Daniel OBAJTEK

Policy topics Daniel OBAJTEK is active on

What Daniel OBAJTEK has said (33)

• 2025-10-22 “E-004152/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The EU has adopted a wide range of sanctions on Russia, including far-reaching trade restrictions in the energy sector, such as an import ban on Russian seaborne crude oil and any refined oil products 1 . These sanctions are aimed to maximise their impact on Russia’s ability to conduct and finance its war of aggression. Before 2022, Russia accounted for more than 25% of EU imports of crude oil and more than 40% of refined products. Since then, the EU’s dependency on Russian supplies has fallen to 2% for crude oil and virtually 0% for refined products. The Commission is continuously monitoring the scale and routes of EU imports of petroleum products possibly obtained from Russian crude oil. An important step towards blocking such imports was the adoption of a ban on imports into the EU of refined oil products (falling under CN code 2710) produced in third countries using Russian crude oil. This ban will take effect on 21 January 2026. In light of this upcoming measure, the EU has already analysed detailed customs data and identified imports from third countries possibly containing Russian crude oil. The Commission has also contacted relevant Member States’ authorities to enhance checks and to ensure that adequate awareness and due-diligence practices are put into place. Data analysis with Member States to monitor these specific flows will continue in a working group set up for this purpose. From the outset, EU sanctions have been designed and implemented to impose a heavy price on Russia, whilst minimising adverse effects on the EU, its citizens and businesses. When developing sanctions packages, the Commission carefully considers their impact. It is for the Council to decide unanimously on the amendment and new adoption of sanctions in line with EU law. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-solidarity-ukraine/eu-sanctions-against-russia-following-invasionukraine/sanctions-energy_en.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• 2025-10-22 “E-004154/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Emissions Trading System for fuel combustion in buildings, road transport and additional sectors (ETS2) complements other national and EU policies and measures to achieve Member States’ overall emission reductions under the Effort Sharing Regulation 1 . With a one-year delay of the start of ETS2 to 2028, following the provisional agreement of the European Parliament and Council on the EU Climate Law announced on 10 December 2025, Member States remain legally obliged to meet their 2030 targets, further underlining the role of complementary measures in these sectors. The ETS2 framework supports complementary measures and investments in clean heating and road transport. The Social Climate Fund (SCF) will mobilise EUR 65 billion, plus national contributions, as of 2026, designed with double solidarity: supporting a socially fair transition for vulnerable households, with lower-income Member States benefitting most. Member States must also target all national ETS2 revenues at measures and investments to support low- and middle-income citizens in the transition. Member States can also access a range of other EU instruments and tools, such as InvestEU, the Recovery and Resilience Facility or Cohesion Funds. Finally, in partnership with the European Investment Bank, the Commission is exploring a new frontloading facility for Member States, which could offer the possibility to accelerate early investments to support low- and middle-income households in reducing their heating or mobility bills, on top of national ETS2 revenues and the SCF. The impacts of ETS2 on energy and fuel prices across all Member States have been assessed as part of the impact assessment for the review of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directive 2 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013. 2 See in particular Sections 6.3.3.2. and 6.3.5., and Annex 13.47 of the impact assessment accompanying the 2021 proposal for the revision of the ETS Directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021SC0601.”
