Peter LIESE

Policy topics Peter LIESE is active on

What Peter LIESE has said (80)

• “Dear colleagues. It's great that the Commission has bolstered the competitiveness, competitiveness element of its policy and has promised to reduce red tape. But recently we have done good things. We did a lot of good work, and I firmly believe that we should stand up for the core of the Green Deal, particularly climate goals. That said, we must jettison some ballast. Let's pinpoint what's really important here. Once we've done that, we have extra security. It's like putting a seatbelt on a belt and braces, if you will. We need systems to achieve our climate goals. These systems need to be in Particularly the ETS, but we could decide on extra measures. This would mean we were wearing so many seat belts, wearing so many belts and braces that we would be stifling people and stifling the economy. In other words, we need to ease things up a bit and really home in on what's actually necessary and required. So I truly believe we should stick to the climate goals. Sticking to the core. The crux of the Green Deal. But we must have a stronger focus on competitiveness and slashing of red tape.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you to the rapporteur. Oliver Schenk. Indeed, the proposal is very important. And I'm grateful to you, Commissioner, that you presented it fast. Um, of course, it's about industry when we speak about simplification. But in this case, for me, it's even more about patience. And I cannot repeat enough what Andreas Klug and others said. Patients are in danger because of too much bureaucracy. I worked in paediatrics and my former colleagues again and again, tell me that they have a shortage of important medical devices because of over bureaucratic rules from the European Union and especially the recertification of well-established products. It doesn't make sense. It makes things more complicated. That's why we need really to support the proposal. I have one exception, and here I refer to the Imco rapporteur. What was the main reason for the Pip scandal? The the reason was that the paper was fine, but the company changed the recipe of the product. And this can be stopped by unannounced, unannounced inspections. There was a key of the existing legislation. And while many of the of the issues that Parliament and Council introduced are. Bureaucracy. This principle of unannounced inspection. I don't think it should be abolished. So let's work fast. Let's adopt the proposal soon, but also do some fine tuning that we really can say the products are safe, but which matters with much less bureaucracy. Thank you.”
  Medical devices
• “Thank you chair, and thank you to the colleagues in particular, when we discussed the RAF in the Covid crisis, I was addressed by my, you know, member of the German parliament, quite a famous name, Friedrich Merz, hopefully the next chancellor in Germany. And he asked me, Peter, is this really right? Is it right that we go for European debt, European credits? And I said, the situation is so dramatic. Yes, we need to do it. And I think in the end it was right. But I'm quite disappointed when I look at the implementation, at least in the country I know best. Germany, the current government is not transparent. I don't know as an MEP where they spend the money and I have the feeling that sometimes they just relabeled projects even after the project was finalized. They put the label financed by RF to show what they have done. And that's why I don't think that this is a good benchmark for the future budget. So we need to really take care that in the next budget, we don't have the RF type of financing because the budget right is the most important right of the European Parliament. And when you look at the history of the European Parliament in 1980, we had nothing to say. And the first right that our predecessors fighted for successfully was the budget. Right. So let's be firm here. And last but not least, I understand that we definitely need to invest more in our defence, and we know we need also to do this together to make it more Effective. I think the figure is important, but to do it together is even more important. Um, I'm not sure if European dev is the right approach, because when you ask our finance experts, someday the European Commission will lose the Triple-A. We didn't have paid back the RF, and there is no proposal on the table from the council to do it. So any proposal has been rejected. So that's why, you know, let's see how we how we get the current RF paid back before we consider new deaths. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. President. Thank you very much, Professor Edenhofer, for your presentation and for all your work. And I know that also from Germany, you do a lot to advise. The future Chancellor Friedrich Merz listens to you. That's what I at least know. Thank you for the work on the carbon removals. I think it's really an opportunity and a must. I was proud to host an exhibition here on carbon removals, and I have to underline what you said. There is also an opportunity to to create jobs because for the moment, Europe is leading in this field. And we should therefore also continue to to improve the framework. Um, on the technical things, I ask already 21 to include them in the ETS, and I think it's high time now to do it because we need a business case, but we also need a way out for those industries that can't be without any emission in 39, because that's what the current ETS is saying, and it's completely unrealistic in my view. So we need to do something. Anyhow, on the temporary removals. You mentioned that you cannot go into the detail, but maybe you can at least give us 1 or 2 examples of how you would like the temporary removals to be treated. And then a very political question, I have to admit. But would you consider that the European Union could also finance carbon removals in third countries, for example, when we have a cement company in the middle of Europe where there is no opportunity and they have a plant also outside Europe where they have all the perfect conditions. Could that be some, um, something we consider also in the framework of the future climate targets? Last but not least, it. You didn't mention but it's a big debate now in Europe. Ets is under pressure. Ets two very much, but also the pressure starts to increase on ETS. One from a scientific point of view. Can we achieve any EU climate target without ETS or without ETS? Two and what are the alternatives if if ever they exist? Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “37:01 – 10:39:59): Yeah, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission. We need to speak about solutions. Indeed, we speak about the challenges and the burden, but here we speak about solutions. Technologies are available in almost all sectors of the economy to decarbonize, and the challenge is that the member states really need to spend the money on purpose. It can't be repeated often enough that now member states have the obligation to spend 100 percent of the revenues on purpose, not only the funds in ETS Two, the Social Climate Fund, in ETS One, Modernization Innovation Fund—all the money should be spent on purpose, and the member states have the obligation to make this transparent.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “48:08 – 09:50:22): Good morning. Thank you very much. Sorry that I can't be with you, but I think it's an important debate. Since this weekend, we see that prices of gas and oil dramatically increased, and this is not because of the ETS, it's because of what happens in Iran and the consequences. So we see that we are very dependent, and prices will always increase when something happens in the world when we are dependent on gas and oil. And that's why we need to fix this. So really, we need to fix this, and ETS 2 is the main instrument to reduce our dependency from gas and oil. It is, I think, a good system, but the problem is that member states are not really doing what they should do when they should give back the money, and they should start to give the money to the citizens already now because front loading is possible. The proposal of the Commission is a challenge because experts have calculated that it weakens the climate ambition, and I think that is a problem and it should be discussed. Also, the postponement is a problem, and I think the only good thing in the pro postponement, and that has to be acknowledged, is that the ETS 2 is postponed but still the Social Climate Fund has the same size. So it is a victory for those that wanted a higher Social Climate Fund, and it should be acknowledged. I don't think we should further weaken the ETS. I think the proposal of the Commission is already a challenge. I'm happy to support it in the spirit of compromise, but when nineteen member states ask for something and the Commission delivers, we should not endanger it, and we should not put additional requests on the table. Then we must, we will be stuck. I think we need to find a good compromise based on the Commission proposal. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “So that was really a strange situation. I will not hide that we have different opinions and different opinions also inside the EPP, so you won't have the pleasure but to tell me that I know it. And you know, I mentioned Tusk, but Tusk was together with Macron and I think that is really a bad sign. I will also repeat what I said earlier. We should have focused much more on the 2035 targets. That was also a mistake, in my view, by the Commission and the presidency to focus so much on 2040 and not look at 2035. I heard many people in the commission and the president saying it will be easy with 2035. It was not easy, and the result was not good enough to motivate other countries to do an ambitious NDC. But for the future, I think what we can learn from Belgium is also that the climate agenda is not only a climate agenda, it can also be a very successful geopolitical agenda. When you look at the last day of Belgium that Russia was offending the Latin American states very aggressively, no, Russia called them children in Spanish, Como ninos, they said, and then even Argentina. Miller's government said, this is not a is not okay. You are not allowed to speak about us Latin American countries like you did.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you, chair. And thank you to the commission and the rapporteurs. Sebum is key for our decarbonisation and it has global effects. So a US senator said it's the last lifeboat of international climate policy. So it's not limited to Europe. What sebum does, and it was adopted in contrast to what has been said by a huge majority in the European Parliament. I think the proposal of the Commission is good. I share every word of our shadow rapporteur, Adam. He really said the right things. And in particular, I would like to underline that under seven a we cannot give a blank check to the Commission. The proposals are good, but they need to be improved. And I want to open a rather big debate here, because in the past chemical industry was not really covered by Cbam. They are struggling, but they openly told us they don't really have an easy solution. So nothing is easy in this area. But shouldn't we examine some more products from the chemical industry to be included in Cbam? And last but not least, I think the commission was not very wise to make the proposal that the temporary fund should come 100% from the member state's budget. I think a shared effort from Member States and commission to compensate to finance this fund would be more realistic. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair, I have the opportunity to raise another question, because a colleague that was planned to speak on behalf of EPP unfortunately can't come. Um, first, one reaction to Martin Hausling. You know, there have been files which we didn't support in the last Parliament, and CO2 cars was the most important one. You know, when you are against the ban of combustion engines in the last parliament, it's logical to be against this Parliament. And in other occasions, to be honest, we sometimes were confronted with your group renew Sad and the left telling us we have the majority, you can join us, you get a tiny bit and then it's fine or we vote without you. So that was the situation. That is part of the problem that has been created politically and also content wise. So let's work together. But in another spirit then in the last Parliament. Um, but I agree what Martin Hausling has said on Leda and the rural development. Please really safeguard the the money for the rural development and in particularly for leader. We were disappointed with the commission proposal and it's our common target and obligation to do it better. Um, one important point on Cbam. You know, Cbam is the last lifeboat of international climate policy. That is what an American senator said. And I'm quite impressed that Cbam now started to work. Epp was in favour of a slow start, and that is an advantage now that we start slowly. So that also the international reaction is not dramatic. And the Commission managed to have an agreement with India without endangering Cbam.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you president. Thank you chair. And this time there is no. But I just will like to say thank you to the commission. This proposal is desperately needed, and it's good. Cbam is important. It is important to protect our industry when it decarbonises, and it is already also successful in third countries. Last year, the Director General of DG climate told me that DG climate is flooded, flooded by requests of third countries. How we can help them to introduce an ETS because they want not to pay for Europe, they want to pay for their own decarbonisation. And the Commission has now established a task force to help them. I think that is the most effective, cost effective climate measure, because when third countries follow, this is much more important than 1% more or 1% less in Europe. So Cbam has very positive effects. We have the problems of imports. We have some loopholes and they need to be addressed. But in a second step. Now the simplification is urgent and you know, it doesn't make sense when an SME buys a pack of crew from Turkey, Morocco or China that they are required by all this reporting obligations, we need to abolish that. And the biggest example that we need to change it is the young guy in the Netherlands that bought a device for his motorbike, and then he got a letter from the authority, and the authority told me we had to do this because it was more than €150, that this guy should report on the CO2 content. And the mother called the authority and was very upset. So we need to abolish this. We need to do the simplification and we need to do it fast. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, I have mainly two questions. The first question is around carbon leakage in the country I know best. Germany. We have unfortunately, uh, made emission reduction also due to the fact that industry is producing less. And I would like to understand, um, how big this effect is at European level. I know definitely that it is a part of the reduction in Germany. That is only due to the fact that industry produces less, and that can't be the solution then we are not really a good example for the rest of the world. My second question is concerning the latest developments that we had in the European Council, the Council of Ministers for environment and the Commission. Um, we have to face and unfortunately, I think we also have to accept two major weakenings of the ETS. There's this MSR proposal that will bring the prices significantly down compared to the scenarios that we had in the past, and there is a one year postponement. As I said, I think it's a price to pay to get any agreement on the climate law and also on the ETS.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “48:08 – 09:50:22): Good morning. Thank you very much. Sorry that I can't be with you, but I think it's an important debate. Since this weekend, we see that prices of gas and oil dramatically increased, and this is not because of the ETS, it's because of what happens in Iran and the consequences. So we see that we are very dependent, and prices will always increase when something happens in the world when we are dependent on gas and oil. And that's why we need to fix this. So really, we need to fix this, and ETS 2 is the main instrument to reduce our dependency from gas and oil. It is, I think, a good system, but the problem is that member states are not really doing what they should do when they should give back the money, and they should start to give the money to the citizens already now because front loading is possible. The proposal of the Commission is a challenge because experts have calculated that it weakens the climate ambition, and I think that is a problem and it should be discussed. Also, the postponement is a problem, and I think the only good thing in the pro postponement, and that has to be acknowledged, is that the ETS 2 is postponed but still the Social Climate Fund has the same size. So it is a victory for those that wanted a higher Social Climate Fund, and it should be acknowledged. I don't think we should further weaken the ETS. I think the proposal of the Commission is already a challenge. I'm happy to support it in the spirit of compromise, but when nineteen member states ask for something and the Commission delivers, we should not endanger it, and we should not put additional requests on the table. Then we must, we will be stuck. I think we need to find a good compromise based on the Commission proposal. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Colleagues. Getting energy prices down is an absolute necessity. Our economies, as well as our fellow citizens, are suffering greatly as a result of high energy costs. We have certain political goals protecting the climate, becoming less dependent on exports. And to do that, it is absolutely crucial that we get our energy costs down because we need electricity. If we are going to have an energy transition. Mostly not always, but frequently. The answer to our problems is electrification. But electricity prices are extremely high. I know people who in 2022, went to work in a climate neutral way with their electric vehicles, and then they looked at their bills and disposed of their vehicles because the costs were so high. So yes, ETS is ambitious, but we don't want an ETS two. Quite the opposite. It is not what we need. Rather, we need to get a grip on energy prices, and we need to also be less dependent on Russia, Azerbaijan and Qatar and other problematic suppliers. So for all those reasons, we need to get our electricity costs down. However, costs are always a result of price and use, so if we do get our consumption down via energy efficiency, then we can also get prices down as well. So I'll pick up on an important point you make, Commissioner, is that is that we also need as part of this energy efficiency. And so I would advocate working via the EIB Frontloading ETS to make sure that low and middle income families can be given assistance as rapidly possible in becoming more energy efficient. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Colleagues, when things don't go well, people want to talk about them. So I want to talk about what has gone well. Uh, Trump wasn't there, but, uh, no one from the, uh, 200 other countries followed him out of this, uh, malaise in Argentina. And it's important to mention this. And and it's it's important that, uh, that the Paris Agreement has been included in the Mercosur agreement, and Mercosur is good for climate protection. This is an important step. Uh, there was a huge amount of support for our agenda, a transition away from fossil fuels. But from a Latin America. Uh, and there was, uh, uh, discussions between Russia and Latin America on the final day, uh, Russia, the Russian, the friends of Russia here in the European Parliament were there as well. But uh, uh, Latin America stood up and we can further develop this agenda with Latin America. Now there's two important points. Firstly, to the Greens and to the left. Nut not every part of simplification. It goes against climate policy. We want to commit to aims. But when there are other impacts, we must take pragmatic implementation steps. And the second comment to the right of this world, there's I must attack you, that those who say that Europe has no, uh, work in this. I ask you, what are the alternatives? You are blindfolding yourselves. You need to be responsible and accountable for our children and our grandchildren. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Annalisa. Corrado. Corrado, please.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you Thea and thank you to the European Commission for this really insightful information. I will speak in German, my mother tongue now. The advantages of a smart environmental policy can be considerable and the cost of inaction or non-action must be taken into account. So I'm in favor of not rowing back on the Green Deal, that's my personal conviction. At the same time, the devil is in the detail and we should be self-critical and recognize that not everything is as important and nor is it perfect. I think we should be able to correct course if we had good intentions. In the last period we decided many things which is now proved to be difficult to implement, for example the overlapping reporting requirements which were not necessarily coherent. From my constituency, the sustainable sustainability manager of an SME said he doesn't have any time left when it comes to energy efficiency projects being implemented in his company because he spends all his time on filling out tables and producing documentation which is prescribed by us and the national authorities. I'm, I don't think we should cancel the Green Deal or take it back but I think we should take a look at everything, a look at what we did in the last period. We shouldn't because it is sacrosanct, for example air quality. It isn't the case that the reduction of NOx and other harmful substances and fine particles can be done by the same methods as for decarbonization. There are examples that companies and industrial plants have to put in a lot of money in things which have to be replaced in three or four years to be climate neutral. And I think we should be more pragmatic than we were in the previous Parliament. We could have a clause which applies after 2030 and that's too late for companies which were, are thinking about whether they're going to be investing in Europe at all. And in recent years we've had great successes and that's not mentioned in the debate many oftentimes because NOx and fine particles in Germany we are, we have reduced emissions by two thirds compared to the nineties. And often in debates we get the impression that we've achieved nothing and we are burdening people in an irresponsible way. I think that must be taken into consideration. So to cut it short, European environmental policy shouldn't be scaled back. We should be ambitious in environmental protection. It's a good idea to change course now and again if also if we want to have things accepted by people because acceptance is important otherwise that we would have to change the discussion entirely.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. The acting chair. Vice vice chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I'm very happy that we are here together with ample. Uh. It is an issue that for envy and ample is equally important. And, you know, I discuss a lot with my colleague Dennis Rutger, but it's also good that we are the full committees here. Um, so I think the social climate plans and the Social Climate fund, they are breakthroughs. The problem that climate measures have social consequences didn't come up with the proposal on ETS. Two, it exists for decades. Whatever we do has costs. And sometimes also the costs are quite significant. And they hit also the poorest in society and ETS. One is very clear. Electricity price is partly, of course, because of ETS one. And the problem is getting bigger because we have higher ETS prices and unfortunately still some gas in the market that determines the price. Command and control measures like CO2, cars and energy. Performance of buildings also comes with a cost and sometimes challenging for low income families. So that's why it's important that we give a targeted support. And this is the first time that Europe acts here. And that's why it's good that we start. And it's not only the social climate plan, the the Social Climate Fund, the commission. And that's my first question, should also look at the national revenues, because member states have a legal obligation to spend all the money.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Colleagues, companies and citizens in particular are being crushed by a mountain of bureaucracy. Someone from my constituency, an entrepreneur said that he is responsible for sustainability in his company, but he can't plan energy efficient projects anymore because all of his time is spent on reporting for the commission. It can't be right that actual, environmentally friendly projects are being shelved because of reporting. So now I turn to the commission and I turn to the Envy Committee, which is responsible. I want to support Cbam. We do need a mechanism at the border to help our companies who are on the path towards climate neutrality. We need to protect them from dirty imports. That is very much necessary. But if you, uh, bring in a packet of, uh, nails, should you have to report on that? Or if you are, if you want a spare part for your moped and you're 17 years old. Should you have to fill in paperwork for that? You know, I have to look at this commission proposal, and we should work on this commission proposal and pass it as quickly as possible. Let's really pull up our sleeves and get on with simplification.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “To Lydia Pereira and all the others that helped to draft this resolution. We live in challenging times, and it's true that we need to take care much more about our security and our competitiveness. In my view, that doesn't mean that we should not be ambitious in the climate policy. And I'm happy that this is also the position of the German government, the new government and also the Chancellor. In contrast to what what people saying the next months are really decisive and we really need to do the right thing. We need to be ambitious, but also very pragmatic, because I don't think the most important thing is that we discuss about flexibility or not, that we discuss about the concrete figures of the European NDC. It's important that Europe delivers an NDC. We are already late and we we really need to save the process. Trump stepped out of the Paris Agreement. Nobody followed. Also, Melaye in Argentina didn't follow. This is also due to Mercosur. All those that are against Mercosur should take in mind that the international climate process may collapse. If we don't have Mercosur. Then Millais will step out and many, many others. It's good that China picked the emissions, and it's good that China wants to pledge an NDC the first time where they reduce their emissions. Let's hope it's really ambitious. I'm not so sure. And you know, those said say we shouldn't have flexibilities in the European climate targets. They should know that this may lead to a situation where we don't have a climate target for 2040, and we don't have an NDC for 2035. So it's not the question to have flexibility or not. The question is, do we come with something serious to the to the table in Belgium and article six exists? We supported it when we supported the Paris Agreement. So let's not make that a deal breaker. Let's continue to work on a pragmatic solution. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you Commissioner. We have now five speakers for the catch the eye. The first is Esther Herans. **Iratxe García Pérez (Spain, S&D): Thank you very much indeed Chair and thank you Commissioner for joining us this afternoon. Since Brexit in January 2020 there's a legal vacuum and we are seeing some very unfortunate practices from Gibraltar and this is leading to major destruction in the Atlantic and Mediterranean waters. This malpractice involves various things. We've seen things happening since December 2024. There was a collision then between an oil tanker and a container ship and it was discovered that they did not comply with the rules on uses and activities in the Bay of Algeciras which is considered to be an area of community interest. On the fourteenth of May since then we've had the plan for Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Now there are some waters in dispute when it comes to the UK Gibraltar and those illegal fishing of tuna and when these vessels are detected they escape the law enforcement of the Spanish state, the European law enforcement by moving to particular waters and these waters are being used as a dumping ground. Our beaches in Spain are being destroyed and Gibraltar does not have a water purification system. Three cubic hectometers of untreated water is being discharged into our seas, into the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. And therefore I ask you as an authority for the Europe's maritime waters, I ask you to contact the British government and ask them to comply with the agreements and make a commitment to respect the environment and the marine environment in the Straits of Gibraltar. Thank you.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for all your efforts and your presentation. Uh, I have two questions. First, on ETS. One, um, I want to thank the Commission as a whole that you committed to the ETS, and I encourage you to continue to fight, um, that we keep this main instrument of decarbonization in Europe, but it's also very clear. And thank you for the communication here that we need a review. It was never meant to be that we have no more allowances in 2039. The challenge is now to give more space to those industries that have objective problems, because, for example, the hydrogen is not coming as fast as as we wish, but at the same time that those frontrunners that are already on their way and are calculated with the existing ETS, that they will also be rewarded. In Germany, we say efforts must be rewarded. So are you ready to look at some specific tools so that we encourage those that are ambitious without asking the impossible from from others? Second part. On heating and road transport. The case is even more clear when we see our dependency from oil and gas, because in ETS one, we sometimes have the challenge of hydrogen or CSE in heating and road transport. Every. Every tonne of CO2 that we reduce will be also with less dependency from other parts of the world. The case is more clear, also technologically, more easy. But we have the social challenge. And that's why. My question is why are the member states so late with their social climate plans? And what are you doing to push them? Because the money should be available now in the crisis, people should already have the alternatives and the legislation in encourage them or even obliges them to have the social climate ready. But most of them don't have.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the commission and the minister. I think it's important to transition away from fossil fuels and exactly what we are experiencing in the last weeks after the outbreak of the war in Iran. We see that whenever we are dependent on fossil fuels, we have a problem in in this kind of crisis. So it is Whatever you think about the climate, it is good to transition away from fossil fuels. And von der Leyen, in her speech on Iran in the last plenary, she mentioned that through the European ETS, we have already 100,000,000,000m³ less gas usage than we would have without the ETS. So the situation would be much, much worse. And I think this conference in Colombia is also important from a geo political point of view. The French of Putin, the friends of Putin, support fossil fuels. I wonder why. So we still fuel the war against the Ukraine when we consume fossil fuels. And we should stop that as soon as possible. And it was very telling to me in Belgium. It's the last day that Russia embarrassingly shouted at Latin America and even Argentina. You know, it's good that Argentina is still in the Paris Agreement. That's also due to Mercosur. But of course Javier is maybe not the most ambitious guy on climate change, but he defended the Latin American position against Russia. So from a strategic point of view, it's important that Europe works with Latin America. And this conference is a good opportunity. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the Commission. I think it was very insightful what happened at the last day in Belgium at the cop. You know, the Latin Americans led by Colombia, were criticizing the text that the fossil fuel phase out was not clearly in. And then Russia, very aggressively, very unpolite, very undiplomatic, shouted at the Latin American countries and even in Spanish. The Russian representative said, you're behaving like children in Spanish. He said, Como ninos. And that led to a reaction even from Argentina, you know, Argentina is not really at the front line of climate protection. They are still in the Paris Agreement and that is due to Mercosur. So everybody who is against Mercosur should think twice only because of Mercosur. Argentina is still in the Paris Agreement, and there was a strong reaction from all the Latin Americans against Russia. So what what was clear there in the room is we have not only a climate issue here, we have a geopolitical issue. Those countries that live from fossil fuel and use fossil fuel also as a weapon are confronted with many other countries much more than the European Union. And I think we should use this much more as an argument. It's about the climate, but it's also about being independent from countries like Russia. And there are some other producers of fossil fuels that are also not really respecting human rights. And I don't think they should be our strategic allies. So that's one point. But the second point is also we need to be much better in the European Union, for example, on permitting.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Grazie mille. Thank you very much, dear Minister. And in the name of EP, also, thank you to your speech and your Prime Minister's speech yesterday. I think it was very important that Donald Tusk clearly said, we want to keep to our targets, we want to achieve them, but we need to do this with much less bureaucracy. And that's, I think the clue. We need to really speed up the work here. You should prioritize the clean industrial deal and the omnibus for reducing red tape and start the work immediately. And we should do the same in Parliament. Two points I would like to raise. Even though they are a bit sensitive. First the ETS two. I understand that there are challenges, but I don't see. And if you have any information, please share with me. I don't see that without the ETS. Two member states have any plan to get to their target. And when Tusk says we want to stick to the targets, we need to have a plan. So I don't think abolishing is a solution. Postponement is also, I don't think, the best solution. The ETS as a whole brings 25 times more CO2 reduction than the CO2 cars. And we don't want to abolish CO2 cars. We just want to make it more technology open. So the ETS is key. But do you have any plans to better support citizens? So we have not only the Social Climate Fund, but we also have the national revenues.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. I can only encourage you more, general. On the revenues, the Member States are obliged to spend all the money on purpose. That's in the law now. But in the discussion with your services, we understood that the tools for the Commission are rather limited to check if Member States are doing. So one Member State has announced that they will spend the money only in three years, and the commission doesn't have any tool to check that. Every year they will spend the money on purpose. I think it should be in the review that the commission has much more tools to check where the money is going to push in the right direction. Will you include Such things, such obligation in the in the review.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “If there's an allergen, that's for example. So I'd simply like to say to colleagues. That, uh uh uh uh uh uh, you're behaving like the greens are acting. You don't trust science. Uh, you don't trust the analysis, the scientific analysis and scrutiny and which has been, uh, and you want to call for some sort of ban if if things go as you want, then this particular product will be forbidden. It will be banned. Uh, so the party of freedom, the Patriots, uh, use that as their motto. Uh, but it became, it appears, the party of bans of prohibiting things. That's not good policy. Uh, whether I like it or not. Uh, something that I find disgusting, uh, is something that you find disgusting. But that doesn't mean that it is disgusting or that it is for everybody, or that it is harmful for the environment or for people overall when they consume it. So the food industry will decide whether this particular product can be used, can be sold. This is freedom. If of course it is a product which has been approved and the health consequences have been taken into consideration. This is what we have to look at the science and the rules that we have in place. Thank you.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “Um, they don't benefit. So don't we have to look at other materials and that they, they benefit when they, for example, use clean aluminium on sebum? Um, I think it's a very important instrument. A senator from United States said sebum is the last lifeboat of international climate policy. But we need to improve. It is not good enough and your proposal is a good step in the right direction. Also here fine tuning may be necessary, but one thing that concerns me, and I guess also many other colleagues, is this very short noticed, uh, derogation for fertilisers. So first of all, from a Democratic point of view, should this not be something we discuss before the Commission communicates? And second, you know, we need a strong European fertilizer industry. Without fertiliser industry, there is no independent food production. And that's why I think it may be short sighted to reduce the cost of fertiliser a little bit and destroy the European industry. So maybe we have better ideas to reduce the burden for for farmers, but still protect those companies that are producing in Europe and decided to become cleaner and cleaner. Thank you. So I changed my head again to the chair and the next speaker is for SAT, Timo Wilken.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much for your speech, also for keeping the time and not speaking too slow, at least in the second part. So thank you very much. We now come to the questions. The first round is the coordinators. And, uh, I first have to give the floor to the coordinator of EPP, which is myself. Sorry for that. Um, yeah. From an EPP point, I would like to thank you for the CAA's proposal. We were always arguing for allowing the combustion engine by keeping the target of climate neutrality. And I think the basic construction exactly recognizes that we will have combustion engine, but overall we will not have more emissions. And I think that's that's a good um, but of course we need fine tuning. And industry experts have questions. And I would like to raise three of these questions. The first question and I'm sure other colleagues will come back to it. Why only 1% biofuel? Couldn't it be possible to have more? Second question. Um, the fuel only cars are somehow off the table. And I think this this 2% that you give to any car producer, if they have, if your only cars or not. Um, couldn't that be improved so that we have a benefit for those that use the fuel, that maybe produce fuel only cars and not not for others. So some more, some less maybe. And last but not least, I strongly support and so do many in the Parliament and in industry, this recognition of green steel. Um, but also here the devil is in the detail. And the question that has been presented to me, and I would like to have an answer, at least during the process when a car producer decides not to use steel, but another material to reduce the the consumption and improve the energy efficiency, which is still a good thing even if you have clean cars.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “And this is much more 275 billion is National revenue Social Climate Fund. We heard the figures. So national revenues are bigger and they should be spent on purpose and taking social aspects into into a cloud into account. And then there are more measures. You know, there is solidarity in its one member states that benefit from solidarity in its. One should also use that to address the problem, to support low income families and much more money, RF modernization fund and so on. So I asked the commission also what they do about this. And uh, the last question is, do you have earmarking in this new proposal on the MFF? Because if the member States can decide how they manage it is not the question. The member should not be allowed to decide to take the money away from the purpose. That's the problem with the MFF proposal overall. Last but not least, I think there are a lot of opportunities when member states change their habits. Then as and me, we worked a lot on the support for clean cars in the country we know best. Germany. It was normally the workers that paid for the electric vehicle of their boss, and that has to change. It needs to be the worker that gets the benefit and not the bosses. Thank you.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Paying off. There are many people that want to abolish the ETS or weaken it substantially. I think some adjustment is necessary, but when is the break even point? So at what kind of CO2 price? Your project will not not be beneficial for the company anymore? Then, um, my second point, I think we need to include ETFs. We need to include the carbon removals in the ETS. I ask for this as a rapporteur already in 21, and I think it has to be done immediately. I know it's for the second panel, but I have other obligations. That's why I make this point here. But my question to the experts and you referred to it, but not the speaker from Bellona. I would like to have a bit more detailed insight. There are people arguing that, at least in the long run, we have limits for CSE, and if we add direct air capture also, there are limits. And I would like to understand are they relevant? How big are they? Because in theory, everywhere where we have had gas and oil, we can do CSE or direct air capture there. That's why normally every almost every fuel that is burned. Burnt. Um, yeah. Can be, uh, can we replace by CCS or direct air capture? But I would like to understand a bit more about the size of this possibility. Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “(11:01:58 – 11:04:02): Couldn't open the microphone. So thank you to the speakers. I have 2 questions. First of all, on the revenues, I would really like to get some more clarity on the revenues. Chiara Di Mambro mentioned a figure concerning Italy. I would ask you to repeat it because I think it's important to everyone. And also, I would ask the commission how, you know, how do you see? Can you confirm the figures? And what can we do to really make member states invest in climate? We have the obligation already in the existing legislation, but maybe we need to be more specific. A specific target for revenues for industry and much, much more transparency also, you know, that the money shouldn't be spent somehow in the future, but as soon as possible. So, I would like to listen also in the end from the commission here. Then the question on conditionality. I support the conditionality because there are workers that are afraid of losing their job if you know, and also the trade unions are for changes in the ETS. But if in the end, the free allowances doesn't lead to investment, then we have not done our job properly and the workers will be angry with us, rightly so. But on the other hand, you know, I don't agree with the speaker from Czech Republic from the first pence, mister Tamcini, that technology is not there. Sometimes it's expensive, and sometimes conditions are not there, but technology to decarbonize is existing everywhere. But the devil is in the detail. And, you know, is it maybe an idea to have a partial conditionality? So not all free allowances should be under conditionality, but maybe half or 70%. That would be my proposal, and I would like to listen from the panel what they think about this.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “48:08 – 09:50:22): Good morning. Thank you very much. Sorry that I can't be with you, but I think it's an important debate. Since this weekend, we see that prices of gas and oil dramatically increased, and this is not because of the ETS, it's because of what happens in Iran and the consequences. So we see that we are very dependent, and prices will always increase when something happens in the world when we are dependent on gas and oil. And that's why we need to fix this. So really, we need to fix this, and ETS 2 is the main instrument to reduce our dependency from gas and oil. It is, I think, a good system, but the problem is that member states are not really doing what they should do when they should give back the money, and they should start to give the money to the citizens already now because front loading is possible. The proposal of the Commission is a challenge because experts have calculated that it weakens the climate ambition, and I think that is a problem and it should be discussed. Also, the postponement is a problem, and I think the only good thing in the pro postponement, and that has to be acknowledged, is that the ETS 2 is postponed but still the Social Climate Fund has the same size. So it is a victory for those that wanted a higher Social Climate Fund, and it should be acknowledged. I don't think we should further weaken the ETS. I think the proposal of the Commission is already a challenge. I'm happy to support it in the spirit of compromise, but when nineteen member states ask for something and the Commission delivers, we should not endanger it, and we should not put additional requests on the table. Then we must, we will be stuck. I think we need to find a good compromise based on the Commission proposal. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you so much. Honourable members, water is life and drinking water is our most important resource. Food resource. So let's not forget that drinking water is the most highly controlled form of food. The checks are tighter even than for mineral water, so better to drink from the tap than from a bottle. Now we've talked about the PFAS, the forever chemicals. I have to say that in my Ruhr valley constituency, we've seen values for PFAS mean you can't fish and you can't give water to children. Now, in that case, it's criminal. Basically, we should ban PFAS wherever there are alternatives. But there are some cases where they are actually essential. It goes for hydrogen, the energy transition, some vaccines and some medications. So we can't have a ban across the board for the water directive. We have to be careful. We want to reinforce pharmaceutical manufacturing in Europe. So it's a sector that we need. So I ask the commission to think again there. Now I'm from the CDU party in Germany, from the same region as Friedrich Merz. So I can celebrate today. But as a doctor, I say that for every glass of wine or a glass of beer, you should drink a glass of water. And the best thing to drink is European tap water.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you very much indeed, Madam President, and thank you very much indeed to the ECR Group for having put this matter on the agenda. And I fully endorse the title of this debate because we do need reforms. We need to review the ETS system and make it better organised. Let me just give you one example. We need more free of charge allowances, particularly for those companies in Europe which are investing in European locations. And I think that that would be a good way forward. But I would warn you against one thing the Tories remember founded the ECR. If nothing else works, blame Europe. That was Boris Johnson's motto. So I would warn you against that, because our industry is beset by a whole host of problems and it is really dangerous to blame ETS for everything at the same time. Remember that the ETS has spared us from certain problems. 100,000,000,000m³ of gas have been saved thanks to ETS. Also, the von der Leyen told us that. And just imagine if we had to pay for all of this against the backdrop of the current crisis. So remember that Nicolas, and I think the ECR is going to have to clarify its position. Remember last time round we took on board many of the ECR positions. Now the ECR voted in favour in trilogue but then voted against in plenary. And that is no way to reform a system. It's a package. Of course. Now the Commission has come forward with a proposal as to how we can reduce the burden on industry, so we can scrap these allowances for industry and the so-called patriots. Did not only block an urgent debate, but also a simplified procedure. So all these lofty words amount to absolutely nothing. If we don't actually do anything here in Parliament. And the final thing I would say is that I would agree with the Commission that those companies who have invested should not lose out. We need smarter reforms in future.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “The commission proposal is a good base. We need fine tuning, but not Revolution. And I really want to encourage you not only to achieve progress, but to achieve a council position during your presidency. Because whatever you think, an endless debate, two years more uncertainty is not a good thing. So we need a solution and we need it fast. Second point the environmental effect of CO2 cars is exaggerated. I think other elements are much more important, and the core of our climate policy is ETS. Thank you for mentioning the MSR proposal on ETS two, and I would also draw your attention on a meeting next Wednesday of the European Investment Bank. They will discuss the Frontloading. So member States will have money available to help citizens to help them with the transition. Also low income families before it has two starts and I think that's the key. The key is not postponing and postponing, but helping people out and give them opportunities. I leave it for the moment. I come back maybe with other issues, but these are, in my view, the two key points. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the IPCC chair. First of all, I have to say, when I look here around the far right, three groups in this parliament, no colleagues there. So you can you can discuss the measures of how we tackle climate change, but that they are absent in particular after what happened yesterday. This is really outrageous. And we should confront all those colleagues that they are not even listening here. So second point. Thank you, professor um, for mentioning the removals. I think we really need to engage in carbon removals. I think we need to include them in the ETS as soon as possible, because we know it took 30 years to make a photovoltaic PV an affordable source of electricity. So we will need maybe also 30 years to make the removals available at scale and cost efficient. So we should start now. It is already late. Two questions. First of all, on the targets, we have this famous climate action tracker and they give themselves the impression that they are science based. But I sometimes doubt how they come to their conclusions. For example, the emissions of the United States have been since 30 years, 2.5 times higher than the EU per capita.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Ladies and gentlemen. Judgment. Climate protection remains a priority despite all the crisis we're living through. We owe it to our children, our children's children, to do something about this. But we've got to be an example to the rest of the world, because only if we all work together throughout the world can we do something about climate change. We want to stick to the objectives that we've already adopted, but we need to change our policy. We need to be technology neutral. We need to be more flexible. We need to be more pragmatic. We need to make sure that people and industry are not left behind. And then there are other issues which don't have to do with climate change, which perhaps can be left aside. The text is better. It could have been better if the other groups had help to negotiate it. Just moaning is not good policy. The Paris climate agreement is still alive. The USA has left it. Argentina is still there. Because. Because the Commission, von der Leyen and others said that Mercosur could only exist if the Paris climate agreement was stuck to. A lot of us in the group, including myself, have difficulty with the 90%, but we need an NDC quickly and in the resolution says that it's going to be the upper end of the range and we agree with that. We need an ambitious NDC. Otherwise, there's no point in going to Berlin. Let's vote on this tomorrow.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the commission. Indeed. Lydia Ferreira, our shadow rapporteur. Sincere apologies. And asked me to do the first, uh, comment here. Um, I, I have to say that there is not an EP position yet, so I can only share with you some reflections, and, um, I can tell you my personal position on some points. Um, but it's no secret that for many, the 90% is a challenge. And I have to admit, it is a challenging Figure. Um. Second point. I really like that the commissioner is not here today because we scheduled this meeting a short notice. And, you know, the most important thing you can do for the climate is to work with China, that they really reduce their emissions now, and I understand. Um, maybe could fund a bigger can be a bit more precise here. China has peaked their emissions already now. They have promised that for 2030. But now they are already going down. And as far as I understood, they are considering to pledge a reduction target in September this year, the first time ever that they commit to reduce their emissions. So that's something we should value. And I would like to to listen more about it. Second point for the international debate The 2035 target is much more important than the 2040. 2040 is more an internal European process. Um, and I would like to learn a bit more what, uh, the discussions are about the 2035 target, because there's nothing in the commission proposal for whatever reason. You know, if we ever think the logic of the commission and the Scientific Advisory Board is right to have a very big step from 2030 to 2040 because the last efforts are always the most expensive.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yeah, thank you very much to Tomislav and all those involved in this important files. I agree with Thomas laugh that to have the voucher surviving the parliament and the council is a big thing. Some people didn't expect. And I think it's key to fight antibiotic resistance. And okay, we need to do the fine tuning because the two proposals are different from the commission proposal and different from each other, but it's a good step to have the voucher agreed, where I think we need to fight to get more in the final legislation than the council is on prudent use of antibiotics because it's it's the same coin, another side of the same coin. We we need innovation, but we also need to guarantee that existing antibiotics, and in particular the new ones, are really used prudently after a proper diagnostic. You know, we have innovation you can already now like with Covid, you can do a very quick test to have an assessment. Is it bacteria or is it virus. And uh, in our mandate we have some hint that this test should be used and antibiotics shouldn't be used without a proper diagnostic. So I think that's something we need to fight. And the second point is that, you know, I very I'm very happy that both institutions support the innovative industry, uh, innovation in pharma much more than the commission proposal. But also here the devil is in the detail. We need to see that the modulation is stronger in the Parliament and the company that really goes for therapeutic added values, does clinical trials in Europe and fulfils everything that society desperately needs, is better rewarded in the Parliament, and maybe we can work on that to safeguard part of this, at least in the final agreement. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “(15:44:50 – 15:46:50): Thank you, Thier, and thank you to the 2 rapporteurs and the 2 shadow rapporteurs from EPP. CBAM is an important tool. And, a US senator, mister White House, who is unfortunately not in the White House, but in opposition, but he said, CBAM is the last lifeboat of international climate policy. So we really need to save CBAM. But at the same time, it's also very clear that we need adjustments. And it was good that Ada and Yaroubas and others fight it for a careful start so that we can do this adjustment before CBAM really, is extended to its full scope. We need to include more products, and I will also argue to extend the list a bit. I'm not convinced that the whole chemical sector should be in. I think it's too complex, but maybe some substances, should be in. We should look at this in detail. On the other end, hydrogen, we didn't import 1 molecule of hydrogen. So the question is, should it really stay in CBAM? Let's talk about this. Full support for Mohammed and Adam, when they do not support Article 27A. I'm strongly against this article because it would give the the a com complete wrong message to the stakeholders. CBAM shouldn't be stopped, the moment we just introduced it. And last but not least, I really would like to echo what Mohammed said on Ukraine. I would ask the commission, Yula, why do you think it's it's all fine and we shouldn't use some derogation for Ukraine? I don't want Pandora's box, but Ukraine is really a specific case. And please explain a bit your attitude here. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Colleagues, some people are saying that the ban on the combustion car is should be the heart of the green policy for the EU. That's not correct. That is not correct. If we look at the emission trading, that's emission trading is far more important. So even if you removed, uh, um, vehicles from emission, emission trading would be only a small part, but we should be focusing on neutrality, and this should not have an influence on our hitting our climate targets. Equally, the crisis of the European automobile industry is not to completely or um, in um, in SlideShare a result of EU policy that there's um, not the truth and not equally the Chinese have their own automobile industry. Now, we can't then blame the EU, um, legislators for that. We need to look at this. And people are fed up with the never ending controversy. We want to climate neutrality. We want technology neutrality as well. Uh, the coalition's, uh, parties in Berlin are fed up. People are fed up. They want to see an agreement. They want to see unity. People want unity that people are fed up with the squabbling. And we want we want to see climate neutrality and technology and neutrality, and we can achieve that. And then we can focus on the real problems.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you, Vice President. I agree that decarbonization is crucial. Also in this crisis or in particular in this crisis, because we need to reduce our dependency from oil and gas. At the same time. Competitiveness is an absolute must in these times. So which means when these are the priorities, um, other things are maybe not a priority. And when we want to speed up procedures, when we really want to allow industry to invest, Then other parts, even other parts of the Green Deal, like biodiversity or zero pollution, are maybe not at the same level. So we need to prioritize decarbonization and competitiveness. And I would, you know, you are nodding. So I guess you agree in principle, but I would like to understand more precise and in particular in the area of of chemicals. You know, when we ask the chemical industry to decarbonize, it's already very difficult. But when we at the same time put into question a lot of substances, it's a particular challenge. And on us, I think it's not yet clear enough. So how can we assure that there is not so much uncertainty, that the essential use is really protected? And this Damocles sword is not any more over the head of the chemical industry. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, yeah. In fact, what happened at IMO is a disaster. The the fact that we don't have an agreement and the fact how United States behaved. And, you know, normally I would say it needs a strong answer and it needs. But on the other hand, we in Europe, we are also very weak. And that's also, you know, when we are honest, part of the reason why the deal that Ursula von der Leyen made with the United States, you know, you may criticize it, but would you have been in her shoes? What are the alternatives? Europe is economically weak. That's why our leverage to fight is not as it should. And we are also weak when it comes to our defense. So for me, the main consequences of all this, we need to strengthen our economy. And we need to strengthen our defense, our defense to be less dependent from the United States and then to have more leverage when we see things like this happening on the routes. I share what colleagues have said. You know, Emma Wisner was a shadow rapporteur. Um, also was involved when we did the EU ETS for maritime and we need to strongly defend it. There's no reason, no reason to weaken it. And when we had the deal, the industry supported it. We had a big support from shipping industry in particular. Also those that build new ships. They have all the technologies available and we have dedicated money. The first time that in the innovation Fund we did earmarking for a specific industry. So shipping industry has a lot of money to to do what is necessary. We have covered not only trips inside the European Union, but also 50% of the trips from and to Europe. And we have a very good mechanism to protect carbon leakage. So both things are the three things are not in the deal for aviation. So there is not as clear carbon leakage protection. And not 50% of the trips from aviation are covered. So in a way shipping industries even better protected from carbon leakage than, than others. So this legislation needs to be implemented. Thank you.”
  EU policy on brain drain
• “Thank you very much, president. Best of luck. Thank you very much, president. And congratulations from the EPP Group. We are looking forward for a good cooperation with you in this committee. And now we go from Italy to Spain. I would like to suggest, as first vice chair of the committee, our colleague Esther Herranz. Esther Herranz was a member of the env Committee and the agri committee some years ago until 2019. She worked in this Parliament. Now she is back. In the meanwhile, she also worked professionally in the field of environment. So she is highly qualified from her professional work and also from her experience here in this parliament and as MEP. We are taking care about the gender balance. We propose a woman. Please vote for Esther Herranz.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. The EP supports the European Commission and Efsa. That is to say, we are against the particular objection that has been lodged here. Efsa in the wonderful Italian city of Parma where Efsa is located, they have looked at it very, very closely and they have scrutinised it and there are no health risks involved here. And I'd like to ask those who have filed this particular complaint. Well, we're in a difficult situation for our economy right now. And Europe also has is responsible for this particular situation because we forbid certain things and we create certain precepts according to which people are to act and to behave. Italy, we have this new food which has been found, and it is has been analyzed. It went through years of analysis. There is no problem there. And we politicians, we have to say we want this, but now we're saying, no, we're going to forbid this. Is this the right way to go? Is that the right trajectory to go down? Is that the right path? I question all of this. So I do feel I understand allergies. I know how serious allergies are, but we have clear rules and regulations as well. Of course there will be the proper labeling as all products with allergens. For example, nuts can be an allergenic and there's always a clear indication on. And and of course the it's included there with bold letters in the ingredients list of products.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “Thank you very much, chair. I would, in the name of EPP, present another candidate. This is the colleague sitting next to me, Andras Kulja, a new colleague from Hungary, from the Tisa party. And he has a very good qualification. He's a doctor, worked in mental health. One of our priorities in this Parliament and in surgery. Also very prominent on social media, reaching out to young people and also working on the link between environment and health. So I highly recommend Andras Kulja as a fourth vice president.”
  EU engagement with youth
• “We need to enable that transition. And there are too many rules, including environmental rules, for example, in bird protection, Natura 2000, that avoids the necessary projects for the energy transition. And here we need to do better. I welcome that the commission yesterday announced this permitting omnibus. Last but not least, my question to the commission. You referred to the big problems in transport. And that's why I have, again, to say that I regret, I really regret the postponement of ETS two. It will make it more difficult to achieve our targets in the transport area. People speak a lot about CO2 cars, but the figures that I got from the commission is that only ETS one is 25 times more important than CO2 cars for our 2030 targets, and that's why we need to focus much more on ETS, of course, in a policy mix. But my question to the commission, some member states say they can do their effort sharing targets without having any carbon pricing in their policy mix. And I wonder, either they have no ambitious targets, or they have a kind of miracle solution that I would like to learn about. I asked them to send me, but they didn't. Or is it just window dressing? I asked the commission to be very, very careful here and not allow member states to do window dressing when they want to avoid the necessary steps. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Yeah. Thank you, chair, and I hope I can speak slow and short. Um, so I think ecodesign is a really important instrument. We we have already saved a lot of energy with the measures that has already been put in place. With this, we help the climate. We all save money and we are less dependent from problematic countries like Russia and Qatar and many others that send fossil energy to Europe. But when we discussed eco design, it was always important also that the measures shouldn't increase the cost and that they shouldn't have, um, negative effects for the consumers. And that's why it's important that we do a prudent implementation. There are many, many win win win situations when we can save money and there is no, um, loss of convenience, for example, it's just technical measures to have standards that help us to reduce the consumption of energy or. Other harmful environment effects. Unfortunately, this crazy list of Donald. Trump on the taxes also includes eco design as a non tariff restriction. Which he includes somehow to his crazy calculation. Why? The taxes are necessary. Could the commission confirm that all the measures have been notified with W. To the World Trade Organization and there have never been any complaints. And last but not least, when I said they shouldn't intervene. These measures shouldn't intervene in the convenience and shouldn't increase the cost. Please take care of this. Also, when you go on the biomass heating. I think the first draft was not taking everything what is needed into account. So it's good that you took it off the table and look at it very carefully. Thank you.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “So that is really great. And that's why we have a big responsibility to do the right thing. The proposal that is on the table is a good base, with one huge exception here in the committee. Many people raised it yesterday and many people are against the postponement of sebum for fertilisers. It it is not a solution because we endanger the European fertilizer industry. We import fertilizer from Russia and that cannot be the solution. So we need the European fertilizer industry. They have started the transition and we need to support them. And also the legal construction of this is unacceptable for the Parliament. So I would really encourage you to work on this sebum proposal without, uh, the point I just mentioned. Last but not least, on Mercosur, I think it's possible, and I think it's necessary to enter into force Mercosur provisionally, despite the vote that happened last week in the parliament. Legally, it's it's possible the parliament didn't vote against Mercosur. And the legal check can be done while it enters into force provisionally. And I see this also an important point from a climate point of view. You know, President Lula is a leader of international climate policy. Do we want to make him weaker by challenging or destroying Mercosur? Nobody followed Trump when Trump left the Paris Agreement and Javier Millan, Argentina would be the first to follow. But he didn't, because Mercosur has a sentence that says the Paris Agreement is the base. So when we want to make Paris survive, we shouldn't destroy Mercosur.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to the Commission. For me, the case is clear. You know, I worked as a doctor, and, um, sometimes you need to follow the expertise of 30, sometimes only ten experts that are giving the standard therapy for a specific, um, situation. And when I decide as a doctor, no, I ignore it. I want to treat cancer with laying on of hands. No, this is, uh, malpractice, and I can't be sued for that. In the case of climate, we are talking not about 10 or 30 experts. We are talking about 3000 experts that work on the IPCC reports. And it's not about the health of one child. It's about the future of all our future generations. So how can we then say, you know, scary, strange, minority opinions are are the way forward. So we need to follow the mainstream science here. Um, but that's unfortunately not enough. We are challenged with, uh, a lot of, um, yeah, narratives. And I would just like to give you one example. When people say the CO2 emissions of, uh, of that are created by mankind are only a small part of the CO2 in the atmosphere.”
