Mohammed CHAHIM

Policy topics Mohammed CHAHIM is active on

What Mohammed CHAHIM has said (58)

• 2026-06-17 “(14:41:36 – 14:43:17): Yes. Thank you, chair. I think it's very simple. If we want energy security, if we want to lower our dependencies on foreign autocrats, and if we want to keep industry in Europe, then the only 1 serious way forward is electrification. We can continue spending billions on of euros in fossil fuels and keep the dependencies. Crisis, not crisis, not crisis, and I don't see any, learning effect. Hundreds of billions that we spend are not a drop of gas for all extra, as Europe. So we need to invest in technologies that make Europe stronger and more independent. That choice is today before us. And the European technologies like solar, wind, and batteries are improving every year or maybe even every month, and their price development goes in 1 direction, down, becomes more affordable. That's why electrification is not only climate policy, it's industrial policy. It's security policy. It's economic common sense. And this is no longer a debate about the distant future. It's already happening. Families are installing heat pumps. Drivers are switching to electric cars, and companies are investing in cleaner production. But too often, they are told the grid cannot handle it, and that's unacceptable. And sometimes, the upfront costs are way too high. We need to help people with social leasing schemes for heat pumps, for electric, cars, etcetera. That's the way forward. Electrification, chair, must lower emissions, strengthen Europe's independence, and works for everyone, household standards, small businesses, workers, and industry. Thank you very much. Next speaker on behalf of the Patriots for Europe, colleague, Paolo Orkia.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-06-17 “(09:46:56 – 09:48:18): Thank you, president. I would like to briefly comment on MFF and the frugal state. We heard last week about what is unacceptable and unaffordable. They want to save money. But what about looking to the future? Some of the frugals only want discussion if they look at reform, but reforms cost money. We need to offer prospects. The world will roll on and not wait for Europe. Everything costs money. What about the hit to the economy? We need a stronger European energy system. That costs money. We know that the global markets are in turmoil. We need European innovation. We need vision. Let's make choices not to cut and sacrifice our future on the altar of austerity. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2025-09-05 “E-003461/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The design and implementation of urban vehicle access regulations (UVARs) like low emission zones (LEZs) is the responsibility of Member States and their respective authorities in line with the EU subsidiarity principle. As compliance schemes cater for the specific needs of the local population and reflect the administrative capacity of the competent authorities that differ in budget, staffing or technical expertise, it is unclear whether a single scheme would indeed enhance UVAR compliance. The Commission introduced measures to foster LEZ information provision via Regulations 2022/670 1 that provides EU-wide real-time traffic information (including LEZ data) and 2018/1724 2 that includes the publication of traffic rules, including UVARs, and of online procedures for obtaining LEZ stickers. The Commission conducted a study 3 to identify solutions for demonstrating compliance with access rules. The goal was to support the operation of more efficient, easy-to-use, and nondiscriminatory EU-wide UVARs. Study recommendations, which may serve in future policy initiatives, are currently under assessment (including an EU Digital Wallet based solution). 1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/670 of 2 February 2022 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services, OJ L 122, 25.4.2022, pp. 1–16, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/670/oj. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, pp. 1–38, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1724/oj. 3 Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, AustriaTech, MAPtm, Panteia and TRT, Mapping study on digital and technical solutions to enable more effective and user-friendly UVARs – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2832/7516051.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-07-18 “E-003009/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 on the deployment for alternative fuels infrastructure 1 is applicable since 13 April 2024 and regulates, among others, aspects related to price setting and price transparency. Concretely the regulation requires in Article 5 that prices charged by operators of recharging points - or in case of contract-based charging by mobility service provider- are reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory. The regulation also requires that information on the price, with all its price components, including overstaying or idle fees, must be clearly and easily available so that the prices are known to end users before they initiate a recharging session. Article 5.6 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 also requires that the competent authorities in Member States regularly monitor the recharging infrastructure market, and in particular, that they monitor the compliance of operators of recharging points and mobility service providers with regards to price setting and price transparency. The Commission will review Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 by the end of 2026 and has started preparatory work for the Impact Assessment that will among others look into the functioning of the pricing mechanism for publicly accessible recharging stations and whether the Regulation ensures that consumers are provided with clear and sufficient information. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/94/EU, OJ L 234, 22.9.2023, pp. 1– 47: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1804/oj/eng.”
  EV charging infrastructure
• “And we have, uh, had a panel of, of different funds named by the commission, but also by different political groups. But at the end of the day, it's if it's only rebranding. Uh, sorry, we are you know, you are, uh, fooling yourself. Um, so I really think that we all know the necessity of having a strong budget. We also know what is needed for our industry, for our innovation, for our research, but also for our infrastructure, what is needed to be done to keep Europe competitive, to make sure that we are ready for the next decades. And for that, I think we need one strong collaboration between the political groups. This goes beyond the dogmas of only political parties. This is also about the future not only of multinationals, but also of the carpenter, the baker in your own house, in your own street, in your own, uh, neighbourhood. It's important to make sure that they also can continue producing their products for themselves, for the added value, for the well-being, for the jobs. And I can go on and on and on. Um. So that's my comment on this naming of funding, this rebranding. Uh, but I think it's very good to see the tone of this opinion and I look forward to the fruitful negotiations in the next stage. Thank you very much.”
  Size of EU budget
• “And while we focus on this, while we create more uncertainty and step away from our regulatory stability, the world invests in clean tech. China's economy today. Its growth is more than 40% attributed to green investments, and we are failing ourselves to meet the targets that we set, whether it's for cars or whether it's, for example, when it comes to hydrogen, for repower EU, our strategy to become less dependent on autocrats outside Europe, we are failing. Sorry, and I really believe that that is how we could improve our competitiveness by reaching these targets, by investing in green technologies, by becoming less dependent on energy coming from outside Europe. We have to create this through regulatory stability. We have to create this by growing these sectors within our market. Mazzucato, the famous economist, states that in transitions we should not distinguish between winners and losers, but between those who are willing and those who are not. And I fear that we listen too much to companies that are not having, that are not willing to change and do not see a future in Europe. And by listening to them, we are ignoring innovative companies that can become future tech leaders. Those companies can use a push. We can use a push by creating a green market so that they can have a foot on the ground. That is the question today. Are we supporting them or are we ignoring them? And with that, not creating competitiveness in Europe. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “(15:03:19 – 15:09:13): Thank you, chair. Let me let me see what I can say on this topic that I think we have discussed many, many, many times. Let me first thank everyone who reached out to us, during the process of the first draft of this report. We spoke to a lot of stakeholders. You can imagine how much interest there is from industry, NGOs, even other countries. And despite the differences, they agree on 2 things that we need, a strong, CBOM as an instrument, And, most most of them also agree that we need to have a significant scope extension. And as rapporteur, of course, I welcome this broad support. On the scope extension, I did not include any additional CN code in the first draft of my report. It's not because I don't think we should do anything there. It's because I think that should be a process of the parliament of all the different political groups. I'm really interested to see all the, amendments being submitted, and then we can have a look with the shadows to see which ones make sense, and also which ones, not only sense in this, from the original idea of the instrument, but also makes sense when it comes to operability and implementation feasibility. Because at the end of the day, we should also not forget that that should be part of, of this principle. So extending it to, let's say, fridges and washing machines because, we now have, the fridge slash, refrigerator combination already in seems reasonable. I think the adjacent CN code should be something that we should look at. Then the idea again, it's a climate instrument. It's about level playing field. Our producers have been paying their fair share on c o 2 pricing for the last 15 years in ETS. And now I think also it should be done by importers or, producers outside the EU that did not had to pay this price in the last, 15 years. On article 27 a, I think I was clear about it, and I think I should stick to that clarity. Keeping that article would effectively mean a game over for our, low carbon industry investments in Europe. If for any reason the commission thinks we should adjust the scope of CBAM, we have showed in the past as parliament that we can move fast, and they should then come to the parliament with an urgent procedure or a request for an urgent procedure, and then we can deliver if needed. But already now, having this really creates unsecurity and legislative unpredictability for a lot of, investors in clean tech and, is not in line, I think, with the crisis that we are in now. Then international credits in CBOM, I think we've had that discussion in ETS and also in the twin sorry, in the 20 40 year discussion. I think here, it's a bit we have to be very careful what we do. I I understand that we should develop or should look at least in how we improve the cooperation that we have with least developed countries and to see to what extent we can help them and create maybe even a win win situation. But just in general talking about article 6 without the right conditions, without this that is like, some specific like, specifications, what we mean, I think, would, would not be good at this stage. But I'm happy to explore this further. Also, I'm I'm I'm reading into the Inter draft report to see whether they can inspire us on that. Yeah. That's that's what I would like to say at this stage. I propose, introducing stronger circumvent safeguards against circumvention and house reporting, improving traceability, the inclusion of preconserval scrap in emissions counting and stronger tools to address misdeclarations, to ensure a better system and and to uphold the integrity of our system. Next to this, we must also improve the practical functioning of CBAM, The timely publication of default values of newly covered products is essential. At the same time, reporting actual emissions data should remain the guiding principle. We also need more clarity in key areas. The definition of preconsumable scrap must be precise, and the burden of proof should clearly lie with the importers claiming postconsumer scrap. Likewise, rules on abuse practices must be better defined with clear criteria and safeguards for how the commission exercises its powers. This improves the functioning of Siban. And then 1 final comment. Give me 10 seconds. I really struggle on how we treat Ukraine. I have to say that we have to reassess what, the force majeure that we have at place. I cannot imagine what country and what situation we can think about under which the force majeure is, activated. And let's please have that discussion internally to see what, what conditions should be met in order to help a country that clearly does not have the the the the the means to, first of all, decarbonize, let alone have independent verifiers that look into the real emission data. I think this is something very complicated. And I hopefully, with the discussions with the other shadows, we can maybe come up with a solution there. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you chair. I think we should have much more real debates in this House because, you know, this nuclear, everyone is talking about it. No. Like who is blocking nuclear in Europe? If you want to invest, invest in nuclear. I really don't understand. You can invest in nuclear. At the end of the day, you have to be. You have to explain why you are choosing for which technology. It's the economy. It's money. It's very simple. Nobody is blocking you. So please stop being dogmatic and invest in whatever technology you want. At the end of the day, I would say, let's invest in a system that's affordable, that has good system cost, and that reflects the future that Europe needs to needs to have. And for that, I want to refer to an interview that you gave approximately one and a half month ago. Decarbonization is not only good for the world, it's also good for our economic position. You called it the freedom deal. It's it's about investing in technologies that make us decide about our own future, that make Europe much more sovereign. I would really love to hear you elaborate a little bit more on that. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you very much, chair. When we talk about the future of our European automotive industry, we should look beyond our borders. For every car sold in Europe, two are sold abroad. And I doubt that we can still say the same in five, 10 or 15 years. Because by 2030, more than 40% of all new cars sold globally will be electric. The question here today, how much of those will be European? 60% of all EV cars in the world that are sold are Chinese. And I'm ignoring the American one. While the world accelerates towards electrification, our industry is risking driving in reverse. And of course, some of you will blame the legislation, the Green Deal, everything that will be effect in 2035. 35, but it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. My friends talking about coffee. Let's go to Ethiopia. Ethiopia has banned the import of combustion cars. Totally. In Vietnam, almost half of new cars are electric. These are clear signs. And we are. And we are not fooling anyone. Let's look at our car industry. In the last five years alone, the profits have been skyrocketing. Almost €200 billion in profit. And what is the latest innovation of the European car industry? Let's be honest, because some of you forgot about Dieselgate creating cheating software for emission tests. Now pooling with Tesla and BYD to fulfill the CO2 standards for cars. I think that's really silly. Weakening legislation once again will not make our future, will make our industry future proof. We need innovative ideas. Social leasing The Commission work programme has mentioned it, so let's hope we can get it forward. We need to pool our domestic battery production, our components, our software. We did it before when our aircraft industry was in trouble and getting unfair competitiveness coming from, uh, from, uh, um, from Boeing. And now we can do it again for our car industry. We have to strengthen local content requirements for car. That's what we should do. But, my friends, the future is electric. It's time to embrace it.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, chair. For me, cohesion policy is not only about economic growth, it's about building a strong social Europe that works for all. Where prosperity is shared and no one is excluded. The social or the Cohesion Fund is also one of the few connectivities we have with regions and cities where we grant them direct access to European funds, and we give Europe a social face. So now it's not the time to cut funds that give Europe the social face. The SPD is eager to discuss the commission's idea to improve the absorption levels of the funds, especially to reach the underrepresented regions. But does that not? That does not mean that we can reallocate unspent cohesion funds unconditionally. Cohesion policies are the answer to inequality, both between member states and within member states, including my own, where bus stops disappear, libraries close. And as said, many other social projects are financed through the social fund. We cannot let this go without a good debate, without conditionality. Um, it's very important at the end of the day, that this fund that gives access to European funds for millions of citizens should stand, and we should improve the accessibility and not only shift funds to other targets. For me, that's very important from an S&D perspective. Thank you very much.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Let me, uh, go back to one of the questions that I think was not fully answered. It's the theme of by Mr. Walker, the question by Mr. Walker. Um, because it was not about green steel, but about the fuel credits. The red fuel Typekit is a legal obligation. So the fuel amount literally is guaranteed. How is this not double counting? Then I go back to my questions. Three topics related to Cbam. One is, uh, a bit touched also by Madam Solis Perez, but I think a total different, uh, perspective, the unforeseen circumstances would be a game over for low carbon investments in Europe because it's not well defined, it's open ended and it creates massive uncertainty. One sector if one sector is suspended, other sectors inevitably demand the same. I think we have to be very, very cautious and demand things like very strictly before because else everyone will see unforeseen circumstances in every situation arising. Um, yeah. Please. Could you give a reflection on that? Because we should not hold the shovel that digs our own seed bank grave. Then I would like to express my concerns on the Temporary Decarbonisation Fund, based in support on total production rather than actual exports, creates distortions, rewards low exporters disproportionately and makes the scheme unnecessarily expensive. We therefore propose focusing support strictly on export volumes and with more conditionalities on decarbonisation. I think in the spirit of Cbam, since it's a climate measure, this fund should stimulate clean exports and not exports in general. Um, and lastly, allowing the use of international credits on the cbam risks fundamentally weakening both cbam and EU ETS, as often these credits overestimate emissions reductions and we therefore call for the complete removal. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “(15:58:35 – 16:00:42): Okay. Sorry. My apologies. Well, in my in my in my explanatory note, I did mention explicitly that we need to reassess what, what, whether the force majeure should not be applicable to to to Okun. Formally, could say, my explanatory notes are not part of the report, but I did mention it. But let's let's continue that discussion later on. I want to say something on the CN codes. I did not feel that I had sufficient time to come up single handedly with a list at at at the stage when I was writing my report. I really think this is something we should do collectively. We should do it in a smart way, and it should have some type of, let's say, a mechanism and some adjacent products. So this is not me saying we should not extend the scope. This is me saying, let's do it together. Let's do it in a collective way, Let's not have 750 amendments on scope. Let's make 1 collective amendment that we can agree upon that we can use into the trial logs. It's a very important, comment. And when it comes to all these mentioning of common sense and let's be logical, we are in a very difficult situation in Europe. We are very dependent on fossil fuels. They are creating price peaks for everyone in Europe, whether you're a consumer, whether you're a whether you're a producer, and especially also for our households. The sooner we move away from that dependency, the more we decide upon our own future. Yesterday, Pascal called it the freedom deal. I think it's very important that, for us, you know, working on this is working towards our independence, is working towards our freedom. The more we decarbonize, the more reasons we have to have strong mechanisms that create a level playing field for our producers, and that's CBAM. So common sense means let's work with our industry to decarbonize, and let's have measures at place that take away unfair competitiveness for, third countries that do not have the carbon pricing mechanism at place that we do. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) · Fossil fuels
• “Thank you. President. I must say that whenever we have debates about biofuels or hydrogen, we seem to treat these fuels as some sort of holy grail. Yes, they have a certain use, but we have to ensure that the limited supply shouldn't be subject to excessive demand. We have to look carefully at how these fuels are used. So biofuels, hydrogen two, we have to decide which sectors should be given priority in the energy transition if you do not have a policy for this. Those sectors who are willing to pay the most will get the fuels, and those aren't necessarily those which need it most badly or which have no alternatives. We have to think about that. In addition, the vast majority of biofuels which are imported, we have no idea of where they come from. This is deforestation, destruction of nature. This might these might actually push up the prices of food. We have to analyze these. Is there scope for fraud? This is why I support limitations when it comes to importing biofuels. We have to have certification. We have to reuse existing energy. We have to reinforce our existing energy networks. This will reduce our dependency on foreign energy. So we often see slogans on cars saying this car uses biofuels. In reality, it's just 5 or 10%. But once again, supply is limited and we need fuels for the farming sector, for the chemicals industry and of course, for defence. So as to ensure that we can fuel our tanks and planes using independent sources. This is why this is important and this is why we have to have a debate on it. Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you. Chair. Shaping the Europe of tomorrow. That is what we talk about today. Europe, a Europe that is more competitive, more autonomous and able to defend itself. For that, we need funds that shape the clean industry of tomorrow and ensure that we have a Europe worth defending Europe. That should always protect its most vulnerable. And for that, we don't have many instruments on the European level. One of the few is the European Social Fund. A strong social fund that is accessible to the regions and reaches the most vulnerable. An important other element is skills. Our industry cannot be competitive without having the rightly skilled people. One of the most critical elements we need for any transition, whether digital, energy or industry, is skilled people. That is why the social dimension of the European Competitiveness Fund is crucial. A European European skills agenda enables us to achieve the prosperous, autonomous, competitive and clean Europe of tomorrow. Thank you very much.”
