Debate contributions by Jutta PAULUS

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, there is an interesting Chinese curse which says, 'may you live in interesting times', and we are living in interesting times indeed. On the geopolitical scale, things are happening that I wouldn't have imagined even two years ago – well, let's say three years ago – whoever has read Project 2025 knew what would be coming. Therefore, I think it is vitally important that we in Europe further stick to rules-based order, to the rule of law, which is also, as I might explain right here, the reason why I voted in favour of asking the European Court of Justice for an opinion. We didn't bring Mercosur before the Court of Justice. We didn't say we want to sue against Mercosur. We are just asking for an opinion because there is this rebalancing mechanism in this trade agreement where we are not sure which rights does it give the Mercosur countries to actually undermine European legislation. And that's where I, as I'm not a lawyer, and I have heard different things from different legal experts, I need the opinion of the European Court of Justice. I will vote in favour of the Mercosur agreement. But I want a rules-based order and I think that is the same that we have to do when it comes to India, and it certainly doesn't help that we are now undermining our own environmental standards with omnibus procedures which are not following better regulation. Therefore, I think, with this rebalancing mechanism, we have set a dangerous precedent and let's not allow India to undermine our sanctions with Russia – because they are talking to Russia at the same time.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, thank you for this very valid proposal. And I was very content to hear that nearly all the colleagues – let's say the pro‑democratic, pro‑European colleagues – are content with this proposal and are seeing the need to strengthen our grids, and, of course, get faster in implementing our common electricity union. And why is this so important? We have seen in recent years that some Member States have excelled in blocking interconnectors, in blocking unifying our energy union due to domestic reasons, due to wanting to protect their domestic producers, and therefore, I think the Commission has now taken the right step to move away from this nationalistic thinking, because we are all in this together. We need to build on our common grid. We have seen how important that was during the energy crisis, when some Member States could help out other Member States which had difficulties in producing enough electricity for their citizens. We should build on this experience and we should, of course, look at the whole grid and not with a national view. And therefore, I very much welcome this proposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! This House finally wants to end Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and oil – definitively, uncompromisingly, without loopholes. For far too long, the European Union has been blackmailed by Putin's henchmen Orbán and Fico. They have blocked sanctions and helped fill Putin's war chest. Ukrainian blood sticks to Russian oil and gas. This must end! And unlike the Commission and the Council, we do not just want gas, but we want Russian oil to be banned from being imported into the EU from January 2026, Russian gas from January 2027. But: Enriched uranium, fuel rods, nuclear technology will continue to be imported into Europe. And even worse: Thanks to the close cooperation between Framatome and Rosatom, Russian engineers are entering and exiting sensitive European plants. I ask you, Commissioner: When will you finally present the announced legislative proposal to end this dangerous practice?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! There is a lot of simplification at the moment, i.e. simplification – the speech. Unfortunately, deregulation is often the case. deregulation – I mean. Fortunately, this legislative package is different. So far, important data that are highly relevant for our health, for the health of our citizens, but also for our soils, for our waters, for our air, for drinking water, scattered in several databases, have been stored by no less than four different European authorities. That had historical reasons, of course – but that is now the end. This means that if we have this common database Common data platform Anyone can check, what about the preservative in my shampoo? Is this a substance that is suspected of cancer? The textile dye I have here is perhaps toxic to fish? Or is the descaler I use really biodegradable? So this is finally a simplification that serves people, the economy and the environment alike. It means: Stop duplication, end bureaucracy, open data that everyone can see – not just big corporations, not just the authorities. And, of course, a valuable basis for research into better products and test methods. What was missing from the Commission proposal? Data from the European Medicines Agency. As if drugs were in principle harmless and as if we did not need a substitute for animal experiments, the results of which are often not transferable to humans – Contergan sends his greetings. I am very happy that we Greens have managed to digitize the data of the pharmaceutical agency and have to be entered into the database. On top of that, we would like to say – and I would also like to thank Dimitris, who was an excellent negotiator –: The concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the blood of European citizens will need to be monitored regularly in the future. That is, this package is a win-win for our health, a simplification for businesses, and a treasure trove for research.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Our farmers are at the forefront of the fight against extreme weather, against price pressure from corporations, against barren soils and against a system in which they often barely make ends meet. And now comes Donald Trump with his tariffs. What our farmers rightly expect are solutions and not right-wing diversionary and cultural struggle debates, which food can be called what. The Imart report is basically correct: Strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain, written contracts as a standard, introduction of binding price indicators reflecting production costs and also market transparency. But parts of the Conservatives and, unfortunately, also of the Liberals want to soften this now. Contracts – voluntary only. Prices – vague. Transparency - oh, it doesn't have to be. This is denial of reality, and this is a slap in the face for everyone who sits on the trecker at five in the morning. That's why we Greens say clearly: We are on the side of the farmers. We are the party of nature, for living nature is the basis of everything we want to harvest. And without fair prices, there is no future in the country.

