Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. Excessive obesity and obesity are, of course, partly a question of care and medicines, and those affected must of course get help with it. But it has become a billion-dollar industry, driven by completely insane ideals and enormously tough marketing from, for example, Ozempic. We as politicians must, of course, take a good look at these issues and understand that public health is a policy and, not least, work a lot on prevention, as Commissioner Hoekstra mentioned in her introductory speech. There are clear patterns in this matter. Ill health affects the stressed and poor more severely than others. Fast food, we know, is not cheaper, but as in many other contexts, being poor is expensive. Now I am negotiating, and some of you others too, on the common agricultural policy for the next seven years. We need to get better at linking these issues. We need to invest in farmers and help them make the transition – to cut the budget and let them deal with the climate crisis on their own – and make sure that children get more well-cooked, healthier, home-produced and locally-produced food in schools and so on.

Madam President, thank you very much. While we are debating this, here in the European Parliament, millions of animals are trapped in small cramped cages, still in 2025, because a small number of people still want to dress in their furs. For me, this is almost unreal. It is also, I think, a disgrace that this industry is still allowed at European level. Now 14 Member States have introduced national bans. That's great! And we have one and a half million European citizens demanding that a ban also be imposed at European level. That's good! At home in Sweden, the government does not seem to have really decided yet whether they also support a ban at EU level. For the Greens, this is self-evident. This industry has nothing to do in a modern society. Stricter regulation is not enough either. We must see a ban at European level and put an end to it.

Mr President, thank you very much. A lot has already been said about COP30: Lack of ambition. We did not get a roadmap for decarbonisation. And of course, I'm also disappointed, very disappointed. But here and now, I want to look ahead to future climate summits. In the resolution that we wrote, we got a lot of good things done. We have a Commission that still claims to protect the transition anyway, and we can create a constructive majority in this Parliament without the slowing far right. But we also need to change up properly. Transition, not deregulation, massive climate investment and, last but not least, we must stop completely sabotaging the climate laws and ambitions that we have already agreed on, such as the deforestation law. It is utterly shameless to do such a thing right after a climate summit, in the middle of the Amazon. We can do better. With clearer climate policies and better leadership from the EU, we can have a much better climate summit next year.

Madam President, thank you very much. The Council. Commissioner Hoekstra. COP30 is fast approaching. There is still a small window left, but it is rapidly closing, so that the EU can show leadership also at this climate summit. Just as we have so often done in previous climate summits. But it is not at all certain that we will do it this time. As Commissioner Hoekstra mentioned, we have produced an ambitious text in the resolution. It really points to how important it is for us as the EU to show climate leadership, for example, that we actually need to have an ambitious climate law with an ambitious 2040 target. We need to phase out fossil fuels, of course. Unfortunately, from now on, we also need to devote more and more resources to climate adaptation. Not least in a context such as COP30, it is so important that we also take the lead and show that we take responsibility for all the people who are hit harder and harder now around the world. I don't think I need to remind you in here of all the news that's coming. Constantly negative news. Consequences of climate change. For example, the latest on that coral reefs may now have passed a tipping point It is beyond salvation. However, I think we all need to remind ourselves from time to time of the positive news that is also coming. For example, the latest survey shows that 89% of the world's population want a more ambitious climate policy. I really hope we listen to them.

Mr President, thank you very much. I am convinced that deep down, everyone in here knows that we have to get away from the fossils for a variety of reasons. Yet we have a right-wing half that is now trying to tear up a decision that we should have an end date for the production of new gasoline and diesel cars. This is completely frivolous. It's just populist. It lays out trip wires. This discourages companies that are at the forefront of the transition. It also penalizes motorists, who now have to wait even longer to get cheaper electric cars. And seriously, what do you think it will cost for a family with children to refuel a gasoline car in 2035? What do you think gasoline will cost in 2035, even without new green policies? You may think that you are trying to save an industry, but in fact you are putting out trip wire and trying to lay the hook for an industry that is now trying to change and trying to compete with other companies from other parts of the world that are already at full speed for that change.

Mr President, thank you very much. Keep your paws away from my veggie burger! We have so much to discuss in this House on the common agricultural policy. We need reforms to ensure that we have more farmers who can truly cope with the generational renewal we are in. We need to ensure that farmers are better paid for their goods and ecosystem services and, in general, strengthen the position of farmers throughout the food chain. But then there are these shrewd people on the right, who can't help but poke in some amendment that we should suddenly ban words like "vego sausages" and "vego burgers". Of course, to order parts of the European meat lobby. It is completely frivolous and it has nothing to do with the position of the farmers, but it is simply to fuck with the consumers who today want to eat more vegetarian, and thus also with the farmers who want to deliver that food.

