Speeches

Mr President, the Green Deal has been a major achievement for the EU as a whole. Despite its shortcomings, the green transition has enabled a historic change of direction, and we have set the EU on a path towards a sustainable future and enabled sustainable economic growth. Climate change is an unfortunate fact – whether you like it or not. Sure, you on the right are free to put your head in the bush and deny the facts, but you do not change the facts by offering intellectually dishonest answers to the electorate. Climate change is the biggest threat to farmers at the moment, and with the green transition we will also enable the future of European food production. The crisis has not disappeared, the situation is getting worse. We need a strong climate policy and a Green Deal II for the next period, which will continue the work started during this period. If we now try to scrap the climate legislation that has already been passed, then the costs and consequences, both humanly and financially, will be really high for all Europeans, and that is not in the interests of Europeans.

Mr President, more than 200 aid workers and more than 100 journalists have died in Israeli military operations in Gaza. International law requires the protection of civilians. Israel's actions show total indifference to civilians. This is also evidenced by the number of Palestinians killed in military operations, most of whom are civilians – children and women. These figures indicate either deliberate killing of civilians or complete indifference, as the Israeli army is one of the most advanced in the world and would have the ability to protect civilians if it had the will to do so. Instead, Israel has bombed hospitals, ambulances and aid convoys, all clearly marked. Israel has made it impossible for both civilians and independent media to report events. This is incomprehensible and shameful. The EU must impose far-reaching economic sanctions on Israel until this unreasonable cruelty is brought to an end. Member States, like my country, Finland, must refrain from any arms trade with Israel until Israel complies with international law, its international commitments and international rules of warfare. A ceasefire and a two-state solution.

Mr President, the values of the European Union include freedom, the rule of law and democracy. Putin's Russia and the death of Alexei Navalny are a dark example of what the alternative is if we do not adhere to these values. When we look at Russia, we see what a society looks like that does not respect the principles of the rule of law. When we look at Russia, we see what a society that does not protect the freedom of polyphonic media looks like. When we look at Russia, we see what the reality is when human rights are not respected. When we look at Alexei Navalny's fate, we see what it means, at worst, to be deprived of the freedom to express one's opinion. Navalny's message to the Russians was: “Don’t give up!” The message should be the same for us. We must not give up, we must defend the values of our Union and the freedom of Europeans from all attempts to undermine it, whether they come from outside or within our borders. The rule of law and human rights are the foundation of freedom.

Mr President, the 2040 climate target must follow scientific advice. This is what we have laid down in the Climate Law itself and, in order for this to happen, we set up a European Climate Panel in order to obtain the best possible scientific advice as a basis for the Union's climate policy as a whole. According to the Climate Panel, the adequate emission reduction target is 90-95%. The key to setting the 2040 target is how emission reductions are calculated. Instead of a single net target, separate targets should be set for emission reductions and sinks. If not all sectors contribute to emission reductions, the EU will not achieve its climate target. Therefore, agriculture and forestry must also be involved in climate work. Agriculture has not cut emissions in 20 years, even though billions of climate money have been earmarked for this. No reduction in emissions will be sufficient if the sinks weaken, as they do now. The 2040 target should therefore take into account the role of agriculture and set its own emission reduction targets. In addition, reforming EU agricultural subsidies is essential in a way that supports farmers and food producers in the green transition, while safeguarding their future and livelihoods.

Mr President, the new normal seems to be that major and serious crises follow one another like the movement of a pendulum, and that they hit women the hardest. The pandemic hit women particularly hard, as the care sector is very female-dominated, and home care responsibilities still rely too much on women's shoulders. The ensuing energy crisis also hit women, as the care sector is also a low-wage sector, making the significantly and drastically increased energy price the most difficult for low-income earners. Of course, low-income and high-income women are the most affected by the general price increase. Especially those who have children to care for. Even before the pandemic, 20 million more women lived below the poverty line than men. In all their legislative work, the EU and its member states should assess the gender impact and try to legislate in such a way that they close, not increase, inequalities. This applies to all policy sectors, including climate, as the green transition agenda: Green DealSocial justice is lacking. According to reports from both the Court of Auditors and the Institute for Gender Equality, the Green Deal has not been able to guarantee gender equality. This will remain the responsibility of the next Parliament.

