Sigrid FRIIS

Policy topics Sigrid FRIIS is active on

What Sigrid FRIIS has said (52)

• 2026-07-07 “(09:11:59 - 09:13:11): Morning. Morning. Let's start with some good news. June was an all time high for electric car sales in the EU. We are setting records as we speak. Across Europe, more and more people are choosing electric cars. They're getting better, cheaper, and more accessible. At the same time, let's be honest, high fossil fuel prices make the shift even more attractive. If we don't prioritize producing the electric vehicles for the European citizens, China seems more than ready to. Our European competitiveness, industrial strength, and jobs depend on accelerating that European transition, not hitting the brakes to slow it down. Yet some in this house want to reopen old debates or weaken the regulatory framework, the certainty that Europe and our European industry needs. They claim it will protect the European car industry, but in reality, it will do the opposite. It will mean less innovation, fewer investments, and an industry that falls even further behind China. We cannot secure the jobs of tomorrow with an industrial policy of the past. Europe will not help its workers by pretending the global market is standing still. We need to support you. We need to get be brave, give our company a clear, stable, ambitious framework.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2026-06-22 “(17:12:43 – 17:15:23): Thank you very much for the floor. And on behalf of Renu replacing Emma Wisner and myself also looking forward to the COP 31. I would like to start by saying that the co presidency's intention to set a global electrification target of 35% by 2035 is a great and very much needed signal at the global level. But it also raises a very important question for the EU and it should be a wake up call for us. If we want to lead on green transition and if we do not want to fall behind other global players, then we need the commission to come forward with an EU electrification target as soon as possible. Because we all know that electrification is 1 of the most concrete ways we can reduce fossil fuel dependency, we can lower emissions and we can strengthen European competitiveness. On fossil fuels, the discussions in Santa Martha and Colombia really highlighted a reality that has become impossible to ignore. Once again, we are facing the consequences of fossil fuel dependence with high and volatile energy prices affecting households, consumers, businesses. And the lesson should be clear, To avoid repeating these crises, we need a planned and accelerated phase out of fossil fuels. We need an EU action plan for the phase out of fossil fuels. And internationally, the EU should engage in a 1st movers coalition with like minded partners to secure stronger political commitments on fossil fuel phase out. This should also include the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. We need to address investment protection mechanisms such as ISDS, which risk locking countries into fossil energy investments and making the transition more difficult and more expensive. At the same time, climate action cannot slow down now. Just look at the weather over the past days. Are all struggling. I can see you struggling up there with the extreme heat. And climate change is not a distant threat. It's already affecting our daily lives. With the US government dismantling climate and environmental policies and actively spreading climate disinformation, the EU has an even greater responsibility to step up. We need stronger global action but also a robust post 2030 climate framework within our union. And finally, we need to restore the fate in the COP process. Symbolic statements cannot replace actual progress. The EU should coordinate much more closely with like minded partners and climate front runners to make sure that future cups deliver real results and restore face in climate action globally. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels · Climate policy
• 2026-06-17 “(15:20:08 – 15:20:50): Electrifying is not just about climate policy anymore. It's about security and it's about competitiveness. Every time we replace fossil fuels with green electricity, we reduce our own dependence on imported fossil fuels. We reduce our exposure to price shocks. We become less vulnerable to unstable energy prices. And electron by electron, we are making Europe stronger. But for this to happen, we need to stop working against ourselves. Do you really want to talk about the economic reality? The closing of the Hormong Street and following crisis and prices, we cannot keep spending public money on trying to make fossil fuels cheaper every time there's a crisis.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• 2026-06-17 “(15:20:51 – 15:21:33): We shouldn't be surprised that the electrification is moving too slowly. Every euro that we spent locking in fossil fuel dependence is a euro that we're not accelerating the green energy transition. We need to focus on investments in grids, in renewable power productions, in flexibilities, and in storage. That's why I really hope to see the electrification acting plan in a clear EU wide binding electrification target. Not 27 different speeds, not only good intentions, but a common direction for Europe. Because when Europe sets a clear direction, people and businesses have the confidence to move with it. Thank you very much, madam Mathieu.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2025-05-20 “E-002013/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is currently looking at the welfare of fur animals in the context of the European Citizens Initiative (ECI) ‘Fur Free Europe’ 1 , asking the Commission to take action to prohibit: (i) the keeping and killing of animals for the sole or main purpose of fur production; and (ii) the placement of farmed animal fur, and products containing such fur, on the EU market. The requirements of Directive 98/58/EC 2 will be considered in this context. The Commission adopted a Communication on the ECI 3 setting out its legal and political conclusions and actions it intends to take in response. 2. The Commission has planned to communicate, by March 2026, whether it considers appropriate to propose a prohibition, after a transition period, on the keeping in farms and killing of fur animals, including mink, or alternatively to adopt through EU legislation, appropriate standards suited to better address the welfare needs of such animals. Prohibition of or requirements for imports will also be considered. The primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing EU law lies with the Member States. Directives need to be transposed in Member States’ national legislation and the Commission assesses whether this process is complete and meets the objectives set by the Directive. The Commission is committed to strengthening the Member States’ proper application of the EU animal welfare legislation, as enforcement is a crucial element to ensure a high level of animal welfare. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue monitoring the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. 1 https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2022/000002_en. 2 OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23–27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/58/oj. 3 OJ C, C/2023/1559, 21.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1559/oj.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-05-12 “E-001407/2025 P-001870/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) activities financed under the EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 1 did not breach any legal framework, as also the recent audit of the European Court of Auditors ‘Transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs’ 2 confirmed. NGOs are free to implement their activities, including advocacy activities. The Commission has issued ‘Guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy’ 3 . The guidance clarifies the activities which should not be accepted by Commission departments as a requirement for EU financing - for instance lobbying activities towards Members of the EU institutions for a specific political purpose. The Commission's statement referred to by the Honourable Members was made in the context of concerns expressed by certain groups in the European Parliament about the operating grant agreements with NGOs under the LIFE programme, as a reassurance of its commitment to implement the guidance in the frame of the LIFE programme. The Commission has stated that it does not require NGOs benefiting from the LIFE programme to implement specific activities involving advocacy activities towards the EU institutions, that NGOs independently propose their work programme of activities, and that this description is then annexed to the grant agreement 4 . In this context, ‘undue lobbying activities’ refers to activities which may entail a reputational risk for the EU. 1 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en. 2 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?ref=SR-2025-11. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/guidance-fundingdev-impl-monit-enforce-of-eu-law_en.pdf. 4 As stated in previous replies to written questions E-000296/25, P-000595/25 and E-000838/25.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups · Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-03-14 “E-001107/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission published the benchmarking methodology on 22 May 2025 1 . The benchmarking system under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 2 will facilitate operators' due diligence processes and enable competent authorities to effectively monitor and enforce compliance. Additionally, it serves as an incentive for producer countries to enhance the sustainability of their agricultural production systems and minimise their deforestation impact. The quantitative data is used to identify countries in the different risk categories by primarily examining deforestation both in absolute terms, in hectares of forest lost per year between 2015 and 2020, and in relative terms, considering the percentage of forest loss per year between 2015 and 2020 as a proportion of its overall forest area. As outlined in the Implementing Act and its related Staff Working Document on the methodology 3 , the benchmarking system is based on data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA). The FAO FRA database is the only internationally recognised global inventory of forests. This ensures that the classification process is fair, objective and transparent. Following the methodology, a large majority of countries worldwide are classified as low risk. This gives the opportunity to focus collective efforts and resources to protect forests in those geographic areas where deforestation challenges are more acute. The Commission envisages a first review of the country classification in 2026, following the publication of the new FAO FRA data in October 2025. 1 https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/deforestation-regulation-implementation/eudr-cooperation-andpartnerships_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 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/34861680-e799-4d7c-bbad-da83c45da458/library/bb6fc64c-8911-4ae69a41-88aad0d9ab8d/details?download=true.”
