Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we see this even more vividly, in the light of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine and the dependencies in which he was able to lock us up: how we organise, plan and finance our energy infrastructure is key. It is this that determines our ability to face the great challenges of our time: peace and, of course, the fight against climate change. Revising this regulation was therefore essential and urgent to give substance to our climate commitments, those of the Green Deal. Unfortunately – and I am sorry to be the wrong score in this debate – the text presented to our vote today, the outcome of the trilogue negotiations, is not up to the challenge. Why? Firstly, because, where António Guterres, just yesterday, denounced the countries that continue to invest in fossil fuels as dangerous radicals, this text grants vested rights to gas projects. This text allows gas and hydrogen blends, a sleight of hand to continue and maintain public investments in fossil fuels, such as LNG terminals, which we were talking about earlier – not to mention the gas exception granted to Cyprus, even more so the one granted to Malta for a project that was part of the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Finally, by integrating CO2 transport and storage into the projects financed, given their exorbitant cost, given the low level of funds actually available, we are reducing the amount of money we can spend on energy efficiency and achieving 100% renewable energy. We must stop wasting Europeans’ money on infrastructure that is already obsolete. Another project awaits us is the gas package. The challenge will be to plan, plan, organise the phase-out of gas production and consumption by 2035, as recommended by scientists, and to do so with their contribution and that of civil society, in full transparency, so as to counteract the weight of the lobbies of the fossil fuel industry. Not everything is lost, so let’s react!

Madam President, "they are suffocating the planet in the name of their vested interests and historic investments in fossil fuels. To put it simply: They are lying. Mr Vice-Commissioner, there is something to take these words from António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for us. Europe accounts for 16% of historical emissions, and Africa just under 7%. Even today, the richest 10% are responsible for 45% of greenhouse gas emissions. Our European companies continue to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables, on our territory, and especially outside: Total in Suriname, Nigeria or, with the abominable EACOP project, in Uganda, Shell in Namibia or Malaysia, or Eni in Angola. Every year, our banks always finance a little more investments in fossil fuels. The solution is climate action in justice. It’s about raising our targets here and now. It is asking the private sector to join our actions. And finally, it is really helping the poorest and least emitting countries.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, we are here today to talk about REPowerEU and energy prices. Indeed, there is a deep connection between the two, which have already been mentioned by several of my colleagues, since, long before the war in Ukraine, we were already seeing soaring energy prices and, to be more precise, the price of fossil fuels. Today, the ambitions are beautiful, and the words are sweet. We are talking about getting out of fossil fuels completely, starting with Russian gas. We are talking about increasing energy efficiency or saving energy; But, in concrete terms, things are a little different. First, there is not yet an embargo on Russian gas and oil. Secondly, when the Commission proposes to tax the super-profits of oil companies, Member States discuss and certainly prefer to accompany the industry in the face of this price spike, thus subsidising fossil fuels. Depending on the options on the table, we would be willing to disburse up to €100 billion in fossil fuel subsidies; EUR 100 billion is two years of investment needed in a country like France to guarantee the transition, or the amount we promised the countries of the South to guarantee their own transition. Is there no other solution? Worst of all, the fall in oil and even gas prices on the markets in recent days is not reflected in pump prices. It is therefore more expensive for people, and only Italy has, at this stage, relied on taxation of the profits of its energy companies. Today, the Commission wants to sustain the storage of a gas whose price is rising and will continue to rise, which we will have to sell and sell, thus locking us in these fossils. What are we waiting for to truly engage those who are destroying our planet? The real solution to rising energy prices is climate justice, climate action based first and foremost on those who have the means and who can support those who do not.

Madam President, 18 billion is the amount we have paid Vladimir Putin over the past month, since he launched his aggression against Ukraine, for the simple purchase of fossil fuels. It's $18 billion that's financing his war. Our response must be based on an accelerated exit from fossil fuels. However, in our country, Sir, in France, an energy giant like Total still does not understand that we cannot make profits at the expense of climate and human rights. We need a swift and definitive exit to stop financing the current war and to avoid future conflicts due to climate change. But where are the major works for energy renovation and efficiency, or for interconnections and renewable energy? Where is the ban on flights by private jets or empty flights? Where is the much-needed aid to Algeria for solar energy? Where is the request for industry to replace the 64% of gas it consumes with heat pumps or alternative solutions? No, the solutions you are proposing today – the long-term extension of shale gas contracts like Engie’s, the construction of multiple gas infrastructures or the permanent storage of gas – only displace the problem, to the very detriment of the peace we claim to be defending.

