Speeches

Madam President, good morning also to the President of the Commission, but especially, of course, very much welcome to you, Mr Costa, as President of the Council. We're very happy you're here. Indeed, as my colleague already said, it didn't happen that often that the Council President was present in Parliament, and I do think it's good that you are showing that you are willing to open up this debate with the European Parliament, because there's a lot at stake, and the Council has a lot of challenges. If we look at the situation of Europe, to our east we have a dictator that is willing to go to war in countries like Ukraine. To our west, in the United States, we have a capitalist autocrat. I can't mention it differently. You have to be more diplomatic, so I can say that. But also on our southern side, of course, in the Middle East, there's turmoil continuously. So we need a Council that is stepping up, that is fighting for a strong Europe and replying to that. But let's be honest, the councils have become a bit obligatory. If you read the Council conclusions – and I think less and less people read those Council conclusions – I just want to mention one example. With all these challenges, EU and the world, and what do the Council conclusions say? 'The European Council held a strategic discussion on the EU's global engagement and priorities in the current geopolitical context.' That's it. That was it! It's great you had that discussion, but what does it mean? What does it mean? And also, here, when the President is saying 'our values will not change', then I hope that you will also challenge the leaders of Europe more in these discussions, because our international credibility is at stake. If we are saying the rule of law is important, international law is important, but when there is a ruling from the International Criminal Court and there is an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and some of our leaders are saying 'we're not going to follow that through', then we have a credibility problem. That should be discussed and not only these lovely broad sentences. We also need more targeted councils, I think, and therefore I very much welcome your specific council on 3 February on defence, because I do think these general councils discussing everything are not solving a lot. We need to have more focus and be challenging enough to each other and therefore I'm happy also that the Commission will come forward with its Competitiveness Compass and that also you already said in March you want to discuss that, because Draghi said this is an urgent matter and it needs to be addressed now. But he said that in September last year. So the urgency is maybe a bit relative here. And I know here Trump is of course changing the world but I think we need to be more proactive and more trusting in each other, because Trump is shooting himself in the foot as well. In his energy definitions, now even renewables are not defined as an energy source any more. What will that do, with all the investors that want to invest in renewables? It is a chance for Europe. And it's the same that he's pausing the Inflation Reduction Act. So he is creating uncertainty in the United States. That is a chance for Europe, but then we need to step up. Then we need to talk about the investment gap. Then we need to talk about maybe not always the bureaucracy on reporting, but the bureaucracy in our State aid rules, access to finance. That's what we should be discussing and not always get distracted by only the blah-blah on red tape but really look at what is hampering our industry. And, therefore, we also need more rules on lead markets, we need more energy cooperation, cross-border infrastructure: that's what we need. And that's also where we hopefully can be more concrete when we are expecting a clean industrial deal from the Commission and the Council to discuss that. We are ready. I hope the Council is as well.

Madam President, it was a very difficult decision for our group, and you know very well we are still of the opinion making Fitto Executive Vice-President of this Commission is a mistake. People that say, 'He is not far right,' tell that to the mothers in Italy whose rights to have children together have been taken away just because they want to live together. Tell that to the judges who are criticised by the government for just doing their job. And tell that to the journalists who feel under pressure more and more just to do their job independently. We as a Green group will always fight for an open and an inclusive society where everyone feels welcome and can love whoever they want. But we see as well that much work lies ahead of us: the climate crisis is accelerating; wars to our east and south threaten our democracy and credibility; our industry is under pressure of China and US; and people fight for the cost of their living. We see a Commission that wants to work with us, and we want too, to work on climate adaptation, to work on a clean industrial act, to work on the energy transition, to work on a just transition for everyone, to work on a stronger rule of law. But also, we will make sure that the simplification agenda will not be a deregulation agenda. It was a difficult decision for us also because of the parliamentary process. And I am just going to say that there is a big responsibility for the biggest group: being harder on a respected minister from the Social Democrats than you were on a Fidesz candidate that called us idiots. How could you do that? So let us at least learn one thing. Let never any more national politics get back into this arena.

Madam President, more than 200 people died. That should be the focus of this debate. It feels as if I'm in the Spanish Parliament, where we are blaming each other instead of sincerely looking at the victims of this disaster, and that should be the core of this debate. Some people said it, and after 30 seconds it was a political play and a political game. That is not honouring the victims. What is the big problem is that, for years, climate change has been denied, has been ignored and climate action has been frustrated: that is the problem. There are always natural disasters, but we also know that the natural disasters that we are seeing in Europe are being aggravated by climate change. The heating of the Mediterranean Sea is causing an increase of the hydrological cycle that is impacting regions all over Europe, and that should be the debate. Thank you, Commission, for also the action that Europe is taking, because that is European solidarity, and standing with the Spanish victims is also what a European debate should be doing. Where were those people that are now having a big mouth? Where were they when we were discussing the report of the Environment Action Programme that is saying that Europe is not prepared for environmental disasters because of climate change? VOX was not there then, they were just doing something else. VOX is not here anymore, by the way: they do their one minute of speech and then walk out of the room, that is the politics. We need to discuss better preparedness and to make sure that also we are not reducing our climate impact, but that we are better prepared for climate adaptation with nature-based solutions. That should be the debate instead of this shameful political arena. Shame on you.