  Trade impact on forests
• 2025-02-19 “P-000770/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission has not been made aware of any allegations concerning the improper use of EU funds by the Danish Fishers Producer Organisation. 2. In accordance with the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) 1 for the 2021-2027 period, the financial assistance under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) is managed under shared management with the Member States in accordance with Article 63 of the Financial Regulation 2 . Chapter 2 of Title VI of the CPR requires the managing authority for the fund in the Member State to establish a management and control system (MCS) that ensures compliance with the applicable EU and national legislation and administrative rules. The audit authority of the Member State is responsible for carrying out system audits, audits on operations and audits of accounts to provide independent assurance to the Commission regarding the effective functioning of MCS and the legality and regularity of the expenditure included in the accounts submitted to the Commission. Based on the available reporting by the Danish authorities and its own monitoring and audits, the Commission has no information suggesting that the Danish MCS would be insufficient to ensure that the funds are being used in accordance with the aims of the Danish EMFAF programme or not complying with the EMFAF Regulation 3 . 3. Considering the above, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to raise any specific concerns or a complaint regarding the use of EMFAF funds directly with the Danish authorities. Should this not be sufficient to address the issues of concern, any stakeholder may submit a formal complaint to the Commission services or report any presumed irregularity or fraud to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060/oj/eng 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R2509 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1139/oj/eng”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture · Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-02-04 “E-000476/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Article 6 of the Electricity Directive 2019/944 1 obliges Member States to ensure third-party access to the grids based on published tariffs, applicable to all customers, and that those tariffs and methodologies underlying their calculation are approved by the national regulatory authority and published. The Article 18 of the Electricity Regulation 2019/943 2 sets out principles for designing network tariffs, and an obligation for the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators to provide best practice reports on transmission and distribution tariff methodologies. Article 18 of the Electricity Directive 2919/944 obliges Member States to ensure that bills and billing information are accurate, clear and easy to understand, and that consumers get feedback on requesting information on these bills. Annex 1 gives the minimum requirements for billing information, which includes the price and a breakdown of the price where possible including the energy and supply component, the network component (transmission and distribution) and the taxes and levies. Where one energy bill is issued by suppliers, they should provide the breakdown of different costs in their bills. In case customers receive two separate bills (supply and network charges), such costs breakdown is not possible. The Action Plan for Affordable Energy 3 , part of the Clean Industrial Deal 4 , sets out the measures to lower energy bills for households and businesses. To enable consumers to switch to cheaper energy suppliers and benefit from the affordable clean energy, the Commission will propose a Citizen’s Energy Package which will include measures ensuring consumers’ understanding of the bill through clear information and data on the energy consumption and prices. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/944/oj/eng 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/943/oj/eng 3 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/strategy/affordable-energy_en 4 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “Thank you. And thank you, chair. Thank you, Mr. Rapporteur, for the good draft report. I know we have a character limit. However, I think that one thing that is missing is the huge potential to how biotechnology can transform and improve our food systems. That goes from enhancing crop resilience to creating new novel foods. Biotechnology innovations can really transform both the security and the sustainability. It can help reduce our external dependencies in the agri food sector, improve food sovereignty and bio based foods, especially alternative proteins, is typically more sustainable since it requires fewer resources such as land and water, and reduces the need for pesticides while reducing crop productivity. So by integrating biotech, we can really create a more resilient and more sustainable food system. Meeting both the demands of a growing population while at the same time reducing environmental impact. So I hope we can include some of these perspectives in the Parliament's report.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “If you pollute, you have to pay for the emissions because if you don't, then it's all the rest of us that get to carry the burden. And I will not participate in passing the bill on to my children and grandchildren. But the populists, the anti-europeans on the right wing here, they are trying to trick you into believing that it's the ETS system that has caused the rising energy costs. But that is a lie. It is our dependence. Dependence on fossil fuels from third countries that have created this situation. It's a vulnerability that affects European households and damages Europe's ability to have a strong economy. If we completely remove the quota system, it would introduce further insecurity, unpredictability and it would lead us straight into another fossil fuel crisis. We need to be less dependent on fossil fuels. We need to ensure our own green renewable energy, which needs to be plentiful and financially viable. That's the only result that we can be proud to pass on to future generations of Europe. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “39:11 – 09:40:41): Sorry the social climate fund is the element that balances the overall package designed to tackle the potential social impacts on our citizens and to ensure that no one is left behind we are fully aware that the introduction of ets2 is a sensitive issue in many member states finding the right balance is crucial in this context we believe the commission's proposal for a revised market stability reserve is already a compromise between different interests providing a necessary tool to manage price volatility without undermining the agreed architecture however this is yet again a proposal without proper impact assessment and the consequences on the emission and climate integrity is questionable for this reason renu will support the commission's proposal but emma wissner a shadow aperture and previous ets negotiator will therefore not table any amendments on behalf of the renew group the architecture agreed upon last mandate with all safeguards already included in the ets two design combined with this proposal is already a delicate but balanced compromise emma looks forward to engaging constructively with all of the colleagues to bring this file to a successful conclusion thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. I