Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to Dolors Montserrat and all the others who have helped to present this report. This is really a good report. He acknowledges that we had difficulties at the beginning and that there were mistakes, but that then the European Union came together very quickly and that we got through the crisis well. A comparison with China is enough to see that things could have been quite different. The report also acknowledges that science and research were an important part of the solution. mRNA technology has been developed in Europe with the support of the European Union and has been instrumental in addressing the crisis. This technology can and must also help address other problems, such as cancer. That is why we must continue to have a positive framework for this. Today, however, the most important thing is that we are aware of the many millions of people who are suffering from Long COVID. Don't forget that we support them better and also intensify research in this area.

Thank you, dear Michael. I like to answer the question. However, I would like to remind all colleagues once again that it was Michael Bloss who, on behalf of the Green Group, together with ID and ECR, submitted a request to delete the ETS 2, which is so important for climate protection. Those sitting in the glass house should not throw stones – firstly. Secondly: We rely on cooperation. We voted for LULUCF, yes. And the LULUCF positions with 310 million tonnes of additional sinks, that was the EPP position. But we want to do this with incentives and not with force, not with the crowbar, as is provided for in this bill.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I come from a very rural region, and I have never seen the perception of the people in my region and the perception in the Brussels and Strasbourg bubbles differ as much as in this law. I'm talking to mayors about the proposal, to district councillors. And there is a recent statement in Germany by the Association of Cities and Municipalities, the representation of all rural municipalities, which clearly goes against this law. I'm talking to hydropower operators. Hydropower operators are worried about this law because it is becoming more difficult for hydropower – at a time when we urgently need to replace oil, gas and coal. Other energy transition projects, such as pipeline construction, are also becoming more difficult as a result of this law. It is an illusion to believe that biodiversity and climate protection have always gone hand in hand. Why, I ask the German Greens, is there a dispute between Robert Habeck and Steffi Lemke? Because Robert Habeck says: The energy transition is more important than the last bird. Compromises must be made here. And I'm on Habeck's side, of course. I'm talking to forest owners who say: What's that for? Putting nature back in a state 70 years ago! We didn't have climate change 70 years ago. Now we have it, unfortunately, and we should fight against it together. But we also need adapted species that were not native to Europe 70 years ago. Much is unclear, many definitions are unclear. We buy the cat in the bag. Dear colleagues, let us listen to the concerns of the people in rural areas! Let's listen to the people who stand outside and say: Nature restoration - yes, we can! Nature restoration law – no, we can’t! Let us vote against this proposal! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use the first few seconds of my short speaking time to thank those like Niels Fuglsang and Pernille Weiss who have worked out a good compromise on energy efficiency. I believe, and we as the EPP believe, that it would have been even better with nationally binding targets, but unfortunately the Council stopped us there. I also ask all journalists to write about the fact that we are ambitious here together and that the Council has slowed us down. On industrial emissions: Thank you to the rapporteur Radan Kanev; it has significantly improved a Commission text that was bad. My request to colleagues would be in the vote tomorrow: Please support the requests of the Committee on Agriculture. Cattle farming is not industrial. In any case, I do not know this from my region, and I believe that cattle have fresh air elsewhere in Europe, and we should not imprison them. And please support Dennis Radtke's proposals on decarbonisation, which he tabled with many colleagues from many different political groups. Many companies, including Europe's largest steel plant, which I visited last week, are on their way to climate neutrality. That's what we should focus on. That is the aim of these amendments by Radtke and Co. I ask for your support for these amendments!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Batteries bring challenges - in the extraction of raw materials, in the production of batteries and also in the disposal. We are addressing these challenges, and I am glad that the industry is also addressing these challenges. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this compromise in the EPP, especially Jessica Polfjärd and Antonius Manders, and I believe that we will achieve a good majority tomorrow. I hear, also here in the hall, many critical voices against batteries. To the critics, of course, I have to say: Yes, walking is more environmentally friendly than using battery-powered cars than having a storage for photovoltaics and thus running your heat pump. When you freeze, it's more environmentally friendly. But we want heat, we want mobility - with modern technology, and for that we need batteries. That is why it is also important that we keep the balance here, that we do not have over-regulation, but tackle the problems, but that the battery industry and its partners can also work. We have a priority for climate protection, and that's why we have to make a decision. If we want to keep industrialization, if we want to keep mobility, then we need batteries for it, and then we should not deny the batteries. We are for climate neutrality, and that means we are for batteries.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, it is truly dramatic. A few years ago, 30,000 people died every year in the EU from antimicrobial resistance. Now we're at 35,000 and it's getting worse every year. That's why we finally have to stop playing the Black Peter game. Many of my professional colleagues – medical practitioners – say that veterinary medicine needs to be acted upon. Veterinarians say action must be taken in human medicine. The Greens say we need stricter controls. Liberals and we Christian Democrats rightly say that we need innovation, we also need vouchers. My opinion is: We need all this. We have to stop criticizing the proposals and say we have to do it differently somehow. All the proposals on the table need to be implemented. And anyone who mocks the voucher like Kateřina Konečná should make a better suggestion. It's over with the Black Peter game, we must finally tackle this problem!

