What Jutta spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, This is not the first time that Białowieża has been a topic here. We know that the Commission is in a position to act decisively, as it has done when illegal deforestation took place in this strictly protected world heritage site. Now it's just a wall. But this wall is 5 meters high and almost 200 kilometers long. For the construction, trees are felled, roads are widened. There is more traffic, more noise, more risk of fire. And bison, moose, coniks, lynx – all of them will not be able to overcome this wall. The populations in Poland and Belarus are thus genetically isolated. This is a blatant breach of the Habitats Directive, which the Directorate-General for the Environment cannot accept. The Polish government is now making the absurd claim that public security is endangered by a few hundred desperate people stranded in the no-man's-land between Poland and Belarus in search of exactly that security for themselves and their children. Isn't it rather that, according to the Polish government, these people have the wrong skin color or the wrong religion? After all, we are witnessing the terrific assistance that the Poles are willing to provide at the Ukrainian border. I therefore thank the European Commission for finally advocating the rescue of one of our last primeval forests and call on it to return to the European Court of Justice if necessary.

So as a follow up, if I may. You are totally right. If we want smart, active consumers being part of the electricity market, we, of course, would need a smart meter rollout in order for them to be able to sell their energy. So this is maybe the follow up question because the smart meter rollout was also due to be completed already, but not every single Member State has succeeded in doing so. So my question is when will the Commission act on this and put a bit more pressure on Member States to get going on the digitalisation of the energy sector?

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Kadri, thank you very much for this opportunity! My questions relate to the objectives of our European energy policy. Not only for fossil fuels, but also for uranium, the EU is highly dependent on imports. But among the eight scenarios that the Commission has modelled, there is not a single one that represents 100% renewable energy, even though such scenarios have already been modelled by other research institutions and several actors outside the Commission. Will the Commission back up here? Moreover, none of these scenarios illustrates how a greater participation of citizens in the energy transition could accelerate the process. Will the Commission provide guidance to Member States to ensure that the rights of European citizens are respected? prosumers, the active consumers, which are guaranteed by European law, will finally be implemented in the Member States? The deadline for this has already expired in June last year. What action will the Commission take to ensure that citizens can also actively take action against the Russian war against Ukraine?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Yesterday, the IPCC presented its new report, and Mr Guterres, but also Inger Andersen, have found very clear words. We need to act now. Not next year, not next month, not tomorrow, but today. But today we are voting on a regulation on trans-European energy infrastructure that has fallen out of time, cementing investments in fossil gas for years, if not decades. Moreover, the current fossil price crisis shows how risky these dependencies are. I am also unsure whether Qatar and Azerbaijan are such flawless democracies from which we would very, very much like to continue importing fossil fuels. In the case of gas, methane emissions are added, which, according to the IPCC, must also be reduced by at least one third by 2030. There are also good points in this regulation – they have been mentioned – but with this set of rules, far too much funding will go into fossil projects and not into the future. That is why I ask you, my dear colleagues: We must reject it as it is now.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! The answer to the energy crisis cannot be that we subsidize fossil fuels unconditioned. Of course, the Green Deal will make us more independent in the long term. But that doesn't help us now. This does not help our citizens who suffer from the high prices, nor does it help the companies that are threatened in their existence. The Commission has made proposals. That's good. However: The focus here is on diversification. Say: We exchange one fossil gas with another fossil gas, one dependency with the other dependency. However, there are now an impressive number of studies showing that we can be independent of Russian gas and oil well before 2027. This is where we need to get started. I call on the Commission to: Show more courage. Accelerate State aid procedures for efficiency measures and renewable energy. Help Member States get citizens' energy off the ground across Europe. Think strategically. We need a strong solar industry in Europe, and it's high time you tackle that.

