Sara MATTHIEU

Policy topics Sara MATTHIEU is active on

What Sara MATTHIEU has said (50)

• 2026-06-17 “(15:21:33 – 15:23:08): So, colleagues, once again, people are worried about their energy bills and why it costs so much to cool or to heat their homes. But the thing is, it doesn't actually have to cost that much because right now, the clean option is actually the cheapest option. Think about solar panels. Think about heat pumps. Think about the new electrical car models that are entering the market. Their sales are booming. People from everywhere, from Pakistan, from Australia, also in Europe, they are scrambling to get away from fossil fuels. And it's not hard to see why because, well, it's good news for their wallets, and, basically, they are just better products. So crucially, we should let everyone benefit, also the people that can't pay for the investment upfront. So that means that we need to set up social leasing programs, for instance, for heat pumps, for instance, for electrical cars. We need to make sure that there's money for massive renovation and for retrofits, and that's how we get everyone on board. So why does the far right want to keep people hooked on fossil fuels? Well, after the invasion by their good friend, Putin, Europe paid millions more for fossil fuels, and that money went straight into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and of dictators. So let's not make that same mistake again, colleagues. Let's double down on a faster electrification for Europe, for our economy, for our people. Thank you. You very much, mister Oliveira.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2026-06-15 “Stability. Well because, of course, with this guy, you already always know what to expect. Right? Remember the 15% tariffs. Remember the threats that he posed against Greenland. The only thing that we really know for sure is that there is no credibility and no certainty when it comes to the commitments of president Trump. So we have to fix our own house. We need to make sure that we complete our internal market because then we actually give our companies a whole market bigger than The US. We need to make sure that we have a real European capitals market so our savings go into European companies instead of to Wall Street. And we need massive investments in the greening of our industry so Trump can't blackmail us anymore with fossil fuel. So guess what? All of those things we can do without Trump's signature. We don't need to give him a birthday present. We need to grow. I made a mistake.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · Energy (green transition)
• 2026-02-18 “Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission 12.6.2026 Written question The importation of oil products into the EU must comply with any restrictive measures in force. The EU has in place restrictive measures concerning the situation in Venezuela (Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 [1] ) on 217 product categories. However, those measures do not include restrictions on the importation of Venezuelan oil to the EU, either directly or indirectly. Exports of petroleum products from the US to the EU in the period from January to April 2026 were 1,8, 1,0, 0,9 and 1,5 million tons per month, respectively. The Commission has data on the breakdown of the oil products imported but does not have data on the origin of the crude oil from which those petroleum products are produced in US refineries. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2063/2025-01-11/eng.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · EU-US trade relations
• 2025-10-17 “E-004097/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission 1. Cash revenues generated in 2027 from the new Emissions Trading System for buildings, road transport and additional sectors (ETS2) will become available for spending shortly after the auctioning of ETS2 allowances, as soon as the proceeds will be transferred to the auctioneer appointed by the relevant Member State. However, the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD) provides that ETS revenues are recorded as government revenues in the year when allowances are surrendered. To the extent that the spending of ETS2 proceeds is already recorded in 2027, it may temporarily increase government deficits in that year. The reformed EU fiscal rules have a medium-term approach that is well-suited to cater for temporary fluctuations in annual budgetary outcomes. 2. It is important that national resources stemming from the operation of the ETS2 can be quickly mobilised to support investments in decarbonisation and shield vulnerable consumers in all Member States, including those with a more limited fiscal space. This is one of the reasons why the Commission is proposing to start auctioning ETS2 allowances before the ETS2 market starts in 2028, following the provisional political agreement of the European Parliament and Council on the EU Climate Law announced on 10 December 2025. The European System of Accounts (ESA) establishes the principle that in national accounts revenues are recorded when economic value is created, transformed or extinguished, or when claims and obligations are transformed or are cancelled. The MGDD, developed in close cooperation with the statistical community follows this principle and foresees common implementation methods ensuring consistency across Member States.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• 2025-10-07 “E-003927/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully committed to protecting the European steel industry from unfair trade and the sector is already protected by trade defence instruments. This includes over 70 trade defence measures in the sector, including safeguard measures. Once measures are imposed, if there is evidence that these measures are being evaded, the Commission takes action by opening anti-circumvention investigations and extends measures accordingly. In that context, the Commission extended the measures on stainless steel coldrolled products from Indonesia to other Asian countries, including Taiwan, in 2024 1 . However, the Commission also found during the investigation that certain Taiwanese producers were not engaged in circumvention practices. Hence these specific producers were exempted from the duties. The Commission can only revoke these exemptions if sufficient evidence is provided tending to show a lasting change in circumstances that led these genuine producers to start circumventing after having received their exemption. On the second point, the Commission made an ambitious proposal to address the negative trade-related effects of global overcapacity on the EU steel market on 7 October 2025 2 . As soon as the proposal is endorsed by the Council and the European Parliament, it will enter into force and start benefitting EU steel producers, including those of stainless steel products. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401268. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)726&lang=en.”