come from the member state of Denmark, and I agree with what you say, that every country holding the presidency will always say it's a defining time. But I do agree that we stand at a very defining moment for Europe and for our energy security. So I'm very happy and glad to see the three of you here today representing both energy, defence and digital, because it's so important that these are not separate policy silos, but that they are three pillars of the same project. Ensuring European resilience and energy resilience is now a hard security question. The war in Ukraine has made one thing painfully clear that critical energy assets are targets not only on the battlefield, but also in hybrid warfare through sabotage, cyber attacks, disinformation and intimidation. Our grids, our pipeline, our datalinks, our control systems. They are part of the frontline. The war in Ukraine also showed something else. It showed that green, homegrown energy means more secure energy, and that a system based on renewables and nuclear more dispersed, more redundant and less dependent on imported fossil fuels is simply harder to knock offline. Electrification and clean generation is not only a climate policy, it's also strategic autonomy. That's why preparation, protection and partnership must be the new normal. I was glad to learn you say that we should be more than just the bill payers. We should be the active players in the market that goes both for citizens and for businesses as well.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Being a woman really sucks sometimes. We earn less. We do more unpaid care work. And on top of that, we spend almost a quarter of our lives bleeding. Periods aren't just painful, they are toxic. They are literally toxic because many period products still contain PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals. The same substances that we ban in food packaging are still allowed in products that we insert into our bodies. Scientific evidence shows that PFAS in humans can cause infertility, cancer, even harm babies through the placenta or breast milk they receive from their mothers. Some tampons have also been found to contain mercury and lead. These heavy metals can damage the brain or nervous systems, even in children or unborn babies. On average, a person who menstruates uses around 10,000 menstrual products during their lifetime. Imagine how much toxic exposure that adds up to when a teenage girl inserts a menstrual cup. It takes four years before the level of PFAS in her body is halved by the time she enters menopause and stops bleeding. I don't even want to think about how many toxic substances she has in her body. I can't help but wonder if this would have been allowed if it was men who were menstruating. And that's why I want to ask you now, Commissioner, do you really think toxic period products should still be legal? Or is this the time to move forward with the legislative path to include PFAS in the ban for products? Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you and thank you for being here to discuss the future MFF very important. I'm particularly concerned about the direction of the Commission's proposal for the post 2027 Common Agricultural Policy compared to the current cap. It places significantly less emphasis on both environment and on climate action. They are no longer ring fenced funds for green objective nor fully EU funded environmental schemes, and much more flexibility for member states and no know flexibility sounds nice. I, I fear that this creates a significant risk that member states will not be incentivized, or even in a position where they can prioritize as much of their budgets to environmental and climate action as is currently the case. That's troubling, especially given that agriculture remains one of the EU's most polluting sectors. For example, greenhouse gas emissions from animal farming exceed those from all cars and all vans combined. We should talk about how also this sector could continue to drive water pollution, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. So my question is, how does the Commission expect the agricultural sector to deliver on our climate and environmental goals under a Cap framework with weaker green incentives and less dedicated funding? Frankly, I find it difficult to see how it's possible.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(10:34:17 – 10:35:52): Thank you, chair. And I want to also really thank all of the speakers for joining us here today. It's been a great pleasure to listen to you. I would like to focus on electricity under CBAM, which I think can be quite a unique case since, unlike the other CBAM sectors, we cannot physically track or trace electricity flows and everything then depends on how we technically attribute the emissions. I think that the Commission has recognized this challenge already recently by moving towards default values that include all sources, not only fossil fuels, and by making it easier to use actual emissions, including via PPAs. This is indeed a step in the right direction. I would still be interested to understand further whether this is sufficient and practiced or if you believe this methodology still risks overestimating emissions. We also know many Energy Community countries rely on electricity exports to the European Union, usually still quite carbon intensive. And we heard many concerns that could make these exports face a significant carbon price, which could mean those countries could be priced out of the market before they have the means to decarbonize. So do you think there's a way to ensure that CBAM supports this transition in neighboring electricity systems rather than undermines the transition? I would be very interested to discuss further. And once again, thank you for your presence here in the European Parliament.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “So thank you for laying out that focus. I think preparation means realistic crisis exercises, stress tests, stockpiles so we can absorb shocks and that we can restore supplies very fast. Protection means security built into every project from the very beginning, not as an afterthought coming just now, not as a box ticking exercise. Security must be a design requirement. Just like safety and performance, partnership means that energy, defense and digital authorities should be working as one sharing the threat intelligence, aligning the responsibilities, and responding together because our adversaries does not respect administrative boundaries. Geopolitical situation is not easy to navigate, that's for sure. But let's be clear in a crisis, the energy system is a line of defense. The second line of the military, if you ask me, electricity and heating keeps our hospitals running. Maintain communications and ensure the basic Continuity of society. Energy infrastructure should be safeguarded against missile strikes, drone attacks, artillery and occupation in wartime against sabotage, terrorism or criminal activities in peacetime. I would like to ask you if, as part of the energy security framework that's coming up, if the Cyprus. Cyprus presidency would support establishing an EU wide cyber security pre-qualification criteria for technology use in energy tenders to avoid exposure to high risk suppliers or remotely controlled systems. I want to finish off by stating that a secure, competitive and sovereign Europe depends on this an energy system that's homegrown, clean and secure, and that stays reliable no matter what. Thank you.”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure
• “Sir. The world is becoming more and more uncertain. And in Europe we are feeling the consequences of that. Russia invaded Ukraine that increased energy prices. And the same thing is happening now with Iran. This has an impact on European people, but it doesn't have to be a consequence. We could have access to green and cheaper energy. If we want that to be the case, then we need to make an effort. It is possible we can do it. This green attitude is not something that has been imposed. We need to make this possible by lowering prices and realize that we need an energy union. Every wind park that's not created makes us more dependent on oil and gas from the Middle East. The most important resource are our citizens. And together I'm sure we will create a Europe that's safer and cleaner.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources) · Energy (green transition)
• “We need biofuels to decarbonise our aviation and transport sectors. We need them because we can't just electrify either civil aviation or maritime transport, but we want them to be green European electricity. So with a continent that isn't that vast in size, with the nature we have, does it make any sense to grow soy or wheat and put that in the tanks of our cars. Should we make those biofuels, or will it be something that hinders us? I want a Europe to be energy independent. Our dependence on imported oil and gas cannot be replaced by imported biofuels. The political focus for biofuels should be ships and planes, and we need to have green European electricity. Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you. And thank you for initiating this debate, which I think is very informative and very, very timely. We know that geothermal energy has a large and very reliable long term potential in many places. And we also know that to unleash this potential will be needed if we want to fulfill the requirements that this House has made. Also, with the previous fit for 55, we know that it's something that's great in urban areas with few waste heat sources, and it's something that can be really viable if we want to tap into to the potential, if we want to have other locally available energy sources. A key solution could also be to expand and to modernize the district heating. We want to enable the integration of both geothermal but also other sources and and to contribute to the energy system integration. If we do this wisely, a report shows that we could provide 30 or even up to 45% of district heating supply. It's something that's possible today. The large scale geothermal energy projects is already shown in cities like Arhus in Denmark. Where where I'm from, it's one of the largest ones. It's being built as we speak and once it's completed, it can deliver 20% of heat for the second largest city in Denmark.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you for the floor. And thank you for presenting this study. As you stated in your opening remarks, you said no study is without limitations. But I fear. I doubt whether we limited ourselves too much with this. I think we have limited ourselves in a way that makes it difficult to draw any conclusions, or to provide actual policy recommendations, because we will lack to, we fail to remind ourselves what's really at stake. Pfas pollution is one of the most serious environmental and public health crisis Europe faces today. We see how forever chemicals are everywhere. They're in our drinking water, in our soil, in our food. They're inside our bodies. They are linked to cancer. They're linked to immune system damage, infertility, developmental harm in children. We see how they pass from mothers to children even before they are born. So today, millions of Europeans already carry PFAS in their blood at levels that pose real health risks. We know that the societal costs are enormous. We pay through health care costs, through environmental cleanup, lost productivity or irreversible damage to ecosystem. And yet you choose to conduct a study like this with this reality being almost entirely absent. I think it's particularly concerning, given that we know that two independent scientific communities at committees at ICA have been conducting a comprehensive assessment for several years. They are examining the cause, the risk, the alternative and the scientific opinions are expected very soon.”
  PFAs
• “So I find it difficult to see the added value of a report that is then so limited in scope, yet so far reaching in its conclusions, because the conclusions of the study are concerning. It assesses only a small number of PFAS and sectors. Yet with these limitations, the recommendations are still very broad and potentially with unlimited derogations. That's not a precautionary approach. It's a risk of locking in solutions for decades, while it also desensitize industry to develop alternatives to foster innovation and research. Critically, the study looks at fluoropolymers mainly during the use phase while ignoring the manufacturing and waste phase where the most harmful emissions often occur. This omission fundamentally undermines the conclusion. So I would like to know, maybe ask directly why these life, uh, life cycle stages were excluded? And finally, the conclusions on f-gases equally concerning to me as alternatives already exists and are widely used. So this is exactly why I think we need a broader. Also PFAS restriction. Because while the regulation addresses the climate impact, it doesn't address the breakdown into persistent pollutants that contaminate our water and our food. I think we owe to the Europeans both serious, comprehensive and scientifically robust analysis. It's not just about industry or competitiveness. It's also about public health, environment and the safety of both the current and the future generations.”
  F-gases regulation · PFAs
• “38:24 – 09:39:09): Thank you i will be speaking on behalf of our shadow rappa char emma wissner thank you to rappa char for your work on this important file renu's position has been consistent carbon pricing through the ets is the cornerstone of our climate policy it's the most efficient and market based tool we have to reduce emissions and to drive investment in clean technologies the extension of ets to the road transport and building sectors to ets two is an important component of green deal targeting areas where emission have been persistently difficult to reduce it's an important element for member states to reach their climate targets we recognize however that this transition must be socially just that's precisely why we established the social climate fund during the last mandate the social climate fund”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “I think it's safe to say that it's broad scientific consensus. Was also confirmed by all of the experts we've had for numerous visits in the committee and the committee and here in the European Parliament that the changes we see in the rising temperatures we see on our globe right now are highly proving to be caused by human activities. It's caused by the way we live, the way we produce and the way we keep using the, the, the outdated technologies such as fossil fuels. And and if you still deny that if you chose choose to deny these facts, even with all the scientists, all the experts coming to tell us the, the state of of our planet, then I'm not sure anything I say from this chair can change your mind, unfortunately. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Thank you. Next, miss Marita sun.”
