What Jutta spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It looks like a piece from the Tollhaus. We are in the midst of humanity's greatest crisis, the twin crisis of climate change and species extinction. The scientific community agrees on how rare it is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Biodiversity Council, the World Food Organisation and the United Nations all urge action to preserve our food security. To do this, we need effective measures to stop the collapse of ecosystems and insect populations, because without clean water, fertile soils, living pollinators, there will be no future for our agriculture and food. And now the Union faction is seriously proposing to put an end to the two key legislative proposals we need for this – the Pesticides Ordinance and the Nature Savings Act, the Restoration Act. The pressure on our ecosystems is higher than ever. How much must one close one's eyes to reality in order not to realize that droughts, insect deaths, declines in soil fertility will first and foremost affect our farmers? How irresponsible is it to set the mood with populist falsehoods while the future of food security is at stake? Dear EPP, remember, come back to the bottom of the facts! Work constructively on solutions! No nature, no farmers, no food.

Madam President, colleagues, according to Rule 59(4) of our Rules of Procedure, I would like to ask you for a vote to refer back to the responsible committees for interinstitutional negotiations. And thanks to all the colleagues for this very nice birthday present for me.

Mr President, thank you Commissioner, thank you colleagues for a great work of good cooperation on this file. And I think it is a file where each and every political group, where each and every Member State, has their own preferences, has their own special issues, which have to be taken into account. And I think, having concluded the negotiations within the two biggest committees in this House, within all political groups for several months with, let’s say, some difficult circumstances, this shows very clearly what European democracy looks like. European democracy means that there is not ruling government parties having their way and other parties working for the draw. European democracy means working together for these important issues. And coming back to methane, I want to repeat myself, the IPCC, the world’s leading climate scientists’ association, says if we don’t manage to stop methane emissions quite quickly, we can forget about 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees. And what that means everyone can see in Spain today, well, we have droughts hitting a heat-ridden country where agriculture will simply not be possible in maybe a couple of decades if we don’t act now. And this is why I’m so glad that we had this great cooperation in this House. And I’m really looking forward to you all supporting me, supporting Pascal and me as your rapporteurs when it comes to the negotiations with the Council of Member States, because whoever has had a glimpse into the position of the Council has seen that Council is not quite so ambitious. That Council says, well, let’s delay things even further and never mind about international reputation, never mind about being the EU that have initiated the global methane pledge two years ago in Glasgow, renewed in Sharm el-Sheikh last year. Shall we go this year to the next COP saying, well, we have this global methane pledge, but we thought that you might start doing something and when you have finished, then maybe we will come along. That is not the way Europe should go forward with the Green Deal worldwide. That is not the way we should shift responsibility to others. Therefore, thank you, colleagues, for everyone who has spoken in favour of this important regulation. And I am really also happy that you, Commissioner, are a strong supporter of acting on methane and I am sure that we will see in due time a very ambitious delegated act on a methane performance standards that will see bilateral agreements between the EU and other states worldwide – because whoever has signed the global methane pledge will now have to act. As a last word, UNEP, the United Nations Environmental Programme, has brought out their global methane assessment. They said if the world manages to cut methane emissions in half by 2030, this would save us 0.3°C of global heating. Never again will climate action become so cheap and so effective. Let’s work on it!

