Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is simple: If companies do not comply with the Paris Agreement, then we will not be able to limit global warming to 1.5°C. And let us be clear, let us be honest, none of the European oil and gas companies, neither Repsol, nor ENI, nor of course Total, is now on the trajectory of the Paris Agreement. Things are simple: If companies continue to spread plastic or eternal pollutants throughout their value chains, then we will not be able to protect the Arctic, the Himalayas or the world’s forests from these pollutions that make our planet toxic. In short, if we are not able to re-embed the economy within planetary boundaries, then we will continue to make our planet unlivable. This is what is at stake in the text on due diligence, which we are studying and which we must adopt tomorrow. Because companies are obliged to respect the laws, rights and principles that are binding on all, and they must assume their social and environmental responsibilities. Because the lives of women workers, shattered by both forced labour and toxic products that infiltrate their bodies outside our borders, are just as valuable as the lives we have to preserve on European territory. Because when Hilda, Vanessa or Patience ask us to protect their natural parks and lands from Total's EACOP drilling project in Uganda and the world's youth claim their right to a future, we in the European Union need to act.

Mr President, the IPCC is formal: the climate crisis is abysmal and deadly, for humanity as well as for many other species. But the IPCC is also formal: it is still possible for us to act. For this, at least three foods in the recipe. The first: Freeing yourself from fossil fuels. This means stopping all funding, support for fossil energy projects and their infrastructure. And this applies to the European Union, to its Member States, but also to European businesses. We need to legislate in this direction. The second: It is dangerous to focus on carbon alone. Climate and biodiversity are linked, but they are linked with other planetary boundaries: ocean, fresh water, chemicals and toxics and rare metals. Reducing our material footprint in just sobriety, adapting and adopting the Green Deal texts on life and on toxics, this is what we need to do today. The third: Climate efficiency is based on social justice – with 16% of the richest responsible for 40% of emissions. So this is also the path we need to take. The conclusion of the IPCC is that we need to move towards carbon neutrality by 2040. So I ask you: What are we going to do?

Madam President, ‘we have made the planet inhospitable to human life by irreversibly contaminating it, so that nothing is clean anymore, so much so that it is not clean enough to be safe’. These words are those of scientific researcher Ian Cousins, evoking per- and polyfluorinated PFAS, a family of more than 10,000 substances that are eminently toxic and so persistent that they will never disappear from the Earth. In addition to the global limit for chemicals, the limit on fresh water is also exceeded. Rainwater has simply become unfit for consumption everywhere, even in the Arctic or on the Tibetan plateau. These eternal pollutants are indeed everywhere: in our kitchen utensils, clothing, packaging, paints, cosmetics, car batteries, and even dentures or toilet paper. We also find these eternal pollutants in the pesticides we apply in our fields and even in our wombs. The subject that brings us together today is serious, perhaps even the biggest scandal of the 21st century and centuries to come. Behind this raw reality, lives wasted, ecosystems destroyed. Kidney, breast, testicular cancers, reduced fertility, reduced immune response to vaccines in children, obesity too (one in three children), thyroid diseases, cardiovascular risks, and so many other diseases, surely, for which the link has not yet been established. What are we waiting for to get out of the toxic civilisation? The European consortium of journalists The Forever Pollution Project recently revealed that 17,000 industrial sites in Europe are highly contaminated and another 21,500 are likely to be - if only we bother to analyse the pollution there. Four Member States have recently requested a total ban on substances in the PFAS family. I want to express my full support for them here, but we must act now, and not just in a few years' time, to deal with the request of these four States. First, because, as with all toxic substances, it is necessary to regulate by family and not by substance, otherwise industries simply substitute one prohibited substance for another, which is just as toxic. Secondly, because certain necessary derogations must not become the rule. If manufacturers think the use of a PFAS is essential, then they must fully demonstrate it and reserve it for vital uses, such as medicine. Of course, we cannot be satisfied with the ban on these substances. In the Valley of Chemistry, south of Lyon, France, farmers are calling for help. If the soil is contaminated, then all their farms and incomes are at risk. So, what to do? Europe needs to set up a public fund financed by the polluters themselves to clean up what can still be cleaned up and provide reparations to victims. A famous American trial, traced by the film Dark Waters, showed that the chemical industry was fully aware of the devastating effects of eternal pollutants as early as 1961. But she hid them. Robert Billot, the lawyer for American families, warned us: the battle will be fierce, but industry has to pay. The mere fact that PFAS contamination was possible points to the failure of our current rules on chemicals. This is why we urgently need to revise the REACH regulation on chemicals. That is why environmentalists want once again to ask President von der Leyen about the urgency of proposing this revision, which is literally vital for so many people and ecosystems. This regulation has already existed for 20 years and has shown us all its limits. It currently takes 10 years to initiate a procedure for analysing and then banning dangerous products. At the current pace, it would take us centuries to achieve the goal of a toxic-free Europe. It is too long. And when the plastics and chemical industries – 3M, Solvay, ExxonMobil, Arkema, or Chemours – are fighting against the ban on eternal pollutants, it is BASF, VCI, BDI or CEFIC that are fighting against any reform of the REACH Regulation. They seem to have found in Commissioner Breton a strong ally, which allows them to hope to postpone the presentation of this text in December, in other words a proper burial. So let's just say it straight: If the Commission's proposal is not presented to us in June, we will not be able to adopt it by the end of the mandate, and the Commission will not be able to deliver on its repeated promises of a Europe finally free of toxic products. Recall that these are 10% cancers that could be prevented. During the time of my speech, more than 2,000 tons of eternal pollutants were produced. So let's finally be responsible and turn the page on the civilization of toxics.

