Jutta PAULUS

Policy topics Jutta PAULUS is active on

What Jutta PAULUS has said (80)

• 2026-06-17 “(15:52:12 – 15:53:32): You very much, president, commissioner, colleagues. Finally, we've got an electrification action plan, an elegant way out of the situation we've been in moving away from the antiquated system of before. Finally, we have a plan, which is actually taking into account reality on the ground. Bearing in mind, of course, that our combustion techniques are incredibly inefficient. Now, also, we have to bear in mind that we don't have an unlimited amount of land, and so biomass isn't a great option either. We've find ourselves in a massive problem when we can't get the oil tankers any longer. We need people to understand the reality on the ground. In the European Parliament, we need to be setting ourselves the right priorities, particularly for connecting Europe, looking at where we can use the Eurostar, giving Europe the best possible value for money and ensuring that we can power up Europe. You if you want. Sure. Please, mister Mueller. Thank you very much, chair.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-06-17 “(15:54:05 – 15:55:04): I'll continue in English so it's easier for everyone. Actually, the nuclear phase out in Germany was, in 2011, carried by a super large majority, including all democratic groups in the in the German Bundestag. And as we know, nuclear power plants have large difficulties delivering flexible energy. But flexibility is what you need when you have a system that is based on renewable energy. So the much better option would be to have batteries for short term and to have gas power plants use using hydrogen for the long term because then you can be flexible and you can be renewable at the same time, and we don't leave the waste to our children and grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great great grandchildren for 1000000 years. Thanks. Thank you very much. Now, miss Sarah Sanchez. Thank you,”
  Nuclear energy
• 2026-06-15 “(19:36:00 – 19:38:30): Thank you very much, chair, and thank you, Emma, for your good draft report and for the good exchange which we already had. Actually, I do agree with quite a few things that you have, raised in your draft report. Although, I must admit, there are some which, I see differently. For example, when it comes to project changes or extensions, to be subject to environmental impact assessment only when they involve major works. Well, it sounds easy, but it's not that easy because these automatic exemptions should only apply if the original project was subject to an EIA. Because, as maybe not everyone might know, we have quite a few installations in, Europe which have never been subject to an EIA, and they should not be, changed without, remedying this. And I think it is high time that this happens. Also, the exemption should also apply if the changes have the same scope at the the original project because else the, the impact assessment would not be sufficient, obviously. Also, the specific derogations, have created a dead precedent already when it comes to the, deliberate killing, which is, now now it says, well, an occasional killing is okay. But, actually, I believe we should accept this only if the species is in good condition, good conservation status, and also occasional is not defined. So this is again shifting the burden to the administrations which might not know how to really apply it. When it comes to the timelines, I totally agree with your approach, and developers do need a timeline. But when it comes to the Aarhus convention, we have to uphold this. Aarhus convention is the instrument which ensures that we also have public acceptance, And I totally agree with Ana Lisa here. We cannot change the Aarhus convention by putting something into legislation here. And, last but not least, if everything is strategic, nothing is strategic. We should be careful not to apply something that has worked in 1 sector to every sector. Thanks.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-02-17 “E-000675/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The re-evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of the salt of aspartameacesulfame (E 962), which consists of two components authorised as sweeteners, aspartame (E 951) and acesulfame derived from acesulfame K (E 950), is estimated to be adopted in the plenary session of the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of 30 June - 2 July 2026 open for observers 1 . The scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of acesulfame K (E 950), one of the two components of E 962, was published by EFSA on 30 April 2025 2 . As part of the re-evaluation of the salt of aspartame-acesulfame (E 962), EFSA performs an update of the assessment of aspartame (E 951) as second component of the salt E 962. The principles and procedures as outlined in the ‘Revised protocol on hazard identification and characterisation of sweeteners’ 3 apply. A systematic literature search was performed in which EFSA considers all studies fitting the inclusion criteria laid out in the protocol. The search period included studies that have become available on aspartame (E 951) since the last risk assessment conducted in 2013 4 , up to June 2025. All relevant evidence identified through the systematic search must undergo appraisal, synthesis, weighing and integration as described in the revised protocol. Based on the outcome of the critical appraisal of all evidence, EFSA will decide whether a revision of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of aspartame (E 951) is required. The update of the dietary exposure assessment of aspartame (E 951) is also part of the work on the reevaluation of E 962. 1 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026-plenary-meetings-efsa-panels-and-scientificcommitte.pdf. 2 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/9317. 3 https://zenodo.org/records/7788969. 4 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.”
  Nutrition
• 2026-02-10 “P-000532/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission Regarding the standstill obligation under Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 1 , it is settled case-law of the Union Courts that aid implemented after the Commission’s positive decision is presumed lawful until the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decides to annul that decision. The annulment of a Commission decision, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 264 of the TFEU renders that decision void. Pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU, State aid granted without valid Commission approval should be considered, in line with Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, as being unlawful. Nevertheless, it remains within the Commission’s purview to re-assess the aid’s compatibility with the internal market in the light of the Court judgment. The Commission cannot, at this stage, prejudge the outcome of that assessment. 1 Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates: ‘The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision’.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• 2026-01-07 “E-000030/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 1 is the most advanced chemicals regulatory framework globally. It has contributed to increasing the knowledge of chemicals and to addressing the risk posed by them. Following the negative opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board of September 2025, the Commission services are currently reviewing the impact assessment for the REACH revision. This is a complex exercise, as it involves balancing the EU’s various policy objectives, e.g. competitiveness and innovation, security and sustainability, and a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The Commission is considering a wide range of options for the way forward and engaging with all relevant stakeholders, including the European Parliament, Member States, industry and civil society. As a result, the initially announced timing for the REACH revision is affected. In the meantime, the implementation of the existing REACH Regulation continues to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, for example through restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams, adopted on 3 October 2025 2 and the ongoing work on a broader restriction on PFAS. Moreover, the Commission is pursuing a comprehensive strategy to support the transition away from PFAS, as stipulated in the Chemicals Industry Action Plan 3 , and working on the implementation of the ‘one substance, one assessment’ package adopted in November 2025 4 . This work will streamline the assessments of chemicals across the relevant EU legislation, strengthen the knowledge base on chemicals and support early detection and action on emerging chemical risks. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20251023. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_25_2286/IP_25_2286_EN.pdf. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/european-chemicals-industry-action-plan_en. 4 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/11/13/chemicals-council-greenlights-legislativepackage-to-streamline-chemical-safety-assessments/.”
  Chemicals regulation
• 2025-10-28 “E-004231/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission The formal investigation concerning the planned Polish measures supporting the nuclear power plant project is ongoing. The Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of these investigations. In its analysis, the Commission will thoroughly and timely consider the applicable legal framework, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and its interpretative guidance, aiming to ensure a legally sound and consistent decision.”
  "Buy European" provisions · EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• 2025-09-03 “E-003370/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware that extraction practices differ across jurisdictions from which it imports fossil fuels, including the United States (US). The Commission is actively working to accelerate the clean energy transition in Europe and globally to reduce environmental impacts of energy production and use and driving global efforts to address emissions from fossil fuels. In particular, the Commission continues to engage with the US on limiting methane emissions from the liquified natural gas (LNG) exported to Europe. The political agreement 1 between the EU and the US includes the intention for private actors to procure US liquified natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy products with an estimated expected offtake valued at USD 750 billion (ca. EUR 700 billion) through 2028. This intentional figure includes, inter alia, LNG, oil, and nuclear items (such as fuels, conventional and new technologies, investments and services). The reference in paragraph 5 of the EU-US Joint Statement to ‘non-tariff barriers that might restrict bilateral energy trade’ refers to existing or potential restrictions other than customs duties - such as quotas, licensing requirements, or technical standards - that may make it harder or costlier to import or export by the EU and/or US. The Commission is in close contact with the US government on potential issues. 1 Further reflected in the ‘Joint Statement on a US-EU framework on an agreement on reciprocal, fair and balanced trade’, issued on 21 August 2025: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-united-stateseuropean-union-framework-agreement-reciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade-2025-08-21_en.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Climate efforts · EU-US trade relations
• 2025-07-15 “E-002897/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The salt of aspartame-acesulfame (E 962) is a mixture of the two sweeteners aspartame (E 951) and acesulfame K (E 950). The re-evaluation of the salt (E 962) is therefore relevant and will also include an update of the safety assessment of aspartame (E 951). In particular, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will carefully consider all relevant new studies that have become available since the last risk assessment of aspartame conducted in 2013 1 . This will also include Volume 134 of the United Nations’ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs comprising aspartame published in September 2024 2 and the Monographs from the 96 th Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FA)/ World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives meeting (JECFA) meeting re-evaluating the safety of aspartame as a food additive published in June 2023 3 . Until the updated assessment becomes available 4 , the EFSA 2013 opinion, confirmed by the outcomes of the latest JECFA assessment, remains valid. The IARC assessments are distinct from the EFSA (or JECFA) assessments as regards their purpose and methodology. The IARC hazard assessments evaluate if a substance has the potential to cause harm regardless of the type and level of exposure 5 . Therefore, those assessments cannot replace the risk assessments of EFSA, as the latter, in principle, considers the route and levels of exposure to determine the actual risk to humans through diet. 1 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496. 2 https://publications.iarc.who.int/627. 3 https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/ninety-sixth-meeting-joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-foodadditives-(jecfa). 4 It is expected that EFSA will complete the re-evaluation of the salt of aspartame-acesulfame (E 962) by midyear 2026. 5 https://www.iarc.who.int/infographics/the-iarc-monographs-programme-hazard-identification-versus-riskassessment/.”
