Speeches

Madam President, And the marmot salutes forever if we change the time twice a year. And the marmot salutes forever when everyone gets upset about it again. And yet nothing happens. The European Parliament's decision has been on the table for six years. For more than six years we have known: The benefit is minimal, the damage noticeable. But no one knows – and my colleague, who has just spoken, does not seem to know – that it is only because the Member States cannot agree, even though there is clear evidence: No one saves energy by changing the time. Millions of people suffer from sleep and concentration problems. Children, the elderly, the chronically ill – all feel what this artificial time shift with the biorhythm does. And yes, even animals confuse the time change, with sometimes dramatic consequences. During this time, for example, there are more wild accidents, more wild animals that die from road traffic. Citizens want the end of the time change, and now. Hopefully, yesterday's news from Spain will bring movement into play. Because Spain wants to abolish the time change. I have one and a half minutes of speaking time here in plenary, but I do not need that at all, because the only thing there is to say on this subject is to the Member States, that is to say to the Council: Listen to the people, get rid of this absurd practice! You have the blessing of Parliament. It would be a clear signal that shows all skeptics: Europe listens to its citizens and acts pragmatically, close to its citizens and rationally.

Madam President, Cultural policy is non-negotiable, and neither is our right to protect it. When we were in the U.S. with the Committee on Culture and Education, many cultural professionals envied our media laws to encourage Europe's courage to promote diversity instead of sacrificing it to the market. The AVMSD guarantees access to European works, protects our languages, our media pluralism and our democratic culture of debate. Working with our American partners is important, no doubt about it. But Europe must not be naive. This is not about protectionism, but about cultural self-determination, fair competition and respect for the creatives who keep our identity alive. We are not just consumers of content. We are the guardians of our cultural diversity. My appeal to the Commission: Let's defend our European cultural model together! The AVMSD is not a bargaining chip. We owe this to our creatives, to all of us and to the European idea itself.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! The CITES COP-20 Conference on International Species Protection is just as important as COP30 on Climate Action. Climate protection and species protection are inextricably linked. Without healthy ecosystems, there is no stable climate and without biodiversity, there is no future. The CITES Convention, which turns 50 this year, is our most important instrument in the fight against global species loss. Without this agreement, many species – such as tigers, rhinos, sea turtles – would already be extinct, as CITES regulates trade in more than 40 000 endangered animal and plant species. This trade includes billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of copies annually. It is about living animals and plants, but also a large selection of products, such as wood, medicines or leather goods. But the illegal wildlife trade continues to increase. It is now the fourth largest form of organised crime in the world. It destroys ecosystems, ruins habitats and accelerates species extinction. Unfortunately, online trading also poses many new risks in this area. We therefore need to modernise CITES and adapt it to the new challenges. The EU has a special responsibility: As one of the largest markets for both legal and illegal natural products, we need clear rules and strong enforcement. International trade in wildlife must be legal, sustainable and traceable. CITES is more than just a protection agreement. It is also a tool for fair, transparent and sustainable trade that empowers local communities without destroying nature. But for this to succeed, political will and a clear goal are needed. That is why we are asking the Commission specifically: What are the key strategic objectives of the EU at the upcoming CITES conference in Uzbekistan? And how far is the EU with the implementation of the 2022 Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking? What concrete progress has been made to address existing shortcomings and increase effectiveness? Together with my S&D colleague César Luena, I will lead the European Parliament's delegation to CITES COP 20 in Samarkand. In the resolution, which was adopted by a large majority in committee and on which we will vote tomorrow, we have clear demands: Threatened animal and plant species need better protection, we need legally binding instruments to combat ivory trade in the EU. There are still too many voluntary rules. We need to promote digitalisation and data exchange, for example when issuing and reviewing import applications. There is too much duplication at the moment. For this, we also need improved traceability of CITES-listed species, for example through TRACES. Such an EU information system on wildlife trade would be very effective with a low administrative burden. We need to deepen cooperation with other international agreements, such as the Kunming-Montreal Agreement. We renew our demand that only those wild animals that are on a list may be kept as pets. Many citizens who purchase an exotic animal are not even aware of whether it is a protected species. They would have more clarity and certainty. We need to understand the fight against wildlife trafficking as part of our environmental and security policy. We therefore call for cross-border wildlife crime to finally be recognised as organised crime. What is particularly important to me: Species that are illegally procured and brought to Europe must not be legally resold. There must be no loopholes. In the U.S., by the way, this strong law already exists. It was first introduced in 1900. Colleagues protecting wild fauna and flora is a win-win situation for the whole world – not only ecologically, but also economically. We need to value wild animals and plants more, because they make an immense contribution to biodiversity, which is so crucial for our survival. COP20 offers us the opportunity to set the course – for better protection of endangered species such as elephants, big cats, rhinos, corals, sharks or eels, for a consistent fight against wildlife crime, both online and offline, and for a CITES fit for the challenges of our time – climate change, biodiversity loss, zoonotic risks. That is why I ask for your support for the resolution so that we can go to COP 20 with strong demands for Uzbekistan.

