Anja ARNDT

Policy topics Anja ARNDT is active on

What Anja ARNDT has said (74)

• 2026-06-17 “President dear members, today it's not about progress or stagnation. Today is about trust. The freedom to choose and control over our seeds, our food, and our agriculture. We are voting on the deregulation of nrt1 plants. These plants are genetically modified using new genomic techniques and could end up in our food, animal feed and in our fields. We are told that in theory, this could also occur naturally or through conventional breeding, but theory is no substitute for practical experience, and speed is no substitute for safety. Anyone who rolls out such technologies on a large scale must guarantee control, transparency and the freedom of choice. Yet that is precisely what is missing. Because there is no mandatory labeling, there are no legally binding ban on patents. As a result, ng GT plans become a gateway for bio patents, corporate power monopolies and new dependencies for our farmers and breeders. As long as mandatory labeling, traceability and an effective ban on patents are lacking. There must be no approval. I therefore recommend approving all amendments that call for mandatory labeling and exclude patentability, and to vote against the proposal, like the Greens and left. Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission 12.6.2026 Written question The Commission's position on deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth’s natural systems (referred to as ‘geoengineering’) is clearly set out in the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative on the Climate-Security Nexus of 28 June 2023 [1] . It notes that such technologies are attracting more attention, and states that ‘the risks, impacts and unintended consequences that these technologies pose are poorly understood, and necessary rules, procedures and institutions have not been developed’. The Joint Communication also stresses that the EU, guided by the precautionary principle ‘will support international efforts to assess comprehensively the risks and uncertainties of climate interventions, including solar radiation modification, and promote discussions on a potential international framework for its governance, including research related aspects’. In 2024, following a Commission request for advice on solar radiation modification, the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors issued a scientific opinion [2] , while the European Group on Ethics delivered an ethical perspective [3] . Both groups stressed that these technologies are not ready to be deployed and cautioned the Commission to maintain the primary goals of its climate policy: reducing emissions and adapting to inevitable changes. The Commission’s Strategic Foresight Report 2025 [4] also points to the need for the EU to show ethical and science-based leadership in responsible and precautionary approaches for such new controversial technologies, including by fostering global collaborative governance structures to deal with potential risks, benefits and distributional effects. In this context, the Commission is monitoring the issue. [1] JOIN/2023/19 final. [2] https://scientificadvice.eu/advice/solar-radiation-modification/. [3] Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Opinion on solar radiation modification — Ethical perspectives, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/951016. [4] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-foresight/2025-strategic-foresight-report_en.”
  Climate efforts
• 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 12.6.2026 Written question The EU has no legal definition for ‘geoengineering’. The Convention on Biological Diversity stated [1] that ‘[…] any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity […] should be considered as forms of geo-engineering […]. ’ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) referred to geoengineering as ‘a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek to either (1) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system (Solar Radiation Management) or (2) increase net carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance. […] Geoengineering is different from weather modification and ecological engineering, but the boundary can be fuzzy [2] ’. Due to the rather broad scope and variable interpretation of ‘geoengineering’, it is not possible for the Commission to provide a comprehensive list of projects on weather modification and geoengineering technologies, and the entities involved in them. Depending on the scope and interpretation of ‘geoengineering’, information on specific projects funded under the Research and Innovation Framework Programmes, and the entities benefitting from them, can be extracted from the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) [3] . The Commission is not aware of EU-funded research activities specifically on weather modification. [1] Decision X/33. Biodiversity and climate change https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop?id=12299. [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-i.pdf, page 1262. [3] https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/en.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation · Climate efforts
• 2026-03-23 “Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 3.6.2026 Written question The Commission’s position on geoengineering is set out in the Joint Communication of the Commission and High Representative on the Climate-Security Nexus [1] , which states that ‘risks, impacts and the unintended consequences that these technologies pose are poorly understood, and necessary rules, procedures and institutions have not been developed’ and stresses that the EU, guided by the precautionary principle, ‘will support international efforts to assess comprehensively the risks and uncertainties of climate interventions, including solar radiation modification and promote discussions on a potential international framework for its governance, including research related aspects’. For solar radiation modification (SRM) in particular, the Commission has funded projects to investigate ethical and governance aspects of SRM and related research [2] . The Commission requested the Group of the Chief Scientific Advisors to conduct a scientific risk assessment of SRM technologies and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to provide ethical perspectives on SRM. The two groups delivered their opinions [3] [4] on 9 December 2024. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023JC0019. [2] See, in particular, TechEthos (https://doi.org/10.3030/101006249), GENIE (https://doi.org/10.3030/951542) and Co-CREATE (https://doi.org/10.3030/101137642). [3] https://scientificadvice.eu/advice/solar-radiation-modification/. [4] Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Opinion on solar radiation modification — Ethical perspectives, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/951016.”
  Climate efforts
• 2026-01-13 “E-000094/2026 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission In line with its mandate under Article 7a of Regulation (EU) 2019/631 1 , the Commission has worked since the beginning of 2024 on a draft delegated act laying down a methodology for the assessment and consistent data reporting of the full life-cycle CO 2 emissions of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. Two extensive stakeholder workshops were organised on 11 December 2024 and 2 July 2025, gathering input from representatives of the vehicle, vehicle parts, fuels, and recycling industries, as well as Member States, non-governmental organizations, and academia. Developing a life-cycle CO 2 emissions assessment methodology is a highly complex endeavour, as demonstrated by past experience in other regulatory contexts. This is particularly true for products such as passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, with very high complexity in materials and parts used, and global value chains. The methodology under preparation pursuant to Article 7a of Regulation (EU) 2019/631 is intended to account for emissions across the full life cycle of a vehicle, starting with raw material acquisition and preprocessing, followed by the production of vehicle parts and components, vehicle assembly, the use phase, the fuels and electricity cycle, and end-of-life treatment. In addition, several elements of the methodology are linked on substance to elements falling under other EU legislation in preparation. This will need to be taken into account for regulatory consistency. The draft methodological framework will be subject to a public consultation process on the ‘Have your Say’ website before its finalisation. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/oj/eng.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2026-01-13 “P-000183/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s foremost priority has always been the safety and efficacy of any COVID19 vaccine authorised for use in the EU, including during the post-authorisation stage. The European Medicines Agency (EMA)’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) responsible for assessing and monitoring the safety of human medicines, continuously monitors all potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines, including new data from medical literature as well as reports from patients and healthcare professionals. As part of this monitoring, potential safety signals are routinely evaluated. The EMA has confirmed that this ongoing assessment has found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of cancer. Additionally, it has informed the Commission that there is no scientific evidence indicating that any trace amounts of residual DNA 1 , including SV40 sequences, potentially present in vaccines, could integrate into the DNA of vaccinated individuals. It is also important to note that the manufacturing processes for mRNA 2 COVID-19 vaccines are meticulously designed and strictly controlled to ensure that any residual DNA remains well below established safety thresholds. The quality of each batch is independently verified by a national Official Medicines Control Laboratory before it is released for use in the EU. Only batches that meet EMA-approved quality specifications are permitted for use. Lastly, extensive data collected from millions of people vaccinated over the past five years have consistently confirmed the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. 1 Deoxyribonucleic acid. 2 Messenger Ribonucleic acid.”
  Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU · Vaccination
• 2025-05-22 “E-002073/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission In 2021, the Commission joined forces with Breakthrough Energy and the European Investment Bank in the ‘EU-Catalyst Partnership’ to provide equity, grants and venture debt for selected clean-tech projects. The main aim was to stimulate more private investment into European low-carbon technology companies and innovators, providing solutions to climate challenges. The Commission contributes with an InvestEU top up guarantee of EUR 220 million from the Innovation Fund and EUR 200 million grants from Horizon Europe 1 . The Partnership is currently supporting three projects 2 . The partnership does not involve grant or grant type support for one of the partners e.g. Breakthrough Energy. The European Green Deal is supported by a range of EU funds and funding instruments, such as Next Generation EU 3 , LIFE 4 , the Innovation Fund 5 or Horizon Europe. These funds are designed to finance projects, policies and initiatives that align with the Green Deal’s objectives, such as reducing emissions, protecting biodiversity, transitioning to a circular economy and ensuring a just transition for all regions and communities. The Commission supports numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) through operating or action grants to advance Green Deal goals. Like other organisations, NGOs can participate in projects supported by EU funds and the funding instruments mentioned above, by responding to calls for proposals that match with their area of expertise. The award of grants is done through competitive procedures, while no specific amounts are ringfenced. 1 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en. 2 Ineratec, producing eSAF; Ottana/Energy Dome, building a CO2-based energy storage facility; and Rondo, developing power-to-heat technologies. 3 https://next-generation-eu.europa.eu/index_en. 4 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 5 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/innovation-fund_en.”
  Energy (green transition) · EU industrial funding
• 2025-05-22 “E-002072/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Information System is a domain of the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) 1 platform. The Commission services operate the system which covers a broad variety of helpdesk functions, including development and maintenance of the Information System. Moreover, trainings on the Information System are currently being covered under a support service contract which started in July 2025 (overall amount EUR 1.8 million over two years) as part of a wide range of support tasks. The trainings offer direct benefits for stakeholders in their efforts to comply with the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 2 , fostering trade in deforestation-free products. The International Trade Center is not a non-governmental organisation (NGO); it is a multilateral agency with a joint mandate with the World Trade Organization and the United Nations and implements small-scale projects relevant to EUDR. The Commission does not have contracts or grant agreements with NGOs to assist the Commission with the implementation of the EUDR and to provide training. The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EUDR in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 3 . The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 4 , the entry into application will be 30 December 2026. 1 https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/traces/modules_en. 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 3 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 4 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23– 34.”