Mr President, maybe I have to break a bit with this kind of repetition of arguments that we now see basically in the upcoming Council. Charles Michel even couldn't come to Strasbourg to celebrate his last Council, and if you read the draft conclusions, I think you can see that these are his last Council meetings, because there is no inspiration, there's no energy. It's a repetition of empty words, it's postponing things. It's really, I mean, what are we going to do in October? In that sense, we are looking forward to a new Council, new leadership, and maybe a bit more energy into it, because this Council and all the draft conclusions are not very attractive, I would say. And therefore, if I just go a bit through all the different themes, I can say that one red thread that I can see through all these themes is that our credibility is at stake. Who really believes these empty words that we are putting in the draft conclusions? For example, on Ukraine, again, strong words on Ukraine, and we support that. Also as Greens, we do think something needs to happen and Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself, but then we still need to finalise the work on the European Peace Facility. Ukraine is still hampered to use its facilities outside its borders to protect itself. And indeed frozen Russian assets – it has been discussed what to do with it for many times. The Commission is putting proposals there but the Council is acting slow. And if you read the conclusions, then we will again come back to the matter, you will discuss it again, but when do you now finally take some additional action? It's the same with the Middle East. Again, our credibility is at stake. In the draft conclusions, rightfully so, we are very clearly condemning the Iranian attacks on Israel. But then, when we talk about Lebanon, we are talking about 'the escalation in Lebanon', as if there is not a clear also role there for the State of Israel playing there. When is the Council also finally going to take action on the regime of Netanyahu and make that explicit, instead of every time the vague words that 'we want a ceasefire'? Yes, we want a ceasefire, but we need clear words. We need a credible European Union. And we don't have that at this moment. Double standards: we see that in migration, double standards and vague words. We see that in competitiveness. And I think I want to close with that one, because Draghi made very clear that we need decarbonisation and economic competitiveness, together, and it is an urgency. It was a wake-up call of Draghi. What is the Council conclusion saying? 'We will come back to that matter in November.' That's the state of the Council. We are very much looking forward to a Council that has more energy to really solve the issues of Europe, because it is urgent and our credibility is at stake.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we don't have to look far for an industry in crisis. In the heart of Europe, 3 000 workers building state-of-the-art electric vehicles are possibly losing their jobs at Audi Brussels. This is not an incident, but a key example of the fundamental challenge Europe's industry is facing. For decades, Europe has disregarded its industrial policy, closing its eyes for the new economic and geopolitical reality. And that's what Mr Draghi called the paralysis. And when we opened the eyes, China and the US had built new industrial bases, exporting clean tech and digital innovations. Now that Europe has realised the future of das Auto is electric, it feels like it might be too late. But it does not have to be too late, colleagues. Mr Draghi is offering us some examples and answers to that. Decarbonisation can and should be a source of competitiveness and the driver for new industrial development within Europe. That's green industrial policy that's at the heart of Europe and should be. And we can offer Europeans a future and millions of green-collar jobs. And this is possible, but we need to do a couple of things, and that's also what Mr Draghi said: build a true European power grid and affordable renewable energy for both citizens and industry. We need to finally start coordinating cross-border connections and use our market power on the world stage. Second, modernise our industrial base, providing green steel, paper, chemicals. We will need investments in all Member States and not only the big ones. And to my German Christian Democratic colleagues, an Alleingang will rip up the single market of Europe. And secure European production of clean tech like heat pumps, vehicles and wind turbines mentioned by Mr Draghi as well. We have to create a demand for European production. Europeans have to be able to afford European solutions. But there is also criticism to give to the report. A thriving future is not built on technology and capital alone. It's the people and our environment who are the real source of prosperity. How would we farm without nature? What would we drink without clean water? What would we produce without people, quality jobs and a more equal society? Europe has to be more than a great place to invest in; it has to be the best place to work and to live. And that is our common assignment. We have done it before, from Marshall to Draghi, let's rebuild Europe's economy, and stop the paralysis and dare to dream of a new green economy.

