Speeches

Mr President, it’s very obvious that the cheapest and cleanest energy is the one you do not consume. All the policymakers, if they are serious about ending energy dependence and about lowering the bills for citizens and businesses in Europe, should first and foremost focus on maximising energy efficiency and savings and helping citizens and businesses to cut their energy consumption. Every additional base percent of improved energy efficiency allows us to cut gas imports by 2.4% and oil imports by 3.5%. So, the compromise text voted on Wednesday is in many respects, and in this regard, an improvement over the Commission’s proposal, which already was on the right path. Parliament should give a very strong mandate to negotiate with the Council and improve the proposal. We also urge the Commission to stand with Parliament in the negotiations and to embrace a forward—looking and not backward—looking position. We have to make sure that all Member States are on board, that there is enough binding us into the targets and into the milestones. Against the backdrop of the current energy crisis and the climate emergency, energy and increased energy efficiency are key to keeping everyone on board.

Mr President, I would like to thank Parliament and the plenary for the strong support for the ENVI Committee’s position. And, therefore, I propose that according to Rule 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to request that the LULUCF file be referred back to the ENVI Committee for interinstitutional negotiations in accordance with Rules 60 and 74 of the Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, I am convinced that Parliament can show leadership tomorrow in its votes to make sure that we will have a Fit for 55 package that will deliver a better Europe also when it comes to land use. There has been debate today about whether our land use today is sustainable and I think the science-based answer is: not yet. We still have biodiversity loss, we still have lots of things. But I also want to make it clear that this regulation, the LULUCF regulation, to increase carbon sinks is also an opportunity for our farmers and foresters. So we can increase carbon sinks by way of introducing new farming methods, focusing on regenerative farming, less need of fertilisers, more better focus on soil quality, and this will be to the benefit of the productivity of European agriculture. We just need to create funding mechanisms for this and that is why we need to have an ambitious goal, which the ENVI Committee proposes, of a separate carbon farming additional target of 50 million tonnes by 2030. Also in forestry I support the objective of incentivising a circular, sustainably sourced bio-economy and the use of long-lived wood products over shorter usages, but at the same time, we have to make sure that there is integrity in how we make rules on this. Potential additional benefits from material substitution are unlikely to compensate for the reduction of the net forest sink associated with the increased harvesting. Therefore, the ENVI Committee delayed the possibility for the Commission to introduce carbon storage products until after the adoption of carbon removal certification, subject to full legislative review and under strict sustainability criteria. So we can actually promote sustainable bio-economy products that will both increase carbon storage, but make sure that they are within the boundaries of adding integrity to how forests are managed. Also, finally, there is an added component in the ENVI proposal on taking into account international developments, in particular related to the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The Committee suggests that where a Member State decides to authorise the use of carbon credits from the LULUCF sector for offsetting by public or private entities, these amounts should be deduced from the amount of net removals taken into account for the purpose of compliance with the LULUCF target of that Member State. Shortly saying, this will create a lot of funding from the private sector to these compensating actions by companies because there is integrity, it is not double-counted, and I think this can be a big chance also for forests and agriculture. So I urge Parliament to make a progressive decision tomorrow.

