Lena SCHILLING

Policy topics Lena SCHILLING is active on

What Lena SCHILLING has said (40)

• 2025-10-08 “E-003971/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The delegation of the EU to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém is composed of 125 representatives and official staff of EU institutions and bodies, amongst which 53 representants of the Commission and 39 representants of the European Parliament. The delegation also includes six technical contractors strictly for audiovisual support (three hired by the Commission and three hired by the European Parliament). By definition, the EU as a Party is not including in its delegation non-Party stakeholders. It should be noted that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat gives the liberty to each Party and Observer to nominate the representants of its delegation and does not allocate a fixed quota of accreditations to any Party delegation, including to that of the EU. The UNFCCC Secretariat published the list of participants accredited under each Party and Observer organisation, including the EU on 10 November 2025 1 . The Commission will continue, in all its engagements with the UNFCCC Secretariat, Parties and stakeholders, to maintain transparency and inclusiveness in the UNFCCC process while ensuring the integrity of EU participation in line with the Paris Agreement and the EU’s climate objectives. 1 https://unfccc.int/documents/653224.”
  Fossil fuels · Climate efforts
• 2025-03-26 “E-001264/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission In June 2024, the Council and the Commission sent two written notifications to the depositary of the Treaty, notifying the withdrawal of the European Union and Euratom respectively. The withdrawals will take effect after one year, i.e. on 28 June 2025. At the same time, and in line with the political compromise reached by EU countries, the Commission tabled a proposal on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the Energy Charter Conference (‘the Conference’) by the Member States that are Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) not to prevent the adoption by the conference of the proposed amendments to the ECT. As a result, the Conference adopted and approved the relevant decisions on the modernisation of the ECT on 3 December 2024. The modernised ECT will enter into force after at least three-fourths of the Contracting Parties have deposited the instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval to the depositary. The decisions on ratification of the modernised ECT are with the individual Contracting Parties and the Commission is not part of this process. So far, nine Member States have left the ECT or are in the process of withdrawal. At this stage, the Commission is analysing options for the next steps regarding the Honourable Member's first two questions. The Commission remains committed to EU climate neutrality by 2050, a goal that is enshrined in the EU legal order 1 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’).”
  Energy (green transition) · Climate efforts
• 2024-10-18 “P-002174/2024 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The delegation of the EU to the United Nation Climate Change Conference in Baku has been composed of representatives and officials of EU institutions and agencies, and contractual staff. There have been no fossil fuels lobbyists accredited by the EU. As part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat’s overall efforts to increase the transparency of participation in the UN Climate Change process, the final list of participants registered as part of the EU Delegation is published in the official website of the UNFCCC 1 . Furthermore, it is important to recall that it is Parties, not observer organisations such as business and industry, which take decisions and negotiate legal instruments, under the UNFCCC. As regards the participation of observers/non-party stakeholder (NPS) in the UNFCCC process, the EU believes in the importance of maintaining the inclusiveness of the UNFCCC process. The EU has made several submissions on NPS participation in the UNFCCC process, including the issue of conflict of interest. The NPS constituencies can make interventions and it is their responsibility to ensure that their interests are reflected in a balanced way which supports the achievement of the objectives and purpose of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The Commission will continue in all our conversations with the other Parties, UNFCCC secretariat and the non-party stakeholders to uphold and defend the EU's core values. 1 https://unfccc.int/documents”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you so much for the presentation. I was really pleased that you didn't refer to environmental policies as green madness, as your Prime Minister has done. My question is, how can we trust a country that has consistently resisted key EU climate initiatives like the Green Deal, the nature restoration Law to act as an honest broker during crucial Cop negotiations. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “(15:33:50 – 15:36:47): Thank you so much. I will speak on behalf of Sarah Mathieu. She can't be here today, but I should also she would probably say you both are the right men for the job, so very happy to work with you. Starting with that, I'm starting with, CBEM and first in the scope. Like other groups, we will table amendments to expand CBEM to more downstream products, around 130 additional CN codes for iron and steel products. This list is largely based on option 3 of the commission's impact assessment. These sectors face the same risk of carbon leakage yet are not sufficient cover today, including them could reduce CO2 emissions by up to 14% in 2030 compared to the commission's current proposal. It is both a climate and industrial policy, and it's supported by a broad coalition of industry. Second, we've support the deletion of, article 27 a, allowing products to be removed from CBOM under exceptional and foreseen circumstances. So there, we can also agree. Third, we support removing the reference to international carbon credits. What a big surprise to everyone. Under the EU emission trading system, EU companies cannot replace replace emissions allowances with such credits, And I think CBAM also has to mirror this logic. And finally, on CBAM, I will try to make it short. Like other groups, you must significantly strengthen the fight against circumvention and abusive practices. If companies manipulate data in any way, we have we need stronger tools. I mean, that's quite simple. And there, we are very much looking forward to work with you on better approaches and