Mr President, I would like to say to Commissioner Kyriakides that she has described the problem very well and has already listed quite a few of the issues that the Commission is doing already, such as focusing on promotion and prevention, screening, diagnosis and knowledge data. Commissioner Kyriakides, I’m glad that you are ready to take up the idea of having digital transplant registries in order to improve the situation of people that are waiting for an organ. But actually I missed a bit of the answer to part of our oral question, for example, when it comes to equitable deployment, when it comes to innovation and when it comes to greener dialysis. Actually, dialysis is still done in the same fashion as it was done 30 years ago when I was at university studying pharmacy. I think there has been so much progress in other parts of medicine and treatment that it is quite curious that this has not changed a lot and that it is still as time consuming, as resource consuming and as strenuous for patients as it was 30 years ago. I think that is really a realm where we should focus in our research activities and in our innovation programmes. I would really like to see an approach by the Commission which takes this into account. We have repeatedly heard that, in the EU, 100 million people are suffering from chronic kidney disease. 9 874 people are currently waiting for an organ, and more than 3 000 of those have been waiting for more than five years. For these patients, going to dialysis three times a week, which is a time-consuming, strenuous and expensive exercise, and which also uses up a lot of energy and consumes a lot of plastic waste and lot of water, that should be our push for action. We should also have a talk with Member States. I come from a Member State where organ transplantation is not as widespread an issue as it actually should be, because I know that there are other Member States – I’m looking to you, Ms Kyriakides! I would like you to address the Ministers of Health of the European Union in order to find how we can actually raise the numbers of people that are ready to donate an organ, for example, having a sort of default choice ‘Yes, I will donate organs’ instead of, as in Germany, where you have to opt in, not opt out. I think that would be the right way to address this issue in order, in three years, maybe no longer to have 10 000 people waiting for a kidney. And these are only kidneys. There are also things like livers and others. The numbers on organ transplants are stagnating. They should actually go up because people should be aware of the problem, but they are not. I think the major lack is in screening and early detection because, when this disease is detected, people are already very ill. I think what we need is a really good training programme for the health workers on the front line. I would be very happy if you would support this at the Health Minister stage.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, We are voting today on the outcome of the trilogue on the Eighth Environment Action Programme, and for the first time a European legislative text states the need to end fossil fuel subsidies. However, given the current situation in Ukraine, it is more than regrettable that the parliamentary position to end these subsidies by 2025 at the latest has been blocked by the Member States. After all, we are now witnessing the unsafe waters into which this artificial reduction of coal, oil and gas has brought us. And other environmentally harmful subsidies are already falling on our feet today. For example, subsidies for unsustainable fisheries have led to the collapse of the cod stock in the Baltic Sea, to the virtual disappearance of tuna populations in the Mediterranean Sea. Export subsidies and land premiums in agriculture are increasing the use of agricultural land, causing insects and field birds to lose their habitat. Fifty years after the first report Club of Rome It is high time to redirect these funds to a sustainable economy that will ensure a habitable planet for our children and grandchildren. Therefore, I am glad that many good points have been included in this legislative text. For me, the focus is on planetary boundaries and the economy of the common good. Because the previous focus on gross domestic product has blinded us to what is going wrong in our society and also in the environment. Now there will be progress reports beyond GDP in the future, which will include important indicators such as consumption of raw materials, such as the circular economy, such as pollution, such as health. We will examine the Commission's proposals intensively to ensure that this environmental action programme is effective. Amazing Grace: I would like to thank our rapporteur, who negotiated this wonderful result.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! When we put this oral question some time ago, no one could have imagined that today we are not only discussing prices, but whether next winter in the European Union we will still be able to heat our homes and supply our industry with energy. It is now getting revenge that the expansion of renewables has been delayed and the waste of energy has not been put off. That is why it is all the more important now that we have to use every lever to get rid of our dependence on fossil imports and, above all, to reduce the European contribution to Putin's war fund. That is why we now need a contingency plan for the expansion of renewable energies – no longer a roof without solar energy –, for the energy modernisation of the worst-insulated buildings, for free energy advice, especially for low-income households, and for the promotion of energy advice, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, which suffer greatly from high prices. In this way, we relieve the burden on our citizens' wallets and help our companies, which are partly threatened by the prices in their existence. But we also need to do something in Brussels. We need urgent procedures for the examination of all state aid measures that promote the development of renewables and efficiency measures. I call on the Directorate-General for Competition to put forward a concept here. It cannot be that a law such as the new Renewable Energy Act in Germany is under review until December 2022 before it is approved. This is not how we get out of dependence. Mrs Simson, thank you for raising the issue of citizen energy and stressing its importance. I ask you: How will the Commission ensure that, since the deadline expired nine months ago, something is finally happening in implementation? How will you support Member States? I would be grateful for an answer.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We have heard a lot today about the lack of treatment options and obstacles in the treatment of cancer. Therapies are important, but more important is the prevention, so that it does not come to these diseases in the first place. A few days ago it was in Nature A study has found that the fifth planetary limit, i.e. the exposure to chemicals and foreign substances, has been exceeded. And this is not only an environmental problem, this is also a health problem. We heard from experts in the committee that up to 50 percent of all cancers cannot be attributed to a specific cause. At the same time, however, the data of Human biomonitoringNewborn babies have hundreds of chemicals in their blood. Therefore: We need a systemic approach here. We need to get away from this End of PipeIn other words, we use it first and release it and then think about how we can reduce the burden to a higher level. Benign-by-design-approach. In other words, we need to optimize the substances we use not only in terms of their function, but also in terms of their impact on the environment and health. And that we recognise that we do not yet know much – the precautionary principle means nothing else. That is why, in my opinion, it is our duty to include health in all bills, to enable people to live a healthy lifestyle and to protect them from health threats. Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased with the balanced report. I hope that it will not be watered down by unscientific amendments and that it will be reflected in upcoming legislative proposals.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur Morten Petersen and also all the co-rapporteurs for the good cooperation and cooperative atmosphere on this important issue – offshore renewable energy. When it comes to offshore, most people think of wind farms near the coast, but offshore is much more: There are now floating wind farms, there is the use of wave energy, there are osmotic power plants, there are thermal power plants, there are floating solar power plants, there are flow turbines. Our oceans offer an incredible amount of potential to harness energy cleanly and cost-effectively. That is why I am glad that we note in our report that nature reserves must be taboo. Because we have enough space. We just need to use it intelligently. This requires good and, above all, joint planning by the Member States, which saves time, money and resources. And in a common electricity market, it makes no sense at all if production at sea and grid expansion are not coordinated with each other. We can only meet our climate targets if renewables are massively expanded. And that's why in this report we are calling for at least 70 gigawatts offshore by 2030 and an overall target of 340 gigawatts. This means a sixfold increase in the stock within eight years. Yes, this is ambitious and requires investment. But let's rather invest in energies that don't need fuel and that can't be affected by geopolitical upheavals. Renewable energies cannot be made a commodity or a plaything of power politics. They are given to us: Every day, every week, every year. If the proposals we make in this report had been addressed earlier, we would not be complaining about high energy prices these days, nor would we be afraid of having to sit in the cold and dark. It is therefore all the more important that the Commission takes up the key points as soon as possible and translates them into legislative proposals.

Mr President, dear Kadri Simson, ladies and gentlemen! The State of the Energy Union report addresses where our problems lie. We need more renewables and more energy efficiency to end our dependence on fossil fuels and, as we are currently noticing, also the risk of price jumps. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Commission is planning to use a solar strategy to help the renewable energy source with the greatest potential to make a breakthrough across Europe. It is no longer the cost. Solar power is produced in Portugal for less than 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and even in less sun-drenched Germany it is less than 5 cents. But unnecessarily complicated planning procedures and bureaucracy act as a subsidy for fossil fuels. Our energy cooperative – when I was not yet in politics – ultimately successfully occupied a tenement house with panels and made the electricity available to the residents at low cost, but we had folder-by-fold correspondence with the grid operator and the main customs office. And things are no better in other Member States. It would be insane if, now that the cost trap has finally been broken, we were to further hinder the expansion with bureaucratic hurdles.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Timmermans, ladies and gentlemen! It is interesting how different the results of Glasgow are judged here. From my point of view, it is a great step forward that for the first time the planetary limit of 1.5 degrees of warming is explicitly mentioned in the final report. But we still have no reason to be proud. And the efforts to mitigate the Fit for 55 package show that the EU’s public image as a climate frontrunner is on its feet. And nowhere is this more evident than in the case of methane emissions. The EU celebrates itself as the initiator of the Global Methane Pact, which aims to reduce 30% of methane emissions by 2030. But the leaked bill doesn't even include a reduction target. The Commission is also ignoring all the demands that we voted on last month in Parliament in our own-initiative report – by a large majority. Mr Timmermans, this is more than disappointing, this is a scandal. I urge you to follow up on your words and ensure that we not only collect data, but actually reduce methane emissions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The COVID pandemic has shown that we in the EU need to rethink our healthcare system. No commercial company would have provided the necessary billions for vaccine studies in the summer of 2020. Only the almost unconditional assumption of costs by the EU has been able to speed up the development process. The much-vaunted market would not have done this alone. But to this day, we do not know how much research expenditure actually was, and more transparency is urgently needed here. Second point: Difficulties in the supply of medicines – this has already been mentioned by some colleagues. That was a big issue in the pandemic, but that hasn't been an issue for just two years. It has been the case for a long time that people do not get their medicines because they are not available. That is why we believe: In order to ensure the supply of medicines to our citizens, we need to make manufacturers more accountable. Anyone who obtains a marketing authorisation in the EU must prove that their supply chain is stable and that they also have a Plan B in their pocket in the event of failures. Last point: The best environmental regulations here in the European Union are of no use to us if production is relocated to India or China. And when the wastewater flows untreated into the river and antibiotic resistance develops, which then comes back to us via tourism, then it turns out that globalization also works in the negative direction. That is why I ask you, Mrs Kyriakides, to: Please work internationally to ensure that environmental regulations are included in the rules for the production of pharmaceuticals, so that we can level playing field worldwide have!

Madam President, I really want to thank especially Maria Spyraki for her great leadership on this file and to all colleagues who have contributed so much to making this own-initiative report a really strong call for action. Maria has already pointed out that we need to tackle all sectors. We must not focus only on the energy sector, as the Commission proposed in its methane strategy last year, but we need to focus on agriculture too, since this is the biggest contributor in the European Union, and the waste sector. We have heard of the global methane pledge. Of course, this is a fantastic document of international cooperation but, unfortunately, it falls short of what is actually needed. A 45% reduction by 2030 is possible, and it is necessary if we want to stand a chance to get onto the 1.5 degree path, which is really important because our survival may hang on this number. So we need binding targets for all sectors. I want to reiterate that measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) and the leak detection and repair programme (LDAR) should therefore be tackled in the legislation and not limited to the energy sector. And they have to be implemented as quickly as possible, for example by 2023. The same goes for venting and flaring. And, of course, we must extend our legislation to the imports, so give the suppliers a clear timeline for their right to export to the EU. They have to adhere to this legislation. But, of course, this must not be used as an excuse to prolong the use of fossil fuels. The phase-out of fossil fuels is the most valid instrument for reducing methane emissions in the energy sector.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! In a few days, the climate conference in Glasgow will begin, and many scientists say: This is the last chance to take the world on a 1.5-degree path. Because we are currently heading towards a catastrophic 2.7 degrees. Today it was Production gap report published, and it shows: Under current plans, 240% more coal, 57% more oil and 71% more gas would be produced by 2030 than would be acceptable for 1.5 degrees. So we would sleepwalk into the climate catastrophe, and even to our children and grandchildren, the debates that are being held here today about subsidies for fossil gas or energy-intensive plastic production will seem absurd. I keep hearing from colleagues in this House: The EU must not overdo it, and the other states should also do something. Yes, of course, all states must comply with the Paris Agreement. But the agreement also says quite clearly that the industrialized countries with their high historical emissions are obliged to do more and to be climate neutral well before 2050. Let's get it ready. The solutions are there, the renewables have become cost-effective, efficiency measures ultimately finance themselves. We just have to do it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Today, we are debating directives that are fundamental to the Green Deal. But unlike the many bills that we are currently discussing in Parliament and which are intended to bring us to climate neutrality, these directives are not adopted democratically. Instead, the Commission alone decides which technologies Member States are allowed to support and how. With these directives, the Commission aims to ensure competition in the internal market. However, competition must not undermine our climate targets or democratically adopted laws for the energy market from the Clean Energy Package. Therefore, it must be clear: There must be no subsidies for fossil fuels. There must be strong support for renewable energy. They must not be put in competition with efficiency measures, because we need both. Regional differentiation must be possible so that, for example, wind energy can also be promoted in southern Germany. And there must be substantial exceptions to the calls for tenders – for citizen energy. Otherwise, we have the problem that citizens’ energy rights under the Clean Energy Package are not worth the paper they are written on. People want to participate in the energy transition, people want to follow the path to climate neutrality. But we must not prevent them from doing so through excessive bureaucracy, as is the case in the tenders. That is why I am very pleased, Mrs Vestager, that you have just announced that there will be improvements.