Michael BLOSS

Policy topics Michael BLOSS is active on

What Michael BLOSS has said (42)

• 2026-06-17 “(10:41:14 – 10:42:24): Colleagues, president, commissioner, imagine every day you lose 1000000000 euros. And what are you gonna do? Shore up the combustion engine even more. That's China's policy. Every day, we spend 1000000000 on imports from China. And as I speak, we're already giving them the next billion. We all export more to Switzerland more than we do to China. And just think about the relative populations of those 2 countries. What's more, every day, we lose industrial jobs, and some blame climate policy. You the rest of the world is forward looking, and you are looking for a scapegoat. That's very conservative. I want to have a, a European industry that survives. I don't want it to be consigned to oblivion in museums. So while, we we must wake up and invest. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• 2026-06-17 “(14:47:45 – 14:49:18): Chair, commissioner, dear colleagues, is the European Union trapped in a toxic relationship? You know the pattern. You give and you give and you get nothing back. You become insecure, vulnerable, dependent on the other person's mood. And let's be honest. That's exactly the relationship we Europeans have with oil and gas, dependent on the whims of autocrats like Putin, on the mood swings of Donald Trump. We give and give. Last year, €420,000,000,000 for fossil fuel imports, almost €1,000 per citizen every single year. Money we burn and we wire abroad. And the dependency makes everything more expensive. Energy prices, food, filling up the car, heating the home until hardly anyone can afford to live anymore. So what do you do with a relationship like this? Exactly. You break up. So let's break up with fossil fuels. But breaking up is not enough. We make ourselves stronger, and that is precisely what electrification is about. Europe has sun. Europe has wind. Let's build on our own strengths. Every heat pump we install takes Putin's power over Europe away. Every wind turbine pays off with lower prices for heating, for driving, for living. Electrification is not about renouncing. Electrification is about standing up for ourselves. Let's break up and finally start with ourselves. Thank you very much. Next speaker on behalf of the left, Colleg Dario Tamburano.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• 2025-09-26 “E-003743/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The political agreement 1 between the EU and the United States (US) includes the intention from private actors to procure energy from the US. This includes oil, gas, and nuclear technologies, fuels, and services. These energy imports are expected to have a total value of about USD 750 billion (ca. EUR 700 billion) over the next three years. Any purchases will be the result of commercial decisions by private companies. The governments of Member States, the EU, and the US government themselves do not buy nor sell energy. However, the Commission can act as a facilitator to help ensure Europe’s energy security in the Member States who would be more affected by the phase out of Russian energy imports. The agreement is not at odds with the EU’s energy transition goals, nor will the Commission compromise the climate-neutrality objective. The EU remains fully committed to achieving climate-neutrality by 2050 in line with the European Climate Law - the core objective of the European Green Deal. The EU is staying on course with its clean energy transition to ensuring long-term energy security, economic prosperity, and climate neutrality. The parameters agreed to on 27 July 2025 2 are not in conflict with the EU's clean energy transition, nor its decarbonisation plans. More US energy imports do not mean more fossil fuels imports overall. While the agreement involves an increase in energy imports from the US over the next 3 years, it is to be implemented in the context of the REPowerEU plan and roadmap, to help the EU to phase out remaining Russian energy imports. 1 Further reflected in this Joint Statement issued on 21 August 2025: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/jointstatement-united-states-european-union-framework-agreement-reciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade-2025-0821_en. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_1930.”
  EU-US trade relations · Climate efforts
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this industrial deal is not bad, but there is something key missing and that is the direction. If we're going to have a strong, innovative and competitive industry, then it's not enough to focus on oil and gas and combustion fuels. We have sun and wind. And Mr. Aler Europe also doesn't have a business model. If we don't have climate protection, the business model must be modernization, innovation, climate protection, investing in those things. And to the right. The question is from whom do you want to buy gas from Putin or from Trump. The other thing that is missing is a truly European industrial policy. If all 27 member states have their own approach, then it's not going to work. However, in your plan, there is nothing about how the 27 capitals are to be encouraged to pull in the same direction. So there we need to make improvements. Europe can only face up to Trump and Putin if we speak with one voice, including on industrial policy. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we were talking about our relationship with China. And this situation is worrying, truly worrying. I recently spoke to the head of an electronics company who said, we have the best tech, but China subsidizes so much and we have no chance against that. And this CEO said, if we do nothing, we'll have to shut up shop. People will be pushed out onto the streets and we'll lose our technological advantage. And when it comes to wind and other, um, energy sources, that's exactly the situation. The one I've just outlined. We have so many smart engineers, and we shouldn't just abandon Abandoned them. The truth is that the Commission has not done its job thus far. The clean industrial deal does exist, but there's no plan on how we will really build up green industry in Europe. For us, as the Greens, it's clear we don't want to lose all those smart people we have. So that's why we have the plan by European for clean tech. We have a plan for clean tech within the European Union. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, colleagues, we need to be honest. China is the largest producer of new vehicles in the world. And, uh, we they are taking a market share off European, um, of European producers. Every day we're seeing all, uh, European producers losing market share. That's the heart of the problem here. It's not that our our industry is being undermined because of the fact of electric cars. There's others are doing it better. We people are saying that electric mobility is saying is rubbish, that. We need to be. Honest about these things. We need to be clear about electric vehicles that they are the future. That's why China is investing billions in electric vehicles. And we're discussing whether we should be even looking at this. You know, people want to use combustion engines forever more and just forget the fact of climate policy. There will be no investing in investment plans if we do this. If you are running in the wrong direction, that is not going to support industry. We want to see Europe to win win this race.