Annalisa CORRADO

Policy topics Annalisa CORRADO is active on

What Annalisa CORRADO has said (53)

• 2026-07-08 “(11:38:00 - 11:39:09): Thank You very much. In the recent heat wave, more than 1,300 people lost their lives in Europe, either because people were working in terrible conditions or because they were fragile and vulnerable. And there were so many calls to, our emergency services. And the cities that took this serious never with far right, deniers at the helm helped. And, people are making sure that by having greener cities, and oases among other measures that we help. Think about prisoners, the homeless, or those who live in homes that are cold as fridges in the winter and, like, ovens in the summer. We need to fight against climate change. We need to invest in sustainable housing. This creates social cohesion, stable jobs, and it props up our industry, for example, heat pump industry, and it gives people dignity. We need to be bold when engaging in politics.”
  EU housing policy
• 2026-07-02 “(10:12:45 - 10:14:54): Yes, I will speak Italian. I'm somewhat bemused on a number of fronts on the method and the content. On the method, the agri opinion was never discussed to the conclusion nor voted on. So the idea that considering that this is something that is part and parcel of Envy's work is quite absurd, and it certainly doesn't respect the work that's done in Angri. I was the shadow rapper to Angri. There are 1000000 problems that are being dealt with. We still haven't sorted out the with the shadows. So considering this as a block as part of our work in envy without ever having agreed on it and knowing that there are some serious problems amongst others in the majorities, maybe you've forgotten that, but that's the case, I find it somewhat bizarre, if not completely misguided. There's some quite serious problems as Thomas Barrada said earlier. We're not talking about simplification. We're talking about deregulation. Even going against the treaties here, you're talking about the impossibility for the member states to establish environmental conditions that will improve on the directive, and that goes against article 193 of the treaties. What's happening is a watering down of public health protection measures and environmental protection measures and is restricting the access of public to information on the environment and to justice in explicit contrast to the Aarhaus convention. So in the agri committee, obviously, that's something we need to discuss these points. But here we are in the envy committee. And here, this sort of these things being presented in this way is completely unacceptable. So I do find this as a very unconventional, put euphemistic, way of doing things.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• 2026-06-17 “(15:57:52 – 15:59:12): you, president. Despite the, incredible amount of, lies that we've heard thus far, we all know that electrification is actually the key that will ensure a dual transition of our energy and industrial systems. It is the strategic infrastructure on which rests our competitiveness for the future and also our security. And it should be built in line with the work that's already going on, the revision of the ETS, the Industrial Accelerator Act, and the Circular Economy Act. But that alone is not enough. We have seen that discussions on permits for energy grids where people believe that in order to come to a solution more quickly, we need to cut environmental targets. But that's an incorrect diagnosis, and industry and operators are telling us as much. The really, the fault is with red tape, the lack of digitalized systems, overlap, the lack of coordination between, decision making bodies, the lack of specialized staff, and lack of resources, and endless dispute settlement. Electrification will not wait for us, colleagues. Let's stop putting the environment on trial and face up to the real obstacles which are in our way. That is where this game will be won or lost. Thank you very much, miss Bondi. Thank you,”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2026-03-07 “Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission 29.4.2026 Written question Member States are encouraged to spend their Emission Trading System (ETS) revenues swiftly and effectively to maximise their impact to address the climate and energy transition. The Honourable Members note correctly that since the entry into force of Directive (EU) 2023/959 [1] in June 2024, Member States are obliged to spend all their auction revenues [2] on the climate and energy purposes listed in Article 10(3) of ETS Directive [3] , except for any revenue that they spend in aid for indirect carbon costs compensation. The Commission analyses the spending by all Member States. It publishes the analysis of the Member States’ reports in the yearly Carbon Market Report [4] and the Climate Action Progress Report [5] . In 2025, Member States reported for the first time for a full year that is subject to the new spending requirement [6] . These reports are available on the website of the European Environment Agency [7] . The Commission is closely monitoring compliance with the new spending obligation to ensure all ETS revenue is truly spent in line with the provisions of the ETS Directive. The Commission is aware that not all Member States have spent the full amount of their latest auction revenues on climate and energy purposes as of now. For Italy, on the basis of its reports not all revenues have been allocated to climate purposes. The Commission will follow up with Member States, as appropriate. On the recent Italian ‘Energy Decree’, the Commission is working very closely with the Italian Government, to assess whether the decree complies with state aid rules and EU legislation. [1] Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system (OJ L 130, 16.5.2023). [2] Or an equivalent financial value. [3] Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003). [4] Latest report available here: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ddc1b1de-652b-49ed-8f15-d9fa8badd39f_en?filename=com_2025_735_en.pdf [5] See Section 8 of the Staff Working Document available here: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/progress-climate-action/eu-climate-action-progress-report-2025_en [6] For the year 2024. [7] https://reportnet.europa.eu/public/dataflows (search ‘auctioning’ in the dataflow name).”
  Energy transition (state support) · Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• 2026-02-26 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question The aim of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation [1] is to safeguard human health and the environment from the threats posed by POPs. This is achieved by prohibiting, swiftly phasing out, or restricting the manufacturing, placing on the market, and use of specific POPs. In this context, and to provide legal clarity and facilitate enforcement, the Commission is currently setting an unintentional trace contaminant (UTC) limit value for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Pursuant to the objectives of the POPs Regulation, the Commission seeks to establish this limit value as low as is practically feasible. The Commission has analysed the impacts of the measure. When setting up a proposed UTC limit value for PCB, the Commission will take into account waste hierarchy principles, the expected decrease over time of PCB-content in input material, the technical feasibility of industrial processes to achieve such limit, the technical limitations of detection methods and the technical progress in analytical techniques. The Commission is also evaluating claims from Member States and stakeholders concerning analytical capabilities and is dedicated to ensuring that the UTC limit value matches advances in detection technologies and can be adequately enforced. [1] Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast), OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, pp. 45-77.”