  Fossil fuels
• “(10:36:06 – 10:39:17): Thank you and thank you to the, rapporteur for the words here today and for the, peaceful approach that you have, laid out for us. I appreciate that. First, let me start by saying that for CBAM, CBAM must remain an environmental tool. It is not a punishing tool and it certainly should not be a tool full of loopholes. This means we cannot support weak international credits. They are often low quality, cheap, and divert CBAM revenues away from member states. That's not the way to go. We're also concerned about the crisis exemptions because if the rules can disappear when political pressure becomes too strong, why would companies invest in following them in the first place? Companies need certainty. They need to know that the framework will hold. And at the end of the day, CBEM cannot drive green investment if everyone knows that there is a backdoor and emergency exit. We also want the techs to be stronger on electricity imports. Here, actual emission data matters. Right now, neighboring countries are decarbonizing too. If electricity is produced from renewables or if the power system is getting cleaner, CPEN should recognize that. This is even more important now given that we are, unfortunately, in yet another energy crisis. We need to make sure C band does not become a tool making it harder for Europe to buy green electricity from neighboring countries. For this, let's make sure that reporting better reflects the real consumption mix, the relevant market time units and, where possible, the technologies used for exports to the EU. Because CBAM should not just prevent carbon leakage, CBAM should also reward real decarbonization. Moving on to the decarbonization fund, I think the transitional phase of CBAM has shown 2 things. First, the instrument is relevant and second, it still needs to work better. For certain sectors, the risk of carbon leakage is still massive and especially as free allowances are gradually phased out under the ETS and European producers face cost pressures that competitors abroad may not face. Enter temporary decarbonization fund. But for us, there are 2 priorities for this fund to be successful. Support should go to the share of the production that is actually exposed to carbon leakage on markets outside the EU. Not to the full production of a company regardless of where it is sold. Otherwise, we risk that CBAM revenues are spread too wide instead of being targeted where the risk is real. And that is also why strong green conditionality matters. Companies should receive support because they are exposed to carbon leakage and because they meet climate conditions. What we need is a fund that actually encourages us to decarbonize. Because if we price carbon, those revenues have to help channel investment into real industrial decarbonization, making sure the money stays in the same system. Thank you. Look forward to the further work on both of these files.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “38:24 – 09:39:09): Thank you i will be speaking on behalf of our shadow rappa char emma wissner thank you to rappa char for your work on this important file renu's position has been consistent carbon pricing through the ets is the cornerstone of our climate policy it's the most efficient and market based tool we have to reduce emissions and to drive investment in clean technologies the extension of ets to the road transport and building sectors to ets two is an important component of green deal targeting areas where emission have been persistently difficult to reduce it's an important element for member states to reach their climate targets we recognize however that this transition must be socially just that's precisely why we established the social climate fund during the last mandate the social climate fund”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. I just can't help but wonder when you say it's important for the EU not to undermine NATO. I think that the one person who is undermining NATO right now is not sitting in this chamber, but in the white House in the US. The biggest threat to NATO at the moment seems to be coming from within. So how do you see that? It's not in this House that we are undermining NATO? It's from the US. And I think the situation in Greenland, frankly, tells us all about where the threat is, is coming from. Unfortunately, I wish it was different, but it's the reality we must face.”
  EU-US relations
• “(11:02:48 – 11:04:10): Thank you, and thank you, most of all for the strong message from our Ukrainian, colleague to run as fast as we can and as far as we can away from, Russian gas. That's a message I will also bring home to my member state. If I may, I would like to touch on the progress on the cross border infrastructure, which is really at the heart of the discussion. We are seeing progress, especially with new projects under the energy community, which is very positive. But at the same time, we still struggle with weak interconnectors, limited reverse flow capacity, and uneven development between countries. And with the phase out of Russian gas, these constraints become even more visible. There is a real risk that gas cannot flow where it's needed in a crisis and that some countries remain more exposed than others. Of course, this is also a strategic dilemma. We need enough infrastructure to ensure the security of supply, but we also need to avoid locking ourselves into assets that may not be needed in decarbonized system of the future. So I'd be very interested to hear your views how to ensure that new gas infrastructure remains compatible with future needs, whether hydrogen or declining gas demand, and how we see the need for a stronger coordination between EU and the energy community infrastructure in planning, especially given the changing gas flows.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. Um. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you. We can't keep meeting like this. Uh, on one point, this discussion is urgently needed. I feel that we're missing the whole point. That every second a tree disappears because of EU consumption. Meaning that before I'm done speaking, 60 trees will have been cut down. I have to be honest with you, I'm quite frustrated with how the commission has handled this and how it can be that it's been two years since the law has been adopted, one year since the last time you asked us to delay, and still you tell us that the IT system is not ready. I can't really seem to figure out if this is a sign of incompetence or unwillingness to. To handle this issue. But either way, it's not just a technical issue, it's a political one, and it's an issue that has serious consequences to our planet. And now, as it's been said, you've opened Pandora's box. You've given the opportunity to undermine the law, eroding the public trust and also damaging the credibility of the EU. This goes far beyond the deforestation regulation. It reveals a deeper problem, either that the Commission cannot or will not deliver on its own promises. That worries me.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “(14:54:55 – 14:58:14): Thank you. Thank you for the floor. And let me start by maybe being very honest with you. I do not warmly welcome the proposal to lower the reduction target or to divert the course of very clear political signal that was sent from this house in the last mandate. However, I do recognize that the European car industry is under pressure and that some short term relief may be needed while still ensuring that we stay on track. But the draft report goes far beyond short term relief. While Commission proposes a 90% target with some additional flexibilities, the EPP rapporteur brings that down to 73%. When you combine that with all of the proposed flexibilities, car manufacturers could in practice comply without selling a single battery electric car in 2035. This, colleagues, this is not a helping hand supporting the European car industry in the transition. This is a political choice to move away from electrification and away from decarbonization. If EPP or other political actors want to take road transport off the hook from delivering CO2 emissions reductions, then I think there is a question to be answered, tell us where we should find these emissions reductions instead. Because the EU 2040 or 2050 target do not disappear. If we do less on cars and vans, that means we need to do more somewhere else. Where should we do more? Farming, industry, production? I'll be curious to know. Because road transport is exactly the kind of sector where we should be moving faster, not slower. The technology is already here. Electrification is a reality. We also should stop for a moment and look what's happening outside of this room. Because while we are discussing whether to slow down the transition, Europeans are once again feeling the cost of our dependency on imported fossil fuels at the gas pump stations. At the same time, electric car sales are growing rapidly. The past months, the sales have increased by around 40%. So the direction of travel is very clear. And China, as a colleague mentioned, China has understood that the future of cars is electric. Their scaling technologies and their production capacity is scaling at a speed where we, in Europe, we are not yet matching. If we hesitate now, it is not protecting our car industry. In the end, we risk ending up with closed factories instead of a stronger European car sector. Renew is, of course, ready to engage constructively and to discuss a workable compromise. But that compromise cannot drastically slow down electrification and it cannot put our targets at risk. European companies are already investing in clean supply chains and charging infrastructure. What they need from us as lawmakers is not mixed signals. They need a clear and credible framework. I hope that we can work together on an ambitious agreement providing the short term relief for the automotive sector while still clearly signaling that clean European electricity is the future of European mobility. Thank you.”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · Road transport environmental policy