Mr President, thank you. And also, thank you for the applause before I even spoke. Last Monday, this Monday, it was Earth Day 2024, and also, again, the European State of the Climate Report has been published and it is full of very clear messages: 2023 was the warmest year on record; again, the average sea surface temperature across Europe was the highest on record; the Alps, which have seen glaciers lose around 10% of their remaining volume; and in the past 20 years, heat-related deaths are estimated to have increased by 94%. Weather- and climate-related economic losses in 2023 are estimated at more than EUR 13.4 billion. That’s the state of the climate, and we’re only at the beginning because every emission that we are still doing is piling up in this atmosphere and is building up impacts that we are still going to see. Remember 2015, when we signed up to the Paris Agreement, where we promised the world, ‘We want to stay below a warming of 1.5 degrees’? Remember 2019, when this whole House said, ‘We support the Green Deal. We work for climate neutrality’? Remember 2020, when this House in a full majority said, ‘There is a state of climate emergency’? Those were the days. Those were the days where also the conservatives were very clear, making the point, ‘We need urgent action on climate’, and what have we seen? We’ve seen stalling. We’ve seen pressuring. We’ve been watering down: on nature restoration, on deforestation, on pesticides, on packaging, on electric vehicles. On all these files, we have seen conservatives and the right weakening, pressuring down and watering down legislation. And they are giving false promises. This afternoon we will vote on agriculture again, and here the right will say, ‘We are going to weaken your environmental provisions because then everything will be fine for you’. But is that what is the problem of our farmers? The problem of our farmers is not environmental legislation. It is that they’re not getting a fair price for their production. So I will challenge you. We have amendments this afternoon where we are going to ask for transparency in the food chain so that we know what farmers can get. We have amendments that are capping the subsidies so that our subsidy system will not go to the big farms, but to the small farmers. We are challenging you. Are you willing to really pick up a fight for our farmers, or are you just making sound and not helping any farmer at all? And we will see the same on industrial policy. In industrial policy, the right is talking about the problems of competitiveness. What are the real problems? The real problem is a lack of a European strategy, a lack of European investments, and a lack of clarity that the Green Deal is our future industrial deal. That clarity, that is lacking. So therefore, dear colleagues, these elections will be about the Green Deal, the future of the Green Deal, the future of European competitiveness, the future of a real fair income for our farmers. And therefore we are calling, ‘Let’s make these elections the Green Deal elections’, and let’s make sure that we are continuing our fight because we need to pick it up. And it is time that the right is getting his head out of the sand again and start working. We will do so.

Mr President, we are in a position of a crucial decade for investments within Europe. Talking about the Green Deal and our competitiveness that we had in the previous discussion. Investments are crucial for European competitiveness and, if we look around the world, Europe is lagging behind. On defence, a lot of our colleagues are also pressing investments in defence. We need to build up Ukraine, which will be massive investments. This decade will be a decade of investments or we will lose out as a European Union. And then look what’s happening. Will there be a continuation of the RF? Probably not. Countries will block it. Will there be an MFF review that will be sincere? Well, even the mid-term review was a joke. Then Capital Markets Union: it’s being blocked. Will there then be any sustainable finance to guide private financing to the right sources? It’s stalled and being halted and no movement there. And now on top of that, we are going to limit the possibilities of national governments to invest by this reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, we are tying ourselves down where there should be a decade of investments. This is stupidity.

Madam President, this proposal was, of course, being published on a late Friday by the Commission as a simplification of the CAP proposal. This is being brought by some of you as one of the big ways of alleviating pressure on our farmers. We more see it as, on a last minute, even with some legal unclarity and legal questions by the Legal Service on an urgent procedure to really simplify a CAP procedure, which is, in its core, downgrading the Green Deal. That deserves a public debate and a Plenary debate. So, quite astonished that that was not carried in the Conference of Presidents. But we can fix this as Plenary, and even those who are happy with the proposal, then I still think they would like to talk about it and to declare why they are happy, and then we can declare our dissatisfaction. Therefore we would like to have a Plenary debate tomorrow, and we would like to ask it with a roll-call vote.

Madam President, we Greens really deplore this decision to go into an urgency procedure on this proposal by the Commission. This will undermine our democratic procedures. We have discussed, colleagues, for years, the CAP proposal. For years. And we approved it as a Parliament, by the way. You approved it as a Parliament. We Greens voted against the CAP because it’s an unjust and unfair system. Therefore, we do understand the protests of the farmers, because it is true that the current economic system is unfair to our farmers. The profits are with the big agrochemical industry and not the farmers. Therefore, we have seen fundamental problems in our agriculture system. Over the last 20 years, one third of farmers have disappeared in Europe because of a failing economic system. These proposals will not solve anything and the Commission knows: there is no impact assessment; there is no legal assessment yet. This proposal has nothing to do with reality, and it’s not solving anything and it’s undermining our democratic procedures. Therefore, we deplore this decision.

