Volker SCHNURRBUSCH

Policy topics Volker SCHNURRBUSCH is active on

What Volker SCHNURRBUSCH has said (52)

• 2026-07-15 “(10:58:34 - 11:02:37): I'm surprised. Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much, madam chair, and thanks also to our guests for their insights and talk. Very interesting. And, I was listening very closely when you mentioned that the politics in the EU are indeed very complicated with ETS, with RED, with refuel, and the other regulations. And, in fact, taken altogether, they do not provide for a level playing field, unfortunately, because the aircraft industry has suffered severely during COVID and is still not on the formal level of operations. But the carriers also are very intent to meet the goals set by the EU. They reacted by buying new modern and fuel effective aircraft and have adopted measures to save fuel also while on the ground. But now in this situation, with The US, Israel attack on Iran, we should think, reconsider that, the EU should be more flexible in its regulations because right now, the EU regulations are different detrimental to the competitiveness of the industry. So, the airlines based in Turkey and the Gulf Area, they have a big advantage right now for the long range flights. And the European EU based carriers have a disadvantage. And even disadvantage in comparison with British Airways, for instance, because The UK, they don't have to comply with our regulations and if it's true, what I read, they already relaxed the import restrictions on jet fuel from India, and we all know where the crude oil is coming from. So they have acknowledged the crisis, and they have reacted very, very swiftly and very, very cleverly, on the British islands. And we are still at a disadvantage in the EU. So my cons in our view, we should reconsider also the trade defense measures of biofuels from The US, Indonesia, and Argentina. I mean, we are huge importers of biofuels, but still, they have to pay more taxes and that makes the price go up, and that's not good for the industry. And, speaking of biofuels, of course, we need more production here in Europe. I agree with that totally. But, again, we also want to have our food independence. So and we have a very restricted area in Europe being the small continent that we are. So we will be dependent on biofuel imports as well from South America, for instance. So we should aim for more European SAF production. Yes. But we also have to aim for a level playing field for our airlines. And I was very glad to see at the end of the 1st presentation that you opt that you recommend more directives versus regulations. And I think this is the 1st step in the right direction. So thanks very much for your insight, and we hope we will hear from you more. 1 more question that I have is, can you give us a figure of how many airports in the EU already able to supply SAF right now? Because in Germany, that's not many airports right now. And I think we are still below 30% in the EU, but I'm not sure about this. So maybe you can help us with this information. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• 2026-07-15 “(11:36:30 - 11:39:11): Thank you very much. And thank you to Mr. Gieseker for suggesting that this internal combustion engine ban was a mistake. Now people are being let go. They're going onto the streets, and we're in a time of crisis. And then we've got this competitiveness legislation where Germany is trying to make for, progress forward. But let's go back to reality. 90 plus 10 as opposed to 90 plus 3 sounds good, but it's just cosmetics. We need to be the work that's being done on this with the 2,000 amendments is excellent. I think the amendments that we have are in the majority very good. And, the ones coming in from n v 2, and we've got the Industrial Accelerator Act as part of this. So the net does, as you were saying, need to be consistency. We need to be more courageous. We need to have competitiveness in this area with technology, neutrality. The whole electric only approach has been wrong from the start, and we need to be able to regulate in a fair way. We've now included plug ins. Steel, there's really no prospect when it comes to steel that we'll be able to produce green steel, certainly not in Europe. Is simply not, competitively possible and using aluminum with energy prices we've got, not possible. Recycled materials, if it was done sensibly, we could do it, but I'm from Leverkusen and Bayer Kovacs. So there have been opening 2 new factories, 1 in China and 1 in The Emirates. So made in Europe is becoming more difficult day by day because of the trajectory that we're on, which is daft. We got this We got the super credits that have been mentioned. This sounded to me like it was a really clever solution, but it's all ways of doing 3 things through the back door. I think we need to grasp the problem by the roots and not try to brush it up, make it look better.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• 2026-07-15 “(11:36:30 - 11:39:11): Thank you very much. And thank you to Mr. Gieseker for suggesting that this internal combustion engine ban was a mistake. Now people are being let go. They're going onto the streets, and we're in a time of crisis. And then we've got this competitiveness legislation where Germany is trying to make for, progress forward. But let's go back to reality. 90 plus 10 as opposed to 90 plus 3 sounds good, but it's just cosmetics. We need to be the work that's being done on this with the 2,000 amendments is excellent. I think the amendments that we have are in the majority very good. And, the ones coming in from n v 2, and we've got the Industrial Accelerator Act as part of this. So the net does, as you were saying, need to be consistency. We need to be more courageous. We need to have competitiveness in this area with technology, neutrality. The whole electric only approach has been wrong from the start, and we need to be able to regulate in a fair way. We've now included plug ins. Steel, there's really no prospect when it comes to steel that we'll be able to produce green steel, certainly not in Europe. Is simply not, competitively possible and using aluminum with energy prices we've got, not possible. Recycled materials, if it was done sensibly, we could do it, but I'm from Leverkusen and Bayer Kovacs. So there have been opening 2 new factories, 1 in China and 1 in The Emirates. So made in Europe is becoming more difficult day by day because of the trajectory that we're on, which is daft. We got this We got the super credits that have been mentioned. This sounded to me like it was a really clever solution, but it's all ways of doing 3 things through the back door. I think we need to grasp the problem by the roots and not try to brush it up, make it look better.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• 2026-07-15 “(10:58:34 - 11:02:37): I'm surprised. Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much, madam chair, and thanks also to our guests for their insights and talk. Very interesting. And, I was listening very closely when you mentioned that the politics in the EU are indeed very complicated with ETS, with RED, with refuel, and the other regulations. And, in fact, taken altogether, they do not provide for a level playing field, unfortunately, because the aircraft industry has suffered severely during COVID and is still not on the formal level of operations. But the carriers also are very intent to meet the goals set by the EU. They reacted by buying new modern and fuel effective aircraft and have adopted measures to save fuel also while on the ground. But now in this situation, with The US, Israel attack on Iran, we should think, reconsider that, the EU should be more flexible in its regulations because right now, the EU regulations are different detrimental to the competitiveness of the industry. So, the airlines based in Turkey and the Gulf Area, they have a big advantage right now for the long range flights. And the European EU based carriers have a disadvantage. And even disadvantage in comparison with British Airways, for instance, because The UK, they