  Nutrition · EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-07-09 “E-002789/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission received additional documents from the German authorities on 22 April 2025. In order to issue its opinion on the A33 motorway in the Osnabrück area pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 1 the Commission will take into account all documentation received related to this project. 2. The question of compliance of the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites in Germany was adjudicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its ruling case C‑116/22 of 21 September 2023 2 . The Commission monitors implementation of the ruling to ensure that all sites have specific conservation objectives in place. The Commission is also analysing the conservation objectives for the site DE3614334 (Fledermauslebensraum Wiehengebirge bei Osnabrück) in view of the request for the Article 6(4) opinion for the above-mentioned project. The Commission may set in its opinion specific conditions based on the specificity of the conservation objectives established for this site. 3. As the Commission stated in its reply to written question E-001537/2025, speed limit during periods when the concentration is above the legal threshold may be an efficient mitigation measure to reduce emissions. The duration of this speed limit may be adjusted depending on the results of the emission monitoring. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 2 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-116/22.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Air quality policy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-06-18 “E-002468/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission plans to present a proposal to revise the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 1 by the fourth quarter of 2025. In that context, it is exploring options for a better uptake of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for chemical safety assessment. The Commission agrees that the use of organisms and life stages that are not considered as protected animals under Directive 2010/63/EU 2 is important for the medium-term replacement of testing with animals considered as protected. It underlines however that, under Article 4(3) of the Directive, Member States are requested to ‘eliminate or reduce to the minimum any possible pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to animals’, which applies, in line with Article 1(3) of the Directive, also to independently feeding larval forms of vertebrate animals, foetal forms of mammals and cephalopods. Based on current scientific knowledge, the capacity to experience pain, suffering and distress varies between species. Currently, the Commission is not considering amending the scope of the Directive beyond species and life stages listed in its Article 1(3). It plans however to publish by early 2026 a Roadmap to phase-out animal testing for chemical safety assessments, with attention also to testing with non-vertebrate animals and with vertebrates other than mammals in their early life stages. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission. Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 2 Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 33–79.”
  Use of animal testing · Chemicals regulation
• 2025-04-15 “E-001537/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 1 provides that if, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State must take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It must inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted which enables the Commission to assess the manner in which the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network will be maintained in the long term. Appropriate compensatory measures are therefore necessary to obtain a positive Commission’s opinion. The compensatory measures must ensure the overall coherence of the network and may include the enlargement of an existing site or a designation of a new site. Thanks to this legal requirement the Natura 2000 site concerned is not called into question. It is however appropriate to assess, in the first place, whether mitigating measures pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, could be useful to tackle the adverse effects of the project to the protected site. According to the competent German authorities, 75% to 100% of the adverse effect of the project A33 on protected habitat types are caused by nitrogen deposition. A temporary speed limit during periods when the concentration is above the legal threshold may be an efficient mitigation measure to reduce emissions. 1 Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-04-03 “E-001381/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has developed and implements, with the support of a scientific consortium, an adaptive harvest management mechanism aimed at ensuring the recovery of the European turtle dove. In this framework, the Commission issues non-binding recommendations on sustainable hunting of the species, developed in cooperation with national authorities, scientists and stakeholders and underpinned by the best available scientific data. Following the recommendations and the hunting moratorium along the western flyway countries 1 , a positive noticeable effect was noted during three breeding seasons corresponding to the hunting ban (springs 2022-24). There was a population increase of 40.5 %, equivalent to 615,000 additional breeding pairs, leading to 2.13 million breeding pairs in 2024, the highest total since 2009 2 . Considering this population increase, the increase in the survival that led to a robust growth rate and the improved control systems in the countries 3 , the Commission considered that hunting could be reopened, within the limits of a 1.5% quota. The effects of this quota will be enforced by national authorities and closely monitored, so corrective action through new recommendations in 2026 can be adopted, as necessary. In parallel, the Commission also developed a document presenting key actions to address habitat-related pressures and threats on migratory bird species, including the turtle dove and other migratory bird species 4 . When relevant, climate change related issues are addressed. The actions’ implementation is the competence of national authorities. 1 Italy, France, Portugal and Spain. 2 This was demonstrated by the monitoring results by the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme: https://pecbms.info/european-wild-bird-indicators-2020-update/. 3 On the three agreed conditions for resuming hunting: the documents of the Task Force on the recovery of birds (https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/birds-directive/sustainable-hunting-under-birdsdirective_en) and in particular the ‘March 2025 annual review Turtle Dove AHMM (Adaptive Harvest Management Mechanism) Management scenarios and technical recommendation’ (https://www.operationturtledove.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TFRB-25-03-02-Technical-recommendation2025.pdf). 4 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/e21159fc-a026-4045-a47f-9ff1a319e1c5/library/4f0995cc-c7f4-4cab-8168e3912d432672.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-04-02 “P-001343/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The ‘In-depth analysis of the situation of the wolf in the EU’ 1 is a report procured by the Commission and produced by independent international experts. The Commission does not share the view that the report misrepresents scientific findings. The Commission has continuously underlined that irrespective of the legal protection status of the wolf, investment in co-existence remains essential 2 . The in-depth analysis of the situation of the wolf in the EU has also confirmed the importance of implementing prevention measures tailored to the specific circumstances of each exploitation, as well as to ensure expert technical advice in early phases. In the proposal for reducing the protection status of the wolf under the Bern Convention 3 , the Commission underlined that ‘in general, damage to livestock has increased as the wolf population has grown, which confirms the importance to invest in effective prevention measures’. The Commission based its proposals to reduce the protection status of the wolf under the Bern Convention and under EU law on the best available scientific data on wolf populations in the EU and Europe, including an assessment of the threats and pressures on the species. The proposal concerning the Bern Convention was supported by both the Member States in Council and by Contracting Parties to the Bern Convention outside the EU. 1 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5d017e4e-9efc-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6752 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52023PC0799”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-10-01 “P-001906/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that all surface water bodies achieve good ecological and good chemical status and do not deteriorate status. Good ecological status is determined by the status of its biological quality elements, including fish. Temperature limits are part of the general physicochemical quality elements supporting the good ecological status. There are no EU benchmarks for setting limits, these are set in national legislation. Limit values should be set so as to allow biological quality elements to achieve good status. The higher the water temperature, the less oxygen in water. Both can have chronic and acute effects 2 . Pursuant to the WFD, Member States shall establish controls on activities affecting water bodies, such as discharges from nuclear power plants. Controls shall be regularly reviewed and, where so required, updated. In this revision the increasing temperature of the Danube as a result of climate change must be taken into account 3 . This may require setting stricter temperature limit values on discharges if necessary to avoid deterioration of status. The 2024 European Climate Risk Assessment 4 found that the climatic risks to aquatic ecosystems are already substantial and require more action at the aggregate EU level. The Commission will, before the end of 2024, publish its report on the assessment of the River Basin Management Plans, which Member States have to report every six years, in accordance with the WFD. In this context, the Commission will pay particular attention to the appropriate classification of water bodies and implementation of controls on activities affecting water bodies. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73. 2 Kelly, M., Teixeira, H., Lyche Solheim, A., Free, G., Phillips, G., Salas Herrero, M.F., Kolada, A., Varbiro, G. and Poikane, S., Physico-chemical criteria to support Good Ecological Status in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, doi:10.2760/355815, JRC136407. 3 Guidance No 24 - River Basin Management in a Changing Climate: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-9964bbe8312d/library/b5f4eff8-2482-4494-9df0e72cb8792e19/details 4 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Yes, thank you very much for for being here and for presenting the report. I must admit I have not read all the 300 plus pages. But I did read some of the executive summary and some of the topics which I found very interesting. And for me I have two main questions. The first is on, let's call it autonomy, because there's a lot of mention of satellites in this report. And of course, satellites are hugely useful when it comes to surveillance. And let's put it that way, Europe is not the lead place to build and to operate satellites. So I would like to know other satellites you rely on all under the commissioning of the European Space Agency or is it also satellites from, let's say, other other countries states which we are using for our core work. And the second is on alternative fuels. You did mention them right now in your presentation. We did tasked with conducting risk assessments in relation to potential safety risks stemming from development, uptake, deployment of sustainable alternative sources. So I would like to learn how far ongoing is this work already? Because there's, of course, the safety issues for the people that are actually working on the ships, but it's also the safety issues that might arise in ports or also during the deployment of the fuels to the ports. Thank you.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Yes. Thank you very much. Right next to bass. Just keep looking in this direction. I'm really puzzled. I mean, the commission seems to have had a target for cutting data points, no matter whether they are useful or not. And you didn't even invest the time to properly analyze what you were doing. A simple fact check shows blatant errors in your numbers. For example, when it comes to the number of chemicals that have no harmonized classification. Yet you overstate these by a factor of three. Um, you speak of simplification. You introduce the materiality threshold. I will not further further elaborate on what has already been saying. I would just like to know, did you hear the champagne corks popping in the fossil fuel companies headquarters when you published the omnibus? And you speak of clarity, but you leave the investors in the dark when it comes to dangerous chemicals. Until now, things were quite straightforward. Investment in carcinogenic, mutagenic, bioaccumulative persistent chemicals is not sustainable. Full stop. Now, only the chemicals which have already made it on the candidate list. It's not only the self classified, the ones that have a harmonised classification that are a recognised substance of very high concern, scientifically proven by a lot of experts and so forth. But there is simply not yet on the candidate list. Only 10% of them are on the candidate list yet. And the other 90% will get a free ride. So an investor might find his green asset being browned when the substance lands on the candidate list, which it inevitably will. And so how can an investment in substances which are so dangerous be sustainable at all? And last but not least, you call this a quick fix. But no one will take action following this legislation if they can expect more to come. So why the hurry?”