Madam President, I want to talk to you about Barsa. Barsa, who died in the ruins of Rana Plaza after spending his life producing cheap clothes for a few cents, being exposed to more than 8,000 toxic substances – chlorinated derivatives, dyes, phthalates or pesticides. Like Barsa, 60 million workers are exposed to toxic and dangerous chemicals every day. I say workers because 80% of textile workers are workers and it is in the textile sector that the first strikes by women took place in many countries. On the other side of the world, in Chile, I want to talk to you about Rosa. Rosa lives with her family in the Atacama desert, where 39 000 tonnes of fast fashion waste from Western countries pollutes the air, soil and groundwater. Fast fashion is 10% of carbon emissions, 20% of water waste, 500 000 tonnes of microplastics in the ocean and more than 12 kilos of waste per European per year. Barsa and Rosa do not exist, but they could have. And it is precisely because the tragedies are real that the European Union, a major consumer of textiles, must finally put in place a sustainable strategy based on due diligence for the entire textile value chain. A strategy for the planet, social rights and women's rights, so that never again men and, therefore, especially women who work for "fast fashion" or economize on the waste of overconsumption are ignored.

Mr President, in the face of Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, Europe has shown a firm, united and determined face. And yet, we continue to fund the Russian war effort to the tune of €700 million a day because we have tied our hands to Russian gas. The irony is that it is now Putin himself who is threatening to shut down the European gas tap Nord Stream 1. Our imperative for lasting peace, for our independence, for the climate, for democracy, for social justice, is indeed to accelerate the energy transition and stop our consumption of Russian gas in particular and fossil energy in general. Today, I hear many voices suggesting that we replace our dependence on Russian gas with gases from elsewhere – American shale gas, liquefied gas from Qatar or other fossil fuels that almost always come from at-risk areas. That would be an aberration. Another way is possible. First of all, through energy efficiency, despite the fact that the Commission has made little use of it in today's communication; but also by accelerating the development of renewable energy at an unprecedented rate. We must ask European industries to reduce their consumption with interruptibility mechanisms, but also because 64% of industrial processes use a gas that can be replaced. What about chemical fertilizers, which alone absorb 2.5% of the gas consumed in France? Money can and must be mobilised by taxing the overprofits of the oil and gas industry, but also by redirecting public funds now invested in fossil fuels towards renewable energy. Colleagues, we need to steer all the funds on the table towards the transition. Tomorrow, I ask you to vote in favour of the proposal to object to the fifth PCI list, which still contains many gas projects, to be 100% focused on renewables and energy efficiency. None of the gas projects it contains will be useful in the context of the crisis, as none of these projects will be created within five years. In contrast, these projects will lock us into fossil fuels for several more decades. And let us not be fooled: ELNG’s new terminals are also not solutions as we use only 40% of Europe’s current capacity. We need all this money, on the contrary, for renewable electricity projects. So, on behalf of the 107 Members who have signed up to this proposal for an objection, I would ask the Commission to present us with a new list of 100% energy efficiency and 100% renewable energy as soon as possible. Let us build together a climate-friendly future and a world of peace.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, thank you very much for this presentation, for the progress made and for your work. But there is an urgent need – as we have seen, we are talking about – to stop fuelling our dependence on fossil fuels. What a tragedy to see, in this regard, the gas and nuclear lobbies fighting together such a battle to figure in the taxonomy that should devote green energies rather than destructive activities. It is also shameful to see some people here in the Council clinging to the financing of gas projects in regional plans, in recovery funds, or – as we saw with the Council negotiating last night – in the new regulation on energy infrastructure. Commissioner, you too have presented us with a list of infrastructure projects to be financed in the next two years, which still contains some 20 gas projects. However, not all the energy infrastructure we finance today is linked for years, but for decades to fossil fuels, to the detriment of the climate. We need to react now and stop delaying action. Colleagues, I call on you to reject the fifth list of projects of common interest in favour of a 100% renewable list. And Commissioner, we will stand by you in front of the Council to ensure that tomorrow we no longer fund climate-safe infrastructure.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, six years ago, the countries of the world agreed on the 1.5-degree target. We're a long way from that. We're going straight to +2.6 degrees. This COP, in the end, was one of injustice, one that welcomed more than 500 representatives of the oil and gas industries and barely two from Vanuatu, a country that will soon be swallowed up by water. A COP where rich countries, including EU countries, despite the decisions of their courts, have not raised their climate targets. The European climate law, according to scientists, is also +2.6 degrees. Injustice, finally, because the richest, most polluting countries, but also businesses, still refuse to shoulder their responsibilities and pay for the human and natural disasters they have caused. So let's be serious: Exxon knew, Shell Knew, and Total knew too. And Europe, well, Europe has let it happen. So let’s immediately stop funding gas, raise our climate targets and finally launch the investigations and major trials needed today to deliver climate justice and human justice.