Mr President, thank you very much. Here we are again, a September session in Strasbourg, discussing the consequences of extreme weather events. A year ago there were floods all over Europe. This summer extreme forest fires, especially in Spain and Portugal. I'm sure we'll be standing here again in a year's time and discussing some other form of extreme weather event. At the same time, we have a right-wing half of this House that is consistently opposed to ambitious climate policies, and linked specifically to the forest fires. Even more serious: We are also currently working against some form of forest monitoring law – the Forest Monitoring Law – although we know that data on how our forests are doing, across Europe, could be one of the most important tools to counteract and mitigate the consequences in the future. It is a complete scandal. It is a betrayal of the victims we have unfortunately had this summer. But it is actually an even greater betrayal of future victims of disasters that we could avoid.

Madam President, thank you very much. Drought. Floods. No sector in Europe is as hard hit by climate change as Europe's farmers. That is why, of course, the CAP must be very much about the climate transition and climate adaptation, where biodiversity is crucial. But first and foremost, of course, it must be about European farmers, who are becoming an endangered species. A third of the farmers have disappeared in just 15 years. We need to break this trend. We have built up an agriculture in Europe where it is the chemical industry and the fossil fuel industry that earn the big money, not the farmers. We must ensure that we have a fossil-free agriculture in Europe, and the farmers who are ahead of the transition and really are planetary keepers must be given extra resources. This is about the future of farmers. It is about climate. It is about biodiversity. But it is also very much about food supply and security policy. We must link these issues together and we have an opportunity to do so with the common agricultural policy in Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. Risk and disaster preparedness is something that we would have to discuss much, much more often. Not least because we know that the consequences of natural disasters will quickly become significantly worse as long as global warming accelerates. It can be forest fires, it can be heat waves, it can be torrential rains and floods. A clear example is the disaster that struck Valencia at the end of last year. We know that the storm became much, much worse and more intense because of the record warm water in the Mediterranean. We also know that now, a week into July, most of the Mediterranean is even warmer than it was at this time a year ago. We do not know what the consequences will be, but we do know that the risks of natural disasters, that type of disaster, are increasing rapidly, and we need to be prepared to deal with that type of disaster.

Madam President, thank you very much. Here I am, it's almost exactly half past four on Thursday afternoon. I am the penultimate speaker in the last debate in Strasbourg this week, on something as extremely important as bees and pollination. It is indeed pollination and other similar ecosystem services that are absolutely crucial for our food supply, for us to be able to work on climate adaptation and actually also for us to be able to mitigate the effects of global warming itself. Most of my colleagues are on their way home. Many are already on their planes on their way to their home countries. On a Thursday afternoon like this, it will be clearer to me, and certainly to many other Greens, than usual, that there are basically no other of my colleagues who care about these fundamental, important existential questions: climate, biodiversity, pollination, ecosystem services. We must make sure to support and defend them so that we actually have a functioning society also in the future.

Madam President, thank you very much. Adaptation to climate change, water resilience – this will quickly become even more important now that we have passed 1.5 degrees and global warming continues. If we are to succeed in this, there are above all three things that I see. One is that we really need to make sure that we stop emissions at source. It will be too expensive to have complex wastewater treatment plants before the water flows into our oceans and so on. The second is climate adaptation. We know that the most cost-effective thing we can do is to invest in nature restoration. We also know that a city without fresh drinking water or a flooded field is anything but competitive. And then there's PFAS. We need to put a complete stop to it. It does not matter where PFAS comes from, whether it is from the frying pan or from a tomato that has been grown with pesticides containing PFAS or whether it is the drinking water that has been contaminated from the industry. All emissions of PFAS must be removed, and then it is not enough to just look at the consumer products.

Madam President, this upcoming EU‑UK summit of course offers an opportunity to rebuild bridges and strengthen cooperation, which is really crucial given the current turbulent times. But it's also highly beneficial from a long‑term strategic perspective. We, as Greens, recognise the mutual benefit of knowledge‑sharing and research collaboration, and we warmly welcome the UK's re-entry into Horizon Europe. However, we would also like to see similar developments in Erasmus+, to give young people a chance to study and work on either side of the channel. We therefore call on the Commission and the UK Government to be proactive in restoring and strengthening such programmes. We would also like to see a better regulatory dynamic between the EU and the UK, for example, the better alignment of biosecurity border controls and the emissions trading schemes to endorse sustainability practices and to facilitate trade. Last but not least, as you all know, there is a war on European soil. Geopolitical tensions are growing in many, many corners of the world, and humanity is threatened by an escalating climate crisis. We cannot be wasting time and resources conducting parallel research on both sides of the channel, and we cannot be wasting an opportunity to foster a sense of unity among the future generations of Europe. So let this summit be a starting point for a deepening relationship between the EU and the UK for the benefit of all.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Commissioner Roswall. As often when we discuss biodiversity here in the room, I hear a lot of pretty nice words. Some of the words echo perhaps a little, a little empty, but it is still good that there are many who lift nice words. It is also fantastic that we finally reached an agreement at COP16. But it's sad that it has to take two attempts. But the difference is that for us greens, this is self-evident, it is the basis of our ideology. Ecology and economics are intertwined for us. Whether we are discussing agriculture or fisheries, biodiversity is there all the time, as a basis for our society and our economy to function forward. I certainly have a message to my colleagues from other party groups – perhaps not quite all party groups, but many – when you raise these issues, you sound at least partially convinced. Bring that conviction back to your respective party groups, so that we can jointly raise our ambitions in terms of biodiversity, protecting nature, investing more in nature restoration and linking it to the climate issue better than we do today.