  Energy (green transition) · Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• 2025-10-22 “E-004155/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission On 26 February 2025 the Commission adopted the Omnibus I proposal to simplify the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as well as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive 1 . If agreed by co-legislators, it will result in significant burden reduction for smaller companies. According to the proposal, the reporting requirements would only apply to large undertakings with more than 1000 employees. This would reduce the number of companies subject to the reporting requirements by about 80%. It would remove the reporting requirements on listed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Other SMEs have never been in the scope of the CSRD. The proposal also strengthens protections for companies in the value chain by prohibiting companies subject to the CSRD from asking for more information for the purposes of reporting sustainability information, than what would be contained in a future voluntary standard for smaller companies that will be developed based on the Voluntary sustainability reporting standard for SMEs produced by EFRAG 2 . The co-legislators have already agreed on the so-called ‘Stop-the-clock’ Directive 3 , which postpones by two years the application of all reporting requirements for companies that do not have to report in 2025 for financial year 2024. It ensures that listed SMEs will not have to start reporting for financial year 2026 while co-legislators consider the Commission’s proposal to take them definitively out of scope. The postponement of reporting deadlines through the ‘Stop-the-clock’ Directive, the narrowing of the CSRD scope, and the introduction of protections for SMEs in the value chain represent the main instruments through which the Commission seeks to alleviate the regulatory and administrative burden on SMEs and other smaller companies. 1 COM(2025) 81 final and COM(2025) 80 final. 2 C(2025) 4984 final: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-presents-voluntary-sustainabilityreporting-standard-ease-burden-smes_en. 3 OJ L, 2025/794, 16.4.2025.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights) · Sustainable corporate governance
• 2025-06-04 “P-002242/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is not aware of any report entitled ‘CO₂ emissions reduction report’. Most recently, on 28 May 2025, the Commission published an EU-wide assessment 1 of the final updated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) accompanied by a Staff Working Document 2 with the individual assessment of 23 final updated NECPs submitted and evaluated to that date. Member States were due to submit these final updated NECPs by 30 June 2024, taking into account the Commission’s recommendations on the draft updated NECPs. The Governance Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 3 does not set a deadline for this assessment, therefore the Commission published it once most Member States submitted their final updated NECPs. To date, three Member States including Poland 4 have not submitted their final updated NECPs. For this reason the Commission launched infringement procedures by sending to each of the concerned Member States a letter of formal notice on 14 November 2024, and subsequently a reasoned opinion on 12 March 2025. These procedures remain open. 2. The Commission applies uniform standards and criteria towards all Member States’ representatives. 3. In line with the response to question 2, the Commission applies uniform standards and criteria towards all Member States and their representatives. The Commission’s actions or failures to act are subject to control by the EU institutions, in particular the Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors, in accordance with the Treaties. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/communication-delivering-unions-2030-energy-and-climateobjectives_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/commission-staff-working-document-delivering-unions-2030energy-and-climate-objectives_en. 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1). 4 The case against Poland ref. INFR(2024)2260 and other pending infringement cases can be found in the following database: https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?lang_code=en&langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&activeCase=true&legalBasi s=32018R1999&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate&refId=INFR(2024)2260.”
  Climate efforts · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Speak. Polish. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, for another time. Again, we've got a scandal. Which really should never occur in committee or in the European Parliament. There has never been such a situation where outside the usual formula of coordinators, points are distributed in this way. This is dualism. At the moment when we're giving out points. This should happen according to the rules in in committee where we talk, where there is an exchange of views, how is it possible to have a procedure done in this way? People meeting behind closed doors and allocate projects for a minimum amount of points? Well, that's one thing. That's one scandal. And there's another thing as well, which frankly, I have I have no words to describe this. And that is divvying out proposals of the European Commission, which haven't yet even been published. Well, honestly. And this has not yet been published. So now, um, what could happen is that one, one morning will wake up and find that overnight you've been divvying up the work over the next five years. Um, uh, without consulting anyone. We've got to respect the way points are divided up for each during each term. This is just completely immoral. I really am astonished by the way, um, people, some people are just ignoring this, where the rules have clearly been flouted, and I would make an appeal to everyone, to the to the media, to public opinion. We simply cannot allow this kind of situation to take place in those circumstances. And we cannot have a situation where, uh, These, um, these, uh, files are divided up without consultation. It's absolutely scandalous. And, uh, yes, people have invoked emergency powers or, um, an emergency situation without telling us what that actually is. So this is something that is simply not on. And, uh, your group talks, talk about, um, fairness, democracy, respect and the respect of democracy. Well, uh, it's very two faced because you say one thing and do another.