Madam President, dear colleagues, we have now agreed on the cornerstone of Fit for 55 – like Esther de Lange said, the Holy Trinity of the ETS, CBAM and the social climate fund. This is good for the climate, it’s good for people and it’s good for our jobs in industry. One point only I wanted to make: many people say the social climate fund is so small, but it is big; it is more than EUR 80 billion. But what we achieved – and this was something for which Parliament fought for many, many years – is that also Member States’ money, the national revenues, which all in all may be about EUR 700 billion, should be spent on a purpose. They should not disappear somewhere. They should be spent for innovation. For the ETS too we have made clear that funding should be spent taking social aspects into account. This is important. It’s not only the social climate fund, it’s an overall package. Thank you to everybody who helped. To Ester, David Casa, Sunčana Glavak, and a special greeting to Mohammed Chahim as it’s his birthday today. And thank you to our staff.

Mr President, there was quite some criticism on the package and on my report, there was criticism from the far right, and I think their basic argument was climate change is not so serious and I can’t follow that argument. It is serious, we are suffering from it and we need to act. There was criticism from part of the Left and part of the Greens and their main idea is we should have even higher targets, but nobody should realise, we seem to have a miracle system that nobody really has to change something, that is not possible, we all have to contribute. I am very grateful that some colleagues from the Left and the majority of the Greens, as well as all the centre groups, are in favour of the ETS and in favour of the compromise and I think we will have a good majority tomorrow. Thank you to everybody again that helped to build this compromise. Finally, I want to refer to Esther de Lange because she’s really right. The work is not done tomorrow. The work of implementation starts tomorrow. We need to build up renewable energies and all the other technologies that we need for the transition faster. We need to give permissions faster. The Net Zero Industrial Act is a good basis, but we could even improve it and we need to follow the money. Member States have the obligation, I repeat, the obligation to spend the money on purpose. We fought for this in the first phase of the ETS for 20 years and now we have it. It’s a shall and not a should. And Member States have the obligation to spend all the money from the second phase of the ETS, also the national revenues which are almost twice as much as this EUR 86 billion from the Social Climate Fund, in accordance with social criteria. So let’s remind Member States every day of this obligation so that the transition is really just.

Thank you for accepting the blue card. First of all, Sasha, you know that me and my party, we are against phasing out nuclear in this week. It’s definitely a mistake. But you shouldn’t put the blame on everybody, but on the German Government. But my question, Sasha, in the trilogue you supported the deal. In the ENVI Committee, you voted in favour. Your speech, is it for the other colleagues or is it for yourself? You supported the deal and you should be continuously supporting it because it was the Czech Presidency with Prime Minister Fiala that did the deal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. On 14 July 2021, a terrible catastrophe occurred in Europe, including in my home country. Due to heavy rain and flooding, more than 200 people lost their lives within 24 hours. The first victim in my constituency in the city of Altena was a firefighter who had just saved the lives of others and then died in the floods himself. When I later visited with the mayor the place where this happened, it ran coldly down my back. This flood catastrophe was one of the many signs that climate change no longer only affects people on the small islands in the Pacific, but has unfortunately arrived with us. That is why we must act! Therefore, it was also good that exactly on that day, on 14 July 2021, the European Commission presented the ‘Fit for 55’ package. Emissions trading is the core element of this ‘Fit for 55’ package, and ETS 1 alone brings 25 times as much CO2 reduction as the controversial car CO2 emissions regime for our 2030 target. The signal is clear: Anyone who is committed to climate action – individuals and businesses – can contribute their ideas and will benefit. We have also included maritime transport after many discussions. But of course there were also challenges in the negotiation process: We want to preserve jobs in the industry. We do not want to de-industrialise Europe, we want to decarbonise European industry. This is the only way to set an example for other parts of the world. That's why we need protection from carbon leakage. And we have, among other things, put in place a mechanism that gives air to industry, but also to citizens, in the difficult times in which we live – where we also have to partially replace Russian gas with coal – to breathe. I am grateful that large parts of the industry have constructively accompanied the process and in the end now also agree, although we have actually increased our ambitions overall by 2030. We fought particularly vigorously about the new EHS 2 for heat and road transport. Many initially rejected it. I am very, very grateful that we have managed to reach a compromise with many from academia, environmental and business organisations, which is even more ambitious than the Commission proposal because it