Mr President, Israel has made all Palestinians collectively responsible for the brutal crimes committed by the terrorist organisation Hamas and has bombed Gaza in a shocking manner. The deaths of civilians exceed all comprehension. Most of the dead are women and children. It is important for the International Court of Justice to determine whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Without the outcome of any legal process, it is clear that killing civilians and innocent children is unequivocally wrong. Hospitals are in ruins and children are amputated without anesthesia. There is famine in Gaza and the situation is getting worse every day. We need to put an end to this immediately. Condemning the killing of innocent civilians is not anti-Semitism. It must be possible to evaluate the actions of the State of Israel on the basis of exactly the same criteria as any other Member State of the United Nations. Conversely, the cruelty of the State of Israel does not justify anti-Semitism either. The international community must make every effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in the region and to launch a peace process for lasting peace towards the two-state model.

Madam President, this is a topical issue this week as Norway has now made the decision. So I feel it’s important we have the debate this week. But in the spirit of compromise, maybe I could propose we have the debate this week and the resolution in February I?

Madam President, on behalf of The Left Group, I would like to request to add a debate with the following title to the agenda: ‘Commission statement: Norway’s recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic’, with a resolution. This should be added to the agenda on Wednesday afternoon after the topical debate. Consequently, the session should be extended until 23.00. And why? Because Norway’s decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic is very destructive for the vulnerable Arctic environment, even at the exploration phase. This kind of activity could potentially start a global race to mine the ocean floor, which it is essential to contain. The deep sea is the most extensive habitat on our planet, and it supports high biodiversity. The position of the EU is clear: the precautionary principle must apply and we need an international moratorium on seabed mining. This is why it is very important to have this debate on the agenda of this plenary and, in that way, send a clear message to the Norwegian Parliament.

Mr President, at the same time, the meeting in Dubai was a success and a disappointment. Finally, we got a record of the need to get rid of fossils altogether. At the same time, the record is historical and, at the same time, completely inadequate. This illustrates the reality of climate work in general. We are constantly taking significant steps towards a carbon-neutral world, but understanding how busy we are still hasn't reached all decision-makers. The past year is the warmest in the history of measurements, and yet, in the light of the current decisions, we are still going well beyond the safe limit of warming. What is particularly gratifying about the outcome of Dubai is the decision on the loss and damage fund. The fund is intended to help developing countries most affected by climate change. The promised funding is still a long way from being needed, but the creation of the fund is part of the historic responsibility of the industrialised countries, which are historically the most responsible for emissions. We also welcome the tripling of renewable energy capacity and the doubling of energy efficiency by 2030. However, every agreement is only as good as its implementation. We still have two gaps: the gap between the goals of the Paris Agreement and their climate commitments and the gap between their commitments and their actual actions. Now we need to understand that the time for formal speeches is over. It's time to act.

Mr President, every child is of equal value and every child's rights must be respected equally, regardless of how he or she was born, how he or she was born or what kind of family he or she lives in. This is a child's right. In the current situation, rainbow families are in an unequal position vis-à-vis other families because they cannot be sure that their parenthood will be recognised in the new country of origin in the same way as in their country of origin. Free movement is enshrined in the EU Treaties, but rainbow families cannot move freely from one Member State to another without fear of losing legal parenthood. Around two million children in the EU are at risk of losing a legal relationship with their parents due to different laws applying to families in different Member States. The Council is now the one in whose hands it is to safeguard the rights of these families. The Council must therefore urgently adopt the Commission's proposal and correct this appalling injustice towards children and rainbow families in our Union.