Mr President, four texts, four texts to accelerate our climate action. But while the IPCC is asking us to reach carbon neutrality as early as 2040 and we are claiming that we do not want to leave anyone behind, the question arises: Are we there? With only one minute left, I will only talk about the extension of the carbon market to transport and housing. Your proposal is to increase the cost of heating, when energy poverty explodes and inflation depletes; the cost of transport as early as 2027, when many are still forced to use their thermal car due to a lack of alternatives and when free quotas will be maintained for industry until 2036. And by a market mechanism by definition unstable and volatile, responding to the law of supply and demand, when transparency and democracy should be the key words. The reality is that the vast majority of citizens can reduce their emissions through public policies, from spatial planning to building renovation, and through our ability to better regulate the private sector. The laws of economics are neither above the laws of nature nor above those governing social justice. Yes, we need a carbon price, but a fair price and a democratic price. Let’s face it, the total market is not a solution.

Well, dear colleague, it depends. There are agricultural organisations, both in Europe and around the world, who regret that we are adopting this legislation. Why? Well, simply because a large number of practices consist precisely in clearing forests, destroying ecosystems that are nevertheless the lungs of the world, the places where a certain number of people live, in order to be able to exploit products, either agricultural products, often intensive agriculture, with a lot of pesticides, dangerous products, or, more often, to raise livestock, livestock that very often ends up on our plates, since that is the purpose of this regulation that we are adopting today. And it must also mean for us in Europe to reduce our meat consumption, to change our practices. But a number of farmers around the world are as excited as we are to help them protect the ecosystems on which their lives depend.