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, first of all, I have to say it is really deplorable that there is a member of the Patriot group here, and he just denied human made a climate change. Um, basically denying all scientific evidence. Um, also, you know, like, basically denying all of the weather extremes that just happened. Um, it seems to me no one that the Patriots group doesn't don't care about all of these elderly people, the children that are currently already suffering from the climate crisis. And this very group that denies the climate crisis is leading on this file. I think this is really a shame. It's deplorable, but we have to deal with it. Now, to quote some questions to you and the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Union on Climate basically recommended not to use article six. And for the for the climate target. But okay. That's it. But there's lots of real big questions that have not been answered. First of all, you deleted the small but important word permanent in comparison with the German coalition agreement. That means now that it's really unclear what kind of quality these article six certificates will have. For me, the bigger question is, is how much is the cost? It seems to me that I mean, someone has to pay for them. And what price are you assuming? I assume there will be a price. An overall price of around €50 billion. Who is paying for them? Is it the member states? Is it the Commission? How will you pay for it and how will you justify that this €50 billion will not be invested into the European economy, but somewhere else outside? Second question. You are proposing to to introduce Cd-R certificates into the ETS system. How will you prioritize that emission reduction? Or how will you make sure that emission reduction is prioritized instead of Cd-R? And last question. Um, it is clear that the CRC framework would allow for even less quality certificates than article six. So will you revise the CRF framework in order to update it to the highest standard possible? Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “President. Ladies and gentlemen, millions of Europeans are afraid when they receive their electricity bill. And that's no no coincidence. It's the result because we're so dependent on oil and gas. The. Uh, let me go back to Christian Lindner's sentence. Renewables give you freedom. They protect us from dependency of Putin, of Trump. We get the cheapest energy, the one that you produced yourself and the commission has is doing a good job. They're tabling good proposals, uh, especially, uh, for, for cars and for liters and locally produced wind energy is a good thing. But the energy ministry in Berlin is doing quite the opposite on every single point, she says, more gas rather than sun and wind. And ladies and gentlemen, the price is going up. And at the end of the day, this the citizens need to pay these bills. So please, you've got some homework to do and don't find any excuses. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: There's a blue card. Would you be prepared to take it?”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “So we need to have clear by European but also clear sustainability criteria inside the lead markets in order for it to make sense. And now the IAEA publication is just hopefully around the corner. And I think yesterday in the Ft there was an article saying that, for instance, the steel label is only voluntary and I think this will not make it. We really need mandatory labels now because voluntary. This could have happened before. But if we want to support not only the steel, but all of these sectors needs to be mandatory labels and mandatory provisions. And in the end, it should be actually the case that when we have public investments into green tech, there in every sector, on every place, there has to be some kind of lead market dimension to it in order for our European industry to not be only living on technologies that have been developed 100 years ago, but also to be able to produce the future technologies here in Europe. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you very much. First of all, it's a bit appalling that those who call themselves patriots now here want to stop climate policies, even though it's Europe that is hardest hit by the climate crisis. Also their countries. And if you're from the Netherlands, 26% of your country is below the sea, the sea level. So be careful. But I wanted to ask you something else. Um, as I said, you you said you want to base yourself on science. Now, the scientific advisory Board says 90 to 95% domestic reduction and in addition, international. So what science are you basing yourself on if you are putting into the debate article six, which means that the domestic reduction would be below 90%. Any question on timing? You presented your impact assessment last year and the impact assessment it was very clear that 90% is technologically feasible and economically beneficial, different to what one Peter said. So what prevents you from putting it now on the table because you are risking to creating a chaos if it comes too late and we will not be ready with the whole process. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. President, Minister, Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to stop being naive in all technologies. China is at the same level of us. Or further on, they are the largest exporter not only of raw materials and electronic devices, but also cars and machinery. China is not the cash cow of Europe. In fact, every sector and every big business in Europe has to fear competitors from China who might take over their market over the coming years. So we are the David and China is a Goliath, and we now need a policy that really recognizes and responds to this situation. Europe cannot allow itself to be played off against China. We need to develop a joint industry strategy and implement it. And getting rid of bureaucracy is not a strategy. If Qatar wants to construct in Europe, fine, but we need to have a percentage of factories in European hands so that we get technology transfer. We need to protect our businesses from China in order to ensure that we don't become a football, which is kicked around a geopolitical pitch. We need to have an independent industrial policy in Europe.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Minister. Um, yesterday we discussed here in the committee about the phaseout of Russian forces, and it's really unbearable that we paid 200 billion, more than 200 billion since the beginning of the war to Russia. We also saw yesterday that the council is not able to come to conclusions in terms of sanctions. So therefore we choose the legislative route. So two questions or three questions on this. First, as you see that sanctions also for oil are not working. Do you agree that we should take the route and include the cutting of also oil imports into the legislative file? Second. Um, as it was said, no molecule should come any more from Russia. Do you agree that we also have to decommission Nord Stream in order to make sure that this is really happening? And lastly, on this, um, it is clear that from the repower one and we cut Russian gas by 20%. Now we have free power to, Two. We have to cut it again by around 20% and we in repower one, we compensated with renewables. Do you agree that we have to do it now? Also compensating this with renewables. And what do you plan in terms of accelerating the buildout of grids in order to achieve this goal? Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Madam president. Commissioner, when my daughter bumps into the wardrobe, she tells the wardrobe off very loudly, and the right side of the house is exactly doing the same thing. They are blaming the emission trading system for their own failed fossil driven policies. But frankly, my daughter is two years old, so she has an excuse. Do you know what is actually driving energy prices up? Do you know why? Industry is being slowly strangled. Can you say this out loud, Mr. Procaccini? Mr. Bardella, it is oil and it is gas, costing every single citizen a fortune every single day. And the cure is so embarrassingly simple. Produce your own energy from renewables. Spain has the lowest energy prices in Europe because they don't use gas. And Italy has the highest because they use too much gas. So you are blaming the doctor for the disease. You are scolding the wardrobe. So please acknowledge the facts and start building renewables instead of whining around here. My daughter will grow out of this and I hope you can do this too. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much. Chair here. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues, for this debate. I think it's clear that there is a lot of support for lead markets, not by everyone, but I'm particularly wanting to point out also that the German government and Friedrich Merz are also supporting this instrument, and they have been supporting it in the conclusions and an initiative together with France. So I'm hoping that we have a European consensus that there has to be lead markets and they have to work. And I think this is necessary because we have been setting out a net zero industry act that we want to be competitive in future technologies, technologies that are important to Europe's security. And these are for instance, batteries. These are, for instance, wind power electrolyzers and heat pumps cars. And even though Christian Ehler said, of course, there are also other influences on the competitiveness, we have to acknowledge that in other parts of the world there are these kind of demand side instruments. And if Europe is not acting with its own demand side instruments, we will not be winning this fight. So this is the reason why we need it and The deal, I think, is very clear. There is public support for a lot of different kinds of goods, but it also means there needs to be this needs to be support, not for products from China, but for products produced in Europe.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Madam president, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, absolutely nobody in industry claims that the future is not electric for car. The car industry. And we're seeing the demand increase by 27%. But what's happening is we're slowing down this trend by attacking the Green deal. Green deal. You're conceding to a lobbyist campaign as a commission. You're not standing up. You're opening the Pandora's box and you're allowing the internal combustion engine ideologues to sway you. Generating insecurity. Uncertainty for consumers, for investors and for business. You're not showing how we can stand up to competition from China. Well, congratulations. That's also a way of destroying business. The losers are the employers and employees in the car industry. You can count on resistance from us in the Greens because we count on the future.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. Yeah. Um, there's no big car OEM that doesn't agree to the fact that the future of the car is electric. Even the German chancellor had to admit this recently. Um, actually it's interesting. Already 75% of the cars produced in Germany are not purely combustion engines. And their capacities to build these electric cars, they are there. So our problem is not that the deadlines are too tight. The problem is that we are not good in manufacturing good electric cars and the demand has to increase. And one of the issues is the charging prices. Charging prices at public stations are often two, three, sometimes five times higher than charging at home, which makes it really uninteresting. So my question is to the commission, what do you do in terms of Afia to allow that there is transparency, but also to allow that you can carry on your home electricity tariff to the public charging station to make it cheaper. And what do you do to support the production of batteries in Europe? Because this is where we are lacking, for instance through corporate fleets, legislation and local produced requirements. Thank you very much.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach · EV charging infrastructure
• “And to make a bit, a bit too fast for me to get settled, but thanks. Um. So. So one question is that, um. One question is that, um, looking at the potential of electrification, um, we see that, um. Renewable, renewable PPAs are growing in popularity. What specific recommendations would you give for the uptake of hybrid PPAs? And the second question is very basic question. How do you recommend to incentivize the uptake of renewable PPAs in hydrogen for hydrogen production. Thank you very much.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Yeah, thank you very much. Um, thank you very much, Commissioner. Actually, I think it's a very good question of Pascal. Um, if you see that the e car uptake is better than expected. And why don't you withdraw, uh, a law that is basically watering this down? Um, but I want to ask you also other questions. Um, the first is when we voted on the climate law, the socialists renew and the Greens said only if we really make sure there is no article six certificates inside the ETS. And I hope you respect that. But also the climate law says that we have a 90% target. And this article six 5% can support it. And we don't know yet how the how these article six certificates look like, how expensive they are. And they were asked by the member states. So for me, it should be very clear that you are designing the ETS to meet the 90% target in 2040. And this is something that also members of this House and also member states have asked you, so can you commit here that you are designing the ETS to meet the 90% target by 2040 and not watered down to 85%? And another question, you have said that you need a lot of firepower and we should be fast with MSR. But I wonder if you if you understand that this MSR is not just a price question, but it will actually mean you have additional to the cap 1 billion allowances in the system. So normally this MSR proposal that you put forward should result in not changing the NRF or anything because it actually solves a lot of your, your your problem already. So now with this MSR, does it mean that you are not going to change the other factors like Lif or how do you see MSR Lif the integration of CDR playing together? Because if you do everything, then you have something. But it's not really an ETS that is giving you some guidance. That provides security for companies and for investment.