Mr President, Commissioner, dear Pascal, ladies and gentlemen! It has already been said: Methane is our second most important climate gas and over 20 years 80 times more potent than CO2, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are at record highs and continue to rise every year. Time is pressing. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said: If we don't want to break the 1.5-degree limit, we need to implement rapid and comprehensive reductions in methane emissions. We are now starting with the energy sector with this regulation. Methane is the main component of natural gas – known to all – and the beauty is that reducing emissions in this sector is practically cost-neutral. Because any molecule that does not escape leaking valves, leaking pipelines, which is not simply released into the atmosphere, can be sold and used – and that helps us, especially in the current energy crisis. I am often asked: ‘Isn't that pushing up prices?’ My answer is: The International Energy Agency says very clearly: “There is no excuse for not acting. 3% of last year's profits of fossil fuels would be enough to remove 80% of emissions." 3% of last year's profits! That is, there is no argument that the money is not there. But now to the content: We have rules for monitoring, reporting and verification, i.e. that we first know how much methane exactly comes out of the individual sectors. These rules already exist at the international level. In our proposal, we have aligned the deadlines with this international agreement at the UN level. When it comes to leak detection and repair, we are finally setting requirements so that these long-available standards and best practices can also be implemented throughout Europe. Because far too often it takes too long for such a leak to be detected, and until it is repaired, much longer. That has to change! Venting and flaring, i.e. venting or flaring of methane: It's an environmentally harmful practice, it's an absolute waste, and there's no reason to keep doing it routinely. I'm not talking about emergency situations; When it comes to safety – no question at all – it is of course still allowed to flare methane. That's logical. But simply letting it go, because you don't want to implement the appropriate modern infrastructure, that can't be. Yes, the issue of coal: We have had difficult negotiations here, and I believe that in the end we have found a very good compromise, which takes into account the situation in all the Member States, and in particular in Poland, and takes into account what has been agreed there for the many workers in this sector and the agreement that has also been reached there at the social level. I am glad that we have now found this compromise and I would like to thank all those involved once again. Pascal has already said a lot about imports. It only makes sense if these rules also apply to all imports; Most of our emissions are outside our borders. We also need this Level playing field. There must be equality for all. And, ladies and gentlemen, there are already a number of countries around the world that have adopted such regulations. As the European Union, let us say: "Well, against such a strong economic power as Nigeria, of course we can't do anything." If Nigeria does something like that, then we can too, please. In particular, because the European Union in Glasgow Global methane pledge Initiated by. The words are cheap. Action must now follow, and I call on everyone to fully agree with the good compromise we have found between the two major committees tomorrow in plenary.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The weaknesses of the current chemicals regulation for PFAS became over-clear last year, when more than 17,000 contaminated sites with PFAS in the EU were made public. More than 50 years ago, the manufacturer Dupont found out that its products – per- and polyfluorinated alkylated substances, PFAS – are highly harmful to health and hazardous to the environment. When registering under REACH, this data was also duly provided to the European Chemicals Agency. And indeed, the European Union has managed to restrict some of these substances. But this restriction affects less than one percent of the 5000 PFAS. If we continue at this pace, we will not be finished in the next century. There is an urgent need for action here, but also on other points for which my speaking time is not sufficient – UVCB, polymers, sanction possibilities, production must be energy-efficient, speed of procedures. I hereby call on the Commission to finally deliver on its repeatedly given promise in the context of the chemicals strategy – in the Plenary of Commissioner Šefčovič, at the hearing in the Environment Committee of Director Ciobanu-Dordea – and to present the proposal for the REACH revision by June at the latest. Mrs von der Leyen, the citizens, but also the progressive players in the industry, who finally need investment security: You are waiting for your initiative. Resolve the blockades so that we can vote on the parliamentary position for this important law in this legislature.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I have heard a lot of calls not only in this House, but also at home in Germany, that we should not go forward with the ramp—up of renewable energy while we don’t have enough storage for two weeks of no wind and no sun. The first problem we will run into when ramping up renewable energy is not the famous Dunkelflaute of those two weeks, but the first challenge will be how to sensibly use the renewable energy which is oversupplying at times of little demand. There we have a plethora of possibilities already today, with the simplest one being a simple heating rod inside your warm water boiler and the more sophisticated ones being energy storage as electricity or as heat. I agree very much with the colleagues that say we need a common European framework for that so that we have the possibility to trade also storage units over borders in the same way that we are doing with electricity today. But please don’t let yourselves be fooled that we have to wait for sufficient storage units – which are already coming online, by the way – in order to have grid balancing, in order to wait for more renewable energy in Germany and in Europe overall. We can do it already today and we need only a regulatory framework.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Two and a half years ago, in this House, as rapporteur for the MRV regulation on CO2 emissions from international maritime transport, I presented Parliament's position, and already at that time the European Parliament voted by a large majority in favour of the inclusion of shipping in emissions trading. Tomorrow is finally here! For the first time in the world, the sixth-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, maritime shipping, will be included in climate action. Of course not as fast and of course not as complete as we Greens would have liked. But it's a start. But now it is time to stick to it, because pricing alone is not enough to decarbonise this sector. Clear rules for efficiency measures are needed and climate-neutral fuels are needed. For the latter, we reached an agreement in the trilogue a few weeks ago – a timid, but at least a step in the right direction. However, there are still no requirements for efficiency measures. I will continue to fight for that!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The cheapest energy is the one we don't use. This has never been so true as in today's times, when far too many people had to choose between warm apartments and warm meals, because Russia's war of aggression and the associated energy crisis has multiplied their heating bills. That's why it's not just our climate goals that require rapid action. It is also about reducing our dependence on fossil imports and protecting our citizens from high costs. Yes, that will require investment. For Germany, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau expects EUR 254 billion – that is a lot of money. But may I remind you that EUR 200 billion was made available last year for the German gas price brake alone? Money that does not increase the value of houses, jobs or better quality of living, but flows to a not inconsiderable extent to countries where no one would want to live here in the room! That is why, ladies and gentlemen, we need these guidelines for improving the energy requirements of buildings. I ask you to vote tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! After two years of coronavirus, in which wearing masks and lockdowns prevented many infections, we are now witnessing a massive increase in respiratory diseases, and Member States' health systems are already being put to the test again. Now I often hear that this is due to the obligation to wear masks, which has weakened the immune system of citizens. This is a fallacy: The immune system is not a muscle to train, and I'm not just saying that, but that's what epidemiologists and immunologists around the world say. In addition, many infants and young children are affected, who have never worn a mask. In fact, however, there is a growing body of evidence and studies that coronavirus infections have a lasting impact on the immune system. There are a lot of studies around the world and more are being done every day. That is why I ask the Commission: When will you finally launch a programme to investigate the long-term consequences of coronavirus infections – both long-covid and immune damage – and promote research into possible therapies?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! 69 %: Global populations of wild birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have declined by 69% over the past 50 years. These numbers are dramatic, and species extinction is even more threatening than the climate crisis, because biodiversity on our planet ensures us drinkable water, clean air and fertile soils. The upcoming World Biodiversity Conference must mark a turning point. Just as the 2015 Paris Agreement finally enshrined the need for global climate action, we need a Montreal Agreement to protect biodiversity. However, the main cause of species extinction is habitat loss. It is not just a matter of establishing protected areas, it is not just a matter of renaturalising, but of addressing the main cause: the conversion of wetlands, primeval forests, grasslands into arable land to feed the ever-increasing consumption of meat. Mr Sinkevičius, Mr Bek, will you not only advocate measures to protect at least 30% of the land and sea, but also to regulate activities that further fuel biodiversity loss?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The whole of Europe is feeling painfully what dependence on fossil imports means. And while our citizens, our industry, our craft businesses suffer from the high prices, those who would like to leave everything and everyone to the market are complaining of a market failure. The market follows the models exactly. It depicts scarcity, and it does so relentlessly. I think we need to change the design of the market. We need a much stronger link between all types of energy use: electricity, heat, mobility; there must be better incentives for sector coupling and storage; and there is a need for more uniform pricing of networks across Member States. The current study of network operators clearly shows that network charges are so different that there can be no question of a genuine internal market in the electricity sector. And it is absurd if the electricity customers in the exporting country have to bear the costs of transporting electricity to the importing country. That's why I'm looking forward to working together on a new market design.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Glasgow has been a year now, and not a single one of the promises made there has been kept. Only 19 countries have submitted new climate targets, although everyone had promised to finally get on the under-2-degree path. A Global Methane Pledge was signed with great gesture to reduce methane emissions. But so far, not a single country has a functioning legislation on how this should be done. Here in the EU, too, we find it difficult to negotiate, because so far it is mainly the oil and gas industry that sets out what such a limitation should look like in the energy sector. We already have a lot about loss and damage heard. I don't want to repeat this. We should be clear: Each tonne of CO2 causes a follow-up cost of 180 euros in damages. This was calculated by the Federal Environment Agency. Every fossil subsidy we spend in the current crisis has that 180 euros on top of it, and we should be so honest as to tell that to our citizens who are calling for subsidies.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Maritime shipping has so far been excluded from all climate protection measures. The Sustainable Marine Fuels Regulation would – I say consciously: we would have had the chance to put a hard-to-decarbonise area on the path to climate neutrality, which according to all available studies and scenarios will even grow in the coming decades. However, even the Commission's proposal fell short of the ambition of climate neutrality in 2050, as fuels should still have 25% of the emission intensity of today's fuels in 2050. This is absurd, because on the other hand, the Commission has written a draft for the next meeting of the international shipping organization IMO for climate neutrality 2050. However, such a proposal is not credible if the EU itself does not seek to do so in its legislation on shipping. The Environment and Industry Committees of this Parliament have corrected this fundamental shortcoming and have also made many well-founded proposals on how shipping can become climate-neutral faster, how sustainable fossil-free fuels can be promoted and emissions in ports can be reduced. But unfortunately, after the rather unusual negotiations, the plenary now has a text that not only misses the higher goals, but also introduces many, many exceptions for icebreakers, for trips to peripheral areas, for companies with few ships and so on. In addition to us Greens, many other colleagues, such as dear Catherine Chabaud, have therefore made suggestions for changes to how we can put shipping on the path to climate neutrality. And I ask you to accept these amendments.

