Speeches

Madam President, just to remind us, in committees we often have compromises that are voted first. I don’t remember that those colleagues that protested today are protesting when they are part of the compromise. So when there is a compromise, it can be voted first – and that’s what we should do. I’m very grateful to everybody that worked so hard to bring us to a position in which we have brought compromises now. What is ahead of us is the biggest piece of climate legislation that we have ever had. If we agree on it, we will save more CO2 in the next eight years than we did since 1990 – and we are really leading the way. But to do that, we also need to look at competitiveness and jobs. That’s why some of the amendments that have been negotiated are also important to give the industry the necessary time to adjust. What we are doing – and I’m heading here on the speaker that asked for a postponement – is that we give industry and citizens more breathing space in this difficult time. We give less ambition until 2026, but then we catch up. One thing should be clear, it’s a hard time now, and we need to use more coal to replace Russian gas. But the future is for renewables and energy efficiency and clean technologies, and that’s why we are doing the right thing to take into account the crisis but also taking care of our planet and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Madam President, of course, it’s a bad day for the European Parliament when you see this. (Mixed reactions) Please calm down colleagues. I think it’s a shame, like in many occasions in this report, that the far right and the Socialists and the Greens voted together. We are now giving a lot of responsibility to the European Council. The Council will be definitely earlier than the European Parliament, and that will reduce our influence. But we have the possibility, dear colleagues, we have the possibility to save the thing if everybody thinks twice. I look at ECR. You succeeded with a lot of votes, but still you voted against. I don’t see an explanation here. I look at the Greens and the S&D. You voted against, even though all the compromises that we made at any stage where EPP was a part – hello, calm down – we have succeeded. But those points where you thought that ‘a narrow majority with four votes, in the end we can dominate the Parliament’, you lost! (Mixed reactions) Calm down, please. So democracy means to respect the Parliament and to have a reduction of the damage. A reduction of the damage, to give it a second trial. And all those that voted against today can think twice. I would ask to refer it back to committee. Please don’t kill the ETS. Vote for bringing it back to committee to have a second thought.

Mr President! Thank you, dear colleagues, for the many very lively contributions. A few points from me as rapporteur on the response. Firstly: Many have said: The package is not ambitious, especially emissions trading is not ambitious enough. If we calculate: If we accept the emissions trading package, we will reduce 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030, that is 1500 million tonnes. CO2 cars, which we are so heartily arguing about here, will be reduced by 60 million by 2030 if the Commission proposal is adopted. So the ETS brings more than 20 times as much as the quite sporty proposal on CO2 cars. That's why we really shouldn't say it's not ambitious. We still have some requests for changes. Mrs Grapini, support the EPP amendment! We also want to support SMEs from the Social Fund. Only your group has to make a plus, then it has a majority. That would be nice. Mr Vice-President, many are concerned about nuclear energy. That is why the Committee requests that this be specifically excluded. I would like you to reassure me that the ETS and the Modernisation Fund and the Innovation Fund will not become nuclear energy funds, so that we can reassure our colleagues here. And finally, everyone. I think Pernille Weiss and many have said that; Everyone has a point where they say it can go even better. I said this this morning: I'm not really happy with ETS 2, but I respect the compromise. And if everyone insists only on his maximum line and ultimately rejects the compromise, rejects the report because his maximum demand is not in it, then we will not live up to our responsibility. The industry needs planning security. It needs support when it makes its way to climate neutrality. Our earth, our children and grandchildren need ambitious climate protection. And we have to vote for that tomorrow.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, On 14 July last year, the European Commission presented the proposals for the "" package. Exactly the same day there was this terrible flooding in Central Europe. And when you, Vice President Timmermans, presented the package, I got the message on my phone that a firefighter had drowned in my constituency. In other parts of Germany, 130 people have drowned in a single district. We see drought and heat in Europe. Forests are dying, people are suffering from the heat. It is no longer just a topic of the small island states and the polar bears. Climate change is our problem. And if we do not act, it is above all an insoluble problem for our children and grandchildren. That's why we have to make an effort. With the package, we are quadrupling our efforts per year. We have reduced 25% – as the only major region in the world we have reduced, but that is not enough: In just eight years, we want to create another 30%. The war in Ukraine may force us to adjust points; Esther de Lange has spoken about this, and I fully support the fact that