What Peter spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The automotive industry is one of the most important pillars of the European economy, and the medium-sized supplier industry in particular must be close to our hearts. Therefore, the current development cannot let us rest. The question is: What is it about? At least in Germany there is a survey. People say that, in addition to mistakes in the industry itself, it is the decisions of the Member States that are responsible, an absolutely chaotic support policy and very high electricity prices. This, of course, prevents you from buying electric cars. This means, in my view, that we should not abandon the climate targets, in particular the 2030 target and the 2050 target. They are also part of the EPP's electoral programme. We have a responsibility for the future, for our children and grandchildren. Many companies that have adjusted to climate protection should not let us down right now. But we need to change the method. We need technological neutrality, we need to abolish the ban on the combustion engine. It is possible to operate the combustion engine in a climate-neutral manner. This is possible with climate-neutral fuels such as e-fuels. That we only measure on the exhaust how much CO2 Come out and don't even care what happened before, that can't be right. That is why we need a revision, and we need it as soon as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, within the European Union we have every reason to remain calm. What we are currently experiencing with Mpox cannot be compared and cannot be compared with the COVID pandemic. For people in the European Union, the risk of dying from this disease is extremely low. Nevertheless, we must take it seriously and, above all, we must take it seriously with regard to Africa. This is a huge health problem. If we help there, as the Commission rightly does, then we help ourselves, because if the disease is under control in Africa, we can really reduce the risk for Europe to near zero. It is a commandment of humanity. But I think it is even more important that we help for geopolitical reasons, because if we need raw materials, if we need solidarity with Ukraine and the like, then it is important that these countries also remember that we helped them in need. But in fact, the delivery of vaccines and drugs is only a small part. I have worked in a developing country myself and know that infrastructure is the biggest problem there. What fascinated me a lot: Someone from the EMA explained to me that in fact, in a clinical trial for the antiviral drug, the mere fact that you were in a clinic and well treated halved the death rate; The drug was added to its effect. So that means we need more support, not just vaccines and medicines. But it remains true, we have cases in Europe, we have a case in Sweden and a European who was then diagnosed in Asia. Sweden has responded and issued travel recommendations. Why don't we do this together? Member States should cooperate. What needs to be done must be done by Europe and not by each Member State.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The EPP stands by . We have not only supported most of the relevant laws, but we have also led many of them. Let me give you an example of the Social Climate Fund and the Emissions Trading System. And everyone should also remember that the Emissions Trading System II was initially completely rejected by the right, the left, the Social Democrats and the Greens. Please don't forget! We have rejected some laws for good reason, and I am glad that we have also done so successfully in the field of crop protection. Thanks to Ursula von der Leyen for withdrawing this. The Greens' record is that they are less Green Deal-Laws supported in the final vote as the EPP. I call the Climate Protection Act, Euro 7, Plant Protection, New Breeding Methods, Gas and the all-black day, 8 June 2022, when you, along with the rights, sunk my report on the Emissions Trading System. We were able to fix it, but please think back. So we're already at a number of seven unsupported laws, and I hear there's an eighth coming tomorrow, Net Zero Industry Act. And I really think that's a problem. Together, we have given the industry ambitious goals after many difficulties. But now we must also enable them to actually build climate-neutral factories by accelerating procedures and reducing bureaucracy. And this is in the Act. So greens, before you get excited: Tonight in the group decide for Net Zero Industry Act! Then we will move forward together on climate protection.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If we accept these two texts right away, then we are taking a very important step towards helping patients whom we have not been able to help so far. Therefore, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this result, especially the staff. At one point, I think the committee made a mistake: I believe that we should abide by the law in force in the European Parliament, and it is established by the European Court of Justice and by a protocol to the Treaty that the issue of abortion is a national competence and that it cannot be regulated at European level. I therefore recommend voting against Amendment No 85. But otherwise, we really have a good text. It is particularly important for me to combat antibiotic resistance. We need to be more careful with antibiotics, but we also need innovation, and I am grateful that, after initial resistance, a broad majority in the end also voted for the voucher system. When I talk about innovation, I am very grateful that we have also included innovation in the legislation. So far, everyone, no matter what drug they make, has had eight years of market exclusivity, eight years of protection. Now let's reduce that to seven and a half years. And I don't think we need the 27th. Blood pressure lowerer or the 38th. Blood lipid reducers – we need real innovation. And the companies that address things that haven't been addressed so far, the patients that we can't help so far, they get more document protection. By innovating more, we help these patients – and that is the most important point.