  Trade relations with China · Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• 2025-06-25 “E-002566/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the importance of addressing hydrogen leakage in the context of the EU’s decarbonisation agenda and the development of hydrogen infrastructure. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has been working on the matter, assessing environmental, social and economic impact of hydrogen production and transport, including assessments on hydrogen leakages and potential global warming consequences. In particular, the JRC published in 2022 the technical report on ‘Hydrogen emissions from a hydrogen economy and their global warming impact’. 1 A follow up workshop co-organised by the United States Department of Energy and the JRC on hydrogen environmental impacts 2 took place in September 2024. The Commission acknowledges the increased scientific literature on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of hydrogen. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not included a reference value for GWP of hydrogen in their latest sixth assessment report. For this reason, and due to the lack of qualified tools to monitor hydrogen emissions, a GWP value has not been included in the methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions savings from renewable fuels of non-biological origin 3 and the recently adopted low-carbon fuels 4 . Once a GWP value will be established under an authoritative scientific source, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Commission will proceed with a technical update of relevant legislations. 1 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC130362. 2 https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-emissions-and-environmental-impacts-workshop. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1185/oj/eng. 4 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-delegated-regulation-eu-specifying-methodologyassessing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-savings_en.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen · Energy (green transition)
• 2025-06-25 “E-002567/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Since adoption of the 8 th Environment Action Programme, most proposals from the 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan 1 have been adopted; a few are still being negotiated. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) 2 promotes durable, repairable and recyclable products, as will the durability and recyclate requirements of the Batteries Regulation 3 and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 4 . Rules for micro and biobased plastics will tackle plastic consumption at source. Internationally, the EU is pushing for an ambitious treaty on plastic pollution 5 . Horizon Europe 6 supports research on circularity and sustainable consumption. The Recommendation on tax incentives to support the Clean Industrial Deal 7 covers fiscal support for companies’ circularity investments. The ESPR working plan 2025-2030 8 schedules future requirements for concrete product groups. The focus is now on implementing those rules in close consultation with stakeholders, European institutions and national administrations. Its full impact will unfold over the coming years. The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s assessment that the circular transition needs to be accelerated to ensure meeting the objectives. The Commission will thus prepare a Circular Economy Act, based on an open public consultation to identify all measures necessary to ensure that scarce materials are used and reused efficiently, thereby contributing to sustainable resource management. In addition, a Bioeconomy Strategy 9 will incentivise higher-value uses of biomass. The new European Bauhaus 10 will facilitate circularity in buildings. Finally, the Commission is working on filling the corresponding investment gaps by leveraging public and private finance. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L, 2024/1781, 28.6.2024. 3 Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L 191, 28.7.2023, p. 1–117. 4 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-calls-agreement-conclude-global-plastics-treaty-2024-11-25_en. 6 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en. 7 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ae2ea9ea-d037-4920-bbf6a4183b747e34_en?filename=COM_2025_378_1_EN_ACT_part1_v5.pdf. 8 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/5f7ff5e2-ebe9-4bd4-a139-db881bd6398f_en. 9 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/bioeconomy/bioeconomy-strategy_en. 10 https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en.”
  Ecodesign & durability · Circular economy
• 2024-12-18 “E-003031/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Extractive Waste Directive (the Directive) 1 sets an ambitious level of environmental and human health protection and contains provisions on financial guarantees, public participation, the construction and management of extractive waste facilities, the closure and after-closure phase, inspection, control and monitoring obligations, and an explicit provision on the prevention of water status deterioration and air and soil pollution. It sets out stringent provisions for particularly risk-prone facilities and leaves a margin of appreciation to the competent authorities, which reflects the broad variety of mining operations (oil, coal, metal, aggregates etc.) covered by the Directive and the individual factors in relation to geography, size, commodity etc. to be taken into account. The Directive already sets out the rules on public participation for granting a permit for a waste facility to operate in its Article 8. The public shall be informed early in the procedure of granting a permit of the application for the permit, details of the responsible competent authority, the nature of possible decisions and other matters. The public concerned shall be entitled to submit comments and opinions to the competent authority prior to a decision being taken. The outcomes of the consultations shall be duly taken into account when taking the decision. The better valorisation of secondary critical raw materials, including from mining waste, will also be considered as part of the impact assessment and public consultation on the upcoming Circular Economy Act. 1 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC - Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15–34.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Yeah, thanks a lot. Also, on behalf of the Greens, it's wonderful to have all the agencies here together to present your work. I think you're doing very important work individually, but I think the benefits of your work could even be bigger if you would work together. And I'm hinting towards the data. It has been mentioned, indeed, the legislative proposal on a common data platform for chemicals that then should really integrate all of the data you respectively have. Well, perhaps not all, because indeed we have been told that when it comes to that data from Echa, Efsa and EEA that would be included, but the EMA then would get a special treatment where only the data after the entry into force of the new regulation would be included. And well, that would mean, of course, a very large majority of chemical related data, um, would not, um, be taken into account. I think it's very crucial, uh, in the relevance to develop predictive toxicity testing, for instance, saving animal testing, thanks to that, um, when it wouldn't be included in that common data. And while we've heard that Efsa now is requesting to get the same special treatment, I think it would be detrimental to the purpose of the common data platform. So my question, of course, is to Miss Cook and Mr. Uhl, could you please reconsider and commit to provide all the chemical related data to that common data platform? Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Yeah. Thanks a lot. Also from my side for this debate. Um, I think it's clear the clean industrial deal really promised to support all workers in the transition. But we know, um, that sometimes women can be overlooked in that regard. Uh, and, well, in that sense, the transition then risks to benefit the male workers more than the female workers. And you've said it, they are still a smaller percentage of the workforce in industry, manufacturing, transport and construction. So we do have a gender employment gap there. Um, it's a skills gap as well that affects the older, lower skilled and female workers disproportionately more. I would say, and we see that some female workers still do encounter many barriers, like the unequal burden of unpaid care, domestic responsibilities or shortages, of course, in quality childcare facilities. So I think it's very important that we put policies in place, for instance, social conditionalities to the public funds that will support our industries in the transition. And I think there the IRA in the US was really a good practice. So making sure that public funding is conditional to such measures as training opportunities, uh, the cost free um, skilling and during working hours, of course, so that it doesn't coincide with family life, making sure that there is adequate and affordable childcare for everyone. So for us, that is hugely important and it would be interesting to hear the Commission's view on that.”