we are reacting here in the short term. But the goal, we as the EPP do not want to give up. Because our dependence on Russia, the high prices we all suffer from, and especially low-income families at the moment, and climate change have the same cause: our dependence on fossil fuels. And that's why we have to get down from it. The emissions trading scheme, which I was allowed to supervise as rapporteur, is at the heart of "Fit for 55“. Both the IPCC and the UN repeatedly say that we urgently need a carbon price. I would like to thank everyone who has helped – of course my colleagues, but above all the staff who have been working far beyond the normal level. Thank you very much for this! We have achieved a lot together. We are including maritime transport in emissions trading, and this is also bitterly necessary. Ships, as one colleague put it, often burn the last bit of dirt, and so far they are hardly involved in European environmental and climate law. However, we want the money to be spent on innovation and not disappear in the general budget, so targeted support from a fund. We are significantly increasing our ambitions in industry and power generation. But we also give planning security and tailwind to the companies that set off. Those who invest in climate neutrality must not be driven out of Europe. We want to decarbonise Europe's industry and not de-industrialise Europe. We are creating a new ETS for the heating and transport sector. And it is personally important to me, Mr Vice-President, that we have partially extended the scope and include process emissions. That is, the company that has the best idea wins in the competition and not the company that has the lowest carbon price nationally. For me, it is painful that I had to compromise on private consumption. In doing so, we impose a very, very heavy burden and responsibility on the Member States. Member States must now, within the framework of the effort sharing We would have done much more than if we had decided on ETS 2. These can be taxes, taxes, they can also be prohibitions: That is a high responsibility. But I stand by the compromise. I stand by the compromise that we have adopted broadly, adopted by a three-quarters majority in ENVI. And there are things in there that we really have to bear together with the Council now: the price cap, the greater responsibility for the gas and oil companies – it is incredible how they are ripping off again at the moment when people are already in need; That's where we gotta go. And we are moving the Social Climate Fund forward in time. So people will get support first, and then at some point the price will come – support first, that's important. Once again, dear friends, what we decide to do this week is a huge step. There is no major industrial region in the world that is even nearly as ambitious and so precise on its way. This shouldn't be said small, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, full solidarity for Poland and for Bulgaria. It was right not to pay in rubles, and we must support these countries now. We must not be blackmailed by Russia. Commissioner, full support for raising the renewable energy target to 45%. That was a proposal from our EPP rapporteur. It is a good thing that the Commission is joining us now, and I am pleased to say that we are also prepared to support this higher level of energy efficiency once certain conditions have been met. I think that's important, too. The auctioning of additional allowances from emissions trading is discussed very critically. As rapporteur and coordinator of the EPP, I say: I can basically go along with the idea. Costs go down, prices go down, investments go up. But it is not good to put the money into the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Parliament is out of here. Member States do what they want. There are no cross-border projects. So we have to improve again. How about the Innovation Fund for truly European projects? Then we can go with you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are now formally discussing the second part of the IPCC report. For this reason, I would like to take a brief look at climate change adaptation: I believe it is extremely important that we support our foresters in reforestation in a climate-friendly way, that we maintain and support sustainable forestry in Europe. In my view, this is a central idea, a central point in adapting to climate change. But at 5 p.m. the third part was published, so of course I will also focus on the third part. It is very clear: We must act quickly to at least partially halt climate change and at the same time become more independent from imports of energy from Russia. And I can inform you that just half an hour ago, the EPP decided that we are advocating an embargo on coal, oil and fuel for nuclear energy, because we are too dependent on Russia. And this also makes it clear that these technologies may play a greater role in the short term – if they do not come from Russia – but that it is certainly not the solution. The solution is renewable energies and energy efficiency. And now we have to become more committed because of Russia, but also because of climate protection. We need to take other parts of the world more with us on this path, not to reduce our own ambitions. But if we enforce our 55 percent and the Americans achieve their goal, then Americans still have more than twice as much per capita emissions. And we have to talk about that too. And, as the IPCC repeatedly says, we need to have a carbon price with social compensation in all parts of the economy and really focus more on negative emissions now. We can't waste time here. The Commission has announced something for next year. We have to act very, very quickly here.