Mr President, colleagues, Commission, thank you, we are standing here for a pretty disappointing deal, to be very honest. We all know that the most effective way of dealing with pollution is source policies – making sure that at the source, we are reducing it, and we are hardly doing that in this deal. First of all, and this is a question to the Commission on the cars, or the light duty vehicles: it is the same as Euro 6. So can you not just now already say that you are not going to use Euro 7and just call it what it is? It’s Euro 6. If not, then probably we need your green claims proposal because it will be greenwashing by pretending that we are cleaning up the cars more, although they are not. So let me be very clear on that. But secondly, by failing at the European level with these very efficient source policies, we are pushing all the responsibilities to local communities and to local governments. In the cities, they will be forced to act on it, because it is the people that are breathing bad air in those cities and it is partly because of road transport. And this means that we are now pushing the responsibility to the local governments to put in ‘Umwelt zones’ and all that. And then, of course, the same politicians here agreeing with this will start complaining about it. But that is the result of complacency here, we are pushing the responsibility to there where they can hardly act. And that is a failure of this proposal. So the Greens will vote against it.

Madam President, first of all, thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation and also for the communication. I think it’s a good summary of the EEA report of yesterday. So it’s great that the Commission has made that summary. But to be very honest, I would have expected a bit more of a political document from the Commission as a response to the EEA’s report. But maybe I was having the wrong expectations. Maybe just to put down some of the key conclusions of the EEA report: Europe is one of the fastest warming continents in the world, so climate change is hitting Europe harder. What is also clear from the report is that the social and economic cohesion of Europe is at stake because it will be the most vulnerable, suffering the most. And it is also very clear that the current policies in place are insufficient to manage almost 90% of the key risks identified. So these are all very serious conclusions from the report. So then I would expect the Commission to reply to that. For example, on agriculture – we always come to that. The EEA report is also very clear that the current CAP proposals are insufficient and are making it even worse. So I’m looking forward to the communication of the Commission this Friday, when they’re going to do something on the CAP provisions. But if I’m well informed, you will even simplify CAP provisions, making it even worse if we talk about what we need to do to address climate change. But maybe I’m not well informed and you can correct me. And maybe, finally, the Commission will take action on the CAP to make sure that it will improve the situation instead of worsen. Just a last comment: please, Commission, if you conclude your communication by saying ‘we will continue to work with the Member States’, we need a bit more action if the concerns are that serious.

Mr President, Madam President Lagarde, I have the feeling we are thrown back into time if I hear some of my colleagues who are talking about economic policies. Yes, we need a lot of investment. Europe needs a lot of investment. And indeed, policies need to be aligned with that. And I think it was very good, Madam Lagarde, that you were also pointing out that Europe needs investments. And I think, if I hear the concerns on inflation, I’m very happy that you are correcting some of the parts in the report that are pretending as if inflation is still our biggest concern, because – as you rightfully say – indeed, also core inflation is going down. I think our biggest problem now is the lack of investment and indeed the lack of independence, as you say as well. But that means that we have to look at our current policies and the ECB also has to look at its current policies, and I do think we need to debate now the loosening, because we’ve heard some German hawks here who probably only want to discuss further tightening. But I do think that we have to just be having a rational debate on loosening up some of the policies and then mainly on loosening up the policies that allows for investments in renewables, for example. When you say, Madam Lagarde, that investments in renewables are so important, then we need to start talking about targeted green lending, differentiated lending rates, because that is not the issue of that is not possible right now. There are more and more policymakers speaking for that. There are, in the ECB, people talking about that, because they are knowledgeable on green issues – that apparently is also not allowed anymore, it’s interesting. But I would like to hear from you: are you willing to discuss and to propose that there will be targeted green lending and that there will be loosening for green expenditure? Because that is absolutely needed. And we know that for renewables, we need upfront investment. So stricter rental rates are disproportionately hitting investments in renewables.

Mr President, first of all, thank you to the Commission for this communication. Now to those who are now so surprised by it: first of all, we have international negotiations. Already in 2015, in the Paris Agreement, it was very clearly promised that every five years we needed a continuous debate for our targets later on. So, in 2015, when everyone was applauding Paris, you knew that between 2023 and 2025, we need to discuss 2035. Well, the Commission makes that 2040. This was everything part of the Paris Agreement, but maybe some people forgot about that. By the way, in the Climate Law, we said ‘within six months of the global stocktake, we will come up with this discussion,’ and the global stocktake was in Dubai. So we have to do this. People who are surprised now, maybe they should read why they voted for the climate law, because then you agreed with this time path. On the number, 90 %, there I have to say that that if you read the advisory board very clearly, they say you need to sit between 90-95 %. If you are serious, looking at our historical responsibility and the possibilities of our CO2 budget, basically even we should be climate neutral by 2040. That’s what science is telling us. So 90% is on the low end, but we know the difficulty. So we can welcome the 90% also because it was promised before in October. Then, how are we going to reach that 90 %? First of all, we need to give a very clear signal for the end of fossil in the electricity system. Somewhere there, some sentences have improved. But, on the other hand, you said, Mr Hoekstra, in Dubai, don’t CCS your way out of the problem. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there is a lot of CCS-ing out of the problem by Europe now. Even up to the amount of 400 million tons of CO2; even the CCS lobby is only counting on 300. So, you are overshooting the CCS lobby. That’s impressive. Maybe the last point: you deleted everything on agriculture. Please don’t make the Dutch mistake by not talking about the agriculture. It doesn’t solve the problems. Suddenly you get court cases and everything. So, maybe we need to start talking about the agriculture. You put it away in this communication, but that doesn’t make the problem go away.