includes process emissions, but which is also more socially balanced than what was originally on the table. We have decided on a price cap mechanism. We have significantly increased the Social Climate Fund compared to the Council. And what's even more important: We have decided on an obligation for the Member States that the other funds, which are about twice as high as the Social Climate Fund, must also be spent on a targeted basis and social aspects must be taken into account. That was also the biggest breakthrough for me overall, also in EHS 1: The funds must be spent in a targeted manner. And from tomorrow we have to follow the money and see that the Member States actually implement it. Finally, I want to thank all those who helped. I cannot name them all, but I want to name a few: Esther de Lange and David Casa, rapporteurs for the Social Climate Fund; of course, Mohammed, my shadow from the S&D and the rapporteur for CBAM; and Sunčana Glavak for the ETS aviation. But more importantly, a big thank you to our staff that worked tirelessly. I conclude, dear disciples. Many said we have crisis, it’s no time for climate action. We prove them wrong. To get rid of the dependency from Russia and others, to keep the prices under control in the long term and to fight climate change, we need to get rid of fossil fuels and the ETS is the main tool.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. You can't see it, but these F-gases are really a mess, and I'm trying to translate that into English: F-gases are a very dirty stuff. We need to get rid of them. This is important for the climate and the environment. Now it says: Yes, but this is a problem for the economy and for jobs. But I am convinced that the opposite is true: European industry is innovative. It has already developed the alternatives and offers them, often on the contrary to American and Japanese companies. And that is not protectionism, but support for innovation when we make laws that protect the environment and European companies are simply better. I am therefore very grateful – the rapporteur and everyone else, especially Stelios Kympouropoulos in the EPP – that we have a good report here. But I am also convinced that we need amendments. In particular, I would ask for the support of Amendments Nos 152 and 160. This is about craftsmanship, repairs and spare parts. And I think we need to take that into account; then a good ENVI report can become a very good plenary report – good for the climate, good for the environment, good for innovative companies and good for Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, These are three important legislative proposals for climate protection, and I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the fact that we now have such good compromises here, especially Jessica Polfjärd, Norbert Lins and Cristian Bușoi within the EPP. I just want to say two sentences about the content. Once: We talk in English about effort sharing. In German, Mr Vice-President, this is still translated as burden-sharing. We actually went on. We said it was about climate action. Smart climate protection is not only a burden, but also has many advantages. When translating the final version, you may want to make sure that effort Not really with loads... (Interim call) Yes, but for climate action We may also find a good word in the other languages. The second: I would like to underline once again what Norbert Lins said about sustainable forestry. A forest that is managed binds more CO2, and we then also create wood as a renewable raw material. That is why we should support foresters in sustainable forestry. And if we have adopted it tomorrow, then the Commission will continue to work. I would have even wished that what was coming on Thursday, namely the Climate Neutral Economy Act, would have been presented together with Fit for 55. Because we now see that many companies that set off have bureaucratic obstacles. We need to move faster, and the IRA It's just the last push. We should have done this before. That is why I am asking for an ambitious proposal for Thursday. A colleague put it this way: The answer to the IRA should not Europe first to be, but Europe fast. And that is what we expect from the Commission.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 163(3) of our Rules of Procedure. We are doing an urgent intervention here, an urgent procedure, but still it is important. That is why I regret that the request of the EPP to have a debate has been rejected. It is a very important intervention. We will save lives with this decision and we need to continue this debate. For example, for children, there is more to be done. So that is why I encourage all of us, next time when we have such an important thing, we should also have a debate. But it’s good that we are united. I’m happy that we will support this with a broad majority.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The compromise is an important part of a comprehensive response to the three major crises of recent months: this terrible Russian war of aggression and the fact that we have unfortunately continued to finance Russia through our dependency – this must end – the high energy prices that still affect many businesses and citizens, and the climate crisis. Through this compromise, we address all three crises, and therefore thank all those who have helped. The exclusive competences of the Environment Committee, for which I was responsible, were particularly controversial. Many have shied away from intervening in emissions trading. But we have done so, and I believe that this is also the bottom line, because in the short term this will lead to a reduction in the burden on citizens and industry. But for 2030, we are even raising our ambitions once again. The signal is clear: If you have difficulty finding craftsmen and materials in the short term, we will not burden you unnecessarily. But you should invest as quickly as possible, then you get a tailwind. And that's the right signal to send from the vote tomorrow.