Mr President, we need to turn the way we use land into a climate solution and reverse the negative impact of our land use for climate. That is the way towards carbon neutrality and also beyond the carbon negativity. And while we are some time creating incentives and markets to more environmentally sound practices and products. So this is also in the interests of these sectors and jobs as well. Forests, soil, health and biodiversity must be protected to tackle that being climate and biodiversity crisis. Yet at the moment the exact opposite is still happening. EU sinks have continuously decreased since almost a decade now due to record high harvest in EU forests, intensive agricultural practices and not enough action to increase sinks. Furthermore, forest biodiversity is declining. An ambitious revision of the LULUCF Regulation is needed, therefore, to reverse the situation and to ensure a sustainable, predictable and long-term contribution of natural carbon sinks to the EU climate neutrality objective and to contribute to the EU’s biodiversity objectives. We must accelerate markets for sustainable land use measures. Strong and systemic measures to reduce carbon emissions caused by land use and to increase carbon sinks must be taken up to a whole new level. We need to promote carbon farming, restore wetlands and bogs, implement afforestation, halt deforestation and have better land use planning, reduce agricultural emissions, improve sustainability of forest use and keep harvesting levels, methods and rotation lengths within the limits of biodiversity and climate. Public and private funding must be mobilised to support ecosystem based regenerative approaches in forests and agricultural lands that will also support individual farmers and forest managers. They should benefit from incentives to store more carbon on their land and forests while ensuring the protection of biodiversity and other societal benefits and also soil quality. The land use sector needs a sustainable transition, just like, for example, the automotive industry. Reducing emissions is not against them, it is for them. And the transition must be done in a just wait. The transition will be followed by a higher acceptability of production of forestry and agriculture. So it’s a win-win for markets and nature. As rapporteur, I have worked hard to find cross-party compromises in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee that could be acceptable for this Parliament. The Energy Report represents a good compromise of the main views, and I thank all the shadows for their very cooperative work on the file. The final ENVI report is an improvement for climate action from the initial proposal by the European Commission, while still maintaining its main focus. We must ensure that climate smart policy is also biodiversity smart. Many in this Parliament claim that LULUCF is only about carbon accounting, but this is a false claim. Sinks have also a lot to do with biodiversity. Both natural sinks and biodiversity happen in the same land and we should pursue our policies at the same time. It is also more cost efficient to look for double benefits for climate and nature together. So the ENVI report tasks the Commission with setting up minimum criteria for the inclusion of biodiversity monitoring in land monitoring systems via delegated acts. Also, one of the most difficult compromises is on the overall target of this regulation. Some studies have shown that we could reach as high as 600 million tonnes of sinks in Europe by 2030. And some MEPs are also asking this Parliament to support this level. The ENVI compromise, which was not easy to reach, is set at 310 million tonnes as the Commission propose. But it is also further amplified by additional measures and initiatives at Union and Member State level to support carbon farming, delivering at least 50 million additional tonnes CO2 equivalent of net removals by 2030 at Union level. So this is a way of making sure that also carbon farming is promoted as fast as possible and it is seen as a possibility to increase sinks also in the short term. The ENVI report would also ensure that EU natural sinks should keep on increasing after 2030, setting both 2030 targets for the LULUCF sector. And it also proposes a soft target for cropland, grassland and wetlands to incentivise changes in agricultural practices. So I look forward to strong support to negotiate on this basis with the Council for a strong action on climate change in land use.

Mr President, the Greens largely welcome the proposal made yesterday by the Commission and are delighted to see that the Commission now is focusing very much on cutting our fossil fuel reliance and shifting our solutions to renewables and energy efficiency – so not just on short-term sourcing and ensuring security of gas supplies. This is very much welcomed by the Greens. Energy efficiency and renewables are both a short- and long—term solution to increase our energy independence and it’s what our climate commitments require. We should invest now in sustainable solutions straight away to make sure that we have energy sovereignty for Europe, and it’s also good for our economies. Especially, we welcome the legislative amendments increasing the energy efficiency target, the solar roof obligation in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the target increase acting on permitting in the Renewable Energy Directive. I think these are bold steps, even though we Greens would have liked to see even higher targets. We appreciate the move to higher targets from the Commission as it is a level which was previously seen as impossible. But we see that impossible things are made possible by bold change. On permitting, we welcome the proposal to speed up project approval, including through the identification of go—to areas. However, here we would also like to state that we need to be careful that existing legislation to protect biodiversity is not undermined or ignored. And we will be looking into this closely. We also appreciate the switch to timelines for rooftop solar projects and the increase in obligations. On the negatives, the sale of ETS allowances from the Mortgage Stability Reserve is the biggest mistake, from our point of view, in this proposal, as it increases emissions in the ETS. Also, while we acknowledge some specific gas infrastructures may be needed, especially in eastern Europe, we have concerns on the building timeframes of these new and sometimes competing pipeline projects, which likely lead to over capacities, lock-in or stranded assets and potentially being completed late. These infrastructures should only be built with private money if they have economic viability. Finding new EU money is always difficult, but we cannot do the energy transition only with EU money. We need Member States and companies to also step up and ensure that they contribute to this transition away from fossil fuels to an energy efficient and renewable EU. But we are happy that the Commission has done its part.

Mr President, the fossil economy is a huge part of the security risks of our time, and money from fossil income strengthens the power and wealth of despotic leaders. In Ukraine, we have seen the cruelty and horrors where that leads to. Us Europeans must hear Ukrainian pleas to stop funding Putin’s war. One thing should be crystal, crystal clear in this discussion to everyone: there is no room for more fossil gas infrastructure investments. We need to stop energy imports from Russia, but they should not be replaced by dependency on fossil imports from elsewhere. The current energy price surge and the geopolitical situation have exposed vulnerabilities, especially in the form of energy bills in Europe. Relying on the recipe of more gas through diversification is only a short—term fix that creates new dependencies. Is it really better to depend on fossil gas from Azerbaijan or Qatar and fracking gas from the US rather than from Russia? In the long term this is not the case. So this is why the Greens/EFA Group rejects the revised TEN-E guideline regulation and demands that any infrastructure projects must be in line with the commitments made under the Paris Agreement. Investments must go into energy efficiency and renewables.