  Chemicals regulation
• “(15:48:20 – 15:50:22): it is not, there are certainly cheaper technologies. And also there, we have the open question, where does the fuel come from? Will we again import more uranium from Russia, from Kazakhstan? Is that the way forward? Is that the way we want to go? What about waste? What about security issues? What about non-proliferation of nuclear material? I think this poses more questions than answers also when it comes to the safety of our workers on ships and imports. Something a bit related, the EU combined transport directive. I found out that it hasn't been really updated for more than 30 years now. So it's about as old as my oldest child. So when we speak about maritime transport, it's very clear that this transport is always dependent on combined transport as most cities in the EU are not port cities and the vast majority of goods and of people are transported further into the hinterland. So my question is what is the commission's plan on this combined transport directive, which is stuck in negotiations and where I believe, I think, all my colleagues too because I know that the coordinators have asked for it, that negotiations are pretty imminent, to complete. Last but not least, on aviation and jet fuel. The commission is planning to give guidance to the airlines, which should focus on anti-tankering rules and alternative fuels. I'm not sure whether this is sufficient in this situation. I was asking whether you might also give guidance to the member states on how to deal with looming kerosene shortage because not only Dan Jorgensen is concerned, but also Fatih Birol, head of International Energy Agency. And I don't want to have a situation where military jets, where emergency helicopters have to stay grounded after private jets have taken up all the fuel. Thanks.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport · Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you for this debate. Um, when I was a young girl and went to school and had my first lessons in physics, um, our teacher told us that we would have a fusion reactor in 30 years time. Well, as you can imagine, this is more than 30 years ago. And again, we experienced that 30 years seems to be a constant when it comes to commercial fusion energy. Um, interestingly, this this committee sent a delegation to Munich in the last year where I could participate as it is my home country, and we spoke with Marble Fusion, we spoke with Proxima Fusion, and we visited the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Research, who are also working on fusion and Proxima and Marvel. Fusion told us, well, we'll have a reactor running by the mid of the 2030s. And when I asked the chief researcher at Max Planck, she was laughing quite heartily because she said, we have so many issues where we don't even have an idea of how to resolve them. Anyone promising you that a fusion power plant would come into production anytime soon is simply telling you, um, his sweetest, his or her sweetest dreams, but nothing which is close to reality. So my question is if we now deploy a lot of money into fusion research. How can we make sure that this money is not taken away from those solutions that are already working now and that are already, um, helping us in combating the climate crisis and in securing an affordable and secure energy in the European Union, because we can only spend a euro once, as everyone knows, and we should make sure that we don't put money into solutions which will not help us reach our climate goals, nor help us keep energy prices low, which our economy and our citizens expect from us, and rightfully so. We do have a wonderful fusion power plant. It's up there 150,000,000km away. It's working without maintenance, without any security or safety issues. Why shouldn't we use this? Thanks.”
  Nuclear energy
• “And did you take note of the media reports that Japan was facing an oversupply in LNG due to the long term contracts they had concluded? Whereas energy efficiency could actually bring down the demand for gas much more sustainably, and those long term contracts could end up in stranded assets, let alone the danger of investments in countries which might not prove as reliable and democratic as we would all like to have it. One thing on prices electricity prices in the EU are very heterogeneous. In Germany we are back to pre-war prices actually, and this is mainly due to the rapid rollout of renewable energy. Because Germany has transposed the regulations of the Renewable Energy Directive very quickly. So the build out was going on in an unprecedented manner. We went from 40 to almost 60% renewable electricity in the last three years. Will you encourage other member States to follow this example? Because this will make us more independent from imports and also have more sustainable prices. And last but not least, how will you boost energy efficiency? Not only when it comes to buildings where we all know there are several difficulties there, but also for industry projects because energy efficiency is the base load of our energy transition. Thank you.”
  Energy efficiency
• “Um, I don't even talk about the environmental risks. Also, the risks for, um, the operators of sewage treatment plants and also the terrestrial compartment is in danger. And we all know that our soils are already under pressure. For one product type, approval was not granted because environmental release could not be excluded. So this debate, dear colleagues, is not about two technical substances. It's about the credibility of our legislation, the credibility of the guardrails we put in the biocidal regulation and also and the reach. And also it's a debate about the credibility of a scientific approach to legislation of substances which may harm human health and the environment. Um, the Biocidal Products Regulation states that the purpose is to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. So why should we approve substances that are carcinogenic, potentially endocrine disrupting with missing data on the hazard profile? And there the burden of proof that these substances really are necessary to be approved should be very high. And in my view, in our view, speaking to my for my co objectors also, this burden has not been met. If these substances were to be approved, it does not reflect a high level of protection. It reflects a lowering of ambition at a time when citizens expect, rightfully from their political representatives, to ensure their health and well-being. Thank you very much.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “And that has been in force since the ninth directive. It's not particularly huge, but at least you have a fighting chance of reading the writing. This is what you get. Now, I would like to know if anybody could read this. I'd probably have to take a photograph with my mobile phone and then enlarge it. Okay, I'm an older person, but can even a young people read half a millimetre? So if you say that size of font is fine, you're not increasing the level of protection. Dimitri, thank you very much for the draft report. There's some improvements there, particularly on the Particularly dangerous substances, the ones that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, or mutagenic. But as to when these substances have to be taken out of the product and what the replacements could be, you're heading in the wrong direction. We, my group, would suggest that we give an incentive to research and not get in the way of those companies that have already made the change. We need to protect our innovative companies and we need to protect our citizens.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “People have already been. Have already been asking about the issue of the revision of reach and the chemicals and PFAS crisis. Obviously, reach is outdated as it did not prevent the PFAS catastrophe that is upon us. My question would be, um, in your country, there has have been private actors which actually did act on the first issue by simply de-listing, um, delisting their, their, um, the manufacturers who included PFAS in their products. And so supermarket chains said, okay, you're out of our shelves if you don't get that, get that poison out of your product. So my question is, how come that, um, apparently the national government in Denmark, as well as the national government in Germany, has not found the courage to really do something on these, um, chemical substances because we have seen in France that it is possible that there can be a national regulation besides the European reach revision, where I personally believe, um, we should not put too much hope in the revision, as the current climate of competitiveness and simplification will not look into, how can we actually transform also the chemical industry to, in a sustainable manner, transition away from fossil inputs, transition away from toxic products which will stay with us for centuries or even millennia to come. That is a huge challenge before us, and I have the feeling that most politicians are simply closing their eyes as they are closing their eyes to other ecological crises, which simply will not go away by closing our eyes towards them. Therefore, I would also like to thank you very much for pointing out that we have planetary boundaries which we transgress and which will endanger human civilisation. I'm not overestimating what crisis lie before us, and if we keep on blowing down a way which depletes earth resources much faster than it can be, they can be replenished. We will not do well for ourselves, our children, and especially our grandchildren. Thanks.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Colleagues. Currently there is a great deal of talk about simplification, but all too often, unfortunately, what is meant is deregulation. However, this time round with this package, things fortunately are different. We have data which are hugely relevant for public health, the health of our fellow citizens as well as for our soils, air and drinking water. And they are scattered amongst a variety of different databases divided between different European authorities. I mean, there are good historical reasons for that, but it's time to put an end to this state of affairs. And if we now move towards a common data platform, then everyone can check about perhaps the preservatives in their shampoos, for example, is it perhaps carcinogenic or suspected of being such? And if we use certain products, they really organically degradable. So that means that we put an end to duplication of effort. We put an end to red tape. We've got open data. Everybody can access not just major companies and not just the authorities. And this, of course, is a very valuable basis for research into better products and better testing methods. But what is missing from the commission proposal are the data from the European Medicines Agency, as though medicines were irrelevant and we did not need any deeper research, and I am therefore delighted that we have managed to make sure that all of that data will have to be digitized and incorporated into the database because top priority for us are the concerns of Demetrius, who is a terrific negotiator, and looking at the substances which are in European citizens blood, and they also have to be monitored. And that means that this package is important for public health. Also simplification for companies as well as a real treasure trove.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Sorry, I was just searching for the microphone. Yeah. Thank you very much. And I would like to thank the commission for this proposal. Obviously, it is, of course a pity that nuclear is not yet included, included in our approach to end dependency on Russian energy imports. And it is even scandalous that a company in a major EU member state started a joint venture with Rosatom in 2023, more than a year after the start of the full scale invasion of Ukraine. This, of course, gives Rosatom technological influence through its TV licence, as well as commercial influence and information access via participation in the board of directors and voting rights in decision making. So I would like to urge the Commission to investigate whether this security risk can be tackled at EU level. Apart from supplying uranium and technology for nuclear fission reactors, Russia is also still part of the Iter organisation. Organization. I would like to remind everyone in the committee that every single research finding in the Iter project has to be shared with Russia, so they will have access to everything that we will find out at Karaj. Tomorrow, it votes on an amendment asking to freeze any additional money for ether until Russia is no longer a member. Please take the opportunity to send a sign here. Also, I would like to remind everyone that we voted with a big majority in the European Parliament's initiative report on Security of Energy Supply last week, and in this report, we asked for complete decommissioning and dismantling of Nord Stream one and two. Therefore, I will table a corresponding amendment to this report. And I would like to ask for your support here, because this threat, which has really disunited Europeans and has led to Alienation between member states has to be done away with once and for all. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Lina, for the report and for your excellent presentation. The state of the environment report is the flagship publication for the assessment of the state of our elementary resources clean air, drinkable water, fertile soils, stable climate without which no economy can thrive. And starting with the good news, I was glad to read about the improvements when it comes to air quality and to climate action such as emission reduction, renewable ramp up. But still, 1 in 10 premature deaths in the EU is linked to air pollution, and the respective indicators you have just shown us are still yellow and red, which I think is really concerning on climate action. Much has been achieved in the Green Deal, but unfortunately action has stalled, which we also see from your indicator. And we're even hearing voices from industry and member states asking for a slower pace, which is irresponsible as today. A study was published in the renowned journal nature, assessing that the tipping point for the survival of tropical coral reefs has already been passed, endangering food security for millions of people. But the Green Deal has mainly been a climate deal. You have pointed out in your introduction that biodiversity loss, the biggest threat to our civilization, is even accelerating, with an updated IUCN Red list stating a doubling of endangered butterfly species and nearly 100 new species of bumblebees and xylophone bees joining their sisters already on the list.”
