Speeches

Mr President, I am so glad that we have an ombudsman in Europe! Especially when we are dealing with governments that push the boundaries of the rule of law, knowingly set people apart and do not take our freedoms and rights for granted. Fortunately, we have the ‘Ombudsman’ institution that protects us and at the same time can hold up a mirror to us. An example of this is migration, where the debate is getting fiercer and fiercer. You would almost forget that it's about people and that those people just have rights. Rightly so, in recent years, the Ombudsman reported on Frontex and the European Border Police and called on them to better protect the fundamental rights of migrants. That is why we need an ombudsman. Someone who is independent of public opinion and keeps an eye on what really counts: human rights, transparency and above all a fair government. I really hope that we will give that institute even more value and dignity. Because it is important to have an independent person who stands up for people and holds up a mirror to us from time to time.

Mr President, Cooking or firing? For example, I would like to translate the title of the debate into good Dutch. Last year, one in ten Europeans were in favour of that choice. Energy prices today are three times higher than they were three years ago. And unfortunately, energy poverty has become a concept. And it's not just energy prices that are higher. Also the groceries, a house, whether you buy or rent it, but also a day out: Life has become more expensive. While the number of people in energy poverty has more than doubled in recent years, the wealth of the 1% richest has grown. They were able to add more than 30 %. How crooked do we want it to be? While many are faced with the choice between cooking and firingThis group can stay Dining and Benefiting, because they pay relatively less tax than the rest. And why is this tax so difficult to discuss for the very rich? Where is the political will? How fair is this? Rising energy prices are not due to green energy, as some here claim. Rather the opposite: It's because of fossil fuels, which not only drive up prices, but also make us dependent on autocrats. There is a route to lower prices. We must fully invest in our independence, become self-sufficient, be independent and share the burden more fairly. Helping people make their homes more sustainable and providing cheap transport from A to B. This is the only way to ensure a fair transition and make energy poverty a concept of the past.

Madam President, let me first and foremost, from this stand, offer my condolences to the families and the loved ones of those affected by this climate disaster in Valencia. The horrific scenes and the testimonies from victims are deeply unsettling and leave a lasting impression on many people, also in the Netherlands. I wish my Spanish colleagues in this House and those affected by this disaster a lot of strength during these hard times. I really don't understand how misusing that disaster for a political gain here in Brussels helps remember these victims. My apologies for saying that. The images of Valencia make us realise how vulnerable we are, vulnerable for extreme weather conditions and vulnerable for the future, where they are only set to increase. Adaptation and mitigation need to be an undeniable part of our response. Decarbonisation, as soon as possible, is the only durable emergency plan for the many disasters that will await us. The cost of inaction outweighs the costs of action by all standards, especially when it comes to human lives, and that should be the debate today. We are also very vulnerable in another way, in the way in which eagerly promoted conspiracy theories, just in the few hours and days after the disaster, is irresponsible and undermined efforts to truly help and prevent. Cynically attempting quick and cheap political wins over such a strategy says a lot about your character. Giving people false impressions and false hope only serves to distract from the right response, the only long-lasting response, which is to stop our contribution to global warming.

Mr President, in the region and in the city, you often get to know the EU, Europe, for the first time. Usually unnoticed. What does European cooperation do for you? As Johan Cruyff once said: “You won’t see it until you know it.” Budgets, funds and subsidy jars don't tell people that much. What is done with the money, of course. I think of the cycle path between Tilburg and Turnhout, on which many people cross the border every day for work, study or family visits. Or to the job coaches in Rotterdam who help students find a permanent job and are therefore crucial for that city. But I am also thinking of a wind farm in Flevoland that provides four hundred thousand households with green electricity. These are all examples of projects that have been made possible by Europe, by the EU. Projects in the city, in the region, close to your home. You'll notice. You can see what Europe is doing for you. While some in this Parliament want to turn off the money tap, we want more attention for the city and the region. The cities know what is needed in the neighborhoods, in the neighborhoods and in our streets. The region ensures that people in the villages are also heard. They know what it takes to make our plans, which we make here, a success. And they are indispensable for the execution. That is why we need more budget and not less. I really don't understand the movements of some in this Parliament. The cities and regions give Europe a face and you won't see it until you know it.

It is very difficult to blame a law that has not yet been fully implemented. We can all start a joint project, just as we have done in the past, to strengthen our economy together. That has a price. You have to invest before you can be competitive again. That's what we've done in the past. Consider, for example, how we have entered into competition with Boeing with Airbus. I believe in European joint projects, which we must therefore jointly finance. In this way, Europe will be competitive again and will be able to stand with two fists in the world. I believe we can do this in Europe.

Mr President, Mr Letta is quite clear in his analysis, as was Mr Draghi shortly afterwards. It is really about something, namely how can we strengthen our internal market? How can we strengthen the unity of Europe? How do we ensure that we have strong competition within Europe, but especially with the rest of the world? And this is based on a level playing field, on innovation and on greening? Simply put, there are two currents in Europe: on the one hand, the conservative right, which ignores developments outside the EU, is blind to the massive green investments in the US and looks away from the modernisation of the Chinese economy; on the other hand, a movement that wants to catch up with these developments by working together more – and not less – on a European scale, investing in green technologies and not staring blindly, as Draghi said, at our partly outdated industry. The choice is simple. Do we opt for modernisation and greening and therefore for progress? Or do we opt for nostalgia and stagnation?

Mr President, our automotive industry is facing a serious challenge. I think that's even an understatement. China is outpacing us in every way. Chinese electric cars are significantly cheaper. And to put it bluntly, they simply have taken the lead in this technology. And this technology, however you look at it, will define the future of the European automotive industry. That's what we should discuss today. We need to look at solutions, how to help the industry, but companies and colleagues here in this House that are lobbying for delays and rolling back legislation are only thinking of the short-term gains and not about the future for workers and, more importantly, European consumers. And how does this delay help the sector beyond 2025? I have no idea. The real solution lies in maintaining ambition and intensifying cooperation. We need to make the electric car competitive again. We need flagship projects to enable this, for example, by investing in the European battery industry, in joint undertakings, we can secure quality jobs, support local economies and reduce our dependencies on external powers. By pooling resources and talents, we can achieve this result that will benefit every European. Let us meet this challenge, not only to remain competitive, but to build a Europe that leads with fairness, sustainability and cooperation. Nostalgia is nice and beautiful, but not when it blocks progress.

Madam President, dear colleagues. First and foremost, my heart goes out to all those affected by the recent floods. I think we have a profound responsibility to enhance the preparedness for such events. And today, unfortunately, we are not talking about the flood of the century, but about the century of floods. Climate adaptation is not a Plan B anymore. It's no longer enough – however crucial – to only mitigate for climate change. You must now also learn to live with the consequences which are here and now, and which hit the most vulnerable European citizens and regions the hardest: regions where we can expect probably more of these types of extreme weather events. I think a European climate adaptation strategy, a mechanism to improve the resilience, to be able to cope better with extreme weather, is necessary. We have to look at infrastructure, at buildings and at the financial means to compensate. We cannot leave these people behind. We cannot leave these farmers behind. We cannot afford to have these debates annually in response to disasters. It's time to take decisive action. We must prevent such strategies and take our preparedness seriously. Only then we can build a resilient Europe that really can cope with the effects of climate change.

Mr President, Mr Draghi said that investments are needed to pursue our existing ambitions and plans. It is not about new money. I think this is a very interesting message. We should not think that we can do it all on our own and that the Member States can only offer sufficient competition if we do not really work together. Dutch, Belgian and German companies deliver to many companies in Europe, and other European companies deliver to companies in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Together we form one chain, which becomes stronger if we strengthen the entire chain. If we don't, we are as strong as the weakest link. To support Dutch, Belgian and German industry and make it future-proof, we need to implement a green industrial policy. This requires public investment and entrepreneurship. We need to show Europeans as governments the promising technologies we trust. These investments and innovations should ensure greening, create new, sustainable jobs and improve our productivity. This makes us more attractive and improves our competitiveness. No Member State can do this alone, including France or Germany. Only Member States cannot compete with investments and innovations from China. Either we do it together or we don't.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago we started with a lot of ambitions, but today we have to realise that we have been overtaken by China and the United States. If we look at the proposal that is before us, we must honestly admit that it is a bit too broad and there is no money. Business chains do not end at the border. The approach taken by the Member States is not going to help us make a good industrial policy. We are like the Netherlands the foreland of Germany, or Germany is our hinterland. The same applies to Belgium or Poland or Spain. All companies are connected to each other. Investments here are good for that and investments there help our industry here. We must not leave our industrial policy to the Member States alone, because that puts the internal market at risk. We already see that with the skewed growth in state aid when you look at the different Member States: one is responsible for 50 %, the other for 25 % and all the other 25 Member States for only 25 %. Is this a response to what is going on in China and the US? It is a start, but it is not yet a complete answer. To achieve this, we need to work together towards a genuine European industrial policy. Prefer today than tomorrow.

Mr President, the radical right likes to proclaim with some sense of drama that we are on the verge of a radical green revolution. But we're already in the middle of it. Governments and businesses are investing heavily in wind and solar parks and in all kinds of green technologies to help green industry. I was in the Puertollano area last week and you just see the future there. You can see how Spanish and Dutch companies invest in green ammonia and green hydrogen, precisely to green the industry. Neither China nor the United States stands still. Where we were ambitious perhaps five years ago, we are now even lagging behind when it comes to green investments. The right can pick up its nose for the climate crisis, but a majority in the Netherlands and Europe take that crisis very seriously. And she has to. Ask the residents of La Roche, where there was a recent flood. Ask the inhabitants of Limburg, where a few years ago there was also a flood. Ask the farmers in the South of France, who have to deal with dry soil scorching away before their eyes. Ask the forest rangers in the Maasduinen in Limburg, who saw five hectares of land on fire in a few hours. Right-wing politicians can try to shred climate policy as much as they want, but they don't help anyone with that and certainly not their grandchildren. We must now lay the foundations for green industrial policy, coordinated with all Member States, to make a fist and future-proof our industry.

Mr President, I see, I see what you do not see. And they're... microplastics. Invisible, but they're in your day cream, in our water and our food. The smaller the particle, the greater the risk. Now we're talking about microplastics, but we might as well talk about PFAs or pesticides. A toxic cocktail of chemicals that end up on our plate and in nature in all kinds of ways. Separately, they are already a danger, but the stacking effect is also very worrying. Unfortunately, for some parties in this Parliament, economic interests outweigh health risks, but the lobbying of the chemical industry is visible, unlike that of microplastics. You don't need a magnifying glass for that. For me, it's crystal clear: The interests of the market must never be placed above people and the environment. With this proposal from my colleague Albuquerque, I think we are going in the right direction to ensure that as few microplastics and plastic pellets as possible end up in nature.

You have to choose between heating your home or feeding your children. While even more parents faced this difficult choice last winter, energy companies took off with record profits. They literally left people out in the cold. Energy is a basic need and we do not leave it to the whims of the market. No cold houses, but affordable warmth. This law must take care of that. In this way, we keep control over prices, protect households and offer stability in a market that can move in all directions. Houses can no longer be closed off from the grid. This prevents people from running out of power. Companies have long-term contracts. This prevents excessive costs in the event of a new energy crisis. We are working on a green energy market, good for the environment and good for our wallets. So that next winter no one has to choose between cooking or firing.

Mr President, while we in Europe have spent all our money on small petrol and diesel cars in recent decades, China has focused on the technology of the future. Meanwhile, one Chinese company and one American company sell – separately – more electric cars than all European brands combined. In order to participate in this European, electric future, the European car industry must start leading again instead of following, because at this pace, people will no longer buy European cars. It seems that this global change has not been taken into account in the Euro 7 Regulation. Is this the level of ambition we need as a signal to the automotive industry? Is this how we are going to ensure that Europeans live in clean air again? Is this what we're going to catch up with? I fear that if we do not change course quickly, the answer to these questions will not be very positive.

Mr President, dear people, these are the risks associated with climate change, and they are not nothing. When I look around, sometimes I don't know where to start. One part here doesn't believe in climate change, another part it all has to be feasible and affordable. And others complain about the multitude of rules. If those parties and politicians are honest, they should also talk about the risks we expose Europeans to. It is not just about the failure of a harvest due to drought or an excess of rainfall. It's about something basic and crucial as access to drinking water. The report even warns of conflicts within Europe due to water shortages. It is about vulnerable people who succumb to the heat in our inner cities. I understand that it is not easy to convince people that the costs of non-intervention are ultimately much higher than those of intervention, of climate policy. But we politicians have been chosen to read such reports and we must take these risks seriously on the basis of facts. It's our duty to protect people, whether you're on the left or the right. This report is clear. I therefore do not understand that, if you are aware of these risks, you can still vote against the Nature Restoration Regulation with a clear conscience. And at the next climate disaster I see some already standing here, if, for example, there has been a deadly flood: “We should have done more to protect people. Where is the EU when you need it?" They always point the finger at the EU. Dear people, this is the time. This report is another wake-up call. How many more do we need?

We experienced a massive energy crisis last year. I saw households all around me that couldn't afford their energy bills. Nevertheless, people here are wondering whether this directive is not too ambitious and whether we do not want to go too fast. To that I have only one thing to say: Making homes more sustainable and low energy bills go hand in hand. We could have largely avoided the energy crisis if the homes were better insulated. Insulation is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce energy consumption. Renovating a home is a blessing for many people. Because who doesn't want to live in a draught-free, fungal-free home? A home with a low energy bill. That's what today is all about. Vote in favour of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Vote for a low energy bill. Give it to the people that they don't have to beg the next crisis to get help to pay their energy bills. That is what we are trying to lay a foundation for today.

Mr President, on behalf of Mr Engerer thanks to all for this very good debate. We’ve heard many good points there. I want to emphasise one small element: this mechanism is voluntary, so I think complaining about administrative burden is not something that you should state, I think, in relation to this legislation. We shouldn’t create misinformation. We are not obliging companies to make those claims in the first place, but if you make them, make sure that those claims are supported. It’s all about protecting consumers from these false claims and enabling consumers, but also producers and businesses that do make efforts to improve when it comes to their climate footprint. And I think today, by supporting, hopefully tomorrow, this legislation, we will very clearly state under which conditions these claims can be made, and when consumers buy these products, for them it will be clear that those claims are also really true. And we already see small businesses across Europe making efforts to be more sustainable, but again, I’m telling you, we also see businesses that make these false claims and state that they are committed to the Green Deal, although we know that these claims cannot be underlined. So let’s support this legislation tomorrow, let’s protect consumers, let’s enable them to buy products that really support our strategic plans, like the Green Deal. And let’s make sure that false claims do not have any place in our single market.

Mr President, let me make some opening remarks on behalf of our rapporteur, Cyrus Engerer. On behalf of the rapporteur, I would like to thank everyone in Parliament who has worked hard on this important directive. Passing the Green Claims Directive would be a victory for consumers, the environment and those businesses that truly are striving for sustainability. Consumer protection is crucial for our single market. Consumers have the right to be informed on the sustainability of a product. We already see small businesses across Europe making efforts to be more sustainable, but we also see some businesses making false claims about their commitment to the Green Deal. And I am happy that we are now establishing, with this directive, to stop these false claims. The presence of false claims among prominent companies like Delta, Ryanair, Shell and others prove the urgent need to address these practices in the market. So I’m counting on your support today to stop false claims and make sure consumers have access to correct information. I am going to switch to Dutch. De CO2-uitstoot met 50 % verminderen, zodat de planeet vrij kan ademhalen. Een slogan die je zou verwachten op een protestbord tijdens een klimaatmars. Maar deze tekst stond in de etalage van een kledingketen, Primark, met op de achtergrond een plaatje van een prachtig groen landschap, omringd door aangeklede paspoppen vol fast fashion. Een concreet en realistisch stappenplan om dat te bereiken, ontbrak in de etalage. Daar is Primark niet de enige in. Het ene merk beweert met ecovinkjes of groene hartjes nog ecovriendelijker, groener of duurzamer te zijn dan alle andere. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat deze claims vaak misleidend en ongefundeerd zijn en in veel gevallen wordt de beloofde vermindering in CO2-uitstoot überhaupt niet gehaald. Geld verdienen aan schijnduurzaamheid, daar gaat deze wet iets aan doen. Want deze groene beloftes zijn gouden business voor bedrijven die inspelen op de duurzame keuzes van consumenten, zonder dat die bedrijven ook daadwerkelijk iets doen aan vergroening. De consument heeft recht om te weten wie echt groen is. Wie beweert groen te zijn, moet groen doen. Wie groen doet, die verdient een ecovinkje of een groen hartje.

Mr President, dear friends, dear colleagues, without agricultural subsidies, many farmers suffer losses. We sometimes say: ‘milk is good for everyone’, but apparently not for farmers. This applies not only to milk, but also to onions, potatoes, leeks, and so on. This is the reality of our farmers. As the farmer toils, supermarkets, brokers, transporters, banks and other suppliers run away with the billions in profits. It is precisely these large companies that advocate the protection of their existing interests at the expense of farmers. They do not want a better income for farmers. The farmer has no business model, the farmer is a business model. That's a big problem I don't hear anyone about on the right side of this house. There, the blame is placed on climate policy, nitrogen or nature restoration. The Green Deal ensures future-proofing, healthy nature, healthy land. This is only good for our farmers. I am in favour of: Give farmers value for their product, so they don't have to scale up. Then the farmer has a liveable income on a pack of milk or a kilo of potatoes. That is where I miss the commitment of this Parliament.

Mr President, if you look at how much CO2 we want to reduce between 2020 and 2030 and – even more importantly – what we have already achieved in that period, if you look at the speed between 2020 and 2030, and if you extend that to 2040 – a lot of numbers – then you end up with 90%. Nothing less and nothing more. So let's not pretend that we are radiating a lot more ambition here. Colleagues who shout murder and fire should really stop doing so. It's cheap opjutterij. This ambition and speed will ensure predictability and stability, as the Commissioner points out. This is what the business community needs. We are on course and should not slow down. This removes efficiency. This is unnecessary and undesirable. If you are indeed running a marathon – and I have been allowed to run one – then you have to ensure a stable pace. If we look at what is happening now in China and in the US, we need to scale up. We need to make our greening strike faster. That means we have to make green investments. Because there is a gaping hole there. That's what today's discussion should be about, rather than a fictitious extra ambition, while we just stay on course and keep up the pace.

Mr President, it seems invisible, but it is a disaster. A disaster that only really becomes visible when you go through the sand with a sieve. What remains are innumerable small plastic pellets. That may not seem so dangerous, but once microplastics end up in the sea, these grains pose a huge threat to nature, the environment, but also the fish industry. We will not get there with well-intentioned clean-up actions. In order to prevent an ecological disaster, it is important that all parties involved in the chain are committed to preventing loss. That we will produce more locally and stimulate reuse. And if it does go wrong, the local government must be prepared. That does not seem to be the case here. However, we must also ask ourselves: Why do we get so much of this stuff? Why do we need so much of this stuff? We need to get our plastic addiction under control. Reducing the use of microplastics, for example in bottles and bags, is a necessary step in the right direction. Let us strive for a world where microplastics are no longer invisible and, above all, absent from our oceans and ecosystems.

Mr President, transition means change and everyone must contribute to it, including agriculture. Political parties that hang election posters of an angry farmer, including pitchfork, feed fear and normalize violence. "No", I say to farmers who turn road signs in protest, because you must not endanger others. "No", I say to farmers who want to storm a ferry on which a minister and his family are sitting, back from vacation. Decent politicians, chairman, speak out against this and do not legitimize it. We are told that we have to choose between nature and the farmer, choose between nitrogen policy or a living income. Those are false promises. Farmers' futures can be sustainable. Farmers can no longer be milked by the large agro-industry whose interests in this house are mainly represented. Farmers in Europe must be able to continue to farm. We need not less, but more farmers, within the limits that our nature and climate can handle and with perspective. So commit to our farmers and change the system. Continue to speak out against violence. One more brief comment. I'm saying it all the time now: Frans Timmermans is not here. Frans Timmermans was a representative of the European Commission. The plans come from the European Commission. So if there are any complaints, call Von der Leyen.

Mr President, from sixteen-year-old Benjamin from Brussels to Vanessa Nakate from Uganda. Globally, young people are at the forefront of the fight against climate change. In fact, without them, the climate would never have been so high on the agenda. Last week at the climate summit in Dubai, I spoke a lot with young activists, including the ambitious members of the Young Climate Movement in the Netherlands. Their message to all MEPs was as follows: Climate action is vital for our generation. Their ability to fight inspires me every day, because when the warming of more than 1.5 degrees seems inevitable, it should not lead to pessimism. Without hope, there is no progress and ultimately no change. Young people are part of the solution with us. They hold a mirror in front of us, but we have to involve them. Because even at the climate summit, the gap between young people and decision-makers is large. And that while their future is at stake. Fortunately, the phasing out of fossil fuels is finally on paper. And I am also happy with the extra money for the damage and recovery fund. But these young people remind us that we, and especially them, cannot afford any more delay. As far as I am concerned, at the next climate summit, instead of the 2,400 fossil lobbyists, 2,400 young people from the areas most vulnerable to climate change will be walking around. Because then I am sure that they will make a better trade-off between existing and future interests. Then I'm sure the future will be fossil-free sooner. Let me finally thank the two main negotiators on behalf of the European Union that really made sure that the COP was a success – from the Council, the Spanish Presidency, of course, Teresa Ribera, and Wopke Hoekstra. It made sure that this COP did not fail and at the end was a success. I thank them wholeheartedly, and let’s make next year a much bigger success.

Mr President, it is actually very simple: the more green electricity has to take the place of fossil fuels, the more the importance of metals such as lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel increases. For the production of batteries, but also generators for windmills and cells for solar panels. The energy transition is a material transition and if we as Europe want to achieve that green ambition, we need more of those raw materials. This means that we in Europe also have to look at what options we have when it comes to mines. But how do we also deal smarter with the raw materials we already have? We need to establish strategic partnerships with other countries on critical raw materials, but this must be done on an equal footing so that all parties benefit. The energy transition is simply a material transition. And in the transition to a green Europe without fossil fuels, rare raw materials and in-house production of sustainable technologies are crucial. I congratulate the rapporteur, the Council and the Commission. A very good law. And run it now.