  Funding for vocational training
• “(10:59:41 – 11:01:49): You know, Chad, that it's always a pleasure to listen to Peter Alisa, but I can imagine that he's well, there is no connection problem. So for me, let me try to understand a little bit what we are doing here. Because, I understand the the the pressure to look at certain flexibilities when it comes to ATS. But at the same time, I was very pleased by the study by the Oka Institute that shows there is a significant probability of oversupply. And then we are not will not have any more the price signal effect that is needed to decarbonize the sector. Because why do we want this? We want this because we do not want to rely on fossil fuels imports, because there will be a gas, peak every couple of years. This is the new reality that Europe is in. The biggest threat to our industry is not ETS, and everyone who tells you that is is is basically fooling themselves. The biggest threat is the high gas and oil prices. When I was in Rotterdam and half of the installations was stopped was was was not operational 4 years ago, it was because of the high gas prices. And the sooner we go towards decarbonization, the better these industries are helped. And how do we do that? We do that by, first of all, talking to member states and saying, listen. The money that has been collected through it, yeah, should go back to industry to help them decarbonize. I like the ideas to come up with carbons for difference when it comes to other technologies next to electricity. Think about hydrogen. Think about creating green markets for these sectors, through the Industrial Accelerator Act, etcetera. Because if not, I'm very, very, very, afraid that we will not meet the targets. We will take away the best instrument we have. We will weaken it. That brings us towards a 2040 target. And the more flexibility we introduce in ETS 1, the less we will have in Lulu CF, in the MSR, in ETS 2. And I can tell you, I can go on and on and on because everything is connected in order to get the 20 40 target. Thank you very much, Kjell.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm very tempting to react to some of the contributions, but I will not. I will be very nice on behalf of env. First of all, I want to thank Madam Karlsbro for a very fruitful cooperation we had in the previous term, and I hope we can continue that. By the way, I'm formally not the rapporteur because the committee decided not to appoint a rapporteur to do a simplified procedure so we can really rapidly meet the deadline of June so that we can finalize everything before, before the 1st of January and go through all the procedures needed. Uh, we also there's a quite strong majority now that really looks at these proposals, this proposal as a technical change. We had the transitional period. We've used the information in that period to increase, to improve actually cbam because just imagine that the commission has to cover all the reports and all the um, administration is provided by, by companies only that are only covering 1% of the emissions. They spend 90% of their time auditing firms that should not be audited. So I think from that sense it's very smart. They even will strengthen cbam, uh, more than it is today. So we will be much more focused on the players that really matter and on the and on the forms that really matter. That's the. Having said that, I do believe that the threshold has one issue. It does not discriminate between the CO2 intensity of the product.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, president. When I look to my right, I see a commissioner that fought long and hard in Brazil. In his speech on Friday evening, he stood ground and did not accept the poor and flawed text that was on the table. And I want to thank you for that. However, despite these efforts, the conclusions of the climate conference were not what we all hoped for. And we, as the EU, must look in the mirror because the inconsistencies of the EU, which has, in my view, contributed directly to the problems we've seen in Brazil, you cannot ask partners to stop deforestation and then delay the UDR. You cannot demand more mitigation while trying to water down the climate law. You cannot preach about higher social and environmental standards while flushing triple down C s triple D down the drain. So let's reflect seriously on these inconsistencies and our policies and messaging in the last year on what it has done to the Cop and to its outcomes. When you don't walk the walk, others see it and they will explode it, exploit it. The biggest takeaway from my perspective is we need more climate diplomacy. We need to make deals with China, with India, with Indonesia before the Cop, and not only at the Cop. We need to have arrangements and agreements with African partners way before the delegates arrive, because on those 14 days at the Cop, you would need a miracle to secure everything. And I. I don't believe in miracles. I believe in preparation. I believe in credibility. I believe in leadership. And it's time to build new alliances. Next to the cop process, the Netherlands and Colombia already set a strong example by organizing a summit on phasing out fossil fuels. And this should be the first of many. And I trust that the Commissioner will do everything possible to ensure that the next global climate initiative comes from the European Union. We should lead again. And one final comment talking about reductions of emissions without mentioning fossil fuels is like talking about lung cancer prevention without talking about cigarettes.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you president. With today's decision, we are asked to add flexibility for the 2025 target for the European automotive sector. There is no secret that my group has not been particularly fond of this proposal, but it is an urgent proposal. Tariffs on European cars, tariffs on steel, energy, extortion from autocratic states. We cannot sit around and wait. That's why today I'm calling all my colleagues to agree on the urgency procedure today. We are only doing this because we recognise the legitimate fears and the uncertainty that many of the Europeans automotive workers are facing today. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will suffer from the failures of their bosses to recognise the signs of times. It also means that this is a one off measure, because if we do not want to lose the race on the long run, European manufacturers must see this as their final warning and final push for smaller, more affordable electric vehicles into the market before they will be pushed out of it instead. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(15:19:39 – 15:21:42): Thank you very much. I will try to be as short as possible. But I also would like to, grab the opportunity to thank the for his work and, for his draft support. I don't think this file will be an easy file looking at where the council stands, but I have full full trust in, in Pascal Kaufmann that he's the right person for the job. For us as S and D, we are very, open to have a good collaboration to make sure that the this decarbonization fund, will exist and that it's also useful for the sector. We also follow the court of auditors that the proposal is falling a bit short, when it comes to helping, decarbonization. For us, it's about making progress on the decarbonization by the recipients of the funds and that it should be measureable and verifiable. We want to award those that have been greening their production instead of offering just dividends to the laggards. We want to propose to support those that have invested in clean production that are in the top section of that sector in terms of clean production. We think this fund can be then conditioned more to make sure that we do not create, have solutions for the short run, but really create a structural solution when it comes to phasing out or moving away from, from, carbon intensity. We also think that this fund should primarily help the sectors that face pressure due to exports. That was 1 of the reasons that we wanted it as parliament in the previous term. I think that should be continued. Just looking at production as a whole without accounting for the share of production, export doesn't make any sense. We are very glad to see that Rapporteur has chosen this approach as well. On time line, we're open to come to a solution that offers more certainty to potential recipients of the funds while safeguarding flexibility. Looking forward to continue the discussion and the negotiations with the other political groups. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “Thank you, Madam Scopio. I would like to thank the whole team of DG. I know how hard you've been working for the last almost two years on the implementation of Ceba, and I think it's very good that, you know, when we introduce a new piece of legislation that we, you know, already try to, uh, get the right lessons and change it accordingly. And I think this, this proposal, this simplification is, I think, exactly in line with that. And we have to distinguish this change to the bigger review later this year, beginning next year. And I know that some of the colleagues here are very, very eager to maybe extend the scope or go further downstream. But let's be careful. Let's do one step at a time. This is about improving the implementation, the applicability of the legislation by the 1st of January. I think Madam Scopio said it quite clearly. If we want to do it fast, if we want to do it in such a way that it relieves some of the of the burdens, especially on small importers, we have to do it fast and we cannot wait. And if we do not find an agreement, then the cbam regulation as it as it stands, will be applicable again. I have no comments on the improving of the emission calculations, on the financial liability, on the reporting, on the requirement to buy certificates beforehand. I think those are all very good changes. I have two concerns, Uh, although at the end of the day, I think I understand the procedure as it's done by the commission. One is, I think the new de minimis the new threshold value. Uh, if you I think it would have been wiser to do a CO2, uh, value that spent and that we then translate to weight.