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. For me too, Sharm al-Sheikh was a disappointment: 1.5 degrees is in the paper. But there has been no progress towards 1.5 degrees, and in terms of loss and damage, I find it really terrible that we have not succeeded in taking China on board. China must participate and live up to its responsibilities. For me, there are two important consequences of this unsatisfactory result. Firstly: Our climate diplomacy needs to improve. We do a lot of good at home. I don't want to say that personally, but I think we need to get better. We all have one thing in common, perhaps Parliament has a role to play. But we need to invest more in the preparation of these COPs together. Secondly: We should not step down on ambition. Of course, we now have a crisis, and in the short term we need to use more coal in some countries. But in the medium and long term, for all three crises – high prices, dependence on Russia and climate change – there is only one answer: This means more renewable energy and more energy efficiency. Therefore: Fit for 55 tighten and not weaken.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Medical care in Europe is in grave danger. This is especially true for the care of children. I used to work in a children's clinic, and my medical colleagues in pediatric surgery, in pediatric cardiology say: “We are on the verge of making medicine from the 1950s because modern devices are no longer available.” The reasons are manifold: Brexit, Corona, but also, in my view, majorities in the European Parliament and the Council who have exaggerated the good cause, which has gone beyond the goal of the good cause, the protection of patients. We warned of too much bureaucracy at the time. But be it so; Lamenting is of no use. The causes also don't matter much; We need a solution now. I support, one by one, what Mrs Niebler has proposed. Dear Commissioner, dear Stella, we need these steps quickly and we need them courageously. My group is prepared to approve such proposals very, very quickly. And it is important that we find sustainable solutions in the long term, especially for children. One Orphan device regulation – a special scheme that incentivises medical devices in children, for example, exists in the US; We need them in Europe too. The protection of the most sensitive small patients must be more valuable to us than before.

– Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! As draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, I would like to support this report by BUDG and ECON, in all its parts. There is also a controversial point where the Committee on the Environment shares the same opinion as the committees responsible: We should not finance oil from REPowerEU. Our main task was to generate 20 billion from the ETS. This has been difficult for many colleagues. But we have found a way to maintain the ambitions in the ETS and still get the 20 billion: through the so-called Frontloading. As a result, prices in emissions trading are depressed. But I think that's a good side effect this winter and next winter, when many people are worried and many companies are also facing major challenges. Nevertheless, the climate targets are achieved because the certificates as a whole are preserved. Finally, I would like to turn to the Commission. Please, Mr Vice-President, Commissioner, help us against the Council! The Council wants to plunder the Innovation Fund. At a time when Americans are putting $200 billion on the table to attract industry, the Council is reducing our funding for this industry, for innovation. That must not happen. Parliament is on the right track here. The Council is in the cul-de-sac, and we need to get it out of there.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We are currently facing a variety of challenges, but climate change remains the biggest problem in the long term. And we have to keep an eye on climate change and fight it with all the other difficulties. Of course, this can only be done internationally. This is why COP is so important. And two things are in the foreground. Firstly: aid to Africa and other least developed countries. Here I ask the Council and the Commission to take a very close look at Parliament's mandates in ETS and CBAM. We have very concrete demands for how we can help here, and this should perhaps be included in the respective trilogues before the COP. Then the ambitions: Thank you to the Czech Presidency for prioritising three reports and for perhaps having the agreement ahead of Sharm El Sheikh. And I think we should be proud. We should not put our light under the bushel and make it appear, as some requests do, that we as Europeans are the problem if the international 1.5°C target is not met. If we deliver on our plans – and with what the European Parliament demands, we will overachieve them – we will have 2.5 times less per capita emissions than Americans by 2030, even if Americans reach their plans – which is not so certain. That is why, I believe, it is right to be proud and to remind the Council of what Parliament brings with it in terms of additional ambition, and not to put its light under the bushel. So we go to Sharm El-Sheikh with optimism and persuasion.