Mr President, the decision we are adopting today is historic. This is a huge step forward for the world’s forests, climate, biodiversity, but also for human rights and, it must be remembered, the regulation of an economy that has gone mad. Because the laws of economics are not above the laws of nature. Today, the European Union is responsible for 16% of deforestation through products such as soybeans or cocoa. And so our responsibility is to guarantee Europeans that they do not contribute to the destruction of forests every time they shop. I really want to thank my colleagues, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs here. Faced with Parliament’s ambition, it is true that trilogues have not always been obvious. We can welcome the inclusion of additional products such as rubber or printed paper, as well as higher penalties for companies not complying with their obligations. We will remain vigilant because it is essential that this text is expanded in order to have an impact on fragile ecosystems such as mangroves, to include other products such as maize or to integrate financial actors that finance many projects leading to deforestation. In two years, some forests will have reached an ecological point of no return. There's an emergency. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue card intervention)

Madam President, Mr President, you are here to tell us about the discussions currently taking place between the Member States. Only, you don't say a word about Afghan women, not a word about Iranian women who keep being harassed. Not a word about Polish and Hungarian women fighting for their rights, as we celebrate the anniversary of International Women's Day. Nor do you say a word of regret about the 60 or so deaths that we have counted in the Mediterranean, murdered by our selfishness, not a word about the victims that we could receive from the most important earthquake in history, on the borders of Europe. The chair of the committee told us about the IRA and her meeting with Joe Biden without mentioning the project. Willow approved by Joe Biden in Alaska, when there is an urgent need to protect the climate and the Arctic. I ask you the question: Do the suffering of human beings and the collapse of life make you so indifferent? Are you so possessed by the demon of liberalism? What world do you live in? What world do we live in? Instead, you talk to us about free trade, competitiveness. A competitiveness of which Philippe Lamberts recalled that it was part of a finite world. It is absolutely necessary to open your eyes. We no longer have time to wait.

You are answering me, Commissioner, on the diversification of the supply of natural and enriched uranium. You do not answer the question of waste, and there is also another threat to energy security with regard to nuclear energy, which is the question of water. Nuclear is 150 to 180 liters of water to produce a megawatt hour of electricity. And it only takes a short episode of heatwave to make up to five gigawatt hours of nuclear power unavailable, or 8% of the French fleet, which is the one that supplies the rest of Europe, not to mention obviously that it endangers the supply of water for agriculture or simply for human consumption. The issue of security is therefore not finished, exhausted, once the issue of diversification of uranium resources has been resolved. I would therefore like to ask you again: how to secure energy supply and production in the European Union in the context of a nuclear energy model?

Mr President, Commissioner, we are here in a debate on the energy security of the Union and therefore also, in the background, on the security of the European Union. However, there is a blind spot in the policy that is being pursued today, namely that of uranium from Russia. Imports of natural uranium reached 2 358 tonnes in 2021, amounting to around EUR 210 million, not counting the EUR 234 million sent to Kazakhstan, where uranium is operated by the Russian company Rosatom. For France, the country I come from is almost two thirds of the enriched uranium that comes to us from Russia and 43% from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, where Rosatom or its subsidiaries also work. Not to mention the ten tons that leave each year in the form of waste to Siberia, also in Russia. Then I ask you the question. We now see a real boost for nuclear energy in European legislation. We saw it with the taxonomy, we saw it with the gas package. This can be seen in the ongoing discussions on hydrogen, or in the Energy Market Reform Directive. It may even emerge in the context of renewable energy or in projects such as BarMar, a real Trojan horse for nuclear energy. Commissioner, my question is simple: Is this not a contradiction? And how to answer this question of energy security given the context in which we are?