ideas. Turning to the temporary decommunization fund, I think there, the key question is indeed pretty simple. Will this instrument truly drive transformation or will it just subsidize the status quo? First, on the conditionalities, I think that are, of course, essential if we want real impact. The fund must support new decarbonization efforts and not cover projects that would, have happened either way. And their companies should be controlled by EU and we need to find also a mechanism for that. And then the second point, the fund should focus on exports only. Also that was mentioned by colleagues now a few times. The competitiveness of domestic production is already protected by the seaborne. This instrument should therefore target international markets where European industries face the greatest pressure, but also that my colleague just said. And then third, the fairness must be at core. I think that's a pretty important point also looking into the next negotiations in the climate conferences, half for the EU industry and half for international climate finance, especially for the least developed countries. This make this fund fair and balanced, and it would also help us to fulfill our NCQGs. We know how complicated the negotiations in the climate, COP, but also the last 1 where. And my final point and then I'm done, is, of course, the transparency and that we need to have information on how these conditionalities are fulfilled and who is benefiting from it. That's it from us. Thank you so much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Madam President. Cop 30, in Brazil is called the Climate Conference, but above all, it's a gigantic global redistribution machine, €1.3 trillion. We heard that figure mentioned before is what the industrialized countries are supposed to be investing for, a project which has already shown itself to be a failure. And this is doesn't make any sense. They want decarbonization, they want to drive decarbonisation. And yet billions yearly are flowing into climate help for countries that at the same time are investing in coal power. India, for example, by 2030 is planning on producing 100 million tons, 100 million ton increase in its coal production. And in 2024, China has built 95 gigawatt new coal powered, coal powered fired power plants. And so we can see that there's historical Climate changes that happened before the Industrial Revolution, which were even greater than what we're seeing today. And yet we can see that there are other factors at the time which no longer are taken into account. But we see that there are these green subventions with taxpayers money in high amounts, and they are destroying European industry as well as European competitiveness. And this is something that this is not a way to be able to fight against climate change, as a colleague from Renault said. And so my question would be each time is whether or not this is actually that is based on unreliable data. Many people do not believe in the data anymore. The United States, under Trump, has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and indications made to climate change have been removed as well by the American websites, government websites, and we can see that there are changes in investments in renewable energy, etc.. So my question to the commission would be, have you set up any criteria by which you've been able to establish to what extent this policy has been a failure up until now? And do we need to change the way we're doing things, or are you just going to continue with the same policy, even though we're seeing that there is a serious recession and that we're heading towards massive unemployment in Europe as well? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Colleagues, here we are again, having yet another debate about the lack of climate ambition, the climate ambition we would need so desperately. And yeah, there were small steps forward, but it's far from any 1.5 degree path. We are standing here with a lukewarm result. Ten years after the Paris Agreement, after floods destroyed the homes and the lives of people. Also in Europe, after wildfires and droughts Drought after heat waves that really and severely endanger European citizens. Dear colleagues, it would be very easy to get now cynical to declare here the failure of the Cop 30 and the failure of climate ambition in this world. But you know what I resist to do that we cannot afford to lose hope. We cannot afford to bail any step down. If fossil autocracies are rising louder, bolder and more coordinated than ever. We have to do the same. We have to be prepared. We have to be stronger and more united. There cannot be any mistakes not done by anyone at this point. The democratic forces of this world need to stand together more than ever. Our children can't afford to lose that fight. So if I ask you today, Day is broken. Our climate conference is working. The only answer to that can be we have to fix them. We have to keep fighting. We owe it to our children. Ursula von der Leyen once said. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Nicholas.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you. Chairman. I will try to not speak longer than four minutes. No, I will try to keep in time. Um, maybe also starting with saying that it's not very great that now the Patriots have the rapporteurs saying we don't need the file that we very much need. And this is a political point, because if you're sitting here and saying we don't need this file, why are you trying to work on it? Just just to be clear there, because, yeah, we need it. And it's we need a science based target. So I have some questions for the commission and I want to start with Emma ended. Thank you for saying that. Um, also asked, why do we need 90%? Because that's what the Scientific Advisory Board says. We always say here that we try to keep. On science based targets. So yes, we need domestic 90% at least. And that's not a number we're coming up with because we are funny. But that's what's needed because there are planetary boundaries. And I know some of you are annoyed by planetary boundaries. I am as well, but it's still what we need to work with. So how can you justify that the proposal is not reflecting your own assessment. And then we all know that the investment we need is about €150 billion a year in a period of 2030 to 2040. How can the Commission justify, in this context, that international credits will lead to between 25 to €50 billion per year of decarbonization investments being diverted away from the EU, and therefore as much not being invested in the decarbonisation of the EU industry, of reducing these energy bills you are all talking about.”
