What Pascal spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, tomorrow we are going to vote on tightening up the rules on combating air pollution. As we have all recalled, air pollution is one of the leading causes of premature death in Europe: 300,000 deaths per year, including 40,000 in France. I am amazed that, on the part of right-wing and far-right MEPs, the priority is to degrade not only the proposals that have been made by the World Health Organisation, but also the proposals that have been made – even though they are already lower – by the Commission to reach thresholds that are lower than those we have today. This is the opposite of ambition, it is regression. And I tell these right-wing and far-right MEPs that the people most vulnerable to air pollution are children, pregnant women, families and the elderly. Families and the elderly are two social groups of which you are supposed to be the great defenders. However, you are changing the rules proposed by the World Health Organisation and the European Commission to make them less protected from air pollution than they are today. This is an unacceptable lie. We will not let it happen and I really hope that tomorrow we will win this battle.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this week we have two very important responsibilities. Our first responsibility is to save nature. I am addressing my colleagues on the right and centre-right: If you don't want to listen to unanimous scientists defending the need for this law, then listen to the European Hunters Federation. Hunters are in favour of this law. Listen to companies in the agri-food sector, which are in favour of this law because they know very well that the first threat to agricultural yields is the disappearance of the nature of pollinators and climate change. Listen to the European Central Bank, which reminds us that the vast majority of our economy is dependent on services rendered by nature. Go back to reason. Our second responsibility, besides saving nature, is to block far-right populism and the alliance led by part of the EPP with this far-right populism. It kills European democracy, it kills the spirit of compromise that has driven us from the beginning on the Green Deal. We must not let this far-right populism and the false information, the lies that it has been peddling for a year and that you have taken up again in a totally shameless way in this Chamber pass. So tomorrow we have a double responsibility: save nature, block extreme right-wing populism and its alliance with a part of the right. I hope we win.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to address my colleagues on the Conservative side. You are engaged today in an offensive against the Green Deal on the agricultural transition. Yet we managed to find agreements on industry, on mobility. Why can we not achieve this together, with the Socialists and possibly with the Greens, on the agricultural transition? Why would there be an exception where we could not succeed on agriculture what we were otherwise able to do? Because you have an ideological offensive on your part, which denies the reality of what farmers are experiencing, i.e. the impact of the climate shock all over Europe, the loss of nature, the loss of pollinators, which means that they have lower yields. The main cause of the decline in arable crop yields in Europe is the impact of climate change. So let's work together on the solutions. And the solutions – and here I am also talking to environmentalists – are based on nature, but they are also in technology. And that is why the package of solutions proposed by the European Commission, based on nature – restoring ecosystems, biocontrol to do without pesticides and, tomorrow, new genomic techniques to seek new technical progress – should bring us together rather than divide us. Because it is really no service to the European farmer, the European farmer and our farmers to oppose in a totally ideological way, peddling rumours and totally false things about the texts that are contained in the Green Deal. Let’s work together, let’s have solutions for the future and that’s how farmers’ expectations will be met.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to vote on an important one-digit text: Methane emits 80 times more greenhouse gas emissions than CO2, carbon dioxide, over 20 years. Over 100 years, it still emits 25 times more greenhouse gases than CO2. We have a strategy to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions, which is the climate package of less than 55% of EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions. We have very specific legislation – the carbon market, standards for cars, tomorrow for trucks – to reduce our CO2 emissions, carbon dioxide. We have nothing, we have absolutely no equivalent to reduce our methane emissions. However, all scientists tell us that the climate challenges are now, that our ability to maintain a world that warms by less than two degrees in 2100, is now happening. And therefore not having strong methane reduction targets today, when methane emits 80 times more greenhouse gases than CO2, is just absurd and irresponsible. That is why, in the text we are going to vote on this week, we, Parliament, call on the Commission, by law, to put in place a legally binding target to reduce our methane emissions across the economy. Admittedly, this text only deals with energy emissions, and we will have to go back in detail on these elements. And I think we need to put it in a more global context, which is that we have to go and get our methane emissions as we do for our CO2 emissions, if we want to be consistent in terms of climate. We also have a global commitment that we made in Glasgow, which must be broken down sector by sector. However, there are three key sectors for methane emissions: energy, industry, agriculture. We will start, with this text, with energy and the European Parliament, here too, takes things seriously. When we look at our emissions of methane, coal, gas and oil, the bulk comes from gas and oil. Are we very big producers of gas and oil? No, no. Most of our consumption, and therefore methane emissions associated with our consumption, are linked to our imports. However, the Commission's initial proposal does not cover imports of oil, gas and coal. This means that the vast majority of the impact that we can have by adopting texts that will make it possible, for example, to reduce methane leaks, is missing out, since most of our impact is linked to our imports. That is why one of the key measures of the proposals