What Emma spoke about.

Mr President, thank you very much. We have done too little to support Ukraine and I am ashamed that our colleagues in Kiev are waiting for Viktor Orbán's day form to be told whether to get support from EU leaders or not. We have done too little and we need to do more. Ukraine deserves long-term stable support from all over the EU, and we need to do this. As long as it takes. Every country should promise to deliver guaranteed support as long as the war continues.

Jessica Polfjärd, what do M and KD think when they betray the Swedish farmers? Swedish farmers have reduced the use of plant protection products and, thanks to the Centre Party, we have received a lower requirement than other EU countries, a requirement we already meet. This legislation would get the rest of the EU countries on track, to make the same journey, to take the same costs as the Swedish farmers have already taken. It would strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. Why do you engage in rural populism and vote against proposals that strengthen Swedish agriculture and the competitiveness of Swedish farmers?

Sara Skyttedal, on the contrary, we are now protecting the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. The exemption that the Centre Party has negotiated says that Sweden should reduce the use of plant protection products by 15 percent, unlike 50 or 30 percent that was the original proposal. Swedish farmers have already fallen by 17%. This just means that the rest of Europe's countries have to get on track and do the same homework that the Swedish farmers have already done. This is good for the competitiveness of Swedish farmers, who have already taken large costs to reduce their use of plant protection products. It is shameful that KD and M do not support proposals that actually strengthen Swedish farmers' competitiveness.

Madam President, thank you very much. Swedish farmers are among the best in the world when it comes to low use of plant protection products. It is done with care, precision and knowledge. Swedish farmers are the forerunners and for decades it has looked like this. We have been pioneers not only when it comes to plant protection but also animal welfare and antibiotics. And it's right to be a forerunner, but it costs. Competitiveness suffers as a result of higher costs and domestic production is knocked out by countries and imports with lower requirements. With the proposal we are debating today, we are beginning to change that. Thanks to the Centre Party, there is an exception for those countries that have been at the forefront and already have extremely low use of plant protection products. Instead, we are now demanding that all other EU countries do the same homework that Swedish farmers have already done. With these requirements, we will ensure that the competitiveness of those farmers who have already reduced the use of plant protection products is increased. It is right for nature, for food production and for the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. (The speaker agreed to answer a question ("blue card"))

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, to achieve our climate targets, we need three things: we need drastic cuts in emissions; we need drastic increase of carbon removals; and we need viable businesses and farmers that can remove and sequester carbon from the atmosphere. These two final points have so far been neglected a lot in the EU climate agenda, but that ends now. That’s why I’m really proud of what we are doing here. As far as I know, this is the world’s first law in certifying carbon removals – with this proposal, with clear business opportunities for the companies and farmers who are doing the right things. That’s why I am so proud standing here today as Renew shadow of this file. Because this text is very much influenced by the Renew proposals. We are increasing the climate integrity as well as creating competitiveness for our companies. But colleagues, this is only the first steps. We are not done. This is only certifying the carbon removals. The next steps is creating the market, boosting the market, stimulating the carbon removals that we much need in order to fulfil our climate agenda. That’s why I really look forward to starting the discussion with the Commission and Council already next week.

Mr President, thank you very much. The Energy Union is fantastic. But let's be honest. The Energy Union has failed. Since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the Energy Union would reduce the use of gas and reduce the use of Russian gas. Instead, the gas policy has done the opposite. We have increased the use of gas in the EU, we have increased imports of gas into the EU and we have increased imports of Russian gas into the EU. And it is the gas policy that has not worked, and it is the one that has led to the extreme energy prices that we have had for the last two years. Now we have to learn from this lesson. Full import ban on Russian gas and full import ban on Russian LNG in particular, which continues to flow into Europe. My Europe is fighting for peace and for the climate. For the climate we have to dump gas and for peace we have to dump Putin. So let us once and for all call ourselves “dumping the Putin Union”.