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “That that's nice that we are the third party to speak. Um, thank you very much, chair. And thank you very much for the presentation. We in general, of course, support, um, the idea of rearm Europe. Um, we think it's a positive step and necessary because we are in a very different geopolitical situation right now. Um, but actually, as my previous speaker just said, um, if there is no new money and we are just repackaging a lot, then maybe this is not the best way forward. I'm particularly worried, um, with adding it to the list of strategic priorities in Step and the step regulation. I mean, we basically it was once meant to be the answer of Europe to the Inflation Reduction Act. It started with a lot of money. Then after the negotiation, there was almost nothing there. Still, we have the Net Zero Industry Act to reach the production targets here. And if then there is another purpose in this regulation, I think that's that's overburdening it. Um, so streamlining dual use makes maybe sense. But until now there's dual use is not even forbidden in for instance, the the step program. So my question to the commission is how do you ensure that when we broaden the priorities of unions programs, um, that it does not get go to the expenses of the already existing very important priorities like social justice, climate and environment and sustainable, sustainable competitiveness. Second question. Um, you propose to amend the ASAP, um, regulation beyond the end of 2025? Um, but we believe that we must prioritize EDP and its implementation. So how will you ensure that we will, that it will not be at the expense of the EDP implementation? Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “Madam president, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Yesterday we took a decision. No more. No more imports of gas from Russia. However, we can't simply switch now to dirty gas from Trump. We have to use the opportunity of solar and wind energy in our continent. And to do this, we have to strengthen our electricity grid while at the same time strengthening individual households. All of us can benefit from this energy transformation. To do this, however, we have to implement a decision taken a long time in the European Union. People in the European Union are entitled to digital meters so that they can use power when it's cheap. It's quite unacceptable that just 4% of houses in Germany have a smart meter. When will we finally make it possible for the owners of electronic vehicles to have feedback for energy when we have boosters for batteries? All of these devices would make electricity cheaper. People are entitled to make the most of the energy transformation. And once again, I'd like to thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentation and for all of you to be here. We absolutely see and acknowledge that there is currently a lot of pressure in the automotive sector. Car companies are under pressure to cut costs. We see that there is a change in export patterns. We are now importing more cars from China than we export. So if there is possibilities to make things easier, I think that's definitely in our common interest and there are some rules where you see that maybe time has overcome them or they just don't make sense. So I'm very ready and open to to look into this. I think it's a this is about making easier and sometimes, of course, in this omnibus negotiations, it's also about like trying to put other things inside and motives that have been there before and maybe they were not able to get it into different package. So I would like to make this about about simplification and not about other political priorities. I think that we could have we can have a swift process in this way on things that we can all agree on. And I would hope that we find this way. And as NVRapid, I'm still a bit concerned by some of the things, for instance, the deletion of the low temperature test in Euro 7 as we currently do not have RDE methodologies developed for such low temperatures. Other things that I also want to address this have been discussed widely is the question of AdBlue. I think there's really a case. And I do really support the idea of defining small electric cars to boost their availability and affordability for low income households. So we have to look into it how to make these definitions in a way that they balance affordability and also maintain road safety standards. I'm looking forward to discuss this with you. I think it will be important that we have a good relationship between the different committees as the committee procedure is sometimes complicating things, but I'm I trust that that that this will work and I'm looking forward to especially work with my envy team, but also with the rest to have a swift result. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Mr. president. Commissioner colleagues, a year ago, there were 50 steel companies invited to the parliament. They had a clear message. They said to us, ensure that there is a modernisation, that we move towards green steel. That's the only possible future for Europe. Now, let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. There's no point fighting against the US and China and just focusing on the cheap side of production. We have to do something that others cannot do. We must be able to produce green steel, but we don't see that in this plan. We need concrete measures. We need guidelines. For Europe, we need security and safety for companies that are willing to modernize. Not one year on from now, we want that. There are still companies, steel companies in the future so that our sons and daughters can work in that sector if they want to. That's why we need to invest in modernization. We need to speed up because the world won't wait for us.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. I wanted to ask Alexander if he actually has read the Copernicus report of last week, because that shows that Europe is the fastest heating up continent of all continents. And his colleagues. I mean, can you imagine a four degree hotter? Czech Republic or Germany or Finland? That's destruction. And if, you know, climate, the climate crisis is destroying the whole planet. It also means your own country. So you better fight it than than welcoming it. But not asking you now to the commission. I wanted to ask you on the NDC, but I think it was quite clear that that that you said September and then on article six. So this is, I think, one of the flexibilities. Um, and there are very good arguments against it. And one of this is that we did that 20 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol and the, um, and the certificates there, and it destroyed the ETS for ten years. And we had to reinvent the MSR in order to clean it up. And we are still cleaning it up. And if you're if you're speaking about article six, you're basically giving other countries the incentive to not do as much, um, on, on, on their own NDCs because you tell them we will buy it from you and we will tell the world. You know we will. You we will. You can buy yourself out of this, out of this climate crisis, which is not true. So how is that? How is that climate diplomacy leadership? I see it's actually more like, you know, putting a downward spiral than, than than than anything else. So maybe you could reply to, to these arguments and, and tell us why, why on earth we would do that again, the same mistake.”
