Debate contributions by Kira Marie PETER-HANSEN

Madam President, colleagues, let's be honest: this is not simplification, this is deregulation and a complete dismantling of European sustainability and due diligence rules. Some have tried to paint the picture that certain negotiators have not been willing to compromise. But this picture is far from reality. I have experienced colleagues who were competent and ready to compromise on everything: on the scope, on climate transition plans and on civil liability. But the compromise that lies at hand does not reflect a compromise; it reflects political blackmail. And this mandate removes civil liability, it weakens climate transition plans and it empties out the scope drastically. If the chaos in the last couple of weeks has shown us anything, it is that if you want a stable, pro-European majority, having the Greens on board is probably a good idea. Colleagues, we can and we must do better than this. So give us a chance to make this law meaningful, to compromise and to ensure that it has a shred of civil liability included.

Mr President! It will be our children and society's weakest who will pay the price for the necessary build-up and for the green transition. At least if we let Donald Trump decide what tax policy we should pursue in Europe. Trump has shown with his trade policy that he is not afraid to threaten other countries with punitive tariffs if they tax American companies in a way he does not like. He has broken global tax treaties, and he has twisted the arm of countries that have introduced a tax on digital giants. This is totally unacceptable, because the European Union must stand firm on the right of Europeans to decide for themselves what taxes we choose to have. This includes taxing US tech giants who make huge profits from European consumers, but who don't contribute to the common fund at all. Right now, we have huge funding needs. We need to find money for armament, and we need to find money for the green transition without compromising our welfare and without it being our children who pay the price in the form of fewer educators and fewer teachers. At the same time, economic inequality is greater than it has ever been since World War II. In Europe, the richest one percent now owns almost a quarter of all wealth, while the poorest half of Europeans own only three percent. That's not good enough. That is why we need fair and efficient tax systems that European citizens can trust.

Mr. President! When Trump threatens Europe, the answer is not to bow your neck. Therefore, it makes me uneasy to read in this trade agreement that the European Commission promises that our rules on sustainability and human rights must not become an obstacle to American trade. Because EU sustainability rules are set in the world to ensure that companies do not make money from forced labour, from pollution or from child labour. These are fundamental European values that have made Europe strong and rich. And now it is time for Europe to stand up and stand guard for those values, because if we first start to let our policy be dictated by a United States waging a trade war against Europe with one hand and trying to blackmail us with the other, then we are not just failing our companies, we are failing our European values and we are failing the position of strength that Europe has built up over decades. Namely, a Europe with the highest standards in consumer rights, green ambitions and equality, an ambitious Europe that refuses to be part of the race to the bottom. So, therefore, dear Commission: Drop the fate of Trump and believe in Europe!

Madam President! Thanks for the speech. I have been looking forward to today, and I am sure you have too, because the Danish Presidency is facing some major challenges. Deliver on a secure, competitive and green Europe. Let me start with the latter, because I have high expectations for Denmark. Especially because, over time, when there has been an environmental problem that they do not want to solve themselves, ministers have looked to the EU. This includes, for example, a ban on PFAS and perpetuality chemicals, an end to the export of toxic pesticides and pesticides from Cheminova and the protection of our marine environment. Now you have the opportunity to turn words into action, and it is urgent because the water we drink is becoming increasingly polluted, our ability to have children is affected by fertility change, and our marine environment is dead. In SF and the Green Group, we are ready, and I also hope that the Danish government is, because it must gradually be clear to everyone that the planet, it is burning. Just last week we saw heatwaves desolating the streets, we saw floods sending people from their homes, and we saw agricultural production on its knees. Therefore, it is also crucial that Denmark uses the presidency to move forward in the green transition and keep the green hope alive. And we are fortunately the proof that it is possible – that climate, security, a strong economy and a safe welfare society can go hand in hand. That's why it's so important that Denmark lands a strong 2040 plan that actually reduces CO2 emissions.2 by 90 percent, without climate credits and with no fixed calculation methods. To me, this is one of the major success criteria for the Danish Presidency. For the next six months, Denmark will be in the chair. It commits. It commits not only to the EU, but also to a world that is becoming increasingly insecure. I will be proud when Denmark takes the lead in military support for Ukraine. I am also proud when we stand on the side of Iranian women and when we defend the right to live in a democracy. Unfortunately, however, we have a situation in Gaza and the West Bank that is out of control, where civilians and children are killed, where humanitarian aid is used as a weapon, and where families are still waiting to get their loved ones home. The next year, Denmark will have the ball. I hope you will take that responsibility on you.

