Debate contributions by Andreas GLÜCK

Madam President, Dear Commissioner, I have to admit, I'm just getting annoyed. The Union has celebrated over the past few days that the Commission is allegedly backtracking on the incinerator ban. But now comes a proposal that is very, very sobering. Because on closer inspection, the alleged change of course is at best a minimal correction. Where technology openness has been talked about for months, a reduction target of 90%, measured by the exhaust, now remains in the end. This means that only 10% is left for technology neutrality. The Commission adheres to the exhaust dogma and CO2 from power generation or battery production falls completely under the table. I have nothing against battery electric cars. But I have something against it when we compare apples with pears, dear colleagues. The contribution of green steel and renewable fuel is capped at 10%. That's not enough. We need the best solutions that we can create technologically neutral. And we have to keep fighting. Also for the future of Parliament, for the position of Parliament, for the future of our industry and our jobs.

Dear Mr President, Dear colleagues! The European Union's economy is under pressure: It's about jobs, it's about the existence of hundreds of thousands of citizens. One reason for these existential fears is wrong decisions at European level in recent years, and by that I do not mean climate protection, which is not the problem, but the way in which climate protection is operated. We have too much policy of prohibition, too much law of order, too much bureaucracy, too much political philosophizing, which technology is the best. Then the economy moves to third countries. This is bad for jobs, but it is also bad for the climate. There is often more CO.2 than would ever be the case with us. Everything could be handled much easier and better. Ambitious targets for CO savings2 – Yes, but do not prescribe which technology to use. Yes to openness to technology, including cars, homes and industry. Yes to hydrogen networks without overregulating. Yes to renewable energies and storage. We need to act urgently. Let's keep climate protection as a goal, but correct the way to it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Imagine a dangerous curve. 50 km/h speed limit. One drives through at 150 km/h and builds an accident. It makes no sense at all to lower and tighten the speed limit from 50 km/h to 30 km/h, but if someone breaks a law, then the law does not have to be made stricter, but the law must be better controlled. But that's exactly what happened with medical devices. All medical devices had to be re-approved, including those that have been safe on the market for many years. What was meant well for patient safety is now becoming a danger to patients because certain proven products are no longer available. An adaptation of the Medical Devices Regulation is therefore urgently needed. We need a workable solution for orphan devices and paediatric surgery, abolition of the five-year recertification for Low‐Riskproducts. We need sufficient capacity in the notified bodies and Fast track‐Approvals for innovative products. As a doctor – as an active doctor – and a Member of Parliament, I say with all my heart: Safer and faster approvals save lives.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union is humanity’s largest peace project, the world’s largest single market and – through common standards and shared management of emergencies – a real added value for people. But in some areas, Commissioner, we are lagging behind, for example in creating a genuine internal energy market. Yes, we are making progress on renewable energy and independence from Russian gas. Nevertheless, the following applies: The Energy Union is still in its infancy. In Draghi's speech earlier, it was clearly heard: Cheap and clean energy is vital to our future. In summary, one can say: Wherever the CO2‐ETS allowance trading is going well, as emissions have halved in the last 20 years. Where the ETS does not apply, things are not going so well. That is why the Commission wants to speed up the pace of change, as it says. I think that's wrong. We don't have to go faster; We need to learn to go the right way. Prohibition policies and regulatory clubs, such as the combustion ban or the Building Efficiency Directive, lead to the loss of jobs and the increase in construction costs. The ETS, on the other hand, and technology neutrality mean climate protection at a favorable cost. Let's trust the ETS! Soon it will also apply to buildings and traffic. Let's get rid of unnecessary bureaucratic and expensive banning policies! The European Union is a success story. Let's make the right decisions so that it stays that way in the future.