  Air quality policy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Is that what we want for our economy? Do we want to protect our data technologies. And again, let let the rest of the world take the lead. And regarding the cost of restricting PFAS, first of all, as I said, the study doesn't look at the high cost of PFAS for the society. There has been a study which was commissioned by the European Commission, which found that pollution from just four PFAS could cost the EU up to €440 billion by 2050, 20 billion a year. And without stricter controls, these costs might including health issues, water treatment, environmental remediation could even reach €1.7 trillion a year euros, meaning 85 billion a year. And do you honestly believe that industry does not need drinkable water or healthy workers? I do. And in addition what the paper doesn't look at, what are the potential economic gains from putting PFAS free alternatives on the market, which would give the frontrunners a head start? Also in third countries in the US, we have companies now turning away from using PFAS because the high legal risk associated with the use of these substances is putting them to make this decision. So by developing alternatives, we could actually have a head start on this market and create new economic possibilities, opportunities for our industry. So for us, it's clear we want a balanced, evidence based approach based on Echa's findings, which they are going a long way to conclude. And we should phase out the PFAS group as far as possible in order to protect public health, the environment and in the end, also our competitiveness. Thanks.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you. Chairman. So it's surprising the type of opinions you can find in this committee. I will not even talk about what was just said, but there's nothing more concrete than nature, which is the very basis of our survival. And this this basis of our survival is under more and more pressure. You can see the effects of the climate crisis that are coming closer and closer to Europe. The droughts in Eastern Europe, for example, there's a report that just came out from the Joy Joint Research Center about the about landslides of the Alps, problems in Poland, in Romania. This is not going away. It's something that we can't look away from. In Belgium, a number of different countries are also going to be report progress. That's good news. Renewable energies have become, in many parts of the world, the cheapest way of producing power. One in 1 in 5 new vehicles is more energy efficient. Combustion engines are on the wane. But that's not enough. Everyone here in this room knows or should know that we are not able to meet our goals in the land sector. We need to support farmers and foresters. We need to increase our efforts to reduce CO2 so that we can manage that -55% by 2023. We need to people who say that we need to simplify, that. We need to get rid of environmental standards that that various laws need to be done away with. For example, our agreements in Montreal that we all signed on to. The fact is that the people who will pay for this are our citizens who are going to pay the price for this catastrophe. The world is on fire, and we are adding fuel to that because we are turning away from our Green Deal, which especially with. Which is why I find the EP's position on this to be at first to be somewhat, um. Contradictory.”
  Climate efforts
• “But my question goes into another direction. If I remember correctly, in the coming Montreal Agreement, we had, um, some things about nature restoration, about financing, about subsidies, which my colleague has just mentioned, where the European Union has not, let's say, um, walked the whole length of the, of the way which we have to cover. But my question, um, goes towards the 30% protected areas with 10% strictly Protect it. I haven't seen anything in the mission letters about this. I haven't seen anything in the Commission's work programme. Every time I mention this, I get answers which are, let's say, not very concrete. So I would like to learn from you. Does the Commission plan to do any legislative action, or at least a strategy on how to fulfil these, um, these legal obligations, which we all signed in Montreal? And if so, when will this be the case? Because you know very well it takes some time to identify the respective areas, let alone do the necessary legal action in order to really, um, protect them. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you very much for being here. And thank you very much for this exchange. Actually, I do have more questions than than answers from your interventions now because, um, several of the criteria which are now introduced raise questions on compliance. And I'm sorry, it's not about simplification, it's simply deregulation. For example, if you extend the transitional deadlines for aviation, where we have fleets which are will be in the sky for 30 years, this is certainly creating a carbon lock-in, which is what we do not want. Um, as to nuclear, I would just like to point out that the platform on Sustainable Finance found that nuclear is not compliant on four environmental objectives on do no significant harm. And the most the most important thing is you told that this should be about simplification, but actually you're adding more complexity due to the numerous cross-references to other legislation which are in principle, okay. But then please provide the companies with the relevant digital tools, provide a digital service platform where the respective company can simply, with a click check whether this is compliant with waste shipment, with battery, with whatever regulation the taxonomy is referring to. And you could easily start with a skip database, which you're instead planning to dismantle. So I don't see the point in, um, calling this simplification. Well, actually for the user, it's not that. And instead we are walking backwards instead of forwards. Thanks.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Dear colleagues. Dear Commissioner, there is an interesting Chinese curse which says, May you live in interesting times and we are living in interesting times indeed. On the geopolitical scale, things are happening that I would not have imagined even two years ago. Well, let's say three years ago, whoever has read project 2025 knew what would be coming. And therefore, I think it is vitally important that we in Europe further stick to rule based order to the rule of law, which is also, as I might explain right here, the reason why I voted in favour of asking the European Court of Justice for an opinion. We didn't bring Mercosur before the Court of Justice. We didn't say we want to sue against Mercosur. We just asked for an opinion because there is this rebalancing mechanism in this trade agreement where we're not sure which rights does it give the Mercosur countries to actually undermine European legislation? And that's where I, as I'm not a lawyer and I have heard different things from different legal experts. I need the opinion of the European Court of Justice. I will vote in favour of the Mercosur agreement, but I want a rules based order. And I think that's the same that we have to do when it comes to India. And it certainly doesn't help that we are now undermining our own environmental standards with omnibus procedures which are not following better regulation. And therefore, I think with this rebalancing mechanism, we have set a dangerous precedent. And let's not allow India to undermine our sanctions with Russia because they are talking to Russia at the same time. Respect the speaking time. I'm very generous this time because we have a little bit of time, but not too much. Please. So the next speaker is Mika Aalto.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, this Parliament finally wants to address Russians, our dependency on Russian gas. We don't want any loopholes. For far too long, the EU has been blackmailed by Fico and Orban, and we have been paying into Russia's war chest. And Russian gas is linked to Ukrainian blood. And we want to say that we don't only want to address gas, we want to address oil as well and make sure that it's not going to be imported into the EU from 2026 and 2027, but we're thinking about nuclear and so on, and that's still going to be imported into Europe. And even worse, there's talk about cooperation between Framatome and Rosatom. And that means that we've got Russian engineers who are in sensitive plants in Europe. I'm asking you, Commissioner, when are you going to end that dangerous practice? Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “President. Commissioner. Dear colleagues. It's almost funny, isn't it? For decades, the conservatives have been telling us that we've got a market based instrument, and that is the silver bullet solution. But now where we have the possibility of actually regulating prices, they strike a very different tone. I was listening to you. I don't really understand what your plan is to support those who have already invested and those and to sanction those who have not done their homework. Mr. Liza's left, regrettably, but I wanted to talk about air traffic. Two thirds of the emissions from air traffic are not priced. They're exempted from ETS. So we're talking about 200 megatonnes of CO2. That's a third of Germany's overall emissions. And cause it doesn't include the US or China. So that doesn't work either as an argument. So emissions in air traffic will go up up and only up.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Thank you Theresa. Madam Vice President, for being with us today. I would like to shift our view a bit to another sector, which we all depend on without really acknowledging it, which is of course, the lulucf sector. We all need clean water to drink. We all need air that we can breathe and we all need fertile soils. So we are absolutely dependent on ecosystem services. And we know that the Lulucf sector, which is part of our climate policy, is, let's call it that, underperforming. Meaning that the ecosystems cannot absorb as much CO2 as we thought. When we drafted the climate law in the last mandate. And now my question is, will you continue to support the implementation of the nature Restoration law, which is the legislation that we actually have also passed, in order to make sure that the ecosystem services can further deliver what we need in order to keep our citizens healthy and alive and well fed. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you. Mr. president. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have some bad news for you. The amount of land on this planet is limited and the amount that we use. Or rather, it means that we are using more than the environmental limits allow. That's not my opinion. This is built on scientific knowledge and satellite images, and it's also clear that we need to move away from fossil fuels to overcome this situation. We need to look at some figures and some dates. One hectare of land leads to, at best 4000l of biofuel. But this could. Could use could produce a significant higher level of energy when used in a different way. We need to make sure that the investments are in projects which aren't scalable are stopped. We need to stick to reality.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much for being with us today, if only remotely. And I would like to apologize for the, um, very strange contribution. Um, you have heard from my German colleague from the so-called European of sovereign nations. Um, but we are used to her speeches here in this committee. Um, I have two questions, actually. The first question is, I have heard rumors that, um, within the IPCC, there were several voices saying, well, why should we even write a new assessment report? Because the the knowledge which we have is totally sufficient to tell politicians how to act, when to act, in which, um, fields in which categories that have to take action. So shouldn't we send this political sign to not publish a new report while no one is acting according to the policy recommendations we were doing in the in the reports we published up to now. And the second question is a bit more, let's say complicated. Um, I try to understand, um, in the last assessment reports, the influence of, um, economic growth. Um, and I had the impression that in all the scenarios which are laid out in the assessment reports, um, a certain percentage of economic growth is underlying without being questioned so that we don't have any scenarios saying, okay, if economic growth is bigger or smaller or in in which fields it might be bigger or smaller, how would that influence emissions? Because we have had some decoupling of emissions and economic growth in those countries that have, um, That have built out their renewable energies a lot, but unfortunately up to now. Economic growth is mostly associated with more emissions. So, um, maybe I missed it, but is there a certain, let's say, underlying assumption that this is factored in, or will you be looking also at, um, more differentiated models? Thank you.”
• “Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. Thank you very much, colleagues. And I would, of course, like to thank the technical teams for their work so far. And I'm looking forward to the start of the political discussions. And I believe that the ongoing energy crisis shows that Europe must scale up energy sovereignty fast. And the CEF should help us to move closer together and to close our weakest infrastructure links where there are various studies out there from Acer, from independent think tanks showing that we would literally save billions if we could speed up that process. And the economic and social impacts of the high fossil fuel prices, I believe I heard a number like 80,000,000,000 this year alone since the start of the Iran war, show that the way forward can only lie with renewable energy projects and electricity infrastructure, which is, of course, what we would like to see in the energy part of the CEF. And also, let's remember, it is connecting Europe facility, not domestic member states projects Europe facility. So I believe we have to make sure that the CEF doesn't fund what member states would like to fund at home, but rather how we can reach out to each other better, more easily, more efficiently. And therefore, we would like to see the strengthening of cross border projects between member states and of course, the Trans European network for energy. The vast majority of CEF funding should therefore go to projects of common interest. CEF 2 has proven to be effective in financing also cross border renewable generation. So I think this is also something that we should really continue in connection with renewable energy financing mechanism where we also have money and especially now that the revised rate now obliges member states to develop joint projects. And last but not least, the second stream of action should remain targeted at implementing the rate without overlaps with things that already can be financed via the PCI status. And I'm overtime, sorry.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Um, but at least in my country, Germany, we have discussed a lot about the climate premium, whether this should be distributed simply per capita, which makes it less, just less fair, but also less costly because you don't need an overhead for a fair distribution. Or would you recommend having targeted programmes, for example, programmes for house owners which are not rich but want to modernize their buildings? What kind of instruments would you have in mind there? And the third question indeed goes to, um, Mr. Simon, I have a question concerning you mentioned the grid, um, which we have to strengthen and also increase. Um, I had a very interesting talk with a company that actually does these projects, right? So when there's a grid operator, they sort of make an auction or call for tenders and they say, well, 80% of the work we have to do to participate in a tender are not on the basic core instruments which are needed for the project, but rather like we want a different color, we want the bathroom on the other side and all these extras which make things very expensive.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much for being here. Commissioner, I will speak German. Mrs. Rosewell. Roswell. Thank you for having joined us here in the committee this evening to talk about the water resilience strategy. Honestly, I would have liked to have hear more from you on this because. With one quarter, we either have enough water or we don't have enough water. It doesn't change from hour to hour, unlike electricity. Renewable electricity. And that's why I don't understand the importance of smart meters to you. What we're seeing in Europe is the drought is a burden to agriculture. It's a burden in cities which are becoming hotter. We've seen floods in almost all over Europe. We have a problem of quality of water and quantity of water. And I'd like to hear how the Commission will ensure that tomorrow we will have clean drinking water for people, animals, agriculture. If you go so easy on the chemical industry, how will that be possible?”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for coming to discuss this with us. And, um, let me be clear, we recognise that EU legislation does not apply to Faroe Islands and we recognise that there is a, let's say, a common understanding that, um, the tradition and the heritage of um, indigenous people and also the tradition of the people inhabiting the Faroe Islands for so long, um, have a certain value. But hiding behind these statements should not be the answer to this cruelty, which, as my colleagues have rightfully pointed out, does not belong in the 21st century. And instead, what I expect from the Commission to go into a reasonable and a realistic dialogue, um, and to find out what is there that we could offer? What is there that we could do in order to bring this cruelty, to bring this mass slaughter to an end? It might be economic issues. It might be, um, an alternative tradition, um, support, which the EU could give to the Faroe Islands. Um, but it should not be that we turn a blind eye to the mass slaughter of these intelligent creatures. Thanks.”