  Circular economy · Chemicals regulation
• 2026-02-06 “E-000496/2026 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU has closely followed the case of the Global Sumud Flotilla. The EU generally discourages flotillas as a form of aid delivery. The EU delivers aid through proven and effective structures, with its partners on the ground. However, it respects the intention of those on board of the flotilla ships to draw attention to the humanitarian plight of the population of Gaza. Everyone has the right to exercise such activism and freedom of assembly; attacks against such flotillas are not acceptable. Such acts constitute the grave breach of humanitarian law. While the authorities responsible for ensuring consular protection to the members of flotillas are the states to which the citizens belong, the EU supports independent investigations into all alleged violations of international law, including international humanitarian law. The High Representative/Vice-President has conducted – with the support of a majority of Member States – a review of Israel’s compliance with its obligations under Article 2 of the EUIsrael Association Agreement 1 . The conclusion of the review was that there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its obligations. Following the review, the President of the European Commission announced a set of proposed measures for the EU to address the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. These include a reinforced package of sanctions, and a partial suspension of the Association Agreement on certain trade-related matters 2 . Discussions continue in Council on those measures. As part of the package, the Commission also put on hold its bilateral financial support to Israel, without adversely affecting work with civil society or Yad Vashem. 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/772892/EPRS_ATA(2025)772892_EN.pdf. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2112.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-10-20 “E-004122/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU is aware of these gas explorations concessions and reiterates its strategic interest in a stable and secure environment in the Eastern Mediterranean. Regional cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean must be developed in accordance with international law, including the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea. The EU reaffirms its unwavering commitment to effective multilateralism and to the rulesbased international order with the UN at its core, steadfastly upholding the UN Charter and its rules and principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and selfdetermination. Israel is bound by international humanitarian law (IHL) and applicable norms of international human rights law (IHRL). The EU consistently calls on Israel to adhere strictly to the rules and principles of IHL and IHRL governing the use of force and the conduct of hostilities, including humanity, necessity, distinction and proportionality. The EU calls on Israel to ensure the impartial and effective investigation of alleged misconduct by the appropriate authorities in accordance with IHL. In parallel, the Commission has proposed a package of measures, following the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. These measures are still on the table of the Council, and the EU continues to maintain an open and frank dialogue with the Israeli government. The EU stands ready to safeguard international law and international principles and is firmly committed to a lasting and sustainable peace based on the two-state solution.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2024-12-19 “E-003053/2024 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission As outlined by the Affordable Energy Action Plan 1 adopted on 26 February 2025, it is urgent to support the roll out of cheap homegrown renewable energy sources which will ultimately contribute to lower energy bills of all European consumers. In this regard, the reduction of permitting times is instrumental, starting by a timely implementation of the recently adopted legislative framework. The Commission will provide Member States with dedicated implementation support and reinforce exchanges in order to identify best practices, barriers and solutions. Article 15 of the Renewable Energy Directive 2 notably requires that national rules concerning the authorisation, certification and licensing procedures be proportionate and necessary, not unduly restricting the development of a certain technology. The Commission is already in contact with the Italian authorities regarding their ongoing transposition work and there is an open infringement case against Italy for failing to transpose Directive (EU) 2023/2413 into national law. Against this background the Commission will assess any measures that will be notified by Italy as transposing Directive (EU) 2023/2413 3 and may take further steps if necessary. Moreover, pursuant to the Governance Regulation (Regulation 2018/1999), Member States are due to submit national contributions to the overall EU target, set in the Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2018/2001 as amended by Directive 2023/2413). Italy submitted its final National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) on 1 July 2024, and the Commission is currently assessing it. As mentioned in the Mission letter of the Commissioner for Energy and Housing, the Commission will follow up on the assessment of those plans. 1 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-affordable-energy-unlocking-true-value-our-energy-unionsecure-affordable-efficient-and_en 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018L2001-20240716 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023L2413&qid=1737728921215”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-04 “E-002400/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Under Article 72 of Directive 2014/24/EU 1 , as consistently interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, contracts and framework agreements may be modified during their term without a new procurement procedure provided that the conditions laid down in that provision are met. The Commission services are currently assessing the compatibility with that provision of the planned modifications to the project, including those laid down under Law No 120 of 8 August 2024 referred to in the written question by the Honourable Members. As a preliminary remark, however, it should be noted that, with respect to the modifications allowed under Articles 72(1)(b),(c) and the quantitative limitation referred to therein, where several successive modifications are made, that limitation applies to the value of each modification and that, according to Article 72(3), the updated price should be the reference value when the contract includes an indexation clause. As for the alleged breach of Article 46 of Directive 2014/24/EU, the provision of Article 2(1)1.2 of the law referred to by the Honourable Members does not appear to refer to the award of the contract by separate lots but rather to its approval in different stages. It is the responsibility of the authorities and expert bodies in Italy to judge the technical feasibility of the project taking into account the regional environmental conditions. From the road safety perspective, Directive 2008/96/EC 2 indicates that the impact of the seismic activity should be assessed when roads falling in its scope are designed. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008L009620191216&qid=1738600658785”
  EU funding for transportation · EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. President. Consumption recognizes over half of the GDP of 27 member states in the EU. The 2030 consumer agenda is moving in the right direction by establishing a sacrosanct principle, and that is that consumer rights cannot break up growth, but rather make it inclusive and sustainable. But obviously, consumers have to be able to receive reliable information and instruments to protect them against unfair risks of fraud, which occur particularly in the digital field, and strike the most fragile, particularly elderly, people. Misleading advertising, which talks about benefits to health or environmental sustainability, as well as social stability of products. All of the surveys show the need for safe products based on clear rules. Obviously, people are ready to spend more if they are sure that they're going to be purchasing sustainably. So yes, we're looking at circularity. Sustainability. That's great. Reuse, recycling. It's good to recognise that we have to seriously work against greenwashing. That's all great. But we're at the same time we're seeing deregulation in some of the most important suppliers of past months. We've seen the Green Claims Directive being suspended that should have have been able to help us face up to greenwashing and also the the social environmental responsibility of companies as well. Without sustainability, it's just a mirage which is fed by disinformation. And to conclude, consumer trust is only built through having clear usable, transparent rules that we can all understand and that can, through our daily choices, shape the world that we want to see. Thank you.”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “Thank you. I have two points. The first replies to our internal debate, and the second is a question directed at the commission. The first thing is that when I listen to what is being said in this room, which very often is not a scientifically based, it has no scientific basis and doesn't reflect what is happening on the market and the issue of of growth. Having said all that, I would like to actually make a political comment if we want to keep our ambition high in order to achieve the climate objectives that we have discussed with the Commission. We cannot destroy the political agreement or the political initiative. In our group, we've seen that we are available. We are willing To construct adequate instruments in order to have a more solid, pragmatic solution and indeed a more simple solution than the previous legislature. But it's clear that the political responsibility has to be assumed. Otherwise, we will break all that. That's the first point. And secondly, the attainment of these objectives. Well, the Commission's statement is reassuring from one point of view. But we also have to consider that in the 54% figure, there are still many promises. I, for example, know the situation in Italy very well. And the Commission also has previously expressed some concern about the situation Tuition in Italy if we are to if we are to attain our objectives. Because we have slowed down instead of speeding up. We are not doing what we promised. And there are many initiatives at the moment to try to link up with the Russian gas. Some countries, other countries such as Hungary are involved in that. So 54% is a reassuring figure. But if we look at what's actually happening, then it isn't so reassuring. So I asked the commission, have you thought about any other specific assessments on the individual countries in order to understand how they are using the instruments that we've heard about and when they're going to do it? Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Grazie. I will speak in Italian too. Thank you. I'd really like to thank you for this extremely important meeting, where different interests and skills are converging from the local to the European level. This is essential for us. And it also reminds us that your Europe is essential on the international level too. Next, next month is going to be the Cop 30 and without the support of Europe. There's a high risk that the cop itself will fail. So we have to remember that our role at the international level is really crucial, especially since the United States have withdrawn from this project. So the 10th of December, I'm part of an intergroup, which I consider important on civil protection and the risk management and disasters we are going to have. We will have an event on the 10th of December, which will involve, again, the members of the Committee of Regions, because we really believe in this synergy, both for for mitigating, because let's not forget that without mitigating you can't adapt. It's no way. And also the level, the degree of adaptation. And we hope that the flexibility we keep talking about is not just the possibility of using funds to manage disasters, but also mainly to prevent the disasters and for adaptation, including the reservation law that the commission mentioned is the best way to prevent these disasters. Thank you.”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• “Thank you. I have two points. The first replies to our internal debate, and the second is a question directed at the commission. The first thing is that when I listen to what is being said in this room, which very often is not a scientifically based, it has no scientific basis and doesn't reflect what is happening on the market and the issue of of growth. Having said all that, I would like to actually make a political comment if we want to keep our ambition high in order to achieve the climate objectives that we have discussed with the Commission. We cannot destroy the political agreement or the political initiative. In our group, we've seen that we are available. We are willing To construct adequate instruments in order to have a more solid, pragmatic solution and indeed a more simple solution than the previous legislature. But it's clear that the political responsibility has to be assumed. Otherwise, we will break all that. That's the first point. And secondly, the attainment of these objectives. Well, the Commission's statement is reassuring from one point of view. But we also have to consider that in the 54% figure, there are still many promises. I, for example, know the situation in Italy very well. And the Commission also has previously expressed some concern about the situation Tuition in Italy if we are to if we are to attain our objectives. Because we have slowed down instead of speeding up. We are not doing what we promised. And there are many initiatives at the moment to try to link up with the Russian gas. Some countries, other countries such as Hungary are involved in that. So 54% is a reassuring figure. But if we look at what's actually happening, then it isn't so reassuring. So I asked the commission, have you thought about any other specific assessments on the individual countries in order to understand how they are using the instruments that we've heard about and when they're going to do it? Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “We should not be forgetting about mitigation as well. This should not be a means of forgetting about the work we have to do on mitigation. So two things I wanted to understand. First of all. Have you been thinking about the 5% flexibility and how can that be made practical? It's something that a lot of people have been asking for. How can that be a means of achieving progress rather than simply slowing down? And our motivation for moving forward? Will we manage to make the the resilience proposals a way of implementing the nature restoration law? Can we link these two together? Yesterday there was a very important exchange of views with stakeholders in the intergroup on preparing for Natural Disasters. Climate adaptation is a key topic in that context. All of the stakeholders stressed how important it is to have nature based solutions and technology in combination. So I think that's something that we need to think about here. We need to avoid the risk of talking only about technology and not about using the levers of nature based solutions. And that's to say applying the nature restoration law.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you president. Well, not too long ago in this hemicycle, we were discussing the drama of high energy bills. And tomorrow we're going to be debating Iran. Do we need any further proof of how dangerous our dependence dependence is on imported fossil fuels? We have to accelerate decarbonization, streamlining authorisation procedures and reducing the red tape that slows down the implementation of clean energy projects. Networks and strategic infrastructure. We're going to be working on that in the upcoming months, starting with the European Commission's proposal. But we have to be careful because the real challenge is not to undermine procedures in terms of environmental assessments, rather to streamline them. We need better coordination between authorities, clear timelines for decisions, clear spatial planning. And we need to move beyond a purely chronological approach to permitting, which often blocks mature projects. Because of old speculative or unfeasible initiatives. Energy transition certainly needs speed, but let's remember that its strength depends on its sustainability and the involvement of our communities. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Or rather, I'd like you to ask you to speak the speaking time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Commission. A few months before the COP30, and because of the context of new wars and international cooperation, and with respect to the withdrawal of the U.S., the European Union must really necessarily relaunch multilateralism and the principle for decarbonization in our strategic strategy. Our leadership has never been so necessary. It's not only defending the Paris agreements, but launching a global consensus which will allow us to mitigate climate change. We know that we need to abandon fossil fuels and triple renewables and increase financial flows for developing countries by $1 billion to $3 billion by 2035, and so that the road map can be realized. Now, in the next MFF, Europe must be able to meet this challenge with the current level of budget and emissions and to keep the temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is going to be necessary. So by the end of next year, we've got to update our NDC, make it ambitious and credible in line with Commission's objectives to a 90% reduction of emissions in Europe by 2040. Now, there are credits agreed upon in Article 6 for the Paris agreement, which must prepare more measurable and transparent goals, but it's not a reason to lose faith in our prospect of climate neutrality by 2040. It is crucial. I'd like to make sure that the new 40 target is priority and gives priority to emission reductions like CO2 or the change in industry must be able to measure the objectives and make these binding. And certain sectors have already been covered by the ETS and effort sharing. A credible NDC in Europe would be prepared by revising our laws on climate, making them strict and consistent. Climate can contribute to peace processes and safety and security and help the families that are suffering on our territory. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “That's what we're hearing. No it's not. It's the instrument with which Europe has supported industry and energy systems to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, that we don't have their emissions and our dependence on imported gas and oil. It's a good thing we did. One example is the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. We've increased our spending on imported fossil fuels by over €27 billion. Prices are going up and we're not stopping burning gas and oil. We're literally burning €500 million a day. Do the ETS detractors ever wonder? And of course, we do have to improve the ETS, but do they ever wonder why we would be without 20 years of decarbonisation in Europe? And what's the real question we should be asking where do the ETFs profits go to in countries like Italy, since the current government that wants to dismantle this mechanism, uh, there are around €8 billion of, uh, of profits and only 1.6 have been earmarked for the ecological transition. If we want to respond to the energy crisis by getting rid of the ETS, it would be like having a Count Dracula run a blood bank.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Commission a few months before the Cop 30. And because of the context of new wars and, uh, international cooperation, and with respect to the withdrawal of the US, the European Union must really necessarily relaunch multilateralism and the principle for decarbonization in our strategic, uh, strategy. Our leadership has never been so necessary. It's not only defending the Paris agreements, but launching a global consensus which will allow us to mitigate climate change. We know that we need to abandon fossil fuels and triple renewables and increase financial flows for countries in the developing countries. But 1 to $3 billion by 2035. And so that the roadmap can be realised now in the next MFF. Europe must be able to meet this challenge with the current level of budget and emissions, and to keep the temperature from rising, more than 1.5 degrees is going to be necessary. So by the end of next year, we've got to update our NDC, make it ambitious and credible in line with the Commission's commissioned objectives to a 90% reduction of emissions in Europe by 2040. Now, there are credits agreed upon in article six for the Paris Agreement, which must prepare more measurable and transparent goals. But it's not a reason to lose faith in our prospect of climate neutrality by 2040. It is crucial. I'd like to make sure that the new 40 target is priority and gives priority to emission reductions, like CO2 or the change permit. Change in industry must be able to measure the objectives and make these binding. And certain sectors have already been covered by the ETS and effort. Sharing a credible NDC in Europe would be prepared by revising our laws on climate, making them strict and consistent. Climate can contribute to peace processes and safety and security, and help the families that are suffering on our territory. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “I'll be speaking Italian. Well, I've got a couple of questions. Does it seem pretty important to me? With regard to the ongoing debate, the first of those questions is more of a concern when it comes to the transport sector. In the report, one of the issues. That are flagged up is that there's a problem in the energy sector on energy efficiency and on so many different issues where progress is being made, but it seems that there has been a problem with the transport sector, which is falling back with regard to all of these other sectors. Well, that's linked to public health and at territories as well, or regions. So are you taking sufficient account of the risks linked to an unbalanced review of the legislation? I also wanted to understand. If the proposal on flexibility had been assessed in terms of its impact on the environment. And the other question. Would be the assumption that's being made, and rightly, to the importance of adaptation. A lot of people are talking about how important adaptation is. The lot was said about adaptation at this cop. At the European level, we're also looking at adaptation, but.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “I will speak in Italian. Thank you very much. To the cool sponsors. The cool rapporteurs. I think we've done a good job. It's very important now to work in the amendments stage. In order to clarify further the content of this important resolution. The European Parliament, I would remind you, has always been very ambitious in this regard and indeed visionary. As the colleague has said we might like to thank. This is a very important occasion to relaunch multilateralism, which in this period is going through a very difficult time. And we do have to therefore return to it with greater determination and avoid war. These wars, which are filling our thoughts at the moment. And we have to make sure that. We bring into the equation the energy issue and the supply of energy. But it's not only wars, it's also the geopolitical blackmailing that we are undergoing at the moment. We need only think of what is happening with what Putin is doing. And in this very moment, the threats that we're getting concerning the Strait of Hormuz. So let us remember that the decarbonization is not simply in inverted commas as something to do with climate. It's something that is important internationally for peace and for we Europeans. Let's not forget that it is also a key to competitiveness. So it's quite clear, and I agree with my colleague here, that we do have to launch European leadership on climate diplomacy, and we have to form important alliances during the Cop presidency in Brazil. We have to have coherence and European ambition. For example, in the NDCs. The national climate plans and to fulfill the 2040 criteria. So we send at least are very clear. The ambition. Is backed up by science and a sense of responsibility vis a vis what is happening in our lands. And finally, transparency. Transparency and accountability are very important and have to be acted on. And that's what we'll keep in mind during our preparation for this cop. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. It's incredible how we always ask the same thing. Exactly. But continuing in Italiano I also wanted to start my question by saying that I studied engineering mechanical engineering about 30 years ago, and we talked about, uh, plants, uh, being ready in 30 years. Now we're 26, 27 years later, and we're more or less looking at the same time frame. I mean, this is very interesting. It's attractive. I'm an engineer. I'm very interested in technology, and this is a fascinating perspective. Um, there are lots of different types of sources that we could look at. And my question, well, I was going to ask what you asked. I don't want to repeat it, but I would just emphasize it and add that that my concern is that in the narrative, in certain member states, fusion is being used to slow down everything else. So when we talk about fusion, we have to be very clear about the fact that the 2040 objectives and 2050 objectives. Cannot be linked to this type of technology. I hope this technology will have an excellent, uh, lifetime. Um, but it can't be part of competitiveness, strategic independence, climate neutrality and other issues that need resolving more quickly. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. So some of the information that we are reading in this report are reassuring, but what is becoming clear when we're talking about implementing the planned measures. There's not certainty that the positive trend is one that is going to continue in the future. So it could vary from the from 2 to 9%. Specifically, when we talk about the hardest sectors including transport, buildings, agriculture, waste management. So on this point I have a huge concern. First and foremost, when it comes to the neck, but also when it comes to the investment that we're supposed to be earmarked for. By the medium, big and small corporations. Because at this time we have seen that the various omnibus proposals are weakening the instruments that were set forth in the Green Deal, and they are delaying to a certain extent. In other cases, and in some cases, they're even destroying things, especially when it comes to corporate social responsibility. Now, these omnibuses are not just simplifications, unfortunately. They're frequently packages to deregulate. That's going to have a huge impact on this path, that we have a path that has encountered issues. It hasn't been set in stone. Many member states are far from the 2030 targets if they don't change something, structurally speaking. So really the question is. Has the omnibus and the impact of the omnibus been assessed? In terms of the impact it might have in throwing us off course? And I'd like to think about the automotive industries thought process. I think I think that the report really shows that it is indeed the automotive industry that is lagging behind the farthest when it comes to reducing its emissions. So we're acting on the one hand in a in a less ambitious way, on one of the most impactful sectors that exist. So I'd like to understand best what your thinking is on this at this time so that we can somehow prevent this simplification trend becoming a huge brake that is thrown on the member states efforts and the incredible involvement that we're going to need from our businesses and from our private sector as well to, to implement these reductions. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Marnie, I'm over here. I'm over here at the front. Thank you. In Italy we say, well, we have an expression meaning good luck with the work and meeting the challenges that are facing us. Other questions have been asked about the importance of religious objectives and strong leadership towards the Cop 30. Since there's quite a few of us fighting for this important objective of multilateralism at this historic time, I'd like to focus on a couple of things that haven't been mentioned. One is the plan of adjustment, which we're awaiting to discuss in Parliament. We think that this is a very important action which will allow citizens to to feel close to the European institutions, which we think is an important point. Also based on the droughts, the floods and all the severe weather events that we've had and which unfortunately, we're going through now. If you think you can bring some pressure to bear so that this matter will be brought forward quickly so that we can get a synthesis together. Another important point talking about adjustment. And not wishing to lose sight of the importance of mitigation. There are some files which are very important. And the commissioner mentioned it this morning. One is taxation to enshrine the polluter pays principles and to promote solutions which will reduce the price of energy and to mitigate the harmful effects on the ecosystem. And the final point, What do you intend to do to, uh, redress the problem of, uh, the, uh, energy price on the hydrocarbons market? Because it's not only that they cost more the ETF, it just consumes a small fraction of the gas used in Europe. But there's speculation that which is reflected in the price across the whole market. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. The Commission and the council have adopted the 17th package of sanctions against Russia. On one hand, we're sanctioning the aggressor, and just rightly so. On the other hand, we're continuing to finance it. In 2024, we spent €23 million to buy fossil fuels from Russia, 19 to help Ukraine, not to mention Rosatom to supply European nuclear power stations. We have to move as quickly as possible to energy independence from Russia. Yes, but we should not be spending too much on funding Algeria, Libya, Azerbaijan, other despotic regimes. Instead, we need to have a clean industrial deal that's ambitious and not weaken the climate ambitions that we have for 2040. We need to phase out fossil fuels and irreversible way to push for European energy. Independence. That's the only way we can be competitive and be credible in our negotiations. And we owe it to the victims in Ukraine and those who are dying in Gaza. They should enjoy the same value in our eyes.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you very much. Dear director, as you note in the monitoring report, the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies is an area where EU member states are lagging significantly behind their 2030 ambition. You also identified that the rush of these subsidies has been adopted in 2022 as a response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy prices crisis that forced member states to intervene with subsidies to protect consumers for extreme price spikes. Given that these subsidies did serve a legitimate social policy objective, as the agency identified any best practices from the member states on lowering and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies while mitigating as much as possible the social impact specifically for households of limited means. In addition, you also recently published your Zero Pollution Outlook and Monitoring Report of the year for the year. In it, you point out that due to the various efforts to bring mining and raw material processing back to Europe, chiefly under the Critical Raw Materials Act, there might be an increased risk of industrial pollution in Europe going forward. Apart from the speedy implementation of the reformed Industrial Emissions Directive, as the agency identified any other measures that address these risks. Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “We think that adaptation and mitigation need to go hand in hand. But this shift, this slight shift towards those who just want to do adaptation without trying to address the root causes because adaptation becomes necessary. So how can you deal with adaptation on its own? And looking at the lack of balance, the inequalities here, those who've really given rise to climate change and those who are being affected by it, we need to see some empathy. Uh, also, this idea of just dealing with the consequences without addressing the root causes is problematic. So I was wondering what you think about that. And also, what do you think about this openness to flexibility on the goals for mitigation, where we're working on this in Europe, in the light of what you were saying, the removal methods, uh, haven't been proven their effectiveness yet, apart from natural forms of removals. So how can we turn this into a solid instrument that is reliable, rather than just another way of avoiding what we actually need to do by means of mitigation? Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “I will speak in Italian. Yes. Thank you chair. Thank you to the rapporteur for the work that you've conducted and for the constructive dialogue that you have overseen in this from the very outset. Now, I think that we're at a point where we can all agree a good environmental policy requires us to know the territory well and to have good environmental data. That's the principle. At the basis of the inspired director from 2007, and it continues to be fully valid today. Now, for those working on the Energy Committee having reliable and comparable and constant data is very important, essential for us to take effective decisions. We can see this when it comes to the monitoring of the soils and hydro and biodiversity, and monitoring climate change, where the quality of the policies will directly be dependent upon the quality of the information which is available. But it's not just a question of trying to help the decision making process. It's also very important when it comes to the acceleration of environmental impact assessments data, which is very important and should be interoperable, operable. If you're going to have that, you've got to have better procedures, more efficient procedures, ones that are more reliable. There should be less overlap. There should be less of an administrative burden, and there should be more possibility for public authorities to actually evaluate projects without reducing the quality of that analysis. We look at the guidelines favorably when it comes to the efforts to to try and simplify as put forward by the Commission here when we have.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much. I'll speak Italian. Well, thank you very much. I certainly agree with previous questions raised by other colleagues. Above all, on the danger we are running and losing a specific tool for biodiversity, and all of the investments for the environment are going to flow to other, more urgent investments in other sectors when they're needed. So with that perspective, there is a risk that the Green Deal, which is already under attack at this juncture from lots of forces, especially from the extreme right. This is going to be weakened even further because if we don't have specific funds earmarked, if we're not clear that that money is going to go to help nature, then a lot of the fundamental aspects of the legislation in the Green Deal will be an empty letter. That's extremely dangerous, dangerous, I think. The other point is the life program. From that perspective, life was meant to be a flagship project like Erasmus was for young people. Life for all of those who are working with biodiversity, the environment and the climate. Be they companies, NGOs or individuals, they all know how this mechanism works and it works really well. There's a direct link to the European Commission as a way of mapping, of monitoring what is actually going on through policy in the Member states. This is a very precious contribution to cohesion as well. So it's very worrying to see this in the new structure, how you can maintain those functions.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Your commitment to climate objectives translate into an obligation of guaranteeing at least a 30% of GDP to climate action. The draft budget for 2026 respects these objectives, thanks to a significant increase of payment dedicated to climate expenditures. However, I would like to express significant concerns on the reduction to 9% of the commitments which might compromise the union efforts in the medium and long term. On the 10% target of expenditures dedicated to biodiversity in 2026, I would point out that the EU is far from reaching its objectives. Despite the progress made, we've only reached 7.8%. So I would invite the European Commission to adopt corrective measures so that we can. Respect our goals for 2026 and correct the directions. I would express serious concerns on the 20.47% for the rescue expenditures, in a context signalized by an increase in frequency of extreme meteorological events and natural disasters. Such cuts are clearly against reinforcing the EU's capacity to react to what the situation requires. Colleagues transition to a climate neutral society by 2050 is not just a responsibility, but it's an extraordinary opportunity for the EU. This is why the opinion highlights the importance of maintaining and reinforcing financial support for actions outside of the EU to design, to support the environment and fight against climate change at the global level, the union needs to continue playing a leading role at the international level and promoting a fair and ambitious transition at the global scale. I am open to any of your contributions and comments, with a view to coming up with a solid opinion that fully represents the priorities of our committee. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. Chair. Availability and cost of energy. Raw materials and infrastructure. These are the most important words for any company. Europe is betting on this. And it's positive because the European the clean industry deal is identifying that we need to have energetic transition circular economy. We need to fight against speculation. What concerns us is that without the proper tools, a strategic plan made simply just be empty words. Europe is called to take a leap into greater social cohesion, common strategies and common investments. We should have the courage to speak about it. No, not only when we speak about armaments, but also when we speak about energy independence and the strategy of industry. Do you really think that arms are enough to have security? And absurd as it may seem, if that was enough, how were we going to build them? By paying high prices of energy from the very countries that were defending ourselves from. There will be no autonomy, no peace, unless Europe is speaks together and is free of fossil fuels. It's time to act. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “: This is a commitment which has been delayed for too long, and it's important that we address the alarming quality of our soil. This is essential when it comes to the quality and security of the food which arrives on our In our tables. This also has implications for the economic sustainability of farmers work. Protecting soil health and biodiversity is essential in all too often, soils are severely polluted and to improve our resilience to extreme climate events, we have to improve that. I have two requests regarding the Soil Directive. It is suggested that the importance of monitoring soil should be limited to substances which have been scientifically proved to damaging pesticides, and so on. Some of those substances have been covered by other European directives. If the monitoring must be accompanied by measures, the idea, of course, being to ensure that we can decontaminate soil. Don't you think it would be important for us to start consolidating ad hoc resources, which could be used to support such a measure, as part of the of the discussions on the next Multiannual Multiannual Financial framework.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you. The principle of technological neutrality is sacrosanct, but it's often used to spur obsolete solutions, and we really should assess all solutions available to meet a given objective once we have carried out this analysis. Industrial strategy. Strategy must tell us precisely what we should use for what purpose. Biofuels must be first and foremost sustainable, and if they are, then they will be precious for all of those sectors where electrification is extremely challenging, for example, aviation, maritime logistics, um. They are, however, not very efficient, extremely costly. And there are limits in imports as we have seen in recent months. It is therefore nonsense to think that we will be able to waste them to fuel our cars that we use on a daily basis, and pretending like we don't need to make up for lost time when it comes to electrification of our vehicles. We have seen that the global market is shifting that way. Now, I think, yes, we need to build a stable future for industry that guarantees good quality jobs. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “So when we do have rules, they should be applied. And. We also need to take a look at what changes need to be made. From 2007 we have the directive at that point and the. The added value has been considerable. At this point. We can understand the points which were made in the draft report. We do see the importance of having environmental data, which is effectively available and shareable by public administrations, in order to make sure that we can keep this level of responsibility at the member state level, we should make sure that this simplification does move forward, but we would like to add one point. We need to be very careful when we evaluate also the effects of any changes to the obligations which you can find in the new version of the directive might have through time in terms of comparability of member state data and the the risk of running into fragmentation between national systems, we need to make certain that there is a possibility to build upon the experience which have been garnered in different member states. This should contribute to an improvement of quality in terms of the reliability and comparability of environmental data. We're concerned that we can work on this in a very constructive way with the rapporteur to to achieve this end, and I'm certain that we can find a very solid European Parliament position on this. For the final text.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen. During this period of Parliament, the European Parliament has taken on the habit of not supporting the weak, most particularly in recent months. So when we are able to mark an important day for European justice and cooperation, one quarter of EU trade is in cross-border nature. And those. That's the area where there are so many advantages, examples of unfair trading, where large distributors make the most of small farmers, late councils of orders, unfair practices. That's not free competition. It's an abuse of a powerful position. The legislation in 2019 laid the basis to tackle this. But clearly we need further efforts when, um, Retailers and purchasing organizations operations across border bases. The rules simply are not enough. We need to strengthen transparency and coordinated action. This means that we have to provide a uniform level of protection. We have to defend farms and businesses, which on a daily basis are facing the challenge of the climate crisis and rural justification. It's very important that we step up cooperation to deal with this because.