  EU policy on social criteria in public funding
• “Colleagues. Who. Have you seen this in your own family? How many of you have somebody in the family who has solar panels on the roof? Ordinary people choose solutions, which means that their energy bills are lower and the means that they don't have to rely on gas and oil. They do that. Thousands of people do it because it makes sense. And that's where the. This is where we really see the battles happening and the ordinary people. But the right wing politicians are stopping you. And Donald Trump has left the climate agreement. Let us take the lead on renewables, not to give benefits to the oil sheiks, but so that we can save money.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Dear colleagues. Europe can't win by playing yesterday's game. If we stick to fossil fuels, well, we are always going to lose to cheaper competitors like the US or China. But we can lead the world with clean tech and with renewables. In 2023 alone, they created one third of the EU growth and millions of green jobs. So this is our moment. We need to maintain jobs and economic security right here in Europe, and we need to protect ourselves from climate disasters. We need to protect ourselves from unfair trade practices. And that is really what the clean industrial deal is all about. That's why the 90% climate target to 2040 in the strategy is such a big deal. That is why massive electrification, renewables, circularity, those should really be our investment priorities. But colleagues, these transitions must also work for the workers supporting our industry to decarbonize. Yeah, but tie it to fair wages and to workers rights. No corporate handouts without high quality jobs. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thanks a lot. And also on my behalf. Thanks to the rapporteur for the draft and for the good cooperation. And I do indeed hope we would be able, as a Parliament to send that strong signal, as you said, Mr. Berenson, because I do think that this clean industrial deal should and will be a milestone for the EU. And the reason for that is that we finally see the acknowledgement that Europe is actually more than just a market, that we really need a collective effort to actively steer our economy towards greening and modernising our industries, and to protect them against unfair competition, and only by building the business case for those investments in clean tech and green industrial commodities. Can we indeed remain competitive? Competitive? Um, the Draghi report actually literally confirms that by stating that clean technologies are becoming the new oil. So the good news is, with the demand for such technologies soaring in the next decades, we can actually put Europe in a pole position there. In fact, such industrial climate action provides an unprecedented economic opportunity in 2030. In 2023, that actually contributed to one third of our EU growth, creating millions of green jobs.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Dear colleagues, six months ago, a major steel producer in my home country, Belgium, said that they would delay a €1 million investment in green steel production. And that's really a wake up call, because it's exactly that kind of investments that we need. And really, the switch to green to recycled steel, that's a vital opportunity to create jobs while avoiding climate catastrophe. And it is good to see that the clean industrial deal and the Steels and Metals Action Plan will indeed help to drive down the energy costs, the network tariffs to tackle, for instance, circumvention risks when it comes to cbam. And I'm very glad that you mentioned Mr. Sigourney, the recycled content targets. But indeed we need them sooner than later. But I have to say, once again, I'm also disappointed when it comes to the social dimension of the plan. There is no mention of social conditionalities. There is no mention of the just transition. We really need to get the workers on board. So I'm counting on you to make that happen. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thanks a lot, chair. I really welcome that, finally, we will use our collective purchasing power to meet European strategic objectives and that we stop being naive because what we really need now are lead markets for strategic and green products made in Europe before it's too late. But we should do it properly. Just a couple of days ago, the Financial Times ran the story of Chinese makers of car parts doing multibillion investments in Morocco. So we all know what happens if we allow these products to be considered made in Europe. It won't be just a slow agony for our manufacturing. It will actually be a swift decline, and that's something that we need to avoid at all costs. I think we need to fix the general industrialization targets because right now, what we are doing is aiming for the status quo. So how would that actually contribute to our strategic autonomy, to our independence from fossil fuels, from petrostates? I think we need to aim for objectives that actually drive investments in strategic sectors and products that we need. And that also applies to the minimum shares of low carbon steel, aluminum, concrete. When I talked to the industry, they confirmed that we need higher ambitions. Some in the steel sector even say that we should double the number. So what is the point of the legislation if it's not creating the incentive and the investment security that we need? And then all that being said, what I'm really looking forward to is, of course, working with all of you on that very important piece of legislation, and I truly believe that this can be a turning point on the decarbonization but also for the reshoring of our industrial tissue in Europe. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Well, dear colleagues, I think it's very important that this commission understands that the only way that this transition, this decarbonisation of our industry is going to work if it has a social component and yes, some parts of it will be a member state competence. But for instance, when it comes to the handing out of European subsidies, where I think we need to do it to support our industries in that decarbonisation, it can't be a blank cheque. So for me, it's super important that the Commission does take this responsibility when it comes to the social policy. Thank you.”
  EU policy on social criteria in public funding
• “The end of fossil cars after 2035. That's economic suicide when while the Chinese car makers have massively invested in EVs and are conquering the market, the commission is creating chaos and uncertainty for our car makers. This proposal is not going to save our car industry. It's going to destroy it. The whole world is accelerating their switch to EVs. It's the cheapest and most efficient technology. The sale of EVs is rising rapidly in Europe, and now the commission wants to suddenly reverse gear. Electric vehicles are the means of the future, but they have to be made in Europe. So I'm glad that the commission has come forward with a proposal to green our corporate fleets that creates a market for our own car makers, but it also ensures that there'll be more affordable second hand cars. So do we invest in our future or do we return to the past? For me, it is clear that the future is electric. Anything else is suicide.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach · Road transport environmental policy
• “40:47 – 09:43:25): Yeah thanks a lot chair i'll be replacing our shadow marie toussaint who couldn't be here today first of all i'd like to thank the repertoire for her work on the draft reports well marie tells me that she's already engaged very constructively with several political groups and that really reserves our recognition we support her approach as it is pragmatic and balanced ets two will now start in twenty twenty eight for us greens it's always been clear it can only be an effective climate tool if it is embedded in a broader framework of strong european and national sectoral decarbonization instruments like ambitious co2 standards for cars like a robust implementation of the eppd and crucially if we provide sufficient financial resources well in advance to support in particular the most vulnerable households to phase out fossil fuel before ets two enters into force because in the current energy crisis as we have seen it's also important to point out that there are increasingly affordable and easy to install alternatives like plug in solar panels batteries which tenants can actually use to reduce their energy bills and we're once again seeing that some member states are making mistakes to try to subsidize and perpetuate gas consumption so we've always consistently advocated for a much stronger social climate fund that intervenes well ahead of the start of ets two fortunately at the time most member states really opposed the idea and even today we do see some within the epp continue to push for dismantling of key elements of european green deal that are absolutely necessary to make sure that we make the transition affordable so i welcome the clear support in the draft report for complementary decarbonization measures and of course strengthening of the social climate fund but we need to be more ambitious the income of all allowances released from the market stability reserve should be used to increase the budget of the social climate fund eb front loading is a step in the right direction but it's not sufficient we need significantly more the budget of the scf should be uncapped and its duration extended beyond twenty thirty two so as it stands ets two remains an imperfect instrument and i think this file can be an opportunity to send a strong and united message from the democratic forum one that combines climate ambition with social justice”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. In Belgium, citizens are paying more than €2 per litre for their petrol. This war started by Trump in Iran will only increase the prices. And we are paying the price of the profits made by Trump and his oligarchs. Bp and shell are making exceptional profits as a result of this crisis. So we have to be very clear. Colleagues, whilst we are still addicted to fossil fuels, we will have to bend to Putin yesterday, Trump today, and who knows who will be the next to turn off the tap. This dependence has to stop now. We need a windfall tax for the excess profits made by the oil companies at least 50%. But we also need a cleaner, more affordable energy that comes from Europe. There can be no energy security whilst we depend on Trump. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thanks a lot. Maybe first to say that we appreciate that the commission isn't waiting for the Circular Economy Act in order to move a bit faster on some issues. At the same time, I do regret that there is no longer a circular economy action plan like we've had in the previous two mandates, but with an action plan we could move actually faster and in a more differentiated way on a wide range of issues. Now, that being said, I'd like to say a few words about the rules of calculating the chemically recycled plastic content in Pet bottles, because you already know that we have some concerns when it comes to this. You have chosen a mass balance approach, and you are exempting the fuel use in your calculation. And that means that you can't assure that this is actually high quality recycling. And that's really a concern for me, because the Waste Framework Directive obliges member states to promote high quality recycling. And I mean, even the commission's own study recommended a method using proportional allocation. So our group is really concerned by this approach, which is essentially greenwashing all the more because we don't see the rush to go ahead with this in the context of the sou PD. So first, it won't save our mechanical recyclers from the current crisis that there is in the sector. And secondly, the PPE is a much, much better legal base. It applies to all plastic packaging, not just the bottles. It's recycled content. Targets apply to much more plastic types. It has better sustainability criteria. And knowing that that work is due at the end of the year, why don't you just rely on the process and timeline, which is, in our opinion, much better suited to address the issue? Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “The colleagues, we are voting on something which is going to help hundreds of thousands of steelworkers in Europe and thousands in Belgium, because China is flooding our markets with cheap steel. And there is a trade war, which means even more of that steel is going to come to us. Our steel mills in Ghent and elsewhere are struggling to survive and workers are losing their jobs. The question is very simple. Are we going to do something about this, or are we just going to let the sector die off? Are we finally going to show a bit of spine vis a vis Trump, or are we going to let him do what he likes again? If we say yes, then we stop the massive dumping of steel on the market. We protect our jobs and we go for made in Europe steel, and we'll make it possible to invest in order to modernise our factories and finally to tackle emissions. I say yes, because I think we need a steel sector in Europe, because I feel that our steelworkers deserve a future. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thanks, chair. Colleagues, I think it's clear to see that the US and Israel have plunged Europe into a crisis yet again. And let me first be very clear. Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war in Iran has really killed hundreds of innocent people. It has caused high energy prices that are squeezing both our industry and our people. This war is It's not epic fury, it's epic failure. And that kind of reckless behavior shows, once again that we really need to grow a spine. We have to condemn this war. We need to put pressure on the US and stop this military madness, as Sanchez was very right to do. But we should also resist those calls from the far right allies of Trump on our own continent. And those are the ones, of course, wanting to rip up our climate and industrial policies, those that will actually strengthen our sovereignty, our independence, and our security. And I think it's clear that our fossil fuel dependence is really a strategic vulnerability. So independence from fossil fuels? Well, it requires, of course, investment in renewables, in electrification, in circularity. You've mentioned it. I think it's a no brainer for our industry, but it's not so easy for our vulnerable households and they really need support. And that's really what our climate policy can provide. So let's help those households to get those heat pumps, to get those solar panels, to get those plug in batteries, but more, more, more consistent and more importantly. Commissioner, you've said it, but I would like you to repeat it. Suspending the ETS as some are asking that would be catastrophic. We really need a strong signal. So will you ensure that we stick to our climate and our industrial policies and that we don't weaken Europe with more oil dependence? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Yeah. Okay. It's working. Well. Thank you. And as an MV coordinator, of course, I want to thank you for staying on track when it comes to the 90% of climate emissions by 2040. I do want to reiterate the question, as it was not answered on the lack of attention in the document on environmental policy. I think it's good that the Commission recognises that resource efficiency is really key for decarbonisation, but my problem is that I don't really see major initiatives how to actually translate that into action. So I want to remind you that both the Council, but also the Parliament have asked for action to mitigate resource use and material footprint. So I would like to hear your answer what concretely you will do. And you also didn't answer a previous question on social conditionality, where I think this document is really also lacking. There should be a just transition directive. There should be social conditionalities with targets, for instance on quality, job creation, etc. even in the IRA this was present. This also should be part of our competitiveness compass. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Colleagues, some already suspected it was dangerous in 1906, but it took us a hundred years to ban it. I'm talking about asbestos. 80,000 deaths every year in Europe alone. And right now, we're making the same mistake with PFAS with forever chemicals. They're in your blood. There in your children's bodies. So what is the council's only priority for the chemical industry? We can reach to boost competitiveness. Seriously, have we learned nothing? Reach should become our safety net. It should ensure that chemicals are actually tested before they enter the market, like we do with medicines. But let me be clear. We need to fight for good jobs in clean industries that will last. But we can't build that future by repeating the mistakes of the past. A strong chemical sector and the protection of public health. They are not opposites. They should be partners. So, dear Commission, we should be strengthening reach and not weakening it. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “This year, the European leaders. Will talk competitiveness, and the pressure on our industry is real because for too long, Europe has depended on cheap fossil fuels for our energy supply. Yet the waiver and Maloney, they want to go back there. They want to cut our climate standards, dismantle our laws, go back to fossil. And they claim to speak for the entire European industry, which is just false. Thousands of companies actually support decarbonisation. Volvo asks for a clear green course. The CEO of Mittal said that it's thanks to cbam to climate policy that they want to keep the European plans open. We do not need a crackdown on our policy. We need a crackdown on those member states that think that we will win back our competitiveness by deregulation and by playing solo. Take Draghi's message seriously. We need massive common investment. We need EU coordination. We need strategic industrial policy made in Europe. Thousands of companies support this agenda. It's time. We have no time to lose. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Question. Why are the conservatives trying to sabotage Europe's fight for more economic and strategic independence? This law saves precious materials from old cars and it is a good and well needed initiative. European industry member states big names like Letta, like Draghi, they all agree keeping the resources in Europe breaks their dependence from the bullies like China, like the US, and it supports our SMEs in recycling sector. What I don't get is why the EPP would present a report sabotaging key ambitious on circularity. They don't walk the talk when it comes to circularity. They claim to defend the SMEs, but they actually sell them out exactly the way the far right does. We will keep fighting for more ambition when we are having our upcoming negotiations with the Member States. Because, colleagues, we need to do better than this. Thank you very much. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Thank you. Mr. Jonas Husted from the left.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Thanks a lot. I think it's really important that we have this strong signal with the council coming, because some member states seem less convinced. For instance, my own member state, Belgium, is really making a very poor decision, I think, in attacking the ETS. This is really about investment security. This is about really acknowledging that this is the best we can do for a free and prosperous Europe. And, well, those that say anything else, they are really just catering into the hand of Trump. But maybe an extra question since I was very happy. You also mentioned the circular economy. I really think that this is a very important part of our future industrial tissue. But for that, of course we need the right incentives. So my question would be, would you support an approach not just made in Europe but remade in Europe, really making sure that we have lead markets for our European circular players. And I would say also an approach that focuses also on demand reduction, making sure that we also put things into place like resource management. So that means clear targets on where we go on materials as we do for the climate.”