  Trade impact on forests
• 2025-03-26 “E-001251/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is fully aware that the European automotive sector is facing a critical turning point. The sector is undergoing a structural transformation as the global shift to clean and digital mobility is accelerating, while rapid technological changes and increasing competition are posing significant challenges. At the same time, the sector faces global supply chain risks and dependencies on raw materials and battery imports, an over-reliance on fossil fuels, fierce competition for talent, cost gaps in key inputs, and an increasingly volatile geopolitical context. This is why, on 5 March 2025, the Commission adopted an Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector, building on the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the European Automotive Industry 1 . The Action Plan stresses that the CO 2 standards provide long-term certainty and predictability for investors along the value chain, while allowing sufficient lead time for a fair transition. It sets out a comprehensive set of measures to ensure a fair and socially equitable transition in the sector and to guarantee its international competitiveness, prioritising high-quality jobs and supporting workers through the changes ahead. To address the employment challenges that come with the transition, the EU has already put in place various initiatives, such as funding from the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the European Globalisation Fund for Displaced Workers (EGF). In 2026, support through Erasmus+ grants of up to EUR 90 million will be made available for the relevant Large-Scale Skills Partnerships, including the one for the automotive sector. The Commission will also set up a European Fair Transition Observatory, which will identify future job risks and skills gaps. 1 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/89b3143e-09b6-4ae6-a826932b90ed0816_en?filename=Communication%20-%20Action%20Plan.pdf”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · 2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• 2024-11-11 “E-002491/2024 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission According to Article 14a of Regulation (EU) 2019/631 1 , by 31 December 2025, the Commission shall submit reports on the progress towards zero-emission road mobility and on the analysis to identify funding gaps in ensuring a just transition in the automotive supply chain. These reports will include up-to-date information on the broad range of topics listed under that Article. The Commission will develop a methodology for the assessment and reporting of the lifecycle CO 2 emissions of cars and vans, with a view of publishing a report to the European Parliament and to the Council and adopting a delegated act by end 2025. As foreseen in Article 15 of the Regulation, the Commission will review the effectiveness and impact of the Regulation in 2026. This review will build on the progress report, taking into account the most recent information on the implementation of the Regulation. The Regulation aims to reduce the ‘specific emissions of CO 2 ’ of new passenger cars and vans. These are defined in its Article 3(1)(h) as emissions determined at the vehicle’s tailpipe during type-approval in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 2 and its implementing Regulations. The emission targets for a vehicle manufacturer apply to the average specific emissions of CO 2 of its vehicles. This approach has been in place since the first EU CO 2 emission standards for cars were adopted in 2009. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/2024-01-01 2 OJ L 171, 29.6.2007, p. 1.”
  Support for different mobility technologies Other Than Electric Vehicles · 2035 CO2 Emission Target for Cars
• 2024-11-05 “P-002420/2024 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Regulation on CO 2 emission standards for new cars and vans 1 sets a clear framework for the transition to zero-emission vehicles, to deliver on the EU’s objective to reach climate neutrality by 2050. It creates certainty for manufacturers and investors, while providing sufficient lead time for the transition. This supports the EU industry’s competitiveness, in view of the trends towards electrification observed in global markets and brings along new job opportunities. The Commission will prepare a progress report on the transition to zero-emission mobility 2 and review the effectiveness and impact of the Regulation 3 . As part of efforts to address sector specific skills mismatches, the Commission supported the automotive ecosystem to establish the Automotive Skills Alliance under the Pact for Skills. The Alliance involved an average of 14% of their workforce in upskilling and reskilling activities in 2023 and developed 1.668 training programmes. Similar action is taken in the battery value chain with the European Battery Alliance Academy. Under the ‘Union of Skills’, the Commission will continue to support skills development throughout the EU economy. In the coming months, the Commission will propose an EU industrial action plan for the automotive sector. The President of the Commission will also convene a Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the Car Industry in Europe, which will design concrete strategies and solutions to support the global competitiveness of automotive manufacturing in Europe. One of the elements the Dialogue will focus on is to address jobs, skills, and other social elements in the sector. The European Parliament and the Council will be closely involved in the process and will be regularly informed and consulted. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/2024-01-01 2 Article 14a of Regulation (EU) 2019/631. 3 Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/631.”
  Support for different mobility technologies Other Than Electric Vehicles · 2035 CO2 Emission Target for Cars
• “I also have a question to Emma in Austria. In Germany, I know a lot of people who still suffer from the after effects of the Covid vaccinations, and since their vaccinations, they have received no compensation. Even though they can't work, they have had no treatments that have been paid by the health insurance funds. There are various therapies that could help, but they can't pay for them, so they have no way out of their situation. Emma looked at the NMR ingredients, but an approved them. There was a clinical study that was only a one year long, so it was very irresponsible to approve those in the first place for a good reason. These clinical studies normally take about 10 to 15 years, so the EMA has to take responsibility for that. What can you do to help victims and when with these Covid vaccines, the MMR vaccines, when will they be removed from the market? Thank you.”
  Vaccination
• “I'll be speaking German. Thank you. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen. Today it's about the active substance P methorphan, which is used by farmers and it's important to them. In the past we asked how high the risk was if this is used appropriately in the field. Now today, increasingly they assess according to the precautionary principle, and they look at what the potential harm of a particular substance is for humans and the environment. And if you take this approach to medicinal products, then many of the active substances used there would have to lose their registration. But in medicinal products, you look at the dosing, that's what guides one. And there are 80 plant protection substances that have lost their authorisation. And if you reduce that number further, it means that farmers have no longer opportunities, and there are crops that are very sensitive. And increasingly, farmers are losing active substances that they can use against the harmful substances, and that then threatens the existence of our farmers, but also the food sovereignty and the supply of food. And that's why we need substances that can be used. Otherwise, we will depend even more on imports. This is true for fruit and veg, but also for cereals. Increasingly, we'll have to rely on imports if we continue withdrawing the authorisation of active substances. And it's difficult to understand this because we'll have higher transport emissions rather than protecting our own agriculture and providing support to them. And at the end of the day, it will be importing products that have been used, that have been grown with substances that are banned here but are not banned where they are grown and pie often does bring risks with it, I'll grant you that. But we need to look at a careful assessment and not just have a flat rate approach to weakening our agriculture. Uh, I believe that the substance should be used for as long as there is no equivalent alternative. And we think this is in the interest of our farmers and also in the interest of our own food security and. That's why we will not agree to article one, one five, paragraphs two and three being used here. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Are also be speaking German. So thank you very much, chair. And thank you for the, uh, report. Now we're talking about our daily waste here. What citizens are throwing in the bin. Now, there are quite a big differences across Europe as to what happens with this, uh, rubbish. Uh, 47% in landfill in Romania. Uh, similar amounts in, uh, Greece. And this certainly isn't part of the circular. Uh, we, uh, we're seeing less going to landfills in Germany. We're seeing more, uh, uh, being incinerated in, uh, modern centers that can go to electricity or district heating. So the, uh, advantages are clear. Less land is used, less methane emissions. It's a more controlled management of the waste. But what happens when these recycling systems don't function? We see that in Poland between 2017 and 2022, there are around 400 centres where they were issues. And it wasn't a just an issue of recycling, it was environmental problems that this leads to. So the Court of Auditors clearly says that the main problems is where the collection isn't done properly, where the infrastructure isn't in place, where there's a lack of investment and there needs to be more harmonisation of the waste management across Europe. So what happens in these situations where we don't have the investment, where it's not functioning? How are we supposed to have a harmonised system across Europe and how can we solve this? Thank you.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “The Aim is to be simplified and with this new proposal, however, 99% of our imports of iron, steel, cement, fertilisers and aluminium are still going to be hit with unbearably high CO2 taxes. Why? Well, it's for an unimaginable CO2 level of emissions, and this is for emissions that have actually been created abroad. How crazy is all of this? Here, we're not talking about peanuts. We're talking about billions of euros. The money is going directly to the commission and for citizens and companies. Everything that's going to be produced is going to become more expensive cars, for example, washing machines, fertilizers. So therefore that means food and buildings are going to be more expensive. And what's more, this is supposed to be improving competitiveness. But our exports are going to be less competitive because the prices are going to increase. That's something that's not being mentioned. Simplification is certainly meant well, but it's actually leading to deindustrialisation of Europe, and it's going to be done in a very responsible way. Cbam and this entire CO2 certificate trade system needs to be abolished. It's destroying things and not saving anything. This is a climate tax that the Commission is using to bait money. Thank you. You have exceeded your speaking time. And I was very generous.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “59:23 – 11:00:35): I'll be speaking German. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. Let's be completely honest: the EU ETS is also often presented as a success story. However, for many citizens and companies in Europe, it feels completely differently. The ETS has actually become a gigantic redistribution mechanism. It makes energy more expensive. It makes production costs more expensive, and it destroys our industries in the global competition. While European companies have to deal with higher CO2 prices, production is simply displaced outside of Europe, places with lower environmental standards. The result of the system is not less emissions but actually more global emissions, and you've been ignoring that for years. The member states are earning millions in revenue from the auctions, and that has to end.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “The green deal. Thank you. The Green Deal has turned into an absolutely huge, destructive, destructive program of the economy. €39 billion was spent by European companies in 2022 alone for emissions allowances, and in Germany last year, 120,000 industrial jobs were lost. Imports from outside the European Union have become considerably cheaper and are causing problems for our manufacturers. And now Cbam, the carbon adjustment border adjustment mechanism is supposed to sort all of this out from 2026. All importers of, for example, steel, aluminium, cement and fertilisers are going to have to be paying carbon penalties and fines. Is this supposed to reintroduce competitiveness? This is a very dangerous apparent solution, a very dangerous one. Farmers are going to be even further ruined. The the economy is going to become even more internationally dependent. Deloitte has estimated that as a result of cbam, a VW golf car will become €1,500 more expensive and wheat 7% higher because of the increased cost of fertilisers. Co2 allowances, allowances and Cbam are not going to have any influence on the temperature of the planet which will be done away with.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Let me start with some sensational news in April, the IPCC personally called off the apocalypse. It said that the previous extreme scenario. Scenario 8.5 with an increase of temperature of six degrees was completely implausible. It was nonsense. But for the last 15 years, our climate panic and the CO2 trading system, the ETS has been based on this. In the last year this cost German business €21 billion. And then you are wondering why we are in economic decline in the EU. Then benchmarks and free allowances are falling year on year. Let me give you an example. An owner of your average ammonia plant in 2026 has to pay around €65 million in CO2 costs. This is unacceptable, and this is one of the fundamental ingredients of fertilizers. And yesterday we were talking about how the fertilizer industry is to be rescued. You are destroying our industry and security supply with these phony scenarios from the IPCC. I'm wondering what you are planning here in the EU. The ETS system has to be abolished. Europe needs the ESM and Germany needs the AfD.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Well thank you, chairman, and welcome ministers to our committee. Now I'd like to talk today about something which causes me a great deal of unrest. The implementation of EU climate laws have already caused massive economic damage and increased energy prices, among other things, in Germany. The Liquidity Barometer study has found that half of German citizens have €2,000 saved for emergency situations, around 10% have no savings at all. So if they face a financial emergency, they'll have a problem. And this relates, I think, to climate laws and CO2 emission rules because they make everything more expensive on the other side. I recognise, I believe that the fight against carbon dioxide is utterly irrational. I mean, it's been based on inappropriate studies. And this is something that I've said several times here. You shouldn't be shaking your head, uh, just in front of me, please. We've now got a new scandal here. There's a study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research that's making headlines now. Last year. The. This, uh, study was published in the scientific journal nature. And it states that, uh, the so-called climate crisis costs $83 billion a year and has reduced global GDP, uh, or will reduce global GDP by 2050. And so this suggests that climate legislation affects the world economy. Climate policies threaten our economy. In August, we found out that, uh, there were conflicts of interest in certain studies that, uh, were talking in favor of, uh, environmental legislation. So the another study, uh, from the Potsdam Climate Institute showed that without climate policies, we'd have economic damage, but their figures were damaged and the research was false. The. Basically, these studies are contributing these falsified these studies based on false data are contributing to the European legislation. Legislative process. So we really need proper science to drive European policies. What do you think about all of this?”
