Debate contributions by Emma WIESNER

Interesting thing about the Sweden Democrats. You seem almost proud that you want to dismantle Sweden's climate policy and that we miss all emissions targets. You do not want to reduce Sweden's emissions. You are voting against the EU's climate targets and all climate legislation presented in Fit for 55, and you do not want us to go to the COP and negotiate at global level. So explain to me, Beatrice, how you and the Sweden Democrats are different from all the other climate deniers that we have heard here in the house today, and how you want to reduce emissions, because I really have not understood that.

Mr President, the EU is not fighting fossil fuels themselves, but the emissions they produce. That was what Ursula von der Leyen said last week. I am sorry, honourable President, but I do not agree. We are fighting fossil fuels. They are the reason for global warming and the climate crisis that we are in, and it is outrageous to state otherwise. More than 80 % of the world energy and 68 % of the energy in the European Union is still fossil. Last week in Belém was a disappointment, but we, team EU, have homework to be doing and a reason to be self-critical. We needed a good deal. 10 years after the Paris Agreement and what did we get instead? I am sorry Commissioner, but I think the support for the fossil fuel roadmap was too weak and we were disorganised in the European Union at the table of the COP. Why else would EU countries sign different proposals at different times? In the first call to end the era of fossil fuels, Italy and Poland were missing. In the second call in the coalition of the willing, we are missing 18 countries. Where are Sweden? Where are Germany? There are so many Member States missing. We are completely disorganised. If the Council had not focused only on our own 2040 target, maybe we could have prepared better for the most important climate conference since 2015. So, I am disappointed, but I am most disappointed with our climate ministers and with the Commission President. Why would Ursula von der Leyen make such a statement, undermining the negotiations on the spot in Belém at the G20? That is, for me, completely not understandable. We elected von der Leyen with a promise to deliver on climate. I am still waiting for that promise to be delivered, and the next meeting in Colombia in April would be a good opportunity for our Commission President to do so.

Madam President, where is the climate leadership? I am genuinely worried that the Paris Agreement would not be possible today – the climate leadership has disappeared. Our next climate conference is approaching, but the EU is still empty handed. Where is our climate target? Where is our contribution to the global COP agenda? And at the same time, country after country failed to reach their climate goals, and they're all pretending that it's not a big deal. But the targets of Sweden, of Denmark, of France, Romania, Bulgaria and Germany, they sum up to the EU target and the EU target is aligned according to the Paris Agreement. So when your country fails on your national targets, you are failing on the EU target and you are betraying the Paris Agreement. I am going to Brazil with a clear message to Ulf Kristersson and the other heads of state and government who avoid responsibility: it's time to wake up. It is time to show leadership and show that you are supporting the Paris Agreement. And to you, Hoekstra, good luck in Belém. And it does not make sense that the global stocktake only takes place every fifth year. This House demands more frequent follow-up. Good luck with that.

Mr President, thank you very much. Forests offer recreation. They store carbon, protect biodiversity and enable rural communities to live and develop. National experts are those who know forests best and must be at the heart of EU policies affecting forests. Because the conditions vary from Lapland to the Alps, between Finland and Spain, it is precisely this local expertise that is crucial. For decades, the Standing Forestry Committee has served as an important link between Member States and the European Commission. And as we modernise it, we must ensure that this cooperation, and the spirit of cooperation, lives on. I therefore hope that you will support this proposal and vote to maintain and preserve this important cooperation that puts local expertise and national experts at the heart of EU work and EU forest policy.

Mr President, today our national forest monitoring systems speak different languages. With this law, we have an opportunity to build a system that would be able to translate those languages into a common European one, a language that could help us understand why forest fires grow more common, why bark beetle attacks become more severe, to help and assist our forest owners. The Commission proposal was not perfect, but this was a perfect opportunity to guarantee the involvement of the Member States, to put the Member State authorities in the centre, and to ensure true subsidiarity in the field of forests – values that many of you in this side of the House (speaker gestures to the right of the House) say that you cherish. I will warn you, because if this law is rejected, information will still be used, but without the right safeguards, without any way for the Member States to ensure that the data is used correctly. Don't distrust information, colleagues, don't make this vote a lost opportunity to strengthen the Member States' role in forest-related policies.

