Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. We need to accelerate the pace of the climate transition and raise our ambitions if we are even to be close to the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, so many of my colleagues in this House are doing everything right now, when we are going to concretise climate legislation, to make it, as a matter of urgency, a Swiss cheese – full of holes, full of loopholes so that not everyone can assume their responsibilities. But everyone has to do it now. Everyone needs to be part of the transition, all countries, all sectors. For example, Swedish forestry. It does not help that Swedish colleagues in the Centre Party and the Moderates try to weaken the proposal that the Commission has put forward on those very issues. Have you already forgotten that we are in a climate emergency? Have you already forgotten that, less than two years ago, when we voted on the climate law in Parliament, we actually wanted to see a higher level of ambition than 55%? But when we are going to vote on this now, we still have the opportunity to raise our ambition, and I really hope that enough of us in here want to take that chance.

Madam President, thank you very much. Vice President Timmermans! As a meteorologist, I have followed the IPCC's work and reports for over 30 years, and it is just to note that the reports are getting thicker, they contain increasingly facts and increasingly clear warnings. At the same time, we can also summarise these reports in a single sentence. Because they actually say ‘Oh well, that's a little worse than we thought last time’. And it depends on two things. One is that science is unfortunately discovering new risks and dangers of climate change. But the second and most important thing is, unfortunately, that we as politicians have done far too little during these 30 years. I am glad that you, Frans Timmermans, initially say that we may have to raise our ambitions. I would like to see us replace this ‘maybe’ with a ‘must’. This is something that we Greens have said from the beginning. We need to do that if we are to be in line with the Paris Agreement, and that is exactly what is at the heart of the latest IPCC report.

Madam President, thank you very much. It is a little over a week now since the IPCC published the latest compilation, which is the most comprehensive compilation of assessments of the consequences of climate change so far. It's an extremely gloomy read. The effects are more serious, coming faster than expected and the final sentence of the report is clear. It says: Any further delay in coordinated and preventative global action will miss a short and rapidly disappearing window of opportunity to secure a habitable world. However, I am incredibly proud of the Green Group’s work on this legislation, and not least the work of my dear colleague Grace O’Sullivan – what a fantastic opening statement you made, incidentally. The Commission's proposals for this important piece of legislation were somewhat overshadowed by their non-binding approaches. Honestly, it was a relatively empty framework. But we Greens have now filled that with concrete content to create real systemic changes, not least the fact that, for the first time in a legally binding text in the EU, we have written that we need a cut-off date for fossil subsidies in line with the 1.5°C target. It has been a challenge for us Greens to get through it. It should of course be obvious. But now that everyone sees what our continued financing of the fossil fuel can contribute, namely the financing of Putin's war machine, the financing of the suffering of the Ukrainian people, I also hope that everyone understands the importance of today's decision and that, of course, we should have taken it a long time ago. Climate policy is security policy. Let us take it seriously once and for all and use this environmental action programme to really implement a real green transition. The climate crisis is a race against the clock, and soon the clock is beaten.

Mr President, thank you very much. A non-toxic everyday life for everyone and not least our children, it should surely be a matter of course. We should not even have to discuss these issues in Parliament. But we need that. For the children are surrounded by foreign, dangerous substances in their everyday life. There are toxins in the food, water, clothes and, not least, unfortunately, in the toys. The children face this every day and it is very difficult for us adults to protect the children from it. They are also extra sensitive when they grow and of course they are extra exposed when they pick and examine the stuff, maybe put them in their mouths. After all, it's toys that we're talking about, so of course we adults have a huge responsibility to make sure that the game is non-toxic. It should not be up to individual parents or grandparents to examine and check whether toys contain toxins or not. This should be guaranteed by the authorities and manufacturers. Therefore, we Greens say no to all exemptions for hazardous chemicals in toys. Limits on the amount of chemicals a toy may contain should apply to all toys, not just to the smallest children or toys made to put in the mouth. If we think about it, it's pretty simple. Of course, it should only be toys that are completely safe to be manufactured. The children's perspective and the precautionary principle must apply.

Madam President, thank you very much. I was going to say ‘kiitos’, but then I would say ‘thank you’ in Swedish. We have all seen horrific images of neglected animals crammed together in confined spaces without enough water and fodder, on nightmarishly long journeys through Europe. Unfortunately, however, our work in committee for about a year and a half has only confirmed what we already knew. Animal transport within the EU is far too long and often, unfortunately, directly harmful to animals. Many of the rules already in place are not being complied with in several of the countries, and the controls are too few and simply bad. Exports of live animals to countries outside the EU continue to increase, often to countries that have animal welfare legislation that is significantly worse than the one we have within the EU. But today we really have the opportunity to do something about this. We have the chance to side with the animals by reducing transport to a maximum of eight hours and ensuring that no animals are subject to 24-hour journeys outside the EU.

Mr President, thank you very much. The EU got a clear back home from COP26: Our policy is inadequate. The emissions gap needs to be reduced, and quickly. All countries were invited to raise their ambitions for the 2030 targets by COP27 next year, including the EU. We need to show this now with concrete reductions in emissions. Not just some sort of numerical fork in terms of possible carbon sinks, but concrete emission reductions here and now in this decade. It is often talked about that the EU has the lead shirt on the climate issue, but then we must also note that if the rest of the world were to pursue roughly our climate policy, we would see global warming in the order of 3 degrees rather than 2 degrees by 2100, according to independent observers. Is it leadership? Surely leadership must be to have a climate policy that takes responsibility for future emissions in line with science and withstands scientific scrutiny, and that also takes full responsibility for the emissions that we have already done? Frans Timmermans, you mentioned in Glasgow on a few occasions and just now also your granddaughter and your children. I myself have grandchildren of the same age and I am convinced that we really want to be able to look them in the eye and say that we as adults have taken our responsibility to solve the problems that we adults have created. But then we all have to get out of the sandbox. I still hear some of you wanting to blame others. If others want to sit in the sandbox and blame each other, let them do it, but we have to step up now and take full responsibility for what we've done and what we're doing going forward.

