Speeches

Madam President, PFAS or eternity chemicals are a ticking time bomb. They poison our soils, pollute our groundwater and thus pose a threat to the health of people in Europe. This is exactly what the EU Chemicals Agency confirmed a month ago and recommended far-reaching bans on eternal chemicals. This must now be taken into account in all policy areas. Of course, this also includes projects such as the Chemical Omnibus, which is intended to help strengthen the competitiveness and innovative strength of our chemical industry. This is good and important, especially because it is the security of many jobs in the European Union that depends on it. But the safety of our jobs must not be bought with the safety of our health and nature. We need strong environmental standards that ensure that health is clearly at the forefront. Therefore, a fast and strict ban on PFAS would be extremely important.

Madam President, The regime in Iran has long since passed its expiration date. The protests of recent weeks clearly show that people have had enough of oppression and disenfranchisement. The only means left to the regime to maintain power is brutal violence. And that is precisely where the European Union cannot and must not simply watch. The European Union is not only a peace project, it is also a beacon for human rights and fundamental democratic rights. But this cannot only apply within our borders, it must radiate far beyond the borders of the EU. That is why I voted today against the violence in Iran and therefore for tougher sanctions against the regime. Let us give a loud audible voice to the demonstrators in Tehran and the whole of Iran, and let us make our contribution to regime change.

Madam President, There is really more important work to be done in the European Union at the moment than voting on a motion of censure against the von der Leyen Commission at almost every plenary session. But there are still these games, and there are two reasons for that. The first is that while the right-wing factions would have the strength to shape politics, as always they would rather go in search of scapegoats than cooperate themselves. The second reason is that Commission President von der Leyen has not yet understood that political cooperation can only work with trust and transparency. I hope that she finally understands the motions of censure as what they really are: They are a reminder of a policy in which no one feels taken along. I did not vote for von der Leyen, partly because she never tried to address these concerns. But I did not vote in favour of the motion of censure today, because the EU has to show strength right now and must not wear itself out in internal and internal quarrels.

Dear Madam President, We live here on the blue planet and yet in the past we have managed to overlook the problems in our oceans. But if we are really serious about preserving our biodiversity and really want to take care of it, there must be no more blind spots. Even when it comes to areas that are outside national spheres of influence. This is precisely why the directive is an important step in the right direction. Let us work together to ensure that our oceans can recover and that biodiversity in the planned protected zones has the chance to flourish again. I am therefore pleased that we have taken up such an important issue here in the European Parliament.

Dear Madam President, It is right and important that today we have re-enshrined the planned climate neutrality by 2050 and at the same time agreed on an interim target for 2040. But overall, we are faced with a compromise that makes it clear that not everyone has yet understood the importance of climate protection. This is about much more than limiting global warming and stopping natural disasters. If we see climate protection as an opportunity in Europe and consistently focus on research and development of ecological technologies, we can regain technological leadership in these areas and thus secure jobs, value creation and prosperity here in the European Union.

Madam President, If you close your eyes to the still flourishing illegal wildlife trade, you will accept the decline in our biodiversity as well as avoidable animal suffering. Against this background, there can only be one position for the EU, namely as a clear advocate of strong and effective species protection, which puts a stop to illegal trade both here in our country and in the countries of origin of the endangered species. The upcoming conference, COP 20 in Uzbekistan, can and must be a further milestone on the path to effective protection of all species if we manage to strengthen international cooperation and increase traceability. That is precisely why I voted in favour of today's resolution.

Madam President, Climate protection can only work if we really take all people with us and ensure that we firmly anchor climate protection in their everyday lives. This is precisely why we finally need a counter-model to the daily traffic avalanches in the metropolitan areas and to the deliveries of goods that circle half the world. With regional funding, the EU has the power to create such a counter-model and to make our rural regions a good place to live and work again through targeted investments. Because our goal must be short distances, short distances for us people to the workplace, to childcare, to medical care, but also short distances for all products that we need to live. These would be good examples and flagship projects for the upcoming COP 30 in Brazil.

Madam President, Commissioner! For tangible improvements, which are also globally credible, we must finally consider climate action in all areas over which the EU has an influence, from the next common agricultural policy to the promotion of our industry. At the same time, sustainable agriculture means more biodiversity and better opportunities for smallholder structures. At the same time, more clean production in Europe means fewer international transport routes, secure European jobs and more value creation and prosperity. Anyone who believes that less climate protection secures our industrial companies is greatly mistaken. Only if we take over the technology leadership again worldwide, especially in environmental technologies, can we secure jobs and production sites. Climate protection can be a job engine. With the mass, poor working conditions and outdated technologies, we will not be able to meet the next challenges. That would be a strong message to the world that we could place at COP 30 in Brazil.

Mr President! The housing shortage in Europe has long since grown into a social crisis. Rising rents and home construction costs are just one of many excesses fueled by high inflation in recent years. People in Europe are facing increased costs in almost all areas of life, and the European Union must finally respond to this. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution today, but I say at the same time: That's far from enough. In her State of the EU address today, Commission President von der Leyen acknowledged that Europe is in the midst of a social crisis. We need to act resolutely with the means of cohesion policy in order to tackle these problems and enable people to return to an affordable life and a positive vision of the future.

Mr President! I voted today in favour of the motion for a resolution on measures against China's export restrictions on critical raw materials. Not only because we rely on rare earth metals from China to drive the green transformation of our industry, but also because we have to take a new direction in global trade. In recent years, it has become fashionable again to limit exports of raw materials, for example, or to suddenly impose tariffs. All of this has led to the global political climate now being marked by mistrust. We must not allow our agreements and thus also our good relations with our trading partners to be dismantled piece by piece. The EU now faces two difficult challenges: On the one hand, to widen our supply chains as quickly as possible in order to further reduce our dependencies, and on the other hand to promote a return to mutual trust on the political world stage.

Mr President! I voted today in favour of the motion for a resolution on measures against China's export restrictions on critical raw materials. Not only because we rely on rare earth metals from China to drive the green transformation of our industry, but also because we have to take a new direction in global trade. In recent years, it has become fashionable again to limit exports of raw materials, for example, or to suddenly impose tariffs. All of this has led to the global political climate now being marked by mistrust. We must not allow our agreements and thus also our good relations with our trading partners to be dismantled piece by piece. The EU now faces two difficult challenges: On the one hand, to widen our supply chains as quickly as possible in order to further reduce our dependencies, and on the other hand to promote a return to mutual trust on the political world stage.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Today we are talking about the better treatment of endometriosis and in reality we are talking about a profound problem in our health care at the same time. Our health care system is quite blind in one eye, namely the eye that should see the female perspective in medicine. This comes from the fact that until now we have only adapted the medical visual acuity to the prototype man. A medicine that doesn't realize that it takes different approaches to meet the needs of women and men doesn't really do anyone justice in the end. Here, however, even among men, a much stronger sensitivity is needed. Any initiative that contributes to this is welcome. It is also crucial that we as a Parliament, together with the EU Commission, continue to set up initiatives for more research on endometriosis, even in times of tight budgets. Unfortunately, there are still too many open questions. We really have a huge responsibility here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Today we are talking about the better treatment of endometriosis and in reality we are talking about a profound problem in our health care at the same time. Our health care system is quite blind in one eye, namely the eye that should see the female perspective in medicine. This comes from the fact that until now we have only adapted the medical visual acuity to the prototype man. A medicine that doesn't realize that it takes different approaches to meet the needs of women and men doesn't really do anyone justice in the end. Here, however, even among men, a much stronger sensitivity is needed. Any initiative that contributes to this is welcome. It is also crucial that we as a Parliament, together with the EU Commission, continue to set up initiatives for more research on endometriosis, even in times of tight budgets. Unfortunately, there are still too many open questions. We really have a huge responsibility here.

Madam President, esteemed Commissioner! It is high time for us here in the European Parliament to talk about bees again, because the bee is one of the most useful and important animal species that exists and needs our special protection. But that is precisely what it does not currently have – on the contrary. The problems that bees face are getting bigger and bigger. The mild winters promote mite growth and thus disease transmission to the bees, which alone has led to immense losses this year; Loss rates of 30% are not uncommon. But even the bee colonies that survive the winter have no rosy prospects, because they have to look for their food between ever larger monocultures and pesticide-contaminated plants. In short: It can't go on like this! We finally need a serious program to protect bees. I am glad that the European Commission is addressing this issue, but I hope you understand that I am skeptical. Because until now, the Commission has not been the great protector of bees, otherwise it would not have allowed the use of pesticides such as glyphosate once in a while, otherwise you would have already cleared up the practice of emergency authorisations for problematic means. I understand that farmers need yield security, but if we do this only with means that harm the bees, then in the end nobody has any of it. We must finally make it clear to everyone, and it must be clear to us all that pesticides are not the only solution, but a serious problem. A problem that is everywhere – in soils, in water bodies, in our drinking water and ultimately also in our bodies, and that is precisely where environmental toxins and eternal chemicals have nothing to look for. Let's look for a solution that will help everyone: Nature, the bees, and so do we. We finally need a European research strategy for effective and ecological pesticide alternatives. This is the only way to give agriculture new tools with which it can work sustainably and securely. Let's put the problem at its roots and give our environment a real chance to recover!

Madam President, esteemed Commissioner! It is high time for us here in the European Parliament to talk about bees again, because the bee is one of the most useful and important animal species that exists and needs our special protection. But that is precisely what it does not currently have – on the contrary. The problems that bees face are getting bigger and bigger. The mild winters promote mite growth and thus disease transmission to the bees, which alone has led to immense losses this year; Loss rates of 30% are not uncommon. But even the bee colonies that survive the winter have no rosy prospects, because they have to look for their food between ever larger monocultures and pesticide-contaminated plants. In short: It can't go on like this! We finally need a serious program to protect bees. I am glad that the European Commission is addressing this issue, but I hope you understand that I am skeptical. Because until now, the Commission has not been the great protector of bees, otherwise it would not have allowed the use of pesticides such as glyphosate once in a while, otherwise you would have already cleared up the practice of emergency authorisations for problematic means. I understand that farmers need yield security, but if we do this only with means that harm the bees, then in the end nobody has any of it. We must finally make it clear to everyone, and it must be clear to us all that pesticides are not the only solution, but a serious problem. A problem that is everywhere – in soils, in water bodies, in our drinking water and ultimately also in our bodies, and that is precisely where environmental toxins and eternal chemicals have nothing to look for. Let's look for a solution that will help everyone: Nature, the bees, and so do we. We finally need a European research strategy for effective and ecological pesticide alternatives. This is the only way to give agriculture new tools with which it can work sustainably and securely. Let's put the problem at its roots and give our environment a real chance to recover!

Madam President, esteemed Commissioner! Today we are once again talking about the Commission's approval of genetically modified plants. We are also talking about the Commission's approach to democracy in our common Europe. Once and for all, we here in Parliament are voting against further authorisations for genetic engineering, and once and for all the Commission is simply going beyond this. This is legally permissible, but it is not reasonable. Our common Europe depends on people having a say, and that is exactly what they have here in the European Parliament. It is high time that the concerns of the people, which are also expressed here in Parliament, are taken seriously. Finally, set a sign for more sustainability, for more sustainability in agriculture without further GMO approvals and for more sustainability in dealing with our democratic institutions. This is what Europe really needs.

Madam President, Commissioner! The right to clean water should be a matter of course for us in Europe. But that's not it. We all know the environmental protection reports that point to the dangers of eternal chemicals – the PFAS – in rivers and lakes, in groundwater and thus also in our drinking water. The expiry of the PFAS would be a very significant and important step. But there seems to be a lack of courage here. This immediately leads me to the still high use of pesticides in Europe. We need a joint research strategy on ecological pesticide alternatives. Our agriculture finally needs new tools to work in a sustainable and sustainable way, especially in the face of climate change. There must be no compromise on the quality of our water. And the Commission must also consistently step up to the toes of those Member States which are in default here.

Madam President, Commissioner! Access to clean drinking water is a human right – we have agreed on this here in the European Parliament in recent years. But this is not self-evident. This also means that we have to deal more intensively with which pollutants find their way into our water supply. We need a new approach to the topic of microplastics. We need to pay more attention to the ever more frequently detected eternity chemicals, the PFAS. It is also important to keep an eye on pesticides and their reduction. Here, as in the past five years, I am calling for a European research initiative for real and effective ecological alternatives to the pesticides used so far. When financing all these steps for our water quality, the focus must be on the polluter pays principle. We must not allow it to be constantly softened.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen. In the meantime, it should be clear to everyone that our natural resources are not well-ordered. This applies to our climate, this applies to the health of our soils and waters, and this applies to the stock of species. That's why COP 16 in Colombia should have been a real milestone to finally stop this negative trend. Once again, however, the funding issue has remained unresolved. As long as subsidies or trade agreements do not first pay attention to environmental protection, nothing will change. This is precisely where our common Europe must lead and also face global responsibility. We don't have to save the world and we won't save the world if we declare ourselves environmental champions and world champions here in Europe, but close our eyes to what causes our policies in other parts of the world.

Madam President, esteemed Commissioner! The European Union currently has to deal with enormous challenges, which cover an incredible number of areas. Against this background, however, I have the impression that animal welfare is deliberately pushed backwards. This is often argued with the security of supply in food production, in addition to resistance from interest groups. However, I think that the focus should be on those people who take a closer look at animal welfare and who also demand a change in the way we handle our food production. If we want to be credible as a European policy, we must not listen to those who say: "This is not possible", but must be the initiator of changes and changes. There is no doubt that we also need to protect our domestic and European standards, which are eroded by imports. A topic that reaches me very often at the moment is also questionable and unfortunately lucrative business models with pet animals, which were supposedly rescued from killing stations. This requires a much more determined look at the Member States and also at the Commission.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The debate on new genetic engineering is not about yes or no; For me, it is about three central aspects of consumer and health protection. Firstly: A risk assessment is required in advance for approvals. As a policy, we must not abandon this instrument of weighing up risks for humans, animals and nature. Capturing misdevelopments retrospectively is an immensely difficult path. Secondly: Clear labelling is needed to ensure that consumers have freedom of choice. It is insane that there are applications that are intended to prohibit any markings. This is a massive cut in consumer information. And thirdly: no new genetic engineering in bioproducts, either through deliberately tolerated contaminants or through decisions taken away from the public, based on subsequent evaluations.

Dear Mr President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, F-gases are used in a variety of everyday products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, heat pumps, asthma sprays, fire extinguishers, to name a few. Refrigerants also play an important role in the construction industry or in switchgear systems of our power supply systems. These synthetic refrigerants, the so-called F-gases, have an alarmingly high global warming potential, which is up to 25,000 times more harmful to the climate than CO2. Therefore, these substances must be drastically reduced and replaced with natural refrigerants if we are to seriously combat climate change. The Ozone Ordinance is also closely linked to the F-gas dossier. Especially in the case of ozone, we have seen in the past that excellent results can be achieved with clear, binding regulations. With the successful conclusion of the interinstitutional negotiations, we are strengthening the Green Deal. In my role as shadow rapporteur on the revision of the F-gas Regulation, I am therefore pleased to report today that we have successfully tackled this important paradigm shift. A big thank you to all colleagues for the really good and constructive cooperation, especially to the rapporteur Bas Eickhout. Both production and consumption are gradually reduced according to a strict schedule with decreasing quota allocations. As far as quota allocation for consumption is concerned, it will even be phased out completely by 2050. The text before the vote is an important contribution to climate protection and to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. In addition, the revised regulation strengthens the leading role of European companies in global markets for climate-friendly technologies and makes us independent of F-gases produced mainly in the US and Asia. We are strengthening Europe as an industrial location and securing tomorrow's jobs today. According to calculations, around 80% of F-gas emissions in 2050 would come from stationary and mobile refrigeration and air conditioning systems. These emissions are avoidable as they can and will be replaced by climate-friendly natural refrigerants. The stricter regulation of the F-gas regulation and the ozone regulation, which is also in consultation, will save a total of 500 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050. A really great success!