Mr President, there are quite clear indications that Russia is engaging in hybrid influence against Finland by facilitating the arrival of people on the Finnish-Russian border. It is clear that Finland will have to react to this attempt to influence, and this has been done by closing a large number of border crossing points. Through its actions, Russia seeks to incite panic and fear, thereby destabilising the national sense of security and thus causing us to compromise on human rights and compliance with international agreements. We should not be inclined to this, because the right to seek asylum is a human right that exists even if the person's arrival at the border is motivated by political influence. The instrumentalisation of people does not mean that a person crossing the border cannot have a real need for protection. The best way to combat the use of such a hybrid weapon is through a common human rights-based immigration policy, legal and safe routes to Europe and an attitude in which migrants are not considered a threat in principle. Authoritarian leaders, including within the EU's borders, challenge our common values. If, under pressure, we give up our values and principles, they will have won.

Mr President, at the climate conference in Dubai, for the first time, we will make a global inventory of the actions taken and their effectiveness to see if our level of ambition is the right one. This ‘global stock take’ tells us where we are going and this honest situational picture must serve as a basis for the decisions of the meeting. We must honestly admit that, with the current decision, we are going far beyond the safe limit of warming. Funding is one of the most important issues at the meeting, and the Loss and Damage Fund decided at the previous summit must be made concrete and operational. It is also imperative that we reform the international financial system to meet the needs of the green transition, in line with the Bridgetown agenda. Climate finance in the Global South must be solved, but the UN's climate work itself also requires reform. Now, many countries in the Global South are having practical difficulties attending the meeting, but the number of fossil lobbyists and oil bosses is growing every year. It is unsustainable that these companies, which continue to generate profits from climate-warming activities and thus increase the bill for all of us, will gain detrimental influence at these meetings. The position of CEO of an oil company is not the chair of the climate summit – certainly not – when one of our biggest challenges is to have a decision on fossil shutdowns and an end to fossils. While we are living in the warmest year in the history of measurements, over a thousand billion dollars have been invested in fossil fuels in the past year. There's no sense in this! Stop funding the destruction, and the money will be enough for climate action. Climate decisions must be made by listening to scientific advice, and this must be a strong signal from the EU to the negotiations.

Mr President, the Energy Charter Treaty is an agreement that should not exist. It is incomprehensible that we have an agreement to protect fossil investments at a time when the damage caused by climate change is the topic of the main news week after week. It is in direct conflict with our climate action! At the same time as individuals are being blamed for their choices, we allow companies to sue states that commit climate acts before an arbitration tribunal in order to continue to pollute. This is not only stupid and harmful, it is also completely undemocratic. If a country wisely decides to give up coal, for example, it is the decision of a democratically elected government. It is unacceptable that we should allow polluting companies to go beyond a democratic decision. Parliament has already stated that the EU must withdraw from the agreement. Even the Commission is now on the same line. But where is the council on which this depends? Can it show more clearly its disrespect for the European Parliament? There is no one in the Council! It is not a mere disrespect for this room, for this house, but a disrespect for the European citizens represented by this Parliament.

Mr President, the extreme right is a threat to democracy and a free society. Hate speech fed by the far right feeds racism and makes it commonplace. The more space we give to hate and hate speech, the more likely it is to lead to discriminatory behaviour and acts of violence. We have seen that words often lead to actions. There is currently a trial in Finland in which an extremist right-wing actor is suspected of plotting the assassination of the Prime Minister. This is the threat that the far right is facing. The extreme right derives its strength from fear and the experience of partiality. Fear is one of the strongest emotions, and this is unscrupulously exploited by the far right. When you are worried about your own survival, the far right will offer you an easy culprit for your plight, and usually a person of different colors will be the scapegoat. We must not let extreme right-wing hate speech silence us. This is the moment in history when we must dare to defend our values: freedom, democracy and indivisible human dignity. Silence is not a neutral option because, as Martin Luther King said, the worst is not the evil of bad people, but the silence of good people.