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Uh, particular question with regard to mitigation, China indicates to us very, very practically indeed indeed what the need, the need that exists to invest in sustainable. In the sustainability sector. Now, of course, uh, carbon emissions have dropped considerably in China and actually China right now. Well, the situation is. It's simply that way because they don't have anything better to do so. But coming back to adaptation, which was presented at Santa Marta and at the next meeting which is taking place, is to take place in Tuvalu, where we've seen the consequences of the climate crisis. More concretely, the question is this now, with as far as the time frame, as far as adaptation, because we know that it's important, it's important. Particularly when we speak about resilience by design, the entire energy infrastructure, all connections, the the infrastructure that is planned, that has been planned, these particular years require some sort of guideline guideline in order to understand exactly how one will move towards greater resilience. So I think this ought to be part of the acceleration that we've been speaking about and what we do indeed need very much.”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• “40:08 – 10:43:24): Thank you very much. Thank you to the Commission for this presentation. The ETS system is one of the pillars of EU climate policy: decarbonization, reducing emissions, but it's also the only way that we can strengthen the competitiveness and the strategic autonomy of Europe. However, we see increasingly that there is a new rhetoric that calls the ETS a cost for citizens and for businesses, and it's a paradox. We're talking a lot about the price of ETS and rather than the use of the revenue. According to the data from the Commission, since 2013, ETS has generated some 260 billion in revenue, and nigh on 80 percent of these resources have gone to the national budgets. When we look at these resources and look at how they are actually used, transparency unfortunately is very limited. For years, ETS revenues were essentially put into the budgets of the national governments. We can't see them specifically. If the citizens could see them clearly and saw how they were being used for energy efficiency, transport, and renewables, and boosting industry, the ETS would be seen more for what it is: an investment tool for boosting the EU economy. Now in Italy, for the last two years, the ETS system has generated some five billion in revenue. According to the ECOA study from 2018 to 2022, only nine percent of ETS were earmarked in an identifiable way for the energy transition. According to the data that came from the Commission from 2023 and 2024, the quota was equal to zero percent. To be clear, we should look at the delays in reporting, but the political point remains. The Italian government came up with an energy decree that would sterilize the electrification in ETS, which weakens the price and slows down the transition from fossil fuels that we know are the top cause of exorbitant energy cost prices. That is why we have a motion that will soon be on the Commission's table because this is not just a national point that I am concluding; it is an issue of the integrity of the European ETS system that's so important for our climate policy but also for our industrial competitiveness on the EU level.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “A minute and a half, please. Dear Commissioner, we have just a few months left before Cop 30in Belgium with geopolitical instability, climate misinformation and declining international cooperation. The EU has the historic responsibility to restore global trust in multilateralism and reaffirm the benefits of a just transition. Our leadership is not optional is essential in this regard. The preparation of a credible and ambitious European NDCs is urgent. My question there is a strong effort to be done in order to bridge the gaps in ambition and funding demands between the global North and South. In particular, considering the United States withdrawal. How does the Commission intend to contribute to this while risking itself to suffer from reduced ambition? How will the Commission ensure that the use of carbon removal and sequestration and sequestration, both natural and industrial, is governed by clear, separate binding targets and does not undermine the real emission reductions or create loopholes within the ETS and effort sharing frameworks. And about the idea of the carbon credits into 2040 targets, can you still consider this a viable option after the problem faced with the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism, when in fact many of those old and more than dubious credits will be transferred to the new system?”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you also for the patience because you have to listen to surreal comments. I like this reference to facts and what's happening because as an Italian with an industry that is failing over the last two years with energy prices that are destroying families and industry, I would be very happy to follow the Spanish example, which where the economy has grown, where energy prices stayed low for families. So what we're listening to is quite surreal. But I know you're very patient, and I know you're also very determined. And I thank you for these characteristics. And I would like to draw your attention to two points. The plan wants to accelerate the use of renewable energies to reduce our dependency, to reduce emissions and to move away from the gas market, which is very which is based on speculation. And you want to offer the benefits of lower prices to families, because we have to remember that nuclear energy actually costs the most. Now, on present prices, we know that there is more flexibility foreseen for member states also with state aid. But there is a lot of speculation. And since we are still linked to gas in many countries and Italy is an example, so state aid in the end could end up being subsidies for fossil fuels. And instead we have to accelerate the phase out from fossil fuels. So what instruments will the commission be using to fight speculation because it continues to exist. What will you do to avoid that? State subsidies go and strengthen speculation. Then we spoken of biofuels. These could be interesting for some sectors, but they're totally useless for others. So what will we do to consider the competitiveness between sectors? Because there is competitiveness in access to technology and in access to resources, because biofuels are interesting for planes and for other hard to abate sectors. But if we use it for the auto industry, then we are harming the other sectors that don't have any other possibility of decarbonisation. So I'd like to know if there is a strategy at this level. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “40:08 – 10:43:24): Thank you very much. Thank you to the Commission for this presentation. The ETS system is one of the pillars of EU climate policy: decarbonization, reducing emissions, but it's also the only way that we can strengthen the competitiveness and the strategic autonomy of Europe. However, we see increasingly that there is a new rhetoric that calls the ETS a cost for citizens and for businesses, and it's a paradox. We're talking a lot about the price of ETS and rather than the use of the revenue. According to the data from the Commission, since 2013, ETS has generated some 260 billion in revenue, and nigh on 80 percent of these resources have gone to the national budgets. When we look at these resources and look at how they are actually used, transparency unfortunately is very limited. For years, ETS revenues were essentially put into the budgets of the national governments. We can't see them specifically. If the citizens could see them clearly and saw how they were being used for energy efficiency, transport, and renewables, and boosting industry, the ETS would be seen more for what it is: an investment tool for boosting the EU economy. Now in Italy, for the last two years, the ETS system has generated some five billion in revenue. According to the ECOA study from 2018 to 2022, only nine percent of ETS were earmarked in an identifiable way for the energy transition. According to the data that came from the Commission from 2023 and 2024, the quota was equal to zero percent. To be clear, we should look at the delays in reporting, but the political point remains. The Italian government came up with an energy decree that would sterilize the electrification in ETS, which weakens the price and slows down the transition from fossil fuels that we know are the top cause of exorbitant energy cost prices. That is why we have a motion that will soon be on the Commission's table because this is not just a national point that I am concluding; it is an issue of the integrity of the European ETS system that's so important for our climate policy but also for our industrial competitiveness on the EU level.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. I'll speak Italian. Thank you for those very interesting presentations. In terms of the technology, I think this is all fascinating. Looking at it more from the policy makers angle. If we're concerned about climate, I think we still have a question about investment. If we look at capture and storage technologies. How much? Is there a danger that CCS investment will lead to a cut in investments in reduction of CO2 emissions? And I'm thinking particularly in energy production. Will this come at a cost to mitigation and reduction? It's all about getting the balance right. There are certain sectors where they need storage because they're not yet in a position to do the kind of rapid cuts in emission levels that would be necessary in order to tackle the climate crisis. So I was just wondering about that investment issue. Is that something you've thought about? Do you have any feelings about how investment could be directed in such a way as to not have a negative impact on any mitigation or reduction measures which may be possible or desirable. Getting that balance right. Another question, which is slightly more on the technology itself. There are structural solutions. The way in which markets can work, being carbon neutral in building materials. And there are certain fairly well consolidated industrial techniques that we are familiar with. But going beyond that for a moment, the issue of storage itself, underground storage, for instance. We're in a bit more of a gray area. We're not so well aware of possible risks, leakage and so on. So on that point. What are the prospects? What are the possible costs? How do you see the future there? Thanks.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you. Remember those images of goats drinking mud or orchards being raised or children that cannot go to school? This happens in Europe where we are faced with floods and we know this. Farmers know this particularly. They're the ones who suffer this desertification, seawater intrusion, new pathogens and the loss of the fertile soils. So apart from innovative technologies, we need to reset our. A nature. We need to have a systemic approach. That is, to work both with energy and agriculture, to create a synergy so that we can use water resources sensibly. We need to have a special funding approach as to how this can be done. We need to build a future where water is not just a critical resource, but a sign of hope, of strategic cooperation and hope for all of us.”