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There is a major problem with the supply of medical devices. This care problem leads to a real health risk, especially in children who suffer from relatively rare diseases such as heart disease. That is why it is very important that we act together as soon as possible. The medical device regulation was not only well-intentioned, it was also necessary. There was the PIP scandal, in which thousands of women were harmed by damaged breast implants. There were designated bodies that did not work properly. A journalist has managed to certify an orange net from the supermarket as a medical device for abdominal surgery. That's why something had to happen. There are now unannounced controls. There is now stronger monitoring of notified bodies and that is good. But it is not good that the EU institutions have gone beyond the target. In addition to meaningful improvements, there are a number of unnecessary and expensive bureaucratic burdens. And that's where we gotta go. That is why the postponement that the Commission has now presented is only a first step. We can't keep moving forward, we have to get to the root of the problem. I presented a ten-point plan to the Commission together with my colleague Angelika Niebler, and I will mention only two points that are particularly important to me: We need regulation for niche products such as cardiac catheters for children. There is such a thing in the United States. We need that in Europe, too, and fast. We should abolish this unnecessary rule that every medical device, even if there is no discernible risk, must be re-certified every five years. All this, Commissioner, must happen as soon as possible. Companies need planning security, and doctors need medical devices to save lives.

Mr Bloss, you say that the European Commission's objective is not ambitious enough. I just have one question. At the weekend, the Greens decided at European level that they want 100% by 2040. Do the reports say that the German Greens disagreed? Who are the German Greens? And why aren't the German Greens fighting in the German federal government for this 2040 goal? So before you insult others, you should first know where you stand, at home and at European level.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, congratulations to the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Wopke Hoekstra, in particular for saying that the Commission is launching a dialogue. So today it is not a decision where the Commission says we know everything and we push it through now, but there is a dialogue about this goal – but perhaps even more importantly, about the conditions for us to achieve ambitious climate targets at all. I am particularly grateful that you mentioned this international dimension, Commissioner. We, in fact, see great interest in our emissions trading and CBAM. The rapporteur Mohammed Chahim also knows this: Many third countries want to work with us. The Directorate-General for Climate is flooded with requests from third countries. But we ourselves witnessed in Dubai at the COP that the third countries say: We don't actually have a real point of contact with the Commission, there is no one who is going forward with us now. That will change with this task force. That's why I would like to thank you very much for this. This could be the most effective, cost-effective and effective climate action ever – that we work with those who want to work with us and thus form a strong group, including internationally. Secondly: We need to enable industry, agriculture and people to actually achieve ambitious goals. For this we need the Net-Zero Industry Act. He is currently being negotiated in another room. And for this we need a positive approach to agriculture: Do not denounce agriculture, do not put it in the corner, but see it as a partner. Agriculture and forestry are the only sectors that are already extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. And we have to continue along the way. Last but not least, the people. Many people, especially those on low incomes, who work hard every day but do not have much savings, and for whom investment is difficult to manage, need more support – not only from the Social Climate Fund, but also from national funds. This is in the legislation, and the Commission must now tap the fingers of the Member States to ensure that this is finally implemented.