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, When we talk about cancer, each of us has a person in mind – someone from the family, from the circle of friends – who has cancer or has even died of it. With me it is one of my best friends: Hans-Jörg. A few years ago – at the age of 46 – cancer died painfully, and I think that each of us, when we have the pictures in mind, has the goal of avoiding this fate for other people, other families. As the EU, we cannot defeat cancer on our own, but if we do not set the right course, we will not succeed – especially for rare cancers and for cancer in children. Researchers need to work together across borders, and in doing so, we need to roll out the red carpet and not put stones in their way, as we do, for example, in the implementation of data protection and other things. Patients need help if they want to visit a specialist in another country, not a European or national bureaucracy. We need to get better. Unfortunately, the report has been somewhat overshadowed by debates about alcohol. There is also something being reinterpreted that is not in it at all, but the scientific facts, which we must already take into account. Véronique, the French Minister of Agriculture, said yesterday in the Environment Committee that the reference to the WHO would not be necessary. Véronique, that's good that he's in there, and the EPP supports the passage. We should not ignore the scientific facts. Above all, however, we should vote in favour of this report together. And if it is not enough, what has otherwise been put forward in arguments, then we should keep the issue of cancer in children in mind. All scientists say that we can only achieve this if Europe works together, and there are important points in it. Cancer is the leading cause of death in children after the first year of life. And if there is no other reason to vote in favour of this report, then think of the children with cancer and their families. Vote in favour of the report we have drawn up together after many months!

Mr President! Dear colleagues! At the weekend I helped again in my home country with the vaccination campaign, and it was very gratifying that many people let themselves be encouraged. And when asked why they are only now coming to the first vaccination, some have said: Yeah, you can't get in anywhere else. That is, medically justified benefits for vaccinated also help to increase the vaccination rate. But there were also some who said: I didn't have a chance before, I didn't know where to get vaccinated. And we have to get better. Low-threshold vaccination offers for all, that is also the commandment of the hour. But above all, of course, I have boosted many people and I would like to thank Ursula von der Leyen for pointing out once again the need for this booster vaccine. There are very clear findings that boosted ones are also better protected against omikron. And I was very annoyed by the statement of the Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros, who said yesterday: There is no evidence that boosters also help against Omikron. This isn't Tedros' first statement that bothers me a bit. I sometimes have doubts as to whether it is really suitable for the job. Of course, we need to focus on Africa and help better there. And I have great hope that Novavax's vaccine, which I hope will also be approved in the EU in the coming days, can help here because it is easier to handle and not so demanding, for example in terms of storage and cooling. But we are elected in Europe, and if we see that the booster brings protection, then we must protect our people. With boosters it will be a better Christmas. And that's why the commandment of the hour is called boosters. I wish you all a Merry Christmas!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stress in particular the importance of the present legislation for cancer patients in Europe. First of all, you will benefit from the fact that we become more efficient in the benefit assessment. When the EPP asked systematically for the first time in 2018 how we can better help patients suffering from cancer, one of our demands was: HTA must be accepted. I am glad that we have finally done this. The institutions responsible for the benefit assessment will have to cooperate with the European Medicines Agency in the future. This can lead to real innovations, especially in cancer patients, and little sham innovation. In women's politics, MeToo Necessary and urgent. In pharmaceutical policy, MeToo waste of resources. This means: A company puts only one drug on the market to get a piece of the cake without it being a real innovation for patients. And if you get signaled in time in the cooperation EMA and HTA institutions: This is not a real innovation, you might get an approval, but never a refund – hopefully you will focus on real breakthroughs such as mRNA technology against cancer. I would like to thank all those who have helped to come to this conclusion: Tiemo Wölken, Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé for the EPP, Stella as Commissioner. I believe that with this proposal we will conserve resources and avoid duplication of efforts. Funding is still decided nationally. If you order the music, you also have to pay for it, as it is said in German. But that a drug in France extends life by two years and in Germany only by six months or vice versa, that can not be. Therefore, the benefit assessment on a scientific basis must be made jointly in Europe. The high-paying people who do this 27 times are supposed to really care about the innovations and not about duplication.