Madam President, Putin is the aggressor in this war in Ukraine. Yet every day we continue to buy his fossil fuels we fund this attack on peaceful Ukraine and support his power. So we have to do our utmost to get rid of this dependency fast. We in the Greens appreciate the Commission acting on diversification of fossil fuel supplies and introducing a gas storage obligation to keep homes warm next winter. But this should not mean investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure. That would just lock in our dependency on fossil fuels from elsewhere in the long term. That would fail us and our people on urgent climate action. So we need joint purchases, better coordination and cooperation and solidarity between Member States to act on high energy prices, but we also need to hasten our investments in renewables and energy efficiency. We call on Member States to do more to support vulnerable households, using flexibilities in the existing framework, for example through direct payments and / or vouchers. This is urgently needed for those who cannot afford their energy bills. Price caps on gas are fossil fuel subsidies. They are ineffective and strain the public purse, as also mentioned by ECB President Lagarde. We should rather tax windfall profits from energy companies and direct them to those in need and also direct them into new investments in renewables and energy efficiency. The message on storage and market design should be strictly limited in scope and time. Filling up our storage facilities and ensuring bearable energy bills will cost a lot of money and we need to invest at the same time to cut energy consumption and ramp up renewables. So we have to have short-term action to get rid of dependency, long-term action to create independence in energy.

Madam President, I would first like to thank and congratulate my dear ? colleague, Grace O'Sullivan, for great work in finalising this negotiation. Putin’s war in Ukraine has put the phasing out fossil fuels to the top of the agenda for all of us. Even many who didn’t realise the importance of this before have now come to realise that we really need to invest in renewables and energy efficiency in Europe and get rid of dependency on energy imports. Fossil fuel imports from Russia are a way for him to finance the Russian war machine. So we really need to stop importing energy and fossil fuels from Russia, but also look beyond that; that we stop using fossil fuels in general, and we phase out those fast. It’s a way for us to become energy independent, but it’s also a way for us to invest in our climate future and to a healthy environment. So this is something we really need to look at when we implement this environmental action plan, that the scaling down of fossil fuel subsidies and other environmentally harmful subsidies are now on the top of the agenda of the Commission. These subsidies, the fossil fuels that create environmental problems and climate problems, also environmentally harmful subsidies, they have been a great paradox of our policy. On one hand, we try to support our environmental policies and a sustainable future and, on the other hand, we have destroyed it, creating damage to our health and to the environment. The goal set in this program for phasing out the environmentally harmful subsidies and, in particular, fossil fuel subsidies, really needs to be implemented without delay. They are important in order to achieve our climate goals and to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. They also help our local environment in many cases, and I think it’s important that the Commission realises that there is no security without sustainable environment and sustainable climate policy and vice versa. So we need to really look at both of these in getting rid of dependency on fossil fuels.

Mr President, Russia has been on the road for a long time, where the country's leadership is seeking a position of great power through geopolitical power and aggressive foreign policy. The Russian leadership has not been able to reform the country's economy and has not been able to increase the well-being of its citizens. Power politics is also dangerous and unpredictable because it is partly the result of weakness. Russia's actions threaten the stability of Ukraine and of Europe in general. At the same time, no other country in Europe is threatening Russia. Its borders are safe, but not all of its neighbours are. The reason for this is Russia's own actions. Russia has itself occupied Crimea and is supporting the people's republics in eastern Ukraine. It must be made clear to Russia that it cannot continue along this path. It must respect the sovereignty of its neighbours and the EU must increase its own capacity to act in a united and proactive manner, including in the area of hard foreign and security policy. We cannot only react, but we must also guide Europe's course in terms of security. We cannot simply reply to the letters, but we must take the initiative ourselves for peace and democracy. Otherwise, Russia will continue its split-and-rule diplomacy, in which it divides the European Union into 27 different voices, and we cannot allow that.