that will be put to the vote this week is precisely to include imports of coal, gas and oil in the scope of the text on energy methane. Let me now turn to the fact that we voted in the Committees on Industry and the Environment, together with an extremely large majority, on a balanced compromise which, I repeat, brought together both the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Industry. So I have to say that I am very surprised to see that our EPP colleagues come back to the key elements of the very widely voted agreement, including by them, in the Committee on Industry and in the Committee on the Environment. At some point, dear friends of the EPP, it is necessary to know how to move on. We have voted for a compromise, we are moving forward and now we must be united in defending these proposals in the face of the Council, which is gradually seeking to cut them. I hope that none of the compromises that will seek to call into question the texts voted in committee a few weeks ago will pass this week in plenary and that we will have a strong, ambitious mandate that is consistent with our climate action in the face of the negotiations that will be difficult in the coming months on this subject. I am counting on you, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we can really be proud to vote for this text, which is a world first. We can be proud first of all as the European Parliament, since it was largely we who initiated this text two years ago and pushed the Commission to act, the Member States to accept. So now, tomorrow, we have the opportunity to vote definitively on the world's first law that will end imported deforestation. The second reason to be proud is that we owe it to Europeans. All opinion polls show that Europeans do not want to contribute to deforestation, but they did not have the opportunity to know, when they have a cup of coffee in the morning, or a cup of chocolate, that in fact, de facto, they are complicit in imported deforestation, deforestation in the Amazon or forests in Southeast Asia or Central Africa. Well, we will put an end to this and we will guarantee them that they will no longer be unwittingly complicit in this deforestation. And this, I believe, is a strong element of European added value. The third element is that by doing so, we are pulling the rest of the world up. Already, in the United States, there is a debate about whether the United States should follow what Europe has just done. We are using the power of our single market, which is the world's leading market, to set the rules of the game that are pulling globalisation up. For all this, we can be very proud of tomorrow's vote for this text against imported deforestation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that this summer we have all touched on the consequences of climate change through drought, forest fires, heat waves and reduced agricultural yields. This must lead us to act differently tomorrow. In Europe, we are already doing a lot, through the Green Deal, to reduce our CO2 emissions, but we are not yet doing enough to make ourselves more resilient, to make our continent resilient to climate shocks. And that is why, in the coming hours, what I expect from the President of the Commission’s speech is that she launches a major initiative to organise resilience tests of Europe’s major infrastructures: rivers, power plants, ports, which are not adapted to climate shocks and are not resilient. These are major European issues. These are issues for our economy, for our competitiveness, for our way of life. Let’s stop being blind to the consequences of this climate shock that is going to happen anyway and now really prepare for the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, we can be proud of the text we are going to vote on imported deforestation. This is a world first. We are the first in the world to say: "Stop, we stop bringing into our market products like coffee, cocoa, palm oil, soybeans that come from deforestation of tropical forests". And this example is a great example of how powerful Europe is when it uses its single market to set the rules for globalisation. This is being done today against deforestation. This is also done with the carbon taxation mechanism of our imports. These are very concrete examples of how Europe is taking back control of globalisation and setting its own rules of the game. I believe that we can be proud because we are also going to protect all Europeans who are now, in fact, unknowingly complicit in deforestation. With this text, they will be guaranteed that they will no longer contribute to deforestation in the Amazon, for example.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago we failed and as a Parliament it was a collective failure. It was a failure for the climate and it was a failure for this institution. And in 15 days – in just 15 days – we have managed to turn the situation around and find the compromises that I hope will allow us to vote overwhelmingly on the biggest climate package ever voted for in Europe. First, with a reform of the carbon market that will allow us to have the highest price in the world, from very, very far, and we are here. Then, with a world first: the carbon border tax, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and also a social climate fund that allows us to make the transition, but to do it in a fair way. I recall what Peter Liese said just now, we have also taken into account the exceptional situation we are in, with energy prices already very high for our citizens and for our businesses. So we found the necessary flexibilities for our industries and for the most vulnerable families and households. I thank the negotiators, Esther de Lange for the EPP, Mohammed Chahim, for the Socialist Group and all the negotiators of the three texts that are being voted on today. We worked hard. We have worked with a method of European cooperation, the only one that allows us to win both as an institution and for the climate. I therefore invite you to vote overwhelmingly on this result, it is a good result for Parliament, a good result for the climate. It is now or never.

Madam President, so again I think we all share the fact that we need to vote consistent text. These ones, the two on aviation and CORSIA, are a package which is not connected to three first texts. So the rapporteur and the negotiating team agrees on the fact that we can go ahead and proceed today with these two texts on CORSIA ETS aviation that are disconnected of substance from the three texts that we parked and sent back to ENVI.

Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, which contains the three texts mentioned above: the ETS, the Social Climate Fund and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, I can say that these three texts are linked. So if we refer the ETS back to committee and we have an agreement that is different from the one we have submitted to you today, we need to be able to transfer that agreement to both Esther de Lange's text on the Social Climate Fund and Mohamed Chahim's text on the CBAM. Otherwise, Parliament will vote incoherently. The three texts must be sent back to committee at the same time, so that we can return to plenary with, I hope, a broad and consistent majority for this Parliament and for the climate.

Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, Minister – dear Chrysoula – we are all bound in this Chamber by the European Climate Law. We voted for it. What does this law say? She says we need to be carbon neutral by 2050. To be carbon neutral in 2050, we need to stop selling cars that aren't 15 years ago. Why fifteen years ago? Because a car drives on average for 15 years on European roads. So if we do not end the sale of cars that are not zero CO2 emissions in 2035, it means that we cannot respect the Paris Agreement, that we cannot respect the European climate law. And if we do not do it for cars, tomorrow, next year, when we have to do it for trucks, it will be the same debate and we will fail. Then we will have given up doing it for the main sector emitting CO2. This means that we have effectively renounced climate neutrality, the Paris Agreement and respect for European climate law. This is what is at stake today, and we cannot compromise on this requirement. We must therefore vote for 100% zero emissions in 2035. But of course we must accompany social issues. There are many employees who will find jobs in the electric battery. We are creating giga-factories all over Europe to build electric batteries. We weren't building any electric batteries three years ago, we're going to be the second largest producers of electric batteries in the world in a few years. This is zero-carbon innovation, and I am surprised that the right is still in a completely past-oriented logic. But we will also accompany the losers. Don't hide your face: When you move from situation A to situation B, there are winners and there are losers. That is why this Parliament will vote on the Just Transition Fund for employees in the automotive industry, as we voted on the Just Transition Fund for employees affected, particularly in eastern Europe, by the energy transition. This is balance, climate ambition, industrial ambition, social justice. This is why we need to vote 100% zero-emission vehicles in 2035.

We have no chance to succeed in the green transition if we do not do so with industry. It is not we, politicians, who produce, who innovate, who invest. So we have to do it with the industry, but with the industry that wants to go in this direction, the industry that wants to invest in decarbonised solutions, to invent the zero-carbon industry, zero-carbon mobility. And we have allies in this part of the industry. I also note, because lobbying has been extraordinarily intense in recent days in the European Parliament, that there are in part of the industry those who do not want to move, those who do not want to move and who have not understood that a large part of tomorrow’s competitiveness depends precisely on their ability to have zero-carbon technologies. Well, we will take responsibility, partnering with progressive industry to move forward for the climate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President, tomorrow's vote is historic. It is historic because, clearly, Europe will not look like it is today, our daily life will not look like it is today if we vote well for this week's climate package. We have global firsts in this package, for example the famous carbon border tax – the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have been talking about it for twenty years, we will finally do it, and we are the first area in the world to make such a decision, to put the climate issue in the rules of the trade game, to ensure that those who import to Europe from China, Turkey or elsewhere pay exactly the same price for carbon as our industrialists. It is a question of justice, it is a question of competitiveness, and, of course, it is a question of climate efficiency. Finally we are at this appointment! We are also at the meeting of climate justice, and that is why, Mr Vice-President, we did not support – and this is the only point of disagreement we have with the Commission’s proposal, but it is a real point of disagreement – we did not support the proposal to introduce a carbon price for individuals on heating and on car fuels. We consider this measure politically risky. It will be exploited as it has just been by the far right. It is likely to fracture our societies, and that is why we have refused it. Moreover, the compromise we found in the Committee on the Environment will not be reopened. It will not be reopened in plenary as no group had the will to do so. We will therefore apply a higher carbon price for industry, higher for road transport, for heating commercial buildings, but not for individuals: it was a red line for us, and we got an agreement on that. Last element: climate ambition. As you said, Mr Timmermans, we must meet the objectives of the Climate Law. And I see, when I look at all the amendments that come from the European right – let alone, of course, those from the far right – all the amendments that come from the EPP put together, that there is no longer any climate ambition, neither for cars, nor for industry, nor for aviation, nor for maritime transport. So I say to the European right: Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid to vote for the climate, stop being in the hands of lobbies, and we will all build the future together. (The speaker agreed to reply to a blue card intervention)