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much. A very complicated file, dear Commissioner Roswell. Thanks for being here today. And to discuss with us the environmental omnibus. This omnibus, you've changed key pieces of legislation without an impact assessment. Civil society organization and even our own European ombudsman was very clear. This omnibus bundling strategy violates essential procedures, safeguards and bypasses mandatory public consultations. Some of our political groups in the last term have echoed many, many times also in this room, and swore up and down that they would never accept a proposal without an impact assessment. Would love to hear from them again on this point. Other political groups are also welcome. For now, let me zoom on the Industrial Emissions Directive, one of the files I've worked on already in 2002. We lowered ambition on key points. Cattle did not make it into the scope and light regimes for permitting were introduced. In return, we received. We got some elements. I think Mr. Canniff worked very hard on it. Two of them are now. Withdrawn. One, the Transformational brands transformation plans. Uh, though only indicative, they are not part of the deal anymore. And the chemical inventory requirements, um, are now changed. So the first question, what is your answer to those companies that already have invested in better installations over the years that are now being punished and are taken away their competitive advantage. Also, in your own staff working document that it stated that deleting the requirements for installation level transformation plans will have a medium environmental impact, and that repealing the chemical inventory requirements also risk an environmental impact. Furthermore, you are granting individual industrial laggers an additional three years to comply with the Environmental Management System standards. Pushing the deadline from 2027 to 2030. My final question do you still how many farms will now be out of the scope due to the recounting unwind piglets and sows? It says that this will now have an environmental impact. It says that it will not have an environmental impact. But do you also consider the consequences for mixed farms? Thank you very much.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• “President. We are currently. Going through an extraordinary reality at present with The right attaching more importance to oil than Saudi Arabia. We know that investment in fossil fuels is madness, but we're still doing it. China is the main global producer of renewables and of photovoltaic cells and solar panels. We've lost our competitiveness, particularly because of our investment in fossil fuels. And if you don't understand that the way in which we need to renew our economy is, in fact, to respect the Green Deal, to help European companies reach the standards necessary to meet the environmental challenge. Then what do you suggest? I mean, it seems like the right and the far right say, let us go along with the siren call of Trump or Putin. Let's not bother, both are strengthening the European economy. We can't accept such a weakening of our.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you president. Good to be here. Let me first start by thanking the political groups the EPP, the Greens and Renew, together with S&D, who supported the swift adoption of the Parliament's position on the cbam simplification. I also want to compliment the Commission for their strong commitment to Cbam and to make it more effective, because this is a textbook example of what simplification can and should be technical changes that safeguard our goals and improve the improved effectiveness of the instrument. The opposition against Cbam is, for me, totally ununderstandable, because for years our producers are paying the CO2 price while their foreign competitors get a free ride into our internal market. We all want a level playing field, so our message is clear. You're welcome to sell your products on the European market, but you need to decarbonise or you need to pay for your pollution. Cbam in itself is already a success. We were pioneering in 2019, but many have followed us. They have introduced or are considering their own ETS the Chinese, the Canadians, the Turks, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Moroccans, even the Kazakhs have their own ETS and the list is longer. It shows that when the EU leads, others follow. And that is what European citizens and companies are demanding, and that is something that we should be proud of, that I am proud of. Again, sebum is already a success, whether you like it or not. And if I look at the so-called nationalists here in this parliament, defending the interests of the big global multinationals above their own small, medium sized European interests businesses, I can tell you a little secret. There is a way to circumvent sebum. If I was a populist, I would tell you it's very simple. It's called Buy European. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. President. Our energy mark can be made far more European. Price difference is enormous and capacity varies. My dream is that of a Europe where we can improve our interconnections, thereby improving the flow between energy between states. This means that energy from the North Sea can be used in Spain, and we can also use energy from the north in Portugal. The problem is, right now our grid is full. This means that all sorts of risks. This means that people in certain parts of the Netherlands might have to wait until 2030 before they can build new houses, so as to be connected to the grid. Just imagine all the companies and people who invest in sustainable energy. They invest, for example, in a charging station for their car. Just how? Imagine. Imagine just how frustrating it is to hear that the grid has reached full capacity. If we are to take this problem Seriously, we have to ensure that the grid is not an obstacle, but a way of accelerating progress. And the only way to do that is to work together.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Importantly, it recognizes that climate change is a threat multiplier. Climate diplomacy is building stability and building peace. I hope that when the resolution is adopted, the Commissioner and the Council feel that Parliament stands ready to report a great outcome at the climate conference. As global warming accelerates, we have no time to hesitate because we are reaching a scale of climate consequences that almost seems unimaginable. The commissioner himself recently warned us of the collapse of the Gulf Stream. He rightfully called that a wake up call. It would start an era where we cannot prepare for what will come with that. News came just recently of scientific discovery on the coral reefs. They are close to almost irreversibly dying off, while more than a billion people depend on healthy corals. Just imagine these people seeking refuge elsewhere, as they rightfully would, and our farmers already face increasingly increasing droughts, which causes more and more crop losses not only here across the world, not only here across the world, harvests of coffee and cacao, but also close to home grapes are noticeably delivering less and less. People feel this directly. Prices are rising. There are no quick fixes. There is no clever trick or path to become climate neutral. It sure will be hard. It tests our society's capacity to innovate, to adapt, to stay at course. Because each compromise on climate, each delay on environment will hit us like a boomerang. Stalling our efforts now would only mean accelerating the climate crisis. There is no scenario where the cost of actions outweighs those of inaction.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Mr. President. When you look at the energy misery in which Europe finds itself, then you can only draw one conclusion which we should wean ourselves off energy imports as soon as possible. That's our mission for people who are worried about the cost of living. The economy and our security ought to support this. You can't just keep on calling for less regulation, but then not stand up for European clean energy. More solar panels. Oh, nonsense. Wind energy. Oh, it's bad for birds. Helping people in energy poverty to insulate their homes. Oh, no, that's not necessary. Mr. president, it's clear that gas from Putin or oil from the Middle East are not the solution to our crises. They are the reason why, time and again, we find ourselves in crisis. They're the cause of it all. What I see is a self-sufficient Europe where we don't depend on just a few outside parties for our energy, but where we produce energy ourselves and where the price of our energy bills is not, is not determined by the price of expensive imports. That's what the Commission should be working on. And every party in this Parliament should be calling for this.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Very simple example. If we would take steel from China versus steel from Mexico or Canada or many other countries, Turkey for example, then the CO2 content of steel from those countries is roughly twice lower. Low is half half the CO2 intensity of China. So the 50 ton de minimis that we present now would not distinguish between steel from China or steel from Turkey or Mexico or Canada. But if you would do it on a CO2 content, that would mean 50 tons of steel from Mexico would be the equivalent of 25 tons de minimis from China. And I can give you many other examples. Again, it's about the integrity of the system. It's a climate measure. And I think we need to have the right measures. Again, for now, I think it's okay from an S&D position, but we really have to be careful that this will not be used to circumvent. Second is small medium enterprises. I really believe we should distinguish between the carpenter buying nails from Canada that he has done for ages, versus a big multinational buying steel once a year from outside Europe. For those big multinationals, we should be a bit more harsher. They have the capacity to implement the to apply for cbam and if they would circumvent, they can buy steel in Europe, they can buy aluminium in Europe, they can buy cement in Europe. That's the best way to circumvent Cbam, I would say to the bigger, bigger importers or the bigger companies that import once a while. That's it from my perspective. Again, I think the S&D Group will do our best to make sure that this procedure can be done fast, such that by latest the 1st of January 2026, the new rules are in place. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Two out of three cars produced in Europe are sold outside Europe. Making our cars more competitive in those markets will do far more than endlessly tweaking and diluting our ambition at home. What we should do instead is create demand, and that needs courage and leadership. Partly, I think, with the approach of the corporate fleet. And that's something I support when it comes to the green steel. That's something I support. But we should not lower the bar. But lowering costs of components. I call for a European Airbus approach for our car industry, combining forces to tackle foreign competitors together like we did in the past. That means pooling production of batteries to lower costs. It means joining purchases of green steel to give more demand certainty and create win-win situations across sectors. It means the social leasing scheme. It means corporate fleets to boost demand. That is how we form an answer to the growing pressure. That is our answer that protects workers' future jobs in our industry. That is the way forward. And else it will be a slow agony indeed.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Thank you president. You have to allow me to say something about the process because until now, we still didn't receive a text. I have to say that the communication from the commission was very unclear, with many contradicting messages. And it's of course strange to have a debate without having a full overview of the package. But let me quote one of the commissioners who stated that this was a lifeline for the European car industry, and my friends have to be very honest, I cannot see how this proposal will help the car industry in Europe. I think the message today is a message of slowing down at a time when Europe should accelerate, and we risk this package to increase the gap between European and Chinese producers on batteries, on EVs, on software, on components. And it really feels as if we are throwing in the towel with more and more uncertainty. Last week, the app was saying that this proposal will be a Christmas gift for Europe. My dear friends, this is a Christmas gift. But to the Chinese car industry, because the problem is clear, European producers are selling less, not only in Europe but globally.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “I gave an example in envy, and I want to give an example today as well. If we would look at a CO2 emissions, uh, threshold and then translate it to weight, then we could distinguish between steel from China and steel from Mexico, because on average steel in China is twice as CO2 intense as many other places in the in the world. And I think that's a very important element. Second, I know that some of the members, some of the distinguished colleagues here want to increase the de minimis. They want to go to a 100 ton. Uh, I have to say, and this is something I really something I have to say as nice as possible. If you want to circumvent Cbam, you can do that. You can buy European and I'm very, very strong in saying it here. There's a very simple way to circumvent cbam by European products. And and especially in this geopolitical world, it's a very important message. I think it's I think small and medium enterprises we should look at. But big multinationals that do not want to buy European products because of some of the administrative burdens that cbam could entail. I really tell them, please, my dear friends, my big, big multinationals that, uh, that that earn quite some money within Europe. If you want to circumvent Cbam, you can do it by buying European products, usually from these small medium enterprises just into your neighbourhood. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Second, the extension has now been focused only on steel and aluminium intensive products. The Commission communicated that it will also assess its potential extension to other ETS sectors. Can you please give us an update on the work and what we can expect? Also, referring to recent remarks of the European leader calling for an extension relevant to chemical value chains, it was one European leader. The Commission third question opened the door for the use of article six Paris Agreement carbon credits on the Cbam. These credits are associated with significant overestimations emissions reduction. Opening the door for such credits would fundamentally weaken sebum under the EU. Ets. How will you foresee. We are not weakening our own system. Then a couple of questions on the comments on the Temporary Decarbonisation Fund because I. I assume that they are done together. Let me first wish our rapporteur Pascal the best of luck with finishing the report. I only have two questions. We understand that the fund is based on the full production of eligible sectors, not support to actual exports in general. I'd like to ask the Commission to explain to us why you decided to go for this, knowing that the fund is only temporary and rather small. Secondly, article seven on conditionality is rather brief. It refers to target the milestones in climate neutrality plans. How will you ensure that the funds are actually used for decarbonisation instead of financing Legos? We should focus on the early movers who invest a lot in green products and could get a disadvantage with this temporary fund. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, chair, to the commission. Thank you for being here today with us and the presentation of this revision. We appreciate that the commission proposes to consistently monitor risk and react appropriately when there is a clear circumvention case. This ensures that cbam stays a predictable environmental climate mechanism. The commission proposals to address abusive practices by adding reporting requirements where there's a high risk of abuse, and by using default values with punitive markups for clear cases of abuse. We believe these are appropriate measures that reinforce the safeguards of cbam. Now, on the downstream downstream product expansion, we believe that the Commission's decision to include only those products that are at significant risk of downstream carbon leakage is sensible. This aligns with the with. This aligns well with the EU simplification agenda. And nobody wants another sebum omnibus. I will start by reiterating what I said at the last time when we discussed Cbam in this committee. We see no reason for including a new clause that allows a temporary suspension of cbam sectors. Keeping article 27 A would mean game over for low carbon industry investments in Europe and creates unnecessary uncertainty. Who is going to make an investment based on this? And once a sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too. We are still scrutinizing a bit the proposal and having a lot of discussions with stakeholders. Therefore, I would like to use my time for two questions specifically on Cbam. One can you explain to us why you did not include post-consumer scrap for aluminium in the proposal? We agree with that approach, but some also in this House argue otherwise, and I believe it's important that we get a good understanding on this.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “You put a lot of pressure on me.It's not fair. It's not fair. No. A single mother from the Dutch region, 20, is taking classes to finalize finals to finally realize her dream. To start at the police academy in Zadar, a coastal town in Croatia. A secondary school has been equipped with computers and tablets. And in Prague, victims of sexual violence have been able to receive support in a newly built shelter since last year. The mother of the student and the victims have all been helped by European funding, and across Europe, there's a surge in applications for new projects. In the Netherlands, hundreds of thousands of people have participated have participated in EU funded employment and skill initiatives. And I think it is bad that the European Commission wants to cut this. Irresponsible, in my opinion, and inappropriate. If this happens, we sideline the most vulnerable, the most needed. We need to invest in industry. We need to invest in energy. We need to invest in defence. But the European Social Fund is the main European instrument to invest in people. And if we cut the ESF of the of the out of the budget, you hit Europe at its heart. And what will remain is a Europe without a soul. Thank you very much.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “No, no it's not. Uh, I wanted to ask a question on ISDs in Colombia, but I think someone else will ask that question. I have to say, in my our privilege is that we meet a lot of brilliant scientists as a member of Parliament. And one of them that I met is shot Ruskamp, who works on ocean science. He monitors the ocean and he tells me, Mohamed, we spend more money. We know more about space and the universe than sometimes when it comes to our oceans. And we know that the Amoc is essential when it comes to climate change, and also the effects of that to our farmers, to our inner cities. And one of the elements is can we create finance, long term finance that we did, for example, for the European Space Agency? Can we create certain funds specifically for Amoc because it's important, it will affect our lives significantly, and it's very important for us to monitor it from a European perspective. I'm very interested to hear your your answer to that. Thank you.”