Mr President, yes, Madam Grapini, I closely listened to you because I was a shadow on the directive and, to me, it’s also very, very important that all Member States are looked at according to their situation, to their socio-economic situation, to the gains which they have already made. But, exactly this is laid down in the formula in the annex where – what you have talked about, the BIP, the situation of the people – is recognised. So, of course Romania will not have the same goals as my home country, Germany. And we were making sure that this formula stays safe and that Member States cannot voluntarily change it in order to make it easier for Romania.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Ever since I became involved in energy policy, and that was at a time when I was still able to count my gray hair, people have been talking about the sleeping giant of energy efficiency. However, it has never been possible to achieve national or European objectives. Why? Because all the beautiful goals were never binding. Because it has always been argued that governments, companies, homeowners would do everything by themselves to use as little energy as possible. The sad truth is: That's not true. That is why we Greens are fighting for a binding and ambitious energy efficiency directive. I would like to thank the whole negotiating team for a strong compromise text, which we Greens will fully support. We will also discuss the Renewable Energy Directive this week, and many have expressed doubts as to whether a higher target for renewable energies is even achievable. I'll tell you today: Yeah, that's it. Because if we now turbocharge efficiency, we will have to replace much less gas, coal and oil. We need much less windmills and solar parks. Our citizens save money. We are meeting our renewables targets and our climate targets. And efficiency is also the way out of fossil dependence. Why did Putin describe energy efficiency in his strategy papers as a threat to the Russian economy? Let's show him what this threat looks like. And last point: I am addressing the Commission directly here. Please ensure that energy efficiency, and not just a vague reduction in energy demand, is at the heart of any measure you propose to address this crisis. I demand that you absorb the excess profits of fossil energy companies and invest primarily in energy efficiency. Because we have to act now.