Mr President, I've got a message for you, the climate deniers and the climate delayers of this House – you who love to blame electric vehicles for everything. You blame them for higher energy prices and lack of competitiveness. Well, guess what? You are the ones to blame for the higher energy prices and the lack of competitiveness. You are so stubborn, but the logic isn't there. First, you say it isn't true. Then science comes and proves you wrong. Then you say if we can't fix it, there's no technical solution. Then industry comes and gives you the technology and shows that it's possible. Then you say it costs too much, it will be too expensive. Then businesses come and show you the business case. They show you that it's done and it's possible, and it is feasible. Then you say it's too risky. But you know what? You are the ones hesitating. You are the ones creating this risk for industry when you're drawing back on policy after policy. Your dependence on dirty energy, your refusal to let go of all the fossil energy – that's what's driving up prices and that's what's causing us lack of competitiveness.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today I want to talk directly to you, all Swedish farmers. It's a long way from your yards here to Brussels and Strasbourg. But the fact is, I hear you all the way here. Tomorrow we will vote on two simplification packages that are designed just for you, to make life easier at home on the farms. But we in the policy also do not make it easy for you, because even before these packages come into force, the European Commission has presented a completely new agricultural policy for 2027. That's the point now. For in this agricultural policy, the one that will become the new EU agricultural policy and CAP, there are keys to increase profitability, prevent natural disasters, solve labour shortages and perhaps still worry about who is going to take over the farm when you at home are going to retire in a well-deserved retirement. We in the Centre Party are prepared to roll up our sleeves and do the work. Today we are voting in favour of simplifying the rules. Tomorrow we will deal with the next generation of agricultural policy.

Mr President, here we go again. We have had another summer with a record of forest and wildfires: almost 1 million hectares have burned this year. At the same time, cities like Stockholm have faced severe water shortages. And this week, more regions in Sweden are hit by devastating floods. New studies from this summer also shows that the Gulf Stream might collapse within our lifetime. Climate change is here and now, but where is the political response? Where is the climate leadership? What are we doing in this House? We can't even agree on a 2040 target – a new climate target in between two existing targets. We don't even have the leadership for that. So I'm turning to you, EPP, the conservative group of this House: my very cynical conclusion is that with the current climate leadership, the Paris Agreement would not be possible today. We do not have enough leadership. But I am looking to you, EPP. You can change this. Please show us leadership. Don't hesitate. Don't join forces with the climate sceptics. You say it's expensive. But this change – this climate change – that is what will be expensive and that is what will ruin us. Please show us the leadership we need.

Madam President, thank you very much. We need to talk about PFAS, these perpetual chemicals, created by humans and completely impossible to break down – the very definition of unsustainable. They are everywhere: in the water we drink, in the air we breathe and in the products we consume. Although we know how harmful they are to humans and animals and that they accumulate in nature, this Parliament seems completely incapable of doing anything about the problem. We know that up to 60% of our watercourses, 30% of our lakes and an increasing number of food products contain PFAS. All of you in here and probably all of you listening have most likely PFAS in your blood. The presentation of a report encouraging the phasing out of PFAS is a disgrace. We need to be clear: We need a ban on perpetual chemicals and we need it now if it is to be of any use. By not acting, we choose to continue this self-harm. We need to act now.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. The fact that these issues are being discussed today is both welcome and important. But let's be honest: What our oceans need is not more discussions and conversations. We need to act. In the Baltic Sea, we can see how environmental degradation continues, how our marine ecosystems are being destroyed and how fish stocks are close to collapse completely. This can't go on. We need a strong maritime pact that prioritises the environment and a sustainable blue economy, rather than emissions and large-scale industrial fishing. Because I know that progress can be reversed, but then the European Maritime Pact needs to be concrete and lead to clear results for the environment. We can see that our ecosystems can recover and we can protect small-scale fishing. And we can stop the pollution that is released into our oceans. We can do all of this, but we need to act now.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner for Agriculture, Where's the profit? The vision for European agriculture talks about income, income and income. But what European farmers need is profit, profit, profit. I am disappointed that we are setting the bar so low, because if agriculture is the backbone of society, food is its heart. At a time when farmers across Europe are sounding the alarm that the economy is not coming together, while consumers are spending a historically low percentage of their income on food, we dare not say as it is: Farmers should be able to make a profit. No profit, no investments in conversion or efficiency improvements. No profit, no competitiveness or generational renewal. Without profit, no security for our farmers. We have a clear task ahead of us to increase the income of agriculture and lower its costs because we need both the spine and the heart. So don't be blind to income, dare to talk about profit and profitability! For money may not grow on trees, but capital will grow on every farm, and that is my vision for European agriculture.