don't have to comply with our regulations and if it's true, what I read, they already relaxed the import restrictions on jet fuel from India, and we all know where the crude oil is coming from. So they have acknowledged the crisis, and they have reacted very, very swiftly and very, very cleverly, on the British islands. And we are still at a disadvantage in the EU. So my cons in our view, we should reconsider also the trade defense measures of biofuels from The US, Indonesia, and Argentina. I mean, we are huge importers of biofuels, but still, they have to pay more taxes and that makes the price go up, and that's not good for the industry. And, speaking of biofuels, of course, we need more production here in Europe. I agree with that totally. But, again, we also want to have our food independence. So and we have a very restricted area in Europe being the small continent that we are. So we will be dependent on biofuel imports as well from South America, for instance. So we should aim for more European SAF production. Yes. But we also have to aim for a level playing field for our airlines. And I was very glad to see at the end of the 1st presentation that you opt that you recommend more directives versus regulations. And I think this is the 1st step in the right direction. So thanks very much for your insight, and we hope we will hear from you more. 1 more question that I have is, can you give us a figure of how many airports in the EU already able to supply SAF right now? Because in Germany, that's not many airports right now. And I think we are still below 30% in the EU, but I'm not sure about this. So maybe you can help us with this information. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• 2026-07-09 “Yes. Thank you very much for that question. Well, of course, there are a large number of problems that are bringing fishes to the edge of ruin. I would not dispute that. But seals and cormorants are part of the problem. I come from Schleswig-Holstein. I live by the Baltic Sea. The fish are being eaten by cormorants. That's taken away from the stocks that our fishers can catch. You can't simply ignore it. I won't Dispute any of the other things you said, but there's not enough account being taken of Kormoran losses.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-09 “President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, fishers in the Baltic are doing everything that the political class is asking from them. The quotas are being cut. Herring and cod are seeing the fisheries closed, but still the stocks have not recovered. And what does the reaction from the EU. The bonuses for the. To compensate the closures are expiring and the compensation for seal catches are going to expire at the end of 2020. 27. That's not a policy that is a swan song for the whole sector. But we've got problems with seals. Cormorants who eat more than the fleet are allowed to catch. But the fishers are not being consulted. We need all sorts of financial help to renew the the fleet. We need protecting the the stocks and quotas that take account of losses to predators. No. This policy punishes all of those who stick to the rules and ignores the real causes of the decline.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-07-07 “(09:39:59 - 09:40:30): You very much for that question. I shall reply in German. Of course, the market is also a market for electric vehicles. We have never denied the fact that there should be electric vehicles, and we've never rejected the fact that there should be more types of vehicle available. When we are looking at what's going in certain areas, it's going very well. And, we are actually looking at, issues of high”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2026-07-07 “(09:37:37 - 09:39:02): Thank you very much, madam commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, the commission is concerned about the competitiveness of our automotive industry and the securing of jobs are very serious. What they've done is made sure that our companies are in the deepest crisis they've been since I anyone can remember. What you have done is trying to intervene into a market that actually functions quite well that produces vehicles for all tastes. You're saying that battery cars should be manufactured, but I really don't think that manufacturers should be told what type of vehicles they should be manufacturing. We have the market forces working, and this is not being applied. I quite honestly feel that what the commission is doing is putting us into a situation of total uncertainty. Instead of looking at the market economy, what you're doing is interfering in this technology and creating an unfair competition. Well, it's not yet too late. We could still perhaps save 50,000 jobs in Germany if we don't say goodbye to the internal combustion engine. We are”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers
• 2026-06-17 “(16:18:15 – 16:19:24): Thank you, president, commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, the Electrification Active Plan is another example of a planned economy without forcing us to use electricity at its, you know, 32% by 2030. It's an unrealistic goal. The green deal has failed, and it's endangering the competitiveness of our economy. Renewable energies can be a share of the solution, but they cannot be the solution, and they're not set up for our grids. So we're seeing land being covered by plants that are not actually producing electricity. Now this is being offered as a solution, and now suddenly batteries with storage are going to offer us the solution. But that is not a solution. That is rationing. So in Germany, we are hope we have solution, yet our, prices are very high. This is affecting our people, our businesses. They're no longer competitive. What we need is energy certainty, not just another planned economy through an action plan. Thank you. The”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for your very interesting analysis, doctor. And Doctor Martinez Mata, you mentioned quite correctly that there is a growing caution among lawmakers against regulatory interventions on behalf of the European Union. Moreover, there are no sufficient data. There are no means for enforcement due to lack of resources. There's no basis for fines and there's litigation without end. Having heard all that, would it be correct to say that the that the Commission could only give recommendations and cannot engage in any EU wide regulatory framework at all? In our last meeting, Vice President Stefan said more than once that any form of regulation of short term rentals could only come from within the member states, from city councils or regional governments, and never from the commission. So my question would be, do you see any EU wide regulation that enforce the SDR instruments that you mentioned? Is the regulation, is the regulation on data collection already the key to a wide regulation, in your view, or other measures possible in your opinion, which cannot be stopped by endless litigation. Doctor Martinez mentioned in her last slide mechanisms of cross border enforcement. How would they look like in your opinion? Thank you very much.”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “(09:58:18 – 09:59:33): the EDS subject then and production of insulation that is EDS indeed, but not plaster. And it's actually very different and has to be taken into account when dealing with work in construction areas. Now recycling, as you know, the situation is dealt with very differently across Germany. We have a lot of too many too many opportunities for landfill. And yet in Austria, for example, there are products where there is rules, very clear rules on recycling and how all of this is regulated. Now in Germany, that's a different situation for industry. We've got we have to look at the where where the needs lie. And then on the subject of sand and plaster and all those types of waste. Well, there's a problem because a lot of people say, well, I don't want that in my backyard, but there is different situations across different member states in different areas.”