Madam President, I think the reason for the request is quite clear: we are seeing droughts all over Europe happening. The climate crisis is hitting us as we speak, and I think we as Europe need to really be better in our water strategy on that. I know that other political groups have also come up with this item, so this title from us is an attempt to bring the different ideas together, and therefore I will repeat it once – you said it already, but it’s always good to have it once more. So it will be a Commission statement on ‘Water crisis and droughts in the EU as a consequence of the global climate crisis and the need for a sustainable, resilient water strategy for Europe’. We would like to put it forward as a roll-call vote, no resolution and indeed, on the second item on the Tuesday afternoon.

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank everyone for contributing to the debate. It seems we have a solid majority for the vote tomorrow, and I'm really very thankful to the shadows and all the colleagues who contributed. So thanks very much for that. I just have to say that some colleagues expressed some criticism, but I had the feeling that this was more for their own YouTube channel than it was based on the facts of the legislation. Maybe I just want to explain that, and maybe they can add this element then to their YouTube channel – which they probably will not do, but nevertheless you always have to try. First of all, to Mr Nissinen from the ECR and Sweden. He was very much concerned about what is going to happen with all the people that have already bought heat pumps – uh, nothing, because this is about new equipment. So later on when you buy a heat pump, it will not contain those damaging gases. The ones you bought, you can use and you will use – you know that very well, but of course it didn't fit your story. Some of the ID colleagues were very much concerned that we are not looking at the market. Well I would say, Mr Lancini, that it is you who are not looking at the market. First of all, at this moment, the new monoblocs of heat pumps coming on the market already are without F-Gases. So the market is already there. The deadline we have is 2032, although they can deliver already now. So if we add them eight more years and they can deliver already and you are concerned they count, maybe you should catch up with the developments in the market. The same goes for split systems. The innovation is ongoing. They are delivering already now, they are available not so much yet, and that's why therefore the date is 2035. We even give them ten years. I think that is looking at the market. It is also looking at where the innovation is happening and that is European industry. So from an ID Group I would expect support for the European industry, but apparently they prefer to support the American and Japanese industry. We take note.

Mr President, we are tomorrow going to vote on the revision of the F-Gas Regulation, which indeed I think is a very good example of a regulation that is improving our circumstances for our environment, but at the same time improving European competitiveness and European industry. First of all, I really would like to thank all the shadows for their negotiations and their support, and of course also the Council and the Commission for all their work in achieving this compromise. The F-Gas Regulation is existing, of course. The current one was already reducing our F-gas emissions and, just reminding, F-gases are very potent greenhouse gases. So, in the number of molecules we don't emit as much CO2, but some of those have an impact on the global warming potential, even up to 24 000. So that means one molecule has 24 000 times more of an impact on global warming than one molecule of CO2. So, this is the low-hanging fruit that we need to achieve. Already the existing regulation is reducing the use and the emissions of F-gases – and more or less two thirds of that is being reduced – with this regulation and achieving zero emissions by 2050, it means that all the F-gases will be out of our economy and will be replaced by natural alternatives, and that is a very clear prospect for all the investors from now on. If you are working on heat pumps and conditioning cooling systems, you know where to go to. You need to invest in the natural alternatives, and that is the very clear point to go to. This is also one of the first sectors that is then really achieving zero emissions that we have promised to achieve for the entire economy by 2050. In that sense, I think it's another good example of how this law can work. Of course, there were considerations and concerns about the heat pumps, which of course also demands a fast acceleration. I think, thanks to the negotiations with Council and my colleagues and the Commission, we have had a good compromise that is giving a clear signal also for the market, certainly for the heat pumps for consumers, but at the same time also making sure that this acceleration of expansion of heat pumps can be achieved. Also part of the concern was that if we are moving from F-gases with lower potential, we could be moving to chemicals that fall under the category of PFAs. I think that also gives you another very clear example, that  moving to the natural alternatives in some of these applications is very important. Maybe a very last point. This sector is having innovation mainly within Europe. If we are looking at the use of F-gases, it is mainly done by non-European industrial players. It's the European industrial players that are investing in the natural alternatives and are ahead of the game. So this regulation and this revision of the regulation is a support for European innovation, for achieving natural alternatives. And that not only makes this a very good environmental law, but it also makes it a very strong law for European competitiveness. I think that is a very important message to give, that environmental legislation can go hand in hand with good economic regulation. So with that, I would like to thank everyone, and I hope for a good approval tomorrow in the plenary. I'm looking forward to then the implementation by the Commission, to move as fast as possible to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and in this sector to achieve zero emissions by 2050.