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. This glass is more than half-full, and I also evaluate the results of the Glasgow climate conference in such a way that the glass is more than half-full. Much has been achieved. When we were in Madrid two years ago, the EU was the only major economy committed to climate neutrality. In the two years leading up to Glasgow and Glasgow, practically the whole world has joined. Not only developed countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, but also an emerging country such as South Africa has agreed to be climate neutral by 2050. The conversation with the South African delegation was particularly impressive for me. However, it remains a huge problem and that is why the glass is not really full – it is not enough. Above all, what we have in terms of ambitions for 2030 is not enough. We still have the fact that the world's largest issuer, China, wants to increase its emissions by 2030. Then, in the interests of our children and grandchildren, we will not be able to control climate change. That's why we're not on target yet. Four points are important to me now. Firstly, we must work even more with third countries, especially with African countries, and also write our legislation in such a way that they go along with it. Second, we need ambitions, of course. But we also have to do it in such a way that we are a role model for others, that the world says: We want to do it like the European Union does. For this we need technology, and for this we must achieve climate protection at the lowest possible cost. And that does not mean that we politicians decide what is done in detail, but the citizens. This is best done with market economy systems. I would therefore like to thank the Commission for Fit for 55 This is also the case with emissions trading. In the end: If this is the case that we are not yet on target and that China has this irresponsibly bad target, then we still need protection against carbon leakageWe do not want to de-industrialise Europe, we want to decarbonise industry.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, thank you very much to Maria Spyraki and congratulations on the report she has presented. Methane is a huge problem: It is the second most important climate gas. Although it has a shorter lifespan than CO2, it has a significantly higher greenhouse gas potential. Precisely the next ten years – we do not know exactly, but the next few years – will be crucial to avoid dangerous tipping points in the climate system, such as the thawing of the permafrost soils in Siberia. So too much methane in the next decade can mean very, very much methane for our children and grandchildren, and then we can't get a handle on climate change. But I am very much in favour of not making this a dispute between climate protection and agriculture. Farmers are part of the solution. They also offer many sinks, for example through humus formation or sustainable forestry. That is why we should not stigmatise them, but work together with farmers to reduce methane emissions. We should prevent leaks in the gas sector and we should finally ensure that no more waste ends up in landfills across Europe. This must come to an end, because methane is also produced there, and we are destroying important raw materials that our children still need. And last but not least: Commissioner, congratulations on the agreement with the United States. Climate protection is not a national or purely European task. We need international cooperation and we need to continue along the way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. During the last COP in Madrid, the European Council - later than the European Parliament, but at least - advocated climate neutrality by 2050, and this is now the law in Europe. We spoke to many members of parliament and representatives of other nations in Madrid and encouraged them to follow this path. Japan, South Africa, the US and Canada and many others have done so. I agree with the resolution when we say that a lot of work is still needed on China, because CO2-neutral 2060 is certainly not enough. But I find it particularly shameful that Australia, as a rich industrialized country, has not yet made such a commitment, and we have to work hard on that. International climate policy must be a priority at all levels. And we also need to do more - as the Vice-President rightly said - in shipping and air transport. We should not argue as if we have an air column nationally or in Europe, and if we decarbonise it, then all would be well, but we must work much more internationally and together. But I strongly disagree with all those who say that we need to cut back on the Fit for 55 package now because we have high energy prices. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can be something like vaccination during the coronavirus crisis: If we invest, we become immune to high fossil fuel prices. And if the disease gets worse, it's the same with Corona as it is with the high energy prices: Then one must not stop producing the vaccine, but then one must make faster with the vaccination. Therefore, yes to ‘Fit for 55’ – precisely because of the high energy prices.