  EU ocean policy
• “Thank you, Madam President. I have to say, we all have strong feelings when it comes to the car industry. We all have the same nostalgic feelings. But I must say that nostalgia is good. But not if it lets you stick in the past. Not if it blocks innovation. Not if it blocks change. And today I feel like I'm in the boardroom of Nokia. When the iPhone was just released. The touch screen, the ability to browse on the internet and play music, it was revolutionary. The response of Nokia to try to make the keyboard phone more attractive instead of responding to innovation. And we all know how that story ended, because by allowing car makers to not fulfill the mid-term goal. It's like telling Nokia to keep on producing the keyboard. The keyboard phone, it will not cut it for our industry. And with these plans, with these delays to switch to zero emission vehicles in Europe, I only see two winners. The companies that are lagging behind that are only looking at short term gains. And China, who already leads the EV market and sees the competition sabotaging itself. Because with this delay, we also delay the second hand market. Very important to the access of electric vehicles. We need to create the conditions for EV cars to thrive within Europe. We need to push for an electric corporate fleet and introduce social leasing to make EVs accessible for all Europeans. And while we are talking about range extenders and debate on flexibilities of penalties of companies that made more than £100 billion in profits in the last years, China invests in solid state batteries with a range of more than 1500km. This cannot be our answer to plan for a successful response to these developments. And just like Nokia, it's the lack of innovation that threatens our future, not the goals we've set eight years ago. Thank you very much.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach · Road transport environmental policy
• “If I may. Can I make like there's a point of order that I fully don't understand when it comes to the competences between Ether and Budge. I mean, clearly that you state that some of the amendments which you can see as admissible or not admissible. I have to say, I we have now the situation in the Parliament that the text can be voted in favour of and voted against and budge. And we are talking about a legislative text that will be a total mess in the plenary. I also don't understand why, nor the SEC nor the cop took a decision about which committee is in the lead on which competence. I think the way that we are working is becoming more and more complicated, and does not clear the clarity between the committees when it comes to working on this legislative file, and I really think we should change this hopefully during the mid-term, because I think it makes our work really, really unworkable. The situation for me is unclear and it creates a lot of unnecessary tensions. Also between the committees. I had to make this point, chair, apologies, but, uh, yeah, it's becoming a bit of a mess. In my opinion.”
  EU political integration
• “The sky was the limit with the Green Deal. People spoke of the Brussels effect. We were inspiring people. We led by example in the global climate agenda. And I fondly remember president von der Leyen talking about our man on the moon moment. Are we now aborting the mission and reversing all our achievements? Because landing on the moon is a very complicated matter. We cannot cut rules, regulate, simplify and think we will achieve the mission. And somehow, by cutting and simplifying, we think we will have so much savings that we bridge the gap of 700 billion that Draghi talks about without means, without protecting our social and environmental conditions, the real European way of life. We are throwing away the child with the bathwater and we will never reach the moon. Simplifications? Yes. Deregulation? No. To reshape our industry, we need to go beyond simplification. We need new, fresh money. We need investments. A new budget focused. Fine. But only reallocation will not make us more resilient and increase our competitiveness. Mr. Leonard, yes. We do not want only changes by commas and dots. We want a strong MFF. We want our own resources. We want a new steel and metal plan, especially after the tariffs that are presented by Trump. We need a competitiveness fund. We need to set our priorities. I do not want to see a race to the bottom when we can reach to the top, we got to shoot for the stars. We have to show ambition again, to show Europeans that we work for them to combat global warming and leave no one behind. That's how we secure our place in the world. And the world needs a strong Europe.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much. Chair, I had some words in Dutch prepared, but I don't think they're that useful if I look at the debate now. So let me, uh, follow on what my esteemed, highly esteemed colleague Peter Lees has asked, because Sandy does believe that efforts should be rewarded. But then the question is we have to define what effort is within the system. Because remember, we have benchmarks defined with every sector, and there are people that are companies that actually have invested in decarbonization compared to their peers. And some of their peers are actually quite far away from those benchmarks year after year. That's why we said if you belong to the 20% worst performers compared to your peers, then we should do something about the free allowances because you're not investing, you're not showing any will to invest within Europe. I think those elements needs to stay in that reform. My group is willing to think about smart ways forward, especially post 2038. I think it's good to have an ETS prize for the least. Else we don't have a carbon price. And these are those two are connected. But just phasing out the free allowances of having a different trajectory without conditions that those amounts should go to, the decarbonisation of our industry will not will not be accepted for us. Europe is really having a fight internally. On the one hand, we're talking about electrification of every sector, but we tend to forget cars. On the one hand, we go to Colombia to talk about fossil fuels, phase out, and now we again hope by 2040 we still can find some flexibility for sector A, B and C at some point that game cannot be played. Europe needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The only way forward is decarbonisation, creating European produced electricity and energy. That's the way for our independence and you'll get climate neutrality almost free. Connected to that, thank you very much.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “An action delivers not only for climate but also for our economy. Decarbonizing and competitiveness go hand in hand. It offers sustainable growth in every sense of the world. We have to address the elephant in the room. We must avoid that. Europe shows up empty handed. And I have to say, I have a lot of trust in this council, the presidency of Denmark and this commissioner. Because what will we tell those island states that are shrinking year by year beneath rising costs, rising seas, two countries facing droughts that destroy livelihoods to the regions overwhelmed by floods without the means to prevent such catastrophes. I'm afraid that we will disappoint them while we know all too well what lies ahead. Because their present is our future, and our future is not that far away. Today we remember the floods in Spain from last year. This summer, wildfires raged through Portugal, while in July July heatwaves claimed hundreds of lives in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus alone, there would not be a more cynical time for Europe to arrive at the climate conference empty handed. But again, with this commissioner, I have confidence that it will not happen because not so long ago we led, we guided, we inspired, and we united. We built alliances with countries and shared our ambition. We showed that climate action works by bringing down emissions in record time. This is not the time to stall our efforts. Thank you very much.”
  Climate efforts
• “I'll respond in Dutch. As far as I'm concerned what we want to have is a strong budget, a budget that can do more for Europe. Given the current geopolitical situation, we need Europe that invests in defence, that invests in the future economy. And if the budget is going to remain the same, you have to make choices. You can only spend what you have and you have to do that as intelligently as possible. That's what the commission is doing, I think. If we are going to have cuts everywhere, then will we meet our goals? Mr. Smith, you might want to cut from elsewhere to give to farmers, but we have to make choices.”
