Speeches

Although I wholeheartedly support enlargement of the Union, I cannot vote in favour of this report because it contains an unwarranted assumption that enlargement presupposes deepening. What an opposite logic! I would even risk saying that the Union needs to be rather shallower in many areas, that is to say, to leave more freedom to Member States and citizens. In particular, there is no evidence that unanimity prevents efficient decision-making. The abolition of the unanimity rule would mean that in real politics the two strongest countries would retain the possibility of a veto, as it would be difficult to imagine a situation in which one of them would be voted on. They'll get along with each other first. "Deepening" would fundamentally change the nature of the Union. It would deprive it of what constitutes its greatest advantage – that it is still a voluntary bloc of sovereign states that cooperate with each other, sharing their sovereignty in certain areas.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I believe that there is nothing more characteristic of the Union's response to Russian aggression than this discussion. After two and a half years of brutal war waged by Russia, robbing and destroying, we are discussing whether we can accept profits from Russian money frozen in Europe. After two and a half years. Yes, we are already sending weapons, too late and not enough, we do not skimp on words of support. When it comes to money and gas, especially liquefied gas, there is astonishing restraint and impossibility. So we should hurry, because judging by the media reports, in a moment the war itself may be frozen and negotiations with Putin will begin. I think that this case shows how strong Russian influence in Europe is still, and at the very center of power. But is it any wonder that politicians such as Manuela Schwesig, currently president of the Bundesrat in Germany, are still present in these centres? And as long as such politicians are present in the centers of power, nothing will change. I urge my German colleagues to take this into account.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Prime Minister, I'm sorry. Last week, study days took place in Helsinki (a beautiful city) and we were able to see how realistic the current government – and I think the Finns in general – is in terms of border protection, migration, and the issue of Russian defence and threat. Finland maintained the obligation of military service when it was already abandoned in most European countries, which, as we know, was a mistake. Today we need a realistic defence policy in Europe, that is, one that strengthens, not weakens NATO. And the Prime Minister talked about it. Member States and the patriotism of their citizens are not weakened by dreams of a European army and the construction of a European state. I would like to say that I was pleased to hear a very realistic speech by the Prime Minister, and I hope that we will move in this direction in the next term.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I would like to say that, in the light of what Mrs Ursula von der Leyen has said, it is completely incomprehensible that the long-announced EDIP, a strategy for the development of the European defence industry, is constantly being shifted. I would like to ask Mr Šefčovič, what are the reasons for this? This is a testimony to some inner weakness of ours, and it is completely incompatible with what we have said here about the necessity of speed of action and our unity. I would be grateful if you could make a quick decision and explain why this delay is happening.

Mr President, thank you very much. When Russia launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine two years ago, Europe was shocked and shocked, although Russia's brutal imperialism has been known for centuries in Europe. We could use a little history, I think. The Ukrainians surprised us with their determination and courage, but today the moods are different and we cannot enchant reality. And the fact that the mood is different is also our fault. Ukraine lacks not only equipment, but also people. The readiness of young Ukrainians to join the army is decreasing. Many prefer to stay abroad. Political differences are growing in Kyiv. Only in this situation we should do more, not less. It is good that the European Council has decided to continue its financial support to Ukraine (this assistance is of great importance) and that it has finally decided to consider the use of frozen Russian assets. Congratulations on your determination and courage. Let us hope that we will not wait another two years for real action in this matter.

– Madam President, I would like to thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Dear Colleagues, I am glad that this debate took place, that it took place, because one of the problems of geothermal is its low visibility compared to other RES sectors and the very idea of geothermal projects is sometimes ignored. In circulating opinions, geothermal plants are sanatorium facilities in Iceland, Italy, and not, for example, a heating network in Denmark or a greenhouse heating system in Poland. And that has to change. This is an urgent task both for the Member States and for the geothermal sector itself. We need an educational campaign to promote geothermal energy. I am pleased because this report and this debate are part of such a promotion of the idea of geothermal energy. I would also like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation in writing this report. We rarely agree in the European Parliament. I would also like to thank the geothermal sector, businesses, NGOs, which reacted very enthusiastically to the idea of preparing this report and provided a lot of interesting data and insights that we took into account. The Commission's experts from ENER, GROW and REGI, who have been helpful in providing data, clarifying and answering Members' concerns and questions, are also to be thanked. Again, thank you very much and I take your word for it that we will implement the demands of this own-initiative report.