Madam President, COP27 is a painful failure. Some of you, Mr Vice-President, have criticised China, India or the United States for hindering climate action, sometimes with good reason. But how can we claim to be exemplary ourselves, when we persist in investing in fossil fuels? I would like to welcome here the proposal that has been put on the table on loss and damage. But how can we not deplore the European ambiguity in this matter? Europe is therefore asking developing countries to separate themselves from fossil fuels, so as to deserve the money of Western countries. But the reality is that, as a Europe, we have barely reduced our carbon footprint since 1990, and that, in addition to repairing our climate debt of yesteryear, we now have the debt linked to current climate inaction. The reality is that Member States and their companies, sometimes unfortunately supported by the Commission, signed new oil and gas contracts during COP27 with Senegal, Egypt or Qatar, to the detriment of human rights, corruption or climate evidence, which means that fossil fuels now remain under the ground. The reality is that despite repeated calls by the UN to criminalise those who damage the climate, we have not yet done so here. So, Mr Vice-President, we have no more time to waste. We must now, ladies and gentlemen, take action.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one million species at risk of extinction, 70% of wild animals already extinct since 1970. We must understand that we are one with the living and that to destroy it is also to destroy ourselves. Therefore, it is indeed imperative that we finally ratify an agreement on biodiversity. But I want to draw attention to two points. First, nature has never been protected by violating human rights. European history is marked by looting and enslavement of peoples, who have sometimes hypocritically taken the protection of nature as a pretext. This must never happen again. Secondly, there is an urgent need to protect the living from grabbing, financialisation and thus, ultimately, destruction. However, the terms of nature-based solutionsNature-based solutions are now being used even to pursue this logic of grabbing and to keep open the possibility of destroying, through a securitisation market. We must resist these liberal logics. Protecting nature means first of all recognising one’s rights and duties towards it. So let's finally take this path.

Thank you for proposing this reform of the tax rules that apply today in the European Union. It has been seen in recent decades how inept and unfit these rules are - unfit to preserve the dignity of peoples and democracy as in Greece; Unable also to guarantee the imperative of social justice, this shared prosperity at the heart of the European promise; We are ultimately unable to protect the public services, social services and essential workers that we have seen so much needed during the pandemic crisis, and we now lack 142 billion investments every year to preserve these public services. Incompetent, finally, because these rules do not – and unfortunately still do not – take into account planetary boundaries or the need to combat climate change. They do not even take into account that climate change will weigh on debts and public finances in the future. However, the laws of economics are not above the laws of nature. Liberal and accounting logic cannot chase itself, it must be put at the service of a real political objective. So my question is: how will you ensure that these rules are indeed aimed at shared prosperity and preservation of the environment? Do you not think that it is high time to amend these rules in depth, for example by means of an environmental treaty that would take account of social ceilings?

Madam President, ‘flaws large enough to carry a diesel tank through’: These are the words with which Antonio Guterres described the gaping gaps between companies' climate commitments and their actions. Today we are adopting European legislation on the obligation to reporting from companies that trade products in our markets. And this is essential. For how can Europe decently claim to defend human, social, trade union and living rights, without equipping itself with the solid tools to regulate economic activity? The laws of economics are neither superior to the laws of nature nor to the constitutive values of humanity. But I come back to the toxic cover-ups denounced by Antonio Guterres. We discovered last week that Total, the 19th largest polluter in the world, with huge profits, would have amply reduced the reporting its greenhouse gas emissions. This ‘Total gate’, because it is one, highlights two things: firstly, that we need to develop democratically the methods with which these companies calculate and present their emissions, but also that we still have a lot of work, a lot of work, to ensure that the rules we draw up, that the values we claim to defend are finally respected. Let's not let multinationals dictate the laws of the world. On the contrary, let us take our full part in the battle to civilise the economy. The hardest part is ahead of us.

Madam President, it was our dependence on fossil fuels that put us in Putin’s hands, blew up the bills and destroyed the only planet we have. So let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Under the guise of freeing us from Russian gas, you are now preparing our dependence on US shale gas, Qatar or Azerbaijan, in defiance of Armenia. All this while accelerating climate change, turning a blind eye to the fact that the cost of living will increase inexorably with the displacement of planetary boundaries. The solution lies in the ability of the Member States to make available together the billions needed for the green transition. What we need are binding targets for our reduction in energy consumption and the 2035 deadline to finally free ourselves from gas altogether. And to ensure that it is the biggest consumers, not households, who make the necessary efforts. Industry, agro-industry, private jets or space tourism: some do not consume energy, they consume it. However, the cheapest energy is energy that is not consumed. It is their efforts that will ensure citizens’ right to energy. The challenge is not who will wear a sweater this winter, but how we can move towards a just sobriety that will allow everyone to live in dignity.