My question is, actually when you’re talking about that we need to keep the cost at bay and we need to democratise aviation, are you aware that about 20% of the world’s population are in a situation to be able to enter a plane on economic reasons and that 1% of the world’s population is responsible for more than 50% of emissions, and that the ticket prices reflect less than one third of the cost which is actually inflicted on society by aviation? How do we judge that?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! There is no doubt that flying has brought people together and enabled international exchange to a degree that could not have been imagined 100 years ago. But equally undoubtedly, flying is the most energy-intensive form of mobility and relies entirely on fossil fuels. With ReFuelEU Aviation, the switch to more sustainable fuels is now to be heralded. But it is not sustainable for new fuels to be counted on the basis of problematic raw materials such as palm oil distillate or catch crops. Rather, we should rely on the only scalable solution, and these are synthetic fuels made from renewable electricity. And it is precisely in terms of industrial policy that we should strengthen the pioneering role of European companies and set ambitious but realistic quotas. The potential for sustainable biofuels is limited. We will not discover new continents with buildable land. I don't have a problem with technology openness, but it has to take physical reality into account. That's why I ask you: Vote in favour of our amendments and ensure a sustainable future for aviation! A little follow-up to Mr. Gade: If the deadlines are so short, it is clear that the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy cannot submit applications.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, A few days ago, a study was published that the current heat wave in the south and southwest, southeast of Europe and the associated drought will occur much more frequently in the future. This means that not only do we need to become much faster in climate protection, but we also need to push ahead with adapting to changing conditions. We must tackle this gigantic task together. And I mean, the first thing that needs to be done is to curb waste. It cannot be that we simply continue to overuse groundwater resources, which are already being used to an extent that they do not replenish, by spraying over wide fields in bright weather. In other words, we need to be much smarter with these limited resources. And it goes without saying that we are going to the roots of this crisis much faster when it comes to the expansion of renewable energies and energy efficiency. This is the only way we can do it together.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, It must seem like mockery to the citizens. Ukraine is fighting for its survival. Russia's curtailment of oil and gas supplies leaves many fearful of being cold in the winter. Huge amounts of tax are being mobilized to support Ukraine, but also to support the economy, which is suffering from these high energy prices. But those who benefit from the enormous price increases should not be held accountable? Shouldn't they have to participate? There are already agreements at OECD level to be able to extract exactly such random profits. This is not about innovation, as is the case with vaccines. It's not about anyone being particularly smart. It is simply, simply and simply about a monopoly, about the people who have largely put the tank discount – which the German government has paid out to help the people who need to be mobile – into their own pockets. This has nothing to do with the fact that we need a free market that can also react to such things.

I would be very interested in knowing how nuclear energy can actually lower the prices for our citizens because, as I just told you, in the UK nuclear energy is only viable when you pay a premium which is about three times the premium which is paid for wind or solar energy. And all the more, I would like to know where in Europe would we be able to source the uranium we need to run those nuclear power plants?

When you talk about affordable prices – I often hear this from supporters of nuclear energy: Do you happen to know what has been promised to the future operator of Hinkley Point 3, which is now the most modern nuclear power plant to be connected to the grid in Europe? That he gets 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, 35 years, inflation-protected - do you really find that cost-effective?

Thank you very much for giving me your space. And I’ll be very brief in trying to make the circle to come back to where we started, because the question was EU ambitions on biodiversity ahead of COP 15. And I think if we’ll look at the restoration law which you presented last week, it is already quite good. But the crucial point is, what means of governance do we have? What means of actually enforcing what is there as an ambition? And it’s a bit the same on the global level, whereas it is much easier within the European Union because there we have the structures where the Commission can actually tell Member States, well, if you do not abide by the law, then we might start writing letters and later infringement procedures, which is not possible on the global level. So how do you think might the restoration law influence the negotiations at the COP 15? And especially, how can it be perceived in the Global South that the EU, or generally spoken the Global North, does not come forward as colonialist, telling the Global South how to act on biodiversity?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the importance of healthy ecosystems in very clear terms: Restoration and the end of ecosystem destruction are central to all climate change mitigation scenarios and essential in adapting to their impacts. We in the European Union, which has already destroyed or irreversibly damaged most of our ecosystems, are therefore particularly called upon to protect and renaturalise bogs, forests and grasslands. Because we are already experiencing how drought, heat, heavy rain affect our continent. People suffer, lose their home or their economic livelihood. No one denies that technological progress on the path to climate neutrality is absolutely necessary. But technology alone will not save us. We need nature as an ally. Therefore, do not let yourself be persuaded that you can get a forest by deforestation, and vote tomorrow at LULUCF for the position of the Environment Committee!

Madam President, Thank you, Commissioner, for being ready to give answers at this late hour. I also do it very briefly. I have been wondering for some time why we must always agree or be informed that residue levels of pesticides, which have long been banned in the European Union, are allowed on products that can still be bought in our shops. In some cases, these quantities are even increased, as in a current case – apparently because we cannot live without zucchini from the USA. I now ask the Commission: How does it intend to deal in the future with the fact that pesticides, which are banned in the European Union due to their dangerous nature, are nevertheless permitted on imported foods?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Kadri! Thank you very much! In March, the Commission considered which autocrats it would beg next to get fossil energy. Now she has turned around and it says: save, switch, search – save energy, switch to renewables and then look where we need to look for more fossils. Savings are the most important: It alleviates our dependence, it relieves our citizens and businesses, and it brings sustainable climate protection. It is also good that the REPower package focuses on cooperation and solidarity. But something is still missing. We are still waiting for the implementation of the citizens' energy rights from the Clean energypackage of the last legislative period. The Commission must finally call on and encourage the Member States to: Step on their feet, but also give them a blueprint on how to best implement this package so that everyone can invest in renewables, share their energy with neighbors, and face Putin together.