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The new breeding methods are a huge opportunity for our farmers. In our view, this is also the better way to increase yields and avoid plant protection products than prohibitions in the field of plant protection products. That is why we are very grateful that Ursula von der Leyen announced this morning that she would withdraw the SUR proposal. And I am also firmly convinced of the new breeding methods – as a doctor and someone who has also dealt with genetics in his doctoral thesis: There are no irresponsible risks. In contrast to conventional genetic engineering, no foreign genes are introduced into these plants. In many parts of the world, this technique is already being used, and any horror scenarios are not relevant simply because they did not show up there. The rapporteur Jessica Polfjärd – thank you very much! – has addressed certain concerns; for example, contrary to its original draft report, the labelling of seeds is now included in the proposal of the Committee on the Environment. The Committee on the Environment adopted this text by a clear majority of 47 to 31, which is why we should also adopt it tomorrow in plenary. Let's give our farmers this opportunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, on behalf of Jessica Polfjärd, a thank you for the great support in her report on ozone-depleting substances. Thank God there was no controversy. We fought very hard on F-gases and I think we achieved a good result. It's less ambitious than the Environment Committee wanted, but it's still a big step forward for the climate. There is still criticism. I believe that outside of the criticism, which is purely populist, purely anti-European, we must look closely at one issue, Commissioner, and that is also a request to the Member States: Of course, at some point no new F-gases will come onto the market, and there may be one or the other refrigeration unit that still stands in a bakery, a butcher's shop, in a brewery and that still has to be repaired. In my view, it is particularly important that we now massively promote the recycling of F-gases – Commission, Member States – by providing training, by providing programmes. What happens to these F-gases if they are not recycled? If old refrigeration units are disposed of and you don't get the gas out? Then it goes into the atmosphere. So it is very, very important for both the economy and the climate that we promote recycling on a large scale. Then we have revision clauses. I hope we don't have to use them. If there is no other way, we have to use them. But it would be best if we found out at the beginning of the revision: We have so much recycled F-gas that's going on now. The Commission and the Member States have done a good job, so we really don't have to put new gases on the market anymore.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, Commissioner! Environmental and climate protection through modern technology and in cooperation with those affected – that is how I would overwrite the work we have done on the two reports before us. Today I represent the rapporteur, Jessica Polfjärd, and I would like to congratulate her on a report that has gone through the Committee on the Environment, the plenary and the trilogue without much controversy. Thanks to all those involved who helped. The Polfjärd report deals with ozone-destroying substances. We had a big problem with the ozone hole in the 80s. As a doctor, I know that skin cancer has increased very, very much due to the ozone hole. We now have the problem under very good control through an international agreement and the replacement of these substances that cause the ozone hole. There are still a few areas where these substances are still allowed: In medicine, for example. Here, the agreement provides for greater control and we want safe recovery and recovery of these substances. In the case of building materials, including the demolition of buildings, greater care must be taken to ensure that the substances do not enter the atmosphere. Leaks also need to be better controlled. I think that in both reports – and I will now say something about the F-gas report again – we have managed to support modern technology that can help us tackle environmental problems. F-gases are up to 25,000 times more harmful to the climate than CO2, which is why we have a construction site here. The F-gases regulation allows us to save as much CO2 – 40 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent – as Ireland, Portugal and Sweden emit annually or even a number of very, very many cars. This is already a very, very important step for climate protection. Many EU companies have the alternative natural refrigerants we need to further illustrate the function. And that's why this is also a good solution for large parts of the industry. We had a construction site: Following the decision of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, the craft sector has rightly complained. I say it very clearly here: We must take the interests of the craft into consideration. Without craftsmanship, there is no energy transition. The problem was that we had a far too short transition period in the Environment Committee when it came to repairing equipment and spare parts, for example, or when it came to the question of when an existing device no longer works and F-gases have to be brought in to make it work again. A ban should be in place in 2024 – we are already in 2024. That is why I am very grateful that the plenary adopted the amendments - one tabled by the EPP together with the Renew and one tabled only by the EPP - on this subject, so that the craft sector has planning certainty and that existing installations do not become worthless. I believe that in the end this is a good result – climate and environmental protection with craftsmanship and industry.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We need to fight the plastic flood, we need to fight the waste flood, and that is why we need a regulation, also to create a single market for the circular economy, and the Member States that have so far had little recycling need to do much more. But the European Commission has, in my view, gone well beyond the target. This proposal still breathes the spirit of Vice President Timmermans, even though he is no longer there. Let me give you two examples. Firstly: in online trading. Yes, we have a lot of superfluous packaging, a lot of plastic packaging. But the proposal treats paper the same as plastic. I know companies that are moving from plastic to paper right now. Shouldn't we support them? The second point – much more annoying to me: The Commission proposal prohibits small bags of paper for sugar, salt, pepper and sweetener. I had a coffee this morning and found these bags here in Strasbourg in the European Parliament. We cannot seriously forbid the general public something that we ourselves use. And we can't seriously deal with paper bags at the moment when we have so many problems. I am confident that we will vote out this nonsense tomorrow, then it will be a good text. Let us accept the relevant amendments.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The decarbonisation of buses and trucks is important, no doubt about it. But the majority in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has in some places reinforced the Commission's ambitious proposal, e.g. on the 2035 target. So also the S&D does not follow Timmermans when we already talk about such things here, but goes beyond that again. But I would like to draw particular attention – just like Jens Gieseke – to the requests for technological neutrality. Personally, I would like to ask you above all for your support for Amendment 123, but also for the other EPP requests in this area. The accounting of e-fuels is important. Yes, they are expensive at the moment and they are scarce at the moment – but who knows what it will be like in 2035 and 2040. And yes, manufacturers don't want that right now. But why should we exclude this for the next few years? Let the market decide. The market should decide it, the engineers should decide it, not the policy. We are for technology neutrality.

I have the question: Firstly, we always want to stick to the facts: The proposal officially deals with plant protection products. Do you agree that we agree on the terminology: Plant protection products and not pesticides? And secondly: Do you not also believe that the new breeding methods are an opportunity to save on plant protection products? And will you then also work with us for these new breeding methods?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As a doctor and environmental politician, I am in favour of a careful handling of plant protection products and, of course, a reduction strategy. But I am against this proposal because it provides for a total ban on chemical and synthetic plant protection products in many areas and because I consider the definition of sensitive areas here to be completely unsuitable. I have a huge FFH and bird sanctuary in my constituency – yes, the Greens laugh; The local conservationists are on my side, dear Martin Häusling, and I had actually thought that we had the opportunity to explain this to you. This is where conservationists say: Please do not endanger the contract nature conservation, do not endanger the good cooperation that we as conservationists have with the farmers. I therefore ask Mrs Aguilera in particular to present and represent the position of the Committee on Agriculture in its entirety. I am particularly fond of Amendment 487 – Mrs Aguilera, please listen: 487; As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture, you have a real duty to fight for this request.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We need negative emissions and we need them as soon as possible – this is the IPCC’s clear message. And this legislation is a very important step towards achieving negative emissions more quickly. That is why I would like to thank all those who have helped us to hopefully have a broad majority in plenary tomorrow, first and foremost Lídia Pereira and her team with Luis and Lawrence, but also everyone else. We will see, first of all, that private capital flows into these markets because there is now a clear framework, and I also see this as an income opportunity for farmers, who carbon farming operate – additional sources of income. But we also need these technical solutions. Personally, I was very impressed when I was first told how direct air capture works – it is already possible to extract CO2 from the air and produce products from it. It's infinitely expensive, of course, but how expensive was photovoltaics in the 1990s, and today it's almost unrivaled cheap. That is why we must start promoting this technology as soon as possible, and I believe that at least this technology should also be included in the European emissions trading scheme as soon as possible. So a clear signal: We need negative emissions as soon as possible and we need incentives for all those who invest in this area.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We need to fight climate change globally. If we don't do this globally, we won't make it. That is why these climate conferences, however arduous and arduous they are, are extremely important. I also do not think that it is right for us as Europeans to always point to others and say: They have to do something. We must set a good example. The European Union has per capita emissions of 6.25 tonnes. Some countries like Poland or the country I know best have even more. And countries like Cameroon and Tanzania have less than 0.5 tons per capita. Anyone who says: "The others have to start before we do anything" is wrong. But on the other hand, it is also intolerable for international conferences to continue to pretend that China is a developing country. China now has higher per capita emissions than not only the EU as a whole, but even higher per capita emissions than Germany and Poland. And that's why it's so important that we break this old phalanx - Annex I, not Annex I - and there's the Commission's negotiators - Commissioner, congratulations on that - at the technical level. loss and damage A historic breakthrough has been achieved. This must also be confirmed at the climate conference.