Speeches

Mr President, even in the context of the current dramatic situation, we must continue to support our ambitious climate goals. This will also reduce dependence on third countries and strengthen our autonomy. The European Union must remain a global leader in reducing emissions. But it's not just up to us to keep warming to just one and a half degrees, and that's why in Sharm el Sheikh, too, we have to push for the rest of the world to live up to its commitments. But the reality is different. There is a big gap between our ambitions in the developed world and what we are committed to and do. Enough of the promises, enough of further raising the targets. We can't push the saw. We need concrete steps to address the climate emergency and prevent unnecessary hundreds of thousands of deaths from climate change, from urgently reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing resilience and adapting populations to drastic climate change, to commitments to sustainable climate finance in developing countries. We also need to mobilise private investment and involve sectors that have been responsible for the greatest pollution for decades. If we are serious about the climate, we must also prevent the export of emissions and trade with countries that do not meet the strict criteria that we have set ourselves in our Union.

Mr President, the largest fertiliser producer in Slovakia and, at the same time, one of the largest in Europe, Duslo Šaľa shut down its operations in August. The official reason was revision and possible repairs, but production has not yet resumed. Indeed, high gas and electricity prices, but above all the lack of assistance from the Union and our government, as well as bad laws, make it really difficult to restore production. But there are many chemical companies that have shut down their production in Europe because of the ongoing war in Ukraine, our sanctions and Russian countermeasures. Much of the ammonia and mineral fertiliser production in Europe has practically stopped. In some EU countries, farmers have stopped buying fertilizers. In others, they are still shopping, but at huge prices that have a devastating impact on their competitiveness. This situation really requires a responsible approach from us, otherwise we will endanger our food security, but also global food security. We need to find effective solutions to ensure that fertiliser prices are reduced and take steps to diversify their supply. The European Union therefore needs a new strategy that will make our fertiliser production, and consequently our agriculture, less dependent on external factors and less dependent on the use of mineral fertilisers for our suppliers and our farmers.

Mr President, if the European Union wants to become a real leader, it really needs to further increase its investment in both science and research, as well as in space, which we need to use in cooperation with other great powers and preserve for future generations. Space-related services already account for 10% of the European Union's GDP. Space traffic, which has increased sharply in recent years due to the decreasing cost of launching satellites into orbit, complicates this situation. It is currently estimated that there are up to 1 million objects larger than 1 centimetre in Earth’s orbit, moving at a speed of 56 thousand km/h. In the event of a collision, there may indeed be major damage and an increase in space debris. As an actor in space policy who wants to be a leader, the European Union must also put more pressure on other states to agree to cooperate in the use of space, as well as to adopt a more gentle and sustainable stance. It is therefore very regrettable in this context and it is, in fact, a great tragedy that this war and the Russian Federation’s war of aggression in Ukraine are continuing. I therefore fully support this initiative of the European Commission and the European Union's common approach to space traffic management.

Mr President, the Schengen area is undoubtedly one of the core pillars and privileges of the European Union. I fully recognise the need to be extremely careful while judging the preparedness of the countries to fulfil the criteria, especially when it comes to the necessity to protect external borders. Here we have to say that Romania and Bulgaria have since 11 years met all the technical conditions and passed all the stress tests, even the massive arrival of the Ukrainian refugees. But they have still not been granted membership of the Schengen area. On the contrary, they have been held hostage to the political games of some Member States. Already last year, when voting on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, I supported the accession of both countries to Schengen and once again I appeal to the Council to grant the entry to Romania and Bulgaria immediately. The Romanians and Bulgarians deserve the privilege to use all the benefits that EU membership provides us with, including the genuine free movement of people without border controls.

, – Thank you very much for the question. I think that there is no, I would say, clear, absolute answer to your question. I think that we are not here to judge and to blame someone. I think that also the European Union has taken in the past some really politically motivated decisions which were not correct. I would maybe – and I don’t want to blame anyone, I repeat – but some decisions also taken, for example, in Germany some years ago, when all the cards have been put to the gas imported from Russia, was not a good solution. And also on the EU level, we can also testimony about the decisions which were not very correct, but maybe there was some a goodwill and kind of naivety.

