Speeches

Mr President, the fact that we, as the European Union, now decide to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty shows how far we have come in terms of climate action. This deal has been the only thing that fossil companies have had left as they desperately tried to slow down Europe's transition towards carbon-neutral and clean energy. In recent years, we have mobilised hundreds of billions, if not thousands of billions, of investments in clean energy and the clean green transition. It can be said that, according to the International Energy Agency, Europe's green transition has created 30% of Europe's growth in recent years, while globally green growth accounts for 10% of economic growth. So this is where we have progressed and the fact that we are now withdrawing from this Charter for the Protection of Fossils is an important step in continuing our work to make Europe and the European Union the first to get rid of fossil energy completely, and it is also a signal that we are stepping up investment in clean solutions.

Mr President, I am worried about the European governments’ capabilities to do the necessary future investments that Europe needs to also increase its competitiveness and productivity in the coming years. If you look at what the Chinese and the Americans are doing, they are spending a lot on decarbonisation and the green goals. More specifically, I would like to raise a question on spending on research and innovation. We will not have an increase of productivity in Europe and leadership in industries if we do not increase our research and innovation spending. On average, we are about 2.2% of GDP currently in Europe, and South Korea is spending 5% on research and innovation. So this has to be focused also in the European Semester, that European governments increase their spending on R&I and we increase the average in European level in the short term, already 3% of the GDP. This has to be the focus of the European Semester, also to increase productivity, but then also be a world leader on decarbonisation. We cannot do it by spending half the amount that the South Koreans are spending, and a lot less than the Chinese and the Americans are spending on a GDP comparison: we have to do better.

Madam President, I do appreciate the way our Prime Minister spoke about European defence and the need to support Ukraine. On that, we Finns are united. Europe needs to lift itself in order to stop Putin’s war policy and his policy of aggression. However, our Prime Minister is a man of softly spoken words. He says, for example, that he wants to build on the Nordic labour model in Finland, when his actions are actually dismantling it. He says that he wants to keep the Finnish carbon neutrality target, when they do no action to achieve it, neither when it comes to forest sinks or reducing emissions or promoting CCS that he says that they would like to promote. They just don’t do it. At the same time, he gave an interview to Politico last week about the far right Finns Party in your government, and you said that you have ‘moderated’ them by giving them ministerial posts. They are not far right anymore, you said. Well my question is, what party actually has changed in this government when Finland is facing unprecedented, historical strikes larger than in decades, with your labour cuts and your cuts on welfare, where a middle-income earner who becomes unemployed, a women with two children, can lose over EUR 500 a month? Which party has changed? Have you moderated the far right, or have you yourself moved further to the right to legitimise anti-egalitarian, anti-climate policies that are dismantling the Nordic labour model? That is the question that you have to answer.

Madam President, coming from the EU country that has the longest border with Russia, namely Finland, I cannot emphasise too much the need for us to move from words to operational strength in security and defence in Europe. It is important that we realise that we have to urgently put the focus on conventional weapons for Ukraine and our own defence readiness in making European cooperation the rule for armed forces and defence industries. The most urgent task is to realise that Russia is in war economy. Russia’s war policies will not stop if we do not support Ukraine enough to force them to do that. Russia has increased, by the accounts of the Bank of Finland , by 35 % the production of war-related industries from the pre-war period in 2002. That means that they will continue as long as they can. So it’s not enough for us to support Ukraine as long as they need. We need to support them as much and as fast as they need, and that means strengthening European defence and security cooperation and putting the focus on quality and operational strength.

Mr President, it’s imperative that we get the 2040 emission reduction target right from the start. That is both for the reality of the climate crisis to address that, but also for the efficient decarbonisation of the European economy. We must learn this from the 2020-2030 discussions. The communication feels, from that viewpoint, that of missed opportunities. The Commission has started with the 90 % target. That was the minimum of the scientific panel. But from there it looks like you have looked too much at short-term fixes instead of maximising action that is really the industrial revolution and the strategic autonomy our economy needs. There is no deadline for fossil fuels. There is no goal of 100 % renewables by 2040. And you’ve made room for nuclear, not at the cost of fossil fuels, but at the cost of renewables. There is too much reliance on CCS, instead of looking at industrial investments that can be long-term solutions that bring also jobs to Europe. On agriculture and forestry, it’s also an economic possibility to invest in carbon farming and not just being quiet about those possibilities. So, I think we can do more and the Commission can do more. This is only a starting point for that.