Will climate and environmental policies harm the poorest and exacerbate poverty? No, I do not believe it and I even believe the opposite. Do you know who is at the forefront of climate change today? Well, it is the poorest, especially those countries that we have plundered, from which we are still extracting oil while they are on the front line in the face of rising water levels and extreme temperatures, and also in the face of violence against their fellow citizens. The situation is the same in Europe. Who were the first to die from coal pollution? Well, it is the workers who have been exposed to these impacts. Who lives next to the most dangerous industrial sites, Seveso sites? Well, it is these people at the bottom of the social ladder, because the richest know how to protect themselves. Who suffers from exposure to pesticides, especially chlordecone, and we have just talked about ultramarine populations in France? Who lives in degraded housing, in which it is difficult to heat? Which population has a poor diet because they are unable to access healthy food? So no, sir, ecology is not another punishment imposed on the poor, but on the contrary it is a work of social equality and a work of dignity for everyone in our continent.

Madam President, poverty is not inevitable, not even on the European continent, where it affects more than 100 million people. We keep proclaiming that we don't want to leave anyone behind. But how can we claim this without making poverty eradication the underlying condition, the condition without which none of our public policies could be deployed? Poverty is a violation of human rights that must be combated if we are to ensure the equal dignity of all. We must not accept that the poorest are held accountable for their situation and treated as scapegoats for all the ills of our societies. Extreme poverty is a collective failure, not a personal failure. Yet the poorest continue to be seen as potential profiteers that should be framed and coerced. In this way, we simply ignore the fact that poverty is first and foremost made up of social abuse, violence that breaks bodies and breaks the spirit, violence that ultimately exists only because we tolerate it. That is why we need to recognise and combat the existence of social precariousness as a cause of discrimination. That is why we must evaluate any new directive, regulation or public policy project in terms of its impact on the poorest 10%. That is why, finally, we must ensure that no more laws, no more budgets, no more projects are designed without the participation of those who are currently living in a situation of exclusion. Colleagues, eradicating poverty is a political agenda, so let's implement it. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue card intervention)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is simple: To meet our climate commitments, it is imperative that we leave fossil fuels under the ground. However, the project we are talking about today will not only result in the emission of 33 million tonnes of CO2, i.e. twice the cumulative emissions of Uganda and Tanzania, but will also risk pollution of Lake Albert and cross 16 supposedly protected nature reserves, where nearly a thousand species such as Rothschild giraffes, elephants or hippos live. Yet with the support of Europeans. This is because it is the project of Total Energy, one of the only companies with a European status and the 17th largest polluter in the world. The same firm that only yesterday collaborated with the Burmese junta and supplied the Russian bombers. Total Energy, whose deployment strategy aims to produce 47% more oil and gas in 2030 than at the time of the signing of the Paris Agreement. A strategy against which fifteen communities have allied themselves, not activists, not NGOs, but communities that have brought Total and its climate bombs to justice. A project however supported in high place by the French government, indifferent to the fate reserved for the living as the hundreds of thousands of displaced also muzzled. No, this project will not benefit the local population. It is the perpetuation of the plundering of the African continent and the destruction of nature. Oil is harming local people. They are displaced, victims of violence and abuse, because the economic stakes are too high and only a tiny part of the oil windfall will really benefit them. Those who get rich are the shareholders. African lives matter. It's time to respect them. And the living is dying. It's time to protect him. We must hear the voices of those in Uganda and Tanzania who oppose this project, young people who know all too well that preserving their future means having the courage, yes the courage, to give up a project like EACOP. It was essential for Parliament to take up this issue and echo these Ugandan and Tanzanian mobilizations. Because no, oil is not drunk and, as Albert Camus said, I revolt, so we are. So let's revolt.