Madam President, thank you very much. I would like to start by stressing that for the first time ever, we have measured more than 430 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is high above the planetary limit of 350 that we must aim for in order to avoid the most severe consequences of climate change. We also know that of the last 20 months, all but one have been over one and a half degrees above pre-industrial levels, from a global perspective. We are in the midst of an extremely serious climate crisis. This is certainly not the time to weaken, reduce the demands on the car industry and, at the same time, of course, also penalise those parts of the car industry that have already invested in conversion. The Commission has pledged to stand up for climate objectives. Really do it! Listen to the climate alarm and not to the most conservative parts of the automotive industry and of politics, which unfortunately seems to have put in reverse when it comes to climate transition.

I was very clear in my speech that we need to listen to science and experts to solve these issues. For example, we should listen to what the police want to see more for resources. They also point out time and time again that we need to focus much more on prevention. We will spend more money on schools and more money also on the police, not least so that the police can be out in the community and be seen. This short-term link, as you on the far right often do, to current immigration and gang crime is not based on real serious analysis. As others have said here today: Those who are drawn into gang crime today are young people who were born and raised in Sweden.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your Thank you for this debate! Even at home in Uppsala, the violence has been too clear and too present, just like in many other cities back home in Sweden. But with increasingly escalating violence, it also becomes clear that our societies need more than just tougher measures. We need investments in schools, social services and, of course, the whole of civil society. These hard gloves that the SD government wants to see more of, they should preferably not have to be used at all. This social development is something that we politicians must take enormous responsibility for turning around, for example in how we prevent children from falling into gang violence, how we frame gang leaders, how we invest in local communities and early interventions, but also very much about how we talk about our fellow human beings. We all have a big responsibility here. The debate here today unfortunately shows how far from that insight many are in this house. Populism, racism, has taken root. Short-term unscientific solutions (the President interrupted the speaker) (inaudible words).