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Mr.. President. President. Mr.. Commissioner. Currently around one fourth of its income remain at EU level and goes to innovation fund and three fourths goes to national budgets. However, this proves to be ineffective and incoherent with investment cycles of companies. I think that in order to debug the situation, we could come up with a new mechanism whereby we could link costs stemming from ETS allowances to investments. This would enable companies to choose between purchasing allowances and investing in decarbonisation projects. Investing the equivalent amount and those companies that execute EU approved decarbonisation projects could choose to suspend To the obligation to write off a part of EU allowances against their investment efforts, and then, following the completion of low emission projects. Once the goals have been achieved, then these companies could write off the suspended allowances. This would enforce the whole dynamics of development, because in Europe we need faster decisions, we need faster capital. This is what you said, and we need this new dynamics in order to be more competitive, to keep up with the US and keep up with China. And today, we can see that companies have problems related to finance and capital, which is very little not sufficient. And banks have very limited resources, at least European banks. I describe this mechanism to you and I send you a letter. We also talked to Mr. Commissioner about this mechanism. And I have a question. Do you do you still analyze this mechanism? Have you taken a look at this mechanism? And do you think that this mechanism should be introduced in order to energize our EU economy? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Today what we need is quick decisions and swift reforms in particular as regards the ETS system. Energy intensive industry needs solutions here and now because otherwise it will not survive. This whole issue of energy prices, cutting energy prices is is important here and now if we are to be competitive. I have put forward a draft to change ETS to change ETS cost into investments. Those who pay into ETS should be able to turn that into a low emissions investments. Ets was created in order to decarbonise our economy. Draghi himself said that ETS does not lead to decarbonisation, so why couldn't we? Why shouldn't we turn ETS into investments? Because this way we would get capital quickly, investments quickly. This is what we want. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. Thank you Minister. I have two questions. Firstly, we seem to be discriminating against various member states in the Union and we are fighting within the European Union and not outside it. And I have a question. From when I was earlier speaking about discrimination, I was talking about Poland. Poland produces a lot of vehicles and we are one of the leaders in this sector. As things stand, we are trying to ensure that there is an energy mix in each factory. And the situation is that factories are investing in clean energies and they want if they want to be competitive. Now, the way things stand, there is a draft legal act which has been submitted for consultation, and we are saying that the energy mix of the member state that will count and not of the individual factory. So, for instance, this is going to lead to a disappearance of these car Factories in Poland. My second question. We want to introduce a provision into public European public law which would damage our Competitivity and Polish companies will no longer be competitive. All of these provisions are going to be modified during the Polish presidency. What do you want to do? How are you going to do that? My third question. I was a businessman, and time counts. Time is important. We're talking about a lack of competitivity. We recognize the fact that we have 13,000 legislative acts, and the US only has 3000. Time is marching on. Every week, every month, term after term. We're not doing anything. I like to call on you, Minister to. Speed up these actions. Let's get some momentum. Let's move towards a revision of the existing provisions and let us modernise the system in order to be competitive. Because today our ports are flooded with different products coming from outside the European Union. And I'm not going to even mention all these different types of products, but we really have to act upon this.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “The Commissioner in the plans of the Commission. I do not see the plans to lower the energy prices in the short term. And truly, we need very fast actions here. I understand that investment in grids is important, but to modernise the whole grid, it will take us decades. The contracts for differences and for various terms. They they exist and they do not lower the energy prices. Ets is increasing the production costs, which means that our European products are not competitive compared to others. So we often suggested something that could increase the investment process and decarbonisation. If the financial means could go to companies, and it would be the big companies who would transform by changing ETFs into investment. What does it mean that certain level of investment would be accepted by the commission? It would be zero emission or low emission, and then we would freeze up to the level of this investment, all the certificates, ETS. And after the investment has been realized, the certificates would not be used. So we would have capital that we have an investment and innovation. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Mr. president, dear Commissioner. President von der Leyen presented a plan to cut energy prices. This is tantamount to a scandal. It contains no specific quick mechanisms allowing us to cut energy prices quickly. We have long term contracts. That's a thing of the past. And so far, they haven't allowed us to slash energy prices. Neither in Poland nor elsewhere. A proposal to cut taxes Is basically what member states can do already. They don't have to ask the commission for this network enlargement. Yes. All right. I grant you this. We can do this. But this will take decades and billions of euros, and we cannot do this fast enough. So what is the solution to save our industry here and now? We need to suspend ETS. We need to revise the ETS system as quickly as possible for one specific reason. We cannot have under the ETS system, financial institutions which increase ETS prices and we have to turn ETS into investments. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Speak. Polish. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, for another time. Again, we've got a scandal. Which really should never occur in committee or in the European Parliament. There has never been such a situation where outside the usual formula of coordinators, points are distributed in this way. This is dualism. At the moment when we're giving out points. This should happen according to the rules in in committee where we talk, where there is an exchange of views, how is it possible to have a procedure done in this way? People meeting behind closed doors and allocate projects for a minimum amount of points? Well, that's one thing. That's one scandal. And there's another thing as well, which frankly, I have I have no words to describe this. And that is divvying out proposals of the European Commission, which haven't yet even been published. Well, honestly. And this has not yet been published. So now, um, what could happen is that one, one morning will wake up and find that overnight you've been divvying up the work over the next five years. Um, uh, without consulting anyone. We've got to respect the way points are divided up for each during each term. This is just completely immoral. I really am astonished by the way, um, people, some people are just ignoring this, where the rules have clearly been flouted, and I would make an appeal to everyone, to the to the media, to public opinion. We simply cannot allow this kind of situation to take place in those circumstances. And we cannot have a situation where, uh, These, um, these, uh, files are divided up without consultation. It's absolutely scandalous. And, uh, yes, people have invoked emergency powers or, um, an emergency situation without telling us what that actually is. So this is something that is simply not on. And, uh, your group talks, talk about, um, fairness, democracy, respect and the respect of democracy. Well, uh, it's very two faced because you say one thing and do another.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Yes, thank you very much. I'm going to be speaking Polish. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen. We're looking at a debate on how to save the automotive industry and Europe. And to be quite frank, um, director, I don't think we are going to be able to save this, salvage this industry. We've been destroying it for years now from the European Parliament without any kind of safeguard measures or future vision. There's no way that we can persuade our. Well, the European clients. Really. So let's take a look at everything to do with the network's logistics. And what about the union project, sir? Where there is European finance for these projects? And we've seen that the automotive industry, despite all of this, has disappeared from the European Union. The sale of Chinese cars is going up every year, and industry is not interested in investing in this sector with the future. Commissioner, there was a discussion, uh, in 2024 about how to try and save the sector. And then 100 days of after this. Well, what kind of solution do we have? After 2035? We may be able to sell and, um, register uh, fossil fuel engines, uh, uh, according to certain conditions.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The biggest problem here is that we are only talking now and we all know the diagnosis. We know it very well. We know that Europe today is being flooded through our ports by steel. And not only and we see these dumping practices, we see that we are not able to deal with this efficiently. And also as we want, uh, us to act as soon as possible. Of course, we need short term, mid-term and long term strategy, but if within two months we don't have a ready short term strategy, our steel industry in general will just disappear. That's one. And secondly, capital today in general, we have no means to invest to support because this industry cannot cope here. If we want to invest in the steel sector, it needs to bring profit. Profit without profit. No one will want to invest here. And we have a mechanism on tariffs, on duties. And I think we should very we should act very fast. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “I’ll speak Polish. Commissioner, chair. The fact is that the Industrial Accelerator Act is unacceptable. It has no ideas how to stimulate the economy. I think what it tries to stimulate is western economies at the cost of eastern economies, and we have to be quite frank here. I'll give you a specific example. The low emission criteria for products should be decided upon through a delegated act. That's your proposal. But what if the Commission does what it did with the batteries? And then I remember we did not take account of a mix of a given factory producing the batteries, but the overall energy mix. So what will happen to the economy of Eastern European countries? They will lose the rest of competitiveness that they have. I do understand that, commissioner, you represent European economy, but I think you are focusing more on what would stimulate French economy. Another question, how do we want to boost European industry if the fact is that we are not doing anything to boost the competitiveness of our industry in comparison to what China and the US do? Look at the world. Does the world ask Europe about the level of emissions, etcetera? How are we supposed to compete in exports? Without strong exports, we won't be able to build a strong European economy. So for God's sake, we have to drive the costs down. Do not do this at the cost of poorer Eastern European states. It's not fair. Another thing, the nuclear. I do understand that there are certain technologies in France, and, obviously, it will be good to use them. But Poland, my country, has other technologies at its disposal, and we have talks quite advanced in this regard. But what are you suggesting? Do you suggest to actually discover the wheel once again and go through French companies instead? Let's think about it again. Without strong export and competitiveness, we won't build a strong European economy. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. In your priorities, you say that you're going to bolster the issue of biogas. And yes, indeed, it is interesting. For this to be taken into consideration, especially when it comes to waste and the farmer farming sector and ensuring Europe's independence. So how do you focus on that? And the second question I have What is your view when it comes to nuclear energy? The Commissioner for energy two years ago. And that commissioner mentioned that he was against nuclear in Europe. And I would like to know what the opinion of the presidency is. Another question that I have is about the following. Listening to the responses of the ministers. I've listened to that. But what about the reality when it comes to climate objectives? You talk about Europe's competitiveness, but Europe's competitiveness depends on being competitiveness competitive in reality. These are the United States and China. How can we have competitiveness with the energy prices that we have at the moment? How can we remain competitiveness competitive if key resources leave Europe and. The energy sector, the automotive sector, oil refineries, they're all leaving Europe because there's too much regulation. These decisions need to be taken now, here and now. We can't keep on just thinking about this. We need to speed up these climate, these objectives. Europe needs to review these climate objectives. And I listened to you, but I thought, are we all Talking about the same thing. Are we all talking about climate objectives? But this isn't in line with the economy. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is undergoing an industrial crisis. We can see it very clearly with our own eyes. I can show you some data regarding the US GDP. Over 9 billion or 9 trillion higher than Europe's. Even ten years back, Europe was bigger than the US. Today we have a huge problem on our hands with industry, not only the energy intensive industry here and now. We also have huge problems with other branches of industry, the petrochemical sector. We are fighting against Russian gas and oil. We turn a blind eye to the fact that a Russian oil and gas still arrive in Europe. I will not talk about other sectors like the pharmaceutical pharmaceutical sector, which is now emigrating from Europe. Europe is slowly becoming an industrial desert. I'm not saying that all of these solutions are bad. Some of them are good, actually, but we don't have enough time on our hands. Industry needs support here and now. This support has to be simple. Ets has to be suspended and a reformed ETS as of now doesn't serve any technologies. It is used to trade on the energy market. This has to be changed as quickly as possible. So I'm calling upon you to adopt a swift actions in this area.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “We talk about sanctions. We are saying that we are organizing summits. But what is the truth? Are we willing to move away from gas and oil, or is this some fictional activity with nothing specific? Well, we'll give you the specifics. 2024 we bought from Russia 22 billion worth of gas and oil, and that's 1% less than before the war. Countries such as France, Belgium, Spain, they bought several times more of Russian gas. Where did it end up? In Germany, via interconnectors. So what kind of sanctions are we talking about? The war has been around for three years now, and the EU, with its decisions, actually reinforce the position of Putin. Why? Because through the war, raw materials are now even more expensive. You gave Russia the time to diversify, to reorganize logistics, to sell more gas towards China, to Turkey or to India. You think Russia lost money on it? No. To the contrary, they made more money than they would otherwise. You should be ashamed. Look at Poland. A country which is poorer than France or Germany. Back in 2023, we moved away from Russian gas and oil. We built the infrastructure and we showed to everybody in Europe that it's feasible. It's doable. We've been talking about it for three years. And what's the result? We are adopting sanction packages two years down the road, three years down the road. And in the meantime, we've been buying. Thank you very much. But it's really scandalous.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you. President, Commissioner. Well, I'm listening to this debate and it's Pure nonsense. For the last ten years, we've been observing in which direction we are going with this whole ETF system. We keep hearing about reforming it. That ETS is supposed to introduce new technologies in Europe. For the last two years in this Parliament, we have talked about the need to reform this system. But what is really going on? Well, nothing. A European economy is going down hill. Ets is not a tool for development. It is just an additional tax. Now you want to use this tax to boost the EU budget. It's got nothing to do with competitiveness competitiveness. I have requested to turn ETS into investment so that you can carry out new investments with money from the ETS system, new investment that would change our economy. You've all been saying yes, great idea. But you have nothing about it. You keep talking about reforming ETS, but you are not doing it. And the European economy is getting worse and worse. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Good morning. Speak Polish. Ladies and gentlemen. We've already been dealing with hydrogen and hydrogen technology in the forest and the way and the way that these fuels can be used. I continued to believe that we must invest in transformation, but today, many things are still impossible for us. Implementation of green hydrogen in industry is not really possible. Yet we haven't got the corresponding technology or when they do exist, they're extremely expensive. Implementation of green hydrogen is going to increase costs significantly and that will make us less competitive. This has to be kept in mind. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to work on the issue of green hydrogen, but where it actually can be used. Well, it could be used, for example, to the greening of the oil industry. That's one example. And when we talk about industry in general, about transport, then it's not possible to use green hydrogen yet in those sectors. And I'm not merely expressing my own opinion. Representatives from Toyota, for example, have taken a step back. They were going to build a manufacturer for green hydrogen production, but decided not to do that. And also the greening of the steel sector is not possible at this point in time. The European Court of Justice has also ruled that these assumptions that have been made well are not always truly implementable. That's what I wanted to say about that issue, about hydrogen. But when we talk specifically about the delegated act, I need to say that I find the entire methodology to be quite cumbersome and complicated. There are complications that sometimes give us false assumptions, and this delegated act is better than the previous one. But it's still quite restrictive. In terms of. Middle level emission, uh, hydrogen. But I don't really think that these delegated acts are actually focused very much on, uh, industry.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Uh, one of the requirements is that we have a green steel. But why are we talking about green steel now? We're talking about hydrogen and green hydrogen. Uh, there is no possibility to include either green steel or green hydrogen. And then we have the European Court of Auditors in 2024. They said there's not there's no possibility to have green hydrogen. The calculations are erroneous that we haven't got the technology. And then there are economic factors which don't allow us to move to green hydrogen. And there are European companies that are moving away from anything that's green green hydrogen. And then that's the first point. Secondly, the Mercosur agreement in Brazil. Uh, well, I think they're the main producer of Chinese e-cars. So what how do you see this whole issue of green hydrogen and other processes? Against that backdrop, if we see that the and the production of cars, how are you going to stimulate and promote that here in Europe? Because all of this would need immediate action rather rather than endless talking.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “We've seen speculation in the ETS. There are companies that have no emissions but still take part in this speculative emissions trading market, and that contributes to hiking prices. So in the last 15 years, the US GDP versus European GDP. Well, they have developed very different paces. And your regulation is in part to blame for this. We are really not being fair towards our industrial sectors. I mean, look at this chart. It's scandalous. You talk about flows. You talk about gas pipelines. Well, Poland was a pioneering country. We stopped importing gas and oil from Russia. We worked very hard. We've established a new gas port, a new gas pipeline with Norway, etc. and you have here an estimate of flows towards Germany. Nord stream one. Nord stream two. But where did these flows come from? I mean, come on. I mean, you're mocking us with this. This report truly is an insult. There are just a few pages. Empty words. If you had become to me, you know, looking for a job with this when I was in business, well, I would not have hired you. Shameful. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you chair. Ladies and gentlemen. President Trump does meet his promises from the election campaign. He wants to move the production and limit the trade deficit and the budget deficit. So he is strengthening his own economy. He has 340 million people on his own market. His recipe is to limit the burdens, to limit the cost of the raw materials, materials, the so-called American protectionism. And then the American economy will become competitive both internally and externally. And he is meeting these objectives quite quickly. It's really fast in that case. Europe is still stuck in that trap of an impossible triad. On the one hand, we have the issue of these social burdens, on the other hand. We have ambitious climate goals, the entire Green Deal policy. And on the third hand, we have the defense, the armaments and the security issues. What is more, European economy is weaker and less competitive, and that is the economy, which should create the capital to reach those objectives in the first place. So how do we perceive it? What is our opinion in the first place? We should change our Green Deal policy as quickly as possible. We should limit the regulations. We should suspend and reform ETS, which is increasing the production costs. And that is why we are becoming less and less competitive. Industry is moving away from Europe. We should start talks with the Americans at the speed of light because we have many points in common. We cannot push the Americans to negotiate with the Chinese only because that alliance will be a disaster for Europe. So my question is the following to the representatives of the Commission. Is the Commission ready for some concessions? What steps is it planning and what is the schedule? Because we need to act as quickly as possible. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Speak Polish. So now. Ladies and gentlemen. Part of Europe has very rich geothermal resources and reserves. And we really should be making the most of these reserves. And this will make a contribution to general and technological transformation. But we have to consider how to use these sources. If we're talking about geothermal energy and obviously we're talking about we're thinking in terms of heating plants. Secondly, we also have to take a look at the whole aspect of financing. Why are we not using this potential potential today? Essentially because of the financial aspects, because we're talking about high risk investment. And that is the main problem. We're talking about high risk investment and this kind of investment. In today's current situation, macroeconomic situation is not being considered. All the different kinds of support mechanisms are very expensive, take up a lot of time. And in very many occasions, it's very difficult then to take a decision on how to finance these kind of initiatives. We do have a financing mechanism for this kind of investments. We should have one. Um, and this should help when it comes to the, uh, the position of the European Union. We have the ETS system, and this was established with a view to us moving forward to transition. And are we considering this for investment in other sources of energy? No, it's there just to patch up the holes in the budget and it's not being used for the purposes of investment. So I'd like to encourage all of you to give some thought to this. This kind of investment can only be made by large companies and multinational companies, but I think we should give the opportunity to perhaps make the use of ETS and invest the money into geothermal energy, because and, uh, perhaps we should suspend the certificates. We do have an excellent mechanism, uh, when it comes to those companies who are emitters of CO2 gases, uh, then they should be able to, uh, perhaps turn this into some way of, uh, investment into this particular source of energy.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “To speak Polish please.Colleagues. We keep debating while we're saying that this is the end of the automotive industry in Europe. We foresee this total ban in 2035 of of internal combustion engines. But if we want to have a reasonable transition for the European Automotive Agency, well, what we're doing is we are condemning this sector to death. And nobody today foresees giving any more stimulus to this automotive sector. Especially when it comes to greener technologies when it comes to China. They are now at the forefront of green technologies and we in Europe are financing those electric vehicles. Are you aware of the fact that in China. There is a gigantic carbon footprint? And there's mineral extraction in order to provide these batteries. And in Africa as well. Are you aware of what's happening? Do you know that the Chinese are also very active in the European industrial sector, especially in the entire logistic chain, and the creation of a new points along the logistical chain in Europe? This is what the Chinese are doing. And here we keep talking and talking and talking about the situation in Europe, which should be changed. I think what we should do rather is to show action and to show the European automotive automotive sector that they can be the future of our transformation. We should stop purchasing Chinese cars and raising tariffs on those Chinese cars and use the ETS as an investment. Instead of forcing companies to pay for ETS, we should simplify the transition through the omnibus program. And let's stop. Let's simply stop thinking that we can't work with the automotive sector. You see what is happening today in the in the production sector. We keep talking while Rome burns.”