  Size of EU budget
• “So in a world where energy supply chain and access to raw materials can be weaponized, economic dependencies are no longer harmless. Strategic autonomy powered by a clean, sustainable economy has become a condition for our sovereignty, security and competitiveness. That is why for us, decarbonization policies stay a cornerstone for our independence. The cornerstone for a genuine European freedom deal. Competitiveness does not simply mean red tape. It will not lead to the necessary transformative investments that are needed to bridge the gap that we need to reach the 800 billion noted by Draghi. I urge you all to reread what Draghi and Letta have stated. We need a stronger and more integrated single market. We need to transform our economy, look beyond the red tape to innovate and thrive. And after Draghi and Letta and the Antwerp Declaration and the Budapest Declaration and many, many more, I'm asking you, we should stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Because, my friends, let me be very clear. Cutting the red tape for competitiveness will not cut it.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. President. Last year, the EU imported 23 billion worth of Russian energy. That's more than the spending on support for Ukraine. Anybody can see that. This is ridiculous. We cannot wait until 20 2017, 2027 to stop importing Russian oil and gas. Otherwise, we will be spending billions each year direct to Russia while European and Ukrainian security demands that we stop now. Every solar panel, every wind turbine is stopping the coffers of Putin swelling. There's more we can do. Commissioner, reduce the cap on Russian Russian gas down to $35 and increase the price of transport. Have import quotas, apply a price platform as well for every euro that is stopped going to Putin as a euro for peace. Every euro that doesn't go to Putin is a euro for peace and is being removed from his war chest. Let's take the initiative in the leadership in G7 for the the commission, because all Europeans are asking for this and all Ukrainians are asking for this. Having peace now, having a stop to buying Russian oil and gas. Now.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Chair. The question today is will we invest in our future or keep pretending that short term thinking and lowering ambition will save us? Let me give you an example with the car industry, because every expert agrees that the future of the car industry lies with the electric vehicle, and we are behind a single American. A single Chinese manufacturer produces more electric vehicles than all European carmakers together. And instead of focusing on catching up, instead of using common sense by investing in social leasing, investing in battery infrastructure. Some here are asking to subsidize expensive synthetic or biofuels. Mind you, these limited fuels are needed for aviation, for maritime, and for our defense. And then there are rumors about lowering safety standards for small cars. Just imagine that your grandmother or mother is driving that car and then has an accident. Is that European competitiveness? I truly hope that these are just rumors because I'm disgusted by them. When companies choose profit over our safety, over our lives, then this Parliament, whether it's about cars, chemicals or agriculture, should stand firm. That's the Europe I believe in.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. Your turn. **Mohammed CHAHIM Thank you. Follow up. I mean, 25% of our electricity in Europe is nuclear. It's mainly concentrated in France, Spain and Sweden. Let's invest as we've done for repower EU in the grid to make sure that much more sustainable energy can be implemented. My final question is on ETFs. There's a lot of rumors going on on ETFs. So system that works really well. It shows that you can combine green growth with decarbonization. I would really love to hear from you what you think about all the comments, mainly coming from heads of state on ETS and to what extent they are risking to throwing away the child with the bathwater.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Let us be honest. Energy price shocks are not new. We saw them in the 1980s and we will see them again and again because as long as our energy system remains vulnerable, these shocks will return. And when they do, it's always at the expense of our citizens. They pay the price, especially the most vulnerable households, those living in poorly insulated homes. And our responsibility is very clear. We must make the next price shock as harmless as possible, because today's gas prices are rapidly increasing and show a lot of uncertainty. It shows that any disruption, any disruption in the system that is not still sufficiently diversified can lead to new price peaks. So we must act now. We need to protect households and small businesses with more stable pricing options, including price caps and a windfall profit tax. We need our consumers to profit from low energy prices by making use of purchasing power agreements. And finally, share energy. Communities are the future and must be empowered. Citizens should not just consume energy, they should produce it, share it, and benefit from it. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you, Mr. President. When you look at the energy misery in which Europe finds itself, then you can only draw one conclusion which we should wean ourselves off energy imports as soon as possible. That's our mission for people who are worried about the cost of living. The economy and our security ought to support this. You can't just keep on calling for less regulation, but then not stand up for European clean energy. More solar panels. Oh, nonsense. Wind energy. Oh, it's bad for birds. Helping people in energy poverty to insulate their homes. Oh, no, that's not necessary. Mr. president, it's clear that gas from Putin or oil from the Middle East are not the solution to our crises. They are the reason why, time and again, we find ourselves in crisis. They're the cause of it all. What I see is a self-sufficient Europe where we don't depend on just a few outside parties for our energy, but where we produce energy ourselves and where the price of our energy bills is not, is not determined by the price of expensive imports. That's what the Commission should be working on. And every party in this Parliament should be calling for this.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you so much. A green industry policy is based on demand. Green products, electric cars, recycled plastic. Because we need to create this demand. And that is how we can make a difference in Europe. If there is no demand, no development, no growth, we need to create this demand. The authorities, local, national and European need to give the good example. You need to buy green, you need to buy European and you need to invest and the public spending batteries get a good business case and can be affordable and businesses can upscale and they can drop their production costs. And it's also a question of choice. Where do we want to excel? Where do we want to keep our position. And we need to strengthen our autonomy. And we need strategic partnerships outside Europe. Well, people are not resting on their laurels. In China, investments are huge. The.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Mr. president. Dear colleagues. Recent developments, including tensions over Greenland, remind us that Europe's freedom to choose its values, to produce and to trade is not guaranteed. Our dependencies. Dependencies can be weaponised and our sovereignty challenged. That is why I'm calling for a European freedom deal. Building on the green industrial deal. This agenda is not just about climate or industry. It's about securing Europe's ability to act freely in an unstable world. Our industry must stand on their own. Our supply chain resilient and our energy clean, affordable and European. Let us turn our decarbonisation and security agenda into a freedom deal. Safeguarding a Europe that is resilient, sovereign and free. But for that we need a strong budget. With global instability and the need for autonomy, the question is how will you, dear president, convince member States to choose more and not less public investment? And how do you see the future of the Union's finances in the actual state of the world? Thank you very much.”
  Size of EU budget
• “I remember on this day, exactly four years ago, that Parliament adopted a resolution on the WTO compatibility of Cbam. I remember my colleague Yannick Jadot from the Greens that did an extraordinary job, and that was quite some consensus here in the room. The same holds, actually, for the ambition that we had as commission and Parliament. The Green Deal, the European climate law, those were more than just policies. They formed our vision for a sustainable, innovative and strong Europe. We made a promise to industry, to businesses and to workers that who believed and worked on this vision. If you innovate, if you invest in green technologies, if you are committed to decarbonize, we will have your back with stable and predictable legislation. We will help you invest, grow and provide secure jobs that we all need. And now we are here today. I challenge everyone in this room to explain to me how creating simplification help us form a robust response to China and other global players. I fear that this so-called vision of competitiveness and simplification is not enough, and it distracts us from the real solutions we need, like a market creation for green and digital European technologies. And I cannot stress this enough. Market creation, not deregulation, market creation, not deregulation. That's what we need. That's what we need to create jobs to grow our economy and really become competitive by simplification. We somehow believe that the investments that we need will pop up, that they will magically appear. As we say in Dutch, costs always come before the profits. It doesn't mean that there are no rules that we can simplify, but emphasizing only on this, only on simplification, will not do the job.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. President. Dear colleagues, first of all, I very much welcome our swift trilogue agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. This is not a small achievement, and we should really be proud of what we've done. It shows that within this parliament, pro-European parties can work together and we are capable of moving fast and deliver when climate and industry and our credibility is at stake. Cbam matters. It's the backbone of our climate trade policy. It ensures that the polluter pays, that our European producers are not undercut by imports from producers that refuse to decarbonise. In short, and I've said it many times here you are welcome to sell your products in Europe, but only if you play by the same rules. Either you reduce your emissions or you pay a CO2 tariff at the border. But colleagues, my intervention today is not only one of praise. I also need to raise the alarm. The signals that the Commission has hinted at the extra flexibility for President Trump and Cbam deeply concerns me. What do these flexibilities mean and why would we undermine our own instrument? No European industry has asked for this. And let me remind you what we've always stood for no exemptions, no carve outs, no special deals for nobody, nor for our neighbours, and certainly not for a global superpower or our Parliament's position is crystal clear and I don't see what has changed here. And if the Commission starts undermining Cbam by doling out perks before it has even been fully entered into force, then the credibility of the entire system is at risk. This would not only be a success story, this would not be a success story, but the beginning of the end of Cbam and maybe even not even the end of maybe even the end of the beginning before it's fully at place in January. Colleagues, we owe it to the climate and to our industry to defend cbam as it has been agreed. Firm, fair and future proof. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Dear colleagues, honourable members. Commissioner, global crisis and energy shocks yet again showed how vulnerable our system really is. Because fertilisers production depends heavily on natural gas, rising energy prices quickly lead to rising fertiliser prices, putting pressure on farmers, food production and consumers. And that is, I think, why this fertilizer plant matters. The plan aims to bring energy costs down through investing in renewable energy. Cleaner technologies are more stable energy supplies. And the idea is very simple. If suppliers and producers can access affordable energy, farmers can access more affordable fertilizers. The plan also supports low carbon and circular circular fertilizers made from recycled nutrients and renewable hydrogen, reducing dependencies on imported resources. Because that's the biggest problem with Europe. Fortunately, innovation and sustainability are key to produce EU fertilizers that do not rely on the dominant global suppliers. In the end, this plan is not only about fertilizers, it's about protecting our farmers, stabilizing prices, strengthening food security, and building a more resilient Europe. Thank you very much.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. I'm a bit less tall than. I'm a bit a bit taller than me, so thank you. Thank you Commissioner. What worries me in this debate is that some people tend to forget why we created ETS in the first place. Europe cannot be competitive if we depend on fossil fuels, and we continue to be exposed on gas and price shocks. And today the reality is even clearer than ever. We are running around the world asking for autocrats to continue to deliver us with oil and gas. That's not competitiveness, that's desperation. We would be in a totally different ballpark today if stronger investments were made. And that is why the real gain is instead of giving handouts to hesitant companies. The question today is why didn't member states invest all those billions in revenues to decarbonise industry? That's the question we should have today. And I tell you, Commissioner, that is something my group will focus on. Let's make sure the revenues go back to decarbonize that sector, and we will not be part of punishing companies that already invested in decarbonization by taking away their incentive of continue investing for continuing having price stability. And one last comment, Mr. Commissioner, because I know that you are very busy working on ETS on behalf of my group. We will not be served a dish without being involved in the kitchen. You cannot take our vote for granted. We will be part of the solution and will not only vote yes or no with whatever you cook for us. Thank you very much.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Last year I had to test myself and I was very concerned by the results. If you talk about PFAS, you're talking about pesticides and microplastics. Two thirds of Dutch people want their government to adopt more robust regulation. I hope the Commission will finally start listening. And just today, we've got an idea coming out with the idea of doing away with reporting obligations for make up companies. Ridiculous. In fact, the commission is making it easier for such companies to use toxic substances. Do you really think this is what our citizens want? That comes at the cost of of their health? If we want to help the European chemical sector, we have to reduce energy dependency. We have to get away from fossil fuels. We have to invest in a genuine electricity grid. That's what industry wants. That's a European investment agenda for chemicals and to make it greener. Access to green molecules. Because chemicals can also mean hydrogen, biologically degradable plastics, chemical recycling, all of which is crucial for our future. So a few ideas jotted down on the back of the envelope. That's not what we call an action plan. That simply won't be enough. An action plan without the required investment would be like an would be for the a chemical sector, like an empty test tube for a researcher. You can look at it, but nothing's happening.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you president. Thank you. Honourable Minister. First, let me begin by wishing you a very successful presidency. I think it's very important to make that statement now. The Commission did not make things easy for you by publishing the 2040 climate targets so late. You only have four months. But let's see whether we can manage. I need to manage. I think the Polish presidency also left you with some farewell gifts in some still not finished files. We warmly welcome your commitment to strengthen green policy. Rolling back these measures would unfairly penalize citizens and businesses who have already invested in the shift from fossil to low carbon solutions to those. Today, there was an op ed in the Belgium newspaper by a very prominent EPP member, Mr. Hoekstra, who stated that those who believe that a strong, resilient and innovative European economy comes from keeping fossil energy cheap are fooling themselves because they will only pay a bigger price in the future. And I think we should do our best to make sure that we become more autonomous, less dependent and lower the price for future generations. It's very important because I have no problem with nostalgia. I have also no problem of looking back for inspiration, but that is something else than holding on to the past. We need to invest in new jobs, new industries that can improve our competitiveness and be the growth strategy for Europe, North, South, East and West. Together we are stronger. You can count on us and we can count on you, of course, to bring Europe further when it comes to these topics. Therefore, we'd like to ask the following two questions on behalf of Timo Werner, coordinator and SD. How will you ensure a swift and ambitious agreement for the 2040 target? And just to be curious, I know that you're not the responsible minister, but it is a file very close to my heart and it's. Can you share your plans for closing the green claims file? Because it's an important file also for consumer protection and clarity. And I think backtracking on that file was also very, very a wrong message in my opinion. Thank you very much.”
  Climate efforts
• “Should I start the chair? Yes. Okay. Thank you. President. Allow me to start to introduce the oral question on behalf of the committee. Minister. Commissioner Hoekstra, dear colleagues, to achieve an outcome for the United Nations Climate Change Conference that meaningfully advances the agenda on mitigation, adaptation, finance and loss and damage the EU needs to strengthen its climate diplomacy. What actions are the Commission and the Council taking individually to ensure that the climate conference in Berlin concludes with significant progress, particularly in relation to the following three points raising the collective ambition and the national determined contributions in line with the goal of the Paris Agreement, mobilising climate finance by the public and private sectors towards the goal agreed at Cop 29, including through innovative financing schemes and equitable burden sharing mechanisms. In the last point, implementing a further and further strengthening the commitments and actions agreed to the first global stocktake, which was part of the United Arab Emirates consensus. Commissioner, Council. Colleagues the climate conference lays ahead in less than a month from now, we hope to reach a conclusion that will deliver our climate neutrality in 2050 on climate finance, on ending fossil fuel subsidies, on climate adaptation, indigenous rights, improving biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gases massively. The Parliament's draft motion for a resolution calls for the union to lead by example, and underlines the need for a science based EU climate target for 2030. It highlights the triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity and pollution because these are interlinked and we need an integrated response.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you president. Thank you for finishing on time because most colleagues don't do that. The energy we have to reduce energy bills. That's what our businesses and people at home are asking us to do. In winter, we Dutch don't just dream of Spanish sun, but also of low in energy bills, sun from Spain, wind from the Netherlands, hydropower from Sweden. Together we can split our energy requirements, but we can only do that with a truly European energy network because at the moment Netherlands is at a standstill. Hundreds of thousands of homes are at risk of not being built, not only because of nitrogen, but also because of a congested powernet. Sometimes it can take ten years to get a project off the ground. Six years of which is lost just to granting the permit. This can and must be done faster. Network operators and public authorities must have sufficient capacity. Modernising our energy grid requires major investments. But that bill shouldn't be footed by our citizens. Only we have to have a fair sharing of the costs with national borders and between countries as well. With joint European products projects, we can create economies of scale and scale and reduce costs. These large scale projects also need support. Accelerating does not mean abolishing civic participation, ignoring local residents. This leads to a loss of support and therefore delays accelerating. I would say means prioritizing in a smart fashion. Focus more on wind and solar parks, more charging stations. A truly European energy grid will help us and will reduce costs. This is how we can benefit from the Spanish sun, even when in a week's time, the whole of the Netherlands is going to be plugging in their festive gourmet set.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Harm principle. Um, we as SMD, uh, will address these points further in our budgetary assessment, uh, in the amendments that we will provide later on. We do not think we should, uh, make that assumption that all horizon activities are considered compliant. I think we should take the regulation, uh, the final declaration in article 33. Uh, we should not exempt anything from it. We should be careful when it comes to addressing that, uh, that rule, then, uh, the horizon regulation will need to strict to strike the balance between supporting highly innovative startups and scale ups and making the sector competitive while also ensuring geographical balance, as this is an effect on how the budget is spent. I believe we should highlight this in our budgetary assessment as well. And then finally, chair, I believe that as budget, we should underline that the separation of horizon as a program for civil and dual use needs to be maintained, and any funding for research needs to be budgeted separately, that is within the ECF as proposed by the European Commission. Um, while we support the ramp up of defense spending, and clearly the geopolitical situation necessitates that we should nevertheless ensure a clear distinction between civil and military spending, as they are very different in nature. Thank you very much, chair.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Europe is facing a Kodak moment. Back in the 1970s, Kodak invented the digital camera, a groundbreaking technology, but they feared it would destroy the business model of cameras and film. So they delayed. They resisted and they have practically have vanished. Today, our automotive industry stands at the same crossroad and history is clear. Horse and carriage lost to the steam engine. The steam engine lost to the combustion car. And the combustion engine will be, for a big part, replaced by electric vehicles. Instead of focusing on the meeting of the current standard emissions, some start delaying with range extenders, very expensive synthetic fuels and other distractions. I think that's not innovation, that's sabotage, because around the world, others are moving ahead. 42% of new cars in Vietnam are electric. Ethiopia has already stopped importing combustion engines, and Chinese EV sales grow 40% last year. We own European honesty and ambition. This debate today is not only misguided, it's also dishonest. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Choosing for short term profits will go at the expense of long term gains for our auto industry. For cars being built in Europe. Let's instead invest in electric corporate fleets, in social leasing programs so that the nurse, the the teacher, the farmer all can drive electric cars. And not just the consultant, the lawyer and the banker. Otherwise, I sincerely believe our industry risks ending up like Kodak. A mere snapshot of history.”
  Road transport environmental policy