  Construction products
• “Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I would like to talk in German, if I may. And thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you very much to both ministers for your comments. The first impressions I have of the Danish presidency is very positive, which I've seen in the trilogue so far, and we're really looking forward to increasing the competitiveness as you have highlighted. We think this is very important. And we'd also like to highlight the proposals on the table about the. We hope that they will develop at speed. So I'm coming from Germany and we're very familiar with what's happening in Denmark. We know that Denmark works very pragmatically and not so ideologically. So we hope that we can expect this in your presidency. As regards competitiveness, it's an absolute priority, particularly for us in Germany. But as you said, Mr. Danielson, you want to continue promoting the Green Deal. You want to make transport as green as possible in the ESN group. This is a contradiction in and of itself because we don't see how this can be resolved. Today in a hearing, we heard that the transport sector is suffering from excessive administrative burden. And we when we look at how this affects CO2 there, this the way that's being dealt with is just leading to more red tape. And I think it would be good to see less red tape and less green deal. This would be something we should work towards. And I would like to hear from Minister Danielson how you hope to overcome this. And Minister Stir pots for shipping and alternative fuels. This sounds very interesting and moving away from buses and lorries, it's worthwhile to think about shipping and see what can be done here. And for example, apart from the use of hydrogen as a fuel, what else is realistic? What is being considered? Are there any other alternative fuels being considered? Please, I would appreciate any information on this. Thank you.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the panelists for their presentations. Um, my first question goes out to Mr. Shiro. And you mentioned Spain does have a different pricing policy than the ports in the Netherlands and Belgium. You wanted to elaborate on this in the in the question session. Maybe you can enlighten us there. And also, I'm very glad that you mentioned the example of the UK where you can buy, trade and claim fuel tickets for staff. Um, one of one of the advantages of the Brexit and the other one being they can import uh, e-fuels from, from the US as far as I know. So this is also very good for the, for the pricing of staff. And you also mentioned voluntary markets, but I didn't quite get the the importance of the voluntary markets where you can, uh, deal differently with, with the tickets, and maybe you can elaborate on that. And a question to all of the panelists would be very simple. I mean, the EU is not currently, and in the near future not able to produce enough staff for for their for the demand. So the easy way would be to import. This raises different questions, geopolitical questions and so on. So what is your perspective on building up or constructing an infrastructure inside the EU to meet the demand? This would be the general question to all of you. Thank you very much.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “(10:05:30 – 10:06:50): Yes. Thank you very much. It's a difficult name. Thank you, chair. Thank you to our guests. I'm very grateful to the industry representatives pointing out that the path to net zero is a path into economic crisis. In the automotive, construction, and chemical sectors, we are already experiencing a crisis of unprecedented proportions with mass layoffs and plant closures or relocations. No matter how hard our industry tries to reduce emissions, this only leads to competitors from the US and the Far East taking over the market. The examples Mr. Tanquina and Taitut show that the Commission's demands are extremely contradictory. Can a resilient European industry survive if its excellent products are no longer competitive? No wonder that Heidelberg Cement built its flagship CCS plant in Norway. There are also CCS projects in Germany, including one by Holzheim in my federal state. But what good is CCS if storage and transport are too unsafe and too expensive and hydrogen isn't marketable? I understand that industry needs security, and that's why my question to Ms. Bataller and Mr. Tamsina is, would it be better for you if the ETS was suspended or at least the free emission allowances were issued for a longer period of time? Thank you.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “(14:54:41 – 14:56:35): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. And thank you also for mentioning that transport, of course, is at the core of the cohesion. Together with, TNT and CEF, of course, we also welcome the allocation of 5 percent of the funds for sustainable tourism. By linking EU funding to the fulfillment of centrally defined milestones, the NRPP has the potential have potential benefits of greater flexibility through unified national plans. However, we advocate significant rebalancing, softer conditionality, greater national discretion in defining the benchmarks and stricter limits to the commission, to evaluate national proposals. We think we believe that, competent national authorities should be in the lead when it comes to deciding where, what and how local, regional, national and cross border competitiveness can be improved while preserving cultural, industrial and natural heritage. We see the application to this fund as too complex and demanding, especially for smaller member states. The fund increases the likelihood of missing funding due to technical noncompliance rather than substantial failure. And lastly, we want to make clear that do no do no significant harm, objective will make effective interest infrastructure improvement even more difficult. How can we build infrastructure with an acceptable budget and in a timely manner when all 6 EU taxonomy criteria need to be fulfilled to comply with the principle of do no significant harm. That is 1 of the main critic points that we will also show in our amendments. Thank you very much.”
  EU strategy for tourism development
• “Madam president, ladies and gentlemen. Cars with combustion engines can still be sold after 2035. That's the good news. But even this new automotive package is going to have negative consequences for the sector, because the conversion to alternative fuels or allegedly climate friendly components will entail unnecessarily further costs and effort. Having an EU Commission dictating to millions of citizens as to what forms of mobility they should choose is the real problem. Technological innovation has to prove its worth on the market and not be not be prescribed by centralized policy makers. The climate ideology is not only damaging to the economy, but it's also part of the assault on individual mobility and personal freedom. A relaxation of the emissions limits is not enough. We say that the commission must stop nannying us, abolish quotas, get rid of CO2. Hocus pocus in favour of net neutrality, restoring certainty to the car sector and to hundreds of thousands of workers and freeing the economy from red tape.”
  2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · Road transport environmental policy
• “(15:27:07 – 15:28:37): Yeah. Thank You, chair. And thank you, and thank you, Mister Sallini, for your work on this file and your draft report. The commission's proposal is remarkable because it is something that many in this parliament have long refused to acknowledge. The CO2 regulatory framework for passenger cars and vans is not working. As a result, European manufacturers are under enormous pressure while consumers face rising costs for their mobility, also for electrical vehicles, by the way. The Commission admitted at last that the situation requires correction and proposes additional flexibility for manufacturers, lowers the effective target for 2035, acknowledges alternative fuels and also the fact that combustion engines still play a role in the future. These are all steps in the right direction. Under circumstances right now, Europe should be reducing burdens on industry, not imposing unrealistic mandates any longer. We welcome the stronger recognition of alternative fuels and the principle of technological neutrality. Europe needs policy based on realism, technological openness, competitiveness and affordability. The Commission's proposal moves in that direction, and Mr. Salini's draft report is a further step in this good direction. That's why we are well supported. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · 2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Road transport environmental policy
• “President. Ladies and gentlemen, the Avms are supposed to protect European producers. That's good, because it's difficult for many European producers vis a vis us. Us producers. And it's good that we don't treat culture like steel or other goods. But we shouldn't just see us producers as a threat. Look at Amazon. Look at Netflix. They are producing in Europe with European teams, and European content is also being included. So we can be happy about that. We have to ask ourselves, why do we need quotas? Why do we need rules? Why do we need provisions? Uh, perhaps because we are overloading ourselves with diversity criteria, even in the area of fiction. We have a lively cultural landscape in Europe which we need to protect and promote, but we don't need a political oversight of that or journalistic criteria to apply. I think we should say cultural policy is a member state competence, and it must remain so. That's the message we should send.”