Mr President, I thank colleagues for this interesting vote – very tight vote sometimes, but we made it. So I want to thank everyone, especially the shadows, and I would like to ask now for referral back to the committee for immediate start of interinstitutional negotiations, according to Rule 59(4).

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues and certainly, of course, specifically our shadows for the very good discussions we had and also the exchange of views we had today in this plenary. And I really would like to thank everyone for that. Just saying that in some of the contributions sometimes, well, the truth is bent to a large extent, I would say, to the level even – and it is a pity that Ms Sardone is not even there anymore – but claiming there is no impact assessment on this. There is a huge impact assessment. Maybe she missed the hundreds of pages on the internet, but I can still send it around. But please, people, stick to the facts when we are discussing this file. There is a lot of impact assessment on the table. Also, I really want to stress, on trucks and buses, Europe is in the lead in electrification. In cars, we are losing out. We are catching up. But we are late in the game. In trucks and buses, Europe is still in the lead but we cannot –and I repeat, we cannot – just lie low and think that innovation will come without any effort. If we want to make sure that we keep on leading this, then we need to progress and we need to step forward. And that is exactly what this proposal is going to do. I only want to go into the carbon correction factor at the end. People that are saying that fuels whatsoever are banned in this proposal, show me where. Show me where. It is nowhere banned. It will fall under the 90% reduction target and you can comply with it. So there is no ban on it. It is very technology neutral. So anyone claiming it is not really should stick to the facts. Then those who are now saying I want a common correction factor, and for that I need a broader definition of carbon neutrality of fuels, they are bending the truth as well. Even Peter Liese – my dear colleague, I have high esteem for you, pity you are not there – in your proposal you are saying that renewable liquid and gaseous fields of non-biological origin should be zero. However, in other European legislation it’s very clear those are being defined with the reduction of greenhouse gas by 70%. That is not zero. You can call it on paper zero, but in reality it is not. So cheating does not help here. So please colleagues, let us stick to the facts. Let us stay on course and support the report as it stands. And let us not mix it with all kinds of other dubious lobbies, because the only one fighting for carbon neutrality for fuels, it is the gas lobby. That is who you are doing for – all the truck manufacturers do not want it, so listen to them for once.

Mr President, thank you, colleagues. That was an interesting debate on pesticides. We now shift to heavy duty vehicles, trucks and buses. And also there we have some delegate issues on the table where hopefully we can stick to the facts. That would also be very nice in the debate we are going to have. First of all, on CO2 standards for trucks and buses, I think it is very important to realise that trucks are responsible for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions from road transport, so this shows how big the impact of our trucks are. This is, of course, a very crucial sector that we need to decarbonise towards 2050 in order to achieve our climate neutrality as the European Union. For that, we have put CO2 standards on the table before and we do see improvements, but we need to accelerate. We need to accelerate to make sure that we can be reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. To be very honest, I was critical about the Commission’s proposal and, to be very honest, I am still doubtful that with these numbers we will get to climate neutrality by 2050 in the trucks, which is one of the still easier sectors to abate than when we are talking about shipping aviation etc. But we have accepted these targets and we will push them forward in order to make sure that this decarbonisation will happen, and probably we could see some acceleration, even, of decarbonisation going beyond the targets that we have been putting on the table. So what is now on the table is a reduction of 45% by 2030, 70% by 2035 and 90% by 2040 – that is also very important, we are talking about 90% by 2040. Because in a lot of your contributions, we will probably start talking about carbon neutral fuels again, e-fuels etc. – they can all be part of the mix. When we were having a discussion about 100% reduction target for the cars, of course, there was a debate on it, but in this case we have a 90% reduction target. This allows for manufacturers to choose different technologies to deliver, and even if they cannot be 100% zero, they can still comply because the target is 90% by 2040. So that is very important to realise that, to be very honest, the e-fuel debate should not take place in this file. I know some are so attached to it that they want to even have that debate in this file, and I always wonder that those people talking about technology neutrality can only talk about e-fuels, so much for their technology neutrality. What we have done further in our report is expanded the scope also to vocational vehicles, but with an exception for fire trucks and other vehicles that are used for civil protection. So we mainly talking about garbage trucks, which, of course, can certainly decarbonise. We also have a target of zero emissions for city buses for 2030 there, with a very clear exemption until 2035 for those local governments who already invested in alternatives, because we do appreciate those activities and, of course, we do not want to cut that off by 2030. So I think all in all, a very balanced report with ambition that is very close to the Commission, with consideration of an expanding of the scope, also with good definitions of carbon neutrality and carbon neutral fuels. And for those who are saying that we still need something on the carbon correction factor because of carbon neutral fuels, read the letters being sent to us by Daimler, MAN, Volvo, Scania, who are all saying: do not do this, you are putting the burden on us, you are defacto slowing down the decarbonisation of this sector. And that is what you are trying to do. If you want to discuss e-fuels, please do so, but not on this file. Do not pollute that debate and let us make sure that we have a very clear report as a Parliament.