Mr President, I would like to first thank the rapporteur for her wonderful work, and also the team of shadows. I echo that I hope the Commission will take in a lot of the ideas. And with this, I will switch to English. Mr President! In Europe, we pay two to three times more for our energy than they do in the US and China, not least because our power cables are overcrowded, outdated and poorly connected. It is unsustainable, because it slows down the installation of wind turbines and solar cells, and it stands in the way of ordinary people getting green power that is affordable. Electrification is the bridge to the green transition. Our cars must run on electricity. Our houses must be heated without oil, and our factories must be powered by green power instead of coal and gas. The decisive changes require a modern electricity grid that can adapt to the increased demand. At the same time, we must make it socially fair so that no one is left behind during the green transition. The electricity grid is the backbone of our energy system, and right now it cannot bear the green future that our planet needs. That is why we need to invest massively in extracting, optimising and interconnecting the electricity grid in the EU across borders. This is how we get more sun and wind, and how the power becomes cheaper, greener and more accessible. It requires both political will and the money to make a difference. But we must ensure that the green power actually reaches consumers both quickly and efficiently. It is good for the climate, it is good for the economy, and it is good for citizens across the EU.

Madam President, thank you first of all to the rapporteur for the work. When Donald Trump is targeting our diversity programmes, NGOs and US federal agencies, when he is rolling back financial and environmental legislation, we Europeans should not mimic his policies. Some in this Chamber pushed for deregulation of legislation previously agreed by a broad section of this House – legislation intended to further the green transition, to further social justice and to ensure financial stability. But Europe will only become more competitive if we ensure regulatory and financial stability, and if we intensify the transition to renewable energy, getting rid of shameful dependency on expensive imported fossil fuels. Europe must demonstrate to the world that our green, our social and our democratic economic model is the best competitive economy. We should double down on our common values, not bow to Trump and copy his policies.

Mr President! Dear Dan, Congratulations on the plan. It was interesting to read because we are in a very difficult time. Our President of the Commission described us this week as Europe's moment. I agree. I believe that, more than ever, citizens are looking to the European Union to solve the major challenges, and that is why we need to remind each other that the most effective way to a safe, independent and sustainable Europe is through an ambitious green transition. This requires that we make Europe free of fossil fuels. It also requires us to resist the temptation to pursue short-term gains through investments in new gas projects that are otherwise being planned. The way to lower energy prices is through massive investments in green energy, not through fossil fuel contracts. More sun and more wind is the cheapest and fastest way to reduce our CO2 emissions.2-imprint on and avoid the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. More sun and wind is also the cheapest and fastest way to achieve independence from old men with imperialist ambitions, and it is our strongest card to ensure a competitive European industry. That's why we need more green energy. We need to invest massively in renewable green energy. It's good for the planet, it's good for people, and it's good for the economy. We must drastically reduce our emissions, therefore we must adopt an ambitious 2040 target for our CO2 emissions.2-reducing and taking action to ensure that we reach the Paris Agreement. We cannot continue to pollute and expect future generations to clean up after us. With green energy, we can at the same time create concrete changes for ordinary people in everyday life. Today, over 41 million Europeans are struggling to pay their energy bills. It is a political failure, because no child should go around freezing. We need to renovate our homes. We must invest in energy efficiency and we must keep our hands under those who find it difficult to make ends meet. Cheap, green energy is not just good for the climate. It is social policy that ensures that everyone can live a dignified life. Cheap and green energy is also the best help we can give the companies that are going to compete with China and the United States. Therefore, we must remove the barriers that make it difficult to connect green power to the electricity grid. Anything that can be electrified must be electrified. This is the way to a strong and competitive European industry. It takes courage to make those decisions, but as Van der Leyen said, this is Europe's moment and we can do it!