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Reducing pesticides and ensuring their safe use is an important and correct goal. But bans are not the right way to go from our point of view as an EPP Group, including from my personal point of view. That is why we do not support the objective of banning in sensitive areas; We are already negotiating this in Parliament. But we also do not support a ban on glyphosate, which is a very important plant protection product in practice. And when our own bodies, EFSA and ECHA, our European experts on food and chemicals, say there is no problem, I say to S&Ds and Greens: Listen to Science! Listen to science, not only when it fits, but also in new breeding methods and also in glyphosate. There's one added. We have a dramatic increase in food prices. People are currently suffering more from the rise in food prices than from the already very dramatic rise in energy costs. Food prices are the drivers of inflation, and if we remove an important plant protection product from the range, then it becomes more expensive to produce food in the European Union. Price increases are then, so to speak, arbitrarily brought about. That is why I thank the Commission for its proposal. It is based on scientific facts and does not make food production more expensive. It's a good suggestion. Many thanks to Stella Kyriakides and her team.

So, I will respect that Rule and you can see the graphs on social media. So, also, die Emissionen sind stetig zurückgegangen. Wir sollten auch mal stolz sein auf das Erreichte und – auch im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes – können mal durchatmen. Kann die Luftqualität besser werden? Ja, sie kann. Es gibt viele technische Möglichkeiten. Wir haben erreicht, dass bei den Schiffskraftstoffen jetzt auch der Emissionshandel gilt. Das wird helfen, insbesondere in küstennahen Städten. Aber ich und wir als EVP-Fraktion halten es für übertrieben, was der Umweltausschuss beschlossen hat. Da steht was von Fahrverboten. Da steht es, dass wir Baustellen stilllegen, dass Industrieanlagen in dieser schwierigen Phase, wo die Industrie droht, aus Europa abzuwandern, stillgelegt werden sollen. All das ist unangemessen. Deswegen sollten wir uns auf die Änderungsanträge verständigen, die der Kollege Lins, Kollege Knotek und viele andere mit mir gemeinsam eingereicht haben. Eine maßvolle Regulierung, die nicht zu Fahrverboten und Stilllegung von Industrie führt. Bitte unterstützen Sie diese Änderungsanträge.

Madam President, Dear colleagues. I'll tell you a secret. The air in Europe is good. It has been getting better, at least in recent years. Here we see the reduction in particulate matter emissions since the 1990s to one third. This is where we see the decline in nitrogen oxide emissions in Europe. (The President interrupted the speaker.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Ecodesign Directive is a success story. In recent years, we have saved as much energy annually as Italy and Sweden use together. We have thus protected the climate and we have ensured that many consumers save real money. Now it goes a big step further. Now it is no longer just about energy consumption, but also about the circular economy, resource conservation, and I support this step. I would like to thank everyone, especially the EPP at Jessica Polfjärd, for making this step possible now. But we really have to be careful not to mess with it. There are certain points where the Committee goes beyond the Commission's proposal, for example in the case of substances of concern, and I believe that we must be careful. That is why I personally support Amendments 59 to 61 and Amendment 249 in order to keep pace with them. It is true that ecodesign has a great charm, also for the economy, because it sets rules, not only for European producers, but also for importers. But we also need to be able to control that. We need to focus on that. My appeal to the Commission, but even more so to the Member States: Let's make sure that the control works, otherwise the honest would be the fool, and that must not be.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to Dolors Montserrat and all the others who have helped to present this report. This is really a good report. He acknowledges that we had difficulties at the beginning and that there were mistakes, but that then the European Union came together very quickly and that we got through the crisis well. A comparison with China is enough to see that things could have been quite different. The report also acknowledges that science and research were an important part of the solution. mRNA technology has been developed in Europe with the support of the European Union and has been instrumental in addressing the crisis. This technology can and must also help address other problems, such as cancer. That is why we must continue to have a positive framework for this. Today, however, the most important thing is that we are aware of the many millions of people who are suffering from Long COVID. Don't forget that we support them better and also intensify research in this area.