– Madam President, I would like to thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. First of all, I would like to start by saying that the ITRE report has very strong support. We have a strong mandate, because all political groups voted for it and we ask the Commission, but also the Member States, to support the development of geothermal energy. We note with regret that geothermal energy still plays a marginal role in the discussion on renewable energy. I must say that for me it was a personal surprise, so much is being said about the green transition, and such an important topic as geothermal energy has been omitted. And the benefits of this energy are enormous: low environmental impact, stable and predictable energy costs, low operating costs, long service life and reliability. So why is its potential overlooked? In statistics, geothermal does not appear as a separate category, but as other RES. So from here it is a sector that is essentially invisible on the energy market, which has a negative impact on competitiveness, on access to finance, on political support. Our report shows the existing barriers to the development of geothermal energy and recommends solutions to be taken by the Member States, the Commission and the sector. Let me list some here, for example: the availability of geological data, the fragmentation of the nature of statistical data, the financial risks associated with geothermal projects and the problem of high costs associated with the installation of geothermal heat pumps, regulatory issues (deep geothermal projects are often subject to inadequate mining legislation), administrative issues (geothermal project permitting processes are lengthy), the shortage of skilled workers and the problem of full and quality teaching at universities. Finally, the development of advanced geothermal technologies such as EGS, underground electricity and heat storage. All this must be taken into account in a coherent and comprehensive European policy. We therefore call on the European Commission to present an EU geothermal strategy with concrete guidelines for Member States and local administrations. We call on the European Commission to establish a geothermal alliance uniting Member States, the geothermal sector, the scientific community and civil society around the task of developing geothermal, exchanging best practices and effectively implementing the future strategy. Finally, I would like to stress the particular role of the development of geothermal energy for the areas of energy transition. Geothermal is an integral part of the just energy transition pathway. It can provide not only energy sources, but also compensate for job losses in the mining sector and attract new business projects in industry, food and agriculture. Unfortunately, there are very few projects using existing infrastructure (e.g. post-mining, closed oil and gas shafts) and very few in relation to the potential of changing the purpose of this infrastructure. I call on the Commission to prioritise this area of action and to support, through existing programmes, both the development of appropriate techniques and the implementation of these projects.

Mr President, thank you very much. Is our assistance with military equipment sufficient? The answer is clear. I think most of my colleagues answered that. It's not. Ukraine does not have enough equipment to defeat Russia to defend itself. Worst of all, this assistance comes too late, as human resources, Ukraine’s mental resilience and, unfortunately, ours are already running out. The barrier was mainly ideology, not lack of equipment. To put it bluntly, the fear of Russia and the transfer of the war to its territory. Let me just remind you that in the first weeks we only delivered light weapons to Ukraine, and some countries started with helmets. I have a question for my colleagues: If we are so outraged at pro-Russian speeches here, why have we never discussed political responsibility for building Putin's and Russia's position? Why is Gerhard Schröder still a member of the German SPD and Angela Merkel receives high state decorations? Perhaps we should talk about political responsibility also for these first weeks and reactions during the Russian aggression.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. In fact, I can only agree with my colleagues. I have some disagreements with Mrs. Neumann. On some points I might agree, on others I probably don't. But above all, I would like to agree with the Commissioner, with what you said at the outset. Only a mysterious question arises, an intriguing question. Why is that? Since we are in agreement here in Parliament, almost all political groups. The Commissioner has been talking about this for many months. The Commission announces that this EDIP programme will be announced. And we're actually talking about a spectrum fund after so many months. Nothing's going on. This publication date is postponed. We do not know the details of this program. We do not know at what stage the preparatory work is. Here, of course, my colleagues and I dealt with EDIRPA and ASAP. These were all hole-fixing programs. And we have been waiting for this long-term European response to the underfunding of defence by most countries. Only a few months remain until the end of this parliamentary term. If the Commission announces EDIP early next year, then the question is, will we be able to take this seriously? Now we hear that the Commission will only propose a pilot version of EDIP in 2025-2027. Such pilot projects usually end. They are transferred, saved to the target programs. We must have time for normal legislative work. We have also recently heard that this defence investment programme is turning into a European defence industrial strategy, something broader. This has been talked about since October. So, Commissioner, I have one question. Please talk to us seriously. What are the reasons for this delay? Or is it about politics?