Mr President, in 2015, the Commission launched the plans for the energy union in order to make us more independent from Russian gas. Now, seven years later, we see the results from the major investment in LNG terminals and gas infrastructure and so on. And the result is very clear: at the start of this war, we were more dependent on Russian gas than ever. We import more, we use more gas and we import more gas from Russia. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. So my question is to you, Commissioner: how will you make sure we don't repeat our mistakes? How will you make sure that the affordable energy action plan actually phases out gas and Russian gas for good? We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again, and our new plans really need to make sure that we get rid of these dependencies, not dig us deeper into them.

My question is simple: do you want to end the war? Because if you want to end the war, it's quite clear that the more finance, the more euros we put in Putin's pockets, the harder it would be for Ukraine to win. So, sanctioning Russian energy, sanctioning the oil and gas – well, it's the obvious answer. If we want to end the war, we cannot finance a war. So, do you really want to end it?

Mr President, thank you very much. Last year was the warmest year ever recorded. In fact, every year from now on looks to be the warmest year ever. As if that were not enough, today a climate denier is sworn in as president of one of the world's largest countries again. Most recently, he withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and there is no doubt or doubt that he will do so again. The world's most powerful man completely ignores the climate crisis, and even here in Europe we see the same tendencies. Because it sounds so easy to do nothing and pretend that the climate crisis does not exist, but the fact is that it is more expensive to wait. It's harder to do nothing, and it's bigger changes to pretend that the climate crisis and climate change don't exist. We know what we have to do, we have to do it now: Raise the cost of emissions, stop fossil fuels and make it cheaper to choose fossil-free. And above all, we must help to keep the border with the climate deniers.

This is ridiculous. You and the Sweden Democrats regret the climate crisis and high emissions in China when the Sweden Democrats voted against the EU emissions trading system that prices industry instead of ordinary people. You voted against the CBAM, which is pricing emissions in China, and you are voting against renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. In fact, the Sweden Democrats, you have worse climate policy than the Alternative for Deutschland. Do you think, Beatrice, that it is credible to stand here and complain about the climate crisis, while your party does not have a single concrete, sensible proposal for how we should lower emissions and meet the 1.5-degree target?

Mr President, colleagues, I've been listening and you say you don't want the Green Deal because you don't want a change, that it will be expensive, but wake up – open your eyes. With 3.1 °C of climate change – that's what will change society, that's what will be expensive. So what you are proposing is actually going into much more change and a much more costly scenario. Open your eyes – it's happening every day, like in Valencia in October, in Romania in September, and Mayotte just last week. It is everywhere. We are not done, and I don't want to spend another second in this House talking about how we're going to draw back on the Green Deal – I want to talk on how we can move forward. So we're still not pricing fossil raw materials. Can we please discuss how we can do that to really create competitiveness on the ones not using fossil fuels? We only just started working on negative emissions; that is policy we need to roll out in order to be successful in really implementing the negative emissions. We are far from a robust and fossil-free energy system. Let's talk about that, how we can create real competitiveness and not look back.

Mr President, so, how to summarise this COP29? It's a mixed bag of feelings: from disappointment to embarrassment to determination and a relief that there is a deal. But we have to ask ourselves, what will future generations remember from Baku? And just as many times before, we didn't do enough, we didn't do it in time, and we didn't do it in place. We have to face it. The USD 300 billion – well, looking at inflation until 2035, it's barely an increase of ambitions. We have to learn from this. The EU, in this Parliament, we can do more, we can do better, we can do it earlier and we can do it sooner. And this will have to be done if we are going to change and get away from the 3.1 °C hell scenario of climate change. Next year in Brazil, we have to do better! I'm not satisfied with the efforts of this Union. I am not satisfied by the efforts of this Parliament, nor with the global commitment. But I am determined that we can improve, simply because we have to.