  Climate efforts
• “Today we're talking about the Cop in Brazil. The EU, in its resolution, wants $1.3 trillion that should be paid from industrialised countries to developing countries. And I'd like to mention one aspect I'm actually going to be deviating from my text for the sake of the interpreters. I will be talking about the fact that CO2 is not a toxic gas. In fact, it's actually making the Earth measurably greener. It is increasing, according to satellite data, The leaf area index, which is something that we are supposed to be referring to and using in our measurements, professor Ranga minin. Showed this in a study called The Greening of the Earth and its causes that was published in Nature Climate Change, which is one of the world renown climate science journals. In this study, she talks about the fact that every year leaf area has grown, is growing at a rate of 300,000km² a year. That's as big as the country of Poland. Crop yields are up for rice, grain, vegetables and fruit, and that is a rise of 15% since 1980. The reason for this is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's the called the CO2 fertilization effect. What that means is we have more food, we have less hunger, we have better growing plants and more lives. That also applies to developing countries. So I ask you, how do we actually justify to the people of Europe that they should pay for something, that they should pay to fight something that is actually making our country or our planet greener? We shouldn't turn CO2 into a whipping boy. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “45:47 – 09:47:50): You i'm going to speak german thank you chairman it's irresponsible intervention in the market the quantities prices and certificate rules are constantly being tinkered with this is not a free market it's a political c o two tax despite the fact that we have no tax raising companies in the eu germany since twenty twenty one has a tax heating oil a tax on gas and a tax on fuel and from twenty twenty eight this is exactly what's going to be replicated in europe german industry and consumers already have borne a serious burden and this is simply going to take an additional toll on artisans and industry more and more people are in fuel poverty fuel debt because of the cost of living crisis according to the statistics from the federal authorities in twenty twenty four some four million people were in fuel poverty and couldn't pay their bills that's one out of every twenty citizens this surely can't be your intention your intention can't be to impose such an additional burden on every single citizen of the eu from twenty twenty eight onwards with a bit of slight of hand with the rules the logical consequence is not just more tinkering with the market reserve the logical consequence is a total abolition of the ets it won't have any measurable quantifiable impact on the climate anyway what else needs to happen before you realize that the e ets is an abject failure and you stop simply raiding the pockets of our citizens thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “I'll be speaking German. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Mr. Séjourné. In the case of the combustion engine. Europe was strong engines, transmission, software development, all of that was rooted in Europe for decades, and we were in the lead across the world. And that means that value creation was here, profit was here, salaries were paid here, and taxes were generated here. The combustion engine wasn't just an engine, it was an engine of prosperity for Europe. And it's exactly that engine of prosperity that you are destroying because there are fatal new problems that you are creating by forcing us to go for e vehicles. In the case of E vehicles, the most important and the most expensive part, the battery is not in European control. China controls the majority of battery production, 80% is produced by China. And even if we were to have batteries in Europe, we would continue to be dependent because we import 100% of our lithium. That basically means that we can build factories in Europe. But if raw materials, precursors and key materials come from China. It's expensive and dangerous. In addition to that, there are magnets for those. We use rare earth metals such as neodymium. And again, the situation is critical. China controls 60% of the global extraction of these rare earth materials. They control 91% of the processing and 94% of permanent magnet production. This is something that you are ignoring, and it's a dangerous situation. If China were to stop the export or restrict the export of batteries and these raw materials and magnets, then it's not just one bit that's missing.”
  Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “Is the European Union looking to roll out the red carpet for the pharmaceutical industry here. We're talking about public health risks in a Europe affected by global warming. Now on the news in Germany, we had breaking news in southern Europe. A growing number of localized outbreaks of tropical diseases, mosquito borne diseases, dengue, Zika, malaria, chikungunya. And this was drifting northward down to climate change and the Asian tiger mosquito. And then at the end of this newspaper article, there was a suspiciously detailed table setting out appropriate vaccines, according to the Ecdc. It is true that in 2024, there were 304 dengue cases in Europe, 20 2527 cases of chikungunya not linked to travel or migrants. But most people don't experience any symptoms. Only a few suffered from fever. So why are we talking about this? To justify the enormous spending on climate policies or to drive the business model of pharmaceutical companies. Germany needs the AfD and Europe needs ESM.”
  Vaccination
• “Good morning. In order to prevent a life threatening temperature rise, as we've been told, the EU has focused on a ban on fossil fuels by 2050. This is to be reduced to zero. Millions of gas and oil heaters and cars with combustion engines would have to be scrapped. Many citizens can't afford new cars and industry will be driven out of the EU. Now, the fact that this climate policy could be could cause a temperature rise as a side effect has hardly been mentioned in the climate debate. Fossil fuel combustion creates tiny particles called aerosols. Cloud droplets develop around them, and many clouds have a cooling effect on the climate because they block the direct radiation from the sun. In 2024, in the journal communications, Earth and Environment, a study was published. It looked at the far ranging consequences of the IMO 2020 regulation. This regulation reduced the maximum sulphur content of shipping fuels by 80%, and this did indeed have a positive impact on air quality. However, sulfur dioxide emissions from shipping fell spontaneously in 2020 by 80%. This led to a reduction in sulfate aerosols. The result was fewer and thinner clouds, meaning that more solar radiation reached the Earth's surface. According to the study, this increased solar radiation was responsible for a significant proportion of the temperature rise, which has been measured since 2020. Now my question given this research, should we not reconsider all of the radical measures to ban fossil fuels? And do you not think that global warming could also have many positive consequences?”
  Fossil fuels
• “So it's. Since 2020 taxonomy has established the particular guideline for investments. They have to be analyzed and transparent if they meet the six points or not. Climate change Um, adjustment to climate change, sustainable use of water and water resources. Circular economy. Avoiding any sort of pollution. Protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. Investments would be upon these particular criteria evaluated. Simplification is a good idea and necessary, but it doesn't change with taxonomy because the financial flows in the direction of certain investments and green technologies. It's it may be that the major financiers of all of this profit. On the other hand, however, businesses are under pressure in order to support this transformation and this leads to worse conditions. The president of barfing. Branson has criticized taxonomy, and he said that there's good intended regulation that fails to meet the targets and leads to a cul de sac that you can't get out of. So with this regulation, we we have much more, which is provided to consultant companies. They reap profits from all of this. But what we need is simplifications. And I think the reasons for this have already been mentioned. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “So thank you very much for the presentation on the Ecodesign regulation for sustainable products. Of course, it's very important that products be produced so that they are easy to repair so that the resources can be better recycled, and so on and so forth, and so that the products have a long life as well, and can be easily repaired if they break down. This saves citizens cost wise. And but there's the major but the new digital products. Uh, of course. Um, this is and this creates a huge bureaucratic monster with numerous different, uh, requests for registration for application. We have 120,000 jobs have been lost in industry in the numerous different sectors as well because of digitalization. So we have to look at this issue very seriously. And my question thus is how can one. 91. With these processed. Uh, this this new, uh, this entire issue, when we look at it as far as competitiveness and protection of jobs, what sort of reverberations exist? Of course. New jobs, uh, innovation, uh, what sort of reverberations, what sort of consequences these have in the labor market as well? What can we do in order for, uh, in order to make sure that we don't have, uh, additional undertakings simply going bankrupt and jobs lost as a result? Thank you.”