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I have heard the word ‘historic’ several times today in the context of gas prices. And who takes a look at the Internet: No, it's not historical. We had such high gas prices in 2013. Fortunately, we are already better equipped today, because we have more renewables in the mix, and we have implemented efficiency measures. In other words, this is also our best long-term hedge against the rise in fossil energy prices: Out of the fossils, into the renewables, down with the waste of energy. But that won't happen in the next two days, even in the next two weeks, months or years. Therefore: Yes, we also need direct action to support those most affected by this price increase, but please no watering can, please do not implement fossil fuel subsidies simply through tax breaks for all. Because part of the increase is also due to speculation, and it is bitter when we again direct tax money directly into the pockets of speculators. That is why we need measures in the upcoming gas market regulation. I'm counting on you, Mrs. Simson.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! All colleagues across the political groups have complained about the lack of involvement of the European Parliament and the lack of democratic control. This shows: It is essential to improve this legislative proposal. However, it cannot be everything to involve Parliament now. The experience with the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers that we have made shows: Transparency seems to be a foreign word in this Commission. In case of doubt, the responsibility of the manufacturers also falls behind. During these negotiations, it was perfectly clear who was sitting on the longer lever at the end of the day. And I'm afraid it will stay that way. For all the assurances that we are now creating a European BARDA with a budget of just six billion for this budgetary period - that is, just one billion per year - and the structure as an appendage of the Commission, this European BARDA is neither financially nor technically comparable in any way to the American authority. Please stop telling us fairy tales here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Hundreds of deaths due to the flood disaster in July, hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest lost due to fires this summer, billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, that is the reality in a 1.1°C world. With the current climate protection plans of the states, we are heading for well over 3°C. The probability of meeting the 1.5°C limit is one percent. The IPCC report leaves no doubt: These extreme weather conditions will increase. This means: Not only do we need to speed up climate action, but we also need to take action to adapt to climate change. Mrs Ferreira, we Greens will do our best to support you. The study by the Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid shows that: Every euro we spend on the renaturation of streams and rivers or on the rewetting of bogs avoids damages of 18 euros. Nature is our ally, and its destruction endangers our livelihood. And to the colleagues who are calling for a moderate approach to climate protection: Physics doesn't negotiate that's hard science.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear Grace! The 8th Environment Action Programme is the instrument by which we monitor the implementation of the Green Deal, and that is why it is so valuable that not only the planetary boundaries are in the text, that not only criteria for nature-based solutions have been included, that not only the One Health approach is addressed, i.e. a holistic view of human, animal and environmental health. The most important point from my point of view is that the inclusion of the costs of non-action in the impact assessment of our legislative proposals has come into play. So far, the preservation of the survival bases has been a pure cost factor – as if there were clean air, drinkable water, fertile soils at zero cost. The Federal Environment Agency in Germany calculated damage costs years ago: Every tonne of CO2 we emit today causes about €640 worth of damage in 2100. And it is time that we finally express in euros and cents the damage we leave to our children and children's children. It is only with this language that we can make progress in the market economy that we have.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The pandemic has brought suffering and death to Europe, and I hope that next time we will be better prepared. But I also have to say: Shortages in the supply of medicines that we have seen in this pandemic have also existed before, and have been a major problem before. That is why I am glad that we now have a majority in this Parliament in favour of ensuring that all citizens in the European Union have access to affordable and effective medicines. And it is good that the European Medicines Agency is now playing this coordinating role, that there is more transparency in it, that it is not those who are on the front line – in the clinic, in the pharmacy – or the patients who are the last to learn that their medicine is once again not available. I hope that we in this Parliament will also find a majority in the revision of the market authorisation criteria in favour of making manufacturers more accountable in order to remain able to deliver even in difficult situations.