic. For people in the European Union, the risk of dying from this disease is extremely low. Nevertheless, we must take it seriously and, above all, we must take it seriously with regard to Africa. This is a huge health problem. If we help there, as the Commission rightly does, then we help ourselves, because if the disease is under control in Africa, we can really reduce the risk for Europe to near zero. It is a commandment of humanity. But I think it is even more important that we help for geopolitical reasons, because if we need raw materials, if we need solidarity with Ukraine and the like, then it is important that these countries also remember that we helped them in need. But in fact, the delivery of vaccines and drugs is only a small part. I have worked in a developing country myself and know that infrastructure is the biggest problem there. What fascinated me a lot: Someone from the EMA explained to me that in fact, in a clinical trial for the antiviral drug, the mere fact that you were in a clinic and well treated halved the death rate; The drug was added to its effect. So that means we need more support, not just vaccines and medicines. But it remains true, we have cases in Europe, we have a case in Sweden and a European who was then diagnosed in Asia. Sweden has responded and issued travel recommendations. Why don't we do this together? Member States should cooperate. What needs to be done must be done by Europe and not by each Member State.