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I obviously want to welcome here, Commissioner, the proposal for the taxation of superprofits that is on the table. This is a matter of basic justice since everyone must have the means to warm up. But taxing these superprofits is not enough. To live up to this, we need to move away from productivist logic because history shows us that it is not because we produce more that we redistribute more. The truth is that the time for sobriety and sharing has come. We urgently need to embark on a profound transformation of our economic and industrial model. That is why, no, no gas pipeline should be built like MidCat. The reason why gas purchases, even bundled, restarted and with no obligation to exit in 2035, should not be committed. We can and must force gas-using industries, when other technologies exist, to exit quickly. We must plan to stop certain activities, such as fossils or nitrogen fertilisers, which, I remind you, ladies and gentlemen, destroy the living. Because it is not just about taxing Total or the fossil fuel giants, but about getting these mega-polluters out of these destructive activities. The issue is not just to take cyclical measures to make it through the winter, but to embark on a structural revolution for the climate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, floods are wreaking havoc in Pakistan, while forests are burning on our soil. However, for 50 years now, due to a lack of political will, we have been hesitant to really embark on renewable energy. So yes, the 45% target we are voting for today is a step forward. But it was not until Putin's war that this goal was set. If we want to comply with the Paris Agreement, it is not 45 % but 56 % that we should aim for, and 100 % as early as 2040. Let's go further. What many of you are proposing today is to continue burning forests for the climate. On the one hand, we are therefore committed to preserving carbon sinks and biodiversity and, on the other hand, we would continue to subsidise industrial plantations, clearcuts and an activity that sometimes emits more CO2 than coal. And this even though the wood industry could be redirected to products with a long lifespan. Scientists are formal: The financial incentives of governments to burn forest biomass lead to the worsening of the climate crisis. So let's be consistent and act for renewable energy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been living unconsciously for too long. We refuse to see that the unbridled search for infinite growth in a finite world is madness. And the awakening is brutal. The awakening is brutal, as the world's forests, which absorb carbon and are home to 80% of biodiversity, are disappearing. This is the equivalent of 800 football fields that are sacrificed every hour. This madness, which threatens entire populations and undermines the very conditions of life on Earth, is done in our name for our so-called development. But what is the name of a development that sows chaos and destruction? The European Union alone accounts for 16% of global deforestation. I am talking about forests, but I also want to talk about human beings. I want to talk to you about the Raoni cacique who, for years, has been trying to protect forests. I would like to mention, among many others, Ari Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, who lost his life because he was documenting illegal deforestation on his territory. Defenders of the Earth are now the primary targets of corporations, mafias and sometimes even crooked governments that prefer profits to life. To fail to act is to be complicit. The International Criminal Court has also been seised of cases relating to deforestation in Cambodia. Fortunately, times are changing. Today we decide to ban companies from marketing products from deforestation. It is an essential first step, but I want to say here on the right that to refuse to force our banks to stop financing deforestation is to turn a blind eye to the power of money to destroy the world. Let’s not tell ourselves stories: The text we are adopting today does not solve everything. Because we have given in to agro-industry lobbies, we decide not to preserve the biome of the Brazilian Cerrado or Colombia from the ravages of avocado exploitation. By giving in to fossil fuel lobbies, we refuse to act for Congo’s peatlands threatened by gas and oil. The road is long, we are only halfway there. This first step must be followed by others so that we can finally live in harmony with forests and with life.

Mr President, ‘our dependence on Russian gas poses economic, social, ecological and physical risks to Europe’. This sentence is not from yesterday. It dates from the year 2000. It calls for an end to this dependence through the diversification of sources of supply and storage obligations sufficient to cover the needs of the population and limit price increases. This is 22 years old. We have been pretending for 22 years that we are acting and doing nothing. We are finally there today with the text we are adopting. But in the meantime, Putin came to power and, with our active contribution, extended Gazprom’s grip. But in the meantime, the climate crisis has accelerated, forcing us not only out of Russian gas, but out of gas as quickly as possible. So it is gratifying that the EU finally decides to act in the face of Putin’s terrible war on Ukraine. But we are also sounding the alarm: If the storage obligations we impose lock us in gas for several decades, then we will violate the Paris Agreement and cause a lot of human suffering. So no new dependence on fossil fuels. But climate and peace.