  Sustainable corporate governance
• “59:23 – 11:00:35): I'll be speaking German. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. Let's be completely honest: the EU ETS is also often presented as a success story. However, for many citizens and companies in Europe, it feels completely differently. The ETS has actually become a gigantic redistribution mechanism. It makes energy more expensive. It makes production costs more expensive, and it destroys our industries in the global competition. While European companies have to deal with higher CO2 prices, production is simply displaced outside of Europe, places with lower environmental standards. The result of the system is not less emissions but actually more global emissions, and you've been ignoring that for years. The member states are earning millions in revenue from the auctions, and that has to end.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “The climate intensity as a result of this is overestimated. Solar power and its extension should not allow it to be regarded with an uncritical eye. The International Energy Agency points out that the so-called green energy technologies lead to much higher use of minerals and commodities. An onshore wind park, according to the IEA, needs nine times as many mineral resources As related to a gas power station of the same power. That means more mining, more problems over land, more dependent dependency on energy chains. If you want to give up fossil fuels out of hand, you disregard the fact that we're not just looking at a climate issue, but we're also looking at a question of welfare, security, supply, industrial policy and geopolitical resilience. A policy which at the same time is getting rid of domestic sources of energy, yet at the same time is making itself more dependent on the import of rare metals is not just unwise, it is silly. Is there a possibility to have a sensible and accountable fossil fuel policy while trying to push for a transition away from fossil fuels because of the economic dependency and the material dependencies that are being generated are being systematically ignored.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “There are penalties to be paid by the car manufacturers, because CO2 emission targets per kilometre, per kilometre have been brought down. And these penalties and the fact that jobs are being lost is something. That will destroy the car industry before your flanking measures kick in and before that transition occurs. So there's a real need to act. And I would ask you once again to take a position on this. What can you do concretely now for the car industry? And are you willing to do away with the penalty payments? On these fines and penalties, we've already taken a decision. We allow for greater flexibility. We don't want fines to be imposed on car manufacturers that are facing a difficult situation. In fact, we're looking at subsidies to try and help them. So there is this paradox on the one hand to to ask them to pay fines and then at the same time to look for financing so that jobs can be kept and production can be kept. So we've taken that decision this year. We'll continue to do so for next years if necessary. But the figures seem to indicate that for the next year there is no need to do this. There are historic levels of vehicle sales over the past few months that will continue over the next months, and the purchase of any vehicle, be it a second hand vehicle or or a new vehicle, is becoming more and more profitable given the geopolitical context. So we're fairly confident that car manufacturers will be in a position to sell enough vehicles to meet the targets that we have set collectively. Now, if there is a need for further flexibility, we'll make sure it is available. We always have. We want to flank industrial the industrial transition, but not by getting rid of jobs or closing factories.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The New Deal for pollinators is the next instance of centralist madness from Brussels. The same commission that's heaping regulation upon regulation on farmers is destroying huge quantities of insects with their own energy transition. Wind turbines kill 40 million insects every year, and we've got 280,000 of those in the European Union. So if you do the math, we're talking about 9 billion insects being killed. Before we see new regulations coming from Brussels. The commission should reappraise their own mistakes. The New Deal for pollinators is quite simply another example of excessive bureaucracy that overrules national sovereignty. Instead, we're supposed to have a EU surveillance system that's very expensive with no benefit for insects, and at the same time, we just want to we simply want to halve the use of pesticides. Luckily, we backpedaled on that. Regional differences aren't being taken into account. Food security hasn't been taken into account. This needs to be stopped. This is why Germany needs the AfD and Europe needs the ESM.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “And thank you very much, chair. And thank you, Commissioner. The taxonomy regulation is an instrument of torture for businesses. Investments are imposed in such a manner that harms the industry. Whole range of industries as well as finance and insurances are being affected. A great job there by the commission. Really. All of this needs to be analysed. We must be transparent about how useless this are when it comes to the climate, and to what extent they propel the Green Deal. This is just a top down approach. A study showed that all businesses had to invest Euros on average. And the benefits were €14,000. So this is really the best way forward if you want to destroy the U.S economy. And those who are not able to align themselves, have worse conditions for credit, or simply have no access to funds, again, the commission is barking up the completely wrong tree. This simply cannot be implemented. We need to stop this kind of imposition. We need to do away with it. So my question the trickle down effect. Will affect the entire supply chain. So how do you assess this?”
  Green Taxonomy
• “(15:06:49 – 15:06:50): Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, when it comes to this combustion engine ban, I think we're seeing a lot of cheating. First trick, electric cars are simply declared to be clean. They emit zero grams of CO2, but there is no zero emission mode of transport. In case of e-cars, it comes from electricity generation. In Germany, where you're talking about 70 grams per kilometer. So what right did you, the commission, have to demand zero grams for combustion engine cars? Second trick, combustion engines will be allowed to emit 11 grams, but only if they're made of green steel. But green steel in Europe has been a monumental failure. In Germany alone, they've been subsidized up to €7,000,000,000. And what then happened? For example, ArcelorMittal, one of the world's largest steel companies, returned €1,300,000,000 and isn't building anything, isn't building any facilities. ThyssenKrupp is stopping its biggest project because the green hydrogen it would have needed is just too expensive. Another large producer from Germany is also postponing indefinitely its projects for green steel. So we're talking about the largest companies in the sector here, and they're withdrawing at the same time. So you won't be able to impose green steel on the car industry. Industry cannot produce it even with these huge billions of euros of subsidies. It's a plan. It's not a plan. It's just another nail in the coffin of our car industry. Even the current limit of 93.6 grams, car manufacturers in the EU have to pay penalties of €15,000,000,000 per year. The ESN, therefore, would urge the following. We need to delete all further mitigation levels. We need to do this immediately and unconditionally. End your shameful war against the car industry. Explore the scientific evidence on carbon dioxide. You're fighting a vital natural gas, which is useful for life on this planet. Reinstate our car industry's rights to exist and in so doing, give back cars and jobs to our citizens. And then I have a very decisive question for you. So could you listen to this? You said that electric cars can be emission free with just a stroke of the pen even though they cause around 70 grams per kilometer in Germany. We've been promised an honest life cycle assessment, would provide real disclosure. We were promised this in 2023. I'm supposed to have been available at the end of last year. Well, at the very latest, it was supposed to be available at the end of 2025. So I think we should all make sure that this life cycle assessment is actually finally presented by the commission and provided to us. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “45:47 – 09:47:50): You i'm going to speak german thank you chairman it's irresponsible intervention in the market the quantities prices and certificate rules are constantly being tinkered with this is not a free market it's a political c o two tax despite the fact that we have no tax raising companies in the eu germany since twenty twenty one has a tax heating oil a tax on gas and a tax on fuel and from twenty twenty eight this is exactly what's going to be replicated in europe german industry and consumers already have borne a serious burden and this is simply going to take an additional toll on artisans and industry more and more people are in fuel poverty fuel debt because of the cost of living crisis according to the statistics from the federal authorities in twenty twenty four some four million people were in fuel poverty and couldn't pay their bills that's one out of every twenty citizens this surely can't be your intention your intention can't be to impose such an additional burden on every single citizen of the eu from twenty twenty eight onwards with a bit of slight of hand with the rules the logical consequence is not just more tinkering with the market reserve the logical consequence is a total abolition of the ets it won't have any measurable quantifiable impact on the climate anyway what else needs to happen before you realize that the e ets is an abject failure and you stop simply raiding the pockets of our citizens thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “59:23 – 11:00:35): I'll be speaking German. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. Let's be completely honest: the EU ETS is also often presented as a success story. However, for many citizens and companies in Europe, it feels completely differently. The ETS has actually become a gigantic redistribution mechanism. It makes energy more expensive. It makes production costs more expensive, and it destroys our industries in the global competition. While European companies have to deal with higher CO2 prices, production is simply displaced outside of Europe, places with lower environmental standards. The result of the system is not less emissions but actually more global emissions, and you've been ignoring that for years. The member states are earning millions in revenue from the auctions, and that has to end.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you chairman. Well, thank you very much. Mr.. For your well considered report on the Commission's proposal. The Commission is proposing reducing CO2 emissions by 90% by the year 2040. This proposal absolutely has to be rejected for several reasons. Subsequent to the establishment of the 2030 goals, the massive fit for 50 legislative package was proposed. Most of the laws in that package haven't yet been fully implemented. Here I'm talking about, for example, C-band, the CO2 fleet limit values, and ETS two. As of 2027, ETS two will increase the cost of fuel and heating for our citizens to unbearable levels. And now we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions even faster and adopting more legislation, according to a study from the German Chamber of Industry and Trade. Additional trillions in investment will be necessary. What for? Co2 is not a harmful substance. In July, the head of the American Environmental Authority rescinded the endangerment finding relating to CO2. It's actually quite the opposite. All life, including human life, is dependent on CO2. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere mean that the Earth is greener every year, and harvests are improving massively. We also don't have scientific evidence showing the extent to which human emissions are contributing to global warming. Basically, irrational policies have got completely out of hand.”