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost I would like to congratulate the co-rapporteurs and thank them for the collective work we have done on this text, because the subject we are dealing with, namely SLAPPs, is a serious one. Since the Paris Agreement, for the past six years, 1,5 people have been murdered for defending the Earth. And at COP26, sixty journalists from thirty-four different countries called on states to protect them from abusive lawsuits. We owe this to them. Daphne Caruana Galizia was the subject of 47 prosecutions when she was murdered. In France, Valérie Murat was heavily condemned for denouncing the excessive use of pesticides. The NGO Sherpa is being sued by Vinci for filing a complaint against forced labour on World Cup sites in Qatar, while France Libertés is being sued by Veolia for daring to defend the right to water. Examples are legion: defenders of the public interest, rights or the Earth who are subject to abusive prosecution. We need to stop these infamous practices and our proposal here is to give Europe a tool to protect those who protect us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, today we learn – and it is confirmed to us today, in 2021 – that one of the largest European companies, I named Total, knew and was aware of the climatic consequences of its actions since 1971. 1971: We have known for 50 years, that our companies know, and that we are working hard and fast towards the abyss. We are also learning today, on the same day, at the same time, that we are going to produce in the coming years 240% of excess coal, 71% of excess gas and 57% of excess oil to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreements. We could have avoided the drama, but denials, connivances, fabricates doubt... We have not done so. We have been stubborn on the road to fossil fuels. It's time to change position. Let's take responsibility. The COP in Glasgow must sound the death knell for fossil fuels. Condemn ecocide companies and together with Denmark, Costa Rica, thousands of scientists and thousands of NGOs, decide and launch a treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels. We must stop production immediately so that companies like Total can never again lead us knowingly to disaster.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the UN Human Rights Council has indeed called for universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment. It was time and it is a strong signal: a signal that, no, the laws of the economy are not above the laws of nature and that, yes, ecological and social justice issues are one and the same fight. So I hear us here saying that asserting this right is a political priority. But we must have the courage, in this case, to put in place a real policy of environmental justice. How can we justify today that, in a country like France, the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is more than 13 years? What justification can we give to this, to this injustice which is obviously of an environmental nature? How can we also explain that in Guadeloupe or Martinique, 90% of the population is contaminated with chlordecone and polluted soils for more than 500 years? Throughout Europe, in former mining areas, traveller reception areas, refugee camps, underprivileged neighbourhoods, environmental injustice reigns and the less wealthy are constantly the most exposed to all forms of environmental violence. European companies also cause ecocides in third countries. We can talk about uranium in Niger, oil or gas projects in Suriname or Mozambique, palm oil in Indonesia. Ecocides are committed. To avoid them, the right to a healthy environment must be recognised in our core standards – the Charter, of course, but also a European environmental treaty. As you will have understood, the battle for the right to a healthy environment is both in line with the great mobilisations for human dignity and in line with the ecological start that we must make to protect our planet.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I have listened to you well. Here we tell the story of a Europe that promises to get out of its dependence on fossil fuels, while still planning to accept state aid for fossil-fuelled gas. We are also starving when we promise a Europe that would accelerate the development of renewable energy, while we are still planning state aid for nuclear energy that, we know, absorbs the funds needed for green energy. We invent a story to sleep when we stamp as green recovery plans that nevertheless remain at the service of companies and sectors whose deployment is incompatible with planetary boundaries and the climate, and this without real demand for compensation, as in France. And then there are the citizens. There are citizens who are romanticised by a Europe that demands international obligations for environmental democracy, while still refusing to let them be duly informed and able to bring state aid and its use to justice. So let's stop telling stories to future generations. Let us immediately and together with citizens redirect all State aid towards the protection of the planet and fundamental rights.