20
May
2026
Watch
Reviewing the ETS system to support European competitiveness (topical debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate that the European Conservatives bring to Parliament touches the heart of our common destiny. Today in Strasbourg we are not discussing cold market algorithms, but how to defend the survival of Europe's productive and social base, and even how to defend the environment. The ideological setting of the Green Deal has chained us to unrealistic goals, which affect our economy and at the same time do not help the environment at all, as some naively believed. The system of ETS credits, that is, the tax on carbon dioxide emissions of whatever is achieved in Europe, was designed in a season of green and socialist utopias, which clashes with the reality of today and tomorrow. Instead of focusing on adaptation to climate change, investing resources in the protection of territories and people, we have chosen to sacrifice on the altar of "climate mitigation" the growth of the European economy and support for people, especially the most fragile. The European Union as a whole emits just 7% of global CO emissions2, yet we record, year after year, the peak in CO emissions2 in the world, simply because they move elsewhere. Nevertheless, I would like to cite data from the Copernicus programme, which certifies a colder Earth temperature in 2025 than in 2024 and 2023, but that is not the point. I say this only to subtly suggest that, of course, carbon dioxide and methane gas contribute to the determination of the temperature on Earth, but there are also other factors that influence in an even more significant way. Defending the environment is not just about emitting less greenhouse gases. To defend the environment, we need technological innovations and freedom of choice between different technological options, which only the most competitive and dynamic liberal economies are able to foster. A great environmentalist like Michael Shellenberger caused a stir when he said: In rich countries there is more resilience, so let's focus on making individuals richer and more resilient, not poorer, if we want to save the planet. While we chose the path of happy degrowth, the rest of the world started running fast, thanking Europe for deciding to take itself out. The ECR Group calls for a change of course on the ETS, based on common sense and articulated on three priorities. First: A revision of the benchmarks is needed. If we cancel the free quotas we will not make an ecological transition, we will condemn our manufacture to be erased from world markets. Second: we must correct the distortive effects of the ETS in the maritime sector, an ideological measure that does not reduce global emissions by a single gram, but forces maritime trade to avoid European ports, diverting their routes to the ports of call of North Africa to escape our taxes. Third: stop the ETS2, the ways and times of which are likely to be expeditious. Extending this tax to domestic heating and road transport means declaring war on our businesses, workers, families. We are conservatives also because we try to reason with those who think differently from us. We would like a full revision of the ETS, but we are willing to seek compromises, which are necessary given the urgency of the crisis we are experiencing. Our role is not to set fires, but to put them out. Never before has our role been precious, I would say indispensable. Giuseppe Prezzolini wrote: The conservative is a brake on utopia and utopianism, who fall in love with things and ideas never experienced and that, when they are realized, turn out to be very different from how they imagined them.