  EU and national cultural identities
• “(10:40:34 – 10:40:36): Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.Exceptionally, I'll speak German. Yesterday in the envy committee, I heard the report, from mister Salini. I said it was a step in the right direction, moving away from the combustion engine ban. You know, cost us a lot of jobs, meant a lot of, companies went bust. So that was the wrong way, and we need to, do a vault fast. And then for the commission proposal, I think, is a signal that, you know, they realized they did wrong, if you will, and they need to change course. So mister Salin's report is correct. Mister Gizika's report, I think I think in lots of parts, I think we can agree with, you know, with more flexibility. We need to make sure market conditions are taken on board technology technological neutrality with alternative fuels. So we need to see LCVs in a different light. Obviously, for us, 20 fifth 2035 aim, that's still unrealistic. 90%, that percentage, you know, it's just cosmetic. It doesn't reflect, the market. So the 90%, aim, I think, is, just as wrong as 100%. So mister Gieseker, your middle path, I think, for us, isn't that. I think it's a 1 way street that will lead to economic loss and greater dependency on, Chinese state industries, and that's why we need to deal with this. We recognize what mister Selena and mister Gizigev put forward, their trajectories, but we need to better help and protect our companies and workers. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · 2035 ICE phase-out: strict zero-emission target vs. flexibility for carmakers · Road transport environmental policy
• “Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the information. From our point of view, it is still problematic that what should be a market driven development of new types of vehicles vehicles is being imposed by law, thereby politicized and financed by taxpayers and forced on citizens and businesses. Even though demand stays limited, electricity is expensive, the pricing is transparent and in many countries, for example in Germany, unreliable. Since the tenure of the former Greek Minister of Economic Affairs, there has been a directive that in the event of insufficient electricity production, charging stations should be among the first to be taken offline to prevent possible brownouts or power outages. That sends a clear signal of uncertainty to the consumers. What is now being mandated again is something that has already failed in Germany. The forced expansion of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles that the market is unwilling to provide because the demand for vehicles remains limited and the stations are not economically viable. Instead, it would be important to maintain technological neutrality for all types of propulsion so that those systems systems prevail which are truly financially viable and without any without any subsidies. Electric trucks being especially problematic for small and medium enterprises. We have no question. That is just our statement. Thank you.”
  EV charging infrastructure · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to both repertoires for their work. A strong economy is the foundation of stability, innovation and also indispensable for the security of Europe. To achieve this, infrastructure must stay at the center of our policy. Economic growth depends on efficient cross border connections between member states. Investing in roads, rail networks, ports and airports as well as strengthening and integrating European energy grids to ensure reliable and efficient energy distribution therefore, supports growth and prosperity. In our amendments, we emphasize the sovereignty of the member states and the importance of an energy mix, including nuclear energy. Therefore, we fully support the issue of technological neutrality, and welcome the emphasis put on global competitiveness. The competition is fierce, sometimes unfair and partly subsidized in other parts of the world. We should keep in mind that only realistic environmental objectives make sense. If climate goals dominate, they might undermine the needs of our industry. And let us not forget that our competitors have a more flexible approach to environmental objectives. Coming back to the amendments, I myself come from a coastal area in Germany and I personally welcome the rapporteur's amendment, which mentions the importance of our ports, not only for trade, but also for military mobility. The amendments regarding outer regions are also very welcome. A resilient energy infrastructure plays a more important role than ever. And I'm glad to see that the reporters have brought up the cross border infrastructure as well. The principle of do no significant harm, which is sometimes hard to understand in other files, has been tackled in order to clarify where and when it really applies. So thank you for the clarification for that. And these and well, many other amendments are steps in the right direction. And therefore, I'm very confident that we find a common ground in further consultations. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration · Climate efforts
• “Thank you and thanks to Mr. Jessica for his work and also for his critical remarks, which we share in several regards. The inclusion of additional vehicle categories such as light trailers or some two wheelers is not convincingly justified in our respect, our opinion. There is no clear evidence that differing national rules significantly impair the internal market or systematically create safety risks. Instead, this appears to us to the to be a blanket harmonisation for business owners, farmers and micro entrepreneurs. This means additional inspection obligations, fees, workshop time and documentation requirements. Private individuals with trailers or secondary vehicles are also more heavily burdened. The added safety benefit remains unclear. We view the expansion of vehicle categories, subject to inspection as highly problematic, and believe that national circumstances, which have led to different levels of regulation across the EU states, have historical reasons that the EU must respect. The proposed shortening of inspection cycles is not supported by a differentiated risk analysis. There is no clear distinction between high risk vehicles and rarely used vehicles, nor is the statistical contribution of technical defects to accidents precisely quantified. For citizens, this means more hassle, higher fees for business, for businesses, additional downtime, downtime of fleets, increased administrative work. The fact that no majority has yet been found to limit delegated acts is also problematic to us. We risk once again adopting legislation as a Parliament that the Commission can gradually reshape in substance by using delegated acts to make both small and large changes. We will watch the process also in this respect. Thank you.”
  Roadworthiness / Periodic Vehicle Inspection directive
• “Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the experts. I'm very happy to see Mercedes-Benz as part of the innovation in Europe, because we need desperately need innovation in Europe, too. So yeah, autonomous driving is an exciting new way of individual mobility, but also for the transport branch. And there it can help fix the lack of professional drivers, which we are all looking for. But of course it requires a new complex regulatory framework by itself. Our concern is the data protection not only of the users, but also of the persons who might be in the surrounding of these vehicles and are being filmed. So my question first question would be directed to this subject. Given the strict, strict regulations that we have here in the EU. Second question is if there are any proposals by the industry as to simplify the registration of autonomous vehicles by the. How do you say DMV in the US? It's the DMV, but you know what I mean. Are there any requirements from your side in that respect? And especial question to Mr. Tycoon. Very impressive. You trip around the world, which which technology exactly is used in in Leuven in the pilot project? Hardware wise and software wise. And did they have to make any adjustment adjustments to European regulations? Thanks.”