Mr President, thank you very much. I'm going to talk about something that a lot of people want, but few can, do. It's taking over the farm. We in Europe have a huge challenge when it comes to generational renewal in agriculture. In the EU, only 12% of farmers are under 40. In Sweden, a quarter of farmers are under 50 and only 5% are under 35. The European Parliament has therefore produced a report that focuses on this challenge of generational renewal of agriculture. It answers a lot, but not everything. Although I do not agree with all parts, it is a good start that takes a holistic approach. What I would like to see are three things to change and improve competitiveness: Reduced regulatory complexity for all levels of agriculture. Review costs and revenues; Farming needs to become more profitable and this is politically controlled. And thirdly, it must be possible to save money in agriculture, so that we get more capital so that it becomes attractive to invest in green industries and for the next generation of farmers. Let's continue this journey. I would also like to say a big thank you to ‘LRF Ungdomen’, who has written a great report in this particular area. More focus on the next generation of farmers.

Mr President, thank you very much. Thank you very much for the debate we have had today. I think it has been incredibly rewarding, educational and fun. We are all united here that we need to produce more protein, and more sustainable protein, in Europe, and we can do it with the right conditions; with more research and development, lower administrative burden for farmers, increased economic profitability and a competitive business sector. This strategy puts the farmer in focus, and in this report we highlight concrete measures to increase protein production in Europe. It is about improved plant material through new plant breeding techniques, such as the gene scissors, and more efficient and simpler authorisation for novel foods. the need for feed additives that reduce emissions and increase protein uptake; Better conditions for side streams, making it profitable for farmers to grow protein crops. Better conditions for biofuels and more pay for residual streams, and also to increase profitability in cultivation. Review the CAP and how we organise it. We also highlight the need for research and development for new technologies and new ways of producing protein. This work has been a journey, and I know there are plenty of good examples out there. In Sweden, for example, it may be the cultivation of sea squirt on the west coast, which is grown and absorbs and purifies water from environmental impact and also has a high protein content and tastes good. It may also involve more efficient approval processes for cultivated meat. It may be Lantmännen's investment in pea protein that is further processed, which ensures that we get a better crop rotation, crops that increase biodiversity and soil health at the same time as we get plant protein. Or it could be the further processing of ordinary grass, getting protein, protein meal from grassland and grass plants. This way, the farmer can feed his animals with protein meal from grass and grass around the corner, not imported soy from Brazil. Thank you very much for this work! I really see the future ahead of us, and I look forward to the Commission's continued work on this issue.

Madam President, dear all, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to say great thanks to the shadow rapporteurs and all of the technical teams working very hard to have a concrete and constructive debate on the future of protein. I am very happy that we have this debate today because I think it is timely, important and interesting. It is on how to enhance the production of sustainable protein in our Union. Because we, both humans and animals, need protein and sustainable protein. Today we have, in many ways, good and sustainable production of protein inside of Europe. Actually, over 77 % of the protein used for feed in the EU is produced within the Union, and this is a high number. But we also import a lot of protein: we import 70 % of the high-protein content feed that we need to balance the feed ratios for our animals, such as soy from South America, as many of you are aware of. There are several reports stating that this will lead to environmental and climate issues such as deforestation, water source shortages, land grabbing, and other issues related to this, and it is also making us dependent on a few single suppliers. Both our production and our consumption of protein and food must be more sustainable in the future. This means a shift towards animal protein with a lower sustainability impact, more plant-based, new and innovative protein sources such as insects, precision fermenting and other techniques. But regardless, colleagues, the farmer must be in the centre. That has always been the key for the Renew Europe Group: to keep the farmers in the centre of this strategy. In order for all of this to happen, we need a more competitive European agricultural sector with less administrative burdens on farmers and food producers, and smarter and more sustainable regulations. My ambition with this report has all the time been the same: to present concrete policy actions that increase the production of protein in the Union while at the same time taking us closer to our environmental goals. And in my humble opinion, I think we have succeeded: the strategy that we have on the table today is a good example of this, and let me mention a few key things that you find in this strategy. First of all, there is a strong call to the Commission to urgently present a comprehensive and ambitious protein strategy covering the sustainable production and consumption of all types of protein within the EU. Moreover, this report should support the environmental transition through the development of sustainable protein sources and contribute to both open protein autonomy and resilience and profitability for farmers in rural areas. This transition demands sustainable inputs and affordable inputs such as energy, feed, feed additives, good plant material, fertiliser and soils of good quality, and that is all included in this strategy. There are also interesting opportunities in the future – extracting high-value protein from grassland for biorefinery, for example. But we also need to develop more into plant-based food, and we therefore urge the Member States to follow Denmark to introduce a plant fund to invest in plant-based projects. In the future, our consumption of protein will also be more diverse. Therefore, we need to have a positive, open-minded, innovation-friendly approach towards food technologies, such as precision fermenting and cultivated food and I am therefore very happy that in this report we are not only looking at feed, we are also looking at protein for food. And I am very happy that we can suggest to the Commission to put forward technical guidelines in order to make application of novel foods much easier. As stated in my start, I wanted to present concrete policy actions and this report presents concrete policy actions such as new genomic techniques, CAP rules, a renewable energy directive, a feed additives regulation, novel food legislation, R&D strategies and much more. To conclude, colleagues, I think this report gives us a very good start towards more competitiveness, production and sustainability in the protein value chain. I look forward very much to the debate and thanks again to all of the political groups for a lot of good cooperation.