  Circular economy
• “Thanks a lot. Maybe first to say that we appreciate that the commission isn't waiting for the Circular Economy Act in order to move a bit faster on some issues. At the same time, I do regret that there is no longer a circular economy action plan like we've had in the previous two mandates, but with an action plan we could move actually faster and in a more differentiated way on a wide range of issues. Now, that being said, I'd like to say a few words about the rules of calculating the chemically recycled plastic content in Pet bottles, because you already know that we have some concerns when it comes to this. You have chosen a mass balance approach, and you are exempting the fuel use in your calculation. And that means that you can't assure that this is actually high quality recycling. And that's really a concern for me, because the Waste Framework Directive obliges member states to promote high quality recycling. And I mean, even the commission's own study recommended a method using proportional allocation. So our group is really concerned by this approach, which is essentially greenwashing all the more because we don't see the rush to go ahead with this in the context of the sou PD. So first, it won't save our mechanical recyclers from the current crisis that there is in the sector. And secondly, the PPE is a much, much better legal base. It applies to all plastic packaging, not just the bottles. It's recycled content. Targets apply to much more plastic types. It has better sustainability criteria. And knowing that that work is due at the end of the year, why don't you just rely on the process and timeline, which is, in our opinion, much better suited to address the issue? Thank you.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “Yeah. Thanks a lot. And thanks a lot for the report. I think it's very important work. It really rightly states that the commission should make circularity more economically viable. But in the report you mostly mean recycling and not reuse or repair, despite being the areas where I think actually big gains and cost reductions for municipalities could be had. But when we're talking about the viability of recycling, the problem is that it's just very hard to do as long as the prices of primary materials don't reflect the environmental costs. So we should use ET's or other instruments to properly internalize those environmental costs. And of course, demand side measures like recycled content requirements. They are good, but it would be cheaper and easier if we wouldn't have to rely on those measures. And we should internalize environmental costs, particularly when it comes to the imports of recyclates. I think it's a good thing that, for instance, the concept of mirror clauses is now appearing in the RP, but also in the LV regulation that we're actually voting on today, uh, here in NV and in Imco. But much more could be done and honestly should be done at a time where we have huge overcapacity and an uneven playing field for our European recyclers.”
  Re-use of packaging
• “Yeah. Thanks a lot. It's great to hear so many of the colleagues from the right and the extreme right now being very concerned about the fact that energy and transport poverty is getting worse in Europe, especially, of course, in the southern and eastern part. Well, so are we. And since the price of diesel and fossil fuels really historically low at the moment, energy poverty is currently really a result of failing national policy. So where are the social leasing schemes for cars for heat pumps in the member states? Where were you when we were trying to fight to get more money to help Europeans off the dependency of fossil fuels and protect them against the increase of energy prices? Where were you when we were trying to push to get a bigger social climate fund, with resources also taken from the ETS one, and not just from the ETS two. I think we all know that the Social Climate Fund won't be enough. In fact, 75% of those ETS two revenues will go back to the national budgets. And even though member states are supposed to use them to support the most vulnerable households to get out of fossil fuels, we actually have no guarantee that it will happen. Now, I've understood that the Commission will look at additional measures to keep the price low in the first years following that. Member States Non-paper we have discussed before. But what are you really doing concretely to make sure that Member States will use their ets2 revenues wisely? I think you need to be more proactive. And then maybe last but not least, a question to DJ Klima. I think the best way to keep the ets2 price in check is not to work on the supply chain, the supply side, but on the demand side. So we do need additional measures to accelerate decarbonisation of road transport and buildings. So can you commit not to weaken the EU CO2 standards for cars in the upcoming review, and to present as soon as possible, an ambitious proposal on greening of corporate fleets so we can boost the second hand market for affordable e-course. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “And connected to that, I want to finish with a finding on page 42 about the limited progress of Member States with regards to, um, the economical instruments, because in that respect, the report recommends harmonizing landfill and incineration taxes at EU level. And while the Commission has already stated a problem, of course, is that we have quite limited competences when it comes to shaping tax regimes. So we would have to rely on ETS, cap and trade mechanisms, etc. and I would have actually expected you to make a recommendation about strengthening IPR schemes, for instance, which the report also says are not sufficiently effective because of course, you might know the Commission is considering IPR reform in the Circular Economy Act. That is coming. So concretely, would you not say that we need a harmonised and expanded IPR at EU level? That also includes eco modulation and the obligation for these schemes to finance prevention, reuse and repair, and not just waste management. Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “And that's why the 90% climate targets for 2040, in the clean industrial deal is, of course, also very important. And that's why I think our resolution should call for and prioritize industrial electrification, faster rollout of renewables, energy efficiency. That's why we should include a call to develop a dedicated clean tech action plan. We've had one for those legacy sectors like steel and cars, but I think we should focus just as much and perhaps even more on clean tech. A clean industrial deal also means addressing pollution to avoid both health and economic costs for industry. I mean, look at PFAS, for instance. Its cleanup will cost over €2 trillion. And finally, a strong industry that really requires also motivated skilled workers and secure working conditions. So I hope we can all agree that all EU support and state aid should be tied to social guarantees guarantees showing that they will benefit the most valuable factor of production that we have. Those are our own citizens. Having said that, I'm really looking forward to our first shadow meeting and to a very constructive approach together with you as rapporteur, Mr. Berenson.”
