Speeches

Madam President, the battle of the century has begun. The fight against plastic pollution is probably one of the most important of our time. As plastic waste proliferates around the world in different forms, visible or invisible, we are only beginning to realise how dangerous it is for the environment and our health. The plastic is continuously fragmented and the particles become so fine that they are transported in air, water and soil. These microplastics surround us, impose themselves on us and have become a time bomb for our health and ecosystem, contaminating terrestrial and aquatic habitats. In this context, the European Union has a historic responsibility: ambitious legislation to drastically limit the proliferation of plastic waste, to control the losses of plastic pellets in the supply chain – which represents 23 billion small plastic balls that end up in the EU environment every day – and of course to firmly sanction companies that violate these rules. I welcome this legislation, but we will have to go much further, transforming our production and consumption patterns in a sustainable way, in order to eliminate plastic as much as possible from our daily lives. This is a vital issue for all.

Mr President, electricity is an essential asset for almost all human activities. Yet you persist in wanting to leave it, and in considering it, as a vulgar commodity. Electricity is not intended to be managed by the market. Households, craftsmen, bakers, communities, businesses demand sufficient electricity at an affordable price. What do you offer them? The end of regulated tariffs, to the benefit of electricity merchants, private actors who do nothing but feed themselves by imposing tariffs totally decorrelated with the real costs of production. For example, during the energy crisis in France, energy companies made €37 billion on our backs. Not because it costs them more to produce electricity, but because they sold it to us ten times more expensive by indexing their prices to the price of gas. And you want to maintain this system? With this reform, everything could be changed and it could be understood that the liberalisation of the energy sector is a fiasco: electricity is produced only slightly more than 20 years ago, but speculators are selling it at twice the price. Understand the need to finally take electricity out of the market and recreate a public electricity service capable of ensuring access to cheap, decarbonised and sufficient electricity. But no. All this is irresponsible and shameful. The green transition will increase our electricity needs by around 40% by 2030. Who to plan production? Who to guarantee prices low enough to relocate our strategic industries? Who to guarantee regulated prices for the survival of our households, our craftsmen, our communities? The market, i.e. no one. I therefore call here, in this Chamber, for a return to the path of reason. This agreement must be rejected. A real reform is needed to allow electricity to exit the market.

Mr. Speaker, understand our demands and respect our rights. The project to enshrine the right to abortion in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a project commensurate with our collective intelligence, which carries with it fundamental values and which cannot wait any longer. A fundamental project, because it finally guarantees 250 million women in Europe the right to dispose of their bodies. A project that can no longer wait, because this right is under attack all over Europe by reactionary forces, such as in Poland, where the far-right government withdrew the right to abortion from 20 million Poles, a right that had been won seventy years ago. But as we know, women’s rights are never taken for granted, and a crisis is enough to call them into question. That is why we have the historic responsibility and the duty today to sanctify these rights in our Charter, in our founding foundation, in our common values. France has led the way in including abortion in the Constitution, and I welcome that. It is up to us here to show our own by enshrining this right in our Charter and thus send a strong message to all women in Europe and to all women in the world.

Madam President, climate change has started, but Europe is not prepared to face increasing climate risks. Out of 36 major climate risks identified in Europe, 21 require intensified action and 8 require an emergency response. Fires, water shortages, ruined crops, floods, suffering at work as a result of the heat wave, etc. The list is long. If we do not act, we go beyond serious risks, not only to biodiversity, but also to our citizens. In this context, repeated calls for a pause in environmental standards are totally irresponsible. Right-wing and far-right votes against green policies are criminal. Indeed, who will be hit the most violently by climate change? They will not be the wealthiest, but those who are already struggling to find shelter, food and proper care. The most vulnerable must be protected and there are many tools: initiate a comprehensive plan to renovate our infrastructure to adapt it to climate change, or increase the number and means of service of civil protection. The tools are there. Our citizens are counting on us. Let's live up to their expectations.