Madam President, Commissioner, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Apparently, no one from the commission was once with a toddler on the beach and bought the child an ice cream. Inevitably, the child will spill. And just as inevitably, it will lick the sticky from the skin. So, where's the problem? The Commission considers that carcinogenic substances should only be banned in cosmetics if they are carcinogenic in contact with the skin. Explanatory memorandum: Cosmetics are not swallowed. I'm sorry, dear Commission, this proposal is already failing in the ice cream parlour. You say simplification, but you mean less protection, less control, less responsibility. Another example: Just last year, we decided on rules to better label hazardous chemicals and products. Responsible manufacturers have also already invested because they have to print new labels to make the whole thing more readable, or because they have to adapt their advertising. Is it all going to be reversed now? I always thought planning security was the most important thing for the industry. In the midst of the third major ecological crisis, pollution from eternal chemicals, from carcinogenic substances, from substances harmful to fertility, the Commission is deciding against the health of citizens, against progress and innovation, and against curbing the flood of pollutants in our rivers, our soils and our blood. The precautionary principle, i.e. the protection of our citizens, is not an administrative detail, which can simply be shortened. It is enshrined in the European treaties, and if you abandon it, you endanger trust, health and the environment.

Mr Buchheit, have you read the report that came out today about the cause of the blackout in Spain, namely that, unfortunately, the conventional power plants have not fulfilled their task, but have gone off the grid in view of the overvoltage, instead of keeping the voltage as it would have been required?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, thank you to Anna and the colleagues who wrote this good report; I hope it is read and implemented. Ladies and gentlemen, this week we celebrated 40 years of the Schengen Agreement, but Europe's electricity grids are still often subject to: Please wait at the border. The transmission capacities required by EU law have been laid down by law for years, but are often still not built. And in the energy crisis of 2022/23, we realised how important it is that we can support each other in Europe, and in the blackout in Spain and Portugal in April, what a drastic and expensive impact it can have if these interconnectors are missing. Our electricity grid dates back to the fossil-nuclear era of central power plants, and now we need to make it fit for the era of renewables – that is, look not only at the high-voltage highways, but also at the other levels, involve everyone and move away from one-dimensional copper burrowing. We need flexibilisation, digitalisation and intelligent use.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Thomas, ladies and gentlemen! This is the European drought map. This is what our soils look like at the beginning of May. Everything that is red here is affected by drought. The soil has already dried up in many regions. And it has already been said: Without water there is no life, no agriculture, no economy. What should our farmers reap? How can the industry continue to work if it has no water? And I still have bad news, because in the future this card will look even worse than it does today. Because the climate crisis does not care about wars, it does not care about the denial of science, it simply progresses. That is why we must act now. And the solution is not to simply pump out more groundwater. We have already pumped out so much groundwater that the Earth's axis has shifted because we have brought an incredible 2,700 gigatonnes of water from the bottom to the top, where it then flowed into the seas. A sustainable approach is needed and a science-based approach is needed. And that's why: Stopping waste, more efficient irrigation methods, more economical management in industry, reducing pollution, fewer pollutants, fewer fertilizers, fewer pesticides and, of course, ending the PFAS disaster. And renaturation: Thus, water remains in the landscape, groundwater regeneration is strengthened, and we are preparing for the climate crisis. Water is life, and water is irreplaceable. Let's protect it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The negotiations on COP 16 in Rome have shown that: Progress is possible. From 2030 onwards, 200 billion dollars are to be invested annually in the protection of species. Of course, this is an important signal, but otherwise the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal commitments stalls dramatically – also here in the EU. 30% of the land and sea under protection? Failure to report. 10 per cent strictly protected nature – far away. Unfortunately, the Commissioner did not mention this in her speech either. On top of that, right-wingers and conservatives are currently doing everything they can to silence those who stand up for our nature. Withdrawal of funds, attack on the right of association to sue, criminalisation of environmental associations – this discredits the silent heroines and heroes of nature conservation who collect the garbage in the protected areas that count the butterflies that protect bird nests. COP16 made it clear: Species protection is a common interest. Weakening nature conservation weakens our survival bases – fertile soils, clean air, drinkable water. Try to build an economy without eating, drinking and breathing. It will be very difficult for you. Do you realize that the oh-so-bad NGOs also want to preserve their survival bases?