  State Aid
• “In other words, to me, that really undermines the entire logic of the clean industrial deal. So I think to reverse that trend, we need to put more attention to the creation of lead markets for clean tech and circular products. It is there in the clean industrial deal, for sure, but for us the actions are not strong enough and they actually come quite late. For instance, the Clean up the Circular Economy Act is really, well, quite late and also very much focused on on the waste phase only where I think we need to have these as soon as possible. So my first question is what can you what can the Commission do to actually speed up the creation of lead markets? And secondly, on clean tech, do you agree that it makes sense to set up dedicated action plans for these sectors too? I mean, we did it for the legacy sectors like steel, like cars. But while the clean industrial deal should focus, I think just as much, if not more on clean tech. And I feel the balance right now there is lacking. Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Thank you Peter. Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today. Um, I'm going to be talking on Cbam specifically where we welcome the review and the extension to downstream products and also the strengthening of the anti-circumvention measures. Uh, I think at the same time, it's really crucial that the current setup and the timetable for Cbam is not weakened because any disruption of the investment signal that would risk plans investments to be put on hold. And that's why I believe the idea of removing fertilizers is really wrong. I mean, the cause of those rising fertilizer prices doesn't lie within Cbam, nor does the solution. I think if we undermine it, we will do exactly the opposite. It would give dirty, externally produced fertilizers a competitive advantage on our market. But well, when we're talking about a proposed article 27 A, I think it creates a far greater problem. It really gives the impression that any product on the Cbam list could actually be removed again. So why would companies invest billions in a carbon free production if later on it could be weakened and free allowances could be reinstated? I also think we need to be very clear with our trading partners. Cbam is not negotiable. I'm glad that we have done that with India, as has been previously stated. A second concern for me is the temporary fund. We don't see the clear substantiation of the alleged residual risk of carbon leakage. So I would like to ask you if you have data or analysis to actually support it. I think industry has already received tens of millions of euros through free emission allowances, and it's still quite far from achieving climate neutrality, so support to industry can be justified. But I think we need strong conditionality and we need a targeted approach. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, colleagues. It is absolutely illusory to think that taking a chainsaw to this red tape is going to resolve the problems of industry. Far from it. The commission has really got to focus on the necessary protection for our workers and our citizens, but they think that they're going to use competitiveness to make things better for society. But this is a load of absolute nonsense. Deregulation is never going to lead to the investment in innovative and green products which people need. And it's not going to create the jobs that we desperately need. This cutting red tape is something which lots of people are lauding, but they're not looking towards the future. They're looking backwards when multinationals simply rode rampant roughshod over people's human rights. Think about our plants and think about the thousands of people who lost their lives and who had absolutely terrible lives. They were completely exploited ruthlessly and recklessly by the fast fashion industry. Therefore, yes, of course, reduce the bureaucratic burden and administration. But let us have sustainable investment and innovation rather than tinkering with the sustainability legislation, merely making it worse. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “40:47 – 09:43:25): Yeah thanks a lot chair i'll be replacing our shadow marie toussaint who couldn't be here today first of all i'd like to thank the repertoire for her work on the draft reports well marie tells me that she's already engaged very constructively with several political groups and that really reserves our recognition we support her approach as it is pragmatic and balanced ets two will now start in twenty twenty eight for us greens it's always been clear it can only be an effective climate tool if it is embedded in a broader framework of strong european and national sectoral decarbonization instruments like ambitious co2 standards for cars like a robust implementation of the eppd and crucially if we provide sufficient financial resources well in advance to support in particular the most vulnerable households to phase out fossil fuel before ets two enters into force because in the current energy crisis as we have seen it's also important to point out that there are increasingly affordable and easy to install alternatives like plug in solar panels batteries which tenants can actually use to reduce their energy bills and we're once again seeing that some member states are making mistakes to try to subsidize and perpetuate gas consumption so we've always consistently advocated for a much stronger social climate fund that intervenes well ahead of the start of ets two fortunately at the time most member states really opposed the idea and even today we do see some within the epp continue to push for dismantling of key elements of european green deal that are absolutely necessary to make sure that we make the transition affordable so i welcome the clear support in the draft report for complementary decarbonization measures and of course strengthening of the social climate fund but we need to be more ambitious the income of all allowances released from the market stability reserve should be used to increase the budget of the social climate fund eb front loading is a step in the right direction but it's not sufficient we need significantly more the budget of the scf should be uncapped and its duration extended beyond twenty thirty two so as it stands ets two remains an imperfect instrument and i think this file can be an opportunity to send a strong and united message from the democratic forum one that combines climate ambition with social justice”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Yeah, thanks a lot colleagues, due Commission. I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing as clean mining, but the absolute minimum that we should do is really ensure that we use the best available techniques, and I hope that that is something we can agree upon. That's why I'm pretty concerned right now about the lack of information on the implementation of the EWD in the member states. So we have forty-seven strategic projects in the pipeline, but what we do have is quite outdated voluntary legislation that really lags behind legislation in countries like Brazil, in some cases even behind China, as a recent report of T and E shows. So can you imagine the scandal and the tarnished reputation of the EU if a disaster would unfold in one of those forty-seven projects? So I have three questions when it comes to the reporting from member states, and it was indeed mentioned also by the Commission. How would you actually increase the stringency? Could you commit to a timeline when it comes to the evaluation of how the member states actually implement the EWD? How will it be done and also will it be public? Secondly, about the breadth documents, we all know that it's not mandatory and it's not very ambitious. So will you commit to updating the breadth documents within the EWD? When might this occur? How can you actually ensure that the standards are brought in line with the global best practices? And then thirdly, as also was mentioned, the EAD, well, there a breadth on mining right now is actually being reviewed. So would you add the mining waste dimension to that scope, which already includes extraction and processing? And how long will that process take? I have another question on specifically Critical Raw Materials Act, but maybe we can cover that in the KHDI. Thank you.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Well, I'm not sure where all the colleagues are, but I'm glad to be. Here, Commissioner. Parliament. Well, the cost of guns have been deserted for that. The cost means that the biggest polluters are. We needed to have the fair competition as well. And gradually reducing these emissions rights means that there will be billions coming in that we really, really need. Because today, colleagues, we need 344 billion in terms of investment to be climate neutral. And we're not going to be paying for that. We're going to make the big polluters pay for that. So we need to make smart investments here to help green our industry. And we also need to do implementation well. We need to reduce the administrative burden without sacrificing environmental protection. And especially if you look at the American President Trump. Well, I've got a message for you. Europe will set its own rules. We're not going to be dictated to by some bullies, and we're not going to budge.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Yeah. Thanks a lot. And thanks a lot for the report. I think it's very important work. It really rightly states that the commission should make circularity more economically viable. But in the report you mostly mean recycling and not reuse or repair, despite being the areas where I think actually big gains and cost reductions for municipalities could be had. But when we're talking about the viability of recycling, the problem is that it's just very hard to do as long as the prices of primary materials don't reflect the environmental costs. So we should use ET's or other instruments to properly internalize those environmental costs. And of course, demand side measures like recycled content requirements. They are good, but it would be cheaper and easier if we wouldn't have to rely on those measures. And we should internalize environmental costs, particularly when it comes to the imports of recyclates. I think it's a good thing that, for instance, the concept of mirror clauses is now appearing in the RP, but also in the LV regulation that we're actually voting on today, uh, here in NV and in Imco. But much more could be done and honestly should be done at a time where we have huge overcapacity and an uneven playing field for our European recyclers.”
