Speeches

Mr President, the reformed emissions trading system has the most important role to play on the road to 55%, but it is also important that the burden-sharing sector is able to cope with the 40% obligation entrusted to it. The burden of reduction is distributed among countries in very different ways. Five countries have a 50 % reduction obligation, with a minimum reduction obligation of 10 % and 12,7 %. Yet this is acceptable. Countries are different and in different situations, but it is crucially easier to accept it when the Commission refrains from introducing new barriers to the energy use of sustainable bio-feedstock. It's an extremely important issue. At present, however, wind power is the main source of renewable energy. I think it is important to ensure that the conditions for the further production and construction of wind power are created in the future, but that wind power no longer needs public subsidies. I think that the EU should – if it can afford to support wind power in principle – use the aid for innovation in the sector, not for the production of wind power or for the construction of transmission lines.

Mr President, the committee's proposal tightens up the Commission's original proposal in an unacceptable way. For new buildings, the zero-emission requirement by 2028 is more understandable, as is the need for the entire building stock to be climate neutral by 2050, but for existing residential buildings, the energy efficiency class requirements by 2030 and 2033 are disproportionate. If the achievement of the standard were considered on the basis of the average building stock and not on a building-by-building basis, the proposal would be more acceptable. In countries where heating is moving faster towards the use of zero-emission energy – as in Finland, for example, where the goal is to be completely zero-emission by 2030 for heating – the proposal seems particularly bad. In the proposed form, the directive would force renovations in eight years, for example, in the case of Finland, the homes of nearly two million Finns. Unfortunately, the proposal in this form cannot be accepted.

Mr President, the main objectives of the EU are certainly to reduce the EU's dependence on Russia in energy matters and to promote the use of renewable energy. The most important way to do this is to support the use of renewable and sustainable bioenergy. However, this is not explicitly mentioned in this report, although almost all other similar renewable energy sources are mentioned. Similarly, this promises the eligibility of raw material of non-biological origin when used for hydrogen production. However, I interpret Article 21c as also covering the eligibility of bioenergy, since it nevertheless expresses the will to promote and increase the use of renewable energy. I hope that the Commission will interpret this point in the same way.

Mr President, information in Europe is turning far too slowly into new products. However, the EIB has performed its mandate well. I believe that it is precisely the EIB's muscles that should now be strengthened. This is what we need to improve both our strategic investments and our competitiveness. Strengthening the EIB would be a radically better option to address the challenges of the US IRA than building the EU's own IRA. Strengthening the EIB is also important for a fair EU internal market. They are currently in a more or less turbulent state. Now that State aid rules have been replaced by a crisis framework, some EU countries have been able to use public money – normally prohibited money – to support their businesses. As we know, €700 billion of State aid exemptions have been requested, 80% of which have been applied for in two countries, Germany and France. I believe that a radically strengthened EIB is the best option for European Union countries of all sizes and their companies.

Mr President, when NextGenerationEU was decided, the decision was supposed to be unique, but the world is changing all the time. Microchips, batteries, defense: money would be needed for many new needs, but the EU does not have that either. The same is true in most Member States. They're indebted. They are not in a position to comply with fiscal rules. Therefore, taking extra money from there is a difficult task. Stepping on that road, you have to be careful. Ukraine is another story. The EU's response to these challenges we face must be to improve competitiveness, invest in knowledge, innovation, research and business, and better cooperation. ERA, state aid, market neutrality and support for it cannot be Europe's path. Not only and not especially for small European countries. The prerequisite for our success is that the market is fair and the competition there is genuine.

Mr President, the target of 45% is a tough one. Parliament and the Commission – the EU – are now heavily reliant on solar and wind power. Raising the installed capacity from 150 GW to 600 GW for solar power, from 180 GW to 500 GW for wind power and from 18 GW to 40 GW for biogas or biomethane requires radical action to be successful. The idea of a core development area is good and certainly usable in terms of both permitting processes and getting renewable energy into the grid. These performances are good. I regret, however, that the whole of this report does not record bioenergy as it should, nor does it record bioenergy in the area of nuclear development. Commissioner Timmermans says it can be built anyway. Oh, but you need permits to do that. Planning decisions are needed. A wide range of environmental permits are needed and building permits are needed. Accelerated procedures to promote the use of bioenergy are also appropriate and necessary.