  Climate efforts
• “Ladies and gentlemen, those employed in the car industry and the supply chain are worried a key industry in the European Union is facing a serious crisis. The main responsibility for this needs to be placed at the foot of the national governments, such as the Germans, who stopped the national support overnight, and of course, the difficult mistakes made by management. Nevertheless, I welcome your pragmatism, Commissioner. We need to show flexibility now in the 2025 target. This isn't overambitious, but at this juncture it is important to provide relief rather than impose penalties on industry. In a second stage, we need to move as fast as possible to move to technology and technological neutrality. We need to get rid of this ban on the internal combustion engine, but we need targeted support as well for those in the middle and lower income brackets. I like your ideas on leasing, but we need to push further on this. First of all, you're talking about the Climate Social Fund. National income from ETS two is much bigger than the Social Climate Fund. And please talk to the European Investment Bank as well, so that that sort of subsidy can be provided straight away, rather than having to wait till 2027 when the ETS is introduced. Lastly, I'd like to talk about pooling. When we introduced this, this was an instrument to provide flexibility to European industry. If we do it the way it is set out on paper now and we don't adopt your plan, it means money's going to go to China and to Tesla. And that's why it's important that your proposal be adopted as soon as possible. No money for Musk friends.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to express a vote of thanks to Bob and Ursula von der Leyen that they followed the demands of the EPP. And I think here in this chamber, there's too much bickering. The Greens aren't here anymore, but of course you can maybe pass on to them that I'm skeptical when green politicians think they know better what is good for industry, than the industry themselves. Mr. Bloss, did you speak to the Minister president who was basically in favour of this proposal, the FDP colleagues? It's easy to complain. But we remember that there was a recital that gave rise to all sorts of problems that hasn't even come to fruition. That the commission is taking a huge step towards technological neutrality and releasing industry from a burden. That's really unfair. But my main message goes to the right, the fossil friends and Russian friends here in this Parliament. I think you need to be quite a long way from the truth. When you look at CO2 cars being made responsible for everything that's gone wrong in the German car industry. Let the Chinese build their own cars. That's not the EU's fault that companies have made mistakes themselves. Mistakes that have been criminal in nature. And that you might be Mr. Trump's friend. That's one thing. Now we have this proposal. We can improve it on green steel, for example. We need to sort that out, but we need to make sure that climate protection and competitiveness are brought under one idea.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you, president. And thank you, Council President. Um, first one remark, you know, listen, before you leave, César Luena, you listen before Cesar. Listen. Listen to Mister Luena. Mister Luena, please listen. Please listen to me. You know, yesterday I had a meeting coincidentally with your group leader, Eric Garcia. And I'm always one of those that think we need to work in the center here. And also, my president, Manfred Weber, confirmed it yesterday. But please, you know, when all the speeches of Sad and some colleagues in particular start with blaming the EPP and telling everybody that nothing has to change. The Green Deal is perfect, and everybody who wants to simplify it is against environmental protection. Then it is just not a base for cooperation. You need to understand that things have to change. I'm very much fighting for the core of the Green Deal, but if your starting point is everything is perfect, then you don't see what's happening outside this meeting room. And that's why the cooperation starts also with looking at the reality. So on the concrete points, dear Minister, uh, on CO2 cars, I'm happy that you have it as a priority. Um, it is not easy. There are different positions in the member states here in the Parliament. I personally think that lifting the ban of combustion engine while protecting our climate targets is the right way.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “A global agreement is necessary. But I would also say it can't be at any cost because the effect for the climate is not by a global agreement, but by the actual emission reduction. And when you have a weak agreement that rather doesn't change a lot, then it's, it's better to work bilaterally with other parts of the world. And definitely, I don't think we should weaken the EU ETS in light of what happened. And this is an issue for for carbon leakage in many ways. You know, we need to avoid carbon leakage for European ports and European ship owners. And I think we did a lot in our legislation to avoid that. And if it needs to be improved, let's do it. But we also need to avoid carbon leakage for our industry. And when the CO2 costs of the transport to Europe is not included in the general cost, then we may see that the environmental benefit of some of our measures is weakened, because outside Europe environmental standards are lower, and then the cost of transport. Also the CO2 cost of transport comes on top, so we should not be compromising at any price. But we should uphold an ambitious position here. Thank you.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “For energy efficiency, because he's busy all day with filling papers that sometimes also the national and regional government, but also mainly the European Union legislation imposes. So paperwork is not climate protection. So to to go for less bureaucracy, to go for less paperwork in particular support SMEs and not overregulate. Sometimes it's even good for the environment. Paperwork and filling in reports is not the same as achieving an environmental target. My question to the commission. Thank you to to the report. It looks quite good. Um, my question is, we have as an important element of all the climate targets, the ETS and also the ETS. Two um, do you think member states will achieve their national targets without the ETS? Two because some are arguing we we have the effort sharing and that will work anyhow. But my information is that many member states, of course, include the part that ETS two delivers also when they look at their NDC national targets under the effort sharing. So does the Commission have some information about how big is that part and how far will be away from the 55% if it's two is abolished? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I will speak about and ask you about the necessary adaptation of the Green Deal. In fact, we must keep the core of the Green Deal. The climate targets must be a priority. We need to achieve it. Trump is out of the Paris Agreement, but I find it really remarkable that nobody followed. Nobody followed Trump. Even Xavier Milley is still in also because of Mercosur. And that's why we have a huge responsibility to keep the track on decarbonisation. But on the other hand, I strongly support the simplification agenda of the Commission and really encourage you to go ahead with all the simplification that is on the agenda of the commission. And then we also have sometimes conflicting targets. So, um, when we make, uh, reach more complicated and at the same time, chemical industry should decarbonise. This is a no go, so we cannot make reach more ambitious or more complicated when we want the chemical industry to decarbonise. We need to simplify reach, definitely. And that's also true for the specific question that is hot potato also here in the Committee on PFAS. Yes, we can PFAS when there are alternatives and in particular when it's consumer products where it's obvious that there is a direct exposition with people. But we cannot and we must not prohibit PFAS when it is about critical use like hydrogen, wind power, vaccination, medical devices. And there are also many grey areas. And in these difficult times, we cannot start with a bold ban and then see what kind of derogations we do. We need to be really sophisticated, really targeted, and not endanger the industrial base of the chemical industry. Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you, chair. And a big thank you to all the speakers and those that organized this hearing. I think it's crucial, uh, without CCS. And I would also add carbon removal technologies. We we will not make it. And unfortunately, it took a long time for many to to realize that this is important and we need to be bold. I'm very impressed by the presentation of Heidelberg. You know, one of the plants is in my constituency. I monitored this, um. And I wish you all the best, but I'm more impressed, even that you do it in Bulgaria. And I think that is something that everybody should know. We need to make it much more visible that even in countries like Bulgaria, Central and Eastern Europe, there are solutions and we need to get away the obstacles. And one thing you mentioned I would really like to underline, um, the the legal conditions for CSE are not there now in Germany until today. Cse is prohibited. You are not allowed to store CO2 in Germany, and you are not allowed to transport it at large scale to other countries like Norway. And the law is discussed for four years now. It is in the final stage. So the new government did what they had to do, but it was delayed for years. And we cannot ask industry to decarbonise when the technologies that they need are actually banned. So I think Europe also needs to push member states in this direction. My question to you from Heidelberg, um, what kind of ETFs design do you need to make your, um, project? Uh, yeah.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “37:01 – 10:39:59): Yeah, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission. We need to speak about solutions. Indeed, we speak about the challenges and the burden, but here we speak about solutions. Technologies are available in almost all sectors of the economy to decarbonize, and the challenge is that the member states really need to spend the money on purpose. It can't be repeated often enough that now member states have the obligation to spend 100 percent of the revenues on purpose, not only the funds in ETS Two, the Social Climate Fund, in ETS One, Modernization Innovation Fund—all the money should be spent on purpose, and the member states have the obligation to make this transparent.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “For energy efficiency, because he's busy all day with filling papers that sometimes also the national and regional government, but also mainly the European Union legislation imposes. So paperwork is not climate protection. So to to go for less bureaucracy, to go for less paperwork in particular support SMEs and not overregulate. Sometimes it's even good for the environment. Paperwork and filling in reports is not the same as achieving an environmental target. My question to the commission. Thank you to to the report. It looks quite good. Um, my question is, we have as an important element of all the climate targets, the ETS and also the ETS. Two um, do you think member states will achieve their national targets without the ETS? Two because some are arguing we we have the effort sharing and that will work anyhow. But my information is that many member states, of course, include the part that ETS two delivers also when they look at their NDC national targets under the effort sharing. So does the Commission have some information about how big is that part and how far will be away from the 55% if it's two is abolished? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Even if Joe Biden would have achieved what he tried halve emissions by 2030, they would have 2.5 times more per capita. And still we, as you were, a little bit in the same ranking than the United States. And for now, the country that you know best UK has a very ambitious target. 82%. 35. Japan has 60%. And still they are in the same category. So I doubt that this is really science. And sometimes people also refer to the IPCC when it gets to the very concrete targets that members of Unfcc have. And I would ask you a question, you know, can you really, from the science, say this is the right figure for the UK, for Japan, for Europe, for the United States. Last question. If we not achieve what we all want 1.5 degrees in the long run? Some people say then yeah, it's over anyhow. We will not make it. But isn't it the truth that every 1.2 degree that we limit global warming is good? So if we end up with 1.8, it's much better than two degrees, and two degrees is better than 2.2. I think that's a message that we also need to spread. Thank you.”