Mr President, I would say yes, Frans, this is a good day. We must at some point also stop and be happy because we have done a great job. I think personally that the Green Deal has been a success, even if our targets are still below scientific advice, even though we still don’t fully respect our planet’s boundaries, the Green Deal has been a success. We have been able to put this ship that is the EU on a completely new course, and that is significant. This message we must give to Europeans, who are feeling anxiety about climate change, they are feeling that progress is not fast enough. We must also show that progress happens all the time, sometimes with baby steps, but we are going forward. I am quite sure that the next Parliament will have to revise our targets, but they also get to collect on the positive side: they can take the circular economy forward, create new jobs, create sustainable economic growth. But essential for the next Parliament and the next Commission, I believe, is that we have to put the social aspect in the centre of it all because we need the EPP along, but more we need the people to trust in us and what we are doing. So social fairness, Frans, leave that as a testimony for the new Commission.

Mr President, the scientific community has long stressed that biodiversity loss is at least as big a threat to humanity as climate change, and that the stronger the diversity, the better the adaptability of our planet to climate change. A healthy environment can help us adapt. If nature were healthy, which it is not at the moment. There is a historical extinction of species. Species depletion also applies to pollinators, which every single seed plant needs to reproduce. Up to 70% of our soils are in a degraded state. That is why the scientific community has long signalled that biodiversity loss is one of the greatest threats to food security and thus also to farmers. Thousands of scientists have appealed for this law. Without it, the Biodiversity Strategy will remain empty talk, and without restoration, we will not be able to stop biodiversity loss. Nature deserves more than this ugly, short-sighted and false political game.

Mr President, it is a pleasure to join many of the previous speakers in saying that this is an excellent presentation, and I am delighted to support it. The battery regulation is a significant step in our transition towards a circular economy, and the circular economy is the opposite of our current disposable culture. In a circular economy, the raw material and its value remain in circulation for as long as possible, but for a circular economy it is not enough to recycle, it requires that products are designed so that they are easily reusable as raw material for a new product. The circular economy starts from the design table, not from the recycling bin. Two years ago, when the ‘fileen’ began to learn about this, it was astonishing that it was difficult to understand how we have used virgin resources once as if we did not understand that they were limited. The battery setting brings a significant change to this with regard to batteries. What is particularly good about this proposal is that, for the first time, we are imposing obligations and responsibilities on the entire battery production chain. When buying a new device, few people think about where and how the raw materials were sourced. Often it's wage and employment dumping. It is often caused by environmental damage. At worst, it's child labor or child soldiers monitoring the mine so you can get a new cell phone. This is a regulation in which everyone wins, whether the climate, nature or the consumer.

Mr President, I think that this debate has made it regrettably clear that there is not yet a sufficient understanding in this Chamber of what biodiversity is and what its impact on human well-being is. Simplified: The stronger the biodiversity, the better the adaptability of our planet will inevitably be in the face of warming. Taking care of biodiversity is taking care of our own well-being. On the right, it has been argued that this excessive focus on biodiversity poses a threat to food security, while the reality is the opposite. Biodiversity loss is the biggest threat to our food security. If we do not protect biodiversity, our food security will be compromised. In Finland, basic education is taught already in the very first years, which is, for example, the role of pollinators in the reproduction and growth of plants. Clearly, the curricula in this regard are very different from one European country to another. It has been said here on the right that this excessive focus on biodiversity takes away the work of fishermen. The opposite is true. Your short-sighted vision is not in the interests of fishermen. It is in the interest of fishermen that fish stocks are strong so that they can have a profession in the future. If the view of the right wins, I will tell the fishermen to retrain quickly, because if this line continues, there will soon be nothing left to fish.