Mr President, thank you very much. Without healthy rivers, healthy lakes and seas and good water purification, life as we know it cannot continue. Water is crucial, not least for the Baltic Sea. Sometimes in this house we complain about the lack of national alignment in legislation. That is why I think it is particularly important to recognise when we have been well adapted to the national circumstances. This directive, which deals with water treatment, has taken into account Sweden's cold climate, many lakes and our efficient wastewater treatment plants. I am therefore very pleased that this directive ensures that we have effective water treatment both in Åre and in Uppsala. Water systems may not be quite as sexy as nuclear power, but I pay attention to climate and environmental politicians who do not realize that we have to do both. We need to talk about nuclear power and water systems. Not least because we in Sweden have major challenges and major investment needs ahead of us. I have repeatedly pointed out that we need a ‘blue deal’, a green deal but for water, and I hope this is the first step in that direction.

Madam President, thank you very much. Wolf, seal and cormorant. These are three predators that have something in common. They have been threatened, but stocks have now recovered to such an extent that it creates problems across Europe. So what's the problem? Well, even though these species have recovered, they are still protected by EU legislation, which acts as a brake on the sustainable management of these animal strains. The law is static, but nature is not static, nature is dynamic. What was once true is not always true. The wolf tears hundreds of sheep to pieces at the Swedish farmers. The seals and cormorants clear the seas of fish, and the wild boar spreads so much in the Swedish forests that they are currently spreading African swine fever. This is a serious problem and policy at EU level stands in the way of many solutions. We need sustainable management. The Centre Party is pleased that the Commission seems finally to want to tackle the problem. We have been asking for this for a long time, and we hope that we can now put in place the solutions that the Swedish countryside needs.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear colleagues and Commissioner Vestager, I would have loved to have avoided this debate – the debate on climate refugees. I would have liked us to avoid climate change, to tackle the problems now that we can do something about them. But we see that the worse climate change gets, the more people are displaced. And the more people flee, the greater the human suffering – and the situation in refugee camps around the world is getting worse. The best and most effective – and the most humane – we can do is to help people on the move, but at the same time stop putting their heads in the sand and tackling the problems: to make our share of the important Paris Agreement to raise the bar on climate action. To do this, we need to look ahead. We cannot sit back and be satisfied with what we have done. We need to raise the bar further in climate action. We must have a new climate target by 2040 that reduces Europe's emissions by 85%. That's what we need in climate action. And we need a total ban on fossil fuels in energy production by 2040. If we did, we would dare to aim and take the lead on climate change – then we can make sure that people do not have to flee, so that we can minimise climate change and really build a greener Europe.

When they go high, we go low. Herr talman! Det svenska klimatarbetet har varit ifrågasatt det senaste halvåret. Men när regeringen viker ner sig och vill öka utsläppen, då ser vi till att de minskar i EU. När Moderaterna ville sänka Sveriges klimatmål och betala för att utsläppsminskningar skulle ske någon annanstans så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram 100 miljarder till gröna innovationer. När Kristdemokraterna kastade reduktionsplikten framför bussen så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram utsläppsminskningar på 43 procent i Europas transportsektor. När Liberalerna ursäktade sig för att deras politik leder till högre utsläpp så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram att sjöfarten skulle in i utsläppshandeln. Och när Sverigedemokraterna öppet ville överge klimatmålen och betala EU-böter så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram utsläppsminskningar på 62 procent. När regeringen mer än halverar Sveriges klimatbudget så ser vi till att vi gör skillnad för utsläppen i Europa på riktigt. Vi i Centerpartiet växlar upp. Jag gick in i politiken som 13-åring för att göra skillnad för klimatet och det får jag nu leverera för er här i dag, och det är jag så otroligt stolt över. När det kommer till utsläppen: When they go high, we go low.