Mr President, thank you very much. The least we can do is as much as possible. For over 30 years now, climate research has been very clear about what we need to do. For over 30 years, climate policy has done too little, too late. Time is actually running out of us. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows how the probability of achieving the Paris Agreement is only decreasing and the carbon budget for the 1.5-degree target in particular is shrinking very, very quickly. It's almost over. It is, of course, the world's poor and the world's young people who bear the least debt for this and for their sake is really the least we can do, as much as possible from now on. Unfortunately, President von der Leyen's speech in this House a few weeks ago showed that the European Commission is not at all prepared to deliver what is required. With these starting points, how can we convince other parts of the world to deliver, when even we ourselves do not have a climate policy that is in line with climate science? Today and tomorrow, we in Parliament are taking a stand on a resolution with many good, strong demands on world leaders. Demands that all 2030 targets must be raised, that we must provide more money for climate transition and adaptation in poor countries and that we must finally, of course, put an end to fossil fuels and, first and foremost, put an end to fossil subsidies. This is good, but where were those votes when we passed the EU climate law or when we discussed our common agricultural policy or emissions trading? Unfortunately, it still seems very easy for large groups of this collection, in this hall, to blame other parts of the world without delivering in full. In conclusion, however, I would like to ask all of you that, from now on, we really do as much together as possible, to at least keep the opportunity to succeed with the Paris Agreement.

Madam President, thank you very much. We are in three different crises right now – climate, environment and health. We probably all understand that these are interrelated, that they are affected by our food production system and that they also affect the same. These brutal attacks, which I have heard at least from parts of the right, but above all from lobbyist organisations from industrialised agriculture, are therefore, in fact, completely incomprehensible. Should we argue about goals that ultimately are about us all having food to eat in the future? Those who are still trying to describe the sustainability goals and the goals that are about having food to eat in the future as something that stands against each other, have not been involved at all in education and research. So I very much hope that all the attempts that will be made now to weaken the text that has, after all, been negotiated in committee, will be voted down tomorrow. The strategy is not quite perfect, but we definitely should not weaken it. And in the next step, we shouldn't just go from field to fork. We will also move from words to action.

Madam President, thank you very much. The Arctic and the people who live there are literally on the front line of the climate crisis. Now I think not only about the melting of snow and ice, but also about the rapid loss of biodiversity, and what this entails, for example, for reindeer husbandry at home in Sweden. When you understand this bigger picture, then it actually becomes completely disrespectful to describe the Arctic as some kind of treasure chest that we could open to extract even more natural resources in the future, as unfortunately many of my colleagues on the right do. This is on a complete collision course with the climate and sustainability goals that we, after all, agree on. And no, it is not enough to throw words like sustainable in front of mining to solve these problems. The Arctic is one of the few places on this planet that has still not been looted by the oil industry, mining companies and other environmental degradation. Together, let's make sure it continues to be so.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ahead of the UN's major summit on global food security next week, a report was released showing that as much as 90% - 90%! – of all the agricultural subsidies paid out, our health is actually deteriorating and our environment is deteriorating. Last month, another report on agricultural aid in the world showed that, if it continues to be as it is now, there is a long-term risk that, and I quote: ‘make areas of healthy land useless’. It is precisely this type of criticism that we Greens have always had and still have against EU agricultural subsidies. If we change this type of investment, instead of degrading our environment and health, it could actually be used to reinforce ecosystem services, slow down climate change, eradicate poverty, eradicate hunger – things that I hope we all agree we should do. Of course, we will use the tools we have to support sustainable food systems outside Europe, but we need to clean up at home too. This is further proof that we need a completely new agricultural policy in the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. Forest fires, floods, too little water or too much water. Climate-related natural disasters have become five times more common in the past 50 years, according to the World Meteorological Organization. For me and others who have followed the climate issue for a long time, this is no surprise. We have long known that continued global warming is leading to more and worse extreme weather events. It will be much worse – already the next decade – when we pass 1.5 degrees, and then even worse when and if we pass 2 degrees. Nevertheless, we in this Parliament are discussing climate policy that is not even in line with the 2°C objective. This is why the ambitions in the Climate Law and our climate policy are insufficient and why we need to take several big steps now, raise our ambitions, not least before and during the climate summit in Glasgow in November, in order to also put pressure on the United States and China.

. Madam President, thank you very much. Many thanks to my colleague Grace O’Sullivan for working on this report. The programme fell slightly in the shadow of the Green deal with the Commission. It's a pity. We know that legislation outweighs the strategies of the Green Deal, and we have also seen in other policy areas how strategies and the legislation itself do not always go hand in hand. I very much hope, therefore, that the Commission and the Council will take on board the suggestions for improvement in the report made by my colleague Grace O’Sullivan. Contrary to the Commission's proposal, we emphasise systemic change and a holistic approach and call on the Commission to develop indicators beyond GDP. We really need to have methods to measure economic progress, how they are linked to both ours, people's, well-being, but also the well-being of the planet. We must have it in order to succeed with everything from Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and so on. Ecology should be the foundation of the economy and not the other way around. Moreover, in order to do justice to the name of the action programme, it should not simply be a monitoring mechanism that provides information. It must also be forward-looking, contain concrete actions, tools that identify problems and solutions and contribute to a change, a change for real.