Madam President, today’s emissions gap report is indicating again that the world is on track, with the current pledges that we have seen, towards a warming of 2.5 to 2.9 degrees, which is double what we have promised the world. So, this COP is very crucial to change that course, because not only do we see these projections where there is a huge gap between what we want to do and what has been promised, we also see that warming is accelerating. This year will very likely become the warmest year ever on record, and 17 November has been the first day on record where we were warmer as a world than the 2 degrees, and we know there’s variability and it’s only one day, but for the first time, the world has gone beyond the 2 degrees threshold. This shows the urgency of action that we need to do, and therefore, this first global stocktake in Dubai will also be the credibility test of the Paris Agreement. Therefore, we need binding decisions on climate action, tripling renewables, doubling energy and efficiency, but most importantly, also the end of fossils – and there, to be very honest, dear Commissioner, again you squeeze in the word ‘unabated’ there. So, our Parliament is very clear in its resolution. We want the end of fossil fuels. I know that the Environment Council has come to a very broad definition on how they want to tackle it but I think it is important that we hear from you where you stand on the end of fossil fuels. Then exactly on this issue of unabated or abated, Parliament is clear: we need the end of fossil fuels. We also need the end of fossil subsidies by 2025. We need the end of environmental harmful subsidies by 2027. That’s all in the resolution. So, a clear Commission would be important there as well. But if we are going to fight for ambition, we need to be credible as Europe as well. We need to deliver on our financial promises. We need to deliver on loss and damage as well, so that the developing world can see that we are serious about tackling this issue for them and for us.

Mr President, sometimes you have the feeling that the Euro 7 debate was more about the car industry than it is about air quality, although this proposal is there to improve air quality – mainly in our cities, where road transport is still one of the biggest polluters in Europe, and where 70 000 people die prematurely because of bad air quality, because of road transport. That’s what we’re trying to address here. People are saying, of course, ‘we are trying here, we are moving to electric vehicles and that’s why we don’t need to do this.’ Well, the last standards that we are looking at now, Euro 6, they were formed in 2009, fifteen years ago, and the standards put in place in 2009 already could be met by technologies existing in 2009. What we are doing now is basically reinstalling Euro 6 standards and calling it Euro 7, but are not delivering any improvement on air quality, and at the same time claiming that our citizens will be improving. Is it needed when we are moving to electric? Well, be aware that any combustion engine that is still being sold until 2035 for cars will be on European roads until 2050. For trucks, we don’t even propose the end of the combustion engine, so they will be running on our streets even longer. Is it impossible? Even the Commission’s medium scenario showed the best cost-benefit ratio. The Commission already lowered their proposal, lowered the ambition in that proposal. We even further lower it. So anyone is saying that this is impossible to meet should read the impact assessment. Certainly the conservatives, who always love impact assessments. I think I have a final question to the Commission. If this is being adopted and indeed it is Euro 6, can you please hurry up the negotiations on the green claims, because this will be the best example of a greenwashing label.