Madam President, You don't have to talk about it for long: The concentration of power and data in the hands of fewer tech companies from the US and China is weakening Europe. It threatens and manipulates democratic discourse through algorithms and disinformation. It is therefore high time to create competitive European alternatives. These include cloud services, AI systems, digital infrastructures and secure data spaces Made in Europe, which meet our standards and have social added value. Very important: That doesn't mean copying one-on-one the American model based on advertising finance and data monetization. On the contrary: The European model should be based on the common good and fundamental rights. In order for this to become a reality, European alternatives must be used from day one. This is also a call for politicians, member states, EU institutions and everyone to use them for their communication and not X or similar other American models. A sovereign Europe starts here!

Mr President! Yesterday, in her State of the Union address, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke about the need for Europe to take action where others are retreating, citing science as an example. She is one of the valuable global goods – how right she is about it. That is why it is right and important that we address the European University Alliances, because they can make an important contribution when it comes to the attractiveness and international competitiveness of the EU. Because they are about much more than just mobility or shared curricula: It is about a learning environment that is shaped by our common European values, basic democratic principles, academic freedom, inclusion and, last but not least, excellence. In a world marked by increasing geopolitical tensions, digital disruption, rapid innovation spurts and a shortage of skilled workers, our universities need to be more than just academic institutions. They must be engines of autonomy, innovation and resilience. The experience of the university alliances already shows what is possible if we invest in common goals and in cooperation with European added value: Forward-looking developments are being initiated; This also applies to cooperation with Ukraine. But these alliances also face problems: fragmented, unsecured funding, lack of legal status, bureaucratic hurdles and – yes, this is also a problem for many universities – the separation of teaching and research. We should think both together in the EU funding logic. Resolving some of these obstacles is in the works. We have yet to address other issues, such as the creation of a European deal. Let us give the European Higher Education Alliances the tools they need to move from projects to long-term cooperation, with positive effects on the European Higher Education Area as a whole. This report provides impetus to transform the European Education Area from a vision to a reality. That's why we should support him broadly.

Madam President, Cancer and cardiovascular diseases are among the health threats of our time. Good is: Many of these diseases are preventable. A central lever here is healthy nutrition. Healthy eating should not be a luxury. If we are serious about precautionary measures, then we must make healthy food cheaper, for example by reducing VAT on fruit and vegetables. At the same time, we need to tackle unhealthy, highly processed products. Because they not only burden our body, but also our health system and thus the general public. Our children are particularly vulnerable. Advertising for unhealthy foods targeted at them does not have to be. Children should learn what is good for their bodies, not what sells best. Equally important is the informed consumer. If you want to shop healthy, you need clearly understandable nutrition labels. But we also need to talk about mental illness and here about the excessive consumption of social media, especially among adolescents. Studies show that constant scrolling, overstimulation, and digital stress can increase the risk of depression and concentration problems. That is why we urgently need to ensure that our children are better protected at European level. This includes education at school, but also education of parents and a stronger responsibility of the platforms. Addictive algorithms pave the way for a new widespread disease, even at a very young age. Health is more than the absence of disease. It starts with education, protection and the right political framework for a healthy Europe.

Mr President! The failure of the 16th. The COP16 conference in Colombia was dramatic given that it is estimated that up to 150 species die every day around the world. Biodiversity is the foundation on which our health, our food and our security stand. In addition, more than half of economic output on a global scale depends on functioning ecosystems. So this is not about a bit of nature conservation, but about our livelihoods. It is therefore crucial that the post-negotiation in Rome has achieved joint funding, clear reporting and control mechanisms and the implementation of the global biodiversity framework – this is a key step. It shows the will of 200 nations to stop the rapid extinction of species. But this is also clear for us in the EU: After Rome, it is not the celebration that begins, but the work. Funding must be respected; more genuine protected areas are needed and investments must be made in a way that is compatible with nature. The following applies to the next climate protection conference in Brazil: Species protection is not a secondary issue, but both must go hand in hand, otherwise we will intensify the problems.