Yes, but from what the Commissioner says, the barriers are political. Or maybe psychological? It's not about ability. Psychological, because we all know that in some countries there is still a mood of pacifism. And the political? Perhaps some people do not really want to support Ukraine in this counter-offensive that Ukraine is currently conducting.

My question goes in the same direction. However, it is extremely disappointing that the European Union is unable to honour the commitments it has made. I have a question for the Commissioner: Before we threw such a beautiful number, a million rounds of ammunition, ammunition units, did someone check whether we were able to do it? And you're talking about your visit, you've visited munitions factories in many countries. And now the fundamental question is whether our industry is so weak that it is not able to produce it and we are not able to help Ukraine effectively, or whether there are other reasons for this?

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Maybe we could start by finding out the facts. And my colleague Verhofstadt turned off a little bit, so I wanted to turn to him: You talked about mistakes in EU policy, which is why you talked about the need to change the treaties. Well, these erroneous decisions were not made as a result of the activities of the often cited Viktor Orbán, but by the majority. Who influenced European politics? Who wants to open up borders to illegal immigrants? Who wants to be friends with Putin? Who Did the Politics Wandel durch Trade? Us or these countries? Who, until the end, was still at war, called President Putin? Who has reduced the defense capabilities of our country's industry? Well, let's be honest. You have now proposed a proposal, saying that this is a compromise. What is a compromise? What is a compromise? This is the Spinelli Group that proposed its vision for Europe, colleagues of Gerhard Schroeder, colleagues of Angela Merkel, colleagues of Erich Honecker, and this is supported by colleagues of Wojciech Jaruzelski. (The speaker refused to listen to the blue card question raised by Łukasz Kohut)

Mr President, thank you very much. I remember the discussion last year when we were very concerned about whether we would be able to ensure security of energy supply, when electricity and gas costs were rising sharply and we were afraid of growing public protests. Admittedly, and we must appreciate that we have avoided the Great Depression – and this is certainly a success, so congratulations to you, Commissioner. The Commissioner spoke about how this has been achieved: through efforts to fill gas storage, which we have been working on, through diversification of energy import infrastructure routes, investments in renewable energy, in energy efficiency, through efforts to reduce energy demand. The Commissioner also mentioned that we have a significant increase in the use of RES, which was mainly due to photovoltaics – also record achievements in my country – and wind farms. The EU has reduced its dependence on Russian fossil fuels. We withdrew from coal imports, there was a reduction in oil imports to 90% and a reduction in gas imports. However, some problems remain. We are still importing gas from Russia. Some countries, such as Austria, have even increased their pipeline imports. It is therefore difficult to understand that in this case there is no adequate response from the Commission and there is no adequate response from the European Parliament, which does not want to discuss this issue at all. In addition, LNG purchases from Russia have increased by 40%, so we continue to finance Russia and its war. Secondly, during the energy crisis, fossil fuel subsidies increased significantly. Member States have put in place crisis support mechanisms of €195 billion. This is not in line with the Union's climate policy, but it is in line with current realities. The problem is that we are increasingly moving away from market rules when it comes to energy. Thirdly, as colleagues have already mentioned, energy prices remain high for both individual consumers and industry. Gas and electricity prices are higher in Europe than in other regions of the world. We can therefore be concerned about the competitiveness of European industry and we are increasingly hearing about the relocation of European companies across the ocean. And this is, of course, a huge threat.

EDIP is, of course, only one element of the new strategy to support the defence industry, as well as to supply Ukraine with weapons so that it can preserve its freedom and independence. But this new strategy is only the beginning of a sobering up and a return to realism, which I hope will come true after the European elections next year. The new policy must be based on the lessons learned from this war, such as: First, Russia is not a partner, but a threat. The European elites were largely deceived and corrupted. Europe's security can only be built in cooperation with the United States, not against it. The security of Europe from the east is guaranteed by a strong Poland. Europe is a strong force of the Member States. One cannot be a major player in international politics without strong industry and military capabilities. And here, in these discussions, I would add that we have seen three extremes. In the extremes on the left of the rejecters, which converged on the right, but unfortunately also the extremes of the measure that already thinks of the European army, whereas, as I said, I believe that Europe is strong and can only be strong by the strength of its Member States.