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Commissioner Roswall! Climate change is certainly not just about warming the planet, but a much greater threat in large parts of the world is the changes in the precipitation climate. There will be more precipitation, heavier precipitation in places where we already have a lot of water. But above all, in this context that we are discussing now, in many places, not least where we have a large part of humanity, where we have a large part of agriculture and food production, it is now slowly but surely drier. It is a huge threat to us and our food production. This does not only apply to other parts of the world, it also applies here at home in Europe. We see parts of southern Europe in particular, where the yields of maize and wheat, for example, have already fallen by the order of 60%. We also know that the drier climate, the drier, local and regional climate, entails a lot of risk consequences. For example, the terrible floods we saw last time in Valencia were so much aggravated by the fact that the ground there had first become so dry and hard that it could not receive water. As Commissioner Roswall noted: At COP16, in some steps, in some contexts, we took steps forward, but as often in these contexts, there were somewhat mixed results. The main problem is that once again we failed to have a binding global framework when it comes to combating drought. If politicians in charge had already taken into account the research that existed at the end of the 20th century, we would hopefully not have been where we are now. But now we are where we are, and that means that, not least here in the EU, we need to raise our ambitions, both in terms of reducing emissions and working even more actively on climate adaptation.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear friends! Then we're here now, on the wrong side of a degree and a half. We were very close in 2023. The fast, fast warming we've seen now in the last two or three years, we didn't know about when we negotiated the Fit for 55 climate package. And that is why the ambitions now need to be significantly raised. It's not good enough to talk about 90% by 2040. It is not enough to talk about climate neutrality by 2050. Climate neutrality by 2050 means that we will continue to amplify the greenhouse effect until 2050, which in turn means that global warming will not only continue but continue to accelerate until 2050. We will pass two degrees long before that, and 2024 is so far the warmest year. But with current climate policy, it will be one of the coldest years any of us in here will experience for the rest of our lives.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. As self-evident as we humans see ourselves in this world, as self-evident are, for example, the lynx in the forest and the bumblebees in the meadow or wading birds such as the slender-billed spoven. But the forests and meadows are rapidly changing into empty monocultures. And that slender-billed pigeon – it no longer exists at all, according to a scientific article published just last month. And yes, a single species disappears – there can be a lot of different reasons for it. But the huge biodiversity crisis we are seeing now – it is linked to policy. We as politicians have a very simple and clear choice: Either we take responsibility or we don't take responsibility. Do not weaken the Nature Restoration Act, do not delay the Deforestation Act, take responsibility and regardless of which political group you belong to, listen to all the scientists and experts who say time and time again that we must link climate action with nature conservation.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your The Mayotte disaster is a climate injustice of the worst kind. These are people who, in principle, have not contributed at all to global warming and climate change. Yet they suffer in this terrible way. Their entire society is completely destroyed. Of course, we must do everything we can to help those who have survived to rebuild their homes and their communities. But we must also not forget that this is happening now – on the order of one and a half degrees of warming. We have a climate policy here in the EU that contributes to our failure to meet the 2°C target. And we know that every tenth of a degree of additional warming increases the risk of this type of storm becoming more common and worse, and will thus continue to affect even more completely innocent victims.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your As many speakers have stated before me, access to fresh and clean drinking water is a human right. Yet we fail so badly to protect this right in the EU. About 25% of our groundwater does not reach the levels we have said it should – and that quarter should in turn be enough for about 2/3 of our drinking water. In one test, PFAS was found in 94% of all water samples. I have lived in Uppsala for most of my life. It is perhaps the city in Sweden, one of the larger cities in Sweden, that has the greatest problem with PFAS. This is just one of many examples across Europe. We really need to tighten up in this area and, of course, put a total stop to PFAS, but also make sure that we get rid of pollution from pesticides and microplastics. When I listen to the debate here today, many people seem to agree with us Greens that these are self-evident. I sincerely hope so, throughout the whole process and in the vote as well.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your Some progress was made during the COP16 meeting in Cali. The single most important thing – for me anyway – was the clear recognition of the key role of indigenous peoples in these processes. But these little steps aren't enough. We need to take big steps forward now. For example, we know that legally binding targets and agreements are required to really hold countries to account. And when it comes to money: At the last COP meeting, two years earlier, we agreed to spend $200 billion every year to protect nature. Only half of that money is on the table this year. Biodiversity is indeed the basis of the climate, of food supply and indeed of life on this planet. Now that we failed to reach an agreement and deliver at the COP meeting, it is even more important that we here in the EU take clear leadership and do everything in our power to protect nature.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. For over five years now I have made every single journey between Sweden and Strasbourg and Brussels by train. It is possible to travel by train far in Europe, but it does not always go well and above all it must be easier. For this to happen, the Commission needs to start with what should have happened already during the previous mandate. You know, all that work on rail passenger rights that needs to be strengthened and above all – as several other speakers have also highlighted – it needs to be easier to book and buy international train tickets. We need to get more passengers on the trains. We need to get more and more goods from truck to train. It is possible, but then more passengers must feel that the train is the natural choice, just as it is for me. We must have a vision in front of us, where the train is always faster than the car and the train is always cheaper than the plane.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Thank you very much for this debate! After these first two hours, I can say that many here, but unfortunately not all, understand that these floods are not a single event. We know that as long as global warming continues, these kinds of natural disasters will become more frequent and worse. We also know that with current climate policies, we are moving from 1.5 degrees to two degrees of warming in 15-20 years. There are many, but unfortunately not all, who also understand that investing now in disaster preparedness and climate adaptation is much better than taking the costs forward, both from an economic and, of course, humanitarian perspective. It seems that there are still not enough people in here who realize that the most important thing we can do is to raise ambitions properly in the transition. With 90% emission reductions by 2040 and climate neutrality by 2050, global warming will not only continue, but will continue to accelerate until and after 2050, and with it even bigger and worse disasters in the near future.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Madam Commissioner, I would like to thank you for your We Greens have long been insisting that the common agricultural policy in the EU must be fundamentally changed. The money will of course be invested in those farmers who are already planetary caretakers, and all those farmers who want to change agriculture so that it sequesters more carbon, takes better care of the animals, is more adapted to climate change, protects biodiversity and develops the countryside and so on. And perhaps not least all those farmers who are now more or less acutely realizing that they need to change farming to adapt to extreme weather events and climate change. After all, the current agricultural policy is reducing the number of farms and making them increasingly vulnerable. But this strategic dialogue shows that there is broad support for change. So what are we waiting for? All you have to do is get started. But we're in a hurry. Neither we in this House nor the farmers of Europe can continue in the old rut. Wheel tracks that are becoming ever deeper in the European soil and where the entire agriculture and food supply in the long run risks getting stuck.