Mr President, in France, 20% of households live in thermal sieves. Tackling this phenomenon is the best way to lower the bill and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, 40% of the country’s energy is used today for building needs. This is the first item of energy expenditure before transport. It is therefore an important ecological issue, but also a social requirement. In France, 3.5 million households do not have the means to heat themselves properly. We missed the opportunity to control energy prices, so let's tackle building insulation to avoid blowing up bills. Being poorly housed is also a public health issue: Chronic bronchitis, severe heatwaves ... The WHO reports that EUR 1 invested in thermal renovation is EUR 42 cents saved in health expenditure. So, yes, we need an ambitious text, but we need a real right to renovation for everyone. For this to happen, Member States must follow suit, giving the means to pay for these renovations. This is not the case for the French government, which has just shamefully cut nearly one billion in the building renovation support scheme. Yes, there is an urgent need to act, but we must give everyone the means to do so.

Mr President, it has been two years to the day since Benjamin left for work and did not come back. It is also Flavien’s 29th birthday that he will never celebrate. Deaths at work, in Florence as everywhere in Europe, are not just numbers, they are not just names. They are lives broken forever, they are loved ones torn from their loved ones. And I tell you, I am deeply outraged that in 2024, the European Union and the Member States are still not able to ensure a healthy and safe working environment for all. Yet the tools exist to ensure that no family has to live and go through these terrible tragedies: limiting subcontracting, empowering contractors, improving working conditions, increasing the human and financial resources of the labour inspectorate. Employers who do not respect the rules and put workers at risk must be severely condemned. And when, despite everything, there are accidents that occur, it is absolutely necessary to accompany legally, psychologically and economically the relatives of the victims. Colleagues, it is high time to make the fight against deaths at work our top priority. It is necessary to pay tribute to those who have lost their lives at work, but above all to ensure that no one loses their life by trying to win it.

Madam President, on Friday 16 February, in the morning, six construction workers lost their lives on a construction site in Florence following the collapse of a concrete structure. We extend our condolences to the family and loved ones of Bouzekri, Luigi, Mohamed, Taoufik and Mohamed. The youngest was 24 years old, the oldest 56 years old. They all lost their lives on February 16 at work. Unfortunately, this tragedy is not an isolated case. In Italy, a worker loses his life every 6 hours. In France, 53 people have died at work since the beginning of the year. Across Europe, this is an unbearable and revolting situation, because behind these alarming figures are thousands of lives broken forever, of which no one speaks. These stories are often relegated to the rank of various facts. But no, dying at work will never be a miscellaneous fact. The right to a healthy and safe working environment is recognised by the UN as a fundamental right for all, and the EU must do its utmost to guarantee this right and protect workers. That is why our group proposes to add to the agenda of our plenary on Friday the issue of preventing deaths at work following the tragedy in Florence. It is high time to make the invisible visible.

Madam President, our message is clear: We do not want these new GMOs. I speak here on behalf of thousands of European citizens who write to us every day to express their anger and indignation at these new GMOs that they would consume without even being able to identify them. Everyone opposes it. Farmers are concerned about the introduction of these genetically modified products, the scientific community points to the lack of perspective on new genomic techniques and the consequences on health and the environment, and organic sectors are alarmed by the contamination of their plots by these seeds, which endanger the entire sector. The only ones rubbing their hands today are the multinationals, the biotech giants, the Bayers, the Monsantos, who see it as a way to increase production and their profits on the backs of consumers and, of course, the planet. GMOs are regulated in Europe by the 2001 directive, which allows states, under the precautionary principle, to ban their cultivation on their territory. This legislation is sufficient. If adopted, these GMOs will multiply and standardise agriculture. That is not the solution. What we want is an alternative, sustainable and fair agricultural model that will allow real food sovereignty, away from the grip of agrochemistry. That is why we unambiguously call for this regulation to be rejected.