As a fellow Scandinavian, dear colleague, I would like to ask you if you recognise that a green economy is a strong economy, and that the green transition and competitiveness go hand in hand? And why EPP could support the taxonomy, the CSRD, the CSDDD as a way to fulfil our transition goals, but now want to roll it back?

Mr President! We are told that we must choose between a strong economy or a strong climate policy. But nothing could be more wrong. The green transition is a prerequisite for competitiveness, because we need to expand green energy so that both businesses and consumers get lower energy prices. We need to create a stable framework so that companies know that it is worth investing green. And we need to make it easier and more attractive to invest in green solutions. Unfortunately, the Commission is doing the exact opposite: you are rolling back sustainability rules and creating uncertainty. It penalizes those companies that have already invested green and rewards those that have slept per hour. This is not fair to businesses or to the climate. And the EU is faced with a crucial choice. Should we take the lead in the green transition, or should we follow the example of the Americans and sacrifice the climate for short-term gains? Right now, it seems that the Commission is taking the wrong path. That is a pity, because the green transition is the best prerequisite for European competitiveness.

Thank you very much for the question, and I'm happy to see we have a proper debate in this House. I think looking at my own country, Denmark, actually gives you the answer, because Denmark is a quite highly regulated country. We've been pushing the market economy to fuel the green investments. We have strong Medicare. We have strong renewable energy sectors. I think that's showing both that green aspects and competitiveness go hand in hand, but also that, of course, we shouldn't fear steering the market economy. No one wants regulation just for the sake of regulation. But I think if we do it right, we will actually do a favour to Europe.

Then we got it; The Commission's long-awaited work programme, which sets the direction for Europe in the coming years. One word goes again: Competitiveness. This is important because we need to make it easier to do business and to be present in Europe. But it is as if the Commission has overlooked the fact that we are still in the midst of a climate crisis that is booming. And year after year, we break heat records. Nature is disappearing and biodiversity is collapsing. Climate change is already affecting us. So where on earth are the green ambitions to ensure that we live up to the Paris Agreement? Where is the ambitious environmental legislation that protects nature instead of weakening it? We need a Europe that runs on green energy, that restores nature and that makes sure that those who pollute also pay. It requires courage and it requires action, and I miss that in this work programme. The climate crisis does not wait, and neither can we. Then turning to another topic, Commissioner, in your work programme, you also proposed to withdraw the proposal on the EU horizontal anti-discrimination directive. I believe that this is a big mistake. In a time where we see attacks on our fundamental rights, withdrawing this proposal is the wrong way to go. I know it requires patience and courage to get this legislation over the finish line, but we've seen that it's possible to unlock equality legislation. So I urge you, Commissioner, please don't give up on our anti-discrimination laws.

Mr President! One would think that the super-rich believe that they live on a different planet than all of us, that the rules that apply to them do not apply to us. With their private jets and superyachts, they emit tons of CO2, and because of tax evasion they often pay much less tax than the rest of us. In fact, EU countries miss out on up to €60 billion a year. It is money that could finance more wild nature and more nurses, but which instead is hidden away in tax havens. It's not solidarity, and it's unfair. This summer, for the first time, the G20 agreed to work for the super-rich to pay more in taxes. It's an important step, but it takes more than just fine words. We must close down the international tax havens, and we must ensure that the very rich also contribute. That is why we have proposed across the EU a tax on the wealth of the super-rich. For the super-rich, they don't live on another planet than us, and they have to contribute far more to the community than they do today.

Mr President! When you pay your taxes, you expect others to do the same. You should be able to do that. But the reality is, unfortunately, that some companies, if only they are big and rich enough, slip by. They employ an army of tax speculators and their job is to ensure that multinational giants contribute as little to the common fund as possible. It's insanely unsolidaristic. But fortunately, this tax hypocrisy can now become a thing of the past. Last week, Margrethe Vestager/Commission won a historic victory at the European Court of Justice. Ireland is no longer allowed to give Apple huge tax rebates. These rebates have meant that Apple has paid ridiculously low taxes in the EU and that we as a society have missed billions that could be spent on hiring more nurses, educators and setting up wind turbines, which we need to stop. If multinational giants are to benefit from our welfare states and good labour, they must pay into the common fund.