Mr President, thank you very much. Did you know that last year twice as many heating systems were sold using fossil gas compared to heat pumps in Germany? This shows us that we need every heat pump if we are to be able to phase out Russian gas. But F-gases are used in heat pumps – F-gases that have an incredibly high impact on the climate and the greenhouse effect and need to be phased out. Here, ladies and gentlemen, as so many times before, we are in a dilemma. F-gases need to be phased out, but if we do it too fast, we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. We are preventing electrification and we are finding it more difficult to phase out Russian gas. If you do what they want in the right corner, then you ignore climate policy and do nothing, but if you do as in the Green Party's dream world, then you phase out everything of evil overnight and have no options to replace the gas with. That is why we need a realistic environmental policy, so that you do things, but have two thoughts in your head at the same time. We need to phase out F-gas, but we need to do it with realistic alternatives, and we need to be able to solve the climate issue in both the short and the long term.

Madam President, it’s been very interesting. I’ve been listening to the discussion and I have several questions. I would have wanted to ask the EPP about the new trade agreement with the US. I would have wanted to ask the Council about the potential ICE ban. I want to talk about the Greens with their naive view on mining activities and to The Left on the electricity market reform. But we had no blue card, so there is no possibility to have a debate. And the result is we have more visitors here than MEPs and we have become completely irrelevant. We’re going and moving towards elections. We need to have more lively debate and discussions. Come on, we can do better in this House. So, in the future, I hope we can have more lively debates and make us more relevant because we earn that, the citizens earn that and we can do better than this, colleagues.

Madam President, It doesn't happen often, but today I would like to address you in German as a Swede and a liberal. I really never thought that I would have to explain the value of climate protection measures to Germany. Germany! But if the whole future of the Fit for 55 package is at stake, it requires extreme measures. I look at you and turn to you, the German government. Fit for 55 is our roadmap for the future. But it is a fragile house that is in a delicate balance. If you take out a decidedly important part, it collapses. And when I say house, I mean our climate action, our future. It is absolutely irresponsible to block critical elements of the already agreed laws. I speak to you as a Swede, as a parliamentarian, as a young European, as a liberal. Please stand up for the Fit for 55 package and stop blocking the central element of our climate package, the end of the combustion engine.

Madam President, lithium, copper, aluminium, iron, cobalt, nickel; the list could go on. We in Europe need metals and minerals if we are serious about the green transition and tackling climate change. And it’s become painfully clear during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine how reliant we are on Russia and China and how dangerous though those dependencies are. If we are to be serious, we need mines and we need mines in Europe. I really wish we could make batteries and turbines and windmills out of cotton candies and rainbows. But, colleagues, maybe it comes as a surprise to you, but you can’t. And that’s why we must stop shooting ourselves in the foot. We can’t, on one hand, say we want more raw materials and minerals and then, on the other hand, go regulate so it’s impossible to open a new mine in Europe. We see this over and over again: in the Nature Restoration Regulation; in the deforestation file; in the Industrial Emissions Directive. Over and over again, we’re making it impossible for industries to establish themselves in Europe. We do this over and over again. If we continue to do that, we will be continuing to rely on Russia and China, and that’s dangerous.

Madam President, thank you very much. 250 million tonnes of CO2. Dear colleagues, as we vote on the energy crisis package and the funding for phasing out Russian gas, we can be really proud. We stood up to the Commission's anti-climate proposal, a proposal that would have increased emissions in Europe by 250 million tonnes. In this situation – when we are in the midst of both a climate crisis and an energy crisis – increasing emissions to finance the solutions to the energy crisis would have been nothing more than peeing in your pants. Warm and comfortable short-term, but long-term a big mistake. It was an absurd proposal that we in the Centre Party refused to accept in the negotiations and now we have managed to do it again. And in the final product that we are going to vote on, we have now financed the energy crisis package without massively increasing emissions and we should be proud of that. We in the Centre Party and the Liberal Group will vote in favour of this proposal, which finally gives us the opportunity to phase out Russian gas without sacrificing the important climate work.