Thank you, dear Michael. I like to answer the question. However, I would like to remind all colleagues once again that it was Michael Bloss who, on behalf of the Green Group, together with ID and ECR, submitted a request to delete the ETS 2, which is so important for climate protection. Those sitting in the glass house should not throw stones – firstly. Secondly: We rely on cooperation. We voted for LULUCF, yes. And the LULUCF positions with 310 million tonnes of additional sinks, that was the EPP position. But we want to do this with incentives and not with force, not with the crowbar, as is provided for in this bill.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I come from a very rural region, and I have never seen the perception of the people in my region and the perception in the Brussels and Strasbourg bubbles differ as much as in this law. I'm talking to mayors about the proposal, to district councillors. And there is a recent statement in Germany by the Association of Cities and Municipalities, the representation of all rural municipalities, which clearly goes against this law. I'm talking to hydropower operators. Hydropower operators are worried about this law because it is becoming more difficult for hydropower – at a time when we urgently need to replace oil, gas and coal. Other energy transition projects, such as pipeline construction, are also becoming more difficult as a result of this law. It is an illusion to believe that biodiversity and climate protection have always gone hand in hand. Why, I ask the German Greens, is there a dispute between Robert Habeck and Steffi Lemke? Because Robert Habeck says: The energy transition is more important than the last bird. Compromises must be made here. And I'm on Habeck's side, of course. I'm talking to forest owners who say: What's that for? Putting nature back in a state 70 years ago! We didn't have climate change 70 years ago. Now we have it, unfortunately, and we should fight against it together. But we also need adapted species that were not native to Europe 70 years ago. Much is unclear, many definitions are unclear. We buy the cat in the bag. Dear colleagues, let us listen to the concerns of the people in rural areas! Let's listen to the people who stand outside and say: Nature restoration - yes, we can! Nature restoration law – no, we can’t! Let us vote against this proposal! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to use the first few seconds of my short speaking time to thank those like Niels Fuglsang and Pernille Weiss who have worked out a good compromise on energy efficiency. I believe, and we as the EPP believe, that it would have been even better with nationally binding targets, but unfortunately the Council stopped us there. I also ask all journalists to write about the fact that we are ambitious here together and that the Council has slowed us down. On industrial emissions: Thank you to the rapporteur Radan Kanev; it has significantly improved a Commission text that was bad. My request to colleagues would be in the vote tomorrow: Please support the requests of the Committee on Agriculture. Cattle farming is not industrial. In any case, I do not know this from my region, and I believe that cattle have fresh air elsewhere in Europe, and we should not imprison them. And please support Dennis Radtke's proposals on decarbonisation, which he tabled with many colleagues from many different political groups. Many companies, including Europe's largest steel plant, which I visited last week, are on their way to climate neutrality. That's what we should focus on. That is the aim of these amendments by Radtke and Co. I ask for your support for these amendments!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Batteries bring challenges - in the extraction of raw materials, in the production of batteries and also in the disposal. We are addressing these challenges, and I am glad that the industry is also addressing these challenges. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this compromise in the EPP, especially Jessica Polfjärd and Antonius Manders, and I believe that we will achieve a good majority tomorrow. I hear, also here in the hall, many critical voices against batteries. To the critics, of course, I have to say: Yes, walking is more environmentally friendly than using battery-powered cars than having a storage for photovoltaics and thus running your heat pump. When you freeze, it's more environmentally friendly. But we want heat, we want mobility - with modern technology, and for that we need batteries. That is why it is also important that we keep the balance here, that we do not have over-regulation, but tackle the problems, but that the battery industry and its partners can also work. We have a priority for climate protection, and that's why we have to make a decision. If we want to keep industrialization, if we want to keep mobility, then we need batteries for it, and then we should not deny the batteries. We are for climate neutrality, and that means we are for batteries.