  Climate efforts
• “Honourable colleagues, this clean industrial deal needs to be a promise, a promise for the future, a promise that the conversion of the economy and the industry can be done together with climate protection, that there are planetary boundaries and that we need to stop asking ourselves whether it's green deal or competitiveness. We need both, and that is what we need to focus on. That is we need commitment. We need courage. We need a 2040 climate, a ambition to have at least a 30% reduction in. Emissions where people can no longer be afraid and that they can have payable clean energy. We can work on this. We can know that people can work tomorrow morning and that they're not going to be losing their jobs because the jobs are going to other continents, because they know that this change is going to happen. But everybody needs to be kept on board. This needs to be done jointly. So we can do this. We can really get there.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “53:44 – 10:56:43): I'm always very happy when I can agree with Peter Lise, so I want to say this in our common language. I think it's very clear that the revision of ETS is a good idea. It's good that member states are now to use this for climate and social measures. And as he pointed out, let me emphasize as well that it's not clear how the member states are using the money. It's not transparent enough, and I don't think the reporting obligations go far enough. So this raises a lot of questions. In the last legislative period, member states were asked to say they have to express their plans every five years for the use of these revenues and how this is going to function, what the investments are going to be, who are the focus groups, and then these plans are going to be approved by the Commission. But what does that mean right now between 2024 and 2030? They have been able to have a hundred billion euros, and they can then spend this because this is a question of decarbonization and transition. These are strategic questions. These are long term. You can't just say every year how are we going to spend this money. Rather, this is an enormous opportunity that has been provided to us by the ETS revision. So I think we have to improve this, and that's why building on what my colleague Interrado said in this report, in the current report on climate protection, that some member states, for example Italy, are using 100 percent of their revenue. They've been moving it to future years and not using any of it currently on climate. So how are they going to achieve their climate goals? Because that is not the idea behind the ETS. It's not the idea behind this notion of revenues. So the Commission, what can you do to ensure that member states actually don't delay their investments and then they simply carry over this use of revenues? We have to be better at this. And let me also point out that it's very clear that we're the ones who support the ETS, and yes, with other measures, a trading system is very important. But we see in many analyses that member states are not very transparent about how they're using this, and that's not how it's supposed to be. When things aren't working as they should, then we're losing at this.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Is it not great that the right wing groups suggest that we debate the climate and then turns out they don't have much to say. So, Mr. Procaccini, you know, perhaps, you know, you could get speaking notes for something else because we could hear something perhaps a little more interesting. We're talking about the climate here today. And at the same time, we should remember that we've had so many debates about floods here in the chamber, so many people who have lost their lives as a result of the climate crisis. And then at the same time, we are seeking to relax one of the most effective instruments we have to deal with the climate crisis. And then people are saying, oh, you know, you've got to be a little bit flexible after all. I mean, how flexible do you want to be with our future? Do you really believe that there on any planetary limits to all of this, we need a robust ETS system. We need to protect the climate. And at long last, we need a trustworthy EPP with whom we can work.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “(16:50:00 – 16:52:29): Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for your contributions. First, I really much agree with the approach that you just mentioned in the do no significant harm, but I will come back to that. I think we have to take European cohesion seriously more than ever, addressing the challenges in our various regions together, facing threats of more severe catastrophic weather events due to climate change. We are discussing them day by day in this house every time they're happening. We are discussing poverty and stagnating economic situations in the region, so we cannot leave the European Development Fund in any way empty. And there, we need to be strong. We need to stand up in the Parliament for the citizens we are saying we are defending, for the citizens that are voting for us. Europe agreed and committed itself to reach climate neutrality by 2050. With that in regard, we do need all the support to foster a sustainable transition to carbon neutral economy and jobs in the industrial transition regions. Otherwise, we won't make our binding EU climate targets. In that hindsight, it's not understandable why this draft opinion contains not more content on supporting a just and fair transition for lagging regions. I mean, especially in the regions, we need to bring something on the ground to support the people because talking about the climate crisis is nothing abstract. This is happening in the everyday lives of people living in the most affected regions. And, therefore, I really want us to mention on the one side biodiversity and the challenges, but on the other, also climate. And especially worrying, as I was mentioning also in the beginning in the draft report, is for me the attack on the do no significant harm principle. We need clearer European-wide definitions, and that cannot be that member states choose for themselves when it's do no significant harm or when not. Therefore, we need a clear rule. And I think there also we need clear investments because we need also in this protection to have money and budget in place. That's always the point. And the last point I still want to make, in the former ERDF, we had an inclusion of lists of projects which could not be funded by the ERDF or the CF defines that with this cohesion instrument, no fossil fuel infrastructure, airports, or the enlargement of landfill waste dumps can be supported. And I really think we should again have such a list in our proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Now for the Left, Valentina Palmisano.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “A lot of times that we need 90 to 95% domestic net decarbonisation until 2040, and I think that's something we should also stick to because as we say, we are negotiating scientific targets, as also my colleague said. And I think also one thing needs to be clear there is no space for loopholes. These loopholes will not help us also in the end, because we have climate laws. So we need to decarbonise till 2050 and these loopholes will not lead to an easy solution. They are not. Even if we would like to have an easy solution, that something I even can understand. So of course, also as greens, we are not supporting article six out of several reasons. And I think one of the main points is we can now decide if we want to spend billions of this international credits and other countries with a lot of uncertainty. Who's buying them, at which quality will they be? Criteria. All the things we also will discuss at that point. But do we really want to spend a lot of money on international credits instead of decarbonising on our own in the European Union? How do you explain that to your citizens? I think there we also need to see our responsibility as a European Union. As we are always writing in our resolutions, we are leading climate action. I think now is the time to prove it and therefore we need a clear climate target.”