  Climate efforts
• “There's a blue card from Mr. Bloss. **Michael BLOSSMrs. Wexler, you just said that you welcome the commission's package. I welcome it too. But the commission says that electricity tax needs to go down for heaters. And we. The commission says we need cheaper grids and we need to get a proper distribution of energy sources. Now, the German government doesn't seem to be doing this at all. Could you speak to the German government? Government? Would you be prepared to tell them that they need to do their homework, just as the Commission is setting out?”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. So I'm I'm really looking forward to a good collaboration. I hope we can do this swiftly and focus on simplification. Commission just now said on the utility factor that's not part of simplification, I tend to agree. And I also I would really ask some questions on some of the statements because when we are in favor of of a level playing field and of realism, then that means that utility factor should really show what is the reality of a plug in electric drive and ICE drive, fossil driving. And currently, it's in the law that a plug in hybrid drives 80% electric. And we know for a fact, from the data that it actually only goes maybe around 30%. So there's 50% difference. And now I don't really get that you say, okay, now we just need to pretend and write into a lot. It's always 80% and we don't do it actually according to reality. That's for me, you know, tilting the numbers. And in the automotive industry, playing with numbers, we have some history in that and maybe we shouldn't go down that road, again. And the other thing is that this is also for consumers' deception because a consumer believes that this will drive 80% electric. But in in in reality, if you buy a plug in hybrid, the fossil fuel use is much higher, 5 times higher. That means more costs. So if if you don't want to discriminate against technology, then also you need to also just be realistic of what they are. And if companies then are able to produce cars that drive 80% electric, I have 0 problem to acknowledge that they drive 80% electric. That's kind of what, you know, that's what technology in Italy is about. But let's not pretend they do when they do not. That's what I say. And I think if if we could, you know, let's do this fast. But if we are entangled into the whole utility factor debate, this is very much connected to the c o 2 in cars because the utility factor has an impact of how a car is measured in the fleet. So then it has to be in synchronization and this will complicate the process a lot.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Every year we import oil and gas for the tune of €400 billion every single year. And that money goes to Trump's pals and to Putin as well. And European policy is dependent on those people. However, North Sea has wind right on our doorstep. It's fantastic. 300gw by 2050. That's enough, theoretically to supply all European households. Fossil energy is not cheap. It's the most expensive energy in the world. You never stop paying for it. Wind is a one off investment. We buy, we build, and the North Sea will provide the rest. We don't need to have any threats over Greenland from the white House. So do we want to carry on paying rent to despots who are constantly increasing prices, or should we build our own house? North Sea is part of our European home. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. Chair. Thank you very much, Yvonne. Well, first of all, I think it's it's really good news, um, that we are almost on track. Um, the percentage points increased by six according to the old draft of NSP, so that's really good. But it's not good news because we are reaching some kind of percentage point. This is good news because there is a drought happening outside there. There is a heat wave. There are people, elderly people who are really hit hard, whose health is endangered. There are farmers outside there who currently scared about their yield. And this is why we have to do this. This is why we have to fight the climate crisis. And Alexander, Europe is the fastest hitting continent of all. So not doing climate protection is hitting ourselves first in the face, and that's why we have to do it. But honestly, Peter, when I hear you, I mean, can I believe that because you say there is no attack on the Green Deal? Of course there is an attack on the Green Deal. I mean, if you are going to attack the CO2 standards in cars, if you are going to push down the implementation of Ebrd, if you are going to attack the EU, if from your group there is an attack on the ETS too.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, just imagine Europe could save €40 billion a year, €40 billion by having better planning in grids. That's not a dream. This is really what we're talking about here today. We're talking about European grid planning, which may sound technical, but behind it is the key for our energy future Without grids package, we won't have climate neutral industries, we won't have rechargeable cars, etc. this is the key to the energy transition providing green resources from Greece to. Germany makes us independent, makes us independent of Trump, Putin, autocrats. And I expect that the member states don't get bogged down in the details. But look at the bigger picture. 40 billion a year. That's more than the Hamburg or Schleswig-Holstein and Bremen budgets together per year. And we've still got better things to come, because when you build new turbines, wind turbines, you create more money for people, for music associations, etc., more for the community. What we're discussing today is just the start. It's clear that Europe needs a harmonised network for renewable energy to 100%. Thank you very much for this proposal and looking forward to our cooperation on this.