Madam President, geothermal energy holds considerable untapped potential within the EU. Given its weather-independent, continuous, reliable and renewable nature, it can play a significant role in the decarbonisation of the energy sector, particularly in heating and cooling applications, and also including linking it with district heating, but also in strengthening the EU’s energy autonomy and encouraging the development of local energy communities. This is one of the energy sources where local people can also play a big role in creating energy independence for Europe. However, limitations such as restricted access to data, regulatory, technical and financial barriers are currently hindering its full utilisation. The lack of harmonised and complete data, sufficient geothermal resource mapping, dedicated rules for geothermal projects – also combined with the shortage of skilled labour – have highlighted the need for political action. Nevertheless, it is also imperative to remember that any development in this domain should adhere to the highest environmental standards, take into account legitimate public concerns, and carefully consider the specific geological conditions of each Member State. But it is also a question of good planning beforehand. Future legislation in this area will play a key role in stimulating the development of the sector and unlocking its potential. The new report, voted tomorrow in Parliament, aims to find solutions to these challenges and asks the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal that can tap the untapped potential of geothermal energy. I thank very much all the colleagues that have worked on this report and urge the Commission to continue work on the basis of it.

Mr President, solutions to the green transition and Europe's self-sufficiency must be found elsewhere than at the bottom of the sea. According to a study commissioned by WWF, a combination of circular economy, new technologies and recycling could reduce mineral demand by 58% between 2022 and 2050. Here is the solution we need. A sustainable solution is not to dig up ever more virgin natural resources and cause ever greater harm to nature and ecosystems. In particular, the adverse effects on nature and the climate associated with deep-sea mining are difficult to predict and impossible to manage. Scientists warn that mining can have devastating impacts on marine ecosystems and that the impacts on carbon sinks cannot be predicted. Accidents are almost unavoidable. In a situation where science is not even aware of all possible risks, it would be irresponsible to authorise such activities, and therefore the European Parliament must continue to insist on a moratorium on deep-sea excavations and also show Norway that this is the right direction for a sustainable relationship with nature.

Mr President, every second we debate in this Chamber in Russia, the wheels of the military economy spin. The Bank of Finland has calculated that Russia has increased the production of industries related to the war economy by 35 per cent since the pre-war period in Ukraine. In Russia, production is only increasing. At the same time, weapons are coming from North Korea and Iran. And what are we doing here? We promise that we will support Ukraine for as long as it needs, but at the same time we will not support it as much and as quickly as it needs. And this is the key question. We must ensure that Ukraine is able to defend its own national sovereignty, because Putin will not stop. He's waiting for us to get tired. He's waiting for the U.S. election. He expects democracies to be weak. We must show Putin that we will not give up. We will not give up always defending international law, democracy and Ukraine's independence, so that Ukraine can have the peace it deserves, which it wants. And that is the goal that the European Union must support with every action.

Mr President, if you expected the climate conference in Dubai to resolve the climate crisis, you were deeply disappointed. If you were expecting even small bright spots in the fact that we are able to take adequate climate action, you can see them too. The bright spot, of course, is that the meeting, dominated and even hosted by fossil lobbyists, provided for the first time a record of humanity moving away from fossil fuels. If you look at the resolution, there are strong targets for what should be done, and the disease picture of the state of the climate crisis is real. They want to listen to science. But what's missing is commitment to action. No real new commitments came from Dubai, and the European Union has an important role to play here. We need to make sure that the record of ‘separation from fossils’ materialises. We have to prove it ourselves. We must ensure that the tripling of renewable energy is achieved and that energy efficiency is doubled. By setting an example, we can engage others and also change the market, making it clear to everyone that fossils are no longer invested and are being driven down all over the world.