Madam President, the European photovoltaic panels industry is in agony. Yet, driven by renewable energy, the market for solar panels is booming. But who does it benefit? Obviously, not to our European factories, which close one after the other: in Germany, in the Netherlands... And soon it will be the turn of our last two French producers, whom I met recently. It’s simple, the European Solar Industry Union tells us: at this rate, 2,000 jobs will disappear, and China will have a monopoly in Europe. Because, yes, the problem comes directly from unfair competition from China, which has been flooding the European market for solar panels sold below production costs for a few months, and therefore at a loss. This situation is unsustainable. While European leaders look elsewhere, Chinese solar panels are accumulating in European sheds, now accounting for two years of stock, a loss for European plants. To stop the bleeding, it is time to act and quickly. Safeguard measures must be taken to block access to Chinese solar panels and finally place the local preference in the public order. The United States has done so. Let’s stop being market naïve. Everyone protects their strategic industry, except us. Saving our solar industry means creating half a million jobs by 2025 and ensuring our energy sovereignty. What are we waiting for?

Madam President, geothermal energy offers us clean energy, which is constantly available, at an unbeatable cost. Produced locally, it can create jobs locally and contribute fully to our energy sovereignty. It also makes it possible to open up territories that are now dependent for their energy needs, I am thinking in particular of the overseas territories. It was therefore time for the European Union to take up the subject. While we now use 60% of our electricity for heating purposes, we have an inexhaustible source of heat under our feet. As such, I deplore the lack of development for several decades of the geothermal sector, for lack of interest of private companies, considering that these investments were not profitable enough. This shows once again that we must plan the energy transition and that for this we cannot depend on private interests guided by the lure of gain. So yes, today I fully support the objectives set by this report to develop the use of geothermal energy in Europe for heat, electricity production, but also for minerals. Of course, taking into account seismic and environmental risks, this is important. This report opens the door to public funding, which is necessary because we must go even further on public management of this sector. Finally, I welcome the fact that this report also takes into account the retraining of workers from the fossil fuel industries to the geothermal sector. It is time for the European Union to fully develop geothermal energy.

Madam President, scientists are about to declare 2023 as the hottest year on record. Year after year, heat records are broken, surpassing the IPCC's worst forecasts. Behind the figures is the destruction of ecosystems with consequences that are still impossible to assess for nature and human beings. For the IPCC, another 0.1 degree of global warming means 100 million premature deaths. In the face of climate change, we have a huge responsibility for ourselves and for generations to come. We need an ecological bifurcation and this must be fair. Justice means creating global insurance to cover the damage caused by climate change in countries with limited resources. It is an insurance based on subsidies and not on loans, which countries that have been enriching themselves for years on the back of the planet would abound with first and foremost. It is also to take note, once and for all, that the ecology without class struggle is gardening. It is absolutely necessary to change the model. In conclusion, we need to go to the COP with a strong mandate. A strong mandate against lobbyists. A strong mandate for international solidarity in the face of climate change. A mandate to defend the public interest against private interests and in particular those of the oil and gas industries. And finally a mandate to bring collective hope, for our generation and for generations to come.

Mr President, defending workers in the European institutions is not always easy. However, there are sometimes fights that bring us together in our humanity. This is the case for the protection of workers from exposure to asbestos. Parliament, with the exception of a few far-right MEPs, was united behind an ambitious legislative reform, which will save many lives and compensate those hit hard by this deadly fibre. This unit will allow us in particular to better protect workers through better equipment and more comprehensive training, to protect not only construction workers, but anyone exposed in their professional duties. Finally, it also means recognising that exposure to asbestos is never without risk and making it easier to recognise the harm suffered by victims and their families. I would like to pay tribute to the memory of our colleague, Véronique Trillet-Lenoir, who defended the mandate of the European Parliament until her death. A politician who remained involved in public health until the end. Colleagues, for once, we have lived up to the challenge: saving lives in the face of the scourge of asbestos.