Mr President! Desertification is one of the most pressing problems of our time – not only in Africa or Asia, but also in Europe. Thirteen EU countries in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe are already affected. Soil dehydration is also progressing in other parts of Europe. In the future, deserts could also be created here. That there is an urgent need for action, this awareness was not sufficiently present at the COP16 in Riyadh. There is definitely not enough being done in the EU either. Problems are progressive soil sealing, deforestation, too intensive land use, incorrect management. Climate change with droughts and heavy rain events is also accelerating the loss of fertile soil. It is therefore crucial that we in Europe adopt the EU Soil Law alongside an effective water strategy – as a first important step towards more soil protection and against desertification. Desertification is like climate change. It is much cheaper and easier to take countermeasures now than to reverse things when the damage has already occurred. Because then it's too late.

Madam President, Global plastic pollution requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond just waste management. We have to start with the far too high production of plastic. 400 million tons are produced each year. We need a binding UN treaty that takes into account the entire cycle of plastics, from production to disposal. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060. What to do now? Produce and use less plastic globally and in the EU, ban hazardous chemicals, improve product design to be able to recycle better and more, and provide enough funding. Over 100 countries, including the EU, have shown a clear stance in Busan against a minority of oil-producing countries. This strong majority must continue. This year we have to reach an ambitious agreement. Plastic is polluting our oceans and drinking water, endangering human and animal health, and exacerbating the climate crisis.

Mr President! Children in Europe and worldwide are still too much affected by poverty, discrimination, digital risks, psychological distress or lack of access to education. Progress is far from enough. 20 million children in the EU are growing up in poverty. Mental stress, such as anxiety and depression, continues to increase in Europe, exacerbated by social pressure and the constant presence of digital media. For example, in Belgium, suicide is the leading cause of death among children and adolescents. Children need spaces for deceleration and support to meet these challenges. Children expect us to leave them with a future worth living. This includes a healthy planet. We must continue to strengthen and protect children's rights. They need to be more involved in policy-making and an impact assessment on children's rights needs to be carried out. We need to focus on preventive measures and invest in family care. Our children deserve it, and the future demands it from us.

Madam President, Climate change is about how humanity survives on Earth. Species protection is about whether it can do it at all. That's why the motto of the 16th World Nature Conference "Peace with Nature". However, it should be noted that: There is currently a war against nature. The environment and species are perishing at a breathtaking pace. We are also internationally far from achieving the stated goals for the protection of nature. We humans boast of being the crowning glory of creation, but still fail to preserve it. The damage to biodiversity cannot be repaired. There will be no technological solutions. Ecosystems are too complex for that. What's gone is gone! That's why it's so important that we put people back in priority categories. We must make the preservation and production of natural habitats more important than others. You have priority. Because an intact nature in this world is existential, especially for us industrialized countries, for our prosperity and for our well-being. After all, it was agreed in Colombia to better combine nature and climate protection. Synergies are important here, including for the next climate conference in Brazil. In the EU, however, Member States in particular are now called upon to do their homework by immediately implementing the Nature Restoration Act in order to present ambitious climate plans by 2025. After the negotiation, action is now required.

Madam President, We are talking about a new addiction: Recommendation algorithms have most young people firmly under control on social media. This means: If you watch a video, you get unsolicited more and more, sometimes more extreme content. Young people often have no choice, they can no longer get away from it. Not only does the risk of addiction increase, hate speech and hate speech can also radicalise them – before elections, this is even a threat to democracy. It is a good thing that the Commission is here against addictive algorithms. Digital Services Act applied, but that is not enough. The reporting obligations of platforms need to be improved in terms of quality, preferably by having their reports audited by external auditors. Further videos should only be displayed if you actually die. Digital literacy needs to be taught in schools so that they learn to critically scrutinise information and sources. You should get an AI driver's license. The fact that students are allowed to do their homework using AI is certainly not a solution. Let us take care of our children and young people, they are our future!