Madam President, this report is a fine response by the Parliament to an important strategy of the Commission. We really need to scale up the investments into renewables in order to tackle our climate responsibilities, but also in order to address the current energy crisis we have, since we are too dependent still on fossil fuels. Wind power is already the cheapest investment in new investments in a lot of European countries, and offshore wind is going to become one in the future, when we hasten the build—up. But it’s not just offshore wind we are talking about, it’s also other hybrid solutions like tidal and wave solutions. We really need to tap into this potential in order to make sure that we can achieve fully-renewable systems. The Greens made a scenario up to 2040 where we can be totally 100% renewable in Europe by 2040. And in this scenario we need to have 51% of renewables by 2030, and that is possible. That investment is economically possible also in the scenario, and the price of energy is not increasing. So we are just saying that we can do even more than the Commission is proposing, and this report is a step towards that.

Mr President, last year, renewable electricity surpassed fossil electricity for the first time in Europe, and it looks like the EU and most Member States have met their 2020 renewable energy targets. So there are positives in this report – but there is also a negative. We are lagging behind on energy efficiency, and quite badly in a number of Member States. Meeting the renewable targets and not the energy-efficiency targets shows that nationally-binding targets actually work, because we’ve had those renewables in 2020. We need to ensure that also our 2030 framework is fit for purpose and fit to deliver beyond the 55 percent greenhouse gas reductions, so we should look at strengthening the current proposals in the Parliament and in the Council. I have also actually met with a number of industries, talking about the energy transition, and the energy companies are telling me that the pace of renewable development is not fast enough and that, due to this, they may need to transit via fossil gas, even in companies that wouldn’t want to do it. So if we look at the IEA scenarios, we are actually going down in the fossil investment prognosis for net zero targets, but renewable deployment in Europe is three times too low to what we should do with our 2050 net zero goals. This is something where we have to look for increased action: new deployment of renewables. And it means that in the Council they are actually discussing the ambition on renewables and efficiency to be lowered, and that seems really the wrong direction for Europe to take. Also, if we go into the energy report, we should also look at the governance regulation that is needed to ensure that we have timely information and a better understanding of how to achieve higher targets. So we should improve early spatial planning for renewables and grids, and we should also be able to help them to build up, especially if we get local actors on board. So that is something I urge you to do in the Commission. To close, I would also like to note that recovery and resilience plans are expected to boost climate-related investments by EUR 177 billion, but we are still annually subsidising fossil fuels by EUR 52 billion. We should change that immediately.

Mr President, metrology is an old science, but it’s also a more and more important science for our future. When we are relying in the future more on data to tackle climate change and to turn our societies into more digital ones. That means that we really need more exact measurements, also in the future, and more standardisation. So we very much welcome this good proposal from the Commission on increasing our cooperation on the partnerships on metrology. This public-private partnership is a good way to show that Europe creates more value also to the Member States. I’d like to thank the rapporteur, Ms da Graça Carvalho, and the shadows for their good cooperation on the file, the Commission also for their willingness to help in finding compromises and the Council on being constructive. From the Green side, we especially welcome in the outcome the stronger representation of the scientific community in the joint undertaking. It’s obviously important that the scientists also get to define the content of cooperation, because they know where the scientific needs are going. So it has to be science-based and not just bureaucracy-based. The improved openness in governance and results is also important, as well as increased transparency as we set up new bodies that also include people from outside the national institutions. And also important to keep EU money for projects, for content and use international contributions to cover the capped administrative costs. We would like also to see in the future more equality in science with different types of people, with different backgrounds, different geographies, different genders involved in this cooperation, and are very happy that the partnership aims towards this. Most importantly, we got this report active this year, and thus we are more swiftly starting better the coordination of national measurements institutes to benefit science and society for all Europeans.

Mr President, the Glasgow COP meeting is not just one of the climate meetings in an unending row. I’ve been to a few and I know how people can treat them, but this is the checking point of the Paris Agreement where we check whether we are in line with our climate targets. If we fail here, the next checkpoint five years from now will be too late. So I would urge you, Commissioner, and the whole Commission, to treat this as the vital climate meeting that will decide whether we can achieve our global climate agreements and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. Currently we are using our carbon budget globally within the next 10 years. It will run out in the 2020s if we don’t change our policies. Even five years from now, when the next checkpoint is, it may be that temporarily the temperatures are already above 1.5 degrees. So many countries have long-term goals, even China, but few countries have short-term implementation and this is where the EU must push for all countries to come with real commitments, contributions, in the short term, phasing out fossil fuels, financing climate investments in poorer countries, and making sure that we are on track in the next few years to get emissions down seriously. If we fail on this, it will be too late to achieve our targets with policies in the 2030s, so this is your job.