  Climate efforts
• “Colleagues, today I'd like to speak for those voices that we can no longer hear the voices of young people who are not living in playgrounds, but their lives are broken down into comments. And it's great that we're having yet another debate about how we can solve this. But dear EPP, you have the power to change the lives of these people. We're here today, and then we all leave the room and we say how important that was. We didn't change anything and we have the tools in our hands. You have the tools in your hands. Yesterday in the trilogue and in the future, there will be many other issues coming up, for example, on the DSA. But at the end of the day, it's young people across Europe and they count on you. They want you to finally take responsibility, the responsibility that you owe to them. There are so many people who have stood here and said, we owe this to our children, but we really do owe them. And instead of that in Austria, the People's Party has decided that the NGOs that are actually dealing with this to support children, that those NGOs should be weakened and their budgets should be cut. You should finally shoulder your responsibility and listen to the voices of those children who can no longer speak.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Thank you chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for the assessment. If the Member States implement all the measures from the NPS, then we are almost on track to meet our 2030 targets. If and almost in this sentence, facing a climate crisis that is already here is not enough and should not be enough for us as a European Union as well. And therefore I have a very short question and I can make it short. What are your additional measures you are planning to adopt to fill and close these gaps? As the green cooperation fleets, the reform of the cap to and also the full implementation of the Nature Restoration Law. There is a lot of stuff that also on the European level, we should do to make sure that we are meeting this target, that we are closing and filling this gap because the climate crisis is a reality. So asking you, what are your additional measures would be very interesting for us. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I think it's very good that we have this debate. But let me set that straight before even starting my speech. There need to follow actions. The transport sector is not only the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union, but also it is hard to obey sector like you said. So we need to help the industry. We need this transformation to tackle our climate goals. And if we take that seriously, transport is one of the key cornerstones. I welcome that the Commission acknowledged the need for a stronger enabling framework for renewable fuels, and proposes a double sided auction system to help scale up e-fuels. But let me be very clear. The plan as it stands, falls short on the ambition Europe needs. Instead of focusing on the truly renewable future, future proof solutions that actually deliver decarbonisation, this gives space to so-called low carbon fuels, to biofuels with questionable sustainability, to biomethane. Europe deserves a transport investment strategy that is aligned with our climate goals. Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you for all the constructive things you have said and also other parties here. And I think that's one of the good notes I can start with. There are still adults in the room who try to negotiate things responsible for European citizens. The people that elected us, and I think everybody understood your point. You say you don't care about the 2030 climate target, but it's worse than that. You question the scientific advisory board of the Commission and scientific evidences. You make clear that you are not understanding what the climate crisis really means for citizens, for farmers, the droughts that have happened where their livelihoods are really at stake. It's clear that you are not caring about the people in poor, isolated homes that suffer under hot summers and have problems to pay their heating bills. You are not caring and you made that point. So I think one thing is clear. Your whole draft is mocking European citizens and also your own. So of course we're against it. And I think this political decision is yours. And you have to take the responsibility for the mess you are producing right now. And the future generations will also hold you accountable. But we can do differently in this House. We as pro-European groups can stick together and negotiate a scientific target that is actually leading to something leading to a stronger Europe, leading to global responsibility. And there we have now to prove that we are fighting for that still about scientific clarity. We know the Scientific Advisory Board gave out a clear recommendation already.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Dear Miss Maynard and dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank you very much for the work that has done so far. For us, it is very important to have ambitious legislation. So we will and are advocating for ambitious plastic and steel recycling targets under this regulation, because we believe it is feasible and positive for the circular economy and the protection of our environment, as well as important for self sufficiency in Europe, not at least in a time when globalisation as we know it is on the brink due to the tariffs on the trade war that Trump has brought on. For us in the Trent Committee, it should be especially important to contribute also the aspects of road safety and road worthiness. For instance, bigger cars mean more weight, which means more resources needed and more impact on the streets, not least not at least on the safety of all our road users. What we want in this regulation that it opens new opportunities for the industry. We are advocating for strong move towards more circular economy, and I hope this proposal can add to this. We want to strengthen the proposal through requirements of design for repairability and to strengthen the elements of reuse, repair, remanufacturing and so on. We want a proposal that works for the people. We must guarantee that there are no hidden costs for consumers, and that spare parts and software updates are guaranteed. That can be achieved through a restriction of practices which hamper dismantling, replacement and reuse of parts. And lastly, these are just some points we will advocate for in the negotiations. I would also suggest that before the negotiations begin, that we are clear on the admissibility of certain amendments as our trend opinion must stick to the rule of procedure. And here I would suggest to liaise with the ambient Imco rapporteurs working on the joint reports. Thank you.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “And colleagues. Now just imagine you're an elderly lady in hospital. And the window might be open. But you've got very oppressive heat coming from the outside. So climate change really is perceptible, it's tangible and it has repercussions. And we are leaving elderly people languishing in their hospital beds, struggling for breath. And we're there shrugging, saying, well, what can we do? We're all here in this chamber talking about heat waves as though this were just a matter of fate. But it is not. Rather, it is time that we took climate change seriously and saw it for what it is. And that is a health risk which does not affect us all equally. And it is important that we do what is expected and make sure that we take the matter seriously. And just imagine you're the daughter sitting at the bedside hoping desperately that somebody will do something, that somebody will, at long last, get a grip. Those of us who can do something about this. And precisely here we are seeing the climate crisis being a social issue. It's those who can do least who bear the brunt, particularly those who are elderly or frail, or those who live in poor housing who simply can't afford to renovate their flats. So let's take this seriously. This is a social issue. This is a health issue. And just imagine you're at the bedside of that elderly lady.”