  Fisheries access for developing countries
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Christophe, for your extensive summary of why we have chosen to object against this, um, against this approval. Um, I'm very worried that the commission here again chooses not to rely on scientific evidence, but to give in to political pressure. It has been said DB, NPA has endocrine disrupting properties, and the Commission concluded that not approving the active substance would have a disproportionate negative impact on society when compared with the risk to human health, animal health or the environment due to the lack of suitable alternatives. But the problem is that the commission Starts by assuming that a safe level exists, which then consequently allows it to conclude that the balance is tipping towards the impact of non-approval for society. But there are several scientific uncertainties. The BPC conclusions specify which is by the Efsa by. By the way, that a quantifiable threshold level, safe exposure level cannot be set. The Efsa scientific opinion from early 2025 concludes that for a complete risk assessment of bromide, we need further studies. So I would say let's wait for the further studies before we act. And we know that endocrine related effects frequently occur at very low dose levels, and that the substances often do not have a safe threshold.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for this very valid proposal. And I was very content to hear that nearly all the colleagues, let's say the pro-democratic, pro-European colleagues, are content with this proposal and are seeing the need of strengthening our grids, of course, getting faster in implementing our common electricity union. And why is this so important? We have seen in the recent years that some member States have excelled in blocking interconnectors, in blocking, unifying our energy union due to domestic reasons, due to wanting to protect their domestic producers. And therefore, I think the Commission has now taken the right step to move away from this nationalistic thinking. Because we are all in this together. We need to build on our common grid. We have seen how important that was during the energy crisis, when some member states could help out other member states, which had difficulties in producing enough electricity for their citizens. We should build on this experience, and we should, of course, look at the whole grid and not with a national view. And therefore, I very much welcome this proposal. Thank you very much.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much for your work. And I didn't manage yet to read the full study actually, but I did have a look at, for example, the the figures, which are pretty much self explaining. And for anyone, the document is of course on the Nrv committee page, so anyone can load it, download it and have a look at it. Um, I would like to push a little, a little further into the right direction, which you have already lined out. In your intervention. You said that we need a better definition of do no significant harm because what is significant, right. Um, and also I was wondering at a panel which, which I joined some weeks back when there came a question up about the real markers and the, let's say, reinforced real markers, which the EU was using in the last budget with a, which were better aligned with EU policies and also had a stronger climate focus. Um, I was wondering, we only have zero, 40 or 100%, but actually I would think that some activities would, when it comes to biodiversity and climate, need a -20% or a -40%.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Yes, thank you very much. Um, thank you very much for the commission to the Commission for presenting the programmes and the files, which, of course, we will be negotiating in good trust and confidence here in the European Parliament. Um, I think it is important to know or to keep in mind that right now, we still have a quite impressive number of operating nuclear power plants in the European Union, but that a lot of them, um, have reached, let's say, at least the the half of their lifetime. And, um, if lifetime extensions are to be, um, commissioned by the respective member states, or rather the authorities, it would also be important, um, that we have clear European guidelines on how how these lifetime extensions could look like, keeping in mind that nuclear safety, um, extends across borders. We have, I have. I grew up when Chernobyl exploded and it was a very, let's say, important experience to see that milk was thrown away, that you were not allowed to eat the vegetables out of your own garden, although this plant was more than 1000km away. So, um, nuclear safety is not the issue of one single member state. And that's something which we should keep in mind, um, at the European level also, um, I welcome very much the money which will which should be allocated to decommissioning. So this internal instrument is increased a lot, which is good. But still I would like to remind the commission and everyone that the decommissioning of nuclear power plants is the responsibility of the operating company, and it should not be shifted to taxpayers shoulders. I would like to learn how this is supposed to be prevented.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Chairman. So it's surprising the type of opinions you can find in this committee. I will not even talk about what was just said, but there's nothing more concrete than nature, which is the very basis of our survival. And this this basis of our survival is under more and more pressure. You can see the effects of the climate crisis that are coming closer and closer to Europe. The droughts in Eastern Europe, for example, there's a report that just came out from the Joy Joint Research Center about the about landslides of the Alps, problems in Poland, in Romania. This is not going away. It's something that we can't look away from. In Belgium, a number of different countries are also going to be report progress. That's good news. Renewable energies have become, in many parts of the world, the cheapest way of producing power. One in 1 in 5 new vehicles is more energy efficient. Combustion engines are on the wane. But that's not enough. Everyone here in this room knows or should know that we are not able to meet our goals in the land sector. We need to support farmers and foresters. We need to increase our efforts to reduce CO2 so that we can manage that -55% by 2023. We need to people who say that we need to simplify, that. We need to get rid of environmental standards that that various laws need to be done away with. For example, our agreements in Montreal that we all signed on to. The fact is that the people who will pay for this are our citizens who are going to pay the price for this catastrophe. The world is on fire, and we are adding fuel to that because we are turning away from our Green Deal, which especially with. Which is why I find the EP's position on this to be at first to be somewhat, um. Contradictory.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. President. Commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen. None of you seems to have ever been to the beach with little kid and bought them an ice cream because there's going to be stains. Then the stains will be licked off. But. So where's the problem? Well, the commission believes that carcinogenic substances in cosmetics should only be banned if they cause cancer on contact with the skin, because you wouldn't swallow them. Well, that would be problematic. Matic. If you go to the ice cream parlor, you want simplification. But less production, less control, less responsibility. Another example. Last year we agreed on rules according to which dangerous chemicals and products need to be better labeled. Responsible manufacturers have already invested. New labels are necessary to make things readable. They need to adapt their advertising, and now they have to go back on all that. I thought it was important for the industry to be able to plan ahead. Then we've got this huge ecological crisis forever chemicals, carcinogenic substances. And the commission goes, decides to go against people's health, against progress, against innovation, and to ignore the fact that we've got dangerous substances going into our rivers and our bloodstreams. The precautionary principle and the protection of the health of our citizens is not just a detail. It's enshrined in the treaties. And without it, you risk losing the trust, the health of the people and the health of the environment. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Um, I don't even talk about the environmental risks. Also, the risks for, um, the operators of sewage treatment plants and also the terrestrial compartment is in danger. And we all know that our soils are already under pressure. For one product type, approval was not granted because environmental release could not be excluded. So this debate, dear colleagues, is not about two technical substances. It's about the credibility of our legislation, the credibility of the guardrails we put in the biocidal regulation and also and the reach. And also it's a debate about the credibility of a scientific approach to legislation of substances which may harm human health and the environment. Um, the Biocidal Products Regulation states that the purpose is to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. So why should we approve substances that are carcinogenic, potentially endocrine disrupting with missing data on the hazard profile? And there the burden of proof that these substances really are necessary to be approved should be very high. And in my view, in our view, speaking to my for my co objectors also, this burden has not been met. If these substances were to be approved, it does not reflect a high level of protection. It reflects a lowering of ambition at a time when citizens expect, rightfully from their political representatives, to ensure their health and well-being. Thank you very much.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “And my own experience relating to this, before becoming a politician, I was head of quality assurance in a lab conducting studies for Registration and authorisation of chemicals and Pesticides. And when we started in the 1990s, there was no such thing as endocrine disrupting substances. Of course there were. There. But there weren't scientifically assessed and studied. And back then, toxicologists were claiming that all doses below 1mg/kg body weight were insignificant for human health. Well, try botulinum toxin for that. We know more today. We know more about the reasons for increasing diabetes, unwanted childlessness. And I believe we should act accordingly. And this means we cannot accept the assumption that a safe level of exposure exists where there is no evidence for this. We cannot accept vague mentions of risk mitigation measures which are left to the Member States, and I doubt that they will be enforced in every member state. And we cannot accept that the treated articles will inevitably end up in the recycling chain. We're talking about paper, remember. And therefore exposure even of vulnerable groups cannot be excluded. Therefore, we will object to the approval of Pmpa. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, ministers, for being with us. I would like to point to a publication from last month, the implementation report on environmental law. And it says that by not implementing environmental law, we have 300 to €400 billion losses every year. This includes health costs for damages through air pollution, agricultural losses through pollinator decline, droughts and erosion, cleanup costs for polluted drinking water. So before lightly brushing away environmental law as standing in the way for investment, it would be helpful to address the challenges in a holistic manner and taking the good expansion, which has been mentioned by my colleague Mr. Aila as an example. It is, of course, possible to build power lines through Natura 2000 areas, which comprise 15.5% of the land, not 30%. You simply have to mitigate the impact. We had this project in my home constituency, so please. It is possible. Well planned. It doesn't even mean skyrocketing cost. I would be interested to learn the view of the presidency here. And also I would like to ask a question concerning the limited financial means. We have seen ArcelorMittal playing EU member states out against each other, applying for state aid in Germany, in Belgium and France, and then cancelling the project, which is the least profitable. So how would you use your presidency to better coordinate the member states with each other there? Thanks.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Air quality policy
