Delara BURKHARDT

Policy topics Delara BURKHARDT is active on

What Delara BURKHARDT has said (11)

• 2026-06-17 “@CHAIR (15:44:04 – 15:45:18): You very much, president. Cheap electricity is there. The question is, why can't you get to it? The majority of our energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels that makes us dependent on autocrats vulnerable to price shocks and costs us billions every year, and that's why we need to electrify. But that only works with homegrown renewable energy. Wind and sun today are the cheapest energy sources that we have, clean, safe, and produced here in Europe. We are front runners in renewable energy production in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea, and this is where a large part of Europe's clean energy will come from in the future. But all too often, this cheap electricity doesn't reach local people and companies. The reason for this, because national market borders prevent us from realizing the full potential of renewable energy, and we need to change that. We need to think of European markets at of energy markets at European level because those who invest in renewable energy should be benefiting from them. If producing cheap renewable energy also leads to lower electricity prices, then it's worth expanding. Then electrification is worth it, and then people will really start to see the energy transition. Yes, please. Please, mister Teresh. Please, to all the colleagues, to stay very strict, with the times, please.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• 2026-06-17 “(15:45:58 – 15:46:31): Well, unlike you, I do have a solution for this. We need to strengthen energy markets, and then we'll be able to get lower energy prices. At the moment, wind and sun are at around 14 kilowatts, whereas we're looking at 14 to 15¢ per kilowatt for nuclear energy. We've got much more much higher prices at the moment. I think unlike you, I'm providing a solution. That's what I said. Thank you very much, miss Burkat.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Unfortunately, to see you again in this context, as it's the second year in a row where you are pulling the emergency brake on Aoda, which is, in our opinion, bad for the environment, bad for our international reputation, but also bad for fair and sustainable competition, because we are talking about companies that are already investing in the in compliance and they face now operational uncertainty. Early movers who are disadvantaged and each additional of month delay cost hundreds of kilometers lost forest due to EU driven deforestation. We think this could have been avoided by moving earlier, and we have to say that it's very unfortunate that you put our environmental objectives in limbo, but we want to be constructive with the proposal and we have to acknowledge that, most importantly, the core element of the order, namely the traceability of all commodities to the plot of land of their production remains intact. With the latest Commission proposals. We hope that this targeted changes pacify the disputes around the order, and we want to call on all pro-European groups to use this process to come to an end of the questioning of the order, where we now want to focus on the implementation and planning security for our businesses, for ensuring that I have two concrete questions I want to raise. And can the Commission explain why, after more than two years since the adoption of the IT system remains unstable to handle the required data flows? Why has this problem discovered been so late? And what specific measures exist for prevent further problems in the future? And the second questions with regard to the obligation of downstream operators to pass on reference numbers. I receive a lot of emails by downstream operators that are concerned that IT responsibilities are now just pushed onto them, and also that batching of reference numbers is not possible anymore, resulting in the handling of massive amounts of data by downstream operators. Did the Commission consider these potential new implementation challenges and bureaucracy? And if so, does the Commission foresee any solutions for that.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Yes. Thank you. I will speak on behalf of our SD and the shadow rapporteur team who cannot be there. So first of all, let me comment on what has been described as a common ground from this draft report. I agree that it is very important to take up the feedback from the European Court of Auditors regarding the spending of the funds allocated by the Member States, in particular as it relates to the spending on green transition measures. From our perspective, this must be also the main objective of the NV opinion. Funding for climate and green transition measures should not be misappropriated and be spent on other activities. Any abuse or shortcomings related to funds earmarked for the green transition should be addressed by the Commission, with the appropriate urgency, given the implementing priority of the RF. Where I do not necessarily agree with the rapporteur, is the question of whether the RF is unsuitable as a blueprint for future use through the issuance of shared debt as an extraordinary measure. The RAAF showcased how decisive and united the European response to a grave crisis can be, and we should not discard it out of hand because of implementation errors. Rather, we should learn from the mistakes that were made here and improve upon the blueprint so that we can apply it again in a similar severe crisis. So one thing is clear, however, it is the commission that needs to prove it is that it's capable of administrating and governing such funds, which is very urgent. Described also to the challenges we faced by Mr. Corbett.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “I assure you and yes, I will slow down. So, um, despite we have the regulations and laws, the implementation and enforcement for more sustainable waste policies proved to be very challenging across the member states, which is also underlined by the findings of your report. And we also see that the Commission is indeed very slow when it comes to actually put on infringement proceedings with which we have, for example, targets to be met in 2008 and the and the proceedings initiated are only starting in July 24th. So we are kind of seeing a gap of enforcement. And how is the Commission planning to ensure that the member States are following the rules to improve their waste management? And the second question would be, how can we actually increase the capacity of local enterprises to make the right investments in line with the circular economy ambition we are having in the European Union?”
  Circular economy