• “I think it's the first time in the community that I've experienced a round of speakers with only female speakers. There's a first time for. For everything, at least for me here. But thank you very much for for raising the topic of the role of women in European industry and at least industrial competitiveness as well. I think it's a very important topic to have on the agenda here in the committee. And let me be very clear, we should invest in women's talent as a strategic asset also for Europe's competitiveness and sustainability. We've seen several studies that could be from the OECD showing how women led organizations and women in decision making bodies actually tend to pursue more ambitious, ambitious, and more impactful climate and green policies. We know that the transition, the green transition, the digital transition, the fight for competitiveness in Europe requires that we have new skills, that we have technologies. But right now, women represent a very underutilized talent pool. If we could unlock this potential, that would be crucial for Europe to succeed, to remain competitiveness, to foster economic growth and to accelerate the net zero transition. But right now, we're not using this talent pool. That's a shame for the individual. It's a shame if it if it holds back women from pursuing their true potential for going for reaching out for their ambitions. But it's also a disadvantage for the whole of Europe. I'm happy to see some of the women led networks that already exist in the industry. I've known about the District Heating Divas or the women in solar with the slogan of we Shine Together. It's good to see from the industry side that there's also a focus on improving diversity and focusing on highlighting the work that women can do, ensuring that there are role models and paths to follow. That's something that I think we could use even more in the future, because if we want to succeed, we need to make sure that we take use of the full potential that we have, meaning unlocking the full potential in the talent pool.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Chair. And thank you very much, Mr. Thomas, for presenting your draft. I really think it contains many strong elements, and I appreciate the work that has gone into it. I'm particularly pleased to see the inclusion of the PFAS pollution, and I would welcome an even stronger language on this issue. We need a comprehensive ban on PFAS and these toxic, forever chemicals that can be found all around us. They are in the water we drink, they are in the ground below us. They are even inside our bodies. So I think we need to act now in order to limit the PFAS contamination. We also need a total ban on PFAS pesticides and these substances that degrade into TFA, which is highly persistent. Mobile has been widely detected both in drinking water and in human blood across Europe. Additionally, I strongly support the proposal to accelerate the implementation and enforcement of the Water Framework Directive, as you also mentioned in the draft report. This will be essential in ensuring clean and safe water across the EU and all over the Member States, particularly in tackling the big issue with nitrogen pollution from the agricultural sector. And in this regard, I think we should use this as an opportunity to push for better enforcement of the nitrates directive. I look forward to the further discussions both here in the In the committee and collaboration and wish you the best of luck with your important work on this file.”
  PFAs
• “39:11 – 09:40:41): Sorry the social climate fund is the element that balances the overall package designed to tackle the potential social impacts on our citizens and to ensure that no one is left behind we are fully aware that the introduction of ets2 is a sensitive issue in many member states finding the right balance is crucial in this context we believe the commission's proposal for a revised market stability reserve is already a compromise between different interests providing a necessary tool to manage price volatility without undermining the agreed architecture however this is yet again a proposal without proper impact assessment and the consequences on the emission and climate integrity is questionable for this reason renu will support the commission's proposal but emma wissner a shadow aperture and previous ets negotiator will therefore not table any amendments on behalf of the renew group the architecture agreed upon last mandate with all safeguards already included in the ets two design combined with this proposal is already a delicate but balanced compromise emma looks forward to engaging constructively with all of the colleagues to bring this file to a successful conclusion thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “38:24 – 09:39:09): Thank you i will be speaking on behalf of our shadow rappa char emma wissner thank you to rappa char for your work on this important file renu's position has been consistent carbon pricing through the ets is the cornerstone of our climate policy it's the most efficient and market based tool we have to reduce emissions and to drive investment in clean technologies the extension of ets to the road transport and building sectors to ets two is an important component of green deal targeting areas where emission have been persistently difficult to reduce it's an important element for member states to reach their climate targets we recognize however that this transition must be socially just that's precisely why we established the social climate fund during the last mandate the social climate fund”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. I will ask my question in Danish. I mean, you said we live in interesting times and we certainly do. We need a competitive European industry at the moment. But. Some people seem to think that if we do away with Uh, the Green Deal, then, uh, will be helping Europe. But that's the wrong way. I mean, industry requires imported energy at the moment. I mean, the best way to help industry would be to speed up electrification so that we don't need Putin and Trump's gas. I think the commission has taken a good initial step with the 33%, uh, climate goals by 2030, but we need to speed things up. 32% of our energy comes from green energy. But if we're going to achieve our goals, we need clear measures, sector specific binding goals by 2040. So I'm curious, are you going to be presenting a directive with the necessary measures in it? And, uh, could you tell us anything about any specific measures you're thinking about introducing? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “We are tired of waiting. The young generation of Europe has had enough empty promises, and failed attempts do not suffice anymore. The agreement from Cop was, let's be honest, disappointing. Where is the roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels? It lacked the courage and the speed that the climate crisis demands. But it also proved that the world can still come together. There is a foundation to build upon. But here in Europe, we are faced with right wing politicians who deny the crisis entirely. The forces who struck at rising temperatures, who mock young people demanding a future, or who pretend that climate delay is somehow realism. But let's call it what it is. Cowardice. But you know what? The next generation is not buying it. We are demanding higher ambition. Louder, clearer. Fiercer than ever now. Europe must match with leadership, not hesitation. So to all the deniers, the ones clinging to the past, all the delays, you are out of excuses. And we are out of time. The next generation is out of patience. The future is waiting. It's asking us to be brave. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Mrs. Frith, will you take a catch the eye from Mr. Grazulis? Yes.”
  Climate efforts
• “Then pretty soon now we're going to be celebrating Christmas. Giving each other gifts will be celebrating light and happiness. But not everybody can afford much light. Many or heat. Many families fear the arrival of the energy bill at the end of the month. This is having a huge impact on household budgets. We need to achieve a true energy revolution to ensure that clean energy gets where it's needed, and our antiquated grid is not going to do the job to ensure that green energy can make it to the families who need it. And these families are paying €30 million per year as a consequence of the inadequate infrastructure. What we need to achieve is a situation where nobody's cold in December and nobody feels left behind by the EU. Merry Christmas.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. And thank you for being here talking on this topic today, specifically in my member state of Denmark. This week marks the tipping point to where we have more electrical vehicles in Denmark totally than those on that are diesel driven. So that's something to be, to be celebrated. My question will go on the corporate fleets and on the. My point is that ambitious and binding zero emission targets for corporate fleets are not only essential to meet the climate objective, they're also an opportunity to strengthen the electric vehicle manufacturing base. Yet we see that the target proposed in this package, they will not make company cars. Cars lead that transition in practically I would say that that they amount to business as usual. I will be frank and say that I feel that we lack ambition, and we can see that not only Denmark, but the world is going electric with or without Europe. The global race for electrification is well underway and Europe seems to be falling behind. Your own impact assessment clearly shows that higher ambition delivers higher benefits for businesses, for innovation and for competitiveness. So can you explain why the targets you've set out in the annex are lower than those assessed under the so-called low ambition scenario in the impact assessment. Thank you. And even with 10s to spare.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach · Road transport environmental policy
• “39:11 – 09:40:41): Sorry the social climate fund is the element that balances the overall package designed to tackle the potential social impacts on our citizens and to ensure that no one is left behind we are fully aware that the introduction of ets2 is a sensitive issue in many member states finding the right balance is crucial in this context we believe the commission's proposal for a revised market stability reserve is already a compromise between different interests providing a necessary tool to manage price volatility without undermining the agreed architecture however this is yet again a proposal without proper impact assessment and the consequences on the emission and climate integrity is questionable for this reason renu will support the commission's proposal but emma wissner a shadow aperture and previous ets negotiator will therefore not table any amendments on behalf of the renew group the architecture agreed upon last mandate with all safeguards already included in the ets two design combined with this proposal is already a delicate but balanced compromise emma looks forward to engaging constructively with all of the colleagues to bring this file to a successful conclusion thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. It's really expensive to be dependent on someone else. €3 billion extra since the war in Iran started. How many more euros do we want Europeans to lose before we learn? We have to make Europe more independent. We have to invest in our own green energy instead of just investing in fossil fuels. That's what matters. Look what we've done in the North Sea area. How Denmark and Germany are agreeing on an energy island in Bornholm. That's how we make Europe more secure. That's how we make it more independent. Every time we construct a new turbine in the North Sea, we are less dependent on fossil fuels from Putin or the Middle East. What we do in Bornholm, we need to do all over Europe. We need clean, safe energy all over Europe. And that's why we have to accelerate green transition.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Climate policy was so last year. At least that's how it sounds when you listen to some priorities in this House. But when did fighting for our planet's survival become something to hide away? When did climate action turn into something we could be torn apart in the name of simplification or deregulation? But on our quest towards competitiveness, we cannot ignore the simple truth that economic strength and climate stability are two sides of the same coin. Living up to the Paris Agreement can save us €1 trillion by 2030, in avoided damages. It cannot be clearer that Europe needs ambitious climate policy to stay competitive. Lower energy prices means a safer Europe means a greener union. This is one and the same fight. And yet the EU goes to Cop without a legally binding 2040 target. That is embarrassing. We cannot leave our planet's future to Auburn or Trump because at this rate, the planet will be deregulated into oblivion.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. And thank you, Stefan, Commissioner, for being here today. I really appreciate it. I want to also put a highlight on PFAs as not only a health and environmental problem, but also a critical issue for our companies and for our competitiveness in Europe. We already have innovative companies that are marketing or developing PFAs free alternative in critical sectors like batteries, heat pumps, hydrogen solar panel wind turbines. But their innovation and their competitiveness is increasingly at risk. We see how China is leading the world in the phase three patents. It's followed by US and Japan. The only European country in the top ten ranking is Germany. But we could be about to lose yet another innovation and competitiveness race. A comprehensive phase out across all sectors could create more market space for these European companies. Innovative products to succeed. That's why I think it's important that the Commission gives a clear commitment towards a strong, universal PFAs restriction in order of helping not only citizens health, the state of our environment, but also the European companies. Could you intend to include industrial uses in the scope of the restriction? And if a comprehensive PFAs restriction doesn't cover both consumer use and industrial use, how will you, as commission, incentivise companies to innovate further towards safer chemicals and keep up also in the global competition. Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you and thank you all of you for the presentations. I would like to especially focus on the Echa and express my gratitude both to the Echa and to the rack, and seek for their dedicated efforts in preparing opinions on the universal PFAS restriction. I believe that the growing PFAS pollution crisis poses severe risks to both human and environmental health. So to prevent further harm, minimizing all PFAS releases as quickly as possible is crucial, and an ambitious plan would be the most effective solution. One key area of my concern is the fluoropolymers and their impact throughout the life cycle. This type of PFAS is extremely persistent, and scientists are raising concerns about the toxicity, toxicity and adverse effects on both human health and the environment. So with evidence that fluoropolymers cannot be properly controlled but can be very harmful, I would like to ask what Echa will do to fulfill the core of reach, the core mandate of protecting human health and the environment in this regard. Furthermore, how will you ensure that the societal impacts are sufficiently sufficiently considered in its assessment so that the socio economic analysis reflects the full range of societal concerns and is not overshadowed by other interests? Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “Sir. The world is becoming more and more uncertain. And in Europe we are feeling the consequences of that. Russia invaded Ukraine that increased energy prices. And the same thing is happening now with Iran. This has an impact on European people, but it doesn't have to be a consequence. We could have access to green and cheaper energy. If we want that to be the case, then we need to make an effort. It is possible we can do it. This green attitude is not something that has been imposed. We need to make this possible by lowering prices and realize that we need an energy union. Every wind park that's not created makes us more dependent on oil and gas from the Middle East. The most important resource are our citizens. And together I'm sure we will create a Europe that's safer and cleaner.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Christopher, you were talking about competitiveness and talking about meat. But do you really want farmers to be competitive. I mean, if so, then I think that we should be using new production methods. I mean, more plants. I mean, this is something that we hear time and again, and it is not by any means scandalous. If that's something the commission president suggests. I mean, that is worth suggesting. I mean, a lot of people want to eat more plant based products. That's what they want. I mean, you know, we could perhaps eat fewer regular sausages and switch to veggie burgers or plant based sausages.”