  Climate efforts
• “I'll speak German. Thank you chair. Thank you. Minister. The planned International conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta is being sold as progress. But in this form, I consider it to be a political mistake, because the fundamental mistake in this debate is a black and white approach. Fossil fuels are considered across the board as being bad. Wind farms, solar panels are across the board good. It is not that simple. In reality, however, there is a real CO2 manure effect. Nasa refers to satellite data that says that a considerable amount of greening across the globe can be explained by CO2 based fertilizers. Co2 is being considered one of the most important drivers of observed greening across the planet. That is a real phenomenon and should be considered part of reality. And we we've seen an increase in harvest by 16%. Fossil fuels have a clear advantage. This conference underestimates them again and again. They are storable. They are transportable. They can help maintain a base load. And. In highly developed Economics. Economies. They are technically integrated. Moreover, their classic solutions can be reduced with technical approaches. S0 two. N0 and and particulate matter can be filtered out and captured. Co2 is not a problem necessarily.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Rapporteur Commission. Thank you. The planned expansion of sebum. Will now include 180 further products. This isn't a mere detail. This is a major intervention in world trade. That means there are major risks associated for our industry. One. Legally speaking, we're on shaky ground. Is sebum in lines with WTO rules that hasn't been concluded once and for all? And yet we're already expanding the system as if this legal uncertainty didn't exist. That is reckless in political terms. And I want you to note that. Two. The burden on our companies continues to grow. Imports are going up in price and supply chains are under more and more pressure. And our are companies that export will have to continue to pay CO2 costs as part of the ETS system, so they're increasingly less competitive on the world market. We wanted to solve this problem instead of exacerbating it, and I hope that you acknowledge that too. Three C income is going to be redistributed and that is questionable. We've already heard the figures from other colleagues, 75% going directly into the EU budget, only 25% going to the member states. This isn't a climate protection instrument.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “I'll be speaking in German. Mrs. Ribeira, in the European Commission, you're responsible for the competitiveness of our economy and also responsible for the automotive industry. Every single month we hear some new catastrophic news from this key sector you're talking about. Um, forced extra production line for electric cars, unattainable CO2 limits. Um, penalties. It seems the EU has put in place a political requirements that have very little to do with the reality. We have seen a real um disruption between supply and demand, profitability and efficiency. There have been very serious consequences. Volkswagen have seen their profits drop by 44% and Porsche by over 90%. And what is the commission proposing? A and a car package which has just the most minimal um changes, but at the same time puts in place new, uh, very tough targets. Green steel from the EU e-fuels and biofuels as prerequisites for combustion engines. And none of this is really something that manufacturers can control. When you have a regulation that's, uh, destroying a whole sector, it's not enough to make minor tweaks. You have to get rid of it all together. The passenger car CO2 regulation was a real mistake. So my question is, how are you going to bring back competitiveness to the European automotive industry? What tangible measures will you be taking? Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “I have a question to the European Environment Agency. The health but also the freedom of citizens is a valued is a very valuable asset. And so that's why it's very concerning how we deal with data. On the 24th of November 2023, you published a document, Current Death Cases in Europe. And do you said that in 2021, 350,000 cases of deaths were there because of high levels of fine dust particles? So how are you going to take into account the situation for people who live with a lower level of living standards because of these particles and also the living standards of people, the living, the walking, the drinking water conditions. Et cetera, et cetera. All of these influence factors are very complex. And so we need to have clear data on the death cases of these fine particles. These studies, which we can't 100% trust, do have an influence on the air quality regulations as well as other regulations. And so that's why I am asking a question about this point. Thank you.”
  Air quality policy
• “I'll be speaking German. Thank you chair. Thank you, Doctor Kritz as well. If we see that there are manipulated studies and large level compensation being paid out when there is a problem with a substance causing cancer, then this is not acceptable. I'm asking about glyphosate here. What sort of standards do you have in research for glyphosate and Efsa in the US? The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal that would affect for 10,000 opening open claims against Bayer and Monsanto, and is incredibly important. In Missouri, a court has already approved a million worth of compensation because there's no warning label on roundup saying that there's a risk of cancer at the same time, because of Bayer being taken over by Monsanto, there are more than $10 million worth of compensation that are outstanding and $6 million that it is being asked to pay. This is not trivial. It is a resounding alarm. More worrying, there's a study that said that glyphosate is not a problem, and this had been influenced by Monsanto and has been withdrawn. Now there was a reproach that certain companies were involved in drafting the studies, while other scientists had their names put on the research when they hadn't been involved.”
  Glyphosate
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, madam McGuinness. Since the 1940s, the industries have been producing PFAS. These Peethas, as we all know, make people seriously ill. They cause great suffering and cause humanitarian catastrophes. Back in 1970, so over 50 years ago, major companies such as DuPont and GM already knew that P-fas were highly toxic. But they kept this these resorts quiet. There are clear, as clear proof for this, which was found in internal documents of those companies. These companies have also purposely suppressed results of research and purposely distorted public discourse. They used the same methods that the cigarette industry used to use in order to ensure their own profits. This is a clear scandal. P-fas are still being used even in the so-called green energy transition. So in solar plants and batteries, heat pumps, wind turbine, wind turbine, wind plants are contained in all of these and get into the environment. And nobody is talking about this, not even here in this committee. So what about this frequently invoked sustainability? I would also like to highlight that we have tried and tested alternatives for our energy construction, energy production and heat production. So these are nuclear gas and coal power stations. Yes they emit CO2. And then that causes our plants to grow more. So more CO2 is provably better than less CO2 for both plants and people. So my question for you is how do you justify the authorization of PFAS in key components of the energy transition, even though the health risks are known and what you're doing concretely in order to end this scandal, which began in the 1940s. It is unacceptable that one of the most dangerous chemical classes continues to be spread unchecked.”
  PFAs
• “Is very important to each of our citizens. So I'd like to refer particularly to article two of the Water Resilience Strategy. You talk about a water smart economy that will also be attractive for investors from the ES. And we see this as an attack on the democratic right of citizens to decide on their water. The EU seems to always want to put the profit interests of large multinational companies financial funds first, at the cost of citizens and the security of supply and democratic controls. If you, as you write, want to have investor attractiveness in one of your guidelines, this I can only see as being damaging in private partnerships. In 2012, one of the first successful European citizens initiatives, the right to water, was against this type of privatization of our water supply. Water is a human right. It's not a good to be speculated with, and there were 1.8 million signatures on this citizens initiative from all across the EU, and at the time this helped to block the privatisation of the water supply. But unfortunately we are seeing a repeat of what millions of Europeans had successfully protested against. I think it's really quite shameful. London, Paris, Air Berlin have all had disastrous experiences with this type of privatisation. Perhaps I can tell you a bit more about the situation in Berlin in 1999, about half of the water supply was sold off. There was an enormous price increase of around 60%, and it really hit the citizens. There were increases in bills and investors were paid out millions, all at the cost of citizens in 2013. The whole thing had to be rolled back, and that cost the citizens of Berlin 1.3 billion. So do we want these types of circumstances to be repeated all across Europe? Water should not be in private hands. This is not something for financial investors to get into. It's not a good to be speculated on. I don't know how, based on these experiences, you can once again encourage private investors to be involved in the water sector. Thank you.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you very much for the presentation. So today we are discussing the carbon border adjustment mechanism, also known as Cbam. It is now to be simplified because once again, the effects are disastrous for businesses and people in the EU. So what is Cbam actually about? All importers of steel, iron, cement, aluminium, electricity, fertilisers and hydrogen from non-EU countries are affected by the system. Our importers are supposed to pay for the CO2 emissions generated by production in other EU countries. And yes, that's how far we've come that our companies now have to pay for CO2 emissions in other EU countries, non EU countries. On top of that, they will also have to prepare precise calculations and reports on CO2 emissions of foreign suppliers. And that's expensive as well as complex. Our companies face heavy fines and the loss of the right to import any of these goods if they do not comply with Cbam. So Cbam is simply going to make everything more expensive. It's going to further fuel inflation and further erode international competitiveness. Small companies simply cannot meet these requirements before the Cbam is even fully implemented. It is now to be fundamentally changed. Now only importers of over 50 tonnes per year will be affected. The calculations and the reporting are to be simplified. The start of payment for foreign CO2 emissions is to be postponed by a year, and all of this is a step in the right direction. But the only right step would be to completely abolish Cbam along with the entire Green Deal. So my question to you is the following. Cbam has not yet been fully implemented and needs to be fundamentally changed. Apparently, no scientifically independent follow up analyses and risk assessments have been carried out in advance. So has this been done now? And if so, what are the precise findings of such studies?”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. I'm very happy to have an opportunity to discuss this with you, Commissioner Rothfeld. It's taking place at a time when the commission has finally acknowledged that over the next few years. Together, we will need to do our utmost to restore competitiveness of the European economy. It's no use to anybody if people lose their jobs in the EU because the conditions do not allow for competitive production in the EU. Now, a core problem of the circular economy is that recycled materials do not have customers after the process of collection and processing. This is partly because of the cost of primary raw materials are simply less expensive. It's partly an availability issue if there aren't reliable quantities of the necessary, um, necessary supply. And it's also partly a quality issue if when it comes to plastics, there is significant pollution from the processed materials, we need to deal with these issues because separate collection and processing plants do not make sense if there is no demand for these materials later. It makes sense to stabilize demand so that. We don't see a rise in prices because of production and production and final products. Stabilizing demand for recycled materials was targeted in the past through the use of quotas, but these quotas were set without taking into consideration the effects on prices and costs, and is not in line with market based demand. And we've seen these quotas in other areas, such as plastics and vehicles. These are two sectors where we're almost desperately trying to maintain industrial jobs. We've seen increases in the cost of production here, which are unique in the world. What can you do to stop the rules on the circular economy from hampering the competitiveness of our industry? Thank you.”