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Young people for their future. Parents, for their children, grandparents for their grandchildren. Millions of people put their hopes in this climate conference. And the EU has acted like a schoolboy who hasn't done their homework. They've offended the host, and they've defended the dying oil and gas industries. They have disappointed these millions of hopes. But that does not mean that there is no hope. Colombia has proposed a conference to try and negotiate a treaty on banning oil, coal and gas. Climate Commissioner, if you want to maintain your credibility, then support the conference and sign this draft treaty. So by the next conference, set a road map for getting rid of oil, coal and gas here in Europe. And let's not disappoint us once again.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Yeah, thank you very much, Commissioner, for this proposal. And I think it's not too emotional to say that it's really hard to bear to see all of these drones coming down on Ukraine and knowing that we have been paying to Russia over 200 billion since the war started. And this has to end. And you said it very clearly. No more Russian molecules. You didn't say something on the timeline. And I think that if we can stop the long term contracts from the 2028 onwards, we can also stop it from 2027 onwards. So I think that that should be a given. Second. I just read that Malta and Slovakia have blocked the sanctions in the council and Malta because of their attachment to oil ships. So I think there is really even though it's it's difficult. It is important that it is in the legislation because we can see that the sanctions will not work. Unanimity doesn't work. That's why we do it on gas. That's why we have to do it on oil. Lastly, on Nord Stream, this has been dividing Europe for such a long time. We have to dismantle it. And there are still prime ministers in Germany, in Saxony, in Mecklenburg, Western Pomerania that want to have it. Therefore, I think the final end, like no more molecules, should be also the final end for Nord Stream. Thank you very much.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, as it was pointed out, there is huge potential and it was already pointed out for Europe, but for Germany, I mean, the real potential is around 300 terawatt hours. That is, around 25% of the German heat needs could be covered by geothermal. So let's tap this. Um, I appreciate that. There is huge consensus, I think, in the room that's very rare when we talk about renewable energy, but I think that is also an opportunity to work further on it. And what is clear to me is that we need better data, we need clearer permitting rules, and we need stronger environmental standards. And why do I say stronger environmental standards? Because one of the big problems is acceptance. So municipalities citizens that live close to deep geothermal sites, they are afraid of cracks in their houses, so they need to be reassured. So therefore the standards need to be clear. Also, the guarantees needs to be clear. But I also ask for in this House that when we discuss, for instance, the heating and cooling strategy, let's not turn this into something to cut down on the epbd, but let's turn this into something where we take the opportunity to speak about But things like geothermal or even better, have geothermal strategy as on itself. I also want to say the value chain is really European, so this is a perfect example of a clean tech made in EU. So let's use this potential of geothermal. And I think the Parliament seems to be very united on this. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “I am really agree with with your proposal. And let me first also ask a little bit a more political question to the current situation, because on 20th of January, um, there was a new report showing that in 2025, 40% of the um, gas imported to Europe, including Norway, came from the US and 60% of LNG. And that's quite a high exposure to to one country that was not, um, only, um, nice. And uh, if you think about they, they would say we want to have Norway, Norway, we want to have Greenland. Um, and if not, we don't send you LNG or gas anymore. I think Europe would be in a in trouble. Um, do you see the danger of this exposure as well? And then connecting to this, I think this is really the way forward as you describe it. We need to have electrification in Europe also in order to be independent, in order not to be blackmailed by anyone. And for this we need to have strong grids, and grids only work if we really have them European. So this is the right direction. Um, I think I'm not sure you said it, but someone that we can save up to over €500 billion with integrated grid planning. And as we know that infrastructure fees are a big chunk of energy prices. It's really smart to do this integrated planning because it structurally reduces the energy prices in Europe. And now my question is on the national level, we have independent, um, grid regulators that, um, actually have this independent view and see what is the most efficient way of creating this grid.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “You know, I'm very much in favor of a truly European energy system because this is exactly what brings prices down. We know that if we do, for instance, a central grid planning, we save more than €500 billion. And I think this is what makes us strong working together in Europe. This is what makes us strong. Let me tell you just one thing. As a green, I like the market and there is no insurance company that insures nuclear power plants. It has to be done by the state. I mean, I would say go ahead. But nuclear power doesn't function without big state subsidies and that is its biggest problem.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you very much, Mr. President. Commissioner, Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. €22 billion. That's how much the Europeans have been paying for oil and gas. Just in one year and 18 billion we gave to Ukraine in military aid. We are financing Putin via Nord Stream. This must be come to an end. This is something which is very courageous. This proposal we need to phase out. We need to ban Russian fossil fuels. That means clearly Nord Stream is over. Now I call on this house for the German government and authorities as well. Now we need to say clearly, we stand with the European Commission's plan, that there is no second chance for Nord Stream pipeline. At the same time, the solution is not to use Trump's fracked gas. We need to build our energy grids based on energy savings. We should not build in future dependence. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Of course, there is an attack on the whole of the Green Deal and if this is happening, you will never reach the climate targets. So you have a clear problem of credibility in terms of climate policies, because you cannot show how you reach the targets. If you implement all of these things that come from your group. But now questions on this report, and I think it's great that we are advancing. But there's still there are still some gaps in the effort sharing regulation. There's still 2% gaps in lulucf. There's a huge gap. So my big my question to you is really what will you do about it. You said more progress has to be done. How will you make sure that this progress has been done? Will you issue some corrective action plans? And it is foreseen in the Lulucf and in the ESR regulation, and especially if you look into the German ESR target, they should have 50% by 2030 and the current plan is only 40%. So there's a gap of 10%. So absolutely this needs to. Well, there needs to be some corrective action plan pushed for by the European Commission. So will you go ahead and address this issue of the German effort sharing target? Thank you very much.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. Um, my colleague from the far right said that steel plants are ugly. I disagree. We greens, we want to have steel plants in Europe because we want to keep industrial workplaces, and we want to keep production also for geopolitical reasons. But for this, we need to act and we will not compete on with with other parts of the world on prices if we don't differentiate. The way forward is green steel. The German Association of Metalworkers said, who doesn't believe in green steel, is supporting the end of the steel industry. So my question to the commission is do you believe in green steel? Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you Peter. Um. Thank you. Um, these measures do not solve the problems of the car industry, nor do they secure industry workspaces. They rather do the opposite. They send contradicting signals to industry and to consumers and maybe only have a short term benefit. But on the long term, they are worse. That's not my words. This is the words of the head of the Advisory Council on Economic Affairs of the German Government, Professor Monika Schnitzer. So maybe you don't like my words. So serious. But maybe you take her words serious. What do you say about this? She wants the direction into immobility now. Um. Second question. Um, the ICT already calculated that these measures that you propose create an additional CO2 emissions of one gigaton. That's the CO2 emissions of Germany and France combined in one year. How do you compensate for them? And don't say the steel compensates for this because this is not compensation. This is double counting. Green steel, which we support is already accounted for under the ETS. Last or two, two more. One more question to you and one to Peter. Um, the. The the proposal came out, um, to the press by bild-zeitung on Saturday. Actually, it was earlier on, on Thursday. By Manfred Weber. He knew about it, but the rest of us was not informed. Not informed by you. But apparently he was already informed and was able to inform the press. So does the. Is the EPP more important that they get early informations or what is your comment on this? And lastly to Peter, you know that we are open to negotiate this in the middle. We want to improve this text. Um, but we are we fear that you will do this with the right wing majority. Can you confirm to us that we will work on this in the middle? Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(09:53:01 – 09:55:50): Yes. Thank you very much to all of you and to the colleagues. We believe that ETS is a very powerful tool to drive transformation and to drive modernization and investments. It's a market-based tool, which needs to work, of course, always in the context of a policy mix, but it actually needs to work. We see that where the price is being paid by economic actors, in the energy side, transformation is really happening and we get a considered output. Now in the industrial side, this modernization has not yet taken up. The most important thing of the ETS is really to create a stable investment environment so that if you do big investments, they actually make sense. In the 2030s, it's not about the end game. It's about a lot of industrial actors that need to modernize; they need to make these investments. So the investment environment needs to stay up until 2035 at least, unchanged because otherwise, these investments will not work and it creates instability, and this means that you look somewhere else. For me, one question to Heidelberg Materials is, maybe you can tell us a little bit about what happened to your shares, to your market shares when the announcement came from Friedrich Metz and the Commission that the free allocation should continue. They were dropping. What kind of investment environment do you need for your projects to work? Then, for the chemical industry from Czech Republic, for me, there's one big question mark. These free allocations were there for a long time, and these free allocations were not used in order to modernize and to invest. I have a bit of a different reading. I just come now from China. I was with the parliamentary delegation there. There's so much new plans, so much new investments, so much modernization happening that I'm really afraid that with our old industries, we will not be competitive. If you ask for a continuation of the free allocation, why would you act differently than in the last 20 years where you took this free allocation profits, gave it to your shareholders, but did not use it for investments? Why would you behave now differently?”