Madam President, No other industry, such as the steel industry, can be so well anchored to the conversion to climate-neutral production methods, which is urgently needed, but this industry is under great pressure. Especially the massive cheap imports from third countries such as China and India are adding enormously to our steel industry. That is why we also need more European awareness. In order for Europe to become a pioneer, we need the green lead market steel, which needs customers and buyers. Who would be better buyers than us Europeans themselves? In public procurement, the following shall apply: Our bridges, wind turbines and others are to be made of European steel. This would also include CO2-Reduce the footprint of end products. But it must also apply to private consumers: Cars, washing machines, drilling machines, etc. should be labelled ‘Made in Europe’. Consumers will then be able to make informed purchasing decisions – for job retention, better environmental protection, better working conditions, greater global independence and protection against supply bottlenecks.

Madam President, Article 13 of Union law states: The EU must take full account of the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Animals are not products. For the most part, however, they are treated in this way in Europe. Europeans are resisting how many successful European citizens' initiatives and a lot of local volunteering are showing. The European Commission has failed to reach out to millions of citizens who want more protection and welfare of animals by either failing to come up with the necessary animal welfare laws or by presenting them far too late so that they can only be treated after the elections. As a Commission, they are driven by the interests of the animal husbandry industry, are bent over in front of the agri-industry lobby and ultimately violate EU law. Therefore, we now ask you to: Do something about the daily animal torment, do not delay the animal welfare laws anymore, and finally create the position of an animal welfare commissioner in the next commission! It's high time.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Commission! Like no other country, the European Union is at the forefront of quality products. No one can fool us about the richness and diversity of our regional food. Therefore, it is right and important to protect the quality products that make up our European, regional, cultural heritage and to highlight their unique characteristics associated with their geographical origin and traditional know-how. It is precisely now, at a time when European farmers are facing pressure and competition from cheap products from third countries, that their traditional quality products need to be protected. The Commission's proposal welcomed the need to focus on sustainable production, i.e. better protection of the natural resources of our ecosystems and more animal welfare. This must then also apply equally to products from third countries. Unfortunately, there are no uniform standards for sustainability. There are no controls and no obligations to comply. Rather, the criteria for sustainability can be set by producer groups themselves, which can lead to pure greenwashing and thus mislead consumers. Without clear guidelines, this also finds no imitation in our trading partners. This is a missed opportunity to strengthen the sustainability aspect of our products and thus to highlight and consolidate the quality of our European products, especially compared to products from third countries.

Mr President! Thank you very much for what you have said to your colleagues and thank you very much for what Commissioner Breton has said and for the willingness to continue working together on this file in the trilogue negotiations. I would like to stress that this revision represents a significant improvement of the Commission proposal. It will protect the health of our citizens and facilitate their purchases through readable and understandable information on the products. We protect our ecosystems and our aquatic environment and thus improve water and water protection. We are laying the foundation that detergents should no longer be based on chemicals made from fossil fuels in the future. The report prevents unnecessary animal testing, saves animal torment and goes with time by using alternative testing methods that also provide full health safety. We align the Detergents Regulation as much as possible with other relevant legislation, such as the already adopted CLP Regulation and the Ecodesign Regulation. We shall act with this report in accordance with the objectives of the European Green Deal. We incentivise manufacturers to produce sustainable detergents and ensure a level playing field. I therefore ask you all to vote in favour of this report tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, ladies and gentlemen! Today we are talking about a report which concerns every one of us in this House, but also every European on a daily basis. It is about detergents and detergents, also called detergents. The production of detergents secures jobs in Europe and provides us consumers with high-quality products. Many companies have already shown that there is a market for innovative, safe, clean, sustainable and circular products. At present, however, policy does not provide sufficient support for these European frontrunners. Therefore, the proposal for a revision of this sector comes at just the right time and I would like to thank the Commission for that. However, the legislative proposal has omitted essential elements of consumer protection, health protection and environmental protection. Together with the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission's proposal has been improved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the good cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs. The Commission proposal almost completely ignored progress towards sustainable detergents. We were able to broaden the scope and thus create the opportunity to increase the competitiveness and innovation capacity for sustainable detergents in the European market. We have improved the following areas: First of all, our detergents need to do more for water protection. We have introduced more ambitious thresholds for reducing the phosphate and phosphorus content in detergents, including for the first time for industrial products. Why is this important? Phosphates are among the substances that contribute most to the widespread problem of eutrophication of waters in Europe. There are numerous examples of manufacturers who have already withdrawn phosphates from the market in their products. In order to further promote innovation in this sector, the thresholds for total phosphorus content in consumer and industrial products will therefore be tightened. Another step towards greater environmental protection was the much-needed improved biodegradability of the detergents. Currently, detergents can contain various substances that are dangerous and long-lasting in the environment. As a result, they pose potential risks to ecosystems and to human and animal health. We have clearly opposed this and have made the Commission proposal fit for purpose. Here, too, there is one of the largest manufacturers that has already made public its intention to achieve complete biodegradability. With this report, European legislation does not fall behind in these areas, but rather creates incentives for other manufacturers to do more for water protection and health protection. The report also ensures a level playing field. The report also attaches great importance to consumer protection. When buying a product, citizens need to be able to see at a glance what they are buying. Therefore, the detergents and detergents should be provided with legible and comprehensible labels that contain the most important information directly on the product. The same should apply to refill products. The Commission proposal will also be adapted to inform consumers about all ingredients and in particular allergenic substances directly on the product. Digital labels can provide additional information if needed. In order to avoid overdose of detergents, there will also be more visible measuring scales for a low dosage on the lids and cups. Because currently, many consumers unknowingly use too much detergent, which can lead to higher and unnecessary pollution and allergies. Finally, in this report, we are going with the times and prohibiting unnecessary animal testing. The clear message is to abolish unnecessary animal testing in general and move to non-animal alternatives to ensure the safety of products. We also introduced clear rules for vegan labelling for the first time. Nevertheless, I would have clearly wished for more in this report when it comes to banning dangerous substances. All that has been achieved here is to introduce a review clause. This is a delay on the way to a toxic-free environment. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues again for their cooperation and hope that they share my satisfaction with the end result of our joint work.