  EU policy on water management
• “Thank you. I apologize for the frog in my voice. Thank you chairman. Thank you Minister. Minister, I would like to thank you for your presentation and wish you all the best. Of course, we listen carefully to what Mr. Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, had to say yesterday on certain issues such as democracy, European institutions. His words were a source of inspiration. However, unlike other areas in which he was quite reassuring. When it comes to the Green Deal and decarbonization, which we think are keys to competitiveness. The cost of energy is extremely high because energy costs are still closely linked to gas. And that's one of the key reasons for our lack of energy independence and geopolitical independence. So we have to have a pragmatic and long term view when it comes to sustainability. Decarbonization is one of the key pillars of European leadership and European strength in the world. I would like to underline the importance of the work which is being done under the presidency. I am very happy to hear you quoting amongst the priorities, the directive on resilience and soil monitoring.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “40:08 – 10:43:24): Thank you very much. Thank you to the Commission for this presentation. The ETS system is one of the pillars of EU climate policy: decarbonization, reducing emissions, but it's also the only way that we can strengthen the competitiveness and the strategic autonomy of Europe. However, we see increasingly that there is a new rhetoric that calls the ETS a cost for citizens and for businesses, and it's a paradox. We're talking a lot about the price of ETS and rather than the use of the revenue. According to the data from the Commission, since 2013, ETS has generated some 260 billion in revenue, and nigh on 80 percent of these resources have gone to the national budgets. When we look at these resources and look at how they are actually used, transparency unfortunately is very limited. For years, ETS revenues were essentially put into the budgets of the national governments. We can't see them specifically. If the citizens could see them clearly and saw how they were being used for energy efficiency, transport, and renewables, and boosting industry, the ETS would be seen more for what it is: an investment tool for boosting the EU economy. Now in Italy, for the last two years, the ETS system has generated some five billion in revenue. According to the ECOA study from 2018 to 2022, only nine percent of ETS were earmarked in an identifiable way for the energy transition. According to the data that came from the Commission from 2023 and 2024, the quota was equal to zero percent. To be clear, we should look at the delays in reporting, but the political point remains. The Italian government came up with an energy decree that would sterilize the electrification in ETS, which weakens the price and slows down the transition from fossil fuels that we know are the top cause of exorbitant energy cost prices. That is why we have a motion that will soon be on the Commission's table because this is not just a national point that I am concluding; it is an issue of the integrity of the European ETS system that's so important for our climate policy but also for our industrial competitiveness on the EU level.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much, president. Thank you. Commissioner. Missioner. Now there is something obvious at Cop 30 when it comes to mitigation and transitioning away from fossil fuels. The agreement does not reflect the climate emergency or its impact. We don't have a structured commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. We haven't. We're not speeding up to reduce emissions by 2050 or 2030. In order to honor the Paris Accords, we haven't taken steps forward on funding in order to rise to the occasion and deal with the challenge. However, in Belgium and the Cop 30 youth indigenous populations movements have made sure that community rights and ecosystem protection are back at the heart of the whole process. But climate, biodiversity and drought have to be priorities. More than 80 countries created an ambitious coalition that is already agreed to meet at Santa Marta in 2026. In order to speed up slow processes, this Parliament adopted an ambitious resolution and we played an important negotiating role. But we have to make sure that we remain a credible role and that we're consistent. And this is my final note. There is a lack of consistency because on the one hand, we talk about flexibility in international agreements. But on the other hand, the omnibus is destroying tools such as corporate social responsibility and deforestation. All of this is being destroyed and it could allow us to achieve this. We have to reduce emissions. We have to transition away from fossil fuels. The EU has to spearhead climate diplomacy. That's what the world needs. Are we going to rise to the occasion? Mr. Bhatia. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Next is Mr. Paolo Borgia.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you chairman. Thank you also to the Commission. Now, the European Taxonomy Regulation is one of the cornerstones of our sustainable finance framework. And it's a real competitive advantage for Europe because it provides clear reference points based on science for investments. And we want to improve how it is applied. And we want to align it to the key priorities of the EU, such as the energy transition and developing zero emission technologies. But in doing so, we need to avoid simplification, the turning into a weakening of the system. And there is that risk, given the broad economic activities that are being considered in this proposal. There are some elements that do go in that direction and we therefore seek clarification. Do no significant harm. How should we read? The compliance with this existing legislation being applied increasingly. Isn't this turning a rigorous selection instrument into one that looks merely at compliance? If you then look at construction materials as a sector, how can we make sure that weakening or lowering certain thresholds doesn't pose a risk to what is really the circular economy? Then, on renewables and bioenergy, the Commission states that aligning it to the red sustainability criteria is enough. Is that true? If you want environmental integrity under taxonomy and more generally. And in closing, let me say more in general. And in closing, let me say, when can we expect a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the taxonomy on investment flows in particular, in particular, when it comes to the mobilisation of private finance and closing the gap for investments in the transition? In the light of the various adjustments that you've introduced over the past few years. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “I'll be speaking Italian. Thank you. Thank you for this very interesting discussion on a subject that's absolutely vital and strategically important for all of our countries, for many different reasons. All of us are aware that we're going to be addressing poly crises. The climate crisis is something under everyone's eyes, and there are others that are getting worse all the time. Well, I think what's happening in Italy, southern Italy and Sicily, where the climate crisis has been exacerbating the current hydrogeological system. And similarly, a few years ago, we were struggling not just with wildfires, but also with keeping electricity going when we had Temperatures above 40 degrees for more than three weeks. So it's the climate crisis really, that we're not just going to be dealing with in the future, but are already dealing with now. And then we also have the issue with new diseases and the problem with antibiotic resistance, for example. But on climate crisis. What I wanted to say is we're all awaiting the adaptation strategy. And so working so much on managing the effects without working on the cause really is perhaps having this the wrong way round. I think that this is a vacuum that needs to be filled.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. I have been wondering why the Patriots were so attached to getting this file on climate. And my fear was that it was to sabotage the procedure that seems to be solidifying, because apparently there's a lot to laugh at at all of these. And by radicalizing such a crucial discussion for our present and future would reduce this to ridicule. I. Would hope that to. Me. I mean, when you consider the heat wave of last week, the deaths tripled. Uh, 500 people died in my own country between, uh, Rome and Milan. Some because of the heat, others, uh, due to, uh, other factors or the economic damage. That is 200 billion per year. So many of the things that I wanted to say have been said by my colleagues before me. I would hope that here, there is at least respect for the subjects we discuss. And if we really want to have a healthy, uh, cooperation and, uh, institutional cooperation, uh, we want to avoid, uh, non-science based discussions, if enough to say that we've had enough adaptation and we don't need mitigation. Uh, um, then I would say that it is Time to, uh, consider the respect of our electors and, uh, people that are, uh, suffering because they in particular, if they don't have money to defend themselves.”