Madam President, Commissioner, since the coronavirus pandemic and now since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have been talking about the need to strengthen our strategic autonomy in industrial policy and the overall resilience of our economy. Whether with recovery plans or other European funds. Our strategic autonomy must be underpinned by a competitive industrial base, strong investment in research and innovation, and in key supply chains in particular for critical raw materials. However, the current supply chain model is being demolished. The idea that Europe can still produce cheaply in China, import everything into its territory and have only clean industry in its territory has simply gone bankrupt. Moreover, we cannot then switch from energy dependence on Russia to raw material dependence on China. If we want to maintain independence, energy security and self-sufficiency, we need to use all the available raw materials in our territory. Of course, provided that state-of-the-art technologies and environmentally friendly practices are used. Europe has fallen asleep in its own illusion of trade diplomacy. The global supply of chips from the automotive industry depends on Taiwan. As for the supply of precious metals, this market is dominated by China. The Commission needs to continue to work on the list of strategic raw materials, as well as to continue building different alliances with partners and all actors involved in the field, i.e. the battery alliance and the other alliances that are being built on raw materials or also on the use of solar energy and hydrogen. (The speaker agreed to respond to the speech after raising the blue card.)

Madam President, Commissioner, we have a really difficult winter ahead of us. The insolvency of many businesses, the stifling of production and also redundancies are coming. And the decline of many households to poverty. In addition to measures such as capping the prices of different energy sources or possibly limiting the revenues of some energy companies producing electricity at low production costs, which must be temporary, we also need other measures. And that is, above all, a quick and adequate response to our people who rightly ask us for help. And they don't care if we do this by taxing the excess profits of energy companies, or by subsidizing energy prices by these companies. Simply, we must transfer these billions from these wealthy societies to the poorer people, and especially to households. Nowadays, it is clear that it is not only Putin who can be high, that is just an excuse. But also our bad decisions from the past and also the speculation of various hedge funds, especially on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, where, as we know, for borrowed money they can push gas prices up. If we are talking about the solidarity of Europe's levies, it cannot be just a recommendation to heat less, or to light less and save less. We cannot recommend saving to the poor, for it is absurd, as if we were telling the hungry to eat less. We simply need strong social measures. And those governments that have unspent structural funds must also be given the opportunity to use them for social compensation for households and businesses.

Mr President, we are in an unprecedented crisis. While large energy-type businesses are getting rich and generating windfall profits, more and more people are falling into energy poverty. Therefore, the European Commission's proposal to introduce this tax may contribute to raising the money needed to finance the fight against the energy crisis, but above all, it may at least partially dampen high energy prices. But then this tax should not only apply to energy companies, but we should also apply it to companies that have benefited, for example, during the coronavirus pandemic, and to large pharmaceutical companies, as well as to digital giants, especially the so-called GAFAM five. It should be pointed out that they have indeed already adopted such a tax in Italy, the United Kingdom, but also in Romania, and everywhere there are different reactions to it, one might say. But is a tax on increased energy companies necessary in all? I don't think so. This is also why the European Commission did not dare to propose an EU-wide tax, but only encouraged Member States to introduce it. People don't care how we get money from the increased profits of the energy sector, but they expect us to do it now.

Mr President, if we were to face the situation half a year ago, when the Commission proposed extending the taxonomy to include gas and nuclear, I would support an objection to this. However, the new energy price and security challenges resulting from the war in Ukraine are forcing us to look at the whole thing from a slightly different perspective. The non-inclusion of nuclear and gas could undermine our energy security, put pressure on further price increases and exacerbate poverty. It is clear to me that these are not green energy sources, but we need them in the transition period. Moreover, if we are going to replace Russian gas, we also need investment in infrastructure capable of transporting LNG from distant terminals to Central Europe. As far as nuclear is concerned, let us take Germany, which recently gave up nuclear power and now has to return to coal, which will probably not speed up the reduction of emissions. The non-approval of this taxonomy will send a signal to private investors that investing in gas- and nuclear-related infrastructure is no longer worthwhile. This will only increase the financial pressure on countries such as Slovakia, which will all the more need to invest in the necessary technological changes from the money of their own taxpayers. In conclusion, I will summarise by saying that we have two choices. One is ideologically pure and the other is a compromise, but a rational and pragmatic one. I don’t think that the second approach in any way reduces our decarbonisation targets.

Mr President, many of the measures proposed, Commissioner, can only be welcomed, because they make energy savings possible, especially through greater energy efficiency, but also through greater deployment of renewables. I have a few remarks. Firstly, we need to be really honest with our citizens, if we want to urgently reduce energy dependence on Russia, it will cost a lot of money, which will be largely paid for by citizens, for example by higher energy bills or even at petrol stations. And we must also invest in infrastructure to import alternative fossil fuels. That's what we normally wouldn't want to do, we have a Green Deal. Renewable energy will not allow us to find alternatives to oil and gas from Russia. We must also bear in mind that those countries that could be alternative carriers for our needs are far from democracies, but rather regimes, and they are also more interested in long-term contracts than short-term contracts. Let's not talk about 300 billion, either, because it makes people think it's some new money, but it's just transfers of existing money from existing funds. And for landlocked countries such as Slovakia or Hungary, which are at the end of all alternative gas routes, it is very important to ensure investment in LNG terminals, as well as in interconnectors, interconnectors, and it seems to me that the proposed 10 billion will not be enough.

Mr President, the situation of marginalised communities in the European Union is a particularly serious problem. The coronavirus pandemic has significantly contributed to further exacerbating poverty, social exclusion and the health of disadvantaged communities. In countries such as my own, Slovakia, the consequences of sanctions on energy sources from Russia may further exacerbate this poverty. We are talking today about electric cars, about digitalisation, but even this morning, 30% of Roma in households without access to drinking water have woken up in the Union. This is unacceptable in the 21st century and we cannot talk about solidarity or European values or social Europe in this way. I am pleased that the Commissioner has also stressed today that 80% of Roma in the Union live below the poverty line. To date, in my country, Slovakia, 50 Roma settlements are completely without a source of drinking water, and a total of up to 500 settlements have access only to a public water supply or a well. I personally know dozens of Roma and their families from my native country and their daily social problems and really, believe me, they are serious. Imagine that the Slovak government, despite promises of more efficient spending of EU funds by the end of 2023, will probably have to repay more than two thirds of the money from the Operational Programme Human Resources. It is likely that more than EUR 250 million will be lost, which may also have benefited disadvantaged Roma communities. Commissioner, we have to do something about this.

Mr President, dear colleagues, TEN-E is a key to connect our energy infrastructure within the EU. Without robust investments into infrastructure and interconnections between Member States it will not be effectively possible to decarbonise our economy and achieve our climate and energy goals, nor decrease our dependency and increase our autonomy. If Europe wants to decrease or even cut off dependency on Russian gas and strengthen its energy security, then cross-border energy infrastructure is crucial. As a reaction to war in Ukraine, Commission has to assess new infrastructure needs, which will be carried outside the scope of the TEN-E Regulation. In this context, I welcome the REPowerEU plan of the Commission to urgently reduce EU demand for Russian gas, including measures to respond to rising energy prices, replenish gas stocks for next winter, diversify gas supplies, and above all speed up the rollout of the renewables. We should not forget about the countries like mine, Slovakia, that have worse conditions for renewables such as photovoltaic or wind energy. If we want to increase our autonomy, we need solidarity within the Member States and infrastructure to distribute green energy and ensure no one is left behind.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, let me thank the rapporteur Angelika Winzig for the fruitful cooperation in reaching the agreement on this revision, also to other shadow rapporteurs from other political groups. ‘Roaming like at home’ became a reality in 2017 and it changed our travelling patterns forever. After more than two years of pandemic, with the war in Ukraine, Europe is now facing even more serious challenges. As S&D negotiator for roaming, I am glad we managed not only to extend the rules for another 10 years, but also to remove existing barriers and discriminatory practices. We managed to further lower wholesale prices, introduced guarantee of quality of service, improve transparency and secure free access to emergency services. All of this hasn’t been the case until now. Europeans benefiting from free movement cannot be punished with lower quality or higher charges, no matter where they come from or how long they stay in another Member State. Facing the war in Ukraine, I am happy that I insisted on inclusion of the free roaming provisions also in the international agreements to be concluded in the future. In this context, I think that the lower charges for mobile-phone use in Europe should be very helpful to all the refugees coming from Ukraine.