Of course, as a former Minister for the Environment, I know that we must balance so that we can also open new mines in Finland and Sweden. But it must be done in cooperation with the toughest environmental requirements and we cannot override environmental protection issues or the rights of the Sami people. It is much better now to ensure that we invest in resource reuse and better circulation of raw materials instead of creating even more environmental problems in our nature. I know how much the mines have also created these problems even before the legislation, so now it would be even worse.

Mr President, with this bill, the European Union is opening a fast lane for mining projects. By defining the status of a strategic project for a mining project, the Commission can in practice steer a Member State in the direction of dismantling environmental and nature conservation objectives and areas. This is the wrong direction. We cannot in any way pursue a green transition at the expense of nature and environmental objectives in a situation where, according to the National Panel on Nature, 70 per cent of the original nature has already been destroyed in a country such as Finland. This is a kind of neo-colonialism in the air, if the Germans and the French tell the Finns and the Swedes that your nature can be destroyed in the name of mines, because we need raw materials. A particularly sensitive issue is the rights of the indigenous Sámi people. That is why the Finnish Greens are critical of the proposal in this form, even though Parliament has improved it, and we will vote against it. (The speaker agreed to answer the blue card question).

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you to the Commission for this annual overview. I think this report highlights very well how we have tackled the worst of the energy crisis and managed to cut off a large share of imports from Russia and fossil fuels. But even if we acknowledge that, it is very clear that we need to do even more in the near future. Some Member States have replaced their dependency on Russian fossil fuels with other fossil fuels, and we need to look at long-term solutions in order to achieve our goals in renewable energy by 2030. If we are looking at the increase to 42.5% of the EU energy mix by 2030, that will require a much faster growth that in the coming years than we’ve had in the past. Even more so for the aspirational, more ambitious target of 45%. So, my question is, what does the Commission do to make sure that all the Member States are on board in this, and also including energy efficiency, which is key to reducing dependency on fossil fuels and gas, especially in heating and cooling. In heating and cooling and transport the progress has been more modest, so it is important that all sectors are included, not just the electricity sector, which is doing strongly. We expect more from the Commission also in reducing fossil fuel subsidies and making sure all sectors are included.

Mr President, fur farming is deeply unethical. All animals must be guaranteed species-specific behaviour, and breeding for killing in a small cage for fur causes them constant suffering, disease and behavioural disorders. The European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Fur Free Europe’ calls for a ban on fur farming across the EU and its message is clear. Fur farming must be banned as ethically and ecologically unsustainable. The responsibility now lies with our decision-makers. Turkistarhaus is a declining sector across Europe. Several Member States have already imposed national bans, and now it is time for the EU as a whole to follow suit. The profitability of the sector has been weak, and many farms are financially cramped. The epidemics have also highlighted the economic difficulties of the sector and its unethical nature. In addition, demand is mainly limited to Russia and China. It is important that fur farming is abandoned and, at the same time, that entrepreneurs and workers are trained and supported in the transition to new professions. The legislative reforms promised by the Commission to improve animal welfare are still waiting. Citizens' initiatives promoting animal rights have been hugely popular. The Commission now has an excellent opportunity to show that it cares about animal rights in Europe. So take the initiative forward.