Mr President, there is a serious crime in our criminal code: that of non-assistance to a person in danger. This offence fulfils a moral duty: act in all circumstances so as not to abandon the most vulnerable. Such a duty does not yet exist in European law. Yet it carries an essential message: in a context where 50% of Europeans are deprived, they have not been able to increase heating when they were cold, and 30% of our citizens have been forced to skip a meal despite hunger – in other words: when vital needs such as food and heating have been hampered in this way in one of the world’s largest economies – it is a serious mistake not to provide assistance to those who need it. We must act quickly: increase funds for the poorest in order to support the associations that make up for the day-to-day our political shortcomings, a return to regulated tariffs so as not to asphyxiate our households, and also a complete change of software – because poverty is the result of political choices: Put an end to austerity and block the margins of large companies that make record profits, or, better yet, distribute wealth. The list is long and the solutions numerous, if we have the political will.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, electricity is an essential asset. It is probably one of the most interesting for Europeans. It would therefore be shocking if the European Parliament could not comment on such a fundamental issue, even though the energy price crisis is driving millions of households into precariousness, often depriving them of vital needs such as heating and lighting. A crisis that is leading thousands of VSEs, SMEs, craftsmen, bakers to bankruptcy, suffocated by electricity bills that have multiplied ten or twentyfold. And, ironically, this morning in France we are announcing a 20% increase in electricity tariffs by 2024. In this context, this reform of the electricity market is probably one of the most important reforms of the mandate. Households, communities, businesses, industries have their eyes on us and we must be accountable to them. We have done so by debating all climate legislation in this Chamber. Let us do the same for the future of the electricity sector. This objection that we raise today to be able to debate in plenary is supported by Members from several groups for different reasons. Some, like the far right, will want to deepen the market, others see it as a way to strengthen nuclear power and include coal. This is not our position. For us, it is the deep conviction that energy is not intended to be managed by the market and that electricity prices must correspond to the average cost of production. Colleagues, what households and businesses need is predictability on their electricity bills and this necessarily requires regulated tariffs. But deep down, whatever our differences, let's discuss them here. At a time when all the barometers show the growing distrust of Europeans vis-à-vis the institutions, let us show them that the subjects that concern them on a daily basis are at the heart of our concerns.

Mr President, air pollution is almost 300 000 premature deaths per year in Europe. 97% of Europeans are exposed to air pollutants. The EU therefore has a responsibility to stem this silent epidemic with an ambitious legislative framework. This includes lower pollutant thresholds, the right to compensation for victims and swift and effective implementation by Member States. I say ‘fast and effective implementation’, because some states, such as France, have been repeatedly condemned for non-compliance with current legislation, demonstrating the negligence of our leaders, who are reluctant to protect the health of their fellow citizens. As for the right and the far right, they have scandalously proposed to postpone the application of the text as a whole by almost five years. They fought to remove certain toxic substances from the list of regulated pollutants and to remove all provisions on victims’ right to compensation. I regret that they defend the interest of polluters against human health, jeopardising this ambitious text, capable of saving millions of lives; that citizens outside this Chamber know this. I therefore appeal to your humanity: vote on this legislation and keep its ambition.

Madam President, water is a vital resource for our survival. However, this resource is becoming scarcer and more and more contaminated by various toxic substances. More than 60% of the surface waters of the European Union are now polluted. And it has been more than a decade since the World Wildlife Fund denounced the non-implementation of protocols and regulations to measure water quality, which means that these figures are undervalued. In this context, we must first enforce and complement the current legislation. I therefore welcome the new directives, which propose in particular the increase of monitoring stations, the expansion of substances to be controlled and the reduction of authorised thresholds. But we will have to go even further: the European Union needs to deploy more resources to deliver on the promise of restoring water quality by 2027. And I deeply regret, I must say, the position of the right in committee, which wanted to make the monitoring and protection of our waters conditional on the fact that it does not entail excessive costs. I suggest that you spend three days without water to put the concept of ‘excessive cost’ into perspective when it comes to a resource that is vital to our survival. I conclude by saying that water is a common good of humanity and we absolutely must continue our fight to protect it.

Madam President, SMEs represent 99% of businesses in the European Union. They employ more than 100 million people and have a major role in our society. They are exploited every day, out of sheer demagogy, by the right and the far right, who do nothing to protect them when the time comes. Because today, the main threat for European SMEs is their electricity bill. Tens of thousands of SMEs went bankrupt in Europe during the energy crisis due to a lack of control over electricity prices. This is the result of the liberalisation of the energy sector. How will you explain to restaurants, bakers and craftsmen that a market which, overnight, multiplies its bills by ten to the sole benefit of energy companies is preferable to regulated tariffs? How will you explain the development of the famous PPPs, i.e. the privatisation of the cheapest electricity to be produced by the largest industrialists at the expense of SMEs? Next week is a crucial vote for European SMEs on electricity market reform. Let's protect SMEs with the return of regulated electricity prices, give them visibility and reduce their fixed costs to enable high competitiveness and higher wages. This is the path to be taken in favour of European SMEs.