  EU climate adaptation and disaster preparedness
• “(16:55:13 – 16:57:42): Thank you so much and thank you also for presenting the report and this very funny debate that no surprise turned again in the into an anti ngo debate and i there i have a question to the far right i don't quite understand why you are so afraid of ngos even if it's not the topic here but maybe we can stay with the facts and that's a quite good beginning we have to talk about biodiversity we have to talk about in which situation we are in in the moment in europe but also worldwide and when we have to protect our own land our own country and the european union that maybe should also be in your own interest but okay if it's not everything is said on that and then we talk about and my colleague martin hoyzek just said it we talk about the resources we all need we talk about issues that it's much broader than just talking about wetlands it is a matter of public health it is a matter that is also tackled by public authorities by companies as he said and i think there we should be very clear and i want to be very clear we need a strong life program we need to secure the life program and i'm very very thankful to have all the fundings here that you were just also telling us because one thing is clear in times like these where nature protection gets under attack from the far right constantly we need to make sure that this stays on the agenda and for whom for the citizens of europe and also for the next generations for the farmers for the real people living here and not just debating in this room and trying to make a populistic move as you do it and i really also as a young woman sitting here i can't hear it anymore but maybe let's go back to the live program i think what's also good the recommendations you gave and i'm very happy to hear from the commission side that you also agree with the recommendations i think talking about the afterlife plans is quite clever that the platform of sharing the projects that are useful i think that's also something we can look into there are so many good examples where life money really affected europe in a very very good way and therefore i think also discussing the mff and how we can secure funding there is something we all need to do in this room and that's fighting for nature protection fighting for life so i also would have a question to you missus elvinger what would your suggestion be to foster the positive impact in the coming mff and how to best tackle your recommendations in a stand alone live program for the next mff because one thing is clear this will be still something we need to secure thank you so much for being here today”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Dear Commissioner, thank you for being here today. When Commission President von der Leyen asked us for our support last year, a key condition was a 2040 target of at least 90% emission reduction by 2040. When you asked us for our support last year, it was also a key condition for us. You agreed to it and still here we are in May 2025, without a proposal and with informal rumors that it will come in summer. I appeal to your responsibility within the European institutions, but also towards our credibility as European Union in an international context, and to also clearly say it once again, integrating international offsets in our EU climate targets would be breaking the deal, and it would lead us to a completely wrong direction. Also, regarding the clean industrial deal, in our opinion, opening up the EU targets to international credits would open Pandora's box. 90% is already the lower range of the scientific recommendations of the EU Advisory Board. As my colleague pointed out. So there is an absolute minimum to keep up with science. And why is it important? You already mentioned it. It's about the lives of hundreds of people. It's about trillions of euros in the next years till 2050. And the question is who will pay for it? Then? In the end, we all should protect European citizens. And this means taking urgent climate action here and not trying to buy away our responsibility. So my question is, when does the proposal come that you agreed on when you asked for our support? The one without the loopholes in the article six. And how will Europe be able to still lead on climate diplomacy and convince other countries to put on the table ambitious NDCs when we would be sending out a different signal? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you so much for the presentation and I'm looking forward to collaborate with you, especially regarding the necessary investments in rail and infrastructure. As a shadow rapporteur for the Weights and Dimensions Directive, I also have a question regarding this one. Could you elaborate a bit more about the timeline and also the content and the revision, as my colleagues already asked, and what is your take on this? How do you think we can improve the directive in a way that prevents regression from rail to road as decarbonisation? Decarbonisation is necessary. And one last point regarding the patriots over there, the posting of workers directive was criticized harshly. You voted in favor of that. Just a reminder.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Dear colleagues, once upon a time we had climate ambition. But it's not. Once upon a time, ten years ago, the leaders promised with the Paris Agreement, to care about the future of the next generations of the future of the children of Europe. And today we are having this debate. We know the forests are on fire. Harvests are failing, and people die of heat in our cities. And we we in this house. What are we doing? Are we showing this leadership we like to talk about? I would say no. We are standing there with empty hands, with nothing more than a letter of intent for our own climate targets. We don't have a 2040 target in place, and it would be so clear. It would be so clear. The science is clear what we need to do. There is a letter from 2000 scientists signed that we need 90% decarbonization in 2040. But it's also clear what we need to do for our climate target. And I'm standing there as a person who marched with thousands and thousands and even millions around the world of young people demanding climate ambition. My generation doesn't need any excuses. We need courage. We need truth. We need us to fucking act.”
  Climate efforts
• “Science shows that biodiversity in Europe is still declaiming at an alarming rate, and we know we have so many extinctions from animals, from from planets. But it's our planet we're talking about. We need to restore it again. Therefore, we propose a substantial increase to the budget line heading free line nature and biodiversity by 20%. So we are quite in the opposite. And I'm with my colleague from Reno, who pointed also out the importance of it. And I think my last point is on circular economy and the quality of life. The EU has set itself an ambitious circularity agenda to reduce environmental pressure and increase the resilience and competitiveness of the EU economy. However, the current circularity rate is just only about 11%, with slow improvement in the years in recent years. Therefore, we propose a substantial increase on the budget line and free again on circular economy and quality of life by 20%, to be very precise. So that's what we are aiming for, and I think we really deserve that.”