  Carbon leakage support
• “(14:58:21 – 15:02:53): Thank you very much, Thier. Thank you very much, Mr. Rapporteur, for presenting this draft report. And I also have to say, I'm not sure that it is actually capturing what is happening outside there. Because it was already mentioned, what we are seeing is that people are afraid when they go to the fueling station, they see the very high petrol prices. They want to pay less for it, but it's impossible because we are dependent on the outside world. And that's exactly the reason why we see a growth of 40% of uptake of electric cars, 74 percentage points more than in the last year and 20 percentage points altogether. That's also the reason why we see people not buying ICEs anymore. ICE sales are going down. And what is the most interesting, Mr. Salini, is that we are much, much above the projected pathways of the commission itself when they presented their report in 2021, much above. So the story that people are buying less e-cars than expected is completely not true. It's almost 10% more than expected. So what does it say to us? It tells us that the market currently is actually more advanced than we are here in the European Parliament and you with your report. With all of those loopholes that you put inside, it could be that in the year 2030, you would only need to reduce emissions by 21 percent, but you would only need to have an uptake of 21%. That's basically where we are right now. Nothing needs to change. And what does this create? It creates massive uncertainty for investors. It means that all of those who invest into charging infrastructure, electric mobility, they don't know whether their business plans are going to work, and this means less investment. But there is investment. Investment is happening in China because they are going full speed in this direction. And if we say the future is electric, they will be the rulers if we don't take care. As you said, you referred to a Chinese monster. I don't know whether I will take this as the symbol, but if you have only a dead horse, you will definitely not be able to fight this. But what you want to do is you need to equip yourself with the most modern technology, and this is what we are destroying with this report. I could say a lot of things. Just two more things. One is the utility factor. Today, we have a report in the German media showing that those German ministers that use plug-in hybrids have much higher emissions than what the plug-in hybrid should be on paper. That also means they have much higher costs for their petrol and their diesel, for their fuel. And maybe if you're a minister, you can afford that. But if you are a normal person, you can't afford that. Plug-in hybrids are more expensive than e-cars. Plug-in hybrids are more expensive than ICEs. Plug-in hybrids cost more in operation because they have higher fuel usage, and they cost more because you need to go more often to mend it. So this is not something that really helps the people. And you want to, or you propose to do some consumer deception by pretending that the plug-in hybrid would go 80% electric when in reality, they maybe only go 30% electric. But people want to know how much does the car go electric. They want to know. And if you write it down into the legislation, well, that's Dieselgate 2. So what I would like to do is I want, as I said this all the time in this committee, I want to have a majority in the middle, and I think we can find one. But, unfortunately, I have to interpret your report as not seeking for a majority in the middle, but for giving the hands to the right wing majority. And this I think would be worse for the future of the industry and also of the future of democracy in Europe. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Very much. Thank you very much to the Commission. Um, I mean, it is very clear that we we really want the ramp up of green of renewable hydrogen. It is a matter of energy independence and of decarbonization. And of course, it's also clear that this is not for everywhere, where currently there are combustion processes, but only in places where it's difficult to decarbonise, otherwise hard to abate production methods. And I, I really agree there is a problem with the ramp up of green hydrogen and we should really tackle it. But now I see that there is the low carbon hydrogen definition, which is less strict and is well has has has more benefits than the green. So my problem is you are creating a disincentive for the green hydrogen ramp up that is already slow. So my question to you is how do you make sure that there is a level playing field between renewable and low carbon hydrogen? And what are the measures that you will do in order to ramp up and and support the green hydrogen development. But I honestly, since it's now the first time after the trade deal, have to ask you as the commission about this, because the Commission president, von der Leyen, says repeatedly that we will import in the next three years for €750 billion gas from the US. And we all know this is not possible. We all know that this is not possible because there is no production capacity even in the US. That would mean that, um, uh, that basically all other gas contracts have to be canceled, and it would mean we will completely forget about the Green Deal in our climate targets. So please tell us what this is all about, and please tell us, um, that, um, that we are staying the course. Um, and we are staying the course with our Green Deal agenda.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen · EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “President. Ladies and gentlemen, millions of Europeans are afraid when they receive their electricity bill. And that's no no coincidence. It's the result because we're so dependent on oil and gas. The. Uh, let me go back to Christian Lindner's sentence. Renewables give you freedom. They protect us from dependency of Putin, of Trump. We get the cheapest energy, the one that you produced yourself and the commission has is doing a good job. They're tabling good proposals, uh, especially, uh, for, for cars and for liters and locally produced wind energy is a good thing. But the energy ministry in Berlin is doing quite the opposite on every single point, she says, more gas rather than sun and wind. And ladies and gentlemen, the price is going up. And at the end of the day, this the citizens need to pay these bills. So please, you've got some homework to do and don't find any excuses.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much. Um, please. Um, I mean, there is, uh, there is the danger that the investments are now flowing only into low carbon hydrogen and not into renewable hydrogen anymore. So what what are the measures that you will take that to make sure that really it's the renewable hydrogen that the finance will will flow to and and please on. I mean, the problem is that, uh, you're, you're basically pretending that the 750 billion will go there and it will not come, which I believe it will not come. Then this whole deal will will blow up. So, I mean, how. Um. So, first of all, do you have a more detailed, um, specification on where do you think this money will flow and what will you do if it doesn't?”
  Low-carbon hydrogen