Mr President, it is official, the land is no longer enough to sustain us. In two weeks, it will be the day of the overtaking. This date from which, each year, we have consumed all the resources that the Earth can renew in a year. A date that, every year, advances inexorably and reminds us that our resources are not inexhaustible. In this context, this Ecodesign Directive, which makes our products more durable, repairable, recyclable by design, is paramount. In particular, it prohibits planned obsolescence, a grotesque and absurd scourge that aims to abandon progress in order to make more profit and consume more. It must likewise prohibit the destruction of unsold goods, both textiles and electronic devices. All this to build a regulatory framework in which no product reaches the landfill before it has been able to achieve its highest level of utility. This is urgent, because the delay we have taken in revising this regulation has caused more than 10 million tonnes of additional CO2 emissions each year. So let’s not wait any longer, let’s vote on this text and end with the myth of infinite growth in a finite world. Our consumption and production patterns must meet environmental requirements to preserve the survival of humanity.

Madam President, two years after the coup in Myanmar, the bloody repression of the military junta continues and all dissent is stifled. Nearly 3,000 people were killed, 1.5 million people were displaced. 13,000 people are still being held in inhumane conditions. On the eve of the next elections, the junta decided to dissolve 40 political parties, including the NLD, and imprisoned several of its members. This is another step towards the complete dismantling of the rule of law. In solidarity with the Burmese people and in support of their legitimate aspirations for freedom, we reject any attempt by military leaders to legitimize their anti-democratic power through fictitious elections. We also stand by the trade unions on the ground because they are particularly targeted by the regime. Sixteen trade union organizations were declared illegal, more than 300 trade union officials were arrested, and at least 43 were killed. Despite this, the European Union continues, through the ‘Made in Myanmar’ project, to finance, with European funds, textile companies that relay military propaganda and repress trade unions. This is unacceptable and we must put an end to it. The European Union must defend the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association in Myanmar and do everything in its power to protect them.

Madam President, the water crisis is here. Shortages will multiply and create more tension. The world and our continent must prepare for this crisis, which affects both the quantity and quality of water available. Faced with this, Europe has been legislating for 20 years. The Framework Directive was to protect water, restore ecosystems and reduce pollution by 2015. Result: in 2023, well, half of the EU’s rivers do not comply with minimum standards on pollution. The ecological crisis is compounded by the health crisis due to exposure to these hazardous substances. We must act, review our agricultural and industrial models, to no longer depend on these substances dangerous to health and soil. We must impose more drastic pollution thresholds and provide the control services with sufficient resources. And let's be clear: It is the polluters who have to pay for depollution and water control, not the taxpayer, who is already poisoned on a daily basis. Water is the messenger of climate change. While the 2022 drought was one of the worst in the last five hundred years, acting on water quantity and quality is one of the main challenges for our humanity.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are going through a global energy crisis. The causes are multiple, but one thing is for sure: In order not to depend on imported fossil fuels and to stop global warming, we need much more renewable energy. This is obviously accompanied by an increase in our energy storage capacity, as renewables are by nature intermittent. They do not produce electricity when we need it, but according to climatic conditions. If there are advanced storage possibilities for electricity, particularly hydropower, the scarcity of water resources must ask us about the reservoirs that dry up our rivers and groundwater. So what is left to store electricity? A priori, to date, hydrogen and batteries. Except that, in order to deploy these capacities, it would be necessary to go beyond the "all-market" and competition rules, which obviously constrain States, and to provide for the necessary investments. As a result, hydrogen is struggling to deploy because its cost is too high for private investment. As for the free trade promoted by the EU, it makes us increasingly dependent on imported goods and prevents us from producing batteries ourselves, in a context where minerals are mined by a few countries and shortages are announced within a few years. So what you are proposing is not up to the challenge. Public investment is lacking, there is no quantified target on strengthening storage capacities and crumbs on developing real industrial sectors to produce in Europe what we need. Energy storage is indeed a key issue in the energy transition. But, to achieve these goals, we need to plan by public authority, according to our needs. Without it, we will not succeed, and the consequences will be dramatic.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the European Union's roadmap for implementing the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Parliament must vote on the results of the interinstitutional negotiations on certain legislative proposals. The goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the right one. But again, the proposed tools are not always up to the stated ambitions. While the development of carbon sinks to better maintain and protect our forests from overexploitation and concreteization is a great step forward, I am much more critical of strengthening tools that rely on market logic, again, and not on planning, our ecological fork. Since its inception, the carbon market has had marginal effects on reducing emissions. Worse still, some industrialists have hijacked it and forced themselves by reselling their rights to pollute. We have accomplished the feat of moving from polluter-pays to polluter-pays. All this is not serious. It was the same logic that there was with the so-called carbon border tax, which is not one of them. It held high hopes for protecting our strategic sectors, for producing more in Europe with better social and environmental standards. But in the end, CBAM was content once again to develop the carbon market to the rest of the world, which is not the solution. In conclusion, reducing our emissions is crucial, but for this, we must change software. Let us no longer wait for the market to decide for us, plan and regulate for ourselves in the general interest.

