Speeches

Madam President, The fact that people are thinking about food security here is not without a terrific irony after doing everything - no, not having done it, because the Green Deal would only be postponed - i.e. after doing everything possible to abolish this food security. At this point, I would particularly like to recall the dear German colleagues from the Christian Democrats, who voted fervently in favour of the resolution of the European Parliament "From farm to fork" one and a half years ago, i.e. the flat-rate reduction of plant protection products, the plans to renaturalise all areas by 2050. For a little thought support: Here are your votes. And you, who have all too willingly bowed to the green zeitgeist dictatorship, should not shout too loudly ‘keep the thief’. We, the ID group, we, the AfD, of course, categorically rejected this madness even then, and we still do it today.

Madam President, Crazy resource consumption, geostrategic dependencies or the unresolved disposal of the so-called traction batteries of electric cars are just some of the problems with batteries. Therefore, I would actually be interested in an even stricter battery regulation - but only to establish equal opportunities between combustion engines and the politically hyped e-cars. But especially with the CO2 footprint of the supposedly CO2-free technology, one is extremely hesitant about the green favorite toy. While a net-zero CO2 strategy is being advocated everywhere, it is not until at least three years from now that the maximum limits for battery production will be introduced, taking into account technical progress - something that no one else in all other sectors is interested in. After all, with this regulation, the lie of emission-free battery technology is off the table, as is its lack of circularity. Batteries are not one thing: sustainable.

Madam President, The right of the European Parliament and an unelected European Commission to interfere in the national approval process of the Willow project, an oil well in Alaska, which is also expressly supported by the local authorities, is definitely not clear to me. You should be told: Unlike EU utopians, as gathered here or not, Americans appreciate the benefits of black gold, which has also brought us prosperity and technical progress. They are not only concerned with the CO2 reduction that could be achieved technically, but with the end of all fossil fuels and an ecosocialist transformation. While the rest of the world relies on diversity in energy sources, you only understand sexual orientation when it comes to diversity. America is opening up new oil fields and trimming its economy to energy independence, an independence that is far removed from us by flutter current and nuclear phase-out.

Madam President, With €1 billion from Brussels, a solidarity corridor for cereals and agricultural products from Ukraine is being set up to allegedly secure the world's food supply. 1 billion for transport costs and infrastructure. Stupidly, then, with at least another 151 million euros, Eastern European farmers must be immobilized, who quite rightly see their economic existence threatened by Ukrainian grain. This is no longer on the plates of the world's hungry, but the majority remains in the EU. Securing the world's food therefore remains a fairy tale; The Commission cannot. At the same time, domestic agriculture in the EU is being abolished through a green ban policy.

Mr President, Commissioner! The ban on the use of plant protection products and the associated justification obligations or such grotesque record-keeping obligations as the cleaning of work equipment, which would have to be notified to Brussels in the future, are an absolute imposition on farmers. But your latest idea that farmers now have to certify a carbon removal from the atmosphere tops everything that has come up with green nonsense so far. For example, farmers should convert their fields into fallow land and receive CO2 certificates with which they cannot trade but can be rewarded in a truly results-oriented way by food companies, which are thus supposed to credibly document their CO2 footprint. What a steep career from biogas oil sheikh, solar energy entrepreneur or wind farm landlord to woken CO2 gardener. There's only one thing farmers can't do anymore: Reliable production of healthy food. This will result in horrendously rising food prices. And because it is pointless to turn here to colleagues in this Parliament: Dear farmers, dear citizens, you will wake up if you do not want to end up tomorrow with insect feed, laboratory-grown cell mush and every now and then with a tiny piece of meat of a poor pig from a Chinese fattening tower!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. In particular, should the IPCC not inform about adaptation measures to climate change instead of showing this obsession with this atmospheric CO2? And why does he not point out that more than half of anthropogenic CO2 is bound, i.e. net zero does not mean net zero? And why should a reduction in CO2 emissions be synonymous with the phasing out of fossil energy? This doctrine is simply wrong. And even the German Weather Service knows: The sun is the engine of the weather and causes different temperatures on Earth. And that no longer applies to the climate as a 30-year-old means of weather? The sun is the climate factor among many others. And then there is the catching question to every fortune-teller, who must always be: What did I eat yesterday? How do I get to that? Because the computer models of the IPCC, a political organization founded to prove man-made climate change, have much of a prophetic crystal ball. They work according to the principle garbage in, garbage outSo are only as smart as the programmer and spit out the desired climate catastrophes, fed with the data of the CO2 end-time molecule. But they regularly – and exceptionally very reliably – fail to calculate the climate of yesterday and the day before yesterday, as do any decent fortune teller. And you don't have to know more.