Madam President. First of all, congratulations to the Executive Vice—President on the extension of his portfolio to include the Green Deal. So let’s start with the Green Deal. First of all, we are very happy to read about some of the proposals that will be forthcoming on micro-plastics, on the forest monitoring law and on animal transport. However, the S&D also raised the question of what will happen with all the other elements of the animal welfare package. That of course is they not going to be presented now, but how will that be proceeding? I am also very happy with the 2040 target and your personal commitment to fight for at least -90% in the hearings. That is very welcome. However, it’s very clear that the Green Deal has only started. This is a transition for decades to come and much more needs to be done. Let’s be very honest, if we look at the Farm to Fork Strategy or the Sustainable Chemical Strategy, not much has happened this term, which can be a conclusion. However, we would like to hear from about you how these files will be put forward and prepared for the next term. Especially on sustainable food systems and REACH, it would be good if you could just tell us how the progress on that is being maintained, so that when we have a new College in June 2024, we can expect a REACH revision and also proposals on a sustainable food system. We understand very clearly that now there is more time for implementation and that you go more into dialogues. On the dialogue for the future of agriculture in the EU, I do not really recognise the feeling that that there are no dialogues with the agriculture lobby. COPA COGECA even has a fixed position at the AGRIFISH Council, so they are the best connected lobby we have. How will this dialogue look in order to reach other parties than only the Brussels—based COPA COGECA lobby? It should be about the future of food, not the future of agriculture. And that is, to be very honest, lacking a bit in the framing that we read in the work programme. On social matters, let’s be honest – up until now, people have been regarded as an input to the economy. That’s somewhat how people are regarded, but that’s not what social policy is from a green perspective. So we would like to hear from you a bit. Also, how are you going to do address the social and economic inequalities in our societies in social summits and social dialogues, because that is most important. Last point on the industrial strategy and the industrial policy. If there is one issue where Europe really needs to prepare for the next term, it’s the future of our industry and our future industrial policy, with a massive investment package linked to that. We don’t see that in a sovereignty fund; we don’t see that in own-resource proposals; we don’t see that very much in the current SGP revision. So how is this Commission going to prepare the massive investment needs that are required for our industrial transition? That is something that this Commission can at least prepare, and then in 2024 we will talk later with the new Commission on how to implement.

Mr President, the Green Deal has always, from the start, been about more than only climate neutrality. We’ve always said this our economy needs to be a fully circular but also a zero-pollution economy. And that’s exactly what is here on the table. We want to achieve a zero-pollution economy while we are also moving to climate neutrality. And of course some people will say, ah, does it need to come at the same time? Well, we are in the middle of a transition of our economy. It would be even stupid if we’re not thinking of our clean economy demands, otherwise we are transitioning and then later on come with new demands. That would be very insufficient. And then is it too costly? Well, I can tell you the cost of inaction is unbearable because we’re only talking about the cost for an industry that they need to invest in. But we do not talk about the societal costs that are now bearing the burden of the polluted air and the health consequences for our citizens. And that needs to be addressed as well. And then some people say, but it’s too strict. We are taking very many years before we are even talking about alignment with the guidelines that the World Health Organization is indicating to us what is needed for our citizens health. So we have the time, we need the investments and we need to transition to a clean economy that is not only climate neutral but also clean in its air pollution.

Mr President, first of all, what we are seeing again this summer, and what we are seeing nowadays every summer and winter, is the new climate reality. This is exactly what science has been warning about and we will see it more, because the warming of our planet will lead to more extremes and we are not prepared to deal with those extremes. And that’s what we have seen again this summer. First of all, I really would like to thank the Commission for already pushing, for a couple of years now, the EU civil protection mechanism and, really, a plea to the Council to finally move substantially on that. Every time when we are discussing this, and especially after the summer, we are mourning the victims of climate extremes. But every time the Council is not really putting the money where their mouth is. So in that sense, there’s a lot to be done. But we need to step up, we need to prevent – and that is also using our nature. It’s our best buffer capacity for water shortages and water extremes. We need to create more space for rivers in order to make sure that we can cope with the extremes of our climate system. But most importantly, we need to step up our speediness towards a fossil-free economy because that’s the only way to prevent more of this.

Mr President, I think this is a good debate, and let’s maybe try to calm down and lower our voices, right? So maybe not only on the Nature Restoration Law – I think every one of us in this room and certainly in the Council have subscribed to the Green Deal, and we have all agreed we want our economy in 2050 to be climate—neutral, to be fully circular and to be clean. That has all been part of the Green Deal that every head of state has subscribed to, and that has also been supported by a big majority in this Parliament. But then let’s be honest with each other: these are fundamental goals. This means a total shift of our economy in 25 years. Anyone that can do and can claim to say ‘we subscribe to those 2050 targets, but then for the rest it will be all fine and sweet and no problem’ is lying. And let’s at least agree here that we should not be lying to our voters. This is a challenge. This is a challenge for all of us. But we need to do it. We want to do it, but then we need to see how we are doing it, and I think sometimes we have a totally different narrative, and we saw it very much in CO2 in cars, where some are saying ‘you are putting a policy in place that is promoting Chinese cars’. But I would say no, by not doing any policy, by pretending that our car industry can stick to what they used to do, they will lose internationally and then in the future it will be us importing Chinese cars. So for our competitiveness, we need the policy instead of saying because of the competitiveness we don’t want the policy. That is the debate that we need to have. But for that we need a dialogue. For that, we need to talk to each other. We need to listen to each other. And this is really a plea to the EPP: you had your campaign on the Nature Restoration Law. Can we now conclude that is over? And can we now please sit back and come back to the table and discuss these things on our narratives, on our visions, on the contents, and not on Santa Claus to each anymore? Thank you, that would be very welcome.