  Circular economy
• “So you wrote that fertilizers, pesticides, those are still huge problems for our water quality. You also know that, uh, that that, uh, up to a quarter of our monitored surfaces of watersides pesticides concentrations still exceed those harmful thresholds. So, uh, maybe you could elaborate on that. And what are, to your opinion, the most effective measures we could actually take to diminish water pollution? And then, of course, when it comes to climate change, I think it's very clear from your report the economical costs are mounting. Um, we also have a substantial insurance protection gap. Um, so. Well, despite some of our well developed governance frameworks, the implementation of adaptation measures really lags behind. Um, and of course, that's due, for instance, to some of the persistent challenges we have in a regional and local coordination, but as well the limitations in financial, technical and human capacities. So my question to you would be, do we right now, as Europe have the leverage to actually improve and accelerate that implementation, or is there more action needed and what would you suggest?”
  Water pollution
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, I hope I can be a little bit longer, since I will be the only one speaking for my group, because I really also want to take the time not to just to ask critical questions, but also really to congratulate the Commission with this ecodesign framework. I think, uh, well, both from what it has done in the past, but really the work that is that it is doing today. And well, we have seen that and colleague Lisa has mentioned it, the proven track record when it comes to making those products more energy efficient, even to some limited extent, also making them easier to repair, reuse and recycle. And I think it's really important that we together here today send a political signal that we very much support this piece of legislation as really a cornerstone on our action on circular economy and our industrial resilience. So we do really expect ambitious proposals to achieve those objectives in the delegated acts. And. Well, I do have a bit of worry there. I do see the commission proposals, perhaps a five year working plan instead of only three years. We see that the product scope and the first working plan is reduced if you compare it to the list in the regulation. So you've indicated that some of those omitted sectors are, quote, lower in impact and improvement potential than the selected products. But I don't really see the proper justification for not including them.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Dear colleagues. By 2027, there will be 19 electrical models under 25 000 on our market. Those are affordable cars. European cars. Talking about the Volkswagen ID two Renault R5, not some distant dream, but on our road in your driveway. So here's the choice. And I think it's a pretty simple one. Option A you spend €25,000 on a car produced in Europe that actually strengthens our industry. You plug it in with Renewable electricity that we produce right here in Europe. So that's €25,000 that actually stays in our economy, that supports our workers, that strengthens our green industry. Or option B, you buy a combustion engine and watch €25,000 on fossil fuels, literally go up in smoke over the whole car's lifetime. That's petrol. That's diesel, straight into the pockets of the oil sheiks and Putin's war chest. Now, here's what I find absolutely fascinating about the right wing parties that never stop talking about sovereignty, about autonomy. They are the ones desperately clinging to the biggest drain on European purchasing power in history. They want us to keep bleeding billions abroad for oil. You can't make it up. That's not even following ideology. They're just protecting yesterday's industry. The ones that didn't see the future coming while the world has moved on. So, colleagues, let's choose clean air. Let's choose green jobs. Let's choose made in Europe. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(17:49:39 – 17:50:53): we're voting on something which is going to help hundreds of thousands of steel workers in Europe and thousands in Belgium because, China's flooding our markets with cheap steel. And there's a trade war, which means even more of that steel is going to come to us. Our steel mills in Ghentan and elsewhere are struggling to survive, and workers are losing their jobs. The question is very simple. Are we going to do something about this, or are we just going to let the sector die off? Are we finally going to show a bit of spine vis a vis Trump, or are we going to let him do what he likes again? If we say yes, then we stop the massive dumping on steel on the market. We protect our jobs and we go for made in Europe steel and we'll make it possible to invest in order to modernize our factories and, finally, to tackle emissions. I say yes because I think we need a steel sector in Europe because I feel that our steelwork is to serve the future. Thank you. Much on behalf of the left, madam monsieur. Merci.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Colleagues, in these challenging times, doubling down on the Green Deal is the key factor to save our competitiveness, to create more jobs, to reduce energy prices for our industry and for our families. And let me tell you why. When autocrats like Trump, like Musk, like Putin, are trying to bully Europe into submission, sticking to an agenda of deregulation, of slowing down our energy transition that will only play into their hands. What we need is Europe to make massive investments, investments that will make us the global leaders for green steel, for cement, for wind turbines, for heat pumps and all of that made in Europe. And I am pleased that the clean industrial deal does set out the first steps for us to get there. I'm also disappointed. I can't hide it, Commissioner, you didn't even mention the chapter on social and just transition. And I think it's quite telling when it comes to the ambition that this commission is setting there. So this is something we need to rectify. I'm counting on you to do so.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “And connected to that, I want to finish with a finding on page 42 about the limited progress of Member States with regards to, um, the economical instruments, because in that respect, the report recommends harmonizing landfill and incineration taxes at EU level. And while the Commission has already stated a problem, of course, is that we have quite limited competences when it comes to shaping tax regimes. So we would have to rely on ETS, cap and trade mechanisms, etc. and I would have actually expected you to make a recommendation about strengthening IPR schemes, for instance, which the report also says are not sufficiently effective because of course, you might know the Commission is considering IPR reform in the Circular Economy Act. That is coming. So concretely, would you not say that we need a harmonised and expanded IPR at EU level? That also includes eco modulation and the obligation for these schemes to finance prevention, reuse and repair, and not just waste management. Thank you.