Speeches

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.

Mr President! The success of this European Citizens' Initiative to save bees and farmers is a loud wake-up call to politicians and society, which is doing too little to protect our biodiversity and our food. This European Citizens' Initiative clearly shows that more and more people across Europe no longer want to accept the fact that we are cutting the branch on which we are sitting with the current EU agricultural policy. The drastically decreasing biodiversity, the pollution of groundwater with nitrates, the destroyed soils and the contribution of industrial agriculture to climate change are forcing a rethink. Incidentally, the national counterpart of this European Citizens' Initiative was the referendum on biodiversity in Bavaria initiated by my party, the ÖDP, which now helped Bavaria to achieve one of the best nature conservation laws in Europe. And this European Citizens' Initiative deserves the same success. It's more important than ever. That is why I appeal to my colleagues: Do not follow the agricultural lobby, but take the success of the European Citizens' Initiative with all its demands as a mission that gives us all the tailwind for urgently needed steps towards sustainable agriculture and the restoration of biodiversity.

Madam President, Commissioner! The war in Ukraine has finally made it clear to many that we need to accelerate the expansion of renewable energy. This regulation wants to support this, and that is good and important. However, I am critical of some aspects of this regulation. In addition to the climate crisis, we must not forget that we also have a biodiversity crisis, as the UN COP15 currently taking place makes very clear to us. The dramatic loss of biodiversity is a ticking time bomb. Nature conservation must therefore not fall under the wheels of climate protection. Unfortunately, however, some of the plenary's rules and amendments aim precisely at this. Especially the area of overriding public interest does not always do justice to nature conservation. We can do better. Take, for example, the wide-ranging industrial wasteland for the expansion of renewable energy instead of natural areas. We need a nature-friendly energy transition, and this is not limited to the exchange of fossil energy through renewables. Climate protection is also nature conservation. Both are conditional on each other.

Madam President, Fit for 55 is the largest legislative package on climate neutrality – globally and by far. Higher emission reduction targets require a revision of existing climate policy instruments. The free allocation of emission allowances under the ETS system ultimately failed the practical test. We've been trying it out for 17 years and we've found that CO2 emissions haven't decreased to the required extent, certainly not globally. The free allocation system therefore does not work and needs to be replaced. This is where the carbon border adjustment tax 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 regime 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 at the forefront on a global scale. The transition to these new production methods must now be exploited through the available funding opportunities. It is clear to all that the year 2030 represents a great many upheavals. My group is calling for the phasing out of ineffective free emission allowances this very year. This does not create unnecessary pressure, but a clear target to give all companies a comparable benchmark. CBAM must fully start from 2030 without changing its scope. This gives our companies a clear signal, which ensures greater competitiveness, and this also creates clear structures for a new, climate-friendly world trade in the long term.

Madam President, Within the framework of the European Union, the EU has two major objectives: the resource-efficient circular economy on the one hand and being free of pollutants on the other. Both are key goals for our society. However, in the case of persistent organic substances, POPs for short, they do not fit together, because POPs are among the most dangerous and harmful chemicals ever, both for our health and for the environment. Here, the principle must be very clear: First get hazardous chemicals out of the products and then recycle or not recycle at all. Therefore, limit values for POP waste must be as strict as possible. They must not be returned to the cycle by recycling. The stricter we handle these toxins, the more innovations in products and recycling will be increased to develop POP-free products. The goal must be to completely remove POP from our everyday products. Our proposal is the right way for the protection of our children and for a pollution-free environment.

Mr President! Democracy is hotly debated again. In Ukraine, not only freedom, but also democracy is defended. Why don't we defend democracy here in the European Parliament? Democracy means participation. Stable democracy means participation of all. Our society has become more diverse. Dealing with diversity has become a hallmark of a stable democracy. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, a percentage hurdle in European elections is unconstitutional, because it is a serious interference with the principles of electoral law and equal opportunities, and this cannot be justified. It cannot be the task of this Parliament to exclude the will of the electorate from the outset. New percentage hurdles serve only to maintain the power of large parties, from which people are increasingly turning away. We do not need artificial exclusion of voters by percentage hurdles, especially since this would de facto only apply to Germany. This Parliament should therefore vote unanimously in favour of democracy and against percentage hurdles.