  Circular economy
• “Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you very much, Mr. Sigourney. Now, the green deal, with all its rules and fines, destroyed things. And now the new clean industrial deal is supposed to fix them. As Commissioner, you now have the task of restoring productivity, innovation and competitiveness. Now, it's remarkable that the commission is still sticking to its crazy goals for decarbonising our industry. What else needs to happen for you to finally stop with this madness? Yes, there are fluctuations in the climate, but CO2 is not primarily responsible for current warming, and about half of CO2 is absorbed by natural sinks in Germany. We are currently currently experiencing a dangerous industrial decline that you, as the Commission, have caused with your Green Deal. Even in the circular economy in Germany, companies are going bankrupt in droves. For a long time, Germany was the world champion of recycling. And now in Germany, with the economic conditions that you have created with the Green Deal, we can no longer cope. The circular economy is energy intensive, especially when it comes to melting down metals, glass and plastics. Operating costs have risen so much that even our SMEs, which are important for sustainability and the environment, are now falling victim to your green agenda. But the ever increasing recycling rates for packaging electrical appliances and plastics, for example, are also causing problems because not all material can be recycled. The Essen Group welcomes a move towards a circular economy, wherever this is possible. But the Commission must recognise that the Green Deal is destroying competitiveness and, as a result, innovation and ultimately businesses themselves. My question how do you intend to stop these developments in the circular economy in specific terms? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “We're talking about 13 million jobs in the automotive sector. They're very much at risk, uh due to this regulation that was first put in place in 2009 to try and reduce the emissions. If you want to improve competitiveness, you can't break this sector completely. There won't be any sector left. There are contradictions here in Germany, when you have e v vehicles, they're producing around 70g of CO2 per km. And the EU Commission is describing these as emissions free vehicles, which is, uh, it's just not true. This whole CO2 regulation is supposed to be there for the protection of the environment. Uh, saying that we have to be independent. We see that the justification is changing. But the fact is that E vehicles do also produce CO2 emissions, depending on what the energy mix in the particular country is. You, as the commission said, you would have a life cycle analysis looking at the emissions from a particular car so that we could have a real comparison between these types of vehicles. So when when we have this lifecycle analysis so we can clear up these contradictions. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. Now this report on the climate is full of dubious claims. It is a scandal. It is deceiving our citizens. And us as MEPs, is trying to sell the Commission's attempt to run the European Union into the ground, celebrating it as a success. In the preface, I'll cite from the first sentence, the EU has proven that we pursue ambitious climate change objectives and have been able to maintain our competitiveness and independence and bolster it. Well, nothing could be more wrong and nothing could be more misleading. What is the reality for citizens in Germany? Well, I think I'm be describing similar circumstances to our colleague from the left. Germans are losing their jobs, their incomes and their possessions. The German Railways is cutting 30,000 jobs. Zdf in the motor industry is cutting 14,000 thyssen-krupp. The steelmaker is cutting 11,000 jobs. Volkswagen, our main car manufacturer, is cutting 10,000 jobs. I could go on for another three pages. And this is from the second half, half of 2024. So on the whole, we are losing 157,000 high value jobs almost daily. We're getting reports of hundreds of more job losses. And in Europe Climate Report, you're celebrating a reduction of 2.4% of CO2 emissions, which are completely harmless. Of course you are destroying and dispossessing Europe. You are a danger for Europe. You are creating fears, selling fears that 2024 was the highest, the hottest summer. But what you're actually doing is cold heartedly pushing the plan for a great reset. You're pushing Europe into chaos. You're taking possessions from our citizens, and in exchange, you have increased your salaries eight times in three years. 22%. But in Germany, 4 million people can't pay their gas and electricity bills. They are freezing because their gas and electricity is being cut off. They are freezing in their in their apartments without heat and gas and electricity. This is inhumane. You are causing great human suffering and this is what's missing from your report. You are pushing Europe into chaos and this crime is one that you are responsible for.”
  Climate efforts
• “Germany is losing its energy intensive industries and is therefore losing jobs, Innovation and its future. According to the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Germany, gas prices are seven times and electricity prices up to five times higher than other competing countries. Over half of large businesses are thinking in relocating. And that's not just a German problem. It's a European disaster in slow motion. Now, the real causes aren't being dealt with by the commission because basically it's down to the Green Deal. Emissions trading bureaucracy, forced decarbonisation and the exaggerated extension of renewable energies. This is forcing industry to its knees. And why is Ursula von der Leyen doing that? And now she wants to use 100 billion of European taxpayers money to repair what she herself destroyed. Ursula von der Leyen and the commission are not the fire service. They're the arsonists. The Green Deal was doomed to failure right from the start. We need to do away with the Green Deal. We need genuine environmental protection and our businesses need their freedom back. Otherwise, the European Union is going down. Germany needs the AfD. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. For the next MFF 2028 2024 is proposing five new sources of income and first of all, from the ETS one and two systems is forecast that €0.6 billion will come in each year. Secondly, income from the the cbam around €1.4 billion per year. Thirdly, for non collected electrical scrap material that will be over 5 billion per year and for a percentage of tax around €15 billion per year. That's from tobacco tax and five tax on large companies which would be €7 billion per year. This is €48 billion per year in total in terms of new income sources. And in doing so Unlawfully. The EU is becoming a tax state. This is a huge scandal and the ESA is S.N. is raising the alarm. The EU wants to start levying its own taxes. But in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, it is clear that is no competence for levying taxes for the EU. My question is how do you justify these new sources of income? These plans show that the Commission is infringing the treaties and is wanting to burden the citizens who have to pay every single euro of these new income sources. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Thank you madam. The report is not only a call for preparedness for war, but also a road map for a shift of. Could you speak somewhat louder? Says the chair. And also somewhat slower. Say the interpreters. Thank you. The Minister report is not only a call for war preparedness, but also a roadmap for comprehensive armament, and it is also a shift of power to Brussels. Europe is apparently being prepared for constant war preparedness, and the Commission is making use of this report in order to continue to centralise the EU with massive calls for funds, military funds and, uh, control on a national crisis. Mechanisms. More than 20% of the EU budget in the future is to go into crisis structures. That's €240 billion. My question is, where is that money to come from, and what is it going to be taken away from? There are going to be new funds, uh, interference in the cohesion funds and military funds are to go via the European Investment Bank. That was never possible in the past. This is not preparedness. This is a bureaucratic shadow budget for preparedness, for war. Crisis preparedness is a national task. Uh, responsibility should go back to member states where they can be controlled democratically.”
  EU competences on defence
• “(16:05:35 – 16:08:17): Thank you, chair. Thank you also to the commission. Thanks for your presentation. This is the umpteenth time that we're talking about the deforestation regulation. It's been postponed twice because it wasn't implementable. It requires those who produce coffee, cocoa, palm oil, beef, wood, soya, and rubber to prove that no tree has been uprooted from cropland since 2020. EU farms affected by the dev deforestation regulation have been waiting for real simplification, but they are seriously disappointed. Forest associations have long been calling for them to be allowed to submit 1 collective due diligence statement for all members, but the commissioner allows this if the association buys, harvests, and sells the wood itself. But that's not what happens in reality. Making simplification subject to these unachievable conditions really isn't simplifying things. Their expectations, I think, have been rejected. On geo georeferencing, instead of GPS coordinates, I think a postal address should suffice, but only, if the business address is in the forest. However, that's not the case for the vast majority of forest owners. For the majority, this simplification, again, is just not working. Farmers are also dissatisfied. This regulation is a periodic vote of no confidence in our own farmers. For decades, large parts of Europe have not seen any deforestation, but they've seen growth in forest. Nevertheless, Brussels is overlooking these local family farms, requiring them, to provide spatial data down to the individual plot. So we would say we need a real 0 risk category for regions with no deforestation problem. Secondly, full exemption of due diligence statements, georeferencing, and reporting obligations in demonstrably diff deforestation free areas. Thirdly, we need genuine collective declarations by the associations. 4th, risk rating on a scientific basis with annually updated error free maps. So ladies and gentlemen, this regulation aims at saving trees, but it's suffocating as it stands. Those who've been caring for our forest for generations. The best thing we could do is just to fully eliminate the whole regulation. And let's also commit to I that would be the best thing to do. And last thing we should do is commit to stop felling trees to make space for wind turbines.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Roswell. The deforestation regulation affects around the world all of our providers of timber, coffee, cocoa, beef, rubber, soy and palm oil. They had to be postponed on one occasion because it was too complicated, too bureaucratic. And now it seems that the best IT systems cannot cope with the burden of this level of information required. And now we're seeing a new proposal where only the company which brings the product, the places, the product on the market first in the EU that has to provide a due diligence statement. But the downstream traders don't have to. And this reference number being passed on is just ridiculous in a container of timber that's imported into the EU. There are about 35 different providers or suppliers who've put that wood in there. So according to this proposal, you have to have 35 different reference numbers on your docket. Then the timber goes to the wholesalers. Then you've got maybe five other importers who have their timber there. When you sell that on, you're going to have 175 reference numbers on your docket at the next stage. When you get to the processing in a joinery or sawmill where the wood is sawed up further, then you're suddenly looking at 700 reference numbers on the docket.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “And you bring medical expertise to that role under your presidency. You intend to have a patient based approach, not a farmer based approach. You want to deal with circulation and heart issues. So since the mRNA gene therapy vaccines, there have been many people who have suddenly died from heart problems and that has shot up. What's striking is that after the administration of mRNA gene therapy, young people were particularly affected. Heart attacks in young people were an exception, were very rare. But William Markus, a Canadian doctor, says that since 2023 there have been 6000. Um, he has looked at 6000 unexpected deaths and all of them had been treated with mRNA therapy. Many of them were very young and they had not had a previous Covid infection, so it can't be linked to corona. This should set alarm bells ringing and we cannot ignore this state of affairs. Since then, it's become apparent that there is a link with mRNA therapy. There are spike proteins which go into heart muscle cells through lipids. The immune system thinks that they are infected and destroys them. Then there is scar tissue which builds up. This scar tissue does not repair itself. And then, uh, a message is sent to the brain saying that there is damage and this can then lead to a heart attack. Sir, we know from studies that mRNA technology is problematic. The protocols of the Robert Koch Institute, so that the governments, the government of Germany knew about these spoke proteins. These spoke proteins can lead to thrombosis, strokes and other issues. Officials and the government knew that MRI didn't protect us from infection, and the German population was encouraged and even put under pressure to allow themselves to be vaccinated. And they were told that corona was more dangerous than a normal flu. So a question to you mRNA medications, these gene therapies, these continue to be administered throughout Europe. What can you do in order to deal with these dangerous Mr. RNA, um, products? And how are you going to ensure that they are taken off of the market and are no longer manufactured.”
