Debate contributions by Pascal ARIMONT

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Over the last five years, a total of 500 people have been killed by floods in Europe, including in Valencia. Nature strikes relentlessly. It tears people to death and devastates entire regions. The flood destroys countless habitats and thus countless life dreams. All experts agree: The increase in these disastrous natural disasters is not linear in the future, but exponential. Disasters are therefore not only a national or regional matter, but are now and increasingly a European matter, based on the figures. This applies to information that something can happen, this applies to coordination when something happens, and this applies to aid for resilient reconstruction. In the face of these disasters and the increasing number of disasters, Europe must be more than a single market for goods. Europe must be a single market for solidarity. Victims in Valencia deserve it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We debate forest fires every year. Let's also talk about those who extinguish these wildfires: Our firefighters, especially the many volunteers. They deserve not only our respect, but also concrete support. They need strategies that can be implemented in practice, that make their use easier and not more difficult. Two points I would like to point out: One is the social statute of the many volunteer firefighters; It must not be an obstacle. Anyone who voluntarily protects our lives must not have any financial disadvantages due to the rules of social security. Second point – a difficult word: Fire hose couplings. A concrete example: While the Belgian firefighters use DSP couplings of the Guillemin system, the so-called Storz system is standard in Germany and the Netherlands, and these are direct neighbouring countries. This leads to the loss of valuable time during joint operations, and this can cost lives. Conclusion: Civil protection must be thought of more European than ever before. Let's work on it together!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, When a deuterium and a tritium hydrogen isotope merge in the plasma state at an extremely high temperature, energy is generated. Whether this energy can then generate electricity at an industrial level is perhaps one of the most interesting questions of our time. Fusion energy can play a promising role in combating climate change and in our energy sovereignty. The truth is, however, that this highly complex technology is not yet fully developed. Whether and when a first functioning fusion reactor will be created is not clear. The question is therefore: Should this technology, which could produce clean and safe energy, be supported or not? And if so, how? My answer is very clear: Yes, yes! Similar to battery and hydrogen, we should and must develop a European fusion strategy and, as soon as possible, create a separate legal framework that must be clearly separated from nuclear fission. Fusion energy does not pose the same risks as a nuclear reactor. In addition, the merger should be regulated in a risk framework adapted to it. For example, fusion plants produce virtually no nuclear waste. Their risks to public safety and the environment are much lower than those of nuclear fission. The mergers industry urgently needs legal certainty, i.e. a legal framework with which developers and investors can work in the coming years and which facilitates access to finance. Ladies and gentlemen, the United States and the United Kingdom have done just that. We, the EU, have excellent research institutions and the brightest minds in the world, a highly skilled workforce and, with ITER in Cadarache in southern France, the largest experimental fusion project on earth. Fusion energy can – and I believe it will – become a key technology. We have to act now, otherwise the music will play elsewhere.

Mr President! The images we are seeing right now from Eastern Europe are dramatic, and they remind me very much of what happened in Belgium in 2021. Our sympathy should therefore be with these people in Eastern Europe. And yes, it has a lot to do with climate change. Europe must show solidarity: We have two mechanisms, the Civil Protection Mechanism and the Solidarity Fund. I will tell you a little story about the Solidarity Fund, from my experience from 2021. A school was destroyed by the floods. The mayor wanted to rebuild this school. This school was built for $6 million. If it could or should have been built resiliently, it would have cost 10 million; The mayor didn't have that money, and that's why she wasn't built resiliently. So we need some kind of new fund, some kind of Climate adaptationFund that allows people to build more resilient. And then there's another problem. Maybe I should mention: Belgium received 87 million from the Solidarity Fund at the time – we had losses of up to 4 billion; So the realisation is that this solidarity fund is not working. But I want to break another lance for the firefighters. Many volunteer firefighters do this and help us and take care of our safety. But they lack a single statute, a social statute in Europe. For many firefighters, being a volunteer firefighter is now more expensive financially than not being one. We must therefore find a rule that this should be regulated at European level so that these volunteer firefighters continue to ensure our safety.