What Sylvia spoke about.

Madam President, Before discussing how Brussels best vaccinates the world, with its completely novel vaccines approved in record time, it is better to talk about facts and figures: for example, a completely non-transparent EU Commission, page-by-page redacted pharmaceutical contracts and deleted communications; e.g. on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, their side effects, risk groups, erratic measures and the sacrosanctity of any critical public debate. The RKI in Germany has changed its wording from August that vaccination is ‘effective protection against illness’ to ‘protects the vast majority of vaccinated persons from a serious illness’. By far the highest incidence in hospitalised cases as well as in fatalities is recorded by those over the age of 80 in Germany, followed by those over the age of 60, although these groups have a vaccination rate of around 90%. Figures from Johns Hopkins University in more than 200 countries show that there is no correlation between vaccination rates and incidence. According to EuroMOMO, which collects official mortality data, there is currently no evidence of excess mortality. The Paul Ehrlich Institute has now reported 1802 deaths related to coronavirus vaccinations. That's 5,500 times the number of deaths recorded for all vaccinations performed in 2016. WHO's VigiAccess database lists 2.5 million cases of adverse reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination. That's more than all the side effects of the last few decades combined. Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible to me why a rational consideration of the personal risks of a corona infection against that of a vaccination should be morally reprehensible. Personal health is not a common good in solidarity, and Corona is not your political ticket to digital surveillance. And you, Mr. Colleague, are better off holding out my discussions!

Mr President! So let's look at whether the recent climate meeting in Glasgow was a success. 40 000 registered participants were brought together with the help of CO2, the elimination of which was decided there. CO2 net zero only works really well on paper for the foreseeable future. But Ms von der Leyen was able to donate 1 billion euros from the EU budget, i.e. taxpayers' money, to any global forests. Presumably in wise foresight as a replacement for precisely those forests that are deforested by their incompetent ideological agricultural strategy and converted into agricultural land because European agricultural production is outsourced. In addition, it was again promised to distribute printed money generously in the EU and elsewhere: $100 billion annually from 2023, and because that has not worked out so far, double the amount from 2025. BMW and Volkswagen have not joined the declaration on the phase-out of internal combustion engines by 2035, although we know and have done nothing to prevent that from happening in the EU. But it is probably wiser to take the tax-subsidised e-cars with you and invest the money elsewhere. The phasing out of coal has ruined China and India. China started cutting coal in 2020. There are three times more coal-fired power plants connected to the grid than in the rest of the world. satire off. But seriously: Why should an economically successful nation also imitate the economic and energy-political nonsense from Brussels?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Fortunately, the draft law for the new Common Agricultural Policy dates back to 2018 and thus to the pre-Green Deal period and the period before the crude farm-to-table narratives – narratives that completely wrongly denounce our supply-providing farmers as alleged polluters and would like them to be educated, so to speak, to carbon sinks with food production on a part-time basis. Despite the greatest efforts of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and large parts of Parliament, it has not been possible to turn this concept into reality. That's fine! Rejecting these regulations is therefore not an option. But agreeing with that is equally difficult. With the now greener agricultural policy, the encroachment of farmers through ideology and bureaucracy has at least increased, and the income situation will become even more difficult because the costs of the so-called Eco-schemes in specialised and effective agriculture. In Germany, for example, only six percent of arable land complies with the regulations on the diversity of crop species. Costly adjustments are therefore necessary. Moreover, mandatory measures only mean that the many voluntary environmental protection measures that our farmers take for granted will be reduced. In addition, there is at least the German Thünen Institute, similar to a study long kept under wraps by the Commission, which predicts declining yields, declining revenues and churn of production. Even the much praised new subsidiarity of the Member States is a scam – while, incidentally, German tax money, including that of farmers, is distributed more cheerfully throughout the EU. It is interesting to see what happens if the European Commission presumes not to approve one of the national CAP Strategic Plans.

Madam President, After CO2, therefore, methane emissions are addressed, which, according to this report, are the second most important greenhouse gas. The sources are clearly agriculture at 40%, fossil fuels at 35% and waste management at 20%. Since, according to the green self-image, an end to fossil fuels due to CO2 emissions is a consensus agreed upon as much as possible yesterday anyway, there are still two adjustment screws: Agriculture – explicitly livestock farming – and nitrogen fertilisation are the main sources. However, the solutions remain vague: vegan diet, the use of any residues in biogas plants – manure would no longer exist in the ideal vegan world – and that “new skills and knowledge in a bioeconomy” somehow fell from the climate sky. Nitrogen fertilizer is needed more than ever in a vegan world. It may be true that 53% of methane emissions in the EU come from agriculture. But only 5% of global emissions come from the EU, meaning that the share of agricultural methane emissions from the EU globally is only 2.6%. Even if you completely forgo food on the spot, you won't save the world. That's the bad news. The good news, at least for me, is that over 6.5 billion people on Earth are not affected by their ridiculous EU ban policy.

Mr President! In two weeks, politicians and a steadily growing self-proclaimed climate elite will meet again to fight the self-proclaimed catastrophes with words and a lot of money. In an incomparable, crazy travel spectacle, you come together from all over the world with the help of the evil CO2 - which of course you would like to ban there. Citizens are judged, whether in terms of mobility, living, recently even eating and – not to mention – in terms of new green thinking. But have you ever wondered with what right you imagine that your concern and your supposedly irreversible travel activity is more important than the journey to the work of a father, a mother, who, incidentally, finances your concern and your journey? In Glasgow, 240-ton electric super SUVs will be available to make you feel better. Unfortunately, the charging stations are missing, which is why generators are being hauled, which are to be operated with hydrogenated deep-frying fat – in any case, this is the plan. Two years ago in Madrid: behind huge exhibition halls contain garbage mountains in which your woke climate food was previously wrapped. Your Pippi Longstocking climate world simply fails because of awkward realities, but gives the taxpayer record prices that you don't care much about. After all, the driver does the refueling. It's time for you to taste of your own poison. Stay at home, turn off the heater and feed yourself vegan from domestic crops that woke They were harvested by moonlight. This would be a start – instead of further distributing billions of dollars of tax money around the world in Glasgow.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The explanatory memorandum of the committees responsible for the present Farm to Fork report calls for the Commission to make (literally) ‘agricultural policy the most ambitious project of the current mandate’, which reads: Climate neutrality. It is therefore planned to drive agriculture to the wall, similar to electricity supply, riddled with morality, orientation and the fact that knives and forks are the most important weapons in the fight against climate change, and, of course, duly grieves over modern plant protection and fertilisers, all of which are dangerous to human health. Don't be afraid: Farmers will soon no longer be able to afford the fertilisers financially. And if one has abolished the technized agriculture so despised by many here – an agriculture once celebrated as a green revolution, which was and still is able to feed a rapidly growing world population – then, yes, its climate-fighting knives and forks will simply meet empty plates.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Don't you also feel the weirdness of talking about rising prices and energy poverty? It is precisely the Commission, with its completely inverted policy, with an uneconomical renewable energy ideology, a zero-pollution dream and an out of joint CO2 pricing and reduction, that an overwhelming majority of MEPs, you, my dear colleagues, not only agree with, but also extensively improves it at every possible opportunity. So is it precisely that pseudo-eco-planned economic doctrine that is the trigger and cause of this crisis to be discussed now? Energy poverty in two senses. So energy poverty in the economic sense, which is caused by exploding prices, and energy poverty, because electricity is not available, are all your merits. Your solution: More market intervention in an already completely deregulated market. And if the wind doesn't blow, you just build more wind turbines. After the end of the coal, they now tinker at the end of the evil natural gas. Priceless prices, empty storage. Welcome to your future – free according to Einstein: "It's crazy to always do the same thing and expect different results." For your announced climate rescue to work, you would need marketable electricity for 24 hours, seven days a week. China is investing in new, promising technologies such as the thorium liquid salt reactor. In the EU, especially Germany, people rely on stone age and muscular strength instead of brains – often also in the form of cargo bicycles.

Mr President! The devastating flood in Germany, which cost the lives of more than 180 people and caused immense damage in the billions, is certainly an extreme weather phenomenon. These people, who for the most part are still waiting for the much-announced non-bureaucratic help, need our sympathy, but above all our energetic and also financial support. Extreme weather is unfortunately as old as humanity, and even the IPCC's special report of 2012 must state that anthropogenic climate change is not the problem with regard to flooding. The same conclusion is reached by the German Weather Service, which sees no increase in extreme weather events. Man-made, on the other hand, are the area sealing, the straightening of river courses, the development of natural floodplains, and in general the increasing near-shore development. Man-made is the failure of the German authorities, who did not pass on warnings to the citizens in time. But all this has nothing to do with the weather. That you are abusing the dead, the flood victims, the ones who have lost everything, for your climate propaganda is pathetic.

Mr President! When will citizens be told that the ban on internal combustion engines from 2035 will herald the end of individual mobility? It is not intended – nor could it be – to replace all cars with e-mobiles. The additional electricity in Germany alone would require twelve nuclear power plants, which will never exist – apart from the consumption of resources. When do you tell the citizen that a supply-oriented electricity market and the so-called smart meter Does this mean that electricity will be switched off if it is not available? What will not be uncommon without storage with the so-called renewables. When will people be told that massive carbon pricing will invariably make everything, everything, because it is produced, processed and transported, more expensive? Energy poverty, your term, will be the rule, not the exception. When, Mr Timmermans, do you tell citizens that the future you are planning will be one of renunciation, prohibition, lack, unfreedom and dispossession? Planned economy and socialism, even with the prefix eco-, are regression and destruction of freedom, prosperity, the environment and the human community!

Mr President! Yes, today's decision on access to Parliament will probably be taken behind closed doors in the Conference of Presidents, and in the future it will only be possible with a COVID-19 passport or with a corresponding 3G rule. Since, firstly, this leads to discrimination between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, and this has already been classified as unacceptable and inadequate by the relevant trade unions, secondly, it would have far-reaching consequences for access and would also be a blatant obstacle to the exercise of the free mandate, and thirdly, this kind of backroom conduct, which can be decided secretly, cannot or cannot possibly be this much-vaunted idea of transparency, I request that all those concerned be able to make their voices heard in a debate before a possible vote on this matter. Because infectious vaccines continue to be much more dangerous for the unvaccinated than the other way around, this discrimination also makes no medical sense.