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not one of those who think that Europe was not active enough at COP26. I have seen these criticisms. Together with Peter Liese, I chaired the European Parliament delegation in Glasgow and I saw you, Vice-President Frans Timmermans, active on all fronts. I saw Europe active in defending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, I saw Europe active in convincing China and the US to do more, I saw Europe active in solidarity with the most vulnerable countries. So I do not share the criticisms that have been directed at you. But the consequences of COP26 must be drawn for us here in Brussels and Strasbourg. What does that mean? This means first of all that we have to face up to our own commitment for 2030, which is in line with the 2 degrees, but which is not in line with the 1.5 degree target, as we know. The commitment we made in Glasgow, which the main issuers made in Glasgow – China, the United States and us – is to put our 2030 target back on track to align it with the 1.5-degree target. So we, the European Parliament – and this is my invitation to all political groups today – must take an initiative to rework the 2030 commitment so that it is in line with the 1.5-degree target. This is the commitment we made in Glasgow. If we do not, how can we put pressure on the US and China to do so? The second element is that now all your post-Glasgow and post-European climate law proposals need to be truly aligned with climate objectives. You did that, and I congratulate you on that, with the world’s first law against imported deforestation. This is a major project supported by the European Parliament. You have been up to the task and we will continue to improve this text. But this is not the case for the ‘methane strategy’. The methane strategy is starting to come out. You yourself, Frans Timmermans, have been the leader of a global methane strategy, with ambitious targets. But when, a few days later, you pull out the European strategy, it is not aligned with the objectives you have set at global level. It will therefore have to be reworked – it is still in the European Commission, you have several weeks to do so. Other element: the list of projects of general interest that we are going to finance. We asked you in the European Parliament, the Renew Group told you last time: we will not vote on a new list of gas projects if they are not aligned with the requirements of the Green Deal and climate neutrality. What is coming out is absolutely not in line with the 1.5 degree target and I therefore strongly urge you to revise this list. Otherwise, I believe that the European Parliament will have to oppose it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Vestager, we strongly support the European Commission’s initiative to revise State aid in line with the Green Deal. Such State aid must indeed allow the necessary investments, both by private companies but also in support of public authorities. And you are right to point out that if we have to have more flexibility, we also need safeguards. So, in order to sort out what should be the subject of specific State aid compared to the Green Deal, I invite you to use the principle of not harming the taxonomy, which allows you to say ‘this project must be part of the Green Deal, it must be accompanied by more flexibility’ or, on the contrary, ‘this project is dangerous, so it must not be the subject of particular State aid, or even State aid at all’. I think that by using this principle, you have the safeguards you need.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I have three lessons from this debate and this crisis. The first is that there is a very large majority in this Parliament to say that this crisis must help speed up the Green Deal, accelerate the deployment of renewables and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is very important that there is this very broad political consensus – as you also said, Commissioner, this is the Commission’s position – because it did not exist before. Therefore, this crisis needs to be addressed to accelerate the transition to more renewables and energy efficiency and less reliance on fossil fuels. The second lesson is that I am surprised that no one is asking who won the increase in energy prices. We all know, as politicians, who lost, but who won? Who made superprofits, who sold on the spot market at astronomical prices, without any comparison with its production costs? I expect the European Commission to inform this debate. What are the total additional tax revenues for Member States? What are the revenues from rising carbon prices, far beyond what we anticipated ourselves? These debates must take place around a table so that the rents and over-profits that have been created, any speculative behaviour that has taken place can then be fairly distributed and those who are the victims of this increase in the price of gas can be helped. And the third lesson is that I do not see how, in this context, you can continue to support, Commissioner, the increase in the price of CO2 on heating, when you yourself are saying that the increase in the price of gas on heating must be limited.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, this is an exciting and unprecedented moment. Unprecedented, because this is the first time that we in the European Parliament have had the opportunity to say yes to the Commission's proposal to end the marketing of petrol and diesel cars, fossil fuel cars, to move to a new generation, including electric cars. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to say yes to a carbon border adjustment mechanism that will bring climate, carbon, into the international trade arena, and we will be the first in the world to do so. We have the opportunity to say yes to the expansion of the maritime sector in the carbon market. Again, this is the first time in the world that a political entity has decided to integrate the maritime sector to make it pay the right price for carbon. And all this, the Renew group fully supports it, totally. As you know, Mr Timmermans, we are very sceptical about one part of the grand climate plan that you are proposing, namely the extension of the carbon market to buildings and transport, because we consider that the political cost is very high and the climate impact is very low. So we will make alternative proposals, the teams of the Renew Group are already working to make these alternative proposals and restructure this proposal that comes from the Commission and that does not suit us. But I also wanted to ask you, Mr Timmermans: in the climate law, we have agreed on the possibility for the European Commission to tell the Council and Parliament, at every stage of the legislative process, whether we are still in line with the 57% target. Because, as you know, we negotiated more than less than 55%, that is to say, less than 57%. How will you proceed? How will you start tomorrow in the next discussions in the Environment Committee, in the votes in the Environment Committee and in the other associated committees? When voting in plenary and in the Council? How are you going to guide us, in a way, to make sure that we are not going to derail under the weight of certain lobbies? I heard Peter Liese already defending the non-end of thermal vehicles in 2035 to move towards new fossil technologies. We will have dozens and dozens of proposals that risk weakening the climate package. We need you to activate the climate law and make sure we're on the right track.