  Ecodesign & durability · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I'd like to start on a personal note, because the question of transport is a personal one. As a child, my mum took me by tram to the kindergarten. I got on the bus to go to school and I got the underground to come to my university. And today I travel around a lot. So good, affordable, reliable. Public transport constitutes freedom. Freedom of moving around in public space without having to afford a car and that freedom. In order to exist, we have to have cooperation with other people, including at local levels. But we have to assume our own responsibility. And yes, we're going to have to pay for that. That applies to the MFF and the Cohesion Fund. We need to think about how urban plans can be made. So they're on a human dimension. But we have to make sure as well that the transport sector is arranged in such a way that people can work there sustainably. And I can agree with colleagues as well that we need to simplify transport. We need to simplify it to allow people to get from A to B, but also when it comes to ticketing as well. All in all, public transport is a question of freedom and that's something we need to take seriously.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Thank you chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for the assessment. If the Member States implement all the measures from the NPS, then we are almost on track to meet our 2030 targets. If and almost in this sentence, facing a climate crisis that is already here is not enough and should not be enough for us as a European Union as well. And therefore I have a very short question and I can make it short. What are your additional measures you are planning to adopt to fill and close these gaps? As the green cooperation fleets, the reform of the cap to and also the full implementation of the Nature Restoration Law. There is a lot of stuff that also on the European level, we should do to make sure that we are meeting this target, that we are closing and filling this gap because the climate crisis is a reality. So asking you, what are your additional measures would be very interesting for us. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “53:44 – 10:56:43): I'm always very happy when I can agree with Peter Lise, so I want to say this in our common language. I think it's very clear that the revision of ETS is a good idea. It's good that member states are now to use this for climate and social measures. And as he pointed out, let me emphasize as well that it's not clear how the member states are using the money. It's not transparent enough, and I don't think the reporting obligations go far enough. So this raises a lot of questions. In the last legislative period, member states were asked to say they have to express their plans every five years for the use of these revenues and how this is going to function, what the investments are going to be, who are the focus groups, and then these plans are going to be approved by the Commission. But what does that mean right now between 2024 and 2030? They have been able to have a hundred billion euros, and they can then spend this because this is a question of decarbonization and transition. These are strategic questions. These are long term. You can't just say every year how are we going to spend this money. Rather, this is an enormous opportunity that has been provided to us by the ETS revision. So I think we have to improve this, and that's why building on what my colleague Interrado said in this report, in the current report on climate protection, that some member states, for example Italy, are using 100 percent of their revenue. They've been moving it to future years and not using any of it currently on climate. So how are they going to achieve their climate goals? Because that is not the idea behind the ETS. It's not the idea behind this notion of revenues. So the Commission, what can you do to ensure that member states actually don't delay their investments and then they simply carry over this use of revenues? We have to be better at this. And let me also point out that it's very clear that we're the ones who support the ETS, and yes, with other measures, a trading system is very important. But we see in many analyses that member states are not very transparent about how they're using this, and that's not how it's supposed to be. When things aren't working as they should, then we're losing at this.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. And thank you, Minister, for being here today. I think the Polish presidency is indeed facing challenging times. And I listened closely, and I'm thankful that environmental and climate issues are important for you, because as a young person, being here in this Parliament, I think it matters. And we are responsible and we should be accountable for the things we promised, we promised and the targets we are holding. Therefore, we have a few questions. First, what will you do to support policies Policies that will improve the situation on climate issues especially, we need emission reduction targets for 2040 and NDCs for 2035. It was mentioned before, but I think it's really important that we go for ambitious 2045 targets, because otherwise we will just lose the path and the track. And the crucial element will be for that that we really hold the 90% on 2040. Are you committing to push for 90% in 2040 targets? And when you do that, are you also pushing in the commission for that? Will you push for renewable energy targets and energy efficiency? And last, I also want to emphasize that huge risk of opening things we already committed to. There is just one path if we believe in the future, and it's one that we hold together in solidarity, and we go for a green path and a future for the children in Europe.”
  Climate efforts
• “So how does international credits make sense there? And then my second question is regarding those flexibilities between sectors. How does the Commission intend to ensure that all sectors contribute to objective of climate neutrality set out in the EU climate law? And finally, about the safeguarding high standards and the consequences when actors do not stick to them. How does the European Commission plan to ensure that safeguards are implemented? Who will supervise it? Who will take that and how? What happens if standards are not kept? What are the consequences for member states and businesses? And maybe one last question regarding the removals of domestic carbon dioxide in the EU, ETS. I think that the discussion we will have a lot how once the European Commission to ensure that this will not come at the expense of prioritizing direct emissions reduction by sources, as requested by article 4.1 of the climate law. And I think there we really need to work on, because this is like playing with our future without knowing what we are doing. We need to be very sure if we use international credits, how how to safeguard them. And that's being responsible. And I think that we really need some answers. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, mister Gieseker. Colleagues, thank you for the draft report as it stands. I'd like to agree this is just the start of negotiation. 