Mr President, Commissioner, when we protect nature, we protect life. Man is one species among others. We are part of nature, and understanding it is also necessary for our own future. We cannot live by destroying nature, the conditions of our own lives. The UN Convention on Nature has just unanimously declared that global biodiversity loss is an existential threat to the future of humanity, but also to other species. Last week, the UN Human Rights Council decided to recognise a healthy environment as a human right. This is an important global human rights step. Similar records of the right to the environment can be found in the national constitutions of many countries. I've been to Finland to interpret something similar. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights also calls for a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of its quality. We are talking about concrete measures, for example, to prevent people from dying from air pollution in Europe and to strengthen the rights of local communities around the world, such as the right to tackle environmental problems in mines. There is work ahead and we must collectively strengthen the right to a clean environment.

Mr President, this is an historic opportunity to update our competition policy to be in line with the sustainable future for the climate and for the environment. So I urge you, Commissioner, to be bold in the reform as we cannot fail. We have made commitments at the G20 level to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. We signed on to the Paris Agreement that calls for making finance flows consistent with climate—resilient development. So it should be clear that we should not finance fossil fuels. We should not prolong the life of fossil assets, for example by coal firing biomass. And we should not fund fossil gas and call it transitional, as it would only lead to a dead end of stranded assets. So I urge you to be bold in the reform because we cannot fail. Also, we are not just facing a climate crisis, but a biodiversity crisis. Our migratory fish have suffered for a long time because of a lack of access to fresh water. So when we, for example, invest in hydropower, we have to also take into account biodiversity. This is as important as the climate crisis.

Madam President, over 80% of the price hike of electricity in Europe has been caused by the increase in the price of fossil gas. Some 93% of fossil gas used in the European Union is imported. A lot of it is imported from countries like Russia. We know that there is serious doubt about market manipulation, also here in the price hike, in addition to what has happened globally with an increase in demand in countries like China as well. So that is something that the Commission needs to look into very thoroughly, and we could – and should – increase the role of the Commission in international energy contracts done by EU countries. But, if we think about this in the long term, and also about European households and businesses, the signal is very clear. This has to be the last energy price shock created by fossil fuels in the European Union, and we can do that. Renewables are cheap and renewable build up should be scaled up fast. With this transition and making sure that renewables are increased in Europe, we get rid of this gas dependency that is creating this shock in the short term. We should not go into changing the market logic in, for example, creating a price ceiling for fossil fuels because that would only increase our dependency on fossil fuels, and that is the cause of this price hike. That is something we can’t do. What we must do is to support the individual households with social tariffs and social contracts, energy loans, that are already there to get rid of gas boilers, to go into renewable heating and cooling, and to go into energy efficiency, and we can also do that during this winter with our Member States. So the energy transition has to be hastened.

Mr President, Commissioner, the climate crisis is happening now and there is no time to waste, we have already wasted too much. Fit for 55 means that the EU is committed to reducing its emissions by 55% by 2030. It may sound great, but in fact this is the decade when Europe and the rest of the world need a systemic shift towards carbon neutrality. The EU must be a climate leader. By taking the necessary steps now, we can make the changes in a more controlled way. The European economy and industry are grateful for the predictability of regulation. The success of the coming decades will be built on pioneering, not dragging behind. This summer's IPCC report sent a clear message. Action is needed now, and the goal must not only be carbon neutrality, but also progress towards carbon negativity. Therefore, increasing carbon sinks in the land use sector must already be on our agenda in agriculture and forestry. Food production must be transformed into zero-emissions, electricity production must move towards zero-emissions, and new investments must already be zero-emissions, and the sale of new combustion engine cars must be banned faster. The Greens are working on this.

Mr President, I congratulate the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and my colleague Grace O’Sullivan on the excellent work they have done on this report. They have improved a lot and done a great job with the Commission’s proposal. The Eight Environment Action Plan covers a crucial decade. This is our decade to get it right, to start living within the planetary boundaries in all our policies, in all fields of the environment. The International Energy Agency has estimated that to reach our rising demand for electricity and greening our energy systems, we might require as much as USD 131 trillion investment in renewables by 2050. Thirty-seven percent of the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility should be invested in climate actions but this will clearly not be enough. At the same time, fossil fuels are still being subsidised by EUR 50 billion every year. So, dear colleagues, I urge you all to vote for the ENVI report in its entirety, calling for the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and other environmental harmful subsidies by 2027.