Madam President, I'm sorry. As colleague Gahler said, from the outset, this act to strengthen the European defence industry through common procurement was supposed to be one of the urgent responses to the Russian aggression against Ukraine in February last year. And now, allow me to complain a little. In my view, the European Parliament did not act quickly enough on this matter. We meet almost 15 months after the publication of EDIRPA by the European Commission and two and a half months after the last trilogues, still under the Swedish Presidency. In the meantime, ASAP, the Act to Support Ammunition Production, was adopted in a record two months. I just want to point out that it was not the Council (some colleagues complain about the Council) that made this efficiency of our work insufficient, that the European Parliament is responsible for such a long period of legislative work. And had it not been for the political fair between committees, the decisions of the majority of the chairs of the political groups, resulting in a complicated division of competences between committees, EDIRPA could have entered into force a few months ago, and today the first projects would have received financial support. As regards the Regulation itself, I would like to recall two of its main objectives. Firstly, to strengthen the European defence industry by encouraging Member States to cooperate on arms purchases and, secondly, to support Member States’ efforts to replenish their stockpiles of arms transferred to Ukrainian troops. It should be stressed that the EUR 300 million negotiated by us will not be spent on joint arms purchases, as the Treaties do not allow this. And we should respect treaties, as we all know. European funds are intended to help establish cooperation between Member States, which will result in joint purchases by these countries from their own resources. Of course, in the current geopolitical context, all available tools, including EU money, must be used to strengthen Member States’ defence capabilities as soon as possible. We managed to defend some important proposals from Parliament during the negotiations: higher overall budget for EDIRPA than proposed by the Council (although lower than proposed by the Commission), EU funding for at least seven projects, increased funding for those projects that would result in direct military support to Ukraine and Moldova. Although the envelope of EUR 30 million is much smaller than the one initially announced by the Commission, it should be remembered that it is intended to solve legal, logistical or financial problems when working together, and not to provide funds for the purchases themselves. EDIRPA is therefore primarily intended to remove barriers to international and European cooperation in this area. On the other hand, the expected effect of incentives for joint procurement should be to further increase the demand for arms products, and thus increase the investment of Member States and the industry itself in the development of the industrial base. Finally, I would like to thank the co-rapporteur, Michael Gahler, once again. It was not only good cooperation between the committees, but also good cooperation, if I may say so, between Germany and Poland on this issue, and with colleague Ivars Ijabs from IMCO and other colleague shadow rapporteurs. I would also like to thank the Swedish Presidency.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr President, thank you very much. As this debate shows, we are in a slightly different phase of building the Green Deal. We started translating general prices into concrete legislative decisions, and people started to feel the effects. It turned out – as we all supposedly knew, but only in theory – that the energy transition and climate policy will be costly and will be combined with the renunciations of citizens. As long as the costs of the transformation were to be paid, for example, by a Polish miner, and not by a Danish, Dutch or German farmer, this did not cause you political concern. But today it turns out that a significant proportion of voters in Germany, France, Denmark or the Netherlands are not ready for these austerities. For example, he does not want to give up a car with a combustion engine, pay for the replacement of a gas stove, limit consumption and change his voting preferences. Therefore, some colleagues show much less enthusiasm for the Green Deal and discover its ideological nature. This trend is expected to deepen in the future and may extend to other political groups.

Mr President, thank you very much. We can still see that the end of this war is not visible, and we are already wondering, rightly so, how we will help Ukraine to rebuild. And I have no doubt that there will be no lack of economic potential and willing to invest. But I ask myself, are we ready to do this politically, so as not to make old mistakes? I read Die Moskau-Connection: Das Schröder-Netzwerk und Deutschlands Weg in die Abhängigkeit’. I wonder if Germany has already freed itself from this dependence, since many of the figures mentioned in this book are still active in German politics? I read about another EU country in Politico and Die Welt that it is Putin's alpine fortress and Ein Land in Putins Ketten. This is not one of the countries that colleagues are usually so worried about in the European Parliament. We didn't have a single debate about him. Oh, that's too bad. This Parliament is outraged that we want to set up a committee in Poland to examine Russian influence on our country's politics. Maybe he should rather demand that such committees be set up in other countries, because the wrong policy towards Russia is one of the reasons that enabled its aggression. Before we start rebuilding Ukraine, it is worth asking who and why contributed to its destruction.