Mr President, the beginning of all wisdom is the recognition of facts. Again, we are faced with a new IPCC report, the message of which remains the same: Our actions are inadequate. With the current measures, we are heading towards a three-degree warming. The window of time for achieving a viable and sustainable future for all is closing. The effects of warming are already visible: You can just watch the evening news. Next summer, we in Europe will again see dangerously hot heatwaves, droughts and forest fires. Risks of the effects of warming will increase sharply in the near future. We have done a lot in Europe. As a whole, Green Deal has set us on a new course towards a climate-resilient future, but our goals are still below scientific advice. But we still have a chance, we have a chance to limit warming to a level that is humanly and economically sustainable, because we have the knowledge of what we need to do. We have the means and the know-how to do it. The only thing we lack is political will, and it can be corrected in an instant, because it is in our head.

Mr President, the Green Deal has done what it was supposed to do. This huge tanker, called the EU, is slowly turning its course towards a climate-resilient Europe. But there is still a lot of travel and work to be done to achieve its carbon neutrality by 2050 at the latest, as we have set ourselves as our binding target in the Climate Act. But in order to reach the 2030 emissions reduction target, to make it possible, the correction and expansion of emissions trading is a key tool. Free allocations must be eliminated and the use of emissions trading revenues must be as effective as possible. And this is where reform takes us. Emissions trading as a single tool is the most efficient driver of emission reductions, and it is therefore necessary to expand it from the point of view of emission reductions. But at the same time, it must be said, for the sake of honesty, that extending emissions trading to real estate and transport challenges us in terms of social justice. In a situation where the cost of living has risen significantly, it is necessary to ensure that vulnerable households also keep up with the transition. That is why it is so regrettable that, at the Council's absolute insistence, the Social Climate Fund was significantly lower than what Parliament or the Commission wanted. It is now entirely the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that all its citizens are able to cope. It is as necessary as the emission reductions requested for the extension. The power of emissions trading lies in its ability to accelerate the development and deployment of new cleaner alternatives, thereby creating new jobs and sustainable economic growth. But although we have made a big change with the Green Deal and Parliament has been able to improve the Commission's proposals across the board, we must be honest. Our target level is still below scientific advice. It is an unfortunate fact, and this fundamental problem recurs throughout the Green Deal. It is therefore very likely that the next European Parliament will have to correct the course and raise the targets in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Mr President, equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. It's self-evident, isn't it? But it's still not gonna happen. The pay gap between men and women across the EU remains significant and has remained stable for years. That is why, despite its shortcomings, this proposal on pay transparency is a significant step forward. Thanks to Parliament, the directive now clearly obliges more employers to pay transparency than the Commission's proposal, and I am particularly pleased to note that, for the first time, we are mentioning intersectional discrimination. This human perspective is necessary to address the root causes of the problem, because equal pay requires action going beyond this directive. Women still bear the greatest responsibility for care and home care. Fathers still take a much smaller share of parental leave. Different sectors are still highly gendered. That is why we must give up unnecessary and harmful sexualisation, because there are no hobbies for girls and boys, there are no jobs for men and women. There are hobbies and there are jobs, and for that same work you have to pay the same salary regardless of gender.

Mr President, today we are again dealing with these key elements of the Fit for 55 package, which is designed to ensure net emission reductions of at least 55% for 2030 and thus to keep the Paris path open to us. In the ceremonial speeches, we call ourselves a global climate leader, and this could lead to the conclusion that we are already clearly on the path to Paris, but unfortunately this is not yet the case. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but this week we hope to take another step forward. The effort sharing sector accounts for 60% of total EU emissions and is an important tool to achieve reductions through national action. It should remain as a whole in the future. Emissions trading should not be extended to the effort-sharing sector, as ETS works best to accelerate the transition of companies and production, but in the effort-sharing sector it is possible for Member States to ensure that the green transition is also socially sustainable, as they can choose the most appropriate means to achieve the jointly decided targets. On the whole, it seems that for Fit for 55 we will meet the emissions reduction targets of more than 55%, which is good news, but carbon neutrality is a balance, that is, it is entirely dependent on us also sequestering and sequestering enough carbon. And here the carbon sink of forests is at the core. Against this background, it is unbelievable that instead of protecting the natural sink of forests by ensuring that wood is used sensibly for long-term products that bind high-value carbon, we are burning wood for energy. This misuse of forest carbon sinks is not only possible, but is supported separately. Regardless of the political group, its dumber use for forests cannot be found – neither from a climate nor an economic point of view. And because we have to be honest, we will never get all the emissions out of our lives, so we have to have a sink that covers the necessary emissions. LULUCF regulation must ensure stronger sinks and ensure emission reductions from all land-use areas. This proposal does not yet take us to the finish line, but it is a significant step forward. And what is significant is that the report imposes an obligation on the Commission to present a more precise proposal on how to bring all aspects of land use within the scope of emission reductions. This is absolutely necessary if we are to succeed in our goals. If we want to achieve the Paris path and the goal of carbon neutrality, the goal of being neutral by 2050 at the latest, which we have enshrined in the Climate Law as a binding target for ourselves, then we must be able to set the same requirements for both agriculture and forestry as we have set for all other sectors. It is necessary for us to reach our goal. Jag vill tacka Jessica Polfjärd för det wastefina samarbetet vi hade om ESR och uppskattar waste mycket ditt inkluderande arbetssätt under arbetet med resten av oss. And thank you Ville for a very good job with LULUCF! I myself would have been willing to go further than the majority was willing to, but I will be happy to support all three.

Mr President, next week will be the year since Russia launched its brutal and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, and there is still no peace in sight. We talk a lot about weapons and armed solutions, but very little about peace. Peace must be just and not easy to achieve, but peace must be our number one priority. Ukraine has the right to defend itself, and we have a duty to help them succeed, because by supporting Ukraine, we are helping the country to protect its civilian population, which has been the victim of Putin's attacks and potential war crimes. Russia must stop the attack and withdraw from the territories it has occupied, so that we can finally build peace. The longer the war continues, the deeper its scars will be, and they will last for generations. Unfortunately, this is what we as Finns know about our own history and experience. Ukraine needs a lot of support from us. The war has caused widespread humanitarian distress, massive environmental destruction and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. Reconstruction must begin as soon as possible, and Russia must contribute to the costs.

Mr President, biodiversity is not only an intrinsic value, but also a necessary element for us to cope with the progress of climate change. The stronger the biodiversity, the better the adaptability of our planet in the face of the inevitable warming ahead. There is a sixth wave of extinction and species are now being lost at an unprecedented rate. It has a negative impact on both food production and human health. A change of direction is therefore necessary. The EU had a target to end biodiversity loss by 2020. We totally failed. Species loss is only accelerating. It is time to accept that voluntary action is not enough; we need binding and measurable targets. It is absolutely essential that we reach a binding international agreement to end the loss of biodiversity in the spirit of the Paris Agreement. Ladies and gentlemen, we are now in a race against time. The world must finally wake up to the fact that biodiversity loss is a crisis and a state of emergency similar to what global warming is for us.

Mr President, the EU is doing more than ever for the climate, but the fact that we are doing more than before does not mean that we are doing enough. Climate decisions should always be based on scientific advice on the necessary actions and timetables. This is not the case globally, nor for us in the EU. According to the latest UN emissions report, we are heading towards 2.7°C warming with existing decisions. This is the reality in which we will go to the next climate summit. The next climate conference must be able to decide on international climate finance and rich countries must be ready to increase their finances, but the green transition will not only be done with taxpayers' money, but all financial flows must be mobilised to support the green transition. And at last, even we in the EU should be able to decide that we stop harmful and inefficient fossil subsidies. A significant proportion of the funding is also needed to make good the damage and loss, which will only increase. This is sad, but this is a fact. The cost of not doing so is much higher than the necessary bets, and the longer we wait, the harder the bill becomes.