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “Um, I also think it's very important indeed to have those role models. We have some provisions in place when it comes to women on boards, where we see that legislation really can make a difference. Um, but we do still see a gap. For instance, when it comes to the presidents or the CEOs, I think that that's important because role models, um, can be very inspiring, but it will also play a role in the hiring policies, for instance. And, um, I'm also wondering if the commission is planning to do more steps when it comes to health and safety at work, because also there sometimes we see differences between the genders. Uh, I'm talking about substances of concern. That will be an important part, of course, in the green transition. We've already updated our legislation on lead. We are doing that as we speak also on cobalt. But I think it's important to take into account that some of these very important critical raw materials can have effects to the unborn child, for instance. So it has a gendered role to play. And I think, yeah, it would be interesting if the Commission could already say a few words on, um, how they want to make sure that the quality jobs roadmap will really also benefit workers equally from the transition vis a vis men. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “I mean, if you look at footwear, for instance, it really accounts for one third of primary raw material uses in textiles. That's really not negligible. And that brings me to the big question on whether there's enough capacity foreseen to actually carry out the the extra workloads and to raise the bar high enough within the commission. So could you explain to us why you decided to limit the number of products instead of actually increasing the resources to include them all? And then on chemicals and plastics, they are not included in the working plan. We will see a scoping study being done on on chemicals. So my question is does that mean it won't be properly addressed in the next, let's say five years? We know that the reach revision is included of course, in the work programme. It wants to simplify, but at the same time increase circularity for chemicals is also really, I think, a priority in our new industrial policy. So it would make perfect sense to actually align those changes. Um, it's exactly that kind of regulatory predictability that our industry really needs. So can you tell me how leaving chemicals out of the working plan will guarantee that progress on chemicals will be done in time, so soon enough? And why are plastics being a huge impact sector actually not included?”
  Chemicals regulation
• “40:47 – 09:43:25): Yeah thanks a lot chair i'll be replacing our shadow marie toussaint who couldn't be here today first of all i'd like to thank the repertoire for her work on the draft reports well marie tells me that she's already engaged very constructively with several political groups and that really reserves our recognition we support her approach as it is pragmatic and balanced ets two will now start in twenty twenty eight for us greens it's always been clear it can only be an effective climate tool if it is embedded in a broader framework of strong european and national sectoral decarbonization instruments like ambitious co2 standards for cars like a robust implementation of the eppd and crucially if we provide sufficient financial resources well in advance to support in particular the most vulnerable households to phase out fossil fuel before ets two enters into force because in the current energy crisis as we have seen it's also important to point out that there are increasingly affordable and easy to install alternatives like plug in solar panels batteries which tenants can actually use to reduce their energy bills and we're once again seeing that some member states are making mistakes to try to subsidize and perpetuate gas consumption so we've always consistently advocated for a much stronger social climate fund that intervenes well ahead of the start of ets two fortunately at the time most member states really opposed the idea and even today we do see some within the epp continue to push for dismantling of key elements of european green deal that are absolutely necessary to make sure that we make the transition affordable so i welcome the clear support in the draft report for complementary decarbonization measures and of course strengthening of the social climate fund but we need to be more ambitious the income of all allowances released from the market stability reserve should be used to increase the budget of the social climate fund eb front loading is a step in the right direction but it's not sufficient we need significantly more the budget of the scf should be uncapped and its duration extended beyond twenty thirty two so as it stands ets two remains an imperfect instrument and i think this file can be an opportunity to send a strong and united message from the democratic forum one that combines climate ambition with social justice”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Yes. Thank you. I think we all know when it comes to air pollution, it really kills nearly 360,000 people every year. It's really the single largest environmental health risk in Europe. And, well, it doesn't only make people sick, it also exposes nature to pollution levels well above what the science considers safe and well. I think it's safe to say this outlook you've given us today really shows we're lagging behind when it comes to the implementation of the air quality and the NEC directives. Over half of the member states are under infringement. Only four are on track to meet their 2030 targets. I mean, to me, that's completely unacceptable. And instead of stepping up the efforts, we do see some very dangerous signals. We hear people wanting to weaken the air quality directive. Others want to gut the life programme. I really don't understand how people can't see that this is really a death sentence, both for nature and for people. And well, we as a committee should really argue for more staff, for more resources, in more member state compliance, of course, and better sector specific legislation. I have several questions. I'll continue in the catch the eye, but for now, what are the main reasons for non-compliance with the Member States? And how can the Commission actually support them better? Ammonia. It's been said it's very clear these levels are not decreasing at all. Unlike other sectors, agriculture has really escaped binding EU level emission limits. So I really want to know if the Commission intends to finally introduce binding sector specific legislation when it comes to the reduction of emissions from agriculture. And what concrete support will be proposed for agriculture, for agri ecological and organic farming? Thank you.”
  Air quality policy
• “Has a unique opportunity to protect itself against aggressors like Putin or economic extortionists like Trump. We must stop our addiction to fossil fuel and turbocharge clean tech manufacturers here in Europe, because every month that we delay, it costs our European citizens more. It costs them in their energy bills. It costs them in jobs that are lost overseas. It costs them in economic vulnerability. But the good news is, clean tech already is the major driver of our economic prosperity today. These industries, they drive 30% of total EU growth. And they grew twice as fast in the last decade, creating millions of green jobs. But we need a more targeted action to become the world leaders against these Chinese competitors. So that is why we are calling for a dedicated action plan. We need to build up our European clean tech and get the funding before China dominates the market. We need to buy European to ensure a stable and predictable market demand, and we need to shield our industries from unfair competition for inefficient use of resources and for great work. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market