Madam President, the war in Ukraine confirmed how vital it is for Europe to increase its resilience and strategic autonomy in all key sectors in order to increase the competitiveness of our industries and, above all, decrease our dependence on third countries, including Russia. In this context, let me mention the European Battery Alliance established by the Vice-President of the European Commission, Maros Šefčovič, is a good example of how to decrease both dependency on foreign countries and emissions at the same time. We are moving towards strategic autonomy in this sector, which is critical for the Green and Digital transformation. The total investment with the entire battery value chain reached EUR 127 billion, which makes Europe a global battery hotspot. At this pace, we are set to meet almost 90% of the domestic demand for batteries by 2030, but satisfying a growing demand depends on our ability to face two challenges: critical raw materials and skills. Almost one million workers need to be re-skilled in the next three years. Securing supplies of critical raw materials such as lithium, cobalt and magnesium is a strategic security question for Europe. Current regulation has to be used to demand stronger sustainability and performance requirements and clear targets for waste collection and recycling efficiency. Thank you also to our rapporteur, Ms Bonafè. We are going in this direction. We must make Europe more attractive for the development of sustainable raw materials projects, while respecting the highest environmental standards and protecting public health.

Mr President, today, we have to talk about both the energy prices hike and energy security. First, ETS emissions allowances. It appears that while allowances prices have fallen by a third since the start of the war in Ukraine, the gas price is rising extremely high. I think that we have seen genuine market manipulation and speculative trading in recent months. Investors have taken profits from growing prices of the allowances and moved their money elsewhere, driving the price down. It’s important for the future that the European Commission prevent such practices from happening. Current developments in Ukraine show that Europe must reduce its dependence on Russian gas as soon as possible. However, we should not forget about our own energy security. The EU currently has about 27% of gas in storage for the rest of the winter, which should be enough. But the big question is how to ensure that the storage utilities are full for next winter, by the end of November at the latest. Several analyses showed that without Russian gas, Europe will be short of at least 30 billion cubic meters of gas. So how to replace it? I know that there is the option of LNG. There are LNG terminals on the coast of northern Baltic Sea. But how do we import it, how do we take it to Central Europe? I think this is a big question and we have to think about it. We have to invest in the gas infrastructure. I don’t think now but the other option is nuclear. I know that we are not friends of nuclear, but we will need it for some time.

Madam President, we must stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, who also have the right to decide their fate. The Union must continue to support Ukraine's aspirations to become a member. As soon as it is able to comply with the prescribed conditions. As soon as we as the European Union are able and ready to accept it. Therefore, let us not create false expectations that this will happen in some foreseeable future. Today, our main task is to do everything possible to prevent war and reduce tensions, and not to promote hysteria, as some politicians and the media do, predicting, for example, that war will begin today. On the contrary, it seems that, following the diplomatic initiatives of Germany and France, even if we listen to Ukrainian statesmen, the possibility of the outbreak of war has, fortunately, been reduced for the time being. The information about the inland movement of part of the Russian troops, even if perhaps only symbolic, is a good signal that diplomatic efforts need to be continued. We should strive to build a pan-European security architecture where every state feels safe, like France, like Slovakia or Lithuania. But no one, not even the Alliance, has the right to expand its security at the expense of another state. The geopolitical reality is that until Russia feels safe in Europe, unfortunately we will not feel safe either.

Madam President, the EU strategy for offshore renewable energy is an opportunity to support investments, and the EU has the potential to be a global leader in this sector. We have to make sure that the deployment and investments in offshore renewable energy will be cost effective. Member States should mobilise funds also from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and investment from Horizon Europe should support the research and development of new technologies. We need to safeguard our climate and energy but also the diversity of targets, which is crucial for balance between large—scale deployment of offshore and the protection of biodiversity. We need co—existence between both. Fossil fuels and especially fossil subsidies should be phased out as soon as possible, but the different starting positions as well as the different potential of Member States to produce renewable energy should be respected. In this context, it is fair also to allow at least some Member States to use decarbonised gas and nuclear energy for a very, I would say, transitional period under very strict emissions and safety requirements.

Mr President, the cheapest energy is still the one we save and do not have to produce at all, and therefore our priority must be to increase energy efficiency. But let us be fair and admit that if the Union imports raw materials from third countries whose production does not respect our green but also our social standards, we only export emissions and contribute to increasing them elsewhere. But the planet we live on is only one. At home, we have to respect the different starting positions of individual states. In a few more years, both gas and nuclear will need to be used to decarbonise faster. Of course, priority must be given to renewables, while cross-border electricity transmission capacities must be strengthened in the future. The need to strengthen resilience and energy security is all the more pressing as rising energy prices put vulnerable households at risk. Even if people understand the need for emission reductions and green reforms, they will only support them if social safeguards are in place, which is why we need to be more ambitious in ensuring social justice and allocate more money to the Climate Social Fund and cover other activities with it than just some training or retraining.