Ondřej, the 3.1 °C scenario of climate change – that is what will destroy Europe's economy. Is that really your message to the small island states, the developing countries that have not emitted historically but are now suffering from climate change? Their islands are disappearing, and your message is 'we are destroying our economy'? We built our economy based on fossil fuels. They have none, and we are destroying their possibilities of living. That is what the USD 3 billion is all about, taking responsibility for what we have caused them.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Every COP counts. This isn't a gimmick. For every COP, we are making progress on climate cooperation, which is needed now more than ever. But I am ashamed to go as a Swede to Baku and negotiate for the COP when we have a government that repeatedly fails the climate work. The most effective way to get the rest of the world to increase climate ambition is to increase climate finance and ensure that we live up to our climate goals. Then it is not good enough to do as the Swedish government and ignore the climate goals. Every country must meet its climate goals. We must stop financing fossil fuels. We need to increase climate finance tenfold, and it is time for countries such as China, Singapore and Saudi Arabia to contribute to climate action and climate finance. That is what we voted on today in this resolution. I'm going to Baku as a proud European and I hope that Sweden will keep up.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your 600 ghost ships – floating environmental disasters right into Putin’s war chest. It goes without saying, this is completely unacceptable. Unregistered, uninsured and unreliable. We must act, and we must act now. So let me be specific. There has been a lot of talk and a little workshop here today. First of all, we need to shut down European waters for these vessels. Close English Channel, make it mandatory with pilots if you are going into the Baltic Sea. Secondly, the current monitoring is far too inadequate. Satellites are not good enough. We need to point-mark these ships with drones. Thirdly, we need to slim down the market: The supply of ghost ships. The EU can take it upon itself to buy and scrap these shadow ships, so that they do not end up in Russia's hands. Fourthly, we need to use the blacklist – make sure to top it up with much more vessels. And fifthly, we need to be prepared and start coordinating for when the environmental catastrophe is a fact. Stop Russia, stop the shadow fleet! Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, I would like to thank you. First of all, I would like to deplore the sadness and the situation that the people affected by flooding in Eastern Europe are currently facing, and the extreme weather that is taking place throughout this Union. It is high time that this issue was raised in plenary. Extreme weather is becoming more frequent as climate change increases and we need to pull our heads out of the sand. This is why we must continue to work hard to reduce emissions and strengthen climate action. Too often it is farmers, people around our countryside, forest owners who are hit hardest by extreme weather. This is about our food supply and the opportunity to live and work throughout the country. We see it in Sweden as well. Droughts, forest fires, floods are increasing all the time and have done so for the last ten years. We must continue to talk about the climate issue, but we must also talk about climate adaptation, adapting both society and the individual farm. We need a new framework and regulations to strengthen climate adaptation, but also a climate adaptation fund so that there is money to deal with these extreme challenges we face.

Mr President, isn't it a little bit typical that when we're talking about competitiveness, this room is full. And now when we're talking about one of the most important pillars to get there, well, let's say it's not as full. But first of all, Commissioner Simpson, I want to say thank you, because this report really witnesses about results. Imagine where we were just a few years ago. We really see now that the Energy Union is benefiting us and creating results. However, there are five things that still worry me. And I have to mention them, or otherwise there wouldn't be a debate. First of all, we only have 10 national energy and climate plans submitted from the Member States. That is not good enough. Second of all, 18 % of the gas is still Russian. Thirdly, fossil fuel boilers dominate the heating systems. Fourth, the fossil fuel subsidies are still there. Even though we go to COP after COP promising we will do something about it, we still haven't managed to deliver getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies. And fifth, as the report states, the retail electricity prices are still two or three times higher than in the US. These are key elements of this report that we in this House need to learn from, and I hope to see that the next Energy Commissioner is also really focusing on them. Finally, I have two questions related to the last bullet on energy prices. Can you give us an update on the interconnectivity targets and where we are there? Because I missed that in this report. And also, what's the status of the review of the congestion zones and pricing zones that we so desperately need to have a functioning electricity market in the EU? Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you so much for your hard work these past five years.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. There are many interesting proposals here now that the dialogue for strengthening European agriculture is being presented, and I look forward to the Commission now also making a workshop of these proposals that our farmers have been involved in developing. It is particularly important that the signal is now clear that a new animal welfare law is needed. The industry and the dialogue, our farmers agree that we need to strengthen animal welfare in Europe for the benefit of animals, for reduced use of antibiotics but also for farmers' competitiveness. It is unreasonable for farmers to compete on the same market under totally different conditions. With different requirements for the best interests of the animals, the costs for eggs, for milk, for pork tenderloin will be totally different if you have produced it in Sweden, in Denmark, Ireland, Greece or Romania. We can't have that. The rules of the game need to be levelled out, which is why my question to the Commission is: When are you going to present the new Animal Welfare Act that we have been asking for so long, that you have been delaying and delaying? My husband and I are waiting impatiently.