Mr President, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues, it has been three years now since REPowerEU was launched and the promise to end fossil fuel imports is still not fulfilled. Twice has the Commission announced a roadmap, and yet we still wait for a concrete proposal. Yes, a lot has been achieved. Gas imports have decreased by two thirds, being replaced mostly by renewables and efficiency, which is a much more viable solution than replacing an old dependency with a new one, especially considering the slippery slope US democracy has gotten on. Oil and coal are sanctioned, thus reaching the EU now via the ominous shadow fleet or via third countries. So what I want to see in the Commission's roadmap – besides, of course, doubling down on renewables and efficiency – is a clear concept to trace imports back to their source. We have to end the whitewashing of bloodstained Russian energy commodities.

Thank you very much, Madam, for the question. It is a mystery to me where your accusations and information come from, because we are certainly the party that advocates peasant, small-scale, family-centered agriculture that advocates sustainable agriculture that is in line with what science recommends. All you have to do is look at the reports of our own agency – the European Environment Agency is an agency of this European Union. There are highly talented scientists who have been dealing with these questions for years and decades. And what we take up in our programmes, in our proposals, corresponds to what this science proposes to us, because we stand on the ground of science and not on the ground of lobbying interests, which unfortunately spread their papers here.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! When I was a child, the desert was the Sahara or the Gobi. Far, impressive places, described in the novels of Karl May or the descriptions of Sven Hedin. And today, just a few decades later, we see desertification in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, in Greece, in Hungary, in Bulgaria. Anyone who is surprised has ignored science or believed the whisperers of the fossil industry. They have invested billions to sow doubts - doubts about the findings that Exxon himself had already identified in the 1970s, then put them in the poison cabinet and publicly discredit science. The deniers are also sitting in this House with the right-wing, the still more right-wing and the still more right-wing, and unfortunately we have not made much progress at the World Desert Conference either, because here too the petro-states are sitting at the table. Therefore: Europe must act. We need a climate adaptation law that focuses on nature-based solutions and credible support for the countries most affected.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Plastic is persecuting us all over the world. A chip bag is emptied in a few minutes – sometimes in a few hours – but it remains in the environment for hundreds of years. And while on holiday by the sea, we encounter the plastic bags of the local discounters, and the stomachs of the colorful fish are full of microplastics. The World Plastics Conference – as we have already heard – was a setback. Despite the support of more than 100 countries for a reduction in plastic production, petro-states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia have managed to block any progress. And we have to change that, because this plastic avalanche threatens three planetary boundaries: pollution, biodiversity and climate. After all, fossil-based plastic will eventually become CO2.2. I therefore call on the European Commission to take appropriate measures in its proposals for a circular economy law and for the reform of the chemicals regulation. We need less plastic production, no toxic chemicals and binding rules. We must hold industry accountable because our seas, our health and our climate are at stake.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Good news: We have a perfect fusion reactor. It has been operating absolutely reliably for billions of years and is located at a safe distance of 150 million kilometres – our sun. Don't get me wrong. I'm a scientist. I find nuclear fusion absolutely fascinating, and of course we should continue to do research. But we should also be honest. Earthly nuclear fusion is not a solution to our current climate and energy problems. Since the 1970s, it has been said: In 30 years, the fusion reactor will be ready for series production. I think that's going to be the longest 30 years of Earth's history, because unfortunately that's still being said. The oh so great breakthroughs of the last few years have never been able to generate more energy than you had to put into the system before, i.e. into the laser energy or into the cooling or into the supermagnets or into the plasma genesis. In addition, there are still open questions such as the supply of tritium, the handling of radioactive waste or simply maintaining this process for more than five seconds. So: Cost enormous, technology highly complex and immature. Whether nuclear fusion can ever be operated economically remains questionable. In any case, the climate crisis flies around our ears much earlier. Therefore, let us remain realistic and use our resources wisely. Solar and wind energy already provide cheap, clean electricity today. Let's leave nuclear fusion to the sun, let's focus on what helps now: the expansion of renewable energies here on earth.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Those who speak here of alarmism or catastrophism, I invite you to talk to the people in the Ahr Valley or those in Valencia or those in Greece or Austria or France, who have lost their belongings and, in the worst case, even their relatives and friends due to the extreme weather last year. If future generations will still be able to look back at the present time – i.e. if we succeed in limiting the climate catastrophe to such an extent that human civilization is still possible – then they will wonder how it was possible for such an advanced society, where science had all the answers, where all the possible solutions – cheap renewable energies, electromobility, heat pumps, natural climate protection through renaturation – were available, as this society could allow for this catastrophe. And the answer can be found in the speeches of some colleagues here. Disinformation is a virus that infects the whole world and undermines science and democracy.