  Vaccination
• “So this undermines confidence in this science. And also it is behind what the what the Europeans should be doing in terms of legislation. And as has already been mentioned, these agrochemicals, which are given permanent approval, even though in June 24 long term study of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy had a study on rats which showed that there was a carcinogenic effect. And we've seen too many problems of mistakes being made and studies not having been looked at in greater enough detail. The protection of health and other aspects of being ignored for the sake of profit, and a red tape that prevents us from getting to the heart of the matter. So my question to Efsa is how does Efsa intend to develop its current view on glyphosate? How can it defend a credible view to the citizens when it ignores the studies that criticise glyphosate and the court cases that have ordered compensation because of it being a carcinogen? And what's going to happen to the demands, strong demands that we're putting to stop this.”
  Glyphosate
• “And these policies are causing social and economic damage. The new commission proposal should also be rejected because it's the result of horse trading between the Greens and the EPP. On the 5th of May, Lina Schilling said here in this committee that Ursula von der Leyen asked the green group on support for her re-election as commission president last year, the Greens made it subject to one key condition. You may well recall what Mrs. Schilling said here in this committee. The Greens condition was the introduction of a new binding intermediate target, a 90% CO2 reduction by 2040. In front of us all, Mrs. Schilling reminded Mr. Hoekstra that he had also asked the Greens for support to become commissioner, so he had to promise to implement this new immediate intermediate target as well. And in June, just one month later, the commission then presented this proposal that we're talking about today. Now, this intermediate target has nothing to do with serious and rational politics. It's the result of green horse trading. It's green ideology. And I therefore support the Patriots and Mr. Notke's report. The Commission proposal cannot be adopted. If it is, that would mean the definitive deindustrialisation of Europe, the end of our well-being, and it would lead to social conflict.”
  Climate efforts
• “Every single second in the EU. An image or a video of child sexual abuse is published online. Every single image means for one of our one of our children that they're affected for life, harmed, often traumatized. So it's quite correct that now a AI generated images of abuse and videos and grooming of children through the internet should now be covered by law and penalized. And we, as the PSN, explicitly support that. But what the Commission is planning beyond that in this context is going too far. Private messages, chats, even encrypted communication should automatically now be investigated for all citizens are right. Our fundamental right to data protection should not be truncated. Protection of our children should never become an excuse for an EU wide police state. The millions of euro, billions of euro for the planned surveillance should remain in member states and be used in prevention, protection and support for abused children. Germany needs the AfD and the European Union needs the ESM.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “No, it's key components that go missing for E vehicles. And our assembly lines will grind to a halt. This has happened in the past in spring of 2025. In fact, China put rare earths on export export control lists and in European car manufacturing, there was an exceptional situation, which is that our conveyor belts ground to a halt because the materials were not available. And basically you're still going for electrification of cars. And this is a political priorities. Now, in the commission, you will say all day long that Europe needs to move away from the imports of fossil fuels. But what are you doing? You are forcing our car industry into a new dependence from one country only, which is China. You talk about resilience, but you are creating vulnerability. You talk about independence, but you are creating a new dependence. You talk about transition, transition, de-industrialization, deindustrialization, and so on. But in the case of E-vehicles, we are losing control. The control that we had in the case of combustion engines. And that's why I'm asking you, how will you explain to citizens that the commission apparently wants to save our car manufacturing, but at the same time is forcing that same industry to become dependent on China, because e-vehicles is what you're going for.”
  Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “And I don't think that citizens, consumers know that they're consuming these types of insects and they don't know. Of course, the connections that might exist with any possible allergic reaction which they may display. Thus, I think it's very important, as Madame Sylvia Cardone mentioned to and as she called for, that we have clear labeling on the products that this is absolutely necessary. Madame Cardone also mentioned that this is totally alien to our culture. And of course the risks are there as well. So with this implementing regulation, indeed, I do feel that this objection that has been filed is a proper one and correct. And I wanted to point out to Mr. Lisette that or doctor Lee said that the permission of insects in the in food that this would be a form of support for the development of the economy, and that the permission which has been issued for Acheta domesticus. And I simply want to say that it's only one company that has been given the permission to produce this type of powder. So it's actually a kind of monopoly type situation. And I do feel very questionable. Thank you.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “It's more of a burden on companies and citizens. And I hope that you acknowledge that as well. Fourth, expanding cbam will be catastrophic for consumers. So now I talk to all consumers. Machinery costs, energy costs, housing costs, building costs. They'll all go up. And you, Dick, dear consumer, dear citizen, you will be affected. And that is completely irresponsible because poverty is spreading throughout the EU. How much longer can our industry endure this? How much longer will our citizens be able to deal with this price hike? And let me remind you that in this committee, we have calculated that only point naught point 0.01% of greenhouse gas emissions can be saved through this mechanism. And that's just 1 p.m., one part per million. And at the moment there are 420 parts per million in the atmosphere of CO2. And so we will be able to save one of these PM's if we stop polluting. So if we look at cbam, if we look at ETS, we are completely on the wrong path. These two mechanisms, these two systems should be repealed. What do you think, Miss Scorpio?”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you very much for the points on the new clean industrial deal. From the very beginning, the Green Deal has been economically damaging. The headlines have been very clear on this. However, yesterday we've learned that just that Audi in Germany has done away with 7500 jobs. And can you just imagine that 7500 jobs are lost? And can you imagine what this means for Germany? The warnings were clear. The Green Deal was very complex. It had many rules and this would destroy competitiveness of our companies. If companies were to actually implement all of these rules, it would just be impossible. Now we have the clean industrial deal to try and reduce this damage. So in a way, artificially €100 million will be proposed to once again create the conditions to, uh, finally allow our companies to once again grow and be competitive At the same time, we have climate neutrality goals by 2050, and you have a number of different climate regulations that are going to be maintained. So the clean industrial deal, in a way, is just repackaging the same old stuff and is going to not be in a position to reduce the economic decline in our countries. It's going to lead to a contraction of our economies, and it's not going to contribute to an economic renewal. In the past, curtailing the economic growth of a country has led to poverty, and that is why we must do away with the clean industrial deal. And we have to make sure that we take measures before our member States have completely been driven into ruin. Now, my question is, firstly, can you provide independent, reliable data impact assessment assessments and economic evaluations of the benefits of the clean industrial deal? Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to professor, skier or ski, as some people pronounce it. So, Mister Ski, when you became head of the IPCC, you set goals. You wanted to enhance the scientific, uh, solid nature of your work, and you wanted to have best available science, uh, and use it better for the sake of the climate. Your goals could provide hope for people. And we've seen this, that, that this wasn't the case in the past with the IPCC. There were publications of false results that tropical islands would disappear and that Himalayan glaciers. Glaciers would melt. Now, we've heard a quote saying about this IPCC, that popular narrative about climate change leads to a dangerous corruption of scientific leaders that affects the world economy and threatens billions of lives. False climate science has led to a huge pseudo science that just hits headlines. So it seems that the IPCC is still ignoring the natural reasons behind climate change, is that you haven't convinced people that we can. We just need to adjust the CO2 emissions. And this is the basis behind the billion dollar business that's come about because of this And the IPCC has rejected any independent appraisal of its work. A lack of transparency in how the authors are chosen and the publication. The science. So my question to you is, are you prepared to submit to an independent appraisal, scientific appraisal of your IPCC and say that it is not a scientific statement saying that the humans are responsible for climate change?”
  Climate efforts
• “The climate crisis has been debunked for years by insiders. Nevertheless. The EU has drafted this agreement, which is a slap in the face of our peoples. We are supposed to be transferring money to. Companies which invest in green technology. We're supposed to be going to 1.3 billion. This is for windmills and overseas and other people who are earning money. And our country is our countries are poor. Our citizens don't know how to pay the bills. So this is kamikaze. Germany needs AfD and Europe needs ESM.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “Thank you very much. Well, I can just echo what my previous speakers have said. And the ESM supports Miss Toussaint. Our beekeepers and our bee colonies are key for food safety, and we need to support them. Our beekeepers are under threat from adulterated honey, which is being imported en masse from China. And this is pushing down prices for very small businesses that are giving up. But we need them. This is a very dangerous development that we are seeing in the European Union. And it is therefore important to look at these things again, and I think it would be good to hear from the Commission why this threshold is being increased for these extreme pesticides. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “45:47 – 09:47:50): You i'm going to speak german thank you chairman it's irresponsible intervention in the market the quantities prices and certificate rules are constantly being tinkered with this is not a free market it's a political c o two tax despite the fact that we have no tax raising companies in the eu germany since twenty twenty one has a tax heating oil a tax on gas and a tax on fuel and from twenty twenty eight this is exactly what's going to be replicated in europe german industry and consumers already have borne a serious burden and this is simply going to take an additional toll on artisans and industry more and more people are in fuel poverty fuel debt because of the cost of living crisis according to the statistics from the federal authorities in twenty twenty four some four million people were in fuel poverty and couldn't pay their bills that's one out of every twenty citizens this surely can't be your intention your intention can't be to impose such an additional burden on every single citizen of the eu from twenty twenty eight onwards with a bit of slight of hand with the rules the logical consequence is not just more tinkering with the market reserve the logical consequence is a total abolition of the ets it won't have any measurable quantifiable impact on the climate anyway what else needs to happen before you realize that the e ets is an abject failure and you stop simply raiding the pockets of our citizens thank you”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. Chair. What's being put forward as so-called fighting disinformation here is actually just a front on attack, on freedom of expression, freedom of science and the truth itself on in the name of climate protection. The EU is destabilizing our economy, our energy supply, and is pushing our citizens who have CO2 emissions into poverty. But clearly that's not even enough. Now, anyone who is speaking out against climate dogma is going to be silenced in future. The EU Commission wants to define what can be said about the climate and what cannot in the media, on platforms and in schools. Biologists and scaled back proved in a study that CO2 values in the last 200 years fluctuated significantly, and in some cases were higher than they are today. These facts are being destroyed by your narrative about constantly increasing human driven CO2 increases, and have the potential to bring into question your Green Deal and your climate laws, which are really excessive. So shouldn't these do you think these studies should be forbidden in the future? My second example is the infamous study of John Cook, which says that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is overwhelmingly caused by humans. So this is another example of disinformation. If you look carefully at the data, the raw data, the 97% has no proof, and less than 1% of the studies looked at agree with this theory of overwhelmingly human driven climate change. In fact, it's only 0.58%. The rest was statistically distorted. And what is the commission doing instead of checking these fake studies? It's a simply write off serious scientific science as disinformation, and now seems to even want to curtail the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Are you so scared of people with different opinions that you're prepared to sacrifice fundamental rights? And my final question what is more dangerous disinformation or a commission which decides itself? What is the truth about the climate?”