• “Yes. I will. Your own analysis further estimates that the proposed removals dominated by leather correspond to approximately 40,000 hectares of deforestation footprint while newly included products would only offset 7,000 hectares. This represents a clear net loss of forest protection of the size of 47,000 football pitches. You, in the same analysis, justify adding frozen cattle tongues because otherwise, there would be a risk of circumvention, but then you create a massive loophole for leather coming from the very same cow. So I would like to call this the same cow paradox where we have beef linked to deforestation in the scope of the regulation, but leather from the same animal would not be. Even in terms of simplification, this is a little bit difficult to understand. So we should be honest about it. Leather is not a marginal waste product. It is a globally significant co-product worth billions incentivizing cattle production, including in deforestation linked regions. So my request would be very simple. Your own evidence does not support the exclusion of leather from the EUDR scope. My group urges you to reconsider this decision before adopting the final proposal for the delegated act. Thank you. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you very much. I'm really wondering which telegram group the AFP representatives gets her information from. Fossil fuels are finite, they're expensive, and they are destroying our environment. They're making us dependent on autocrats. The friends of Putin. They want us to remain dependent. Colombia and the Netherlands have all of my gratitude for this initiative. Our dependency on fossil fuels isn't only an environmental problem, it is a direct threat to our prosperity and our freedom. Once again, we have a fossil fuel crisis, rising energy costs, rising living costs, inflation, everything becoming more expensive. Ordinary people pay the price. While the energy companies profit, it's important to stress that fossil energies are not only burnt, they are processed, they are made into textiles, into packaging. And that's why it's important that a conference like this one. There should be talk of the circular economy and that is my appeal. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you so much, president. Um, my question would consider the SPD implementing decision and chemical recycling. Um, where I am afraid that we can set a negative precedence for the upcoming implementing act to set similar rules in the context of packaging regulation, which is the recital 32 on the implementing decision that says plastic waste should be processed by the recycling method that to the greatest extent reduces the negative impact on the environment. Taking this into account, mechanical recycling methods are in general preferable to chemical recycling methods from an environmental point of view. How is this implementing decision in line with the observation? Pt is a prime example of a plastic that can be recycled mechanically, and yet the implementing decision opens the door to recycled Pet bottles chemically and thus in an environmentally more harmful way. So second question on that would be how will this implementing decision influence the upcoming PPB implementing act for calculating recycled plastic content in single use plastic packaging, which is due by the end of this year. I hope that the commission will not simply make a copy paste exercise out of it, and a better reflection of the mechanical recycling first principle is considered, as we say, in the very explicit, that environmental impacts of recycling technologies need to be taken into account in designing that act. Thank you.”
  EU policy towards plastics
• “Commissioner. As we always said. As S&D we will hold you up with the promise you made to us. You made the promise that you will protect the integrity of the Green Deal. And with that, we as socialists and Democrats can say that we support a genuine simplification agenda, one that cuts red tape and not cuts the Green Deal. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing from some political groups in this House is not simplification, but it's sabotage on already agreed legislation also from your own political family. It's the nature restoration law, the Ambient Air Quality Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the CO2 standards for cars, the sea is troubled, the list of the targeted legislation goes longer and keeps growing and growing. And you remember our first common battle, which was the EU, where we already also saw an attack. And we have avoided a major rollback on this regulation so far. But as you remember, the decision to delay the order at the end of the last year has triggered significant uncertainty for industry and investors. And now, more than ever, we need legal clarity and planning security to ensure deforestation free supply chains. So let me ask you clearly, can you confirm that the country risk benchmarking and the updated implementation guidelines will be adopted and will be made public in June? Where exactly does the process stand today? And most importantly, can you guarantee that the order will not be quietly weakened through the back door of an omnibus proposal or any other revision package?”
  Air quality policy · Trade impact on forests
• “And thank you very much. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Once again, I'd like to come back to bioeconomy strategy, because I think it's a very important contribution to European resilience and our commodity dependence. I support the objectives, but I have to say, at the same time, as you said, it's not just a question of replacing old commodities through new ones, but rather ensuring that innovation and competitiveness occupy a key role. And therefore we are for sustainable procurement as well. But what actually is that? What does it look like? What criteria will be applied. These aren't named. And at the same time, when we see that we are retreating on, um, areas such as the forest monitoring law, how are we going to ensure that we effectively implement a sustainable procurement? Now, there are very positive aspects in the area of the packaging directive for the area of simplification. But as you've heard, this is not the first time that we've been through this omnibus process. There are many other ideas of how impact assessment can proceed. So how is the Commission going to ensure that when it comes to this, there is genuine simplification that takes place? Specific requests would be the skip database, which is extremely important because it ensures health and safety at work as well as environmental protection. And there's no real substitute. Um, so how can we guarantee that in the future we can be clear about in the waste economy, what dangerous substances exist? If you take reach as an example, you've seen that there has been genuine simplification through reduction of reporting obligations. And what we're lacking here is a creative mindset. And we don't believe that pressing delete on this is simply the way forward.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Europe is currently sending out a signal, which I would describe as the most dangerous one possible. What happened in Belgium should have been an opportunity for hope. Despite the fact that the negotiations and their results were disappointing. Why did I say this for the first time for many years? We saw a climate conference taking place within a democratic setting, a country where the police weren't forcing people to stop demonstrating civil demonstrations. Civil society was loud, lively, colourful. They weren't talking about something abstract. The decisions taken in that conference. Conference have an impact on the future lives of millions of people. We need such an approach here in Europe. Otherwise, we will be simply watering down our ambitions. In particular, when we fail to make the promises, the pledges we need to. In Berlin, the outcome of those talks is a slap in the face for everybody in the Amazon or the Pacific who's trying to defend their lives and their homes. We, our team, had the opportunity to show what Europe stands for. But what really happened? Europe just was backsliding. If the EPP continues its efforts to water down the Green Deal and climate policy, they were simply playing into the hands of the far right in this House. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Will you take a blue card from Mr. Grazulis?”
  Climate efforts