Mr President, thank you very much. 250 million tons. That was as much as the Commission wanted to increase emissions to bring in €20 billion. That is totally unacceptable. Do you hear how sick that sounds? 250 million tons more emissions! This was unacceptable to me as a negotiator. We are in the midst of an energy crisis as a result of our gas dependency – a gas dependency that is also exacerbating the climate crisis. Allowing the climate to pay 250 million tonnes is completely irresponsible. I am therefore very proud that, as a negotiator, I have been involved in developing a solution that not only stops the increased emissions, but also ensures that we stop financing fossil fuel projects and tightens the possibilities to continue financing gas and oil. I will be proud to vote in favour of this proposal, and I hope that you colleagues will do the same.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. One and a half degrees. That's the target. This is the dream scenario of the Paris Agreement. But a planet that has warmed up by one and a half degrees – it is not a dream planet. Extreme weather conditions are currently affecting not only Europe but the whole world. Southern Europe's forests are burning. Twenty of the world's 37 groundwater reserves are running out. Water that has accumulated since ancient times dries out, dries out and disappears for good, while Pakistan and other parts of the world overflow. And this is just the beginning. The major food producers bear witness to the crisis, but little effort is being made to mitigate its consequences. Since politics has been sticking our heads in the sand for too long, we must now prepare for a degree and a half of warming. The most important thing is a strong climate policy, but we also have to deal with climate change. We need to rehabilitate society, because water dries out faster, fires burn further and storms blow harder if we do nothing. That is what I am voting for today: to act quickly and to act now.

– I do not understand the Green Group. Now we are talking about climate change and its consequences, but we also need to solve the climate issue. This week we are going to vote on the Renewable Energy Directive. However, the Green Group is consistently voting in favour of reducing the availability of bioenergy and forestry residues, making it more difficult for hydropower, making it almost impossible to open mines and much more difficult to obtain environmental permits. What energy sources will you have left? How do we solve the original problem?

Mr President, if we are to solve the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, we need healthy and resilient oceans and we need global solutions – and the Union memberships in international regional fisheries—management organisations are key tools. Today, we are debating two such organisations and the memberships that we have there, and we, together with the colleagues and the rapporteur, are now implementing better measures for both EU vessels and other vessels in the western and central Pacific area. For me and Renew, it was very important to the final outcome, besides ensuring correct implementation of the international obligations, that we also included everything being done in a timely manner, that we work to strive for strengthened ocean governance and promoting sustainable fishing management. We managed to secure just those three and also more. We also managed to strengthen control measures in relation to ocean governance and marine litter. I am very proud of the outcome and want to express full support from the Renew team. Thank you so much for the cooperation on this important file.

But Tobe and the Moderates, now confuse the cards. This vote is not just about nuclear energy, it is about the greenwashing of fossil natural gas. And no, I don't think it's worth it. Then you have to redo and you have to do the right thing and put the nuclear power in a separate file. But to mix it in and green-classify fossil energy and call it sustainable, and label your and my pension money with fossil gas as sustainable investments – I think that's all up the walls! Then you have to see clearly and be able to keep apart apples and pears. There is nothing sustainable about fossil gas.

Mr President, thank you very much. Let me be clear. There is nothing sustainable about fossil fuels. There is nothing sustainable about fossils. It is only hypocrisy to pretend like it, and it is hypocrisy that the Liberals, Christian Democrats and Moderates are now engaging in by greening and greenwashing fossil natural gas in the EU taxonomy framework. In its enthusiasm for nuclear power, it has been blinded to such an extent that it chooses to consider fossil energy to be sustainable. But let me be clear. It is the decline and the naive attitude towards fossil energy that has put us in the climate-political and geopolitical risk and crisis that we are in today. Europe's gas policy has failed. Now we have the chance to finally deal with gas dependence. Then I hope that the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates – yes, all the Swedish parties and all the parliamentarians in here – choose the right side of history. I chose my side a long time ago. I want to see less fossil energy in Europe. I don't want to classify gas as sustainable because we need new energy. (The speaker agreed to reply to a post (“blue card”).)

Although this may not be the last time you and I are debating, Jytte, it may be the last time in a very, very long time. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Jytte, for your incredibly strong climate commitment, which will be missing in this house when you go home to Sweden. I just want to say thank you for your deed and your strong climate drive! Bring it home and continue to fight for a taxonomy without gas at home in the Swedish parliament.