  Plant-based diet
• “(17:01:57 – 17:03:38): Thank you last speech is from sigrid friese friese friese thank you and i welcome this debate on a important report since it underlines one thing very clearly and i think that this message deserve to be repeated because apparently not everyone in the room seems to have caught up on this point the life program works and yes the eca identifies operational challenges with strategic projects particularly on monitoring on guidance but let's be clear the report does not question the value of life quite contrary it it confirms that life strategic projects are essential they they prove how member states implement environmental law they bring stakeholders together they mobilize additional funding and they provide something that is very crucial and that environmental policy desperately needs right now which is stability and continuity environmental legislation only matters if it's implemented on the ground and the real political takeaway from this report should not be to weaken life it's the opposite it should be that predictable dedicated long term funding is indispensable as we approach the next mff i think it's important to not undermine this colleagues i think it's very important that europe needs and should value a strong standalone life program to help the member states deliver on the environmental commitments that we have collectively agreed on politically i think eca has shown us how we can improve life and now it's a political responsibility from us to protect it to value it and to strengthen it”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you for the floor. And dear Commissioner Russell, thank you for being with us today. I think it's safe to say that we are living through multiple crises. I'm not talking about the geopolitical situation, but also on the interlinked planetary crisis. We see climate breakdown. We see biodiversity loss, pollution, growing pressure on natural resources. So I think it's safe to say that no one else is going to do it for us. The strong EU environmental legislation is one of the most important tools to protect people, nature and our long term economic stability. In the Commission's communication on the Environmental Omnibus, you state that the package will reduce administrative burden by approximately €1 billion per year. At the same time, and I appreciate you mentioned also the cost of non-action, estimated to around €180 billion annually. So I think this data clearly shows that the cost of inaction vastly outweigh the cost of action. I think it's very important that we don't weaken or delay implementation because we risk locking in far higher economic or social or environmental damage on the long term. So I think it's important to state, since no impact assessment has been carried out, it is difficult for us to credibly guarantee that this will not increase the already enormous cost of environmental inaction. How can we do that and respond to the planetary crisis we face? I would appreciate your thoughts or elaborations of the cost of non-action, as you mentioned in your opening statement, as well as maybe clarification on the data on the annual savings figure used for your, um, your disposal. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “I think you're wrong. If you think climate policies and security and defence policy differ that much. The solution is the same. Free ourselves from the Russian gas. And let's not be naive and think that we can just switch from Russian gas to American LNG. If we go your way to deciding to treat this as completely different topics, we are doomed to fail. We are doomed to replace just one dependency with another, and that will not create neither a stronger Europe or a safer Europe. Denmark. Renew Europe.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “There's a whole world of problems. And what are we spending our time on here in Parliament? We're talking about sausages. So these vegetarian sausages, can we call them sausages or not? Who's decided that we could spend our time on this. Well, that's because of you on the right wing, because apparently it confuses consumers. If they see a vegetarian burger or a vegetarian sausage in the supermarket. But perhaps you're just afraid of losing your support from agricultural lobbyists. But there seems to be some sort of fear among traditional farmers and their helpers. They're trying to stop the development. Would we have to stop talking about juice with fruit flesh? Do we have to be afraid of peanut butter? I think we're wasting our time. These are not what we should be afraid from. We should make legislation that really makes a difference. Thank you.”
  Naming/denomination of plant-based food alternatives
• “Thank you. And I want to to go back to the question of CO2, the revision of CO2 standards for car and be really honest, it's not really my position to be asking for that revision, as I think the existing frameworks provides already what we need, which is a clear pathway for decarbonisation, strong incentives for electrification and the long term predictability that both industry and consumers are asking for. But now I of course, recognize the political pressure behind the revision, and I'm here to engage constructively. I will also begin by saying that I think you, as the Commission has struck a careful balance with your proposal, providing or preserving the integrity of the climate targets, while also introducing some targeted flexibility for the sector. I think it's very important that we in the Parliament, we both recognise and also maintain that balance in the approach. However, what I hear from some colleagues in this House, it's not just about fine tuning, it's about making a direct U-turn or even watering down the ambitions of the regulation. It's a push to dilute the signal or to blur what zero emission actually means. Take one example. Take the idea of creating a new category of cars running on alternative fuels, and then label them as zero emission. I know that you and the Commission assessed this idea before presenting your proposal. So I would like if you could outline the main reasons against such a category. Um, furthermore, biofuels is also a tool to help other sectors in means of transport hard to abate sectors such as shipping, such as aviation sectors that are struggling right now and cannot be easily electrified. So an increased demand for biofuels for road transport, what would that mean for the overall pricing and availability? Thank you in advance.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you very much for your interesting presentations. I would like to direct my question to the EMA regarding antimicrobial resistance, also known as Amr, which exemplifies the critical importance of the one health approach. Emr impacts our environment as well as both human and animal health. Research shows that the overuse of antibiotics in farmed animals is directly contributing to increased antimicrobial resistance in humans. In 2022, the introduction of a list of antimicrobials reserved exclusively for human use marked an important step in combating Amr. However, many experts and leading health NGO's expressed disappointment that the list did not include more antimicrobials which are still permitted for use in the livestock sector. So I want to ask, in the light of the continued and alarming rise in Amr, do you see a need to revisit and amend this list to reserve additional antimicrobials exclusively for human use? Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “35:07 – 11:37:18): Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur, Mr. Kelly, for presenting your draft opinion. Let me be very clear from the beginning: I'm deeply disappointed by the commission's proposal. We're living through a climate crisis, biodiversity crisis, and a pollution crisis. Agriculture is not the only cause, but it is a major contributor. The sector accounts for around ten percent of EU's greenhouse gas emissions. We see nitrate and pesticide pollution in our water. We see declining biodiversity in our landscapes, real consequences for public health, and we still struggle with serious animal welfare concerns. With this reform, the commission had a historic opportunity to align our agricultural spending with our environmental and climate objectives. Instead, we are presented with a proposal that fundamentally reshapes the CAP in a way that actually risks backtracking on sustainability. I really appreciate that the rapporteur is trying to strengthen the environmental dimension, and we need to go further. That's why I want to introduce a clear EU ring-fenced budget for climate and environment so that we guarantee real delivery. We need stronger safeguards to avoid a race to the bottom between member states, and we must create real incentives to help farmers succeed in the green transition, especially when it comes to the livestock sector. I think we should also address our structural protein dependency. Today, around two thirds of our protein feed is imported, mainly from Brazil. This is neither sustainable nor very strategic. Boosting European plant-based protein production is about resilience, strategic autonomy, better public health, and lower environmental pressure. It's a win for the farmers and it's a win for Europe. We must clearly ask farmers to deliver on both climate, nature, and food security, and we should be the ones creating the subsidy system that rewards those who actually do. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)