Mr President, in order for the EU's rural areas to thrive, they must be able to provide jobs, services and functional infrastructure. The rapporteur has dealt with these issues with merit. A prerequisite for modern rural areas is that they are connected by fixed broadband connections to digital service networks. A report by the European Court of Auditors a few years ago shows that this condition is far from being met across the EU. This is also true in my own country, Finland. In regions where broadband connectivity is not working properly, there are no real conditions for a common EU cohesion policy. The EU should therefore require that the allocation of cohesion funding to a region is conditional on Member States providing effective broadband access to rural areas. Without them, we cannot expect proper results from cohesion policy. Funding for rural development comes from the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, i.e. the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Moving funding to cohesion funds or regional development provisions would not make sense and would not be cost-effective. There is also a fear that the money would go to non-rural development projects on the cohesion side.

Mr President, first of all, thank you to the rapporteurs. Indeed, COVID was now at risk of driving the European economy into crisis. However, unlike the financial crisis, the EU was able to use common funds to help Member States facing greater difficulties. Our solution was a recovery instrument. We decided to take on a large amount of common debt for the first time. It was a strong expression of solidarity. The use of this money needs to be carefully monitored. The Commissioner's presentation, which was just heard, was a good one in this respect. This solution for recovery instruments was made with confidence that it was an exceptional, one-off and temporary solution. For Finland, this was precisely a necessary condition for providing support to NextGenerationEU. In the context of the present case, it should therefore be borne in mind that such a joint and several debt settlement must indeed remain unique. It is up to the Member States themselves to take responsibility for rebalancing their economies. The forthcoming Stability and Growth Pact will play a major and important role in the practical application of this principle.

Mr President, rapporteurs, Commissioner, although I have said this many times before, both here in Parliament and in previous years at Council meetings, I will say it again: EU cohesion policy has produced both good and bad results. Differences between countries, measured by many indicators, have narrowed, and that is a good thing. But at the same time, differences within countries in many cases have not only remained the same, but have increased further, so that the situation of the weaker has worsened even in absolute terms compared to previous years. This is a bad thing. I'm sure there's a lot of reasons. One thing I think is that, at least in some countries, the resources made available by cohesion policy are being used too heavily for the benefit of the major centres, with the weaker regions around us suffering. At a time when the foundations of the eighth cohesion programme are being built up, I think it is extremely important that we now ensure that this shortcoming, to which I have drawn attention, is emphasised in all programming and in the foundations of the programmes, so that this development changes.

Mr President, the committee's report defines almost all energy produced from primary wood pulp as non-renewable. This would be a major mistake if Parliament were to accept this. The most valuable part of the tree must be used. More important is more important, but the side streams generated in industry must first be retrieved and used for heating, transport fuel and also for electricity production. It is extremely important that this is taken care of in tomorrow's vote. RED II is a good reform, and there is a lot of good in it. The sustainability criteria are the bad part and must be rejected. The 45% target, which will be set, will be tolerated by the aid.

Mr President, nuclear power is an emission-free form of energy. However, there are concerns that only two countries have resolved the final disposal of nuclear waste: Finland and Sweden. So, despite the risks, nuclear power is, as the Commission says, an important option in the energy transition and deserves positive treatment in the taxonomy. However, in the same act, the Commission also proposes a positive treatment for fossil gases. The Commission's position is, if you want to have nuclear power, you must also accept fossil gas and vice versa. Political trading at its worst, I would say. The more difficult it is to understand the Commission's position, bearing in mind that a few months ago the EU decided to impose many strict conditions on wood raw material in the taxonomy regulation. If fossil gas is now taxonomic, it is particularly important that in the future everyone considered to be a renewable raw material receives at least the same treatment.