Mr President! Commissioner! Ladies and Gentlemen! In front of unfortunately quite empty rows, I am talking today about one of the most dramatic crises that threatens us as humanity: the extinction of species. Because without biodiversity there is no drinkable water, no clean air and no fertile soil. The last major mass extinction 66 million years ago was triggered by a meteorite and 75% of all animal species, including most dinosaurs, disappeared from Earth. Today we are in the sixth great mass extinction, and this time it is us, humanity – the meteorite that strikes, so to speak, in slow motion. Every day we lose up to 150 species. The decline in biodiversity is well visualized on this subject, which is the Living Planet index. These are species that are often not yet explored, whose role in the ecosystem is not yet known. And who doesn't care, he would also sit on a plane, from which occasionally a screw falls out here and there. Let me tell you specifically what this has to do with us. The bees die, the fruit tree bears no fruit, the harvest fails, food becomes scarce and prices rise. This means that the effects of species extinction affect us directly – we pay for them with our health and food security. And that's why the World Biodiversity Council calls on us in its Nexus report: We need to solve these interconnected problems with interconnected thinking. Get out of silo thinking! Species extinction, climate crisis, water crisis – all this has to do with each other. And we need to understand: We are part of nature. If we harm them, we also harm ourselves. That hits us right back. That is why we need to have these debates sooner rather than later. Especially here in Parliament.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! Water is life, and it is high time for the European Union to take action. More than 20 years after the adoption of the Water Framework Directive, the targets are still a long way off, and the escalating climate crisis does not, of course, improve the situation. It's about three things: Quality – water is our most important food. It's about: How clean is it? How much effort do our waterworks have to put into removing toxic or carcinogenic substances from them? Unfortunately, there are still colleagues who think that new substances should be introduced into the environment right now. Access – drinking water is part of the public service. Access to clean water must not be a question of the purse, but must be a right. First and foremost must be the care of the people. Thirdly, availability. Water is precious; It must not be wasted. We have way too many leaky pipes, we have inefficient irrigation, we have old-fashioned cooling systems. There will be no supply of clean water if we continue to destroy our ecosystems to such an extent that we do not have groundwater recharge.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Sometimes I think we act like a toddler on the computer. Such a toddler on the PC bumps around on the keyboard and happily deletes files. The 47th. Holiday photo – given as a gift, the wedding picture – even more bitter, the system files – an absolute disaster. But we are just as ruthless about our nature. We are anxious to eradicate more and more species – and we also do not know which ones are systemically important. Today we look back at the biodiversity conference in Cali and also at the climate conference in Baku, because both ended without significant progress in the field of climate change. Nature-based solutionsThe nature-based solutions that we so desperately need and that help us with both major ecological crises. Ladies and gentlemen, this is actually a scandal. Because business as usual It means active eradication, the destruction of species, ecosystems, bogs, forests, coral reefs, everything that guarantees our own survival. Extinction is the most definitive thing you can do on this planet. There are no reset clusters and no cloud that can save us. Biodiversity is the operating system of our lives. It gives us clean water, fertile soils, air that we can breathe. Ohne sie stehen wir da wie der PC ohne Strom. This is why the EU must lead the way, stay on track with the Green Deal and put international pressure on it. And the credibility? It starts here. That's why we need a strong climate adaptation law that puts our best ally, nature, at the centre. This is not an ideology, this is science. It's about nothing less than our survival. The planet is wonderful without us.