  Autonomous vehicles regulation
• “(14:57:05 – 15:00:07): Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, rapporteur, honorable members. Thank you for the invitation to attend today's debate on this committee's draft opinion on the national and regional partnership plans. And thank you to the rapporteur, honorable member, Serra Nocira, for her work. The national and regional partnership plans will bring together EU funds implemented by member states and regions under 1 coherent strategy. The proposal as such ensures predictable and stable support for all regions, farmers, vulnerable communities, transport stakeholders, of course, in full compliance with the partnership principle involving regions and local communities in its design and implementation. Synergies and simplification are not at the expense of watering down support for specific policies, being cohesion, agriculture, or transport. As commissioner Seraphin said in the plenary of April, the key strength of the plans is that they are tailor made. This does not mean that we are moving to a Europe a la carte. The plans put European priorities and funds under 1 roof so they become easier to align with local needs, simpler to manage for national and regional authorities, and, crucially, deliver more powerfully when combined our common union priorities. In this regard, we fully appreciate the report there support for a coherent approach whereby transport policy is not treated in isolation, but is a cross cutting enabler of cohesion, competitiveness, social inclusion, security, and so on. This is exactly what the plans aim to achieve, to create synergies between policies so that we can achieve more impact with every euro spent from the EU budget. Concretely, the plans allow member states and regions to tailor solutions adapted to their national and regional needs and challenges instead of a 1 size fits all approach. At the same time, the proposal strengthened synergies between transport and other policies. You mentioned them very well. Cohesion, social policy and skills, competitiveness, rural areas, security, defense, ensuring a faster and more flexible support, simplifying current rules, and reducing administrative costs at all levels. In this regard, fixing allocations upfront, as proposed in the draft opinion, would reduce our capacity to adapt our funding to the needs of member states and regions, which are very different, especially, for example, if we take the exam if we take the 10 team ups as a reference point. Knowing no earmarking does not mean that transport does not matter. You've said it very well in this room today. There is no doubt that transport, which is the backbone of our single market, the backbone of cohesion, matters and will feature prominently in the plans, in particular, the completion of the tenti. Thank you very much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. President. The European wants Google to pay a fine of almost €3 billion because they've been preferring their own services in online advertising, and indeed they have been benefiting from their position. A US court also recently made a decision on Google and to what extent they might have to have spin offs. So there's a threat of a fine, but the EU has been lagging behind when it comes to digital platforms. But instead of complaining, we should focus on innovation businesses and setting up a European Google or Meta instead. We're seeing a lot of brain drain people leaving Europe because their ambitions are being stifled. We need a fair context for online advertising. Okay, but what we really need is a Europe that provides chances and opportunities.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to, for to the commission. We support the commission's approach as it places, emphasis on competitiveness and innovation, at least. And last, however, we remain concerned that the proposed simplifications still focus primarily on technical vehicle standards, particularly those for electrical electric vehicles. What we need though is a genuinely technology neutral approach that treats all technologies equally and extends regulatory relief not only to Euro 7 vehicles, but also to vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines. Millions of citizens still prefer combustion engine vehicles for good reasons. The current policy framework risk creating technology technologically and economically harmless harmful bias in favor of electric vehicles by treating them as the only desirable low emission option. As a result, plug in hybrids and highly efficient water and combustion engines are increasingly being pushed out of the market with all consequences for our industry and our workforce. Furthermore, a proper well to wheel assessment must acknowledge that battery production is far from emission free and electricity generation in many parts of Europe still relies on energy sources associated with significant emissions. A balanced and technology neutral regulatory framework should take the full environmental footprint of all vehicle technologies into account, also of small electric vehicles that the commission wants. The commission's commission's proposal can only be a first step. We will accompany this omnibus very closely and will do everything to help our industry and our workforce. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, the European housing problem is a homemade problem. Not only are few housing units being built, but the mass migration in Europe means that the demand for housing is growing, even though the locals are discriminated against in competition for them. So Europe should protect its external border better. And also we are saying that we need more. Insulation to combat. The consequences of climate change. What we need is a. A reaction that isn't just something caused by by the EU itself. Uh, housing, fortunately, is not yet within the prerogatives of the EU, and it should remain a national problem to resolve.”
  Asylum & border control
• “And it's also, apart from anything else, the green transition has made things much more expensive. I think just as is the case for the car industry, the steel industry, the chemicals industry, we need to decide that we really cannot fulfill these environmental requirements, uh, as quickly as we previously intended. I mean, we're basically seeing a recession now so things can't continue as they are. So I'd like to know from you whether the building sector should move away from some of these standards and conditions that it faces, and I'd like an honest answer from you. And then the other issue is that we constantly face the problem of subsidiarity, all these hurdles that you've mentioned. I mean, they're local, regional or perhaps national level hurdles. So that's kind of the elephant in the room. I mean, as the EU, we simply don't seem to be able to move forward. So quite apart from the good practices that you mentioned from some member states, Scandinavia in particular, what can we actually do to get over this problem? It's a problem that seems to exist right across Europe. But. I was also pleased with your statement with regard to, uh, some of the conditions that we might need for building. So thank you. Anyway, those are my questions.”