Mr President, the conclusions from Glasgow have not killed the hope that our planet will no longer warm as fast and intensely as it has hitherto. Europe is responsible for only 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, while our biggest competitors are China and the US far more. It is not enough that they announce ambitious targets, but we must push them through climate diplomacy to translate them into practice. The world has not decided to take revolutionary steps in Glasgow, as we have recently done by adopting the Green Deal, which we are trying to translate into concrete steps through the Fit for 55 package. Some proposals raise controversies and it will not be easy to agree on them. And it will be even more difficult to implement them with the consent of citizens. On the other hand, Frans Timmermans is right that if we don't take radical steps today, then we risk not being able to change much later. We must do everything we can to maintain the competitiveness of our planet, to prevent the deepening of energy poverty and the division of people into privileged and marginalised. Only through social justice will we get more people on the side of greening our economy, transport and housing. People expect specific social guarantees from us. It can also be a climate social fund, but it needs to be more ambitious, we need to strengthen its financing not only through emission permits, and the scope of its use needs to be expanded.

Madam President, after the unprecedented hike in energy prices, at least in some Member States, people will have to choose between heating and eating. Unbelievable! We have to do our utmost in order to avoid the deepening of energy poverty, which could soon affect up to 80 million people in Europe. The suffering people expect us to deliver very concrete measures and not to blame others for our failure. Excuse me, but it is not Putin’s fault that we are facing this hike in energy prices. The Commissioner has said that the long-term contracts from Russia are being respected. After what happened around Nord Stream 2, we can only hope that the Russians, defending their business and playing their geopolitical games, would now be willing to increase their supplies, in order to help us and to correct our own faults. So what can we do and what kind of lessons should we learn? First, we should defend people from energy poverty and keep our industry competitive. All Member States received a massive income from the emissions trading system to their budgets, so allow them to send a part of these financial resources back to consumers. This could help millions of people to pay financial bills – not only for energy consumption, but for all other goods as well. Second, Europe should rapidly decrease its dependence on imports of fossil fuels – it doesn’t matter from which source. Therefore, we need to use more renewables, including also the greening of the gas industry via hydrogen and biomethane, which should also serve as a backup for unstable wind and solar plants. Having said that, it’s impossible that we still rely on the production of coal plants, which is the most dirty energy resource of electricity. Third, we need to strengthen our energy security. Each Member State must create their strategic gas reserves and impose it from all gas supplies in the market as well. To conclude my speech, this gas and electricity price shock is just another crisis, and the EU has to act together if we want to solve it.

Madam President, I say to the House and the Commissioner: the post-pandemic re-opening of the economies is followed by increased demand for raw materials. Current market conditions include huge supply chain disruption and sudden price increase. And so sectorial stakeholders call upon the Member States and, especially, the Commission to proceed with the appropriate action. Some of them, I would say very important, have been already addressed and adopted. However, challenges of the sector cannot be a reason not to reach our energy and climate targets. Remember that the construction sector accounts for one third of EU waste. We must accelerate the transition of the sector towards a greener, sustainable model, as greater material efficiency could save up to 80% of the emissions produced. We need to reduce our strategic dependence. Here, the launch of the alliances for batteries and hydrogen are good examples to be followed. We should not forget also about the 18 million jobs in the EU that are linked to the construction sector, and to minimise negative side effects of the transition by creating other sustainable jobs and reskilling for those who will be affected.

Mr President, one of the main lessons of this pandemic is that we need to invest in research and innovation and to increase our strategic resilience. In the light of the pandemic I welcome the ‘ERA vs Corona’ action plan that calls for a deepening of cooperation, data sharing and coordination of research and innovation and funding against the coronavirus between the Commission and the Member States. Progress made since 2000 in ERA’s ambition to create a genuine single market for research is visible. But we should have got much further, and there are still large disparities between Member States. Recent developments with the virus mutations clearly proved European money should be invested in long-term solutions such as effective and innovatory diagnostics, treatments and medicines. We have to support wide clinical trials for management of coronavirus patients, including those suffering from long COVID and post-COVID symptoms that occur in more than one third of cases. We need to show our citizens that their health is our priority.