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our promise was the transition without leaving anyone behind, it was the Green Deal in social justice. But in the face of rising gas prices, what are we going to do? Gas, behind electricity, the price of books, the price of bread and even the price of toilet paper, is exploding in Europe and each of these increases is the de facto result of an economic model that destroys life. So, it is reassuring, it is true, to see that states seize the laws that make it possible to support households in difficulty during these energy crises. It would still be necessary for the aid to be commensurate with: in France, the planned support for the most precarious households is €100, while the Energy Poverty Observatory recommends €710. But the response to this crisis must be structural, not one-off. The price of fossil fuels will continue to rise and is already rising. Fossil fuels will never be cheap again. For the climate, we must also get rid of it. So let’s really stop investing in and supporting such expensive, unstable and volatile fossil fuels. Let’s make the choice of energy independence, let’s make the choice of energy savings, let’s make the choice of renewables and do it really. And do not come and tell us that nuclear power is the solution, from which we import uranium, from which we do not know how to treat waste, it remains much more expensive, large or small reactors, than renewable energies. In the context of the revision of the TEN-E Regulation, in the taxonomy, in the regional funds, some persevere in their support for gas and nuclear energy. This umpteenth crisis must sound like a signal: There is still time to change direction. No carbon market for transport and buildings, no investments in gas and nuclear, but ecology and social justice.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot come here, sit down and talk about preserving the Arctic without planning to put an immediate end to the exploitation of fossil fuels. The Arctic is a unique ecosystem in the world, with endangered marine species. The Arctic is an air conditioner for the planet. Unfortunately, the Arctic is also the target of profit-hungry companies that, if we let them, exploit so much fossil energy that we will have consumed 22% of our carbon budget. Europe must live up to this, as it has a real responsibility for the ongoing destruction of the Arctic and the planet. Almost half of the companies that now covet the Arctic are European and, of course, among them the French company Total Énergie, which plans to increase its production there by almost 30%. Behind, of course, European banks, but also direct or indirect public support from states, for example for Arctic LNG 2. The California oil spill is a stark reminder: the exploitation of fossil fuels at sea and in the poles must stop immediately. This must be central to the strategy that Europe intends to develop in the Arctic.

Mr President, this 8th Environment Action Programme must put a stop to endangering the safety of the planet. Climate, oceans, biodiversity: at international level, as here in Europe, four of the nine planetary boundaries are exceeded. The warning sounded by scientists has certainly led us to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals, but the race for infinite GDP growth on a finite planet remains the alpha and omega of European policies. We need to go further, because while we continue to call for respect for planetary boundaries to guide our action, we have still not invested enough in research to obtain the appropriate scientific tools for planetary boundaries, which we could cross with respect for social rights that have become binding. As we know, there will be no respect for planetary boundaries without a profound change in our economy and governance. We need to integrate planetary boundaries into our treaties, and already into the European Semester. For almost 20 years, GDP has been called into question as the only indicator of the effectiveness of public policies. Finally, let us turn to a society of harmony with the living and well-being.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in history, a city, Lytton in Canada, has been completely wiped off the map as a result of climate change, the origins of which are human activities, in particular the exploitation of fossil fuels. The next day, it was the ocean itself that caught fire off the Gulf of Mexico, following a gas leak whose exploitation we would have to stop if we wanted to preserve the climate, biodiversity, in a word: Life on Earth. How does this relate to our discussion of the day on the European Interconnection Mechanism? Well, simply because the text before us today proposes that we continue to spend the money of Europeans on gas pipelines that condemn us to depend on fossil fuels for several more decades. No sooner have we voted for the objective of carbon neutrality through the Climate Law than we are now rushing to authorise the financing of gas infrastructure projects and even dare to declare this a contributor to the fight against climate change. The climate will appreciate. So the choice is simple: vote and accept a seven-year funding programme in a crucial climate decade, ending two years before our 2030 targets, made unsustainable by the targets and funding credits we are about to vote on. Or to vote for the rejection amendment that Ciarán Cuffe and I are proposing to postpone the outcome of the negotiations by one month, in order to defend the positions of the European Parliament, the objectives of the Green Deal and help save the climate. One month versus seven years: We hope, ladies and gentlemen, that you will give us your full support.