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much to the rapporteurs for your work on your draft. Um, unfortunately, in our opinion, the draft goes way beyond the underlying objectives and therefore we are not fine with, um, the wasting of more taxpayers money because we believe that the industrial development of the so-called small modular reactors and the advanced modular reactors is misplaced in a regulation, which is primarily on the financing on of the fusion mega project, Iter and on research, training and safety of efficient technologies. And, um, I don't believe also that Iter will, in the long run, strengthen the union's competitiveness or its decarbonisation efforts because, um, looking at the overruns in times and cost, which we have already experienced in that program. And on the further timeline for building demos and then finally a commercial fusion reactor. By a time where we have to be fully decarbonized already. I'm not sure whether this is the smartest way to allocate taxpayers money. Starting in 2035, Iter is expected to produce ten times the input power for 600 seconds. And there we want to spend tens of billions of euros for for ten minutes, I don't know. Um, also, I would like to point to an often overlooked geopolitical issue. Um, we are with Iter in an international cooperation where Russia remains an active full member until 2042 with full access to all data, to all findings. And that in a time where we're trying to end all cooperation with this, um, autocratic, hostile regime. So regarding simplification, I would like this program to stick to the nuclear safety, security safeguards, radiation protection, waste management and decommissioning. These are sufficient. Um, sufficient objectives to cover and we will have to cover them in due time with ever more nuclear fission reactors ending their lifetime in the European Union. And therefore, I would like to widen the regulation regulation in order to respond to the geopolitical situation. For example, when it comes to protection against cyber security threats or drone attacks or terrorist attacks, I think that is much more timely and a better allocation of taxpayers money. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you very much. And I'll try to be brief. There was a very interesting documentary in German television three days ago, which showed how in the heart of Europe we are using, we are losing Europe's green lung, the Romanian forests. And that is exactly what would happen if we if we would really introduce a zero risk category, because that illegally logged Romanian wood would enter, as it does today, German and Austrian markets being declared as European wood. Zero risk. Everything is Everything's fine. And of course we would further lose our forests. And lets all not forget we had a predecessor of the UDR which was the timber regulation. And why didn't it work? Because exactly those due diligence, um, issues that were addressed in the UDR were not present in the timber regulation and therefore, I think by coming forward with the UDR Commission has shown that it has learned from its mistakes and it would be really madness to go back to basically the timber regulation again by opening further loopholes in the UDR. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “(16:12:26 – 16:14:08): Yes. Thank you very much, commissioner, for being here and for being ready for this exchange. I was a bit taken aback by, today's press readout for the data center tech sovereignty package. As you might know, I was shadow aperture for the energy efficiency directive, and I'm honestly asking myself whether commission I'm not talking of you personally. I know you have personally another vision. Whether commission is now taking the next step of, well, falling on their knees towards the big tech brothers. So the first steps were not properly enforcing DMA and DSA, and now the next step is not adhering to their own legislation where we, actually have in the energy efficiency directive the label on sustainability, on what to use, on use of renewable energy that's in the legislation. Sorry, Christophe. And now, I'm hearing that the commission is, starting a consultation, which is not what in what's in the legislation. I'm very sorry. So, please allow the question, why is this, let's say, shift of priorities away from EU legislation towards the, demands of the tech brothers? And secondly, I would also like to learn when you are considering to take a technologically neutral approach, which as I said, is against the annex of the Energy Efficiency Directive, How are you going to take into account the additionality principle? Thank you.”
  Energy efficiency
• “Thank you very much, president. Commissioner. Colleagues. What's clear? Our electricity supply must be cheaper, more secure, more independent and must fulfil our climate goals. But 15 years after Fukushima, miss von der Leyen is talking about small nuclear reactors, which won't contribute to any of the goals costs. The couple of products that have been built or planned so far cost far much as much as big power plants per kilowatt fail. Secondly, security. Thousands of small reactors with, with, uh, with nuclear material is a goal for terrorists. And nuclear power isn't a good idea in the time of climate crisis. Fail security. Uh, a lot of. Um, we use material coming from Russian TMX fail climate goals. Fourthly, you say yourself the first reactors can operate in 20 to 30 years at the earliest. How will that contribute to our climate goals of 90% by 2040? In any way commission. Why should we put €200 billion of taxpayers money? Why should we waste it? When we say the Court of Auditors say we need more support, let's free ourselves from our Putin's nuclear trap? Renewables give freedom and acceptance amongst the populace. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “That's absurd, and I tend to believe that the researchers know this very well. Um, coming to the F-gases, the study makes a sweeping recommendation with regard to efficacy, saying they should be excluded from the scope of the restriction and all that. One should focus on regulatory control of F-gases into the existing avgas regulation. Well, you know, what's the name of the avgas regulation is it's regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases. So it solely deals with the greenhouse gas potential of fluorinated gases. And on purpose. So it's completely blind to health effects to environmental issues created by those persistent f-gases. So could the study authors please explain how a law that doesn't even look at these issues should be the place to work on the restriction that actually is supposed to address those issues. And in my view, this recommendation illustrates the direction this report is supposed to take, because this recommendation is deliberately misleading. And you know what? Unlimited exemptions actually harm competitiveness because with unlimited exemptions there's zero incentive for innovation. In your presentation you recommend that industry would do research on alternatives. Well, why should they when they have unlimited derogations. Why should they waste money on something which they actually don't really have to do? And in this committee, we keep talking about China as champion on electric vehicles and solar panels and so forth. And it seems that China is already leading on developing PFAS free three alternatives, be it the semiconductor sector, be it also the insulation sector, be it all the sectors that you just mentioned in your presentation.”
  F-gases regulation
• “Thank you, Minister, for being with us today and also for your words concerning climate resilience, water resilience, climate adaptation, which I think should be very high on the on the EU's agenda and also of the of the Polish presidency. I have two questions. When it comes to climate adaptation. We have learned from the recent report by the Court of Auditors that usually the nature based solutions are the most efficient ones when it comes to cost and also when it comes to effects. So I would be interested to learn how is the Polish? Here I am. How is the Polish presidency taking into account the report by the Court of Auditors when it comes to these climate adaptation questions, will you be talking to your fellow ministers about having resilient climate adaptation plans? And would you consider having a climate adaptation law better than just a plan? My second question what will be the future of the order? Where we have learned that you are taking a different approach than the previous government? Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “I'll speak German. Thank you very much, chairman. And thank you also to the rapporteur for this excellent draft report. Ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about water, then we have to ask ourselves a very simple question. Do we want clean water to become a luxury good? Do we want to continue to allow that old technology and outdated infrastructure is going to allow vast quantities of water to be lost? Whole regions are likely to suffer drought. Are we going to allow our waters to be affected by pesticides, microplastics, etc., which not only affect nature but also affect our health systems. Are we going to continue to allow that? Wetlands are going to be affected even though we're trying to clean our water and protect our climate. Do we want the realities of climate change to be accompanied with. Problems of drought and and flood, etc. with many of our citizens at risk and ever greater costs piling up? And if we answer all of that with a if we fail to answer all of that with a no, then that becomes part of the problem. Because water is essential for our existence on this planet. It is a human right, and without water we can have neither agriculture nor industry. And for that reason, my priorities for the water resilience strategy are to guarantee quality for which purpose we need more consistently applied rules for the concentration of phosphates and heavy metals as well. We need to make sure that pro water cooling systems that waste water are banned. We need more efficient technologies and we need to reconstitute our groundwaters by by stop stopping containing it, etc.. Now the polluter pays principle is supposedly not to apply to this most important element in our lives. And the prices for water are taking off and the bills for consumers are going up. So, colleagues, it's down to us in this House. We have a share of responsibility. And with this report, we need to send a clear message to the Commission. It is clear that without water there is no life. And without fair access to Access to water. There is neither social peace nor welfare or well-being. Thank you.”