  Construction products
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thanks for the presentation. Was very interesting. And thank you also for debunking the myth of the big problem that short term rental causes in terms of over tourism. It seems to be not the EU wide problem, but it's very locally specific. And, um, I agree with you on the subject of the unoccupied dwellings. This is the biggest problem. But when, if I understand you correctly, they are not sufficient data to explain why the dwellings are unoccupied. It's just has been published in Germany, a study by the institute. And they, they, they say we don't know why they are unoccupied. Most of the times they are in rural areas that are not very attractive, Attractive, or they are owned by elderly owners that are just not. They don't want to rent and rent them out anymore, or they are economically not viable anymore, so they are not fit for the market. And I would be interested in more data on this subject because as I just mentioned, the Institute's research just came out, I think, last week. So maybe there are more data from single member states, maybe not for all the EU, but maybe single member states.”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “Yeah. Yes. And not ECN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the commissioners. I have two questions regarding the financing. The future budget for CF is about to grow considerably. That might be good news, but we have experienced in the past that many CF projects were under-financed. So how do how do you make sure that the new increased budget will fit the actual demands of the projects in the next term? So, in other words, will there be a tighter budget control after 2028? And my second question would be how do you prioritize projects if their evaluation shows that they weren't successful in the past or during the next term? For instance, in cohesion areas, so will there be a mechanism to transfer budgets to more promising projects in mid-term if the need arises to do so? Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to you, Commissioner Tzitzikostas, for your report and for being here. I think it's a really good sign that you are a regular guest here in the committee. Um, in the light of the problems with the present infrastructure, I would like to refrain. To speak about high speed rail at this moment is important. That issue might be, but I would rather like to ask a question referring to the sustainable transport Investment plan Stip. When I when I talk to representatives of the maritime sector and the aviation industry last week in Strasbourg, there were severe doubts concerning this plan. The reason for this is the uncertainty in the policy making here in Brussels, among other things, there was a statement that the Commission's position on the fate of combustion engines in the automotive sector will send an important signal whether the road to alternative fuels is safe enough to travel for the industry and long term investments. We are talking about €100 billion, as you mentioned, investments that Stip wants to initiate with a relatively small seed money of only I think 3 billion. So the and the Early Movers coalition has not been very attractive up to this point, as you are aware too. So today there are news that the Commission's decision concerning the combustion engines in cars might be postponed, but that you, Mr. Commissioner, are very open to all technologies, a message that might be interpreted in favor of the automotive sector. That's our hope at least. My question is, quite frankly, wouldn't this message undermine step in a certain degree? Or in other words, which signal do you want to send out to the aviation and maritime industry as to the Commission's commitment to Stip today? Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “President. Madam president, colleagues, the the single market is the heart of this, the EU. And it would be good. People are. We need we need to look at the reality which is the dominance of A US big tech in Europe. So why is it so much in California? In Texas? Why? Why are we seeing this in the US and not in Germany and France? And why are we seeing our programmers and our staff leaving when it comes? We have a we don't have growth friendly policies in our, uh, countries. Uh. So the Digital Market Act is a good example, and the Digital Service Act has some good examples in that the EU wants to, um, control and they block the freedom of our, uh, researchers. And we've seen the same thing in Georgia and Romania, Moldova and Ukraine, thank you very much. And we fully reject that.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “And then also you mentioned, of course, that there are some regions where the where the demand is too high and, and the construction does not keep up with the demand. The presentation was very fast and uh, and maybe I missed it, but maybe you can point out where which regions are mostly affected by this, by this phenomenon. And also you mentioned, of course, one of the causes for the growing demand, and the missing supply is the urbanization of rural areas get more and more popular, popularized in Eastern Europe and also in Germany. But of course migration plays a plays a factor since 2015. And my last question would be if there are specific data on the cause or the effect of migration in certain, maybe urban areas. I'm not sure how they this plays out. Speaking of urban or rural areas, because they in Germany for instance, they will migrants will be spread out in every area actually. But I don't know if there are certain hotspots that maybe you can point out according to your data. But once again, thanks very much. And it's very helpful to have data on this subject and not only rumors and Assumptions. Thanks very much.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, so-called climate policy, the EU. Is there to try and flow into the planned economy. You see. Refuel EU aviation and the ETS certificates are basically a disaster waiting to happen. We can see the problem of the provision of fuel for airlines in the EU doesn't seem to be working at all. We have to import from outside. So we're having to buy up fuel that doesn't exist. At the same time, the productions, the juices are threatening airlines with fines. It's a sort of Damocles hanging over our airlines, and it threatens to make flying in Europe a luxury once again. The outsourcing of European airlines outside Europe is destroying our aviation sector. Istanbul and the Gulf countries are rubbing their hands together because of our market failures. We need to get back to reality before it's too late.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “President, ladies and gentlemen, here, we're not talking about burgers and how they're labeled. We're talking about our farmers who then supply our food. When we look at the national situation, we need to have a more realistic approach in terms of the environment. And I'd like to thank colleagues who have worked towards that. We need to make sure that we have fair contractual conditions and with the price amount and the delivery conditions, all of that needs to be sorted out in advance. These were the core calls from the from the farmers in the protest last year. The CMO needs to have the right protective conditions in place to stop unfair trading practices to make sure that there are no unclear rules and and controls. We need to make sure that it's not just European farmers who are having to comply with all these rules. We are standing side by side with our farmers in the interest of having that food security in uncertain times.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm substituting for my colleague, Sara Knafo, who is a member of Iter and cannot be here today. So this is her statement. The new news of Europe extends far beyond its original purpose in the energy field. It has become a political instrument of the Green Deal rather than a targeted infrastructure tool. Recitals nine, 11 and 25 make climate neutrality and biodiversity production mandatory. Criteria. Yet there is no cost benefit analysis of these requirements. Article 194 of the treaty is clear. Each member state retains the right to determine its own energy mix by tying funding to renewable integration and decarbonisation objectives. The Commission effectively limits this national sovereignty. Sovereignty. The proposal also allows safe resources to finance projects of mutual interest with third countries. After already diverting funds to Ukraine and Moldova, this is difficult to justify when many European grids remain incomplete. Finally, the budget has doubled without a quantified explanation. Before expanding its mandate, the Commission should clarify how safe spending will deliver affordable, secure and reliable energy for European industry and households. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the council is talking about simplification. Cutting red tape for middle classes. Market economy instead of planned economy. Is that the actual case behind those fine words? We can still see a plan for making sure that there is a planned economy under this green transition that's meant to be pursued, even though it's destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, destroying our companies, and leading to the highest energy prices in the world, this Green Deal is poison for the economy. Who's producing these, um, Batteries for cars and and renewable turbines. It's China. So you get rid of one document and you call that simplification. We'll only believe you once your words are followed by deeds. And we've turned around the economic decline in Europe. The omnibus procedure vote being voted on today is an initial step. It could be a first step and we'll see if we actually stand it. Who is actually standing by our workers and our business and who isn't?”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Allow me to give this report on behalf of Mr. Stoyanov, who cannot be here at this time. First of all, thanks to Mr. Gizycki for his report. The improvement of the EU passenger rights by the new regulation on multimodal travel is is a positive development in our view. The goal is to create rules that are more transparent, improve enforcement and ensure fair treatment for passengers using different types of transport. We support efforts to guarantee reimbursement, assistance and protection when travel is disrupted. However, we emphasize the need for flexibility. Directly applying certain provisions would impose heavy financial burdens on rail operators in some countries. Therefore, we advocate a transitional period and clear regulations defining the role of intermediaries. The EU needs a stable framework for passenger rights, but not at the expense of weakening the transport systems in some of the member states. Thank you very much.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Thank you. President. The climate conference in Belém was a unique failure, and I think it shows that the EU is absolutely isolated. The USA, China do what they want. The BRICs countries want to develop even with fossil fuels. We're discovering new sort of gas deposits that have paused. People want to, um, use, um, there are countries that are told that they have to forfeit their well-being, um, the prosperity that others are enjoying. So we have to, um, reach out to the global South. But, um, using climate abatement in terms of, um, ensuring support for the industry is just a joke. I think it's a traveling circus. The cop conferences, without making any headway at all when it comes to climate change. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Uh. One minute.”