Mr President, the ITRE Committee tabled a number of amendments to the Commission proposal for which it has competence with the ENVI Committee. We tabled amendments on benchmarks, conditionality, funds and the prevention of carbon leakage. Many of them were taken into account by ENVI. Thank you to the rapporteur, Mr Liese, and to the committee for all this. In emissions trading, sectors at risk of carbon leakage acquire part of their allowances on the market. Some of them are free. Now the CBAM, which is needed, will change the setting for five sectors. There are some differences of opinion between ITRE and ENVI in this regard. ITRE suggests that the increase in carbon tariffs and the abolition of free allocation of allowances should start later than proposed by the Commission and ENVI. However, according to ITRE, the reform would be completed earlier than proposed by the Commission but later than proposed by ENVI. Without compromising on objectives, this would give industry an important additional time to invest and adapt to future change. Contrary to the ENVI proposal, we propose the surrender of free allowances for exports of CBAM sectors outside the EU. This would mean continuing the current situation, abstaining from billions of burdens on exports and curbing carbon leakage. I hope that Parliament will vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the ITRE Committee. This is about the competitiveness of European industry and thus the future of European jobs.

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU's research strategy must be based on academic freedom. However, I believe that this principle must also recognise the role of science and its applications in the great challenges that Europe is facing today. There are many issues in Europe's industrial strategy where we are easily vulnerable to the necessary scientific knowledge. Vulnerability is heightened by Russia's brutal war and uncertainty about access to many critical raw materials and industrial components from other parts of the world. I believe that the EU's research and innovation and industry bodies should quickly assess what kind of revisions the changing world order requires for European research and its cooperation with European industry. Collaboration with like-minded people in the rest of the world. Today we know that climate change has succeeded in this, but we also need cooperation in many other areas.

Mr President, when the market stability reserve started from the beginning of 2019, it was thought that it would stabilise and increase the price of allowances. That's the way it's been. Prices have gone up a lot, up to $100. Stability is not true. Volatility is still far too high. At a time when the emissions trading system is being tightened up, it is very important that we have a mechanism that can continue to stabilise the price of allowances, reduce volatility and ensure that the price does not skyrocket. In this sense, this small revision of the MSR is a good one. We need it and it must be used in a way that ensures a proportionate price and a stable development of the price of allowances.

Mr President, the Batteries Regulation provides a good framework for action by the European Union to take a long step towards electric mobility. However, many bottlenecks need to be opened. One of the challenges is raw materials for the battery industry. We rely on recycling and reuse and that's good, but we also need a huge amount of virgin battery raw materials. Some of which were already identified by the Commission two years ago as so-called critical raw materials. Particular concerns relate to cobalt, lithium and nickel. Access to them and their ethically and environmentally sustainable production. Europe's own battery raw material production is completely inadequate. The criminal war makes the situation even more difficult. Russia is the largest producer of nickel. We know the effects of nickel on the global market. Availability decreases and the price rises. The Commission should therefore rapidly prepare a new war-sensitive assessment. How can the supply chains of battery raw materials be guaranteed? And how could a Europe of prospecting and mining activities of its own, European, sustainable and public opinion be made more effective, faster and more productive?

Mr President, we are talking about strengthening strategic autonomy in the European Union. There is a subject. Our dependence on the rest of the world is alarming when it comes to so-called critical raw materials. The Commission Communication identifies 30 ores and minerals as critical. In addition to these, 137 other substances are of concern. In the EU, we are particularly dependent on the very raw materials on which modern technology is based in the world. Our dependence, especially on China, is worryingly high. Some critical raw materials are hardly produced at all, others supply chains are also prone to disruptions in international politics. Such dependence can also become an obstacle to the EU’s efforts towards the green transition. Only a few per cent of the raw materials needed to produce wind or solar power come from the European Union, perhaps a couple of per cent from robotics, and the situation is not much better for the rare raw materials needed by the automotive, information technology or battery industries. The strength of this committee's report lies in its recognition of the great potential of recycling and reuse to make up for shortcomings. However, with recycling and imports alone, we will not overcome the challenges related to critical raw materials. Europe also has a moral and ethical responsibility to develop and expand its own sustainable mining activities in Europe where raw materials and opportunities exist. These opportunities exist, for example, in the northern regions of Europe. We need to be able to use them in an environmentally sustainable way. This new technology offers great opportunities. Thank you very much to the rapporteur for her excellent work!

Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for the excellently managed work and also for the good presentation, the presentation of the changes that we made together during that work. By the way, we live in a world of measurement and measurement. In hospitals, our diagnoses and treatments are based on the fact that the functioning of our body can be monitored and measured very reliably and accurately. Cuts would be much more dangerous if we could not rely on the accuracy of the instruments. The modern manufacturing industry, from the finest treasures of the digital age to the conquest of space, requires extremely accurate measurements. It would not be possible for trade and stock exchanges to operate internationally today if we were not together in the same time, exactly in the same time. Atomic physicists are thrilled when measurements are made with a millionth of a second accuracy and the existence of an infinitely small particle can finally be verified. And finally, in this House, our decisions, our decisions on climate matters, would be impossible, at least with the precision, if we did not have measured and reliable data, for example on the amount of emissions. Accurate dimensions create trust and certainty across borders. Metrology, the science of measurement, paves the way for all this and maintains, among other things, an international measurement system. It is a key factor in all possible activities of our society and economy. Metrology is, at the same time, subject to increasingly intense international competition, as has already been said here on many occasions. It is therefore important that the EU continues to support metrology research and innovation through and through these joint undertakings. It is now important that we conclude the political preparatory work here and that we can focus on making the partnership work properly.

Mr President, this has already been said many times, we emit much less methane into the atmosphere than we emit carbon dioxide, and methane emissions remain there for much shorter periods of time. But methane emissions are immensely more dangerous and harmful than other greenhouse gas emissions. That's why they have to be attacked. Agriculture accounts for the largest share of man-made methane emissions, followed by energy. In the energy sector, identifying methane leaks and correcting errors with regard to natural gas infrastructure in particular is an urgent task. In this respect, satellite technology plays a key role in detecting more problematic high-emission areas. However, here I pay particular attention to methane emissions from agriculture, mainly from animal husbandry. A very significant part of methane emissions from manure and sludge can be produced as biogas, a raw material that replaces fossil raw materials. The process also produces dry matter, which in turn is very suitable as biofertilizer. As part of the European Green Deal, the EU should therefore promote biogas production in the Member States. Some Member States have already taken such action on their own. Biogas produced from methane is suitable for many different purposes: fuel for transport and heating. It can also be hydrated, which further expands its possibilities of use.

Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for the smooth and constructive conduct of the negotiations. They were used for a while. They were challenging, but speed was needed to deal with them due to the late start of these joint projects, for reasons other than those of Parliament. The EU has a strong foundation in basic research, which we are determined to develop. But it is vital that the results of the research are made available. It requires applied research, as well as companies and know-how to promote innovations, their commercialisation and their productisation. That is what joint ventures are all about. In addition to the EIT and SEEIC, partnerships with research organisations and industry are instruments to address this need. Europe needs to join forces in research and development in areas of strategic importance and in the rapid exploitation of the resulting fruits. With the investment we are making now, we can expect European solutions to the global challenges we face. For the EU’s climate efforts, I attach particular importance to the involvement of the Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking with the nine strategic initiatives of the Regulation, together with the nine other strategic initiatives.

Mr President, fossil electricity is being driven down, and that is good. However, the rapid rise in the price of electricity proved that if sufficient renewable and emission-free capacity is not built, bad things will happen. And as the integration of the European electricity market progresses, so will the countries that are building more and more emission-free and clean energy themselves. Volatility in electricity supply is increasing, especially as a result of wind power. In Europe, we have forgotten to react to the radical change in the structure of electricity production. Sometimes we have too much electricity, but often too little. We need more control. We need a system that obliges Member States to maintain sufficient control force capacity. Progress in this area is, in my view, a precondition for further integration of the electricity market.

Mr President, the IPCC also proves that there is a real need to reduce emissions from transport and that electric and hydrogen cars are coming. The Commission is making a commendable contribution. However, by 2030, more than two hundred million internal combustion engine cars will still run on Europe's roads. Reducing emissions from these cars is now a matter of great urgency. You'd rather have a carrot than a stick. I therefore believe that the Commission should step up its efforts to promote the use of synthetic fuels and renewable transport fuels. I hope so. I also hope that the reform of RED II will contribute to accelerating the conditions for increasing the uptake of renewable zero-emission transport fuels.

Mr President, freedom and independence of science are important issues, as is cooperation between those who exploit science and its results. We need a more efficient ERA, which we hope will be able to attract more researchers, especially young researchers, to a career as researchers. I also hope that the 3% target for R&D funding, which has been set since Lisbon, will finally be met. Otherwise, there is a strong need to involve companies, to involve them. In addition to an inspiring ERA, we therefore also need a more supportive framework between science, researchers and industry. It is also important that small and medium-sized enterprises are involved in this cooperation.