Madam President, Our grandparents were used to having a lot of fun with a product, as they could use it for a long time. Now we live in a disposable society. This is due in particular to the obsolescence of products, i.e. the artificial shortening of the service life, as well as the non-reparability of these products. It is high time that the resource-intensive linear economic model is a thing of the past and that we quickly move into a resource-efficient circular economy society. The right to repair and, in particular, the development of durable products are a central part of this. Some Member States are already moving in this direction. And around 80% of EU citizens would rather repair their product than buy a new one – we give them this opportunity. We also need to work on product design. We need a product that is repairable and not glued. And the consumer needs more power when shopping with information on durability and repair options. That is why this resolution is so important. Let us show the Commission that we need and want an ambitious law!

Madam President, Fashionable clothes are really great. Who can deny this? As with so many things: If you look behind the scenes, you can see that our fast fashion has a too high price. The production is carried out under poor, sometimes inhumane working conditions, it is very polluting to the environment, as the high consumption of raw materials, energy and water as well as water pollution and the high greenhouse gas emissions show. Clothing is often of poor quality. It causes wasteful and unnecessary buying behavior. Therefore, it is high time to radically change this sector. We need human rights due diligence and environmental efficiency along the entire value chain, a true circular economy that relies on waste minimisation and resource conservation and promotes the principles of reuse, repair and recycling. Pollutants need to be radically eliminated, as well as microplastics, and consumers need to know what they are buying through clear labelling. That is why, Commissioner, take this opportunity to make an ambitious proposal that deserves the name of sustainability! You have our support!

Madam President, Batteries are an indispensable part of our daily life, but batteries are now more than just our everyday home products. Demand for batteries will rise rapidly in the coming years, especially for electric vehicles. Therefore, it was right and important to have a legislative proposal that not only deals with used batteries and only certain categories of batteries, but looks at the entire cycle of all batteries, from generation to final recycling. This is all the more important because batteries should play a decisive role in the mobility transition. However, batteries need a lot of raw materials. Therefore, it was only logical to adopt a circular economy approach. Raw materials are finite. Their extraction must be carried out in compliance with human rights and environmental standards and must not endanger nature reserves. But not only did the recycling rates have to be increased, but for a real recycling of all raw materials, we also need a better collection system for all batteries and a better design of the batteries. After all, recycling already begins with the production of products and must be thought of holistically. It was equally important in the law to extend the due diligence obligations of economic operators for human rights and our environment to the entire value chain, i.e. to all batteries, all materials, including waste treatment. I am very pleased that we have been able to bring this in. We have also managed to limit toxic substances in batteries. In light of the current situation, I would like to highlight another aspect: More and more battery factories are being built in Europe. These could be built on industrial wasteland, but are unfortunately increasingly being designed on green areas such as arable land or forests. In addition, they are even built in water protection areas. Tesla is located in Brandenburg, Germany. We must not be blind in both eyes to the loss of biodiversity and to soil and water protection in the fight against climate change. In order to be sustainable, you have to think holistically sustainable. This legislative proposal is a first good mark-up in this sense.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The best way to fight cancer is not to let it develop in the first place. That is why my group and I have focused heavily on prevention. I was particularly concerned about the protection of our children, and I am pleased that this is reflected throughout the report. Children are becoming more and more obese, which can lead to cancer in old age. The figures are more than worrying. In this area, the industry no longer knows how to bring products containing sugar, salt and fat to adolescents. Therefore, a ban on advertising such products to children is only logical. Better labelling is also needed: Consumers must clearly see at a glance whether this product is good or harmful. This is especially true for parents. Of course: Tightening consumption is always a struggle against economic interests. Only: If it is scientifically proven that, for example, all alcohol consumption, including in moderation, is harmful, why should we not warn against it? This does not prevent anyone from drinking their glass of wine, but it protects young people and informs consumers. I really wonder what there is to object to this, if not lower sales figures or fewer product placements. The goods label must not degenerate into advertising information. And here I must say quite clearly: No profit from health. The report covers not only obvious cancer risk factors such as alcohol and cigarettes, but also other carcinogenic factors such as environmental toxins and environmental influences. Cancer prevention also involves reducing air, food, water and soil pollution as well as chemical pollution. A healthy diet is no less important. Nevertheless, this report goes beyond the field of prevention. He also puts a clear focus on accessing and treating cancer for all. Protecting yourself from cancer and having good treatment and medications shouldn't be a question of your wallet. We are also in favour of the right to be forgotten and of stronger cross-border cooperation and better data exchange, especially in the treatment of pediatric cancer. In short: We have a strong and ambitious report. I call on my colleagues to: Don't weaken him! And I say to the Commission: Go beyond that!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The report on the welfare of farm animals has absolutely nothing to do with the protection of these animals. I have to say it as hard as it is. This report was supposed to update the extremely outdated rules for the protection of farm animals. In this, the report fails. He lacks ambition, he is driven by the interests of the animal husbandry industry and overemphasizes the economic costs of better animal husbandry. This report is a slap in the face for all those who want more animal welfare and more welfare for our farm animals. Despite some good amendments, it is definitely to be rejected. On the contrary, I call for a vote in favour of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection in the form of Amendment No 2. In it, we have put in place a more accurate and advanced perspective on the treatment of farm animals that takes into account the current scientific evidence and takes seriously the many millions of citizens who call for significantly better protection of farm animals. Animals are sentient beings, not agricultural products. It is high time to acknowledge this!