Madam President, I come from the beautiful Saarland, which is a real border region, as it borders France and Luxembourg, among others. This is where Europe is lived every day. This shows how well European cooperation and integration can – or cannot – work. Often it still takes far too long, for example, to create cross-border rail and bus connections or to realize better cooperation in the field of medical health care, especially in emergencies. The reason for this is usually different national legal regulations, which do not allow the local authorities any flexibility. However, they need more freedom to decide and implement projects without the burden of national administration. There is therefore an urgent need to simplify cross-border cooperation. Border regions contribute to the unity of Europe, are real laboratories of European integration and must finally be treated in this way. That is why I call on the Council to give up its blockade once and for all and, with us, to launch a law in this legislature that will make the lives of millions of people in European border regions easier and make them truly live in Europe.

Madam President, It is a real scandal how this reform on new genetic engineering should be pushed through in an urgent procedure, without sufficient referral. It took Parliament about a year and a half to pass the Nature Restoration Act. Now, in just a few months, nature is being destroyed. The legislative proposal is neither evidence-based nor science-based; He's purely corporate-controlled. With the new rules, there is no longer traceability, no labelling of genetically modified plants or products containing genetically modified ingredients, no risk assessment and therefore no precautionary principle. For this, organic farmers get an uncontrolled contamination of organic plants and their displacement by genetically modified plants. Consumers get uncertainty about what they buy, and thus no longer have any decision-making power over their diet. This is unacceptable. The law must not come about in this way – for the benefit of our health, consumer rights, biodiversity and organic farming.

Mr President! Why are we even discussing a new law on packaging and its waste, even though there was a directive on this five years ago? The answer is simple: The amount of packaging in the EU is constantly increasing. Our packaging waste has reached a record level. A new revision is therefore necessary. It is now our responsibility to find a solution that is good for people and nature. In particular, we need ambitious prevention and reuse targets to stop packaging waste. However, unfortunately, there has been a lot of lobbying, but more reuse before recycling is crucial to sustainably reduce the amount of packaging, reduce CO2 and other emissions, and stop the overexploitation of our natural resources, biodiversity loss and pollution. The mountains of waste in Europe must finally be tackled consistently – only recycling is not enough. The law we are now voting on is better than the status quo, but still far too weak. A crucial task remains ahead of us: We must continue to fight for a sustainable, efficient and environmentally friendly packaging industry in Europe.