Madam President, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to the people of Valencia who have lost everything – their home, their belongings or even friends and relatives. And I am glad that Europe stands by their side. But if double standards were a currency, then the right side of this House would not be able to get out of counting money. You are using this terrible flood disaster for your political intrigues – and in doing so you are mocking the suffering of the people who have been hit so hard. And at the same time you are the biggest braker in this Parliament when it comes to preventing such disasters with more climate protection, with more nature conservation. And tomorrow you want to attach the axe to the EU Forest Protection Act; This shows that you do not care about the well-being of people and nature. What about Valencia? Valencia is at home with us. But what Valencia is experiencing, people all over the world, in the Global South, are experiencing every day. And these people are suffering because the deniers and the profiteers of the climate crisis caused by fossil fuels still have far too much influence on politics, even in this House. And I urge you, along with millions of citizens, to: Finally acknowledge: Nature is our ally in the fight against the climate crisis. And listen to science and save lives!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! From my previous life in management, I can of course list a number of examples of unnecessary bureaucracy. You have to enter some numbers in papers, which the tax authority already has a long time ago anyway, which it could actually add up itself. You have to report to some statistical institutes, which could actually collect them from macroeconomic figures. And one is inspected by several authorities to one and the same thing, all checking the same things. And of course, that costs time, that costs money, and that costs nerves above all else. That is why I am very much in favour of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, bringing together things that can be brought together, not complicating things further, as we have unfortunately done now with the Supply Chain Act, which will then be formulated differently at the national level. Congratulations to the companies that are active in the single market, which then have to do different things for the supply chain law in France than in Germany or Spain or Finland – not a good idea. But what we are experiencing is that, under the pretext of cutting red tape, elementary legislation that serves to preserve our livelihoods is to be polished. Prevention of pollutants, climate protection, conservation of biodiversity: These are not luxury products. nice-to-have points. This is directly linked to the health of all of us, to the maintenance of a stable climate and to the maintenance of our food security, and we should not play with that. This is not part of cutting red tape; These are basic resources that we need to secure.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! If you want to know the state of play of the climate debate here in Europe, it is very interesting to listen to this debate. As has been rightly said, we have achieved a lot in the last legislature in the area of climate protection. But in terms of climate adaptation, there is still a lack of it. The Commission has now said: All right, we'll make one Climate Adaptation PlanA climate adaptation plan. But if I listen to the suggestions that have been given here for the best way to prevent forest fires, then I think it should rather be a climate adaptation law. Because if these proposals are implemented, I do not see how this could help us in the future. After all, the point is that we no longer cultivate the forests so intensively that we do not plant non-local tree species. Especially in Portugal, it is quite important that there are so many eucalyptus trees that cause forest fires. This means that if we continue to intensify this management, then we can still do so much climate protection, then these natural disasters will continue to haunt us.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Not thousands, millions of people are affected by extreme weather, this year, last year and next year probably as well. It is obvious, of course, that the floods we are currently seeing in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Austria, which occurred earlier this year in Germany and which hopefully will not devastate northern Italy tomorrow. But there are also quieter disasters. The silent killer heat killed nearly 50,000 people in Europe last year alone, and there would have been much more if adaptation had not already taken place. Of course, our farmers are the most affected, and that is why it is so important that we adapt – that we operate less intensively, that further crop rotations are made, that we give more space to the rivers, that is, that we finally implement the law to restore nature. Commissioner, I am counting on the Commission to present not just a climate adaptation plan, but a climate adaptation law, because one plan alone will not suffice for us in Europe.

Mr President! Dear Kadri, thank you very much for everything you did in the last mandate. I will always like to think back to the joint work and wish you all the best for the future. We have achieved a lot: Dependence on Russia has fallen, emissions have fallen, and the path for 2030, for Fit for 55 is shown, is designed; We have made a lot of legislative proposals on this. But there are still big hurdles. One hurdle is the expansion of the grid, and – beware, now it is becoming technical – proper planning is also needed for the 110 KV level. So far, we're just talking about the extra-high voltage level without looking at what we already have down there. Secondly: Memory. California is doing it. In California, security of supply has increased, prices have fallen, and the last nuclear power plant is likely to be dismantled before 2030, simply because it is no longer economical. And thirdly: implementation. Unfortunately, the Member States are not on track, not in terms of renewables, not in terms of efficiency and not in terms of working together. Here I hope that the next Commission will get a bit into trouble and put pressure on it.