  Climate efforts
• “Today we're talking about the Cop in Brazil. The EU, in its resolution, wants $1.3 trillion that should be paid from industrialised countries to developing countries. And I'd like to mention one aspect I'm actually going to be deviating from my text for the sake of the interpreters. I will be talking about the fact that CO2 is not a toxic gas. In fact, it's actually making the Earth measurably greener. It is increasing, according to satellite data, The leaf area index, which is something that we are supposed to be referring to and using in our measurements, professor Ranga minin. Showed this in a study called The Greening of the Earth and its causes that was published in Nature Climate Change, which is one of the world renown climate science journals. In this study, she talks about the fact that every year leaf area has grown, is growing at a rate of 300,000km² a year. That's as big as the country of Poland. Crop yields are up for rice, grain, vegetables and fruit, and that is a rise of 15% since 1980. The reason for this is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's the called the CO2 fertilization effect. What that means is we have more food, we have less hunger, we have better growing plants and more lives. That also applies to developing countries. So I ask you, how do we actually justify to the people of Europe that they should pay for something, that they should pay to fight something that is actually making our country or our planet greener? We shouldn't turn CO2 into a whipping boy. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Today we're discussing the commission's new chemicals package. The aim is to simplify rules and to spare companies from unnecessary bureaucracy. But why only now and not from the outset? Basf and Dow are reducing or cutting jobs in Germany. This simplification is coming too late. A whole industrial sector is leaving us and you caused that simplification. The simplification proposed here doesn't go far enough. The Essen welcomes the one substance, one assessment initiative. It will give us greater oversight. It will prevent work from being done twice over and give us data in one specific area. That should have been done earlier, though. The focus on early risk recognition as regards the impact of chemicals on peoples is something that we're also in favour of, but we have to have a reality check. The chemical industry is a sector in the EU that is of strategic importance. We depend on it. We also need to get rid of the emissions Trading Scheme and the certificate. Otherwise, we won't have any industry left at all. It's fine. It's time for Brussels not just to think about rules, but to think about jobs. That's why Europe needs the ESM and Germany needs the AfD.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. A very important issue. This is once again insects in food. Now the Acta domesticus powder appears in different bread products in its mixed with potato flour as well. It's harmless or indicated as harmless. And that's why I would like to say that. Indeed. Um, this particular insect powder causes a number of allergies. It's been proven and shown on numerous different occasions. Uh, like dust mites, the same type of allergy. And there are 6 million people in Germany right now with this particular allergy, approximately 30 million in the European Union could eventually be at risk because of the use of this particular powder. So there's a high risk indeed. A study from Spain from 2023 pointed out that the regular consumption of certain insects causes infertility of men and women. Also growth stunting, and a number of different other issues as well. In 2022, these particular types of insects, etc. domesticus were allowed in a freeze dried form and roasted form as well. They were allowed onto the market as well as buffalo worms and the yellow mealworm as well has been permitted. And these particular insects already appear in numerous different products. People eat them without realizing that they're eating them.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “Our car manufacturing industry is governed by CO2 emission levels that have been decided on here in the Parliament. And what is a dramatic situation. And we're talking about sort of 50 billion sort of sanctions. It doesn't make any sense. The EU regulations are the cause, and I think they need to be lifted straight away. Politically they don't make any sense at all. And I think we're seeing the consequences of that. But I think we need to see it the other way round as a commission on a result of EU regulations. One for by 2025, the long overdue measure for CO2 measurements throughout the life cycle of internal combustion engines has to be put forward as only that document that will give any information on the new vehicles compared with the combustion engines. Why are you not producing this information? I think that the Commission will be sanctioned if this report is not made available by the 31st of the 12th.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking German. The plastics recycling sector in Germany is currently in a very deep crisis. There are factories that have been closed, jobs are lost and investment is being stopped. Veolia is closing its plant in Bernburg in 122 jobs are effective affected. The AP ag had to declare bankruptcy in 2024 as well. Across Europe, around a million tonnes of recycling capacity has disappeared from the market since 2023, so this is not a coincidence. Recycling is often more expensive than creating new goods. We've talked about cheap imports as well, which are putting pressure on prices. Energy and financing costs are high as well, and there is ever further regulatory regulatory complexity. Businesses are not fighting against environmental goals, but rather against a market that's not functioning for various different reasons. Why is that the case? Well, it's because these political demands are dissatisfying. The the wait between supply and demand, there's ever greater bureaucracy. The. Competition is is not fair. And the result is that we're seeing. Cheaper production elsewhere. And so the value is moving away. And so given that the commission has announced a new pilot project. And so we know what that's going to lead to increased definitions and new proofs. And at the end even more regulation. That's the last thing that we need in the plastics recycling industry. What we need is market stabilization. My first proposal is consistent checks on imports. This is something that's been announced already that should happen. I also want less bureaucracy, quicker approvals and realistic, um, plans for the market in order to strengthen demand for recycled materials. A circular economy can come out of a functioning market, not through complexity. So why are you not stabilizing the market before rather than simply further regulating it?”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Europa. Parliament. Well, I've been a member of the European Parliament for a year now, and I'm watching as Ursula von der Leyen ruins Europe. I mean, we saw the Green Deal that isn't green, but deep red. These policies aren't based on the science. They are based on a kind of eco religion, a fanatic eco religion. Our energy supply, our environment, our industry, everything is being destroyed. All our citizens will be driven to poverty, into poverty. Businesses are relocating or shutting down. And what's the commission doing? Pouring more money into the abyss? €1 billion for the clean industrial deal. Another dubious and fake economic program. The Green Deal was a deindustrialisation diktat. The clean industrial deal is its immediate successor, Mrs. underlined. This is not industrial policy. This bears the fingerprints of the Great Reset. People who drive these things are simply sabotaging Europe. My question is when will there be a scientific analysis of the disastrous consequences of the Green Deal?”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking German. The plastics recycling sector in Germany is currently in a very deep crisis. There are factories that have been closed, jobs are lost and investment is being stopped. Veolia is closing its plant in Bernburg in 122 jobs are effective affected. The AP ag had to declare bankruptcy in 2024 as well. Across Europe, around a million tonnes of recycling capacity has disappeared from the market since 2023, so this is not a coincidence. Recycling is often more expensive than creating new goods. We've talked about cheap imports as well, which are putting pressure on prices. Energy and financing costs are high as well, and there is ever further regulatory regulatory complexity. Businesses are not fighting against environmental goals, but rather against a market that's not functioning for various different reasons. Why is that the case? Well, it's because these political demands are dissatisfying. The the wait between supply and demand, there's ever greater bureaucracy. The. Competition is is not fair. And the result is that we're seeing. Cheaper production elsewhere. And so the value is moving away. And so given that the commission has announced a new pilot project. And so we know what that's going to lead to increased definitions and new proofs. And at the end even more regulation. That's the last thing that we need in the plastics recycling industry. What we need is market stabilization. My first proposal is consistent checks on imports. This is something that's been announced already that should happen. I also want less bureaucracy, quicker approvals and realistic, um, plans for the market in order to strengthen demand for recycled materials. A circular economy can come out of a functioning market, not through complexity. So why are you not stabilizing the market before rather than simply further regulating it?”
  EU policy towards plastics
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Charabaty, for your report. In your report, you underscore the success of reducing CO2 emissions in the European Union. Over the past year, you're talking about 37% reduction vis a vis 1990. How do you explain the fact that at the same time, we're hearing reports that Europe is warming quicker than any other continent. And how would you appraise the situation if we were to reduce our emissions by 100%? Would that have an effect on the temperature in Europe and the temperature around the world? In the report you talk about a doubling of the. Extension of renewable energy sources. There's a request for that doubling to be achieved. How realistic is that when we're seeing less and less acceptance of these technologies? Because renewable energies, the more you extend them, the more it leads to a collapse, could lead to a collapse of the grid, and the probability is increasing. And blackouts would be would be a terrible experience for citizens. It costs the lives of people. It generates all sorts of problems in hospitals, in old people's homes, in the economy, in households, in the traffic. Um, so we have seen the most recent experiences with blackouts. So that can be the case. So how do you phrase that looking at the doubling of the use of renewable energies?”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “And finally, when it ends up in your DIY shop, then you're going to have a list of up to 7000 reference numbers on. It's not something I'm plucking out of the air. This is the timber trade in Germany who've been sounding the alarm and making people aware of what's going on. Of this ridiculous problem. So you're going to have these rows and rows of columns of numbers that nobody can figure out anymore. Every company is going to have to store these numbers, document them, pass them on. It's going to cost money. It's going to cost staff. It's going to cost time. It's not going to save a single tree. In fact, there's going to be additional forestry lost because of this waste of paper. So the timber trade is sounding the alarm, and rightly so, because this is a new form of bureaucracy, bureaucratic nonsense. This is a behemoth. And when the Commission is talking about competitiveness and cutting red tape, we're seeing exactly the opposite in this proposal. We see things very clearly. This for deforestation regulation needs to be abrogated.”
  Trade impact on forests