  Climate efforts
• “Mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, a representative from the aviation industry stressed this yesterday. The European Union is world champion when it comes to setting targets, but not when it comes to achieving them. With new fuels, planes and ships should be made more environmentally friendly in aviation. It should be possible to have. This transition is actually underway, but very expensive when it comes to ships. However, they require quite a different fuels, primarily plant oil, and that's very expensive and unrealistic. The Commission has estimated that total investment will be €1 billion between now and 2035. What investor would make such long term plans if they can't rely on politicians? Yesterday we were all for the Green Deal. Now we want rearmament. Here in this House, a majority is against abandoning internal combustion engines. What message do we send to industry with this? And what use are green dreams from Brussels if the IMO refuses to follow? The EU investment plan is unfortunately unrealistic. Bring your feet down on earth if you can't provide any future planning security for the industry.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Mr. president. The vice president, ladies and gentlemen, the European Media Freedom Act is a Trojan horse. It's a lie. Under the pretext of protecting consumers of media. The EU wants to use the backdoor to introduce more control mechanisms and censorship. The use N is against this limitation of media freedoms. Some might remember That was supposed to be a big step towards democratization. But at the end of the day, it was a loss of media freedom. The European Union is continuing down this track from the Social Democrats mentioned free media. Pfizer recently was involved in banning a free media channel in Germany because of what they were reporting on. The public media in Germany are used by the government for propaganda, and they're limiting the scope of what can be said. We're in favor of media freedom and against this act.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I'll be very brief because we agree upon many points of the opinion so far. The proposal, and we are looking forward to working together on this on this project. Especially in terms of the completion of the ten V network and the regional cohesion, especially of the rural areas. So we're looking forward to the cooperation and I think it will be very constructive. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “(09:56:23 – 09:58:11): Thank you very much to the speakers. Sorry for being late. Is doctor Hildebrand still connected? If so, I'd like to thank her for having brought up the subject of recycling recycling of construction materials. And we've also got industry and research here. They're they're all affected by that as well because we have a lot of construction materials that we could reuse in construction, base materials, basic materials, but also cement. We have all of this available to us, and it's really a shame that we can't do more. I know that in Schleswig Holstein, my region, that there we have to import construction materials from Europe because we recycle so little, and we can we can't recycle very much because we we're not allowed to. There are too many too many barriers, to be able to do so. So I'd like to hear from, doctor Hildebrand what she thinks and how we can better work on recycling materials economically and ecologically that would be of advantage. And then we spoke a lot about ETS as well, and that also is important for the energy intensive areas of industries such as cement. Heidelberg and Holsson, these are big companies. And I know that's an important subject for you. In Knauf, they've been looking at how these rules have affected them. And then the last question, I only sort of half caught what you were saying. You were talking about problem of plaster.”
  Construction products
• “Yes. Thank you very much. Just for your information, I'm also one of the. Yeah, well, I thought I would be asked as one of the coordinators actually, of the joint committee. So, um, thank you very much. Uh, I make it very brief because some of the questions have all been already been asked. Um, thank you very much to Professor Brügger for the clarification of the term shadow fleet, which is an incorrect framing by the journalist. And I remember times when shadow fleets only referred to smugglers and and so on. And now it's it's, uh, it's used for this special, special event here, but, um, thank you. Thank you for that. And also for thank you for clarification that, um, carrying a flag of convenience is not legal per se and also on short notice. So I think, uh, there's a danger to mixing up two to phenomenons. One is the Russian method of using these ships, and the other one is the safety. Safety topic, which is actually not new. And it's it's much bigger than the Russian. Part of that. So my, my question would be also to Doctor Solano because she also mentioned. The sanctions. How exactly can you sanction owners if the if they are not in your.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the. To the panelists for their presentations. Let me say it first that we have to acknowledge that we have to take a highly differentiated approach here. Of course, we have negative effects of short term rentals in big cities like Barcelona or Amsterdam that hurt the local housing markets. There's no doubt about that. But on the other side, we have many positive effects in small towns or rural areas where homeowners can generate extra income, which helps in this time of recession and high inflation. Moreover, second, homes that are rented for a short time can be used to ease demand during peak times in touristic areas. So we shouldn't call for a one size fits all measure by the EU. I have one question for Mr. Buchwald. You expected more? You're expecting more action by the EU, humoral regulation. Among other measures, you call for a verification of the registrations. How exactly could it look like in your view? You expect platforms to take responsibility for the content and refer to the DSA, but actually there's no problem to to enforce disclosure of this data. Um, about the lessors of short term rentals. For instance, we have legal rulings in Berlin and Munich which are affected as well that forced Airbnb to disclose this kind of information. In other cities, we have a mandatory registration of apartments that are used for short term rentals. So in many federal states in Germany, there are laws already against misuse of property and they can be enforced. So considering that regional or municipal governments have the power to impose regulations of their own, I don't see any need for a You or a path, a legal path for an EU wide regulation. So I think we should all follow local original paths instead of calling for action by the EU. Other than asking for legal advice or recommendations like Mr. Varadkar correctly mentioned. Thank you very much.”