  Climate efforts
• “(16:01:01 – 16:03:41): Thank you. Thank you. I will speak in Italian. So, You. Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you to Madam Chair. The revision of the IED from 2024 was thought up in order to support developments in the geotechnical sector towards more effective measures from an environmental, economic, and social point of view, at the same time guaranteeing food security and competitiveness of our industry and vitality in rural areas. What it has emerged from the strategic dialogue has been that sustainability, competitiveness have to go hand in hand. And transition can only work if it's built together with livestock breeders and farmers using appropriate instruments, investments and a clear legal framework. In the Omnibus, our group's position is very clear. We are in favor of administrative simplification when it gets rid of overlap duplication and nonessential requirements, but that shouldn't become deregulation or a watering down of environmental aims. That's why, first and foremost, we feel that the environmental management system should continue to stand as an instrument to prevent environmental risks, duplication also with other obligations already entered into. Secondly, we don't share the idea of eliminating transformation plans. We think that we should maintain a clear function of planning and support for the transition so that companies and farms can plan the necessary investment with greater certainty. We need to facilitate access to the best available techniques through appropriate financial instruments. On the methods for calculation and the thresholds for implementation of the directive, we ask that each decision should be based on clear scientific evidence. And finally, the timing for implementation must allow for a level playing field. It's not possible that if we postpone, operators should be penalized where they've already invested to enhance their environmental performance. And they had trusted such a recent legal framework nor should this become a pretext to slow down the transformation of the sector. Thank you.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• “Thank you very much. We are talking here about a proposal that was presented as part of the first omnibus package, and this is part of the revision of the CSD and gives rise to certain concerns because these rules were created based on a huge amount of effort. Now it's important to remember that the Tux taxonomy corresponds to the investment gap, and it is also in line with some of the recommendations in the drug report. The taxonomy needs to reach needs to apply to as many companies as possible, regardless of their size, and it's therefore important that the scope of corporate and social responsibility is taken into consideration. Otherwise, we could cause confusion. And. When it comes to the 10% materiality threshold and the one relating to turnover, I think that. What about the oil sector with. And also alignment. And to align all of these things we need to take into consideration the mechanisms. And continuing with the do no harm, do no significant harm principle. Obviously, pollution is vital. We need to look at appendix appendix C. On substances which are considered high risk. So we don't exactly know what will need to be done for the next revision.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “We didn't manage to make it to the cop. And of course, we want to make this historic. We want to have a permanent. Organization established. That would be progress. So I have a question here. Is there a possibility that this will lead to a stable platform where countries who take this seriously and want to push in the right direction can actually develop specific instruments? A second question. Is there a difference between saying, you know, having the most number of countries on POS as possible on board, but at the same time making sure that these are countries actually dealing with this properly, that we don't see retrograde steps taken in what's being achieved. For example, the participation of Italy in the conference does raise a wry smile because we've just seen they're trying to undermine the ETS. And luckily their amendments were rejected to a greater extent. But it's a question of striking that balance. Is it better to have, regardless of which countries, as many countries as possible on board? Or should we concentrate on getting good countries on board? How do we strike that balance? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “I will speak in Italian. Thank you very much. To the cool sponsors. The cool rapporteurs. I think we've done a good job. It's very important now to work in the amendments stage. In order to clarify further the content of this important resolution. The European Parliament, I would remind you, has always been very ambitious in this regard and indeed visionary. As the colleague has said we might like to thank. This is a very important occasion to relaunch multilateralism, which in this period is going through a very difficult time. And we do have to therefore return to it with greater determination and avoid war. These wars, which are filling our thoughts at the moment. And we have to make sure that. We bring into the equation the energy issue and the supply of energy. But it's not only wars, it's also the geopolitical blackmailing that we are undergoing at the moment. We need only think of what is happening with what Putin is doing. And in this very moment, the threats that we're getting concerning the Strait of Hormuz. So let us remember that the decarbonization is not simply in inverted commas as something to do with climate. It's something that is important internationally for peace and for we Europeans. Let's not forget that it is also a key to competitiveness. So it's quite clear, and I agree with my colleague here, that we do have to launch European leadership on climate diplomacy, and we have to form important alliances during the Cop presidency in Brazil. We have to have coherence and European ambition. For example, in the NDCs. The national climate plans and to fulfill the 2040 criteria. So we send at least are very clear. The ambition. Is backed up by science and a sense of responsibility vis a vis what is happening in our lands. And finally, transparency. Transparency and accountability are very important and have to be acted on. And that's what we'll keep in mind during our preparation for this cop. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. I'll speak Italian. I think there's a basic misapprehension here when people talk about technology neutrality, including here in this room, there's this fundamental mistake about whether we're talking about the means or the end. And when the commissioner referred to engineers saying that, uh, there's it's game over and, uh, it's all electric. That's the future. You can add an engineer's voice to that, which is that if you. Have a product that costs 20, why would you carry on buying that if there's another product which costs ten? So as things change, this is part of the equation as to whether electricity wins or not. For many years now, there have been people pretending that it's not game over yet in Italy. And what we want to do is ensure that everybody moves as quickly as possible in the right direction, in other words, in the direction of electrification. So anything else which is put on the table, such as use of biofuels, which are scarce anyway and are very useful for other things anyway, other a lot more strategically important things than the car sector. All of that just keeps the internal combustion engine going keeps fossil fuel use going and keeps Europe behind. Decarbonization helps us be competitive. It helps us be strategically autonomous. We don't want to be dependent on Putin, Azerbaijan, Libya. Look around the world. We don't want to be dependent on oil producers. Iran, Venezuela the list goes on anymore. So in terms of what needs to happen in industry, it's a very clear path that we have to go down. And we also need to ensure that people in Europe have a right to healthy air. The air we breathe is a right that people don't tend to talk about so much. Europeans have a right to clean air.”
  Road transport environmental policy · 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
• “Thank you very much. I'll speak Italian. There are a lot of questions that have already been posed. I want to just highlight the fact that this conference constitutes a very important development at a time when multilateralism appears to have been weakened across the board. A lot of people moving away from that. But for many of us, we consider it a very important system for cooperation. And how should I put this, giving us a possibility to reduce escalation in contrary to what we're seeing around the world today. Peter Lesar said, rightly so, that it's the friends of Putin who don't want to transition away from fossil fuels. I'd say it's also the friends of Trump who don't want to transition away from fossil fuels. And these are all issues that or rather, these are all people who want to make the EU fragile, who consider it just a market for their backyard. So decarbonization is an issue that will lend stability. It is of strategic autonomy that should be beyond doubt. Now for us, but also for economic competitiveness. So for us, this still gives us a great deal of hope that Santa Maria will give us some progress where we didn't manage.”
  Energy (green transition)