Madam President, the European green bond standard regulation aspires to set the gold standard for European green bonds and aligning them rigorously with the taxonomy technical screening criteria and subjecting them to external review. On behalf of the ENVI opinion rapporteur, Bas Eickhout, I was asked to deliver a few comments on the outcome. The outcome introduces a voluntary standard, permitting other bonds to bear the green label without true compliance. This is still a problem. We need transparency and comparability. We advocated for stringent regulations encompassing the entire green bond market, not just the European green bond label. Parliament advocated in its position for binding transparency requirements for the rest of the bonds that are labelled as green. We need to further continue work on this to avoid greenwashing and to allow investors to compare green bonds. Regrettably, the Council’s position took a different turn, allowing flexibility pockets of up to 15% and opposing comprehensive regulation. Despite this, progress was made, and increased transparency for gas and nuclear activities is included. Progress should be seen in the light of the entirety of the outcome and further progress is needed in the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, I have to say I am surprised by the tone of this discussion. This is the spring when finally the nations of the world agreed on a global High Seas Treaty to protect our oceans and ocean wildlife. These have been exploited and we have risks of overfishing, risks of climate crisis, especially in the sensitive Arctic Ocean here near Europe. And this discussion is not talking about the real issue: how to make sure the way we use oceans and marine ecosystems is sustainable because there is no fishing if we continue overfishing. This should be the tone of the debate. I have to thank the Commission for being active in finally addressing these issues. The UN biodiversity summit last year approved a historic deal, taking much-needed steps to protect nature and to stop the loss of biodiversity by 2030. The High Seas Treaty is an important element of that and I am happy that the EU has pledged, also for the Global Oceans Programme, financial resources to support this work and to make sure that we stop practices that are unsustainable and create protection of wildlife and marine ecosystems that is much needed in Europe and elsewhere.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, with the Fit for 55 package, energy and climate files are mainly agreed. We are now moving very fast into a renewables-based energy system, and renewables are the main tool to achieve the climate ambition. Currently, energy use accounts for 75% of our greenhouse gas emissions and for these emissions to be reduced in a cost efficient way, we also need different flexibility tools, such as demand-side response, supply-side flexibility, interconnections and obviously, as a key component, storage. Therefore, the communication is very important in this regard. We will need more storage to have a cost-efficient, climate-smart and integrated energy system that helps Europe to move into a sustainable energy system. I am happy to see that many elements from our own initiative report, led by Renew’s Claudia Gamon, that the Parliament voted on in July 2020, are included in the communication, namely the need for different types of storage with different time frames. One evolving example is the storage within district heating, which makes it possible also for district heating to be a part of an integrated, effective flexibility mechanism; the important role of individuals and collectives, including also the role of electric vehicles as potential decentralised storage assets, so we have more and more prosumers also within the context of storage; the requirement to consider storage when planning new grid infrastructures as new infrastructure might not be needed or to a different extent when adequate storage is available. In general, the Greens support the Commission’s recommendation on energy storage. However, the main points of this text must be anchored in the market design legislation and they should not only be non-binding recommendations. In the Renewable Energy Directive, the permitting aspects related to storage assets were accelerated, so developing storage can be a lot faster than we have foreseen in so far. The Parliament wanted an obligation for Member States to set up demand-side response and storage targets. However, during the trilogue phase, the main argument to not include these targets was that the RED was not the right place to do this, while the market design reform would be. Therefore, now we urge to introduce binding targets to allow for a cost-efficient transition into the electricity market design negotiations. In the same vein, an obligation to consider the potential of storage and demand response in any capacity generation mechanism is key for cost-efficiency and climate-smart solutions. To conclude, I hope to see many of the elements of the communication introduced into actual legislation.

Mr President, thank you for the debate and the positive, constructive spirit. I obviously also want to answer to the question stated by one MEP about is this enough. Obviously, we all know when it comes to climate ambition and keeping the global warming to 1.5 degrees, or even close to that, we as Europe also need to do more. So when it comes to the land—use sector, my view is that this is the starting point. We are now starting for the first time to have a proper increase of carbon—sink policy, and this is the basis where we will build on post 2030 to continue increasing our carbon sinks. When it comes to Member States’ contributions, there were some who were saying that some Member States need to do more, some less, and this is unfair. Well, everybody needs to contribute more in comparison to the inventory years. I think it is important also for the Commission and as a parliament to send a signal that those countries to actually start to think about land use in a different way. How can we increase sustainability in a way that is good for economics as well, that creates jobs, that will be more productive for agriculture, for forestry, and takes more into consideration to biodiversity as well? They will also be better off in the future. So if they postpone having a proper carbon—sink policy, my view is that some Member States still don’t have one. They just report what has happened. The Commission needs to intervene. You have the tools in this regulation to intervene and help Member States to realise that tapping into regenerative farming and forestry is a possibility for the Member States, for the economics, but also a necessity for the climate. Finally, also the compromise includes the review for the Commission to go through in late 2024 what to do beyond this. There is very clear language also that all land—use sectors need to contribute. So we need to also see how agriculture will be better climate wise, how we can support carbon farming and also public policies, not just private companies’ contributions. When it comes to forestry, we need to look at better management methods, cascading principal, higher added value for products, so getting more economic wellbeing out of less amount of resources. So the harvesting amounts we do have today are a problem, and we need to also solve that, not just going for the bulk industry when it comes to forestry, but have more higher end products with lesser impact for negative impact for climate and biodiversity. That is to say, for the economics of this sector as well, as well as all the other sectors – they are not going to succeed, but are trying to hang on to bad practices.

Madam President, the way we use our land and soils must change. Instead of contributing to climate change, it can and must be turned into being sustainable both for climate and nature. We must put an end to practices which are damaging for biodiversity and jeopardise the capacity of forests and soils to absorb carbon. This is the future for the economy as well. There is a growing demand for regenerative farming and forestry and also in nature restoration in protecting our biodiversity. It can also contribute to added climate benefits. This is what the LULUCF Regulation is about. At the outset of the trilogue negotiations, both the European Parliament and the Council supported the objective of reaching -310 million tonnes of net removals by 2030, as proposed by the Commission, and maintained the idea of national targets. This will allow the EU to reach around -57% of net emission reductions by 2030 economy wide. For the first time, the principle that Member States should increase their sinks has been endorsed by the co—legislators with a binding 2030 target for each Member State. This is a historic achievement. The new 2030 target of -310 million tonnes of net removals by 2030 within the EU for the LULUCF sector will apply to Member States to reverse the current shrink of natural land sinks we have seen in the last decade. This is ultimately necessary if we are to achieve carbon neutrality, a balance between emissions and removals by 2050 at the latest within the Union, and also beyond that to carbon negativity. Still, the trilogues were not easy. The Council wanted to increase even further flexibilities given to Member States for achieving their targets, thus reducing the integrity of the proposal. As part of the deal to get their 2030 target, Member States will be allowed to deviate from a linear trajectory as long as all the deficits produced in the 2026—2029 period are compensated by equivalent surpluses within the same period. This can be seen as acceptable. We also, from the Parliament side, managed to negotiate that Member States that would deviate from that trajectory will have to adopt corrective action plans similar to what has been agreed in the final effort sharing trilogue that took place a few days before the final LULUCF trilogue. What’s more, any excess deficit about the budget will be multiplied by a factor of 1.08 and added to the Member State 2030 target. This increase is the importance of monitoring and scrutinising that there is a proper carbon sink policy in place, but also gives the Commission possibilities to implement this policy. Member States will have also access to other flexibilities, including the possibility to use emission allocations they may have in excess in effort sharing or excess LULUCF credits generated and sold by other Member States. An additional flexibility of 178 million tonnes for EU 27 over the entire period is available, in particular to compensate emissions generated by natural disturbances, the longer-term impact of climate change and the result of exceptionally high proportion of organic soils. The Council proposal to be able to fully discount extreme weather events, however, was rejected. For the first time, Member States will also have to report on how they took into account the ‘no significant harm principle’ in meeting the LULUCF targets. They also need to improve the data they use to report their LULUCF net removals. This means that there will be a larger integration of biodiversity policies and climate policies, which is really good. We also start to assess what kind of policies Member States put in place to manage their things properly for the first time. So therefore, overall, the Parliament’s negotiating team worked well-defined compromises. I thank them all. I also thank the Commission for their contribution and even the Council. Therefore, I ask for your endorsement of the negotiated deal from you, my esteemed colleagues.

Mr President, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and electrolysers are the foundation of the future energy system and their manufacture requires various metals and minerals. Metal does not exist in the world indefinitely, and the demand for metal in the energy transition is multiplied by the current one. The nature of our planet cannot withstand this transformation unless we also change the way we use natural resources to be sustainable. We need to minimise the negative impact of the energy transition on the environment and ensure social sustainability in Europe and beyond. We need to clearly improve the recycling of minerals, set binding recycling requirements, increase resource efficiency and manufacture products that are easy to recycle. With efficient recycling, we minimise the use of virgin raw materials and increase the EU's raw material self-sufficiency. By requiring the increased use of recycled materials in different sectors, we are also creating competitiveness for the greening of industry. The potential of EU countries to succeed lies, for example, in green carbon-neutral recycled steel. We can do it by demanding a lot. It is imperative that we also ensure the sustainability of mining, both socially and environmentally, both inside and outside the EU. We cannot be flexible about existing environmental rules and we need to be careful about the environmental risks of mines. Because of their environmental impact, mines are not suitable everywhere. At the same time, we must respect the rights of indigenous peoples, i.e. ensure that solutions to the climate crisis happen sustainably to nature and people.

Mr President, we need to provide energy security to our citizens this winter. Even more importantly, we need to hasten the Green Deal to deliver an energy transformation to solve both the energy—independence needs for Europe and the climate crisis. It is positive that the Council wants to address and hasten the transition to solar and wind power and heat pumps, also in permitting. However, this cannot be done at a cost to our environment and biodiversity. The Green Deal is not just about climate and energy security, but is also about environmental sustainability. The climate and biodiversity crises need to be tackled hand-in-hand in order for us to deliver long-term results. Therefore, we find the Council regulation based on Article 122 without Parliament’s involvement, quite worrisome, especially on the aspect of overriding public interest. Parliament has been working on permitting and next week we should have a mandate to start trilogues on it. We urge the Council to move fast on this longer-term solution to hasten permitting while respecting our nature legislation. Emergency measures based on Article 122 are not the place to introduce long-term changes, and two parallel proposals on the same subject can also create insecurity for the market. So we have to introduce the aspects that deserve longer-term application and also considerations for nature within the negotiations of the Renewable Energy Directive.

Madam President, it is now time for self defence of democracy. We as a European Union cannot be side-tracked into inner division. But we must stand and face in solidarity aggression of Russia, both in supporting Ukraine, but also in the effect it has on our economies and our energy security. The Greens welcome the possibilities for joint gas purchases proposed by the Commission, but this is only a first necessary step needed to bring the energy prices down. Now it’s up to the EU Member States also to unite Europe and jointly work on hastening the exit from dependency on imported fossil fuels and especially gas. We can still do more to reduce gas demand and increase energy savings this winter. This is the most meaningful action we can do to avoid the energy crisis. Has the Commission counted how much fossil gas contracts and investments are still done in the EU, especially from Russia? We can do more to reduce this demand, and we also need to invest massively in renewables and energy efficiency. Therefore, we really need a large investment programme in delivering the REPowerEU, but, dear Commission, this time it solely needs to be on renewables and not on fossil investments. We cannot derail the green deal by continuing dependence on fossil gas. Russian aggression and sabotage is not causing disruption only on the energy markets and economy, but also tries to create disorder and instability in our democracies. We have seen within Europe politics of threatening human rights, women’s rights and environmental and climate action that would actually weaken our resolve in solving the energy crisis. These are politics of division, and it’s exactly what Putin wants. So progress does not happen automatically. We all must stay alert to protect our democracies. A lot is at stake.

Mr President, every inhabited region of the planet is currently experiencing the impacts of climate change. We are already living in an era of adverse climate effects. Even if last year’s Glasgow COP cut new climate pledges and increased ambition, that was clearly not enough. No matter how we play with the numbers, we are not still on the path to 1.5 degrees. We are actually using our remaining carbon budget within this decade. So we need to do more. Even if in Egypt the focus has been for many in climate financing, loss and damage adaptation – those are important targets – the EU has to, in addition to delivering the goals, also take on board also the message from Glasgow that member countries will increase their ambition. And the EU has to do its own role here. We are currently having the negotiations in trilogues using a number of files of Fit of 55 and from the Parliament side, like myself as rapporteur on LULUCF, we are increasing, hastening the process to get a deal also before Sharm el Sheikh to show that the EU can increase its ambition. We hope to get support in this from the Commission and from the Council who is absent today. I really hope that they are not absent in those negotiations and not absent in Egypt, because EU has to put more on the table to demand more from the others.

Madam President, biodiversity loss is an existential threat, and we must also address this challenge. This is not only important to the upcoming COP 15 on biodiversity, but also in the context of CoP 19 on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Panama. CITES is an agreement with the aim to make sure that trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival in nature. The species listed in CITES are grouped according to how threatened they are by international trade. In the coming CoP, the EU should support proposals for uplisting species to better protect the species. Also, it is worth noting that this still leaves a lot of species outside the scope of CITES where other, often national, tools for data protection are needed and the EU must push for those as well. There is no way of protecting species without also protecting their habitats. It is good that this resolution notes the importance of key habitats such as forests and oceans. This is important when we are addressing also climate effects to our planet, that biodiversity and species protection goes hand in hand with that as well. I am pleased that in this resolution we recognise the role of the European Union as a major driver and as a transit and destination point for illegal trade. This must be stopped. There are major gaps in the EU’s own wildlife regulations. Revision of the EU action plan against wildlife trafficking will be a great moment to tackle the role of the EU in driving demand for illegal trade. Not only is nature on the line; the wild and uncontrolled wildlife trade also increases risks for human health. Therefore, our job is now to make sure that wildlife can thrive without us humans threatening its existence and we also support our own future by doing that.

Madam President, we have been too dependent on fossil fuels, and now our citizens are paying the cost of our past inaction and concentration of supply to unreliable oil, gas and coal suppliers. May I remind you that this high—energy—price crisis is due to the high prices of fossil fuels and also the manipulation of Russia and Putin. But the time has come to act and rein in these abnormally high prices and high profits for some energy companies. The fossil fuel levy or solidarity contribution is very important to rein in the high windfall profits gained at the cost of our citizens’ purses. And we are also expecting binding measures to cut peak electricity demand and to ensure support to those struggling with their energy bills. It is important that this package works together and we as Greens support the Commission on this approach and hope that the Council sees it through. We need to pass this quickly into law for the benefit of our citizens. Also, we should not also look just at the short term, but also at the long term and not act against it by creating long—lasting favourable conditions for fossil fuel use. We can make this sort of crisis history by shifting to renewables and becoming energy independent and by investing in energy efficiency. Any measure we take now in the short term should be matched with long-term measures to increase our energy efficiency and help the shift to renewables. So we have to look at the electricity market design as a tool to support this goal of becoming more energy independent, and that means that we are also more secure, more economically sound and acting on the climate.

Mr President, renewables are the future of European energy and also in solving the climate crisis they are necessary. In the context of both the climate crisis today what we see is already happening and the Russian war on Ukraine, it is important that they are now raising the ambition for 2030. I think it is the least minimum to increase the target to 45% of land use of energy and this is what the Parliament’s compromise has achieved. We, as Greens, have also tabled a model based on a scenario where we can go to fully renewables in 2040 and that would mean 56% by 2030. So we can overachieve even to 45% and that should be our aim. I am also pleased that the Parliament’s majority has at least agreed to align the subtargets with REPpowerEU levels. So this will support Member States in getting rid of fossil fuel dependency, and the most important thing here is not to replace dependency on Russian fossil fuels with other imports. That would not be good for the European economy. That would not be good for our energy independence and therefore the renewables transition needs to be hastened. I want to thank the rapporteur and the shadows for the very constructive negotiations where they ended up with solid compromises on most of the articles, even though we also had differences in this House. That shows that we have brought a big majority of European politicians and views also in Member States together in hastening the renewabled transition. Finally, I am also glad that our green call to end fossil fuel use in low temperature industrial heat is included as a specific target because this potentially reduces EU gas demand by even 8% if implemented well by Member States. So we should look at these low-hanging fruits where we can get rid of fossil fuels even faster than the overall target. I end by also bringing to your attention that in heating and cooling we also need to vote on an amendment that this target will be binding and that is what we Greens are supporting tomorrow. Thank you very much for good cooperation to all groups and we expect the Commission to support the Parliament’s ambition.