Mr President, thank you very much. I think that this draft regulation on support for ammunition production is an excellent response to the urgent needs raised by the Member States. And it is also probably the result of Commissioner Breton's detour around ammunition production plants, including in Poland, in Nowa Dęba in Podkarpackie. It is very good that this time the Commission first examines the situation on the ground, leaves the Brussels nursery and only then proposes new legislation. We must address very quickly the current shortage of ammunition and missiles, whose regular deliveries are absolutely crucial to sustaining the heroic resistance of Ukrainians against the Russian invasion, and soon, I hope, also to carry out an effective counter-offensive. This war is essentially a war for the future of Europe. For this reason, we also support the proposal that this time Parliament should act as a matter of urgency under Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure, following the experience with the equally important European Defence Industry Reinforcement through Common Procurement Act, which unfortunately has been under development for months. But we must remember that the effects of the adopted solutions will affect the development of the industry in the long term and may potentially mean structural changes for it. It would be good if we had time to reflect. However, I would suggest that the vote under Rule 163 should take place against the background of the June part-session and not at the May mini-session. It is worth remembering that often the solutions planned as temporary become the basis for further action by the Commission. We therefore support this initiative and the procedure as soon as possible, but not at the expense of developing optimal solutions.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Answering questions from a colleague from the Greens, I wondered why this is so. And I would like to go back to the origins of this affair and perhaps to the political context, because we are indeed dealing with a fraud on a global scale – a fraud that has not received the proper interest of the European Commission, despite everything we have heard, and of the European Parliament. I don't recall any heated debates at that time, in the previous legislature. Many of the fraudsters did not receive any compensation. They drive these cars all the time, as you rightly said. Many of those responsible for the fraud were not punished. Perhaps the reason for this is that the car industry in Germany has enormous political influence. This is especially true for the Volkswagen Group, because it all started there. As we know, Lower Saxony holds a 20% stake in Volkswagen, and its representatives were on the board of Volkswagen. Among them was Gerhard Schröder – not a chadek, but a social democrat. As a Member of the Bundestag, the current President of the Federal Constitutional Court was a partner in the law firm Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz, which advised the Volkswagen Group and represented it in the diesel scandal. The fraud of this scale and the links between car companies and the world of politics testified, like many other scandals in Germany in recent years, to the entire political system and the rule of law in a country that was considered to be a model of liberal democracy. So it was better to remain silent and deal with the rule of law in Poland, for example.

Mr President, thank you very much. I agree with the previous speakers who talked about the importance of energy storage. Indeed, energy storage should be one of the pillars of an efficient energy system if we really want to base it on renewable energy sources. Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek talked about gas storage, which we dealt with last year. We all know that gas is relatively easy to store, you only need to have the right amount of gas and storage. However, with electricity and other forms of energy it is much more difficult. Reports from national regulators show that in the coming years we will see a significant decrease in available capacity in relation to installed capacity. And falling power in stable sources will pose an increasing challenge for operators responsible for balancing and operational security of energy systems. Some of these operators are already telling us today, perhaps exaggerating, that it is impossible to manage such complex systems at all. Also, the development of RES is not possible without an extensive energy storage system. And this, in turn, is not possible without the modernization of the network. Now we all know that networks are the weakest link in many countries at the moment and that the European Commission should support them accordingly. Only then will we have a stable system, when we will not only talk about energy production and storage, but also, of course, about networks without which energy will not reach consumers.