Madam President, "The pandemic is over," said US President Joe Biden, adding: "We still have a problem with COVID." And I think Joe Biden is pretty close to a realistic assessment of the situation. We are now in a much, much better situation than 2020 and 2021. We have another virus. We have a high level of protection from a very good vaccine, which has also been produced, developed and made available with the help of the European Union. Much was not perfect, but we should also not forget that we are now in a much better place, including through action by the European Union. We can focus on the other concerns that drive people around. And we have to, because these other problems, for example in the energy sector, are big. The two texts that are now available for vote will ensure that we are better prepared next time something like this happens to us again. Thanks to everyone who helped, especially the EPP Esther de Lange and Radan Kanev. When we look at China, we see that the problem is not over. Europe has not done so badly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The problem of high energy prices in the EU cannot be overestimated. Many companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and many consumers are highly challenged. At the same time, we are still financing Russia's war in Ukraine, and we must end that. And summer has shown us how bad the climate crisis is and that we need to fight climate change. That's why we need solutions that tackle all these three problems together: This is energy saving, this is energy efficiency, but this is also renewable energies. And that is why I ask everyone to support Markus Pieper's report and also the EPP amendments. Then the question arises: What else can we do? We need money for the necessary change. We need to make sure that prices don't go through the ceiling in the short term. To this end, the Commission has proposed REPowerEU. We should also adopt these proposals very quickly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. This summer we are witnessing in a terrible way the effects of climate change in the European Union. That is why we must act to combat climate change, and I would be very grateful if we could achieve something concrete before the next COP in the implementation of Fit for 55, as a sign to the international community, because only internationally will we really achieve something. But we also need to help concretely on the ground. I would like to emphasise specifically the RescEU programme. My own country, Germany, has always been very hesitant about whether we really need it. Germany had the impression that this did not concern us, that should be a national thing. Now there has been a huge forest fire in the Harz, in Germany, and it has helped aircraft from Italy, supported by the European Commission – RescEU. I think critical Germany should now say: "Thank you, Italy. Thank you, European Union’.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There are many reasons to vote against this delegated act. Because of the limited time, I want to limit myself to two. Firstly: The delegated act cannot take into account the new situation following the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine because it was written before. You can turn it around as you like – things that are not promoted by the taxonomy become more expensive. That's why everyone wants to be taxonomy-compliant, and those who are not on the list complain. However, LNG terminals and LNG vessels are not on it, and that is one reason to reject this delegated act. The second reason for me is the rules you have laid down for nuclear energy. I can accept that nuclear energy is a transitional technology and that we may have to use it for a little longer, especially at this stage. But, Mairead McGuinness, 2045 Construction law for new nuclear power plants of conventional design: These nuclear power plants will not produce electricity until 2070, let alone be amortized by then. If we fail to make renewable energy the only source of energy by 2070, then we are not worth our money, and that is why I will vote against the delegated act.

Madam President, dear colleagues, finally we got it. We adopted with a huge majority the biggest climate law ever. We are doing a big step for the climate, but also protecting jobs. In accordance with Rule 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I would now ask colleagues to refer the report back to committee to open interinstitutional negotiations with the Council so that we can really find an agreement as soon as possible. Finally, thank you to everybody. Of course to the colleagues that helped, but a big, big thank you to our staff. They worked day and night and over the weekend, and they had to do extra work in the last two weeks. Thank you very much!

Madam President, just to remind us, in committees we often have compromises that are voted first. I don’t remember that those colleagues that protested today are protesting when they are part of the compromise. So when there is a compromise, it can be voted first – and that’s what we should do. I’m very grateful to everybody that worked so hard to bring us to a position in which we have brought compromises now. What is ahead of us is the biggest piece of climate legislation that we have ever had. If we agree on it, we will save more CO2 in the next eight years than we did since 1990 – and we are really leading the way. But to do that, we also need to look at competitiveness and jobs. That’s why some of the amendments that have been negotiated are also important to give the industry the necessary time to adjust. What we are doing – and I’m heading here on the speaker that asked for a postponement – is that we give industry and citizens more breathing space in this difficult time. We give less ambition until 2026, but then we catch up. One thing should be clear, it’s a hard time now, and we need to use more coal to replace Russian gas. But the future is for renewables and energy efficiency and clean technologies, and that’s why we are doing the right thing to take into account the crisis but also taking care of our planet and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Madam President, of course, it’s a bad day for the European Parliament when you see this. (Mixed reactions) Please calm down colleagues. I think it’s a shame, like in many occasions in this report, that the far right and the Socialists and the Greens voted together. We are now giving a lot of responsibility to the European Council. The Council will be definitely earlier than the European Parliament, and that will reduce our influence. But we have the possibility, dear colleagues, we have the possibility to save the thing if everybody thinks twice. I look at ECR. You succeeded with a lot of votes, but still you voted against. I don’t see an explanation here. I look at the Greens and the S&D. You voted against, even though all the compromises that we made at any stage where EPP was a part – hello, calm down – we have succeeded. But those points where you thought that ‘a narrow majority with four votes, in the end we can dominate the Parliament’, you lost! (Mixed reactions) Calm down, please. So democracy means to respect the Parliament and to have a reduction of the damage. A reduction of the damage, to give it a second trial. And all those that voted against today can think twice. I would ask to refer it back to committee. Please don’t kill the ETS. Vote for bringing it back to committee to have a second thought.