Madam President, It has already happened to all of us: We see an animal transport, look inside and suffer with it. Animal transport, especially long-distance transport, causes extreme animal suffering – everyone knows this and the vast majority of citizens want to put an end to it. And the time has come to do so. For 18 months, the Special Committee has had experts report on the torment these animals are subjected to during transport: There is no longer any reasonable reason not to drastically improve transport conditions. This means that the transport time for animals must be as short as possible and tailored to the animals. This must apply without exception to all means of transport. No transport of pregnant and unweaned animals. Animal transport to third countries shall be prohibited from closing loopholes. It must be possible to make live animal transports an exception as soon as possible and not a rule. Transport meat instead! We have a responsibility to animals: Let us put an end to this suffering and vote for the necessary improvements! I will definitely do it.

Madam President, ‘Tigers in the circus – but that's unnatural, the poor animals’, that's what I heard a ten-year-old girl say who was in the circus. Why is this clear to children and not to many adults? Times are changing, because children are already questioning the familiar more and more. But it's not just her. One million signatures were handed over to the Commission for a ban on animal husbandry in circuses. There are no more reasons that could justify the use of wild animals in circuses today, and there are no acceptable alternatives to a complete ban on all species. We now have the responsibility to show our children that such great animals must be treated with respect and empathy, in a natural environment, and should not be forced into an unnatural existence associated with significant physical and mental suffering. What is clear to children should have been clear to us for a long time. You as the Commission now have one million reasons in the form of signatures to impose an immediate ban on wild animals in circuses and not to leave it to the Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. COVID-19 is a turning point in our way of life worldwide. As we are still in the midst of the pandemic, we can and must now set the course for a sustainable and future-oriented view. Everyone knows now that we have to take care of climate protection. But that this must go hand in hand with the preservation of biodiversity, unfortunately not. It is the task of this House to take the decisive steps to ensure that there can be no ‘going on’ after the pandemic. Isn't it enough that science certifies that humans are responsible for the greatest destruction of animal and plant species today? How can we maintain a purely economic ratio? Preserving biodiversity and creating new spaces for biodiversity must be at the heart of our development cooperation and also the guiding principle of our global trade policy, alongside climate action, of course. This report is a first step in this direction.