• “(15:13:27 – 15:15:46): Yeah. Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to Massimiliano for his work and the presentation of his draft report. One sentence that Massimiliano said was very important to me. He wants to achieve the biggest possible harmony. And to make it very clear, the EPP's intention is to find the majority in the center. That's also the guideline that our group president, Manfred Weber, gave us. It is also very clear we need to deliver the ban of the combustion engine must be polished. And I think that must be the starting point of all negotiations. We need to change the legislation. It has shortcomings, and we cannot just agree to have it unamended. So, personally, I like the idea of compensation. However, we can discuss and must discuss other kinds of compensation than the commission proposed. However, the green steel must play a role. I think it is a big opportunity. And in contrast to what one of the previous speakers said, there are many projects that are still living and ongoing and will deliver the green steel even before '35. And that's why I also agree with Massimiliano that we can include it in the legislation before '35. But the overall framework must also be attractive so that green steel will really be used, and that's why maybe some fine tuning is necessary. It is also a big priority, as you know, of the German government to have the quota of 7% really achieved. E-fuels and biofuels must play a role. It's true they are not 100% climate neutral, but their contribution must be accepted as far as they are climate neutral. And yeah, my main point is everybody needs to move away from extreme positions, and let's find a good compromise together. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Dear colleagues, it is extremely important that we do not put any further burdens on industry. We in fact reduce that. Now, if something's important, if you don't want to your trousers to fall down, for example, you can have a belt and suspenders. We have so many rules and regulations that it's hard for industry to breathe. So we have to loosen things up a bit. So I think it is good we have the omnibus that has been agreed as well. What we need is energy. If you're going to, um, be involved in production, in transformation, it requires a processing. It requires a lot of energy. So that's what we need in this clean industrial deal. We need more energy. We need cheaper energy. So electricity is very important. It helps us when it comes to processing. This is what will help us make make us more independent from Russia and other problematic suppliers. So I think it's really hugely important to actually implement all of these elements, and we need to speed up procedures as well. The head of a large steel company said to me, I want to, uh, decarbonize, but I need 50 different types of licenses, types of paperwork. Um, so we had this net zero industrial deal that was discussed before, but we need to take this not just for batteries, but also for steelworks. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the Commission. Yes, indeed, many of us were very disappointed when we learned from the failure of the negotiations in autumn. And to be honest, we cannot shy away from the fact that the position and the behaviour of the US administration was completely unacceptable. You know, the United States exercised pressure on the representatives of several member states, including using their kids as a threat. So they told participants, when you don't follow the US line, your son or your daughter, that is for study or for school exchange in the United States will see the consequences. We need to speak out against this behavior. You know, we want the United States to work with us, and we. We cannot punish all the citizens for what the administration does. But this cannot be unmentioned in such a debate that this is unacceptable. And I think it is right when the Commission says the member states should reunite, but they should not reunite on a weak position, ignoring this unacceptable behaviour. And, you know, those member states that left the common EU position should feel the pressure in all possible ways. You know, there was a new position. This was not perfect, but good. And we should not go back to a weaker position.”
  EU-US relations
• “So we don't want stranded investment. We want the transition to be continued. Lydia, me and many others in the EPP, we look with a lot of interest to the proposal of our EPP friends. Mr. Ratas, very experienced politician, former member, former Prime Minister of Latvia put a proposal on the table and he very much focused on the enabling conditions without CCS infrastructure, without electricity grid, without hydrogen. A pragmatic approach on hydrogen. We will just not make it so. Let's also work on this one. Last but not least, and you know, I wanted to raise the floor again in the catch the eye as an individual member. But I will skip that because there are many others. But let me say one last point. The international dimension is really important, and some are so obsessed with the 90% in 2040 that tend to forget that 2035 is more important for the international dimension. This month, we need to pledge our 2035 target, and that is important for the international dimension. As I said, I don't use my catch the eye. So let me finish that sentence. China has peaked emissions. They will pledge, as far as I understand, the first time in history, a reduction target. So we need to be ambitious in 2035. And for me, a target must be higher than 72.5%. Let's not forget that 2035 is more important than 2040. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Muchas gracias, Senora. President. I will speak in German also. I'd like to just clarify what Alexander Ben Huber and Christina Schneider said. We the EPP, are in favour of the deforestation regulation, but we are also in favour of a simplification. We want foresters at farmers. We want that. We want to make things easy for easier for them. By making the rules clearer both within and without the EU. We want to make it clear that these countries and people in these countries that are low risk are are okay because there's no problem there. Because they have rules in place that prevent deforestation. And so that is what we are trying to express with this objection. I personally think that what the Commission has suggested as third countries I don't see them as I'm not as critical of that as Miss Andrews is. We need to make sure. We need to assure foresters and farmers in the EU that we are going to take third countries that need to to task. For example, if Brazil is in the middle category. Then that's a then that's a start. Although I see that there's less objection to that than there was a year ago. The we want the European Commission to. Announce as part of the environment omnibus as quickly as possible. They want them to announce clarification that agriculture that farmers and foresters in countries that are not a problem both inside and outside of the EU, that they will be freed from this administrative burden. Now to the essential debate here. If someone says that administrative burden for farmers and foresters in country, that there is no problem is the core of the Green Deal, well, then I can't help them. We will break down. We will break the Green Deal. If we add all of this administrative burden, that cannot be the core of the Green Deal. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you. President of the Council. Your country has a very good track record when it comes to fighting antibiotic resistance. In fact, you are a good example for the rest of Europe. But I want you to be a bit more precise when it comes to this issue and the pharma package. You know, we have quite some some different approaches on the voucher. Um, I would encourage you to really take care that we have a meaningful voucher so that innovation really comes with new antibiotics. But as important is prudent use. And I would really ask you, did you see the Parliament's position on prudent use, which is more ambitious than the council? And are you willing to to take that into account when brokering a compromise? My second point is medical devices. Unfortunately, it has not been mentioned today. I think it's the biggest problem that we have for the moment in medical care. Um, devices for children are short because of our regulation. So in this case, simplification is not only important for the competitiveness, but it's life saving. So are you ready to push for a quick fix of the problems that we have with medical devices? And last but not least on CMR, we all agree that we need criteria other than the price, but what criteria? We need to define them so that industry really knows when they invest in Europe. They will be paid off. Thank you.”
  Medical devices · Antimicrobial resistance
• “37:01 – 10:39:59): Yeah, thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Commission. We need to speak about solutions. Indeed, we speak about the challenges and the burden, but here we speak about solutions. Technologies are available in almost all sectors of the economy to decarbonize, and the challenge is that the member states really need to spend the money on purpose. It can't be repeated often enough that now member states have the obligation to spend 100 percent of the revenues on purpose, not only the funds in ETS Two, the Social Climate Fund, in ETS One, Modernization Innovation Fund—all the money should be spent on purpose, and the member states have the obligation to make this transparent.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Yeah. Thank you very much for everybody who helped to organize this event. I'm really happy to see some of the actors from the Paris Agreement. Lawrence is here, close to me, and I know how active you have been. And really, I think it's it's not only historic, it's also a benchmark for the future. When we discuss, as I did yesterday, for example, why BLM didn't deliver as we hoped for and as it should. There are many reasons, but one of the reasons is that the presidency, with all the good intentions, they didn't have the same long term strategy than France. So it was really not a one off issue. You prepared it for at least three years, and I think that is important. And that we together, Europe, together with other ambitious nations, need to do to make the future cops more successful than the ones that followed Paris and as successful as Paris. I'm really grateful for the then acting people. But I cannot hide my disappointment. On the current French government, you know, would somebody have told me 3 three, four years ago that Macron was, together with Meloni and Tusk, pushing the commission not to propose any target for 2040. I wouldn't believe it. And, you know, I would also not believe that the German chancellor supported the commission while Macron was not supporting the commission.”
  Climate efforts
• “So we should start early with the a bit more easy ones. I doubt that for 90% we we have easy solutions at hand. But if we follow this logic, shouldn't we then set the 2035 five target a little bit higher than the straight line, because definitely the first part of the gap between 55 and 90. The first part may be easier than the last. When we really need to decarbonize industry, aviation and other areas. So that are my first questions. Then I can commit from EPP side that we want to work fast, even though the result cannot be prejudged. We have legitimate concerns that needs to be assessed. From my personal point of view. Flexibility is welcome, but how will the Commission assure high quality of the third country certificate? So what are we going to do here and why? Only to start after 35. Why not start immediately after 30? And I think the commission was not completely clear on the ETS, Wabc said in the plenary. Industry and member states can use flexibility, but that needs to be reflected in the text. We welcome the technological neutrality that has made it in the proposal. We welcome the inclusion of negative emissions. Maybe the wording can be strengthened and we definitely insist on the enabling condition. And I'm grateful that co-funded Mega said it will be. More will be added in particular. Our colleagues will very much insist on enabling conditions because without enabling conditions we won't meet any targets, even the 2030 target. So that's really key. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you chair. And first of all, congratulations to Emma and also to you. 30 years is a long time for a good institutions, I think. When I listen to some colleagues but also look at the society, institutions are better prepared when we would have another pandemic. You have a better mandate like also Ecdc, but society is not better prepared because vaccine deniers and people also like Mr. Hauser or Mr. Anderson. I get too many support in public. And that's why you you have a huge responsibility. You need to be much more clear, much more also offensive and not not just say, okay, we rely on these data or that data. You need to work with Ecdc and the Commission to put the facts on the table. You know, I have looked at the figures of long Covid in Germany and the figures of suspected side effects from the vaccination, not those that have been proved, but those suspected. And the long Covid cases are many, many more, ten times more than the suspected vaccine. Side effects. These figures need to be communicated by you and others every day. Otherwise, when the next pandemic arrives, society will be worse prepared than we have been last time. Thank you.”