  Water pollution
• “We don't know them, but they're acceptable. Um, also, the European Ombudsman in previous cases has already warned that such generic formulations may not be sufficient to ensure a high level of protection because what the Commission does is please, member States, find an adequate way to deal with these risks, but without applying the proper measures there. Um, so the responsibility which actually the Commission carries or should carry is not met. And therefore we propose to object to this draft implementing decisions. Um, the Commission justifies their approval on the basis of derogations, arguing that non-approval would have disproportionate negative impacts on society because of a lack of alternatives. Well, how can we properly compare alternatives when we don't even have the full hazard profile of the substance in question? If we don't know whether our p one, 1 to 1 or p 3 to 2 are endocrine disruptors, how can we conclude that no safe alternative exists? And I believe this creates a dangerous President because it risks weakening the substitution principle that is at the heart of EU chemicals and biocides policy.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “We don't know them, but they're acceptable. Um, also, the European Ombudsman in previous cases has already warned that such generic formulations may not be sufficient to ensure a high level of protection because what the Commission does is please, member States, find an adequate way to deal with these risks, but without applying the proper measures there. Um, so the responsibility which actually the Commission carries or should carry is not met. And therefore we propose to object to this draft implementing decisions. Um, the Commission justifies their approval on the basis of derogations, arguing that non-approval would have disproportionate negative impacts on society because of a lack of alternatives. Well, how can we properly compare alternatives when we don't even have the full hazard profile of the substance in question? If we don't know whether our p one, 1 to 1 or p 3 to 2 are endocrine disruptors, how can we conclude that no safe alternative exists? And I believe this creates a dangerous President because it risks weakening the substitution principle that is at the heart of EU chemicals and biocides policy.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “More or less. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much for being here. And yeah, I mean, it has been said already. It's about all about implementation. We have a lot of paper parks, we have a lot of paper commitments, but we should really follow the money. And if money would could talk, it would say nature doesn't interest me. And of course, if you can make good money with destruction of nature, but no money with preservation of nature or restoration, then we don't have to be, um, surprised. Um how the how things are going. Um, I would like to know a few things. Specifically, we have the UN Decade on Restoration and I would like to know, are there, let's say any is there any progress? I mean, I'm not talking about the European Union there. I we do have the numbers. We have the possibilities also with the European Environment Agency telling us numbers. But how is the process going in other countries, in other continents Are countries also developing mechanisms to halt biodiversity loss? And how do other countries see our EU's commitments and actions? Um because obviously the biodiversity strategy. Um the nature restoration law is very beautiful, but the current legislation is more or less going in the opposite direction. When we are, for example, looking at eternal authorisation of pesticides, cutting back on pollution prevention, renationalising agricultural policies with virtually no strings attached for nature protection. I would like to know how do other countries see that? Because, um, in Montreal I had the impression that the EU was more or less a role model and that other countries said, okay, if the EU is doing this, then we should too. And now if the EU is cutting back on nature and environment, do countries say, oh, okay, then we can too? Because that would be really detrimental. And last but not least, I would again like to come back to article seven on halting plastic pollution and reducing pesticides and harmful substances. How can we be credible if we only point to FAO? Fao is job is not national legislation or EU legislation. Thanks.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much. Bonjour. Hello. Welcome. Thank you very much for being here and answering all those pertinent questions. In your opening statements, you mentioned speed. So my question is how will Efsa in future ensure that new findings on active substances of pesticides are incorporated more quickly into the assessment of the respective products? For example, just these days, a study came out that active ingredients are much longer persistent in the atmosphere than previously thought. Secondly, you mentioned trust. I have a very concrete and maybe very technical question in when it comes to studies on toxicological issues in humans, will Efsa ensure that the analytical methods used to determine the substance under investigation in body fluids and organs are validated, or that the studies in which these have not been validated are not included in the assessment. I don't know whether you are familiar with the bisphenol No problem. The bisphenol concentrations were much, much higher than analyzed because the analytical method which was used had a poor recovery rate, and as it was never validated. No one knew, and therefore the HDI was that much too high, because it was believed that only little bisphenol would be taken up by the human body. And third question. Efsa has made significant progress when it comes to the assessment of PFAS pesticides, particularly by recognizing substances like flu as endocrine disruptors and also highlighting the environmental and health risks. Now, the commission has said that TFA three fluoro acetic acid is a toxicological, relevant metabolite with a high potential for groundwater contamination. So what are the consequences for the other 36 active ingredients, which are classified as PFAS? When it comes to, um, your work or the work of the agency. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Also from me, warm welcome here in the European Parliament. And thank you very much for being here and listening here and listening to all those questions. Actually, I would like to focus on two issues. The first one is energy efficiency. Um, we have spoken a lot about renewables and nuclear and fossil fuels and whatever, but the best energy is the one that we don't need. And I do know that Denmark is, so to speak, a front runner in energy efficiency, as you have been supporting this very, very, for a very, very long time. So I would like to know, how do you plan to, let's say, bring this concept a bit closer to the hearts of your fellow ministers in the council? Um, the second one is also something which we haven't mentioned a lot. Now, um, when we look at our targets for 2030, the ones that the one that we will probably miss by a very large margin is actually the lulucf sector. So when it comes to land use, land use change in forestry due to, of course, the wildfires, the droughts, the floods, whatever we are talking about And probably this will also be the sector where the ministers will see the most potential to have the flexibility in the in the 2040 targets. So my question to you is, as you in Denmark have, let's say, achieved rather a lot in this common agreement, the tripartite agreement, um, between farmer society and the government. What lessons could you or what what tips, what lessons, what good practices could you bring to the European Union in order to make this possible, also in other European member states? Thanks.”
  Energy efficiency
• “Thank you Jessica. Thank you chair. I think this is an important debate. You have mentioned rightly, that Europe is quite on a good track when it comes to regulation, but not necessarily to implementation. And I would like to focus on target number seven, which asks for the elimination of plastic pollution and reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals. As we all know, the regulation on sustainable use of pesticides died in the last mandate. There was no majority for a regulation, and until now I have not heard from the Commission whether there will be any sort of following legislation, and else I would like to know how do you intend to reach the target which the Commission set out in the in 2020, when it said that the use of pesticides should halve by 2030 and especially of hazardous pesticides? I do not think that this will happen by itself and that this will happen by not not regulating. But I do believe that we need some kind of legislative input here because we have seen that the it goes rather in the opposite direction, let's put it that way. And I would like to support The call of my colleague Cesar, who was asking for the report on the financing of the Nature Restoration Regulation.”
  Reduction targets for pesticides
• “Thank you very much. Chair and I will speak in German. I am representing my colleague today. He is unfortunately ill. We've had a look at the Commission's proposal and we are as disgusted as we are concerned, because you're claiming that this will not reducing the level of protection. Let me quote two things here. First of all, from Faust, I hear the message, but I don't believe it. And the second, from the Bible, you shall know them by their deeds. Look, in the area of cosmetics, very dangerous substances are going to be able to be contained in these products for a longer time. Now, these are products which are in direct contact with our citizens, including children and babies, and alternatives can only be used if they have exactly the same properties, which means that they will never be an alternative which can comply with this very high requirement. And that means that the other substance will continue to be in the face cream, the sun cream and whatever, and the carcinogens can only be banned. If they can. Only be stopped by the skin. We all know that children will pick up anything and put in their mouth. So I don't think we're reducing. We're increasing the level of protection. Now, we've we've adopted minimum size for the writing on the product so that our consumers know and can actually read it.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, are farmers. Men and women are on the front line there fighting extreme weather price competition from big corporations, land that is ever less arable. They have a lot of problems. In addition to which you've got Donald Trump and his tariffs. So what are farmers expect from us? Quite rightly so. Are solutions not sort of right wing conservative, you know, cultural struggles or battles about what to call this or that. The Emit report is right in terms of its core strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain, having written contracts as a default, as a standard, also, price indicators that would be introduced and which would take into account market transparency and production costs. However, there are some conservatives and also unfortunately some some liberals that would like to, you know, dilute this a little bit. Contracts may be, but not always transparency. Surely we don't need that. Not really. And that is a kind of denial of reality. It's also a slap in the face for all those who are affected by these policies. So we as Greens stand by farmers. We are the party of nature. A living environment is the very basis for anything that we wish to achieve on this planet. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “(15:46:32 – 15:48:20): Thank you very much, Terry. Thank you very much, commissioner, for being with us today. And I know that we should refrain ourselves to the maritime import strategy, which I will not do as many of my colleagues also haven't. I think it's very good that you did address the energy crisis, which is strictly speaking a fossil fuel crisis. And therefore, we should see decarbonization, energy transition no longer as steps towards climate neutrality only, but also as steps towards energy sovereignty. And I would have liked to see more vision in the port strategy when it comes to making our ports future proof with dedicated funding for decarbonization solutions, which could deliver by 2035 already, such as wind system propulsion, batteries, infrastructure for alternative fuels, mandatory sharing of data in order to optimize routing and so forth. And when it comes to competitiveness, I mean, China has launched their first battery powered fully battery powered container ship for coastal service last month. Does anyone believe they will stop there? They will stop with one ship sailing the seas? Is this again a field where the EU already says, well, we lost the race, so China should just go on and we'll maybe follow? So I think we should be much bolder in our approach to not lose another race again. And I found it quite concerning that in the industrial maritime strategy, there was instead a push to support nuclear power propulsion and commercial shipping. Even if nuclear were safe or were economically viable,”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “So I think the report should also reflect that, um, on technological neutrality, I'm really fine with technological neutrality as long as it's based on physical reality. And the climate crisis does not stop because of Putin's war of aggression. So there is no room for more fossil fuels, be it gas or coal or oil. But we have to transition away from these, um, energy carriers. So we need a resilient energy system that recognizes the energy efficiency first principle and that relies on locally produced renewable energy. Much better interconnection and also coordinated approach on storage because even if nuclear is low carbon fair point. The heat dissipation from all thermal power plants also adds to the climate crisis. Just read it up. So my priorities for this report is energy efficiency first. And renewables decrease dependency on fossil fuel imports, phase out Russian fossil fuels and nuclear imports, strengthen cybersecurity, security and autonomy of critical infrastructure and also energy system parts autonomy. Because there also we are depending on third countries a lot, which makes us very vulnerable. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “But as far as I know, member states have, let's say, quite different levels of permitting procedures due to their national, um, national statehood. For example, in Germany, a lot of permitting takes place at the municipal level. Other things takes place at the regional level or at the federal level. And so by saying this is a regulation and everyone has to do the same, you actually create legal uncertainty because I don't see member states being ready to take their, um, all their procedures under scrutiny and change it now to a regulation which is not even very specific on how to do these Procedures. What I also find interesting is the, let's say, very liberal use of the word strategic. Um, so our member states are supposed to simply choose what they deem strategic or not, because there is no definition there. And I could imagine some governments saying, well, motorways are strategic and others might say renewable energy is strategic. And others again say chemical industries strategic. So without a proper definition, I don't think this is legally sound. And I would like to have an answer on that. Thanks.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the speakers for being here. And actually, I have, let's say, at least three questions, but let's start with the three. Uh, the first goes to the Bayan back. I wasn't, I didn't quite catch the the point in saying, hey, let's build renewables only there where the grid capacity is already there, because obviously, um, when a project of solar or wind or whatever is planned, you have to ask the grid operator, is this possible? And the grid operator does his planning according to which projects will want to come online in the next years? So if you say, hey, let's build only there where the grid is already there, you will never build out the grid because no one will be able to apply in a region where there is not enough grid yet. So this conundrum I haven't understood yet. Um, to Climate Action Network, I have a question on um, I mean, this hearing is also about affordable energy, right. And we know that there are vulnerable households, um, families with not a very high income. What is your Our view. How would they be supported best? I mean, we have, of course, the Social Climate Fund, which will be part of the ETS two.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Mr. Buchheit, have you read the report which has come out on the causes of the blackout? Which was that, uh, there was overloading in the network?”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much, chair, for giving me the floor. Um, I'm. Yeah. Mostly my my lines are in the same direction as those of colleagues. The decisions by member states of the IMO to delay the consideration of the adoption of IMO net zero framework was hugely disappointing, of course, and therefore we have dropped an important opportunity to tackle international shipping's contribution to climate breakdown. And I believe that the Commission and also the member States should do everything in their power to build support among IMO Member States to support the framework and to convince those who are currently undecided or reluctant on the need for action. And I have two specific questions for the Commission, considering that Mr. Trump and his policies will remain in place for considerable time to come. Let's put it that way. And considering the likely effects of his stewardship will have on such global measures to cut Shipping's carbon footprint. What more can the Commission do towards building a coalition of the willing for replicating fuel in maritime and also ETS maritime elsewhere around the world? We know that the UK has already committed to align with EU maritime, that Djibouti and Gabon have started applying carbon tax on shipping emissions identical to the geographical scope of EU ETS. And we hear that more countries might be ready to follow. What can the EU do to support and promote national regional actions over the coming period, given that it is not not at all safe that we will have an agreement next year? Also, I would like to hear, can you confirm that the Commission will maintain the current EU rules for ETS maritime and also fuel EU maritime? Given the current situation at the IMO and to my colleagues, I would like to remind you that our rules are not limited to EU carriers, to EU owners, to freight, which is going to the EU, but to every ship entering EU ports. So it already creates a level playing field which is urgently needed. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Thank you very much. Well, it's rather interesting that we're talking about a topic that really was something we discussed several years ago, but really, nature restoration law hasn't even been entered into, hasn't even entered into force. But we're talking about absolute worst case scenario scenarios here. There's no mention of the fact that this form was developed together with member states, and there was one abstention, but it was adopted by all of the other member states who will need to apply it. And of course, there's enough flexibility. Otherwise the member states would not have adopted it. If you really cared about food security, then you would know that healthy ecosystems are absolutely crucial to that. Without fertile soils, without insects, without clear, clean water, It simply won't be able to have any harvest. And I'm happy that the EP miss Schneider has said that the EP will not fall into the trap of this populist campaign because for climate protection, climate adaptation, we need the nature restoration law. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner Thomas. Colleagues. This is a map of droughts in Europe. This is what our country looked like a continent at the beginning of May. All those red areas were affected by drought. So moors, peat moors throughout the continent are drying out. We've heard it before. Without water, there's no life, no farming, no trees. What can our farmers harvest? How can industry continue to work without water? I've got more bad news for you. In the future, this map will look even worse than it does today. The climate crisis isn't. Can't be stopped with wars. It can't be stopped by science. The climate crisis just continues to march on. So we have to act. The solution isn't to extract even more groundwater. We have extracted so much groundwater that the axis of the Earth has actually moved twice. 200,000 gigatons of water has been extracted from underground and then flowed into the seas. We need sustainable solutions based on science. This is why we have to stop waste. We have to have more effective irrigation methods, more economical use of water in industry, the use of less raw materials, less pesticides, less fertilizers. And of course, we have to bring an end to this disaster of PFAS. Renaturing is also important. That means that water stays in the landscape where it's needed. It creates new life and it helps us reduce the effects of the climate crisis. Water is life. Water is unreplaceable. So let us replace, let us protect it.”
  Groundwater Directive
• “Thank you very much, chair. I will speak in German. I find it encouraging that many colleagues have said that as politicians, we have a responsibility to protect our citizens. We have to be active for those who will perhaps remain without children because of infertility, due to PFAS poisoning, people who are being poisoned at the workplace. We have to have a responsibility towards people who are coming in contact and ingesting PFAS in pizza boxes, cooking utensils each, etc. so what exactly do we have to change in the reach regulation, not just about what's being said or we need to simplify it, but if we're talking about simplification, then when we have substances that we know are dangerous, that are poisonous, that can affect infertility across generations, then in reach, what we continue to say is, well, just keep putting it on the market. And then at some point of time we'll think about banning this. But when we're talking about food, contact materials, I think that seems so easy. But Christina Schneider is not here. But the wine drinkers know that they're in fact ingesting more PFAS with each glass of wine than they than what is allowed in drinking water. So it's time to act. This was promised to us both. The responsible commissioners have said that this is something that needs to be done. We've still not seen any action when it comes to firefighting foam. So when is this going to happen?”
  PFAs
• “The major criticism coming from member states or stakeholders or associations is that it is not clear how it should be financed. So I believe it is high time that the Commission should also adhere to the regulation. The report would have to be have would have been due in August 2025. We now have June 2026. So I do think that there needs to be some sort of guidance. Also, when we are talking about the nature credits, where I'm perfectly aware that the experts are working on it and that we cannot preclude their conclusions. Still, it is very, um, for people, it is very important to know which direction shall it go, which direction will be taken by the commission. Um and will these nature credits be a Member States affair, or will there be a strong European guardrails? Because else it could just become a very big greenwashing exercise, as we have seen with the carbon credits. And I don't think we should repeat that experience. Um, coming back from a tour in the Green Week where I was actually, um, also visiting restoration projects, I would like to give some hope to all those present in the room. Um, if you give nature the space, nature does come back. Nature does find a way. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Madam Rapporteurs, for your draft report, which really takes up all the challenging issues our energy system is facing at the moment. And I also was wondering why this continued delay of the roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. Russian gas is still not there, so I think we should use this need to assure our commitment and call on the commission that we need a clear plan, we need transparency and we need traceability because, as I said in plenary last week, it is not a solution to whitewash blood stained Russian imports by putting them from one ship to another in the sea. And European member states importing those fossil fuels from other third countries. We should also not repeat the mistakes from the last crisis. From past crises. So we should try to avoid as best as possible import dependencies, because, um, to exchange one dependency by another, I would not think that this would be the best strategy. And also what we have learned from the war in Ukraine that big centralized energy systems can be attacked much easier than decentralized small ones.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Commissioner. I'll speak German. Thank you very much for being here today and for answering our questions. We had a very lively debate already in this committee on PFAS, and we called for faster. Reaction to this because almost all countries are in Europe are affected by this. Therefore, I'd like to hear your answers to the following questions. Fluoropolymers are not so problem problematic in terms of use, but what about waste treatment when it comes to critical applications such as medical products? There are exceptions. How can innovation be incentivized to find alternatives? And thirdly, the problematic characteristics of these products have been known for at least 70 years. And the cost for cleaning are. Calculated at €2 billion or billions and billions of euros, 500 times the EU budget. How will this be implemented? And then, last but not least, how do you want to ensure through reach that such catastrophes do not happen again in the future.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you very much for being with us today. Um, first of all, let me state that carbon leakage is not what happened in Germany. What happened in Germany is that Germany was cut off from cheap Russian gas, and therefore the industry suddenly was faced with much, much higher energy costs that didn't have anything to do with EU legislation or climate mitigation measures. Um, I would like to know how you would judge the role of, let's call it policy change here in at the EU level, for example, we are hearing increasing voices saying we should not have a renewable energy target, but rather a clean energy target so that member states could reach that target also by using nuclear instead of renewables. I don't want to discuss about the CO2 emissions, which are associated with uranium mining and so forth, but rather have a look at first the economical question and second, the the time question, because it does take substantially longer to build nuclear power plants instead of building renewable energy plants. So how would the EPA assess the possibility to reach our targets when we have this switch of interest at the European level? My second question goes on the Lulucf sector, you have shown these impressive graphs where or rather frightening graphs where we are seeing that the carbon sink has significantly deteriorated within the last ten years and I'm often asked, well, Miss Paulose, we are supposed to also have a full transition to move away from spruce plantations to mixed forests, which are more resilient when it comes to climate change. But that would mean, at least for a short time, harvesting more trees in order to be able to switch to other tree species.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Yes, thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to ask a few questions. But first, let's take a step back. Pfas pollution is one of the most serious environmental and public health crises Europe faces today. These forever chemicals, as my colleague has just pointed out, they are everywhere in our drinking water, in our food, in our bodies. Proven to cause cancer and infertility. And it's clear that the widespread use of PFAS needs to end. And this is why the universal PFAS restriction is actually on Echa's table right now. Um, this makes this study I know that Apple insists that it is an in-depth analysis. Nevertheless, they themselves marketed a study on their home page, and you also called it a study a bit absurd because ECA now spends years with dozens of scientists and large consultations on their risk and socio economic assessment of the restriction. They have gathered, for example, more than 5000 stakeholder inputs on the socio economic assessment and our committee commissions via Apple three consultants to draft a report in a few weeks. Um, you yourself mentioned that there is a limited budget and limited time, um, which also, of course, limits the scope of this report. And therefore it's really surprising that by looking at a very limited number of FAS and very narrowly selected applications, very broad and far reaching recommendations are given in the conclusion. Conclusion, and I could sum it up as forever exemptions for forever chemicals, which would guarantee forever pollution. So it's like saying because some fluoropolymers are hard to replace in defense, we should allow all PFAS for an unlimited time in heating and cooling.”
  PFAs
• “And he was also very clear that this is only possible if we really get going with the implementation and advancement of the nature restoration law. Now, what we're hearing from the member states is that they are looking for financing. So my question to you would be can you commit that the DG environment will bring into the proposal for the next budget a dedicated nature restoration fund, which is what we urgently need in order to implement this? Second question. There are more targets in the coming Montreal Agreement, namely 30% protected areas, 10% strictly protected. I haven't seen anything about this target, neither in the commission work programme nor in the mission letters. So I would like to learn from you. What are the plans of the commissions there? And last point, what resilience strategy? You already elaborated a bit on this. I think this could be a cornerstone for the future of European water policy. Um, will you focus on nature based solutions as science recommends? Will you act on PFAS or at least commit to act on FAS. And will you commit to the principle of efficiency first, so that we don't waste this precious resource? Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today. And I was very interested. I thought your speech was very interesting, your introductory remarks. And, um, you mentioned that we're still import considerable amounts of gas from Russia as LNG in the main part. So my question would be, when will we actually stop those LNG imports from Russia, which are filling Putin's war chest. And especially in the situation we're in now, this should stop. We are eagerly waiting for the exit plan, which in my opinion should also extend to nuclear, be it fuel or be it maintenance and parts which are still acquired from Rosatom. And I might remind the colleagues who are speaking about nuclear fusion that our wonderful project, Iter, also includes Russia. So they have access to our knowledge and our expertise with Iter. And I would be very interested to learn whether the Commission has any plans on working on that. There has been, as everyone in this room probably knows, a leak of the affordable, Affordable Energy Action Plan. And this includes the copy, the idea of copying the Japanese engagement in LNG infrastructure abroad. So my question to you, Commissioner, would be, do you agree that Japan has higher LNG prices anyway, as the Asian market is very different from the European one. And Japan, as everyone knows, is an island and thus has to work differently when it comes to their energy imports.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)