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are facing a serious challenge due to high energy prices in the European Union. We need to react very wisely now. It is a popular reproach to politicians that they always think only of the next election and never of the next generation. And, Commissioner, there is pressure on you from the Member States, now, for example, to weaken emissions trading and not to implement new steps on emissions trading, which are included in the Fit for 55 package, because of the current high energy prices. Fit for 55 measures will only really work in 2025, 2026, 2027. Anyone who says we need to weaken the ETS now confirms any prejudice. And I'm not ready for that. We need to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It helps directly. And we have to do this, especially for the socially weak, by enabling them to buy energy-efficient products. That is because – as Pernille Weiß rightly put it – energy that I do not consume does not require any costs. This also applies to the economy: The less we consume, the less we are dependent, and the less we are exposed to such price shocks. And investors in this technology need clarity. Anyone who behaves in a climate-friendly manner should make money. That is why we now need a smart, long-term strategy with targeted aid, but we must not question European climate policy at any point.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Union is now doing very well in the fight against the pandemic. We have the highest vaccination rate in the world, and we have been successful together. But we experienced three difficult months earlier this year. There was too little vaccine and too late for many citizens in the EU. This was due to export bans from other countries. It was because the company Pfizer has strayed in liability. And it is good that the Commission has remained hard on that. But it was also because we didn't have something like HERA. The Americans had the BARDA and were therefore able to produce more vaccines faster. That is why, as a Parliament, we have said in a large majority: We want something like the US-BARDA. And we also explicitly want the cooperation of private companies and public institutions. The BioNTech vaccine is an absolute hit worldwide, and it brings us out of the pandemic. The EU, national funds and private capital have contributed to this, and that would have deserved the Nobel Prize in Medicine. That's why we need something like the Americans. And that is why we, as the EPP, are fundamentally in favour of HERA. We see the democratic deficit. That is why we propose: Yes, we accept HERA, but for a limited time, and we want to then have an ordinary legislative procedure with Parliament as co-legislator – so don't waste time, but fight for a democratic solution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit with the mayor of Altenahr, which is in my constituency, the place where the first person died on 14 July: A firefighter who just saved someone else and then died in an accident in the floods himself. And I've seen people who have lost everything, who have tried to renovate their house without knowing if the building fabric still bears that at all. And there sits colleague Ralf Seekatz, who has the whole thing in his constituency much worse: Altenahr, one dead, Altenahr, the Ahrtal, many, over 100 dead. And that is why it is so important to us that Europe is now in solidarity. We are very concerned about the reports that the money is not enough. I think we really need to think about this, Commissioner. I am sure you have the support of the European Parliament and we must challenge the Council accordingly. We must help unbureaucratically, again please make it clear that public tenders, state aid rules are now being overridden here so that we can tackle them. But then we also have to invest funds from the European Solidarity Fund. In one city I visited, in my constituency alone, the damage to public infrastructure amounts to 60 million. And when we see this across Germany, across Europe, it's a lot more. So tackle and help.

... this summer and the IPCC report were a wake-up call. We need to turn on the climate protection turbo in Europe and worldwide. As an EPP, we say yes to the European Commission's proposals. Nor do we say: yes, but – we say yes, and we see potential to make it even better. For example, we see the possibility of opening up a way for cars that use synthetic fuels, so that we use all the possibilities to become truly climate neutral. Above all, we support the Commission in adopting a market-economy approach and at the same time presenting social compensation. I would like to express my unequivocal support for this proposal from the European Commission, for the new ETS and for the Social Climate Fund. The point is that everyone who behaves in a climate-friendly manner benefits. Every private individual, every company that has a good idea, should realize this, and not only those that fit into some sort of bureaucratic scheme of Brussels. Congratulations, Mr. Timmermans, for this combination! And you have presented a social compensation. This is the first time, and I am addressing Greens and Social Democrats: Where was the social balance in the existing ETS? Where is the social compensation for the EEG, which was introduced in Germany, for example, to achieve targets in the field of renewable energies? Child-rich families and the socially weak are also burdened by high electricity prices, and not only by considerations for a new ETS. That's why we're looking for social balance. And let's not be fooled by the principle that we need a price signal so that we can use all technologies! We shouldn't mess around, we should tackle and get this package off the ground together and make it even better.