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Now we are all talking about this, and now we are talking about this problem that hit Spain. But most of you, when it comes to voting, you vote in a different way. You must realize there is no cheating of laws of physics. There is no zero emission energy without conventional power plants, and you won't have conventional power plants if you keep changing your mind. Such plants need designs, regulations with investments and capital as well as a stable policy in the EU. We cannot afford to discuss forever what is zero emission and what isn't. We know this already. Now what we need to do is engage in technological transformation based on laws of physics and a business calculation. We cannot just bet on zero emission energy. We have to invest in nuclear power plants, in gas and coal powered power plants. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen. I have listened very carefully to the debate throughout the course of the debate. We hear there's a slogan to reduce energy costs and also to reduce red tape, but these are empty words. So I should like to set forth what we can do to have swift results. First and foremost, ETS, it should be suspended. To be reformed. Currently, financial institutions are speculating. And here I should like to state that in addition to European financial institutions that are spending billions to purchase allowances, we also have funds, Chinese funds that are. Boosting the cost of energy based on the desires of the Chinese economy. And we stand idly by. We will not be competitive if we do nothing. The second issue now, I can understand that suspending the reform would require around one years time, but we could also use article 40 and call on the Commission to amend the ETS system that would then become something different. A single financial mechanism. If we have an emitter who would like to invest in energy and transformation, then. The certificates should be frozen following the investment. They would be annulled. That is the only quick solution. Moving on to green hydrogen technology now, I am somewhat well versed in this because I managed a Central European business on the subject. But green hydrogen will not be able to, um, move forward because no one will finance with this or finance this. If we want to want to be able to finance it, we will have to change the ETS system and substitute with investments. I would like here to make an appeal to all political groups in this House. We should move beyond our divisions. Otherwise there is no use in speaking about deregulation. We had the Draghi report that hasn't changed much, if anything at all. And here we are, just a simple talking shop reflecting about what would be the best possible coalition to forge that really won't have any impact. We need to begin to introduce into transformation capital. Leave this capital to business such that they can be the driving force of these procedures. Obviously under this monitoring of the EU.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. We know that there are problems, for example, in Turkey in 2023. I bought a lot of Russian oil. And increased its sales to the EU of 5%. 107% on fuel. Another question we have is on fair competition. We have swap. We've got Kazakh, we've got drawback. The Kazakh say openly that they want to increase their sales to the German refineries by 2 million. We know that this is not Kazakh oil. Really though, we know that it's actually Russian oil. So there isn't fair competition in Europe. And it's a real problem. It's a huge issue. And it's going to be very difficult to to check the origin of the energy, because there is nobody who's capable of analyzing the details of the oil situation before it was a Russian oil. Now people are claiming it's Kazakh. But it isn't. It's the same thing. Sometimes there are situations where we create our own problems. We have a rise ceiling of $60 per barrel. If this ceiling goes down to a $45, then it will be a real problem for all the petrochemical sector in Europe, because it will be much more profitable to get the energy to come from countries like Turkey. So that is why I would like to ask for an effective checking mechanism, because we have information about oil and oil derivatives, and we need to ensure that there is a ban on. Both petrol and petrochemical products.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “I am talking about the complaint filed to the Court of Justice by the government of the Law and Justice government on internal combustion engine cars, and on having traditional ovens in households. So has the Polish presidency withdrawn those complaints? The next question is. Polish government's plan for energy and climate. From what I have heard During our government, during law and justice. Government to. Government to. The documents were adopted after consultation with the with the social partners. So have you changed this strategy, these plans? And we would like to know in which direction do you want to go as regards phasing out of mines and traditional power plants, which are maintaining the balance of our energy system? What about Russian oil going through the Druzhba pipeline, friendship pipeline from Russia to Germany? And what about all of the gas bought from France and sent to Spain and Germany? Will you monitor the situation and talk about it? Because this means, uh, this distorts the competition as regards other parts of Europe, which has to which have to buy gas more expensively.