Madam President, Animals feel pain, fear and joy – similar to us humans. In the EU Treaty, they are rightly described as sentient beings. Despite this knowledge, animals have to suffer millions of times every day. Fur animals spend their short, agonizing lives imprisoned in small barren cages. Why? Their suffering is also unnecessary! We don't need furs. There are enough alternatives. The attitude also poses a danger to us humans: Zoonoses can occur. Fur farming also has a significant environmental impact. Toxic chemicals are used in the dyeing of furs. Our native biodiversity can also be seriously threatened. In short: Furs are unethical, dangerous and harmful to the environment! The Commission must completely ban fur farms and farmed fur products on the European market. More than a million people want it. Many thanks to the ECI for this. Clear actions must follow. The Commission is also called upon to put forward all proposals on animal welfare legislation without delay in order to put an end to animal suffering.

Madam President, Let's say we have a pesticide that kills any plant that hasn't been genetically modified to survive use. Let us further assume that this pesticide is harmful to health and contributes significantly to the extinction of species. In addition, it is the best-selling pesticide and up to 4,000 tonnes of it are sprayed annually in Germany alone. This pesticide massively pollutes groundwater, lakes and rivers, as well as our soils and air. Any reasonable person would say: We have to ban that. Not so the European Commission, which wants to allow this pesticide called glyphosate for another ten years. Worse still: They are based on an assessment by EFSA, which openly admits that there are data gaps, especially with regard to biodiversity and risks to our health. So, due to an incomplete report, should we continue to fuel the dramatic decline of our species? Is it still possible? Mrs von der Leyen, this is completely against your proposed European Green Deal, a breach of the precautionary principle and must be stopped! We, as the European Parliament, must strongly oppose this, as must the Member States – for the health of our children, our nature and, ultimately, our planet.

Madam President, Drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce. Due to climate change, the situation in many parts of Europe was already dramatic in winter - resulting in crop failures in Spain, drinking water shortages in the south of France, deaths due to torrential rains after a winter drought in Italy. In Germany, districts are already announcing water savings. We must counteract this. We know the measures. Some of them: stop the massive sealing of our soils, create more green spaces so that the rain can seep into the groundwater; and we must not allow industrial settlements in water protection areas, as happened with the Tesla settlement in Brandenburg! We must finally give top priority to water scarcity and make it clear that clean water is and must remain a common good. Drought management in European countries varies widely. In plain language, this means: The EU does not yet have a plan against drought. Just as I have long called for a soil protection law at EU level, I also call for a drought protection regulation.

Madam President, Highly toxic perpetual chemicals such as PFAS can be found all over Europe and worldwide. Particularly shocking: It is now quite natural to use them in our everyday products, such as rain-repellent jackets and even worse in food contact materials such as paper straws, to make them waterproof. So we come into contact with them every day, our children are exposed to them every day. They cause cancer and affect the immune, hormone and reproductive systems as well as the cardiovascular system. In nature, they cannot be degraded even in several hundred years and are highly toxic to water and animals. We endanger ourselves and our environment for generations to come. For me, this clearly means: In the interest of our health, that of our children and our environment, we must no longer be exposed to these substances, such as PFAS. Where they are unavoidable in processes, industry must show how they do not come into contact with people and the environment and what their End-of-life-Determination is. And the revision of the Chemicals Regulation needs to be presented as soon as possible in June, in the interest of all of us.

Mr President! I would also like to thank my colleagues, especially those with whom I have worked on the CBAM. Fit for 55 is the largest legislative package on climate neutrality in the world. But what role does the first introduction of CBAM play? The previous ETS scheme is based on a free allocation of emission allowances. We've been trying it out for 17 years and we've found that CO2 emissions haven't decreased as much as necessary. This is where the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism comes in. It contains a stop sign for those who want to continue to introduce carbon-intensive products into our market. With CBAM, we Europeans are introducing a global new instrument that takes climate protection seriously and creates enormous competitive advantages for fast companies. And that's where the big opportunity lies: Europe's products would be pioneers on a global scale. Time is paramount and some adjustments need to be made before the actual start of CBAM in January 2026: For example, the scope of application must be extended, especially to so-called downstream products, especially if they are made entirely of steel. The Council has prevented the extension of the scope. Not only do I think that this is a big mistake, because a limited application is carbon leakage and thus lead to the emigration of our industry. The short speech of long meaning: CBAM is historic. However, we need a wide scope, which also takes into account the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises. This adjustment must be made before 2026.