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “I will speak for Anya Ant as well because I'm a substitute member of ENVY as well. Okay? Great. Saves us time. So the ESN opposes this draft report. The proposed amendments would further increase regulatory burdens on businesses in the transport sector while not taking into account the difficult economic realities faced by business across all member states. The tightened electrification targets risk creating a de facto obligation to adopt a specific technology regardless of infrastructure availability, costs or technological developments. Companies are not capable of financing new vehicles, which are significantly more expensive than combustion vehicles. Actually, rigid purchase mandates will actually delay fleet renewal forcing companies to keep older vehicles longer on the road because they cannot afford the EV alternative. The meet the made in EU requirement could distort competition, increase costs for businesses, and undermine market driven decision making without providing a strategy in the amendments how to exactly strengthen European competitiveness. We oppose EU centralized subsidy schemes and protectionist micromanagement. The vague financials that we support and meet in EU requirement will trigger artificial price inflation for commercial vehicles within the single market. This will hit smaller subcontractors and SMEs who depend on affordable fleet vehicles. The inclusion of e bikes and cargo bikes, in amendments 28 and 29 are really very far from reality. I mean, the Brussels is trying to create a greenwash statistical illusion on paper to cover up the unrealistic targets. The ESN group is also concerned by the further transfer of power to the European Commission and the increase in reporting obligations. These measures run against reflect the diverse economic, cultural and infrastructural circumstances in the member states. Overall, the report relies on more regulation, additional bureaucracy, a tight focus on electrical vehicles and more intervention in business decisions without demonstrating a proportionate benefit. That's why we oppose the draft report on all these reasons. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Thank you, Chair. Yeah, thank you for the information, but given that this is an interim information only, I don't have a question actually, but I'm looking forward to the development. Just let me say that the expectations that you mentioned are very optimistic. I don't think that this timetable is realistic in any case. You mentioned in the information that the sales sharp increase in sales has to happen beginning with this year, actually in the next five years. I don't see that coming at all. And hydrogen is totally futuristic. It's not in line with the industrial development. So we are looking forward to the next information and for concrete figures when they happen. Thank you. **Virginijus Sinkevičius (Lithuania, Greens/EFA) @Chair: Okay, thank you. Now we have first Mister Jimenez Larras. Thank you.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Thank you, president. Ladies and gentlemen. Well, I come from a region where national majority minorities are particularly particularly protected. Their ethnic, cultural and linguistic specificities are worth protecting. They are among the 340 national minorities with 100 million people who contribute to the culture of Europe. They are real diversity and not marching around with some kind of rainbow flag. The idea of this European Citizens initiative is intended to have national minorities better protected in cohesion policy. It's a scandal that the commission rejected a similar citizens initiative four years ago. Whether we're talking about the Hungarian minority in Romania or the German minorities in Silesia or South Tyrol or Transylvania. These cultural treasures must be protected and promoted. It's the promise of the EU to create greater equality and not just hot air. By the way, the country in Europe which does most to destroy national minorities rights is the Ukraine. The Ukraine therefore does not belong in the EU.”
  EU and national cultural identities
• “Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak in German. First of all, let me just say that we voted. Against this. Because. We cannot, um, have the input that we'd like to on this. Let me just say the following. We are not the committee. The commission is not respecting legal certainty. Um, concepts. And in terms of exempting um, vehicles from tolls. Now, if we extend this legislation, the commission is creating legal uncertainty with this planned extension. It would be up to the member states from 2026 whether they would, um, exempt vehicles from tolls. And when national states can decide whether vehicles, um, are exempt. Well, what is the EU space to do. Um, this is very important for SMEs and we shouldn't extend this in this legislation. With this 75% exemption after 2026. We think that the exemption for small, smaller vehicles should, uh, remain. But for low emission vehicles, um, it's questionable because we don't know where the energy is produced from. We think that this creates legal uncertainty in the EU member states and doesn't contribute to competitiveness, which we need more than ever. We need to be technologically neutral rather than rely on exemptions which are subsidised by the EU. Be it directly or indirectly. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · Road transport environmental policy
• “Ladies and gentlemen, if Mr.. Mrs. von der Leyen will change the rules, that is just a. It is a problem for the market. We to decide which cars will be used and by whom is is problematic. And as as a minister in Germany, she also caused or was at the root of some very deep scandals in the auto industry. Now, if what business people need from the politics is is purity. The we have the climate hysteric hysterics who are who are, uh, who are causing problems in the industry and in the politics, in the policy. Technology and openness is, uh, is problematic. And citizens should be able to choose how they move around the this should we want a broad range of offers and we want a strong, uh, automotive industry that is not, uh, that is not taken over by Chinese electric vehicles. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Madam president. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Our food security is more important than ever, and that means that we need to increase our production. And how do we do that with fertilisers? And here we're being also hampered by unrealistic environmental conditions. Our chemical industry could produce more ammonium if then it wasn't forced to do so in third countries. What we have here is a short term, a short term plan to help the the situation. But we need to bring down our dependency on fossil fuels, and then also reduce the use of nitrates, but don't then have these corridors for green ammonia from the Middle East and Africa with green steel and green hydrogen. But our farmers shouldn't be disappointed again, so this needs to be right.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thanks to all the coordinators. My first question goes out to Mr. Hartman. You mentioned the importance of CF. Of course, for all these projects that you mentioned, like Rail Baltica. And my first question would be, do you think that CF provides actually enough funds, sufficient funds to, um, to implement all these new tasks at ports in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea to provide for military mobility that you mentioned as well. Same goes out to the, um, the, um, infrastructure in these ports in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea. Do you think this, um, that we need an expanded rail infrastructure in these ports to live up to these new challenges? Um, the third question to you, Miss Trautmann, would also be connected to CF because we experienced already a drone attacks or drone overflights in the Baltic coast, and also cyber attacks. We know from from which direction they came. And do you think that we need more protection against these kind of attacks at the ports in the Baltic as well? Um, and, um, doctor, doctor. You mentioned um that the, that we have um a wide gap between the pioneers and those countries that are lagging behind. Um, unfortunately Germany doesn't belong to the pioneers in this, in this case. Um, is there something that countries like Germany or France can, can learn from the other, from the pioneers by, by ways of best practice? Or do you, do you choose to maybe plan develop new models through the EU? I think the best way would be to to learn from the others. But maybe you can elaborate on this question. Thanks very much.”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure