What Mohammed spoke about.

Mr President, when we have a debate about biofuels or hydrogen, they are presented as a kind of holy grail. Yes, they are useful, but we must be careful not to overwhelm the limited supply. We need to understand how these products can be used in the best possible way. Biofuels and hydrogen are useful, but we need to think about which sectors have priority in the energy transition. Because without policy, these fuels go to the sector that can pay the highest price. That may not be the sector that needs it the most or has no alternative. We'll have to talk about that. In addition, we do not know where a large part of the raw materials for the biofuels that are imported today come from. Are they linked to deforestation or destruction of nature, or are they driving up the price of food? We have to do that analysis. Are they susceptible to fraud? That is why I support a restriction on the import of high-risk biofuels. We need to focus on electrification. We need to make better use of renewable energy and strengthen our energy grid. This will make Europe less dependent on foreign energy. A slogan on a van that says "this car runs on biodiesel" is fantastic. For many cars, 5 to 10 % biofuel is added. Once again, we have a limited supply and biofuels must be used for our agricultural and chemical sectors, but also for defence, so that we can feed our tanks and aircraft independently of anyone else. That's very important. That's what we need to talk about.

Madam President, Commissioner, what worries me in this debate is that some people tend to forget why we created ETS in the first place. Europe cannot be competitive if we depend on fossil fuels and continue to be exposed on gas and price shocks. Today, the reality is even clearer than ever. We are running around the world asking for autocrats to continue to deliver us with oil and gas. That's not competitiveness – that's desperation. We would be in a totally different ballpark today if stronger investments were made. And that is where the real gain is, instead of giving handouts to hesitant companies. The question today is why didn't Member States invest all those billions in revenues to decarbonise industry? That's the question we should have today. I tell you, Commissioner, that is something my Group will focus on. Let's make sure the revenues go back to decarbonise that sector. We will not be part of punishing companies that already invest in decarbonisation by taking away their incentive to continue investing, for continuing having price stability. And one last comment, Mr Commissioner – because I know that you are very busy working on ETS – on behalf of my Group. We will not be served a dish without being involved in the kitchen. You cannot take our vote for granted. We will be part of the solution and will not only vote yes or no with whatever you cook for us.

Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, global crises and energy shocks yet again showed how vulnerable our system really is, because fertiliser production depends heavily on natural gas. Rising energy prices quickly lead to rising fertiliser prices, putting pressure on farmers, food production and consumers. And that is, I think, why this fertiliser plan matters. The plan aims to bring energy costs down by investing in renewable energy, cleaner technologies and more stable energy supplies. And the idea is very simple: if suppliers and producers can access affordable energy, farmers can access more affordable fertilisers. The plan also supports low carbon and circular fertilisers made from recycled nutrients and renewable hydrogen, reducing dependencies on imported resources. Because that's the biggest problem of Europe. Fortunately, innovation and sustainability are key to producing EU fertilisers that do not rely on the dominant global suppliers. In the end, this plan is not only about fertilisers, it is about protecting our farmers, stabilising prices, strengthening food security and building a more resilient Europe.

Mr President, our addiction to fossil fuels fuels instability and war. As long as we are stuck with fossil energy, we will not only remain vulnerable to price shocks, but also co-responsible for a system that fuels conflicts and causes inflation, inflation, inflation. We are increasing our reliance on fossil fuels, rather than phasing them out. We continue to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars abroad every year when it comes to fossil energy. We could have invested that money in our own European energy supply. What does protect are solar panels, a heat pump, an electric car. Those who already have it are lucky. This works, but unfortunately it is not accessible to everyone. That is our task, because only when we break our independence, only when we ensure a European energy system, do we really protect Europeans.

Mr President, if you now see which energy-poor Europe has ended up in, you can only draw one conclusion: that we must get rid of fossil energy imports as soon as possible. That's our mission. Anyone who is now concerned about affordability, about the economy, about our security should support that. You can not only call for fewer rules and not give it at home when it comes to European clean energy. More solar panels? That was bullshit. More wind energy? It was dangerous for birds. Imagine helping people out of energy poverty by isolating their homes! That wasn't necessary. It's clear to me. Putin's gas or oil from the Middle East are not the solution to these crises, but are precisely the reason why we end up in them again and again. They're the cause. I see a self-sufficient Europe in front of me where we no longer depend on a few parties for our energy, but where we also produce energy ourselves. Where the energy bill is no longer determined by the expensive oil we import. That is what the European Commission must do. Every party in this House should be committed to this.

Mr President, let us be honest: energy price shocks are not new. We saw them in the 1980s and we will see them again and again. Because as long as our energy system remains vulnerable, these shocks will return. And when they do, it's always at the expense of our citizens. They pay the price, especially the most vulnerable households – those living in poorly insulated homes. Our responsibility is very clear: we must make the next price shock as harmless as possible, because today's gas prices are rapidly increasing and show a lot of uncertainty. It shows that any disruption in a system that is still not sufficiently diversified can lead to new price peaks. So we must act now. We need to protect households and small businesses with more stable pricing options, including price caps and a windfall profits tax. We need our consumers to profit from low energy prices by making use of power purchase agreements. Finally, Mr President, energy communities are the future and must be empowered. Citizens should not just consume energy, they should produce it, share it and benefit from it.

Madam President, in a world where energy supply chain and access to raw materials can be weaponised, economic dependencies are no longer harmless. Strategic autonomy powered by a clean, sustainable economy has become a condition for our sovereignty, security and competitiveness. That is why, for us, decarbonisation policies stay a cornerstone for our independence – the cornerstone for a genuine European freedom deal. Competitiveness does not simply mean red tape. It will not lead to the necessary transformative investments that are needed to bridge the gap that we need to reach the EUR 800 billion noted by Draghi. I urge you all to reread what Draghi and Letta have stated. We need a stronger and more integrated single market. We need to transform our economy, look beyond the red tape to innovate and thrive. After Draghi and Letta and the Antwerp Declaration and the Budapest Declaration and many, many more, I'm asking you to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Because, my friends, let me be very clear: cutting the red tape for competitiveness will not cut it.

Madam President, dear President Costa, dear colleagues, recent developments, including tensions over Greenland, remind us that Europe's freedom – to choose its values, to produce and to trade – is not guaranteed. Our dependent dependencies can be weaponised and our sovereignty challenged. That is why I'm calling for a European Freedom Deal. Building on the Clean Industrial Deal, this agenda is not just about climate or industry, it's about securing Europe's ability to act freely in an unstable world. Our industries must stand on their own, our supply chains must be resilient and our energy clean, affordable and European. Let us turn our decarbonisation and security agenda into a Freedom Deal, safeguarding a Europe that is resilient, sovereign and free. But for that, we need a strong budget. With global instability and the need for autonomy, the question is how will you, dear President, convince Member States to choose more and not less public investment? And how do you see the future of the Union's finances in the actual state of the world?

Madam President, you have to allow me to say something about the process because until now, we still didn't receive a text. I have to say that the communications also from the Commission were very unclear, with many contradicting messages. And it's, of course, strange to have a debate without having a full overview of the package. But, let me quote one of the Commissioners who stated that this was a 'lifeline for the European automotive industry'. My friends, I have to be very honest. I cannot see how this proposal will help the car industry in Europe. I think the message today is a message of slowing down at a time when Europe should accelerate, and we risk with this package to increase the gap between European and Chinese producers on batteries, on EVs, on software, on components. And it really feels as if we are throwing in the towel, with more and more uncertainty. Last week, the EPP was saying that this proposal will be a Christmas gift for Europe. My dear friends, this is a Christmas gift, but to the Chinese car industry. Because the problem is clear: European producers are selling less, not only in Europe but globally. Two out of three cars in Europe produced are sold outside Europe. Making our cars more competitive in those markets will do far more than endlessly tweaking and diluting our ambition at home. What we should do instead is create demand, and that needs courage and leadership. Partly, I think, with the approach of the corporate fleet, that's something I support, when it comes to green steel, that's something I support. But we should not lower the bar, but lower the cost of components. I call for a European 'Airbus approach' for our car industry, combining forces to tackle foreign competitors together, like we did in the past. That means pooling production of batteries to lower costs, it means joint purchases of green steel to give more demand certainty and create win-win situations across sectors, it means a social leasing scheme, it means corporate fleets to boost demand. That is how we form an answer to the growing pressure. That is our answer that protects workers' future jobs in our industry. That is the way forward and else it will be a slow agony indeed.

Mr President, when I look to my right, I see a Commissioner who fought long and hard in Brazil. In his speech on Friday evening, he stood his ground and did not accept the poor and flawed text that was on the table. I want to thank you for that. However, despite these efforts, the conclusions of the climate conference were not what we all hoped for. We, as the EU, must look in the mirror because the inconsistency of the EU has, in my view, contributed directly to the problems we have seen in Brazil. You cannot ask partners to stop deforestation and then delay the EUDR. You cannot demand more mitigation while trying to water down the Climate Law. You cannot preach about higher social and environmental standards while flushing CSDDD down the drain. So let's reflect seriously on these inconsistencies in our policies and messaging in the last year and on what has it done to the COP and to its outcomes. When you don't walk the walk, others see it and they will exploit it. The biggest takeaway from my perspective is that we need more climate diplomacy. We need to make deals with China, with India, with Indonesia before the COP, not only at the COP. We need to have arrangements and agreements with African partners way before their delegates arrive, because in those 14 days at the COP, you would need a miracle to secure everything. And I don't believe in miracles. I believe in preparation. I believe in credibility. I believe in leadership. It's time to build new alliances next to the COP process. The Netherlands and Colombia already set a strong example by organising a summit on phasing out fossil fuels. This should be the first of many, and I trust that the Commissioner will do everything possible to ensure that the next global climate initiative comes from the European Union. We should lead again. One final comment: talking about reductions of emissions without mentioning fossil fuels is like talking about lung cancer prevention without talking about cigarettes.

Mr President, our party calls for a larger budget, with which we can do more from Europe. I note that, given the current geopolitical questions, we need a Europe that also invests in defence. We need a Europe that invests in the economy and industry of tomorrow. If the budget remains the same, then you have to make choices and then you have to reform. Then you need to see if you can bet the money you have smarter. That is what the European Commission is aiming for. We will look at all these cuts together with you. Everywhere we cut, we want to see whether we achieve the goals that we have imposed. Especially when it comes to our farmers. I agree with you on that, but we have to make choices. They are sometimes difficult, but that happens when you take responsibility.

Mr President, shaping the Europe of tomorrow, that is what we talk about today: a Europe that's more competitive, more autonomous and able to defend itself. For that, we need funds that shape the clean industry of tomorrow and ensure that we have a Europe worth defending, a Europe that should always protect its most vulnerable. And for that, we don't have many instruments at European level. One of the few is the European Social Fund – a strong social fund that is accessible to the regions and reaches the most vulnerable. Another important element is skills. Our industry cannot be competitive without having suitably skilled people. One of the most critical elements we need for any transition – whether digital, energy or industry – is skilled people. That is why the social dimension of the European Competitiveness Fund is crucial. A European skills agenda enables us to achieve the prosperous, autonomous, competitive and clean Europe of tomorrow.

Madam President, allow me to start to introduce the oral question on behalf of the ENVI Committee: 'Minister Bjerre, Commissioner Hoekstra, dear colleagues, to achieve an outcome from the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) that meaningfully advances the agenda on mitigation, adaptation, finance and loss and damage, the EU needs to strengthen its climate diplomacy. What actions are the Commission and the Council taking individually to ensure that the COP30 in Belém concludes with significant progress, particularly in relation to the following three points: 1. raising the collective ambition in nationally determined contributions, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement; 2. mobilising climate finance by the public and private sectors towards the goals agreed at COP29, including through innovative financing schemes and equitable burden-sharing mechanisms; 3. implementing and further strengthening the commitments and actions agreed in the first global stocktake, which forms part of the UAE Consensus?' Commissioner, Council, colleagues, the climate conference lays ahead. In less than a month from now, we hope to reach a conclusion that will deliver on climate neutrality in 2050, on climate finance, on ending fossil fuel subsidies, on climate adaptation, indigenous rights, improving biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gases massively. Parliament's draft motion for a resolution calls for the Union to lead by example and underlines the need for a science-based EU climate target for 2030. It highlights the triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity and pollution because these are interlinked and we need an integrated response. Importantly, it recognises that climate change is a threat multiplier. Climate diplomacy is building stability and building peace. I hope that when the resolution is adopted, the Commissioner and the Council feel that the Parliament stands ready to report a great outcome at the climate conference. As global warming accelerates, we have no time to hesitate because we are reaching a scale of climate consequences which almost seems unimaginable. The Commissioner himself recently warned us of the collapse of the Gulf Stream. He rightfully called it a wake-up call that would start an era where we cannot prepare for what will come. With that news came just recently a scientific discovery on the coral reefs. They are close to almost irreversibly dying off, while more than a billion people depend on healthy corals. Just imagine these people seeking refuge elsewhere, as they rightfully would. Our farmers already face increasing droughts, which causes more and more crop losses, not only here, but across the world. Harvests of coffee and cacao, but also close to home, grapes are noticeably delivering less and less. People feel this directly. Prices are rising. There are no quick fixes. There is no clever trick or path to become climate-neutral. It sure will be hard. It tests our society's capacity to innovate, to adapt, to stay at course. Because each compromise on climate, each delay on environment will hit us like a boomerang. Stalling our efforts now would only mean accelerating the climate crisis. There is no scenario where the cost of actions outweighs those of inaction, and action delivers not only for climate but also for our economy. Decarbonising and competitiveness go hand in hand. It offers sustainable growth in every sense of the word. We have to address the elephant in the room. We must avoid that Europe shows up empty-handed, and I have to say, I have a lot of trust in this Council, the Presidency of Denmark, and this Commissioner. Because what will we tell those island states that are shrinking year by year beneath rising seas, to countries facing droughts that destroy livelihoods, to the regions overwhelmed by floods, without the means to prevent such catastrophes? I'm afraid that we will disappoint them while we know all too well what lies ahead because their present is our future, and our future is not that far away. Today we remember the DANA floods in Spain from last year. This summer, wildfires raged through Portugal, while in July, heatwaves claimed hundreds of lives in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus alone. There would not be a more cynical time for Europe to arrive at the climate conference empty-handed. But again, with this Commissioner, I have confidence that it will not happen – because not so long ago, we led, we guided, we inspired and we united, we built alliances with countries and shared our ambition. We show that climate action works by bringing down emissions in record time. This is not the time to stall our efforts.

I call it the 'Airbus approach', you know, when our aviation sector was having trouble – also with unfair competition coming at that time from the US, I think our car industry has the same but now it's about China. I think we have to stick our brightest heads together, invest together in European reuse of batteries, European battery infrastructure, European software and components. All the car manufacturers are competing with each other by having their own Chinese company that they cooperate with – that does not help. I think the European electric car has become more affordable, but social leasing schemes are also very helpful. You help the sector and you make a product acceptable and accessible for all Europeans, and this is something we should all support.

Mr President, the question today is: will we invest in our future or keep pretending that short-term thinking and lowering ambition will save us? Let me give you an example with the car industry, because every expert agrees – the future of the car industry lies with the electric vehicle, and we are behind. A single American or Chinese manufacturer produces more electric vehicles than all European car makers together. Instead of focusing on catching up, instead of using common sense by investing in social leasing and investing in battery infrastructure, some here are asking to subsidise expensive synthetic fuels or biofuels. Mind you, these limited fuels are needed for aviation, for maritime and for our defence. Then there are the rumours about lowering safety standards for small cars. Just imagine that your grandmother or mother is driving that car and then has an accident. Is that European competitiveness? I truly hope that these are just rumours because I'm disgusted by them. When companies choose profit over our safety, over our lives, then this Parliament, whether it is about cars, chemicals or agriculture, should stand firm. That's the Europe I believe in.

Madam President, Europe is facing a Kodak moment. Back in the 1970s, Kodak invented the digital camera – a groundbreaking technology – but they feared it would destroy the business model of cameras and film. So they delayed, they resisted and they have practically vanished. Today, our automotive industry stands at the same crossroad, and history is clear: horse and carriage lost to the steam engine; the steam engine lost to the combustion car; and the combustion engine will be, for a big part, replaced by electric vehicles. Instead of focusing on meeting of the current standard emissions, some start delaying with range extenders, very expensive synthetic fuels and other distractions. That's not innovation; that's sabotage. Because around the world, others are moving ahead: 42 % of new cars in Vietnam are electric; Ethiopia has already stopped importing combustion engines; and Chinese EV sales grew 40 % last year. We owe Europe honesty and ambition. This debate today is not only misguided, it's also dishonest. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Choosing for short-term profits will go at the expense of long-term gains for our auto industry, for cars being built in Europe. Let's instead invest in electric corporate fleets, in social leasing programmes, so that the nurse, the teacher, the farmer can all drive electric cars, and not just the consultant, the lawyer and the banker. Otherwise, I sincerely believe our car industry risks ending up like Kodak: as a mere snapshot of history.

Mr President, Europe is having a hard time. We are having a difficult time in geopolitics, in trade and in energy prices for industry. We have a hard time evolving with new technologies. Where we came a few years ago with great prospects in connection with the Green Deal, Our man-on-the-moon moment, it seems like we've lost that inspiration. With the conservative agenda of recent years, we will not make it. There is a threat of a standstill and a standstill is a deterioration. Take the automotive industry. Instead of really moving them forward and getting ready to compete with China, we have adjusted the ambitions and there seems to be no end to that. Imagine that we are really going to help that sector and look for cross-links with other sectors that are struggling. Imagine that in Europe we make cars with green steel and recycled plastic, so that lead markets Create for green products. Imagine that we make that car, through social leasing, affordable and accessible to the teacher, the nurse and the worker. Just imagine. It takes courage. That requires vision. This requires creativity. Otherwise it ends, as Draghi said: A slow but silent death awaits us.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, I very much welcome our swift trilogue agreement between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. This is not a small achievement, and we should really be proud of what we have done. It shows that within this Parliament, pro-European parties can work together and we are capable of moving fast and delivering when climate and industry and our credibility is at stake. CBAM matters. It's the backbone of our climate trade policy. It ensures that the polluter pays, that our European producers are not undercut by imports from producers that refuse to decarbonise. In short, and I've said it many times here: you are welcome to sell your products in Europe, but only if you play by the same rules – either you reduce your emissions or you pay a CO2 tariff at the border. But colleagues, my intervention today is not only one of praise; I also need to raise the alarm. The signals that the Commission has hinted at the extra flexibility for President Trump in CBAM deeply concern me. What do these flexibilities mean and why would we undermine our own instrument? No European industry has asked for this. And let me remind you what we've always stood for: no exemptions, no carve-outs, no special deals for anybody. Not for our neighbours, and certainly not for a global superpower. Our Parliament's position is crystal clear. I don't see what has changed here. If the Commission starts undermining CBAM by doling out perks before it has even fully entered into force, then the credibility of the entire system is at risk. This would not be a success story, but the beginning of the end of CBAM and maybe even the end of the beginning before it's fully in place in January. Colleagues, we owe it to the climate and to our industry to defend CBAM as it has been agreed: firm, fair and future-proof.

Madam President, a single mother from the Dutch region Twente is taking classes to finally realise her dream to start at the police academy. In Zadar, a coastal town in Croatia, a secondary school has been equipped with computers and tablets. And in Prague, victims of sexual violence have been able to receive support in a newly-built shelter since last year. The mother, the student and the victims have all been helped by European funding. Across Europe, there's a surge in applications for new projects. In the Netherlands, hundreds of thousands of people have participated in EU-funded employment and skill initiatives. And I think it's bad that the European Commission wants to cut this. Irresponsible, in my opinion, and inappropriate. If this happens, we sideline the most vulnerable, the most needed. We need to invest in industry. We need to invest in energy. We need to invest in defence. But the European Social Fund is the main European instrument to invest in people. And if we cut the ESF out of the budget, you hit Europe at its heart. And what will remain is a Europe without a soul.

Mr President, research shows that almost all Dutch people have too much PFAS in their blood. I am afraid that is also the case for many Europeans. Last year I did such a test myself and the results were worrying. Because if you say chemistry, then you say PFAS, then you say pesticides and microplastics. Two-thirds of Dutch citizens want the government to come up with stricter legislation. I hope that the Commission will really listen and not, as it does today, come up with a report or a proposal to remove reporting obligations from, for example, make-up companies. In fact, the Commission is making it even easier to use toxic substances. Do you really believe that's what people want? Profit at the expense of health? If we want to help the chemical sector in Europe, we have to get rid of our energy dependence. What companies really run into is a full electricity grid. Investments in the grid, that is what the industry demands. A European Chemicals Investment Agenda for greening. Access to green molecules. Because chemistry can also be hydrogen, biodegradable plastic or chemical recycling. All crucial for our industrial future. Some loose ideas on paper, a staple through it, that's not what we call an action plan. We're not gonna make it. An action plan, without the necessary investments, is for the chemical sector what an empty test tube is for a researcher: You can keep looking at it, but nothing happens.

Mr President, when the new Philips was looking for a new home base at the end of the 19th century, they ended up in Helmond. A city, my city, with a lot of economic activity. The innovative Philips was eager to sell their light bulbs from Helmond. However, there was a problem: The established companies in Helmond did not like Philips. They convinced the city council that such a newcomer would only cause unrest. They promised security, employment and did not want change. What about Philips? He left for Eindhoven. Almost eighty years later, the city council received a harsh reality check. The industry in Helmond had largely left, while Philips in Eindhoven continued to grow and expand. To combat the unemployment crisis in Helmond, the city council asked Philips to open a factory in Helmond. What about the dominant industry of the past? There's very little left of that. They left the city and a lot of Helmonders behind. Unfortunately, Helmond had missed the boat and there is nothing more speculative than thinking that the big players of today will be back in fifty years. History proves that time and time again. So let us as Europe avoid that mistake, so that not years later we still have to do everything we can to bring the companies here. You can now. By focusing on the future and not on certain or some interests. This means a lower energy bill, no longer keeping the doors open for fossil fuels, better investment capacity, but above all a look to the future. A look forward.

Mr President, our energy market can be much more European. The price differences are large and the capacity is not the same everywhere. I dream of a Europe with improved connectivity between the power grids of different countries, where, for example, wind energy from the North Sea can be used in Spain and we can cook in winter on solar energy from Portugal. Our power grid is full, full. This means more risk of breakdowns, but also that people from Utrecht, Gelderland and Flevoland, for example, sometimes have to wait until 2030 before new homes can be built and connected to the grid. And what about all those companies and people who are eager to invest in sustainability? Who wants to invest in solar panels or charging stations? Nothing is more frustrating and demotivating than hearing that it's just full. If we take these problems seriously, we must ensure that the electricity grid is not an obstacle, but an accelerator. We can do that together today.

Mr President, last year the EU imported 23 billion euros worth of Russian energy. That's more than we're spending on support for Ukraine. Anyone can see how crooked that is. We can't wait until 2027 to stop Russian oil and gas. Billions of dollars continue to flow to Russia every year, while European and Ukrainian security demands that we stop now. Because with every windmill and solar panel, Putin's war greenhouse shrinks. Commissioner, we can do more today. Reduce the maximum price of Russian oil to $45 per barrel, including all additional costs, including transportation. Do the same for LNG: a price cap and an import quota. Because every euro that doesn't go to Putin is a euro for peace and a euro that we get out of his war greenhouse. As the European Commission, take on an international leadership role through the G7 to get this done this week. Because all Europeans and all Ukrainians ask only one thing: peace. So stop oil and gas from Russia today.