Mr President, we are at a moment of truth for the European Union, and, as you can see, today the will disputes it in the comfort of habits. This week we decide whether or not to deliver on our promise – that of the Green Deal, that of saving the climate. And where are we in? Drought, floods, storms, temperatures that damage human lives and cause birds to fall from the sky, and here in the European Union, Member States that are shining with their absence – I am thinking in particular of the French Presidency – and a European Parliament whose hand is shaking at a time when we need to vote on concrete, ambitious policies that definitively turn our backs on productivism and fossil fuels. So I ask you, ladies and gentlemen: How do you intend to be judged by future generations, of course, but already by the present, and especially by Europeans? Would you like to be the ones who have given up, who have abdicated from lobbies by exempting more and more polluting companies from participating in the climate effort? Or do you want to be the ones who have decarbonised European industry, put an end to thermal cars and pollution deaths? Would you like, I ask you, to be those who, at the height of history, have done everything possible to save the earth by guaranteeing social justice? If the answer to this last question is yes, then reject the lobbies' amendments and vote for the climate.

Mr President, it is very simple: lives are being sacrificed, lost, in Ukraine, of course, with a war financed by our fossil fuel purchases. It was therefore essential to raise our energy targets and finally launch concrete actions. We have been 40% dependent on Russian gas for no less than 22 years and say we will act. It was time. But of course, there is one, but that is not trivial. Because lives are also sacrificed in Ethiopia, for example, because of drought, in India or Pakistan, where it is 51 degrees. From 55 °C, it is no longer livable for humans. The UN and the International Energy Agency tell us one thing: there is no longer a need for a single – and no longer a single – fossil energy infrastructure. We don't have to build any more. But we also know that we must not just not develop fossil fuels: we must also leave 40% of the reserves now exploited under the soil. So for the climate, for peace, let us dare to confront the oil and gas multinationals and their superprofits. Let's dare to go faster.

Madam President, Commissioner, there is a popular saying in France that when it is unclear, there is a wolf. However, I heard a moment ago from one of our colleagues, Mr Roos, that the risk for the European Union is renewable energy, because it is renewable energy that condemns us to remain locked in Russian gas. Commissioner, there are fuzzy people like this who are absolutely criminal. I would have liked you to say no, that it is renewable energy that allows us to fight our dependence on Russian gas, to protect the climate and also to guarantee peace. And I think that must be made absolutely clear. My question now follows in the same vein, ultimately, as that of Mr Buzek, even if it is not quite on the same path. In our exchanges with your services, we have been told that, in the estimates, we do not need new gas infrastructure for the European Union. This is also what the IPCC calls for, saying that not only should we stop building gas infrastructure, but we should also close it before it reaches its return on investment. Commissioner, can you confirm to me that no, the European Union will not support the construction of new gas infrastructure?

Mr President, Europe does not want Roma and travellers, so it rejects them in unworthy areas. In France, according to data collected by William Acker, travelling populations are subject to environmental nuisances: sewage treatment plants, Seveso industrial sites, such as Lubrizol in Rouen, or polluting crushing plants, such as Hellemmes-Ronchin. Just last weekend in Hellemmes-Ronchin, the reality of exclusion appeared in its raw light. A fire broke out and firefighters were unable to intervene because of the anti-caravan devices at the entrance to the site. Lives were at stake. That's how travelers live. This is also how sometimes they die. So these people organise themselves and fight to ensure that their rights are respected. In Hellemmes-Ronchin, women from Da So Vas are fighting pollution to which their families are exposed. Sue-Ellen, Pruna, Mercedes or Malicia only ask for justice. We need to hear their voice and that of all Roma and traveller populations in Europe. Europe must defend the basic rights of Roma and travellers, starting with the right to live in a healthy environment.