  Vaccination
• “I replace our shadow rapporteur, Lidia Pereira. We have a very good cooperation. But she's at home in Portugal. She has obligations there. Um, before I come to Lydia's position, let me say a personal word to Andre. Andre, you arrived six years ago here as a new member. And to be honest, we did a lot of good things together. I was already very frustrated when you changed to the so-called Patriots. But when I saw your draft report, in particular the the wording on climate science, I was really shocked. I cannot believe that this is your position. It may have been opposed by some others in your group. So when it's about the future of our children and grandchildren, we cannot look on very isolated minority position. We need to follow the consensus of science. And yeah, that's what I wanted to say. First, in the name of Lydia. We are in intensive dialogue inside the EPP. We have many different positions on the figure and to be honest here, the science is not so clear and the Commission has also the obligation to take other positions into account. And one very pro-climate member of our group said yesterday in a meeting, it is not the only possible solution to go the 35% in the first decade and only 10% in the second decade after 2030. So we are in discussions, and Lydia always says, I'm not obsessed with the figure, but we are very clear. We don't support the proposal for rejection. We really want to work constructive. And Lydia always says the transition must continue not only for the climate, but also for the companies that put their money on what we promised that the green transition will pay off and we will follow that track.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Council president. Good luck for your presidency, your important work. I would like to raise two points. First of all, Amr antimicrobial resistance. Poland is a Catholic country and many Polish people, like many others, were looking at the health of the Pope. He was seriously ill, but he has obviously been successfully treated by antibiotics. Many others have not. The good luck that antibiotics work. 33,000 people die, at least even more every year. And including young people die because antibiotics don't work. The European Parliament has in the pharma legislation, in the regulation report of Timo Wilken, shadow rapporteur, our coordinator, Thomas Tomislav Sokol made very concrete proposals not only for the voucher for innovation, but also for prudent use. And I would encourage you to look at these proposals and really include them in the council text, because we owe this to the people that die from antibiotic resistance. The second point is medical devices. I would encourage you to really act fast. Um, we have a problem. I worked in paediatrics as a doctor and my colleagues' pediatrician called me and said, Peter, we are not able to treat children, for example, that suffer from heart disease because the European regulation makes the certification so expensive that we just don't have these devices anymore. And I would really ask you to put the priority here to encourage the commission to act fast on pediatrics with a delegated act as soon as possible during the presidency, and then a comprehensive review as soon as possible. Thank you.”
  Medical devices · Antimicrobial resistance
• “Yeah. Thank you. So I'm not fully convinced that the equilibrium is already there. So the headline is always we prohibit. But another question on the chemical industry. Um I think we agree that something has to be done to give more flexibility for chemical industry in the ETS. How can you then avoid that? The frontrunners that have already invested a lot of money in the decarbonisation Are not punished, so efforts must be rewarded. And how can we find the balance here?”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “This shows, you know, first of all, Argentina is still in the process and that is due to Mercosur. Everybody who criticized Mercosur should be aware that Argentina is in the Paris Agreement, because stepping out of the Paris Agreement would be stepping out of Mercosur. But also, we have a huge opportunity when we when we align on fossil fuels, phase out with Latin America, we can have an ally not only on the Cop, but also for other challenging geopolitical issues, which we will be confronted in the in the near future, unfortunately. Last but not least, I think when we speak about what is necessary protection of the climate, we need to make it happen. And that's not always as easy than to fix a target. To fix the target is easy, but to make it happen is very difficult. And sometimes you have to do trade offs. Unfortunately, also European legislation on nature. Let's for example look at Natura 2000 and birds. It it protects not only the environment, it prohibits sometimes the speeding up of permitting for important infrastructure that we need for the transition. And I think that has to be also in the focus. I very much welcome that the Commission now announced a permitting omnibus from target to action includes some difficult decisions, and we need to make these difficult decisions. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “So I don't know if it's according to the rules. If the chair answers questions. So, uh, yeah, maybe just two sentences not to to use too much time. So first of all, um, I think, uh, it is normal in politics that parliamentarians talk to the commission, and I may find a lot of proposals, a lot of ideas where the former German climate minister, Mr. Habeck, gave some information, some ideas to the green parliamentarians, and they went to the press. So let's let's not exaggerate these kind of issues. It's normal that people talk to each other. And that's the only thing I can say. And personally, I'm of course in favour of working in the middle, but, um, it also needs a constructive approach from everyone and not repeating the arguments from the last five years. So a change is needed. So and I think I stretched the rules already very much because we don't, uh, we shouldn't lose too much time. Um, I give the floor to Jonas for the left.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Two, it's there is a reason to start with low prices. But I understood from other scientists that this of course has an effect on our 2030 targets people. Scientists argue that it will be 1% for each MSR 1% postponement. Another 1%, in theory. You could argue. Yeah, but we have the effort sharing. But do you know any member state that has a plan B on their effort sharing when Ets2 is later and weaker? And to be honest, I see again that, uh, the Patriots and the ECR are not present. But I have to also remind everybody that this side of the room was empty when we discussed Ets2. There were many Patriots and ECR opposing the Ets2. There were some EPP supporting the Ets2, no green, no left, no renew for different reasons. But the fact is nobody defended the ets2 on this side, and it has effect on the climate. Uh, when we weaken Ets2. And that's why I think it's finally the time when we have to defend Ets2 and make it survive. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Sorry, I'm a bit surprised because I thought this is the first one, but. Okay. I'm ready. Thank you very much. Teresa Ribera. And those that listened to the discussions yesterday here in the committee know that I'm in a thank you mode. And I will also start with a thank you to you. Thank you that you supported the omnibus in the college, in the College of Commissioners. I think it's very important to go for simplification fast. And soon, you know that EPP wanted to go further, but it is an important first step. But with the thank you that also everybody knows from yesterday comes a push. So when I listened to your political friends in the plenary, Gabi Bishop, Lara Wolters and others, they criticized the commission heavily for the omnibus. That means they criticized you. So please help us to convince the S&D in the European Parliament that what you supported in the Commission Amplification is the right thing. Second point, um, the clean industrial deal is a lot of paper. There is not yet the concrete action. And I would ask you, when will the commission really go from paper to action? For example, when will you present the Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator? We need to speed up permitting for those industries like steel and cement, that want to decarbonize. They need to have easier permitting. Last but not least, carbon removals are a key for industry to have a possibility also to go for decarbonisation, but it's also an imperative for the international climate targets. We will not achieve them without carbon removals. I invite everybody to an exhibition at the third floor and the other side of the tractor bar. Today we have some very interesting examples, but what exactly will you do soon to incentivize carbon removals? Do you support the inclusion of carbon removals, the technical things in the ETS? Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you. Chair. I thank the Commission for encouraging the member States to really deliver. And, um, I ask the commission to really continue to encourage the member states and, um, you know, every, um, yeah, I want to react a bit to what, uh, some colleagues had said that the EPP is, you know, no longer supporting the Green Deal. Not every element of the legislation that we discussed and that we adopted last Parliament is core of the Green Deal. You know, you cannot just argue that. Criticising specific legislation or trying to change specific legislation, reject specific legislation is attacking the Green Deal as a whole. There was a lot of overlap. A lot of bureaucracy that is not necessary to achieve the climate targets. And that's why we take the liberty to correct things that have been wrong in the last Parliament. And I stand for the core of the Green Deal. I stand for personally also, that we defend the climate targets and that the member states also deliver on their national climate and energy plans. But give you one. I give you one example. An SME in my constituency told me that the sustainable sustainability manager doesn't have time to implement projects, for example.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, on behalf of the whole EPP group, I'd like to express my condolences and sympathy for all the victims. Secondly, a big vote of thanks to those volunteers who've helped out, and especially those who've worked through the rescue programme outside their home countries. Thirdly, I'd like to turn to the member states and call on them to make sure that the topic of rescue be taken more seriously, both in terms of contributions and receiving help as well. My country was critical, and when there was a forest fire in Saxony-Anhalt last year, the minister Sven Hilter did ask for help from the EU, although in Germany we were skeptical for a long time. I think in Spain that help could have been dispersed a lot quicker. Finally, climate change. Obviously we need to talk about climate change. But that can't be the first sentence we say when we see people who become victims. I can't, as a doctor, come to a heart attack patient and say, you've got to change your diet. You have to provide specific help. First and foremost. And that needs to be clear in political terms as well. When we're talking about climate protection, then I think we need to look strong more strongly, more strongly than we have done to date. At the international level, the climate goal of 90% by 2040. That's not going to save the climate, the global climate. We are not covering bellum enough. And president in office, uh, the 2030 goals, uh, I think we're not going far enough on these. We need to concentrate on those as well. So first of all, climate protection on a global level and very fast, very concrete help. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “I see where you're coming from, colleague, but I don't agree with your accusation. I just spoke with Mohammad Shahid, the S&D rapporteur for Cbam. I just spoke to him. Of course I will reach out to green colleagues and renew colleagues. I think that on Cbam we can find a majority, a broad majority representing the pro-European forces, namely the von der Leyen coalition. They will be encompassed. So I'm glad to say that, and I hope that the Greens and the S&D will be constructive when it comes to other issues, not just on Cbam.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “For your introduction and also your really engaged work to move the climate agenda, but at the same time keep jobs inside Europe. Um, you mentioned the global situation, and I think we all need to be seeing that it has two sides. The US under Trump stepped out of the Paris Agreement. That's a very bad news. And it's challenging. But on the other hand, nobody followed Trump. So even Melaye in Argentina didn't leave the Paris Agreement. So that's why we have a huge responsibility. The world is now looking at us. Um, and I would like to understand how exactly you work with China, India and others to bring an ambitious agenda for the end of this year. We need a 2035 target urgently, and we know that it's connected with 2040. So and that's a challenge. The 90% are a challenge. And I'm still not happy with the 90%. Um, we need to be extremely careful to avoid a deindustrialization in Europe. I think we can look at 90% if the conditions are right. Really, industry and people need to be able to decarbonize. And we need flexibility also with international credits. It's something social Democrats in Germany in the end supported signed. And I think that could pass a way forward for Europe. So could you elaborate a little bit more on the how and not only on the figure? So what kind of conditions are you ready to deliver, and what kind of flexibility would you be able to give to Member States and industry? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts