Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Today's debate and vote conclude the two-year period of work on the Hydrogen Gas Package. And I think it is worth emphasizing that observing the work during this term on many legal acts and topics that we have considered, it is in this case a very important, important document, even laying the foundations for the development of the fuel of the future, which is hydrogen, that made it possible to work out this document in a great consensus. And I would like to thank everyone for that, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Jens Geier, for all the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, because it seems that, something that is rare in this House, with such important topics, we are reaching solutions for the future and in great consensus. So it should really be emphasized that something that unites us is that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, which in many sectors will replace more emission-intensive sources of energy. So let's notice that we have a future when it comes to caring for the climate. And I don't think there's a dispute. We're arguing about solutions, and I think hydrogen connects us here in all of this. It is a fuel that will be used in the future in sectors such as the steel industry, maritime transport, fertilizer production, will allow the development of innovative solutions and reduce dependencies on the supply of raw materials, mainly gas from outside the Union. I think it is also worth emphasizing what has already been raining here, without repeating the other values of this directive, that we have given and are giving this document the foundations for investments in hydrogen transmission infrastructure. And this, I think, is very important, because it builds something that will make us fight for the fuel of the future, so that its price, and its technology, will actually be the future of the new energy.

I want to quote my ending: “climate policy should aim to care for the climate, but not at the expense of national economies and not to drive citizens into poverty”. If other important countries like China, the United States, African countries do not respect the quotas that we set, the economy passes and the production companies pass to China, to other countries of the world, when the rare earth resources needed to restructure our industry in 97% we have to buy from countries like Congo, like Burma, like China, where there is no democracy, then tell me, where is the rationality here? When the Court of Auditors says that we are not able to achieve our goals by 30, tell me, how can we create even stronger ambitions? We should analyze why we can't achieve these goals by 30? And then design rational actions that protect the environment and protect the economy.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, It is important to plan rationally and pragmatically. In its 2023 special report, the European Court of Auditors highlighted that, when it comes to the 2030 targets, there is little indication that we can achieve them. The introduction of new solutions of the Fit for 55 package, as we note, where we do not look, gives rise to great dissatisfaction. For example, the protests of farmers and the pressure that farmers imposed on the European Commission, which removed from the climate target by 2040, for example, a 30% reduction in pollution from agriculture, recommendations to reduce meat consumption, or the emphasis on phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels. That is, we design thoughtlessly, we plan without rationality, because then we withdraw under the pressure of protests. Climate policy should aim to protect the environment, but not at the expense of throttling Member States' economies and driving citizens into poverty. We must be rational, because we will lose the fight for the environment. We can't conjure up reality. We have to be pragmatic. (The speaker agreed to answer the question by picking up the blue card)

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, The assumptions and work on this regulation are extremely important and important. The Act aims to give impetus to increase, inter alia, the Union’s extraction of raw materials, diversify the supply of critical raw materials to the European Union, strengthen circularity, including recycling, and support research and innovation in resource efficiency and the development of substitutes. These are very important issues that are raised in this act. I would like to draw attention to one thing related to increasing the EU's extraction of raw materials. But will we be able to do so in the meantime, when we are bringing about the closure of the mining sector in the European Union? Our climate policy, which consists in the systematic elimination of the mining and quarrying industry, institutional and academic facilities, is somehow in contradiction with the assumptions of this act, which assumptions are very important. In a few years, it may turn out that without managerial staff, without equipment, without mining companies, we will have a secondary dependence on raw materials from third countries.

Dear President, Dear Commissioner, The next climate summit is upon us. And again - and I think it is good - how the voice of the European Parliament has been for many years strengthening the EU's climate diplomacy by increasing ambition, setting an example by the European Union in the fight against climate change, global warming. On the other hand, it seems to me that we should ask ourselves whether, apart from a good example and increasing ambition on our continent, we really do have an impact on the climate and the environment. For China, India and the United States, as if they were running their economies alongside Europe. The Commissioner rightly pointed out that this is a global process and talked about decarbonisation, but in recent years we have seen that the Chinese are increasing the amount of energy based on hard coal, they are increasing the extraction of hard coal and these are the billions of tons that are going to their economic market. And today, as Europeans, by minimizing and increasing our ambitions, by leading decarbonisation, we are not able to convince our partners with this example. And there's a question. Do we have any other arguments, going to this COP, to be effective, to convince the big players in the world to save the climate?

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, According to the calculations of the International Renewable Energy Agency, by 2030, the energy sector alone will account for 95 to 99% of the demand for lithium and more than 50% of the demand for graphite, cobalt. Meanwhile, 70% of cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where, as we all know, only the name is democratic, not the system, 49% of nickel in Indonesia, about 65% of the world's graphite comes from China. In Zimbabwe, where some of the world's largest lithium deposits are located, the president is a politician who today openly sympathizes with Russia and the country is plunging into a political crisis. This shows that a narrow supply market makes Europe extremely vulnerable to geopolitical risks associated with critical raw materials. On the one hand, we are adopting ambitious targets for the green transition, on the other hand, we do not have secured critical raw materials, rare earths. This means that if we increase our ambitions and do not have the security of raw materials, we can give an impulse to those countries that are politically unstable, represent a different world of values, to create artificially limited supply and exaggerated prices. We should consider increasing research into new technologies in Europe and, based on our mining capabilities, launching mining in Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, The implementation of an increasingly ambitious climate policy poses many new challenges for the energy sector. The directive almost doubles the current share of RES in the European Union, and also increases the previous target for 2030 by 10 percentage points. All this translates into sectoral targets, transferring the commitments to achieve them to the governments of the Member States. The new rules should not give rise to risks related to the potential inability to ensure security of electricity and heat supply. Already at the current technological stage, we see challenges regarding the balancing of energy from RES in the power system. Moreover, regulations should not create such large risks and risks to the financial stability of the energy sector in general. Meanwhile, the gap between the sector's investment capacity and its needs in terms of transition and achieving climate policy objectives is huge and cannot be covered by the financial resources available under EU and national funds. The transition should be balanced both in financial terms and in terms of the stability of the system, because this creates great problems and, unfortunately, a lack of social acceptance in the society of the European Union. I am afraid that the current targets have been adopted under the pressure of political ambitions rather than real analyses and concrete calculations.

Madam President, Commissioner, Ladies and Gentlemen, Since 2020, we have had an energy crisis aggravated by Russia’s attack on Ukraine, while we are raising our climate targets, generating huge costs for the European economy. The cost of introducing the Fit for 55 package will be 50% higher than estimated last year. According to a report by experts of the Polish Bank Pekao S.A., the cost of the Fit for 55 package for Poland, for my country, in the next years to 2030 is over EUR 500 billion. Experts clearly indicate that these costs already have and will have a huge impact on reducing the standard of living of Europeans and Poles. This will block the economic development of new technologies in our economies. Meanwhile, a few days ago, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change recommended in its report that the Union should reduce its emissions by 90% by 2040 for 2090. I hope that the Commission will not take this report and these suggestions into account.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, It should be appreciated and underlined that in the Energy Efficiency Directive, when it comes to the provision on district heating, these provisions will have a very strong positive impact on the modernisation of existing systems in the coming decades, which remains crucial in ensuring affordable heat in homes, at final consumers. However, this does not change the fact that the new energy efficiency targets remain highly worrying, e.g. in Article 4 the Union’s 2030 energy consumption reduction target of 11.7% and in Article 8 the provision of annual end-use energy savings by Member States by an average of 1.49 % between 2024 and 2030. These are the big goals and ambitions that make some countries report that they will not be able to achieve these goals. And the question arises – in such a difficult, crisis, economic and geopolitical situation in Europe in relation to other countries, to other continents, in a situation where we set goals and we will not be able to achieve them, we lose credibility as a continent towards other continents and countries, like China, like the United States, and we also lose credibility with our citizens and entrepreneurs to a very large extent. The proposed limits will not be met. And this was reported to us by individual countries and individual environments.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, Due to the development of renewable energy sources in some countries in the Union, the capacity of dispatchable units is decreasing and the development of energy storage systems is a growing challenge. Despite the many technologies available at the moment, the potential for development lies primarily in batteries – electricity storage. Crucial for their creation are raw materials imported from outside the European Union, often from countries with a fairly high political risk. In the European Union, critical raw materials have so far been sourced at less than three per cent. Creating security of supply and resilience of raw materials and developing recycling and processing are very important issues. Recently, in the ITRE Committee, we discussed that we will explore where we have critical raw materials and rare earths in Europe, and we will reflect on how the demand for these raw materials can also be met from the European Union. That is why the question arises: Why are legal acts being taken that deprive us in Europe of fossil skills to extract these raw materials, when the independence of the European climate policy agenda is linked to the security of supply of raw materials? And we are currently discussing, among other things, a piece of legislation, which is the metal regulation, which closes down our fossil skills.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, Thank you for this information. In this context, I have a question: Will the current Methane Emission Reduction Regulation, and more specifically the provisions imposing information obligations on natural gas producers and importers with regard to methane emissions, not contribute to discouraging LNG producers from the European market during such an important period and in such important plans as the Commissioner mentioned?

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. It was already mentioned here that the International Energy Agency warns us to be vigilant when it comes to 2023. The point is that there is a gap of 27 billion gas demand. On the one hand, we have an embargo on Russian gas, on the other hand, China may enter the game when it comes to LNG. So here's my question: Do you see, in addition to the reduction of energy that is already taking place in European countries, and in addition to ambitious plans for renewable energy sources, any other actions that can help this year, next year, in the coming years in terms of energy security? Because it is important that we have a coherent system, because there are decisions in European energy, in highly developed countries such as Germany and not only, a return to energy related to fossil raw materials, with coal. And do you not see the danger here that, on the one hand, we are limiting, we are not keeping up with renewable sources and in fact the system is becoming inconsistent.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The European Commission has recently proposed an industrial development plan for our continent in the context of the Green Deal. This is an important document that aims to increase the competitiveness of European industry while accelerating the deployment of clean technologies. In order for these two issues to happen, i.e. the competitiveness of European industry and at the same time the deployment of clean technologies, it is fundamental to ensure that European industry receives an adequate amount of critical raw materials, including rare earths. We need them, among others, in the energy, automotive, armaments and IT sectors. Meanwhile, the EU is heavily dependent on the supply of, for example, lithium, cobalt, magnesium or just rare metals from countries such as China, Burma, Vietnam, Congo, which not only degrade the environment, because they do not apply standards that we respect and that we apply, they are also far from creating labour rights and protecting human rights. The increase in demand for critical raw materials has led to a spike in prices. For example, a tonne of lithium needed for the production of car batteries increased by 1500% in my country in Poland from 2020 to 2022. In pursuing our climate goals, we must not allow a repetition of the situation where the Union has become dependent on Russian gas supplies. The consequences of this misguided policy are being felt very painfully across Europe. I therefore share the views of the Commissioner, the representative of the European Council, that this debate is very important and that rare earth resources are very important in achieving Europe's economic objectives.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Commissioner, I'm sorry. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his cooperation on the report. It was possible to work out a text that gained quite broad support and broaden some preliminary assumptions. It seems to me that it is very good that the European Commission has taken into account the suggestions in our report to take action, or at least to express its will to work towards diversification of supply and to prevent the European economy from becoming overly dependent in areas such as energy and raw materials. Currently, more than 66% of all critical raw materials imported into the European Union come from China. Reliance on rare earths is particularly high, with as much as 98% coming from the country, e.g. magnesium – 93%. Recent analyses by the European Union show that demand for critical raw materials will increase by 180% between 2030 and 2050 in the wind turbine sector – I mean borate, magnesium – by 220% in the production of photovoltaic panels, in the production of batteries by almost 240%. Without decisive, rapid action in this matter, we will not be able to carry out the planned actions in the energy transition. Yesterday, we heard from President von der Leyen that the European Union will support independence from the supply of third countries in the area of raw materials. I hope and I think that this is a great opportunity for the European Union to make these words a guideline for concrete action.

Mr President, thank you very much. The development of renewable energy sources is necessary and – I think – is not open to discussion. However, we should determine our level of ambition on the basis of a real assessment of the situation and possibilities, not on the basis of our will. By setting unrealistic goals and raising limits and requirements in a way that is detached from reality, we lead to the opposite of the intended goal, we lead to damage to the environment. We create exorbitant conditions that create enormous pressure on the so-called greening in an incredibly short time. This is the case with biomass, the different types of which have a role to play in the RES system. Biomass is responsible for 60% of the RES energy produced in the European Union, of which 36% is woody biomass, which we subsidize, we count as general RES objectives, which creates a significant demand for it. And this demand is not always met legally, especially in the case of supplies of forest biomass from third countries outside the European Union. I think we should take care of the climate in real terms, without harming the environment.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, From the point of view of the Polish district heating sector, both the Commission's proposal and the rapporteur's report impose disproportionately restrictive requirements on district heating systems. The proposed changes to the criteria for high-efficiency cogeneration and the production benchmark for this cogeneration mean in practice that most cogeneration installations in my country, operating on both gas and coal, would lose their status as efficient systems, which would entail losing the necessary support for expansion and modernisation. The heating sector and the industry using high-efficiency cogeneration in industrial processes will face a huge challenge in ensuring the necessary heat supply. In addition, the galloping prices of CO2 emission allowances, as well as the prices of raw material, gas and coal, further exacerbate the situation and create the possibility of not supplying heat to homes and industry in my country, Poland.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, The most important thing in any action is proper assessment of the situation and diagnosis. This is the foundation of every action, every invention. Today we are talking about the energy crisis in the context of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. But, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis began before the aggression and we have to diagnose what was the reason why the pandemic caused the current policy, which is being delivered even today from this rostrum, to be intensified. We have suffered a crisis in the pandemic, and Russian aggression has exacerbated it. And if we are to take responsibility for future generations, for those people who are young today, then we need to diagnose more strongly what the reason is. Because if we're just talking about increasing renewables, why don't we understand if it's that simple? Because the problem is deeper, the problem is more important. We want to have electric cars – and that is the right thing to do – but we are importing ninety percent of the raw materials into these cars, into their batteries. I think we should ask ourselves: what climate package with all the legislation is so good for Europe and is building our energy future, but why is it not building energy security for us and young and current generations today? This needs to be better diagnosed and decided, so that countries can propose what their potential is and where they want to build energy security first, to do it bypass time, to develop new technologies and strength in renewable energy sources.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, thank you very much. Efforts and care for the climate, for the clean air we all breathe and for the preservation of biodiversity on our planet are something that unites us all in this room. I don't think there's any division here. However, we should not forget that climate protection and climate action must not lead to the deindustrialisation of Europe and the loss of competitiveness of European industry. Recent events – Russia’s aggression against Ukraine – have highlighted Europe’s dependence on Russian energy imports. This is therefore a unique moment in which the European Union, in order to preserve its energy independence and to ensure energy security for its citizens, together with the development of renewable energy sources (which is, of course, also undisputable), should focus on promoting the technologies and raw materials that it has at its disposal. To create a certain base for the transition period, so that we can guarantee our raw materials, the extraction of our raw materials and the technologies that we have available in Europe to become independent. The IPCC report indicates that massive emission reductions are necessary to avoid further climate warming. That is why the question arises: how do we, as the European Union, how do we, as Europeans, want to convince the big world economies, which have a much higher share of CO2 emissions, such as China, Brazil, India, to also try to fight climate warming? We only have a 7% share! Ambition alone is not enough. We must be pragmatic, rational and effective.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The European Commission is talking about becoming independent of Russian gas as soon as possible and this seems unquestionably the right direction. However, I am concerned about the Commission's proposal in the latest gas package, which ignores the possibility of continuing to apply tariff reductions to transmission tariffs at entry points from LNG facilities, while proposing the possibility of granting discounts at entry points from installations producing and storing renewable and low-carbon gases. LNG terminals are a strategic infrastructure ensuring energy security and diversifying sources of supply, which has been proven during the current Russian aggression. It is essential to balance climate objectives with current challenges. The key task should be to support diversification and own sources, non-discrimination between different energy sources. This should be the most important task for us today to achieve our energy goals.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. There is no need to convince ourselves that we have a historic and unique time and we must tell ourselves that our energy system does not create security in Europe for our citizens and our economy. It is necessary to draw conclusions from this, because only a fool does not draw conclusions in a situation where he has drama, when he is wrong. We cannot say that we will speed things up, because everything is in time, and we know that moving away from Russian gas is not saying that we will leave tomorrow – we have become too addicted in Europe. This will be a process, so during this process we need to diversify sources of supply and see what we have in Europe, and we have raw materials such as coal in addition to gas. During this transitional period, it is necessary to return to the intensification of investments in coal so that this raw material supports this process and also supports the process of investments in renewable energy sources that need a stabiliser.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Offshore renewable energy sources are one of the most important elements of the European strategy for the energy transition. I therefore welcome the inclusion in the report of my suggestion, a call for investment and planning support for national projects directly connected to the mainland through so-called radial connections. This will allow countries starting investments in renewable energy sources at sea, including Poland, which I represent, to develop infrastructure faster and increase the volume of energy from these sources faster. It is also crucial that detailed decisions on the development of offshore renewable energy sources remain within the competence of the Member States. States should have the right to take decisions on issues such as maritime spatial planning, building permits or the granting of concessions for the production of electricity from wind farms. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Peterson, for his substantive constructive work, as well as all the other shadow rapporteurs, for their fruitful cooperation on the report.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. We have adopted new climate targets, we have reached an agreement in Glasgow. In practice, this means more renewable energy sources, investments in improving energy efficiency, the development of electromobility. That is why raw materials, both critical and basic, are so important. And it's good that we're talking about it today and we're talking about it. The figures show that, as the European Union – and this has already been said – we are very dependent on third countries. For example, in the case of lithium, China’s share is 55%, 65% is also China’s share of cobalt and almost 90% for rare earth elements. Examples can be multiplied, and this is important in the context of investments in, among others, electric cars, batteries and many other ecological projects. Do we really need to source raw materials from outside the European Union on such a scale? Should we not commit to supporting our sources, our mining facilities and our metallurgy in order to take advantage of the demand for raw materials and at the same time develop this range of economy and industries in Europe? I think we should see very strongly and responsibly link climate policy with industry.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! I think that caring for the climate, for clean air and for preparing the next generations for a safe future is something that unites us all. This, I think, does not create a dispute. I think that the idea that should also unite us is that we should be effective and pragmatic in this pursuit. Because only effectiveness will make us credible in our message. After all, as we have seen – and this has been the case here many times – the contribution that individual continents and populous industrial countries have to the care of the climate, we must humbly note that if we do not convince great countries, great economies – such as China, the United States, Brazil, Russia and we can mention ... or India – we will unfortunately not be effective in the care of the climate and we will not achieve the goal that we rightly assume here. Therefore, I would like to address a question to our representatives: What arguments are we using – not a message, but arguments – to really convince countries in the world to win this collective concern for climate, for clean air, and to be truly effective and credible?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, The prices of emission allowances today exceed 60 euros, although at the beginning of the year they fluctuated around 30 euros. Emissions trading cannot be classified as a market-based mechanism. Currently, it is a highly speculative market, while Russia deliberately limits the flow of gas to Europe and does so in order to force the Union to launch Nord Stream 2 faster. This is part of the enormous energy pressure, as the new pipeline will increase Gazprom's position on the EU market and provide additional tools limiting the political, economic and regulatory freedom of the European Union. European companies, which are losing their competitiveness, and citizens, which are experiencing energy increases, are victims of this situation. The European Union should design a long-term European energy and climate policy so that climate concerns go hand in hand with energy security concerns for our citizens and businesses. One thing that is important: The economy needs rationalism, pragmatism, not ideology.