Madam President, Honestly, I am already terrified of an EU Commission that presumes to declare a health emergency only within the EU, for example due to – care, I quote literally from a new regulation entering into force – ‘climate-related dangers’. So if I understand correctly: A health emergency due to heavy rain, storm or too much sunshine? You're crazy! But practically. It was already possible to secure all sorts of power in Brussels during the pandemic - I do not want to speak of competences in the case of the Commission. And now you want to make humanity happy globally with your green power fantasies, disguised as health concerns, in the face of investigations by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. All in preparation for the vaccination campaign planned in autumn with the Corona shopkeeper vaccine: hardly any effect, but many side effects.

(Start of the speech with the microphone switched off) ... by ICCT, the International Council for Clean Transport, on the basis of rather incomprehensible theoretical calculations to the conclusion that allegedly 70 percent of the diesel models Euro 5 and Euro 6 prohibited switch-off technologies could be installed. By the way: The pompous name of this ICCT is probably intended to hide the fact that it is only one of the countless climate agitprop NGOs who like to deliver on political orders and, by the way, have already received beatings because of unscientific claims. And it is very interesting that, according to the ICCT, the Commission is one of the main sponsors – aha. The aim is now to reduce the existing diesel vehicle fleet, because the ban on internal combustion engines from 2035 only affects new registrations. Isn't that true?

Madam President, Let's take a look at who or what the Alliance of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save bees and farmers’ is. More than 140 internationally networked organisations and political lobby groups operate behind this alliance, including many with organic labels – with a hard economic orientation and corresponding interests – or Extinction Rebellion – with a radical left-wing extremist orientation – or Deutsche Umwelthilfe – with an infamous past as a warning society – or the NGO PAN Germany, whose pesticide atlas was circulated as a knowledge base by the SUR rapporteur. Incidentally, your foundation, Ms Wiener, has listed some of the organisations of ‘Save bees and farmers’ as partners and sponsors. Or Compact, an organic marketing online platform that has been denied non-profit status because the focus is not on information, but on political influence. Or, or, or. Didn't we just praise improvement in dealing with the lobbyist swamp? And: Without plant protection, the yield drops massively. The result is, among other things, expensive, soon scarce food. With emotional pictures, dead bees and supposedly evil farmers, signatures can always be generated. However, they are not in the interests of the citizens. In reality, consumers vote with their wallets at the checkout, and organic is the storekeeper. I would like to remind you: Our task, dear colleagues, is not a feel-good policy, but to ensure nutrition.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. After all, it is obvious that the availability of fertilisers is somehow linked to food security, which nevertheless does not prevent the Commission from continuing to say that agriculture is bad for the climate. It is not even unfortunate to use farmers as a new business model instead of food production to apply the CO2 sequestration in a regulation, for which they should then be rewarded in a result-oriented manner – by voguen food groups and authorities. Unfortunately, much of this nonsense can also be found in the resolution to be voted on today, Mr Lins. There is a dispute over the pitiful agricultural reserve of EUR 450 million, while at the same time distributing large-scale EUR 7.7 billion to third countries – African, Caribbean and Pacific, among others – and fusing green energy for the fertiliser industry. What didn't work for the rest of the economy can be tried out by fertilizer producers. And please, please: Please explain this sentence to me in your Commission communication: Fertilizers from Russia can be imported into the EU. Aha, but not gas? I'm confused. And only on the fringes: Inflationary energy prices and thus also fertiliser prices are simply the consequences of your deluded, ideologically dangerous climate policy. And you want to save the world?

Madam President, Mr Timmermans, ladies and gentlemen. It is very simple: There is no zero-emission locomotion, even the e-car propagandists among us know that. Emissions from electric cars will only be shifted, for example to coal-fired power plants, which will now increasingly have to step in in the future not only in the event of wind and/or dark slump, or which will be released during the production of traction batteries. For a single battery, more than 1,000 tons of waste are moved and up to 40 tons of CO2 are released before the electric car travels even a single kilometre, which is why the leaders of the Green-Socialist united front here in the European Parliament - even well-alimented by the taxpayer - tell the citizens what is healthy about running and cycling. Millions of jobs are also being published in third countries. But the arguments have long since been exchanged. Today it is color professed in the vote. And do not hope that, as usual, it will go completely unnoticed by citizens and voters. In particular, dear German colleagues from the CDU, CSU and FDP: As is so often the case, they can vote again with the green-painted destroyers of wealth and economic burials, or finally, at the last minute, vote together with us for openness to technology, for individual mobility, for the citizen and against very obvious green nonsense. We'll find out this afternoon.

Mr President! Well, pandemics are practical when it comes to acquiring skills that you don't actually have. The citizens have just completed an odyssey, also fuelled by Brussels: deprived of their fundamental rights with lockdowns, dust masks, which were still said by the EU health authority ECDC in 2021 to have no added value – they were ordered anyway – and vaccination, which at best, according to Pfizer representative Ms Small in the Corona Special Committee, does not prevent infections. So now a respiratory and RSV wave in children, an infection that much of the children have always been through. I am also reminded here of the wave of the 2018/2019 season, in which one has also spoken of an overload of the clinics. So what's different today? For example, medical personnel who did not want to be force-vaccinated with experimental vaccines and are now simply gone. Or the vaccinated, who are often permanently ill. Or where does the increase in diseases you mentioned come from, Commissioner? Yes, some of the more than 300 vital medicines such as cancer therapeutics are missing because production has been outsourced to low-cost countries – by the way, not only since yesterday. But most importantly, the Corona Task Force of an EU Commission has spent billions of taxpayers' money in recent years to ensure that mRNA vaccinations can be produced 100% within the EU. This, and only this, was the criterion for deciding which vaccines were approved and purchased. They don't solve problems, they're part of the problem.

Mr President! This is the result of ideologically blinded energy policy. This is the result of green policies, so to speak, lived Green Deal. Freeze at home, in the office and in public buildings. But the pressure to save energy and the threat of energy rationing are only the immediate consequences of their CO2 tunnel vision, ridiculous, volatile renewable energies and a sanctions policy that harms us first and foremost. This energy policy is the reversal of our entire modern history of civilization, it is, so to speak, your antithesis. And you? Ah, Ms von der Leyen, has obviously already started to retreat to her – presumably warm – office. And you, the European Council, your unelected EU Commission with legislative powers and unfortunately also a majority in the EU Parliament and its policies are an imposition on all citizens.

Mr President! Let me start with a clarification: Just because the wolf was extinct in Western Europe, it was never an endangered species or even threatened with extinction. The survival of was therefore never dependent on the fact that he was virtually forcibly resettled in densely populated areas by the strictest protection regulations. Today, Brandenburg has the highest wolf density in the world. In 2020 alone, 4 000 farm animals torn by wolves were recorded in Germany; This was 40% more than in the previous year. And now one wonders seriously why the acceptance of the wolf is decreasing – not only among farmers. As a veterinarian, I recommend all writing room wolf lovers to take a live look at the damage torn and done by the wolf. By the way, half of all wolf attacks take place on protected pastures, and herd protection dogs are increasingly becoming wolf prey themselves. The grazing livestock must have absolute priority over the wolf, because without grazing animals, pastures and species-rich pastures will be a thing of the past. We therefore support the call for a change of protection status from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘conditionally protected’. We need areas with management measures in which the wolf population is strictly regulated, but also wolf-free areas in the sense of security for humans and animals in urban areas and areas with grazing. I am increasingly tired, even living in the countryside, of the fact that we, the rural population, the farmers, should provide the framework for a remote romantic wolf zoo for a green-woke urban population.

Mr President! It's amazing: They preach biodiversity, insult farmers for alleged pollution and want to expand protected areas, which are not worth a chanterelle in the end, because they cheerfully propagate a ‘green’ turn with mass expansion of wind energy, also in the protected areas. The Commission has just proposed an emergency regulation which completely suspends the protection of the environment, including the Birds Directive, when it comes to the ‘renewables’. Soil sealing with thousands of tons of reinforced concrete is suddenly no longer an issue. For a single lousy bird and insect shredder, 0.5 hectares are fully sealed. In Germany alone, 15,000 hectares of concrete pillars reaching more than 60 metres deep are growing. In the Reinhardswald, 195-year-old trees have to give way to wind turbines. Their would-be biodiversity protection is not only dishonest, but simply does not take place in a collective bout of climate schizophrenia.

Mr President! When it comes to the European Council's demands on energy, anyone with common sense can only be surprised. The solutions should be more energy savings and even more non-base load renewable energies. But it is precisely the latter that has brought us dependence on cheap Russian gas. It is therefore the own crazy green ideology plus sanctions policy plus energy scarcity and price increase that has led to the energy crisis – and exactly the opposite, namely more CO2 emissions. Not because we are now experiencing a renaissance of coal in the EU. China also burns more coal than the rest of the world, also to supply us with batteries and raw materials for supposedly emission-free electric cars. Not green flutter energy, but nuclear energy is the energy of future industrial nations. And the fact that Russian LNG is purchased in the EU ten times more expensive and with ten times more CO2 emissions than pipeline gas via the detour of China is also preferable to silence.

Mr President! Today, let me put different terms in relation to each other. The self-proclaimed climate crisis – term number one – is reacted by political decisions with an exit from a functioning, favourable energy system, without having to worry about a reasonable impact assessment for the European economy. An economy which, moreover, not only finances environmental protection – term number two – but makes it possible in the first place through technical innovations. Environmental protection, which is essential for the preservation of our world – our planet, for which you are all so vehemently committed – and for future generations, has nothing to do with climate protection – term number three. The deforestation of forests for the construction of wind turbines or offshore construction in breeding areas of water birds is the exact opposite of environmental protection. The functioning of our economy depends on the supply of energy – at all times. Volatile renewable energies do not do this and have also given rise to a fatal geostrategic gas dependence as so-called transitional energies. They are the cause of our energy crisis – term number four. The energy scarcity resulting from the energy crisis, the gigantic costs of transforming and building an energy system that is not capable of basic loads and a carbon pricing that is running out of steam are what lead to energy poverty – term number five. Gas sanctions that fill Russia's war chest with rising gas prices while massively harming ourselves do the rest. But they are not the cause of the knowingly political-ideologically induced energy crisis that paralyzes our economy and impoverishes our citizens. Green Deal, climate law, fit-for-55 package, cargo bike, green hydrogen are all expressions of a completely crazy green destruction of prosperity. It is not the climate crisis that causes chaos in the world, Ms Johansson, representing Mr Timmermans, but climate demagogens who jettison the world with shrill doomsday scenarios and pursue politics against their own citizens. And this is man-made.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In the context of the Green Deal, the Climate Law and the Fit-for-55 package, Brussels now also wants to determine which fuels should be allowed for the free movement of persons in the future. The latest eco-socialist climate egg on the verge of final laying in Brussels is the EU-wide ban on internal combustion engines. It is expected to be delivered by the end of October. And because there is still a lack of suitable infrastructure, a regulation is now being pushed behind to regulate it. But even Germany, which is currently the unfortunate world champion of green idiocy, fails. One flops miserably at the annual necessary addition of charging stations. The Netherlands and Germany account for almost 60 percent of all charging points in the EU. The demand for one million charging stations across the EU by 2025 is therefore already a joke. Incidentally, any additional electricity demand leads to an additional demand for fossil fuels in electricity production. This is not the only reason why emission-free locomotion is a green lie. But the citizen should no longer own his own car anyway, he should ride a bicycle or use public transport. Therefore: I categorically reject the abolition of the social market economy through political bans and state subsidies. Because nothing else is the interference of Brussels technocrats in the personal property rights of citizens and the innovative power of our economy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The observation that physical understanding tends towards zero in this House is not new to me. I would therefore like to limit myself here to what is referred to as energy efficiency, namely increasing the efficiency of energy conversion. And this efficiency cannot be increased arbitrarily, especially not with guidelines set apart from technical progress. If this was about efficiency, perhaps we would talk about primary energy consumption, but certainly not about the hydrogen economy with its inherently devastating efficiencies. By law, the Directive only mandates the reduction of energy consumption for all of us – currently by 0.8% annually, by 2% annually from 2024 or by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 2007. Their power shortage economy is associated with constraint, shrinkage of the economy and consumption foregone. Please be honest and tell your constituents.

Madam President, I would like to continue in German. The vote on the emissions trading system scheduled today will be listed as a first reading in the documents. It was voted on in a first reading in plenary on 8 June, i.e. just two weeks ago, and the system was rejected by a majority. Do we repeat the first readings until the result suits a few people? My German colleagues from the CDU have a lot of experience in the quiver. Therefore, since the procedure for this regulation is obviously at a different point than indicated, I request that this vote be postponed pending clarification. Otherwise, due to blatant procedural errors, we are producing a challengeable and thus ineffective law, which I admit would not really regret.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Undeterred, the fairy tale of the supposedly emission-free electric cars is propagated. And not only according to the will of the Commission, the combustion engine should be history by 2035 at the latest. In the twisted logic of green wealth destroyers, every electric car – fuelled by electricity generated from fossil fuels – is thus a zero-emission vehicle. Not only the emissions during refuelling are ignored, but also the very significant CO2 backpack of all traction batteries that accrues during production or energy-intensive recycling. Where does it come from, the electricity? It is ignored that any increase in electricity demand, even with a massive expansion of volatile renewables, and at the same time a lack of storage, must result in an increase in fossil fuels. We are simply ignoring future resource shortages. For the EU passenger car fleet alone, 19 times the annual world production would only be needed for cobalt. One ignores new geostrategic dependencies, such as China, in the required components for the batteries, as if one had learned nothing from the catastrophic dependence on Russian gas. Serious environmental damage in mining and processing is ignored, not to mention social dislocations and child labour in third countries on the ground. One ignores an incredible job destruction associated with it. In Germany alone, 800,000 jobs depend on the combustion engine. According to the Federal Government, by 2030, i.e. in less than eight years, 440,000 of them will be dissolved into green pleasure. It ignores all childhood diseases of electromobility and customer wishes – from patchy fire protection to range acceptance. One ignores the lack of charging infrastructure, one ignores warnings from business, industry, technology and teaching and instead insists on a one-sided political determination on electromobility, which will not reduce CO2 emissions in the near future, because behind it is the idea of the abolition of individual mobility as not only historical guarantors of prosperity and freedom and the abolition of the car as private property. At least that is the reality that has long been openly discussed in Brussels. We give this request a clear rejection. Not with us.