Mr President, thank you very much. Recent visits by European leaders to China have shown that Europe is not the same as the EU institutions and that Europe is diverse. The President of France, the President of the European Commission and the German Minister of Foreign Affairs presented different ideas about the European strategy. The strategy so far, if we had it, was probably not very satisfactory, because Europe is weaker and China is stronger. However, our common strategy can only be achieved if these different views on European foreign policy clash and the Member States have the right to defend their positions (including President Macron), and not when it is proposed to introduce the principle that a majority decides. Only then will we avoid repeating the mistakes of the strategy Wandel durch Trade against Russia. Unfortunately, much of what was said in this room in this debate is reminiscent of what we said a few years ago about Russia.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. With the adoption of this legislative package, we are entering a new phase of our tightened climate policy in a very difficult situation: after the pandemic, at a time of ongoing war and increasing immigration pressure. This is a phase in which the high costs of this transformation are increasingly visible, and the rising costs also for citizens. And the citizens have already noticed this: not only in Poland, but in Germany, in the Netherlands, everywhere. The costs of this transformation will be even greater. This is particularly the case for ETS 2, which will cover private road transport and buildings as early as 2027. Experts remain very sceptical about whether prices will actually be controlled in ETS 2. And ETS 2 will hit the EU countries with the lowest GDP the hardest, where most consumers heat their homes with fossil fuels, coal or gas, and where electromobility is underdeveloped. EU funds are not enough to compensate for the costs of the transition. Wealthy countries will be able to provide additional support to their citizens. They're already doing it. The effect of this enforced policy will therefore be dangerous economic differentiation of countries and growing social discontent.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I must say that if my colleagues had been so determined a few years ago, this war would not have happened at all. We would not have to say "fame to Ukraine" because Ukraine would not be subject to Russian aggression. Quite recent were times when the army, the defense industry seemed obsolete, especially traditional types of weapons, armored weapons, artillery, territorial troops. And Europe lived in an absurd sense of security. In Berlin, in Paris, in Brussels, they believed in the power of persuasion, in trade, in the good intentions of Russia. Only we in Central and Eastern Europe could not understand this. And today it turns out that there is not enough ammunition, as well as the ability to produce it quickly, that the alleged industrial power, the European Union, does not have the means to support Ukraine quickly – perhaps now we will start – in its fight, that it is necessary to repair old tanks that have rusted so far calmly. And it turns out that there is a need for an army capable of defending the territory and conducting a conventional war, and that the army is not only for conducting a peacekeeping mission. So, firstly, we must ensure that Ukraine is supplied with ammunition and military equipment as soon as possible. And here we are in agreement. And I am glad that this is a decision of defence ministers, rightly taken outside the European Parliament, because we would only waste an unnecessarily large amount of time, and unfortunately The EDIRPY example confirms this. Secondly, we also need to rebuild and expand the defence industry of European countries in a long-term strategy. This is where cooperation with the European Parliament is needed. Thirdly, we must work on a common strategic culture of European nations, drawing conclusions from the errors of the appeasement policy of recent decades. Without a common strategic culture, there will be neither a genuine common security policy nor a common foreign policy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. This communication from the European Commission is one-sided, very one-sided. Basically, we need a plan, but a more developed, more comprehensive plan. Today's economy, our today's industrial base is still different. So there is a need for a realistic strategy for this economy that actually exists, not the one that exists in the Commission's dreams in 20, 30 years. In the past year, the actions taken by the Commission due to the war have diverged significantly from all plans for the future. But did the Commission, when drawing up this plan and writing this communication, take into account that the war could continue for years to come? After all, these Leopards will have to be made of some steel, right? Therefore, we should also have a strategy for the steel industry. It is also difficult not to ask whether an overregulated economy can really be innovative and efficient? And despite the declarations, the regulations are getting bigger. Unfortunately, I have to say that it is increasingly reminiscent of the command-and-resolution economy, as it was once said. And it is not an economy that serves efficiency and creativity, and is truly competitive.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I agree that American companies in Europe should be treated in the same way as European companies in the United States. Competition should be fair, but is fair competition also guaranteed within the Union itself? The 370 billion state aid in the US is bothering us, the 200 billion in Germany, the ‘Doppelwumms’ of Olaf Scholz – not anymore. Is this not a breach of the principle of equal competition within the European Union? Concern for the deindustrialisation of Europe is perfectly justified. But is this danger only the result of the American act of combating inflation, or is it the result of the Union's long-standing policy, misguided energy policy and the fact that the entire economy has been subordinated to overly strict climate goals?