Madam President, Commissioner, the pandemic has shown how much we need to no longer be dependent on the rest of the world to meet our basic needs. It is therefore time to secure our supplies of strategic raw materials, and in particular those necessary for the ecological bifurcation. Indeed, continuing to supply cobalt, lithium and rare earths abundantly on other continents, in the disastrous conditions we know, is a social and ecological non-sense. While it is true that recycling electronic components, through a strengthened circular economy, is a way to address the lack of supply, this is clearly not enough. In this context, the question arises of the exploitation of mineral resources in Europe. The stakes are high, but keep in mind that such projects can only be envisaged if they meet the highest social and environmental standards. If we are to succeed in the ecological bifurcation, the industrial policies we are carrying here in this Chamber must be acceptable and accepted by the people.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at first glance, banning the sale of new combustion engine vehicles by 2035 is a good thing. Because the CO2 emissions released by our cars are not only responsible for global warming, but also poison the health of millions of people due to air pollution. However, pursuing these ambitious and necessary targets without any planning is irresponsible, especially if it is a question of relying on a 100% electric car fleet. First, these electric cars are very expensive: People will therefore focus on second-hand thermal cars rather than buying new electric cars. Secondly, while it is true that electric cars pollute the atmosphere less, what about the manufacturing process? Lithium is extracted at the cost of considerable environmental pollution. Moreover, lithium, cobalt and rare earths are not currently exploited in Europe, making us structurally dependent on other continents for supply. Moreover, in the absence of protectionism, it is Chinese electric vehicles that arrive on our market: today 5% of the shares, but 20% within two years according to estimates, with the first consequence for our automotive industry, the closure of factories that employ more than 13 million Europeans. Finally, more electric cars means more electricity needs. However, since the liberalisation of the energy sector, electricity production has stagnated in Europe, and we are even experiencing the first power cuts this winter. So how many new nuclear power plants or coal-fired power plants will it take to eventually run a European car fleet of more than 280 million electric cars? All this is not serious. Moving towards less polluting mobility? Of course! But by anticipating needs and including all this in a real public transport policy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission has an ambition to reindustrialise Europe in order to produce what is needed and to implement the green transition. To achieve this, the institutions want to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry. But then I ask myself this simple question: How can we reindustrialise our continent without protectionism and without controlling the price of the goods most essential to industry, i.e. energy? How can we talk about competitiveness when electricity bills push our craftsmen, small businesses and SMEs to relocate every day? While the Commission only swears by the internal market, our direct competitors, led by the United States, take advantage of our inability to regulate energy prices to attract our industries hit by electricity prices to their soil. Where the EU talks about the market, our competitors plan and regulate. Where we sign free trade agreements, our competitors protect and subsidize their strategic productions. So yes, we need to put in place an industrial strategy in Europe, but for that, we need to move away from market logics to strategic production, starting with energy. This is about our sovereignty.