1 point that I think we can agree with, and let me start with that, you know, this is the common, smallest common denominator, and this is the climate neutral aim and making sure that we, keep jobs in Europe. Regrettably, I don't think this is the right proposal to get to that aim. We'll have to put a lot of work into making sure this, goal is achieved. When it comes to 25 climate neutrality and when it comes to jobs, then we have to look at what we've, done wrong in the past. We need a clear plan for industry. You know, we can look at the export figures, look at the car industry, car producers, see what we're doing in different countries. But what we haven't done is, roll out electric vehicles quickly enough, and we didn't have enough clarity. So we need and that's what we need, clearer rules. There's an end date, and we want to stick to that. We don't want to weaken what we've, already set ourselves to. That's not any surprise. Range extended, we've heard about this. This has been touted as a solution, but I think that's, completely wrong. It's just a distraction. We talk about utility factor. We could talk about, transport conditions, how much c o 2 can be emitted, for these harmonized LCVs and test, vehicles. I've looked at lots of different cases, but, sometimes these vehicles are missing 3 times as much as allowed. So overall, and I don't want to go into too much more detail, but for technology, neurology, and other negotiations, we have discussions. We've had arguments, but we're gonna try and move forward. But still, I do want to find a pro democratic compromise. That's why I'm here. I want to negotiate, but I'm clear that we'll need to move forward, with big steps because we'll only be able to have a future European car industry, if we do these things. We need to provide, clarity and planning certainty for them. Thank you.”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers
• “Dear colleagues, I also need to start with this house. The 2040 climate now is in the hands of the far right, the people that deny the climate crisis. That has to be the final wake up call for this Parliament. We have tabled an urgency procedure tomorrow, and it's time for everybody here to really take responsibility. If we want to save the 2040 target, we need this urgency procedure now. And maybe you remember six years ago, this house stood up and declared a climate emergency. The European Parliament made a promise to the people. To the European citizens. And now we must ask ourselves, are we acting like this is an emergency? Ask yourself for a moment. And honestly, the science could not be clearer. It's so obvious what we have to do. We need to cut our emissions by at least 90% in 2030, and stay on track for climate neutrality in 2050. We do not need 85%, not 87 minimum 90%. And yet, what do we see? Instead of urgency, we said, we see delay instead of clarity. We see loopholes. Instead of actions, we see games. Colleagues. Every so-called flexibility you put into this law is not just a footnote. It's a gamble with the lives of the future generations. A percentage point less may sound harmless in this room, but outside those emissions that have flooded homes, the dead soil and the collapsing ecosystems our children will inherit. Dear colleagues, I am not just speaking here as a member of the European Parliament. I am also speaking as a 24 year old woman who dares you to act. And I'm not the only one. I think many of your children are honestly my age. If you don't do it for me, do it for them. Do it for the children that need to grow up in the next years for the future generations. We climate emergency. Now. Let's act at it. A woman said a few years ago, we own it to our children. These children are still here.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you so much. I think we all have seen the heatwave last week alone caused 2300 excess deaths in Europe, according to scientists. And we know that we have a problem. But still, we are talking about economy against climate protection. And I think that's very wrong. And it's also very dangerous for the future. It's again, the hottest summer so far with the climate change causing more severe droughts and, let's speak, numbers. The average cost of it is 9.4 billion per year. The European Central Bank published a study which predicts a 5% annual GDP loss by 2030, just due to weather extremes. If we don't fight climate change, we can also have no chance of protecting our economy. So we need to finally understand that Europe is the fastest warming continent and we are seeing the consequences everywhere, also in the infrastructure. The 20.7 cuts to the Civil Protection mechanism is not aligned with the EU, with the need for EU support and prevention and responses to disaster. And I think, therefore, we need to be very clear. We need to increase the UK PM budget not to cut it. That is right now the last thing we need and also talking about biodiversity, we know that there is not much budget for biodiversity, but the European Union is failing the expenditure target of 10% for biodiversity in 2026.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much for the answers you already gave and for being here with us today. I'm very much looking forward to collaborate with you in the next years and months because the challenges for the rail sector are crucial. And we know that, especially for me, the simplification and harmonization of international rail travelling is something that is also important for many young people. And one step we are all awaiting is the single ticketing file that is expected at the end of the year. So different stakeholders we have talked with have different priorities and how the system should look in the future. Therefore, I would like to ask you what's your position on this and what is your view regarding the open sales and distribution model that operators would like to see strengthened? Thanks.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Dear colleagues, Europe is being told a very convenient story right now about how cutting red tape and simplification, speeding up the permitting will solve all our problems. But let's be honest, what is presented is not about simplification. It is in reality about deregulation. Leaders like Mats and Melanie are pushing for it and the European Commission is increasingly following. So let's be clear, this is not a technical discussion about efficiency. It's a political choice, a deliberate decision to weaken protections in the name of competitiveness. Take and you just mentioned it, the proposed environmental omnibus. It sets extremely tight deadlines for environmental impact assessments, sometimes just 90 days for already understaffed local authorities. This is not simplification. This is an overload. Or look at the changes to the industrial emissions rule. If companies are no longer required to publish which substances they use, how can citizens defend their health? How can victims of chemical pollution even prove the harm that had been done to them? And also in the digital field. And I could go on and on and on. As you see, the digital omnibus claims to save companies millions, but the biggest winners are not the small European companies. It will be big tech. Deregulation is like removing the brakes from a car to make it go faster. Yes, you may gain some speed for the moment, but you're heading straight for a crash. So yes, we need faster permitting. And there I'm with you. But you don't solve traffic jams by removing the traffic lights. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “53:44 – 10:56:43): I'm always very happy when I can agree with Peter Lise, so I want to say this in our common language. I think it's very clear that the revision of ETS is a good idea. It's good that member states are now to use this for climate and social measures. And as he pointed out, let me emphasize as well that it's not clear how the member states are using the money. It's not transparent enough, and I don't think the reporting obligations go far enough. So this raises a lot of questions. In the last legislative period, member states were asked to say they have to express their plans every five years for the use of these revenues and how this is going to function, what the investments are going to be, who are the focus groups, and then these plans are going to be approved by the Commission. But what does that mean right now between 2024 and 2030? They have been able to have a hundred billion euros, and they can then spend this because this is a question of decarbonization and transition. These are strategic questions. These are long term. You can't just say every year how are we going to spend this money. Rather, this is an enormous opportunity that has been provided to us by the ETS revision. So I think we have to improve this, and that's why building on what my colleague Interrado said in this report, in the current report on climate protection, that some member states, for example Italy, are using 100 percent of their revenue. They've been moving it to future years and not using any of it currently on climate. So how are they going to achieve their climate goals? Because that is not the idea behind the ETS. It's not the idea behind this notion of revenues. So the Commission, what can you do to ensure that member states actually don't delay their investments and then they simply carry over this use of revenues? We have to be better at this. And let me also point out that it's very clear that we're the ones who support the ETS, and yes, with other measures, a trading system is very important. But we see in many analyses that member states are not very transparent about how they're using this, and that's not how it's supposed to be. When things aren't working as they should, then we're losing at this.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “This has been this has to be a sign for us and to the Commission to do it better this the next time. And I want to highlight a few points that were stressed in our amendments. Eca finds that milestones and targets are often rather vague and output oriented, and are therefore not fit to measure results and impacts. Are we going to use more impact oriented targets in the future? Eca also finds that the contribution towards the EU climate objectives and targets is not assessed. I think that is a very important point. We have to implement in the future. We have all agreed to the principle of do no significant harm. I agree with the Echr that we have to enforce, and it is frustrating to see that there have been weaknesses in the ref. Let's use this envy opinion and this implementation report to listen to the experts and to be honest to ourselves. And I agree with the rapporteur that we need to create funds that have more and clearly measurable impact and better control mechanisms to prevent fraud in the future. So a lot to do.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you so much. And thank you also for this presentation. As we are living in a triple planetary crisis, which you mentioned, you highlighted in this very important report, several shortcomings of the EU and the majority of targets are likely off track or either off track. You also underlined as well the need for bolder implementation of the already existing legislation and to increase the speed. However, certain political groups in this House pressure unfortunately very successful to weaken existing legislation as the CS, triple D or the CSR. So my first question is which implications do you foresee for weakening of existing legislation on meeting these targets with concrete implications? Will the non meeting of the targets have in the short and medium term on the climate and environment as you can foresee. And then I went to join my colleague with a question regarding fossil fuels and the fossil fuel phase out. Please can you comment on the fossil fuel subsidies which member states should be phasing out? What is the state of play here? And one last question. One of the most concerning findings come from environmental pressure linked to European production and consumption. They use consumption footprint is projected to increase further by 2030. The council only in June last year asked to set up a sustainable resource framework to turn this into concrete action. Do you believe that the proposed Circular Economy Act will be enough, or do you expect that more will be needed? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much for giving me the floor. And thank you for the work that has already been done. I agree with most of the points that were already mentioned, and I think at this point, we also have to agree that a strong European budget means strong investments in infrastructure, in resilient infrastructure, in the decarbonisation of the transport sector and in a better connected Europe. These phrases are something we are saying all year long, and I think it's important to emphasize them also really in our budget, and to show that we mean what we are saying. I fully agree with the remarks on the CEF. It has been proven to be a very useful instrument in the funding should, of course, be upscaled to enable the modal shift to rail from both road and air transportation, as well as to finish the Ten-t network. As my colleagues already mentioned, especially cross-border projects have a high EU added value and play a key role such as interconnectivity, economic development and resilience. But also speaking from a young people's perspective for us is a chance to unite Europe, to see Europe as a place where we can actually travel freely. Enough funding must be earmarked for the decarbonisation of transport and making the sustainable means of transport more accessible and more affordable to people, and guarantee a very free access. And finally, we need more seamlessly integrated transport modes, including the last mile, based on strong backbone of rail and local public transport, including an earmarked percentage of the funds invested in infrastructure projects. And I think with this report and the draft, we have a chance to show that we are delivering to the European citizens on infrastructure, on decarbonisation and a connected Europe.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you for the presentation. It is good that the increasing threat to Europe caused by the climate crisis is being emphasized. According to the Global Risk Report, extreme weather events are currently the second highest risk after armed conflicts and the greatest risks in the ten year outlook. This is a question of security. So yes, we have to be prepared. But we also need to prevent catastrophes from happening, preparing for crises that we ourselves Cause and fuel is maybe not the smartest way to go. We have to keep tackling the cause of the climate catastrophes, and in our efforts to implement the Green Deal and achieve our climate targets to limit extreme weather events. Would you agree? And how would you connect the prevention and the preparedness?”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much. And also thank you to the Commission for to be here. You already mentioned the different difficulties and challenges for member States, and one clear added value of the Social Climate Fund is that it should help us to better identify the pockets of energy and transport poverty across Europe through EU wide definitions, target information given by member states in their social climate plans. So, based on the draft plans that you have already received and seen, and also the discussions you were having, you were mentioning the talks you have with mayors. How do you assess the quality of information provided by the Member States in this regard? And can you commit to publish an easily accessible way and readable way, all this information that can be very useful for other policy making? I think in our Member States, but also for us. And what additional action can you take in the Commission to improve the quality of information related to the pocket of energy and transport poverty across Europe? Because we know it's true, especially the Social Climate Fund is important, but we also need other measures. Thank you.”