The European Parliament's ENVI committee on 2 June 2026 held a wide-ranging debate covering CO2 standards for cars and vans, EUDR simplification, climate adaptation, and a structured dialogue with Commissioner Hadja Lahbib on preparedness, revealing divergent positions across political groups.
On CO2 standards, Massimiliano Salini (EPP) presented a draft introducing flexibilities, alternative fuels, and differentiated treatment, with a vote planned for November 2026. The Commission representative (DG CLIMA) warned that cumulative flexibilities would weaken investment signals. Viktória Ferenc (PfE) backed carbon-neutral fuels and five-year averaging, while Alexandr Vondra (ECR) welcomed industrial realism. Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D) insisted the future is electric, and Sigrid Friis (Renew) argued the draft could allow compliance without battery-electric sales. Michael Bloss (Greens/EFA) warned of investor uncertainty, and Martin Günther (The Left) rejected treating alternative fuels as climate-neutral.
On deforestation, Eric Mamer (European Commission) defended targeted simplification without reopening the law, aiming for end-2026 implementation. Delara Burkhardt (S&D) welcomed no further postponement but challenged the leather proposal, arguing it creates a 'same cow paradox'. Stefan Köhler (EPP) judged simplifications insufficient, while Ondřej Knotek (PfE) objected to scope expansion. Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew) warned that simplification debates risk forgetting deforestation's impacts.
On adaptation, Leena Yla-Mononen (EEA) highlighted widespread climate impacts and insufficient adaptation. Suraje Dessai (University of Leeds) advocated common risk standards and a 2050 resilience vision. Alexandr Vondra (ECR) opposed binding EU frameworks, arguing climate risk management is local. Kai Tegethoff (Greens/EFA) called for binding targets and ring-fenced financing. Commissioner Lahbib argued that overlapping crises make preparedness a strategic necessity, backed by funding and stockpiling. Kristian Vigenin (S&D) called for disaster resilience as strategic investment in the next MFF. Narrow consensus emerged on the need for legal clarity on EUDR, stronger resilience, and adequate funding across all topics.