Madam President, With the present legislative implementation of the Green Deal, the dangerous utopia of an ecosocialist Brussels state of liability and redistribution continues to take shape. The market is overturned, industry is driven out of the EU – which will not change the barely practicable bureaucratic border adjustment tax – and citizens are expropriated, disempowered and controlled. They want to re-educate him on consumption and mobility patterns [sic], with bans and massive carbon pricing, which – what a miracle – has already led to exploding prices. The summit of idiocy and ideology is reached when the taxed citizen is graciously given a tiny part of the squeezed CO2 compulsory education levy in the form of a social climate fund, assuming political good conduct, in order to alleviate its energy poverty. The problem is not empowered citizens, market economy principles, open-minded innovation, but the idea of ‘Bolshevik’ eco-marxism.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Apart from the fact that it is completely insane to force the car market by political decree to switch to expensive, by no means CO2-free, resource-consuming electrical and thus battery technology – i.e. apart from the usual nonsense – I agree with the Commission that batteries are a key technology – or have been ordered and therefore need regulation. Not least because this technology is still in its infancy, and in particular to adapt the conditions to which internal combustion engines and electromobility are subject. Contrary to what is claimed to be the case, batteries are neither particularly sustainable, CO2-free nor environmentally friendly, which is something that this regulation wants to change in part – which I think is welcome. However, you want to take too much time for my taste. Instead of the certification of the carbon footprint of batteries required by me by mid-2023, it should only remain with a CO2 declaration one year later. Strange for an e-mobility that claims to be CO2-free! The fact that one wants to cope with the enormous ecological damage, but also the foreseeable economic dependencies with a recycling rate, can only be seen as a nice attempt. A study concluded: If we wanted to electrify the 32 million British vehicles, we would need twice the world production of cobalt and 75 percent of the world's lithium production. Every year, 56 million cars are produced worldwide. In addition, according to the Fraunhofer Institute's analysis from November 2021, all recycling processes are still in the pilot phases and, as extremely energy-intensive processes, produce large amounts of CO2 and toxic waste products themselves. I consider the problems resulting from future dependencies on raw materials to be more serious. Up to 20 percent of the battery-capable nickel comes from Russia. The dependence on China for rare earths and almost all processed battery ingredients is no less worrying. The current crisis should be our teacher here. We should not want to create new dependencies. My conclusion is therefore: Saving another grandiose political mistake in the name of the climate with subsequent legislation is likely to fail. In the end, however, something that is close to my heart as a mother: All my requests to implement child labour as an exclusion criterion in supply chains were rejected in the committee. Please do not allow children to suffer for the e-lifestyle bodies of the well-heeled green clientele. Don't look away. Agree with our requests in this regard.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Of course, it is to be welcomed that this report and the recommendations to the Commission have clearly advocated improving the conditions for the transport of animals, specifying rules on animal species, supply, transport temperatures and requirements for transport systems, and have also created basic conditions for monitoring animal transport. It is precisely for this reason – but only for this reason – that I will vote in favour of this report and the recommendations. But let's not fool ourselves: Even in the report one communicates the fact that already the existing EU case law has not prevented the animal welfare violations to be described as systematic and a tightening of an already hardly noticed legal situation, because due to lack of control easy to avoid, i.e. will not do much. The alleged concerns of farmers who do not want to expose their animals to suffering or to mention the nutritional situation when banning the transport of live animals for slaughter, as the rapporteur, Mr Buda, has done, are completely unfair. I therefore ask you to accept amendments which both limit the times of transport and prohibit the unspeakable transport of animals by ship on discarded old barges. And what we urgently need is a ban on the transport of live animals to third countries, especially when we know that in the end – after a painful journey – the end of hell is often not yet reached. From misunderstood political correctness The terrible death of suffocation in ritual slaughter is rather concealed. There must be an end to this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Basically, the Energy Union was and is the push from Brussels to finally tear the scepter of independent national action out of the hands of the Member States. The original justifications, namely to strengthen the reduction of the EU's energy dependency and to ensure security of supply, are distorted into their blatant opposite by the current political climate hearing. Today it is about the realization of the Green Deals, and the five objectives are: Decarbonisation, decarbonisation, decarbonisation, decarbonisation and fifthly, the management of the resulting electricity shortage economy. The Abrakadabra Decision aims to increase the share of renewables from the current 19 % of gross electricity consumption to a climate-friendly 40 % over the next eight years. The Bank of America Calculated the insanity in numbers: an unimaginable $150 trillion, twice the total world gross domestic product or $5 trillion annually for the next 30 years. However, security of supply is still not included. By the way, if you have an energy-politically so overwhelmed country as my own in your ranks, which is now planning to phase out gas in addition to coal and the almost completed, completely incomprehensible nuclear energy exit, then neither money nor energy union will help.