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We need more cooperation in the European Union to tackle pandemics and other challenges. And we need more independence from China and others in order to act as Europeans and protect our citizens. And contrary to what has been said here in part, the European treaties allow us to go further than before. There is a good proposal from the two rapporteurs here, and I would like to thank all those who have helped, in particular the EPP Esther de Lange and Radan Kanev. The EPP will support both reports tomorrow. We must continue to learn from the mistakes made during the pandemic and learn lessons. That is why I very much welcome Stella Kyriakides, the Commission's announcement to present a proposal on HERA this week so that we can buy the necessary materials, such as vaccines, more quickly. And here I would like to say something very clearly: I have just heard a lot of nonsense in the debate about the lack of benefits of vaccines and the non-existent risk of COVID-19 among people under the age of 70. Unfortunately, I know differently. I'm talking to intensive care doctors, and the clinics are full, the intensive care units are full of young people who haven't been vaccinated and are under 70. And I was recently in my old clinic where I worked, in the children's clinic. And unfortunately, it has often happened that pregnant women had a severe course and that newborns were also affected. Vaccination is important. This should also be a message of this debate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We need to act decisively, but also wisely, to protect our environment. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this report, especially Agnès Evren, for the EPP. The first priority in the new Environment Action Programme is rightly the objective of achieving climate neutrality in the European Union. We are the first generation to suffer the consequences of climate change. We only have to look into our forests, but also at the spread of deserts in many parts of the world and much more. We are the last generation that can stop climate change sustainably because there are dangerous points, tipping points in the climate system. And if we can't do that now, then our children and grandchildren probably won't be able to keep climate change under control. That is why it is good that next week the Commission will put forward its proposal for a Fit for 55 will do. And I appeal, on behalf of the EPP, that we focus above all on a market economy, on incentives, on social compensation. We want the emissions trading system as the core of European climate policy. Ordinary law in addition yes, but who only relies on ordinal law, has also very, very many costs. And he has no way of compensating the burdens at European level. That's why I think: Incentives, a market economy, the creativity of each individual – that is the way – and not too many rules from Brussels.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The EPP will support the report. It ensures that we can better tackle drug shortages, that we are better prepared for future pandemics and similar challenges. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Cristian-Silviu Buşoi as EPP shadow rapporteur, and everyone else, including the Commission, who contributed to this result. Above all, however, I would like to use my speaking time to thank the staff of the European Medicines Agency. The European Medicines Agency has been massively indecently criticised in this pandemic. People worked day and night, and also on weekends, and they didn't deserve the pain that was poured out on them. It was good that the EMA accelerated its processes and I personally motivated it again, for example when it approved the vaccine for adolescents, but this was indecent and it was good that we in Europe relied on a careful yet swift procedure. My previous speaker said that the pace of vaccination is low. What nonsense! Most European countries, such as Belgium or Italy, have already overtaken the US, and next week, I predict, the European Union will overtake the US. Our basic decisions were correct: rely on conditional approval and on the liability of manufacturers, joint European action. That was right, and we shouldn't let that ruin us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Unfortunately, the pandemic is not over yet, so we now need to ensure that as many people as possible get vaccinated as soon as possible. The vaccine is now available. In a few days as the EU, we overtook the United States of America in vaccinating. But now it's about persuading skeptics. And there are many who say: But when I'm vaccinated, I'm still not 100% protected. That's right. There is no 100 percent in medicine. But a well-known virologist once said: When it barks in the doghouse, it is usually the dog and not the zebra. That is, we should communicate: Vaccination protects, and it protects others. And that is why it is medically justified to treat people who have been vaccinated differently and to give them back their freedoms. But we need to take a closer look where little has been vaccinated. I am very concerned about what is happening in Bulgaria. I hear that the Minister of Transitional Health is not very convincing in his vaccination campaign, and at the same time Russian tourists are being allowed into the country in large numbers. This is an open border, also for Europe. On the other hand: If people are doubly vaccinated – and I have also said this critically to my own government in Germany – then it is not proportionate to quarantine them for 14 days if they come from Portugal, and that does not help to convince people. That is why I am very glad that this maladministration has been remedied. We should act medically justified: Restriction only if justified and not arbitrary.