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Speak Polish, speak Polish. Chair. When we talk about electricity grids, we always have to perceive it in a broader context, geographical for instance. When it comes to pluses and minuses, let's look at France or Spain. Their grids and connections are in a way inevitable. But then let's look normally at Norway and Germany. What does Norway do and what disconnection actually looks like? The Norwegians are affected by high prices that come from Europe. Do they want to maintain that? Definitely not. And then you have certain grid connectors that give you security. I'm definitely in favor. However, part of Europe, due to some interconnectors, can decide to give up on investment in certain sources. Why? Because with these interconnectors, they'll be ultimately disturbing other systems of energy supplies because there won't be financing available to build new sources to finance new projects like this. I'm not sure if this would be beneficial, for instance, for Poland. I think we might end up having a huge problem with energy transition. For instance, you mainly mention electric energy interconnectors, but what is of utmost importance would be pipelines, oil and gas. So NATO-related aspects, something to connect the eastern border or flank with security in terms of oil supplies, Odessa broad pipeline. This is something which could guarantee one hundred percent security. As I said, focusing on electric energy is not enough. We have to look broader. We have to perceive the geopolitical aspects, how to balance up certain supplies, the number of zero emission sources. Only then will we be able to develop a plan of establishing and building new interconnectors. Thank you. **Giorgio GORI @Chair (Italy, S&D): Thank you. Now for Renu Anna Stork.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Speak. Polish. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, for another time. Again, we've got a scandal. Which really should never occur in committee or in the European Parliament. There has never been such a situation where outside the usual formula of coordinators, points are distributed in this way. This is dualism. At the moment when we're giving out points. This should happen according to the rules in in committee where we talk, where there is an exchange of views, how is it possible to have a procedure done in this way? People meeting behind closed doors and allocate projects for a minimum amount of points? Well, that's one thing. That's one scandal. And there's another thing as well, which frankly, I have I have no words to describe this. And that is divvying out proposals of the European Commission, which haven't yet even been published. Well, honestly. And this has not yet been published. So now, um, what could happen is that one, one morning will wake up and find that overnight you've been divvying up the work over the next five years. Um, uh, without consulting anyone. We've got to respect the way points are divided up for each during each term. This is just completely immoral. I really am astonished by the way, um, people, some people are just ignoring this, where the rules have clearly been flouted, and I would make an appeal to everyone, to the to the media, to public opinion. We simply cannot allow this kind of situation to take place in those circumstances. And we cannot have a situation where, uh, These, um, these, uh, files are divided up without consultation. It's absolutely scandalous. And, uh, yes, people have invoked emergency powers or, um, an emergency situation without telling us what that actually is. So this is something that is simply not on. And, uh, your group talks, talk about, um, fairness, democracy, respect and the respect of democracy. Well, uh, it's very two faced because you say one thing and do another.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Director I don't agree. I've also taken a look at the figures and statistics, and I've seen that there's enormous increase in the sale of Chinese cars. And we've seen factories, one factory after another being closed down in Europe, and we don't really see an interest on the part of clients for E-cars. There seems to be less interest. When it comes to if there were fewer regulations, and if we perhaps were a little more relaxed about 2050, then maybe the industry will develop more based on technology, based on competitiveness. And I think maybe we'd be able to claim back some of the market and we'd be able to claim back capital from firms to invest in this sector, because all the things we do here, all this regulation, well, basically what we're doing, we're killing off competitiveness and development of this sector.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. So what must be now? Due to bring down energy costs and this must happen quickly. It's urgent that we bring energy costs down in the countries that have a green energy mix and a differentiated mix of it can be achieved in a three month period. Just think back to the Covid times and the regulations that were adopted in this Parliament within just three months, enough taxes being put on the industry. It's really just the financial institution, institutions that stand to gain from that. Oh, that just drives up the cost, the price of products. Europe is not competitive. Um outside the European Union now. Investment. And more room for manoeuvre. Well, if these technologies are so great, then why aren't they, uh, economically viable? And a further question. Why should we be paying for private investment that's going to generate profit later down the line? Really, the FA fees for networks, they're being borne by everyday users. Why is that? We're not destabilizing the grid. It's actually the energy producers. They should be the ones bearing that cost. So when you've got these additional network prices that's a problem. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you chair. Dear ministers. I would like to to ask you. I have a wish to express. I have a specific question. Not only a lot of events, but specific actions. So do you support the suspension and reform of the ETS system. This is absolutely necessary. And until and unless we reform this system, as long as financial institutions are covered by the ETS, Europe will never be competitive because Chinese companies and institutions can buy certificates and can manually set prices of certificates, which means we will never be competitive. Not long ago, I presented a certain suggestion, namely that a cost of a certificate be exchanged or exchangeable into investments, because then we would get a very quick system of investment transformation and we would withdraw a number of certificates equivalent to a cost of an investment. So it would you be in favour of a swift reform of the ETS? The second question has Poland withdraw its complaints to the Court of Justice? I'm sorry. Somebody is talking on the phone. Chair.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme