Committee on Transport and Tourism Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsNils Danklefsen
I have been incredibly fortunate to work with and to count on such an outstanding team. A team like this is a real gift. It is not something to be taken for granted, and I appreciate it and enjoyed working with my colleagues every single day. I would like to wish my successor, Federica, who's over there, Federica Terzi, who takes up her new role tomorrow, every success in her new position. I know her very well, and I'm very convinced, I'm sure she will do an excellent job in the TRAN secretariat.
Please make her start in TRAN just as smooth and enjoyable as you made mine. And let me end with one final thought, and this is a very good thought because that's not a farewell. As director, and you mentioned it, I will continue to be responsible, amongst other things, for the TRAN committee secretariat and for the TRAN committee. So we will continue to see each other regularly in the TRAN committee, not from here, from the podium. I will be then sitting in the benches there, and I'm very much looking forward to it.
So thank you very much for these wonderful years as your head of unit.
Speaker 4
Keep up this great and unique TRAN spirit and see you all after the summer break. Many thanks.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Now we... Okay. Before moving on to the vote, dear colleagues, I'm very happy to announce that on July on the second, the TRAN Committee started interinstitutional negotiations on the roadworthiness package consisting of two Commission proposals: an amending act concerning the directives on periodic technical inspections and on roadside inspections, and a draft directive on vehicle registration documents. Both opening trilogues were held in a constructive atmosphere.
The broad mandate was given to the technical teams and the co-legislators agreed to make every effort to reach the provisional agreement on both files soon, and if possible before the end of the year. The date of next trilogues will be announced after the summer break. If there are no objections, the draft agenda can be adopted. Okay, I see no objections, so we can proceed. The minutes of the 18 March 2026, 9 April 2026, 5 May 2026, these minutes can be adopted if there are no objections.
Okay, the minutes are adopted. Now we will come to the votes and we make a test. Do you all have your cards, your voting cards? So we make a test. The question is, are you happy that we are going to vacations?
The vote is open.
The vote is closed. The vote is closed. Okay. We have 33 in favor, three against, including Mr. Gieseke, and three abstentions. Okay.
Now, our votes today concern the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2027, all sections. We will begin with the budgetary amendments and then move to the adoption of the TRAN opinion to BUDG in the form of a letter. I would like to remind you that our rapporteur is Mrs. Rosa Serrano Sierra. Let's proceed to the vote on the budgetary amendments. 34 amendments were tabled and we will vote on them one by one.
We start with amendment number two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted.
Number three, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Number six, in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted. Number eight, in favor?
Oh, sorry, sorry. Thirteen, sorry. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
It's adopted. Fifteen, in favor? Against? Abstentions? It's adopted.
Sixteen, who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? It's adopted. Twenty, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted. Twenty-three, who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions?
It's adopted. 32 in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
34 in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. 28 in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. 29 in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. 26, favor? Against? Abstentions?
It's adopted. 27, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
31 in favor? Against? Abstentions?
It is adopted. 25. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. 24. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. And one. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
It is adopted. Now we move to the adoption of the TRAN opinion for the form of a letter. It's a simple yes or no vote by roll call. We open the vote. We close the vote.
It is adopted: 32 in favor, 3 against, 4 abstentions. Okay, thank you very much.
If somebody or some of you to leave quickly because we have to continue please.
That's from me. Merci. That's from me to you. I didn't want to... Oh no!
Yes, open it just to tell, please. And you have your birthday in September, August, I remember everything.
Colleagues, we continue, okay? Let's now move to our next agenda point, which is the oral presentation of competitiveness of the aviation sector: the impact of fuel prices in the aftermath of the Middle East crisis. For us in TRAN, safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU aviation sector is a key priority. We therefore greatly welcome this opportunity to look ahead, take stock of the challenges and opportunities facing the sector, and explore how we can best ensure a strong, sustainable, and competitive future for European aviation. Today's discussion will be focused on aviation fuel supply and prices, as well as on the air network and fares for travelers.
I'm happy to welcome the two professors, Mr. David Chiaramonti from the Politecnico di Torino and Mrs. Aisling Reynolds-Feighan from University College Dublin. Their presentations will last for a maximum 30 minutes, half an hour in total, followed by a round of questions from members.
Professor Chiaramonti, the floor is yours, sir, for 15 minutes, please.
David Chiaramonti
Thank you. Yeah, sorry, I moved the slides. Okay, next slides, please. So, thank you, Madam, for the invitation. Thanks to the committee.
It's a honor and a pleasure being here. I will quickly go through the following steps: setting the scene, describing, making some consideration about the crisis and the impact on aviation fuel market, how you reacted, some consideration about SAF under this perspective, and some possible policies and conclusion consideration. Next slide, please. I come from Politecnico di Torino. I lead a team working on policy.
We work for various directorates, for various ministries, for ICAO, for IMO. So we are quite familiar with policy matter related to the subject. I also coordinate on behalf of the Italian government, Ministry of Environment and Energy Security, the Clean Energy Ministerial Biofuture Platform, with 25 countries participating and the International Energy Agency acting as secretariat. Next slide, please.
Now, let's have a look to the situation before this crisis. Next slide, please. Now, apart from the period of COVID, which is very well identified, the situation today as regards the demand for oil products in the EU-27 is the one reported in this graph from the association of fuel producers, FuelsEurope. And you see that jet fuel stands at around 50 million tonne oil equivalent for Europe. That's the range.
Next slide, please. With respect specifically to jet, historically the European region is importing, mostly as we will see in the next in the future slides, is mostly importing from Middle East and Asia-Pacific region. And this deficit has been increasing in the last years, especially in the summer in the summer period. The situation which I will briefly touch now of refining in Europe is not helping with that with some significant number of refineries shutting down. Next slide, please.
Here you see even visually, comparing the map of operating refineries 2009 versus 2025. You see there was a constant decrease.
Now we have some 73 mainstream refineries in operation, compared to 130 in the US, 300 across Asia. There's a slight increase in biorefining, which I will touch later, but overall we are reducing our refining capacity, which is a point that address security. Next slide, please. Now, how the crisis impacted on the aviation fuel market? I will touch from the point of view of the fuel producers, and my colleague then will address complementary matters on that.
Next slide, please. Now, you all well known that it was an unprecedented shock that was due to the closure of Strait of Hormuz. You see news are coming up daily on that subject, but as regards prices, the oil did not reach the 2008 all-time spike so far. And we will see which are the reasons for that, but certainly the traffic there now, today I was reading the media in coming here, it seems is completely blocked again.
Next slide, please. Now, we have from IEA information about the impact of the strait. But the interesting thing here are the two graphs on the right-hand side, which refers to import of middle distillates. Middle distillates means diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel. We use this name.
And if you see the green bar for the jet fuel, it's very evident that the majority of the import comes from that region for aviation. So aviation is really affected by this crisis for historical reason, because that is the situation we come from. Next slide, please. With respect to price, this refers to the 3rd of July. I can give you the data from today.
We have 6% increase in SAF prices compared to yesterday, 54% price increase compared to the beginning of the conflict, 71% increase compared to a year ago. And today we stand to $1,258 per ton, the latest data that we got. So the impact is significant and it goes together with oil, obviously. Next slide, please.
Now, the situation see Europe importing crude oil from the region that is mostly exporting to Asia, China and Asian countries. But if we look into the oil products that comes from the Gulf, the increase, the share that comes from that region increase almost double, to more than double, to 10%. There are alternative routes, again very much addressed on media in these days, like the Yanbu and the Fujairah pipelines. They have spare capacity because Yanbu is able to transport 7 million barrel per day, but the Saudi refining that is placed in Yanbu, the capacity is only 1.8, so most goes for export. And the Fujairah should be doubled.
Also the Iraq has some intentions to develop pipeline for 1.5 million barrel per day. That's kind of alternative routes are progressing, I would say. This will take some time to be operational. Next slide, please. Now, how the EU reacted to the situation and to this disruptive loss of supply?
Next slide, please.
Now, let's look first on the on the chart on the left-hand side. You see in region which, as you have seen in previous slides, is short of 700,000 barrel per day, we have lost approximately 400,000 barrel per day because of the Hormuz crisis. How did we compensate? There was an increase from US import by 140. There was a ramp-up of Africa refinery Dangote in Nigeria by roughly 40.
And of course, there was a shift in refining operation towards SAF from 9 to 11%. Technically, the maximum is around 14. Still, we are short for 200,000 barrel and there's a further compensation that comes to relaxation to import restriction due to Ukraine crisis from UK. So overall, we are around 150,000 barrel in summer period, because this refers to May-September, that we are still short. But the effect on cost was not so evident because the world is consuming the stocks in this moment.
And this chart on the right hand side is from the International Monetary Fund. It was released 8 days, 10 days ago, so it's extremely recent. And you see that the reason why we've been able to keep the cost in the range of 80 to 100 dollars is due to the consumption of the stocks. So we can expect issue if this crisis goes for long time, especially in the first semester 2027, that the price will go up. But let's go on this.
Next slide please. Now, SAF, sustainable aviation fuels, from bio or e-fuels. Next slide please. Without entering too much in details, we have all great expectation. This report from IEA comes from COP30 Belém and the previous G20 meeting still in Brazil.
We, with my group and some colleagues from Greece, from Austria, from UK, we elaborated this scenario for the European Commission that was presented here a month ago on the biofuel sector. And we have a certain potential there. In the IEA report we have seen that aviation and maritime are the one expected to increase more because we start from a very low, very, very low level.
But still, also road will play a role in this game. And this studies gave the foundation for the four-fold Biofuture Platform pledge which was launched by Brazil, Italy, India, and Japan in Brasilia last year and that is now endorsed by 29 countries. The pledge means that if we implement the current policies, so no new policies, but implementation of what is there, we expect the demand increase by four times. Next slide, please. Cost estimates.
To be very quick, the data on the right-hand side are from the European study, then you see the EASA cost estimates. More or less all converge. We have SAF prices that are three to ten times higher. The closer to commercial competitiveness is the one from lipid, HEFA is the name of SAF from lipids. The real issue here is about the feedstock.
Next slide, please. The current and projected SAF capacity is to increase very quickly after 2030 if we want to meet the goal, for instance, of ReFuelEU Aviation. 2030 seems to be not a major, not a major problem. The 3.2 million tons of SAF required by ReFuelEU Aviation should be met.
Nevertheless, after 2030, it will be an issue. One quick remark: the refining activity is multi-feedstock, multi-product, in the sense that you cannot produce just SAF. You produce SAF, you produce naphtha, you produce diesel. Even in the configuration that is optimized for SAF, so maximizing SAF 60%, you still have production of other co-products that need to be placed in the market. Next slide, please.
And now the conclusions on possible policies and regulations. Next slide. Well, first, policies in Europe are particularly complex in the alternative and low-carbon fuel sector. We have RED, we have ReFuelEU Aviation, we have FuelEU Maritime, the carbon removal and carbon farming, and in addition, the international dimension that is ICAO regulation.
We are part of the technical group there. And there is incoming the CO2 regulation, which you all know very well, the 996 regulation, which is the regulation that deals with intermediate cropping and soil carbon and so on, the new Renewable Energy Directive and the ETS, and in addition, the Maritime Organization is doing its own step. Clearly, it's a complex environment for stakeholders and investors. Next slide, please. So, some technical analysis of the policy brings you to this kind of conclusion.
Is this complex scenario from the fossil side, given the decrease in refining capacity, this should be maintained and supply chain diversified for all the possible feedstock. EU refining is continuing to operate in a high price for middle distillate. I remind you again, middle distillates means diesel, jet and kerosene. But this historically has an issue with placing on the market the gasoline we produce in Europe with other competitive regions at lower price. The important remark is that in case demand reduces, in case of demand reduction, there will be an increasing problem with refining excess capacity.
This will bring to lower margins for refineries and rationalization. So this is a potential risk for Europe.
Indeed, if plug-in hybrid vehicles, range extender vehicles, all using gasoline engines, could be a way to compensate the operation of a refinery. From the SAF point of view, given that HEFA, which means SAF from lipids, will still dominate to the medium term the scenario, the 9 and 6 regulation and the new RED are not the only one but the most important pieces of regulation that will have to complied. Moving from list of advanced feedstock like Annex 9A and waste Annex B to sustainable farming, intermediate crops, use of marginal land and GHG accounting metric is key and I can report you this is what we are doing in ICAO. So from a global point of view, this kind of approach is discussed on the technical table of working group 5 of ICAO and this should be taken into account. Security is becoming more and more important and recognizing the multi-feedstock multi-product bio-based refining is also as important.
And then my final slide.
The transition to sustainable alternative fuels means to create viable roadmaps beyond just setting targets, on which I think we all agree, but the point is how to reach the goal. Security cannot be handled just under urgency. Of course, there are urgent measures to compensate the spikes, but it needs a medium-term policy addressing a structural change. I can report you that I heard from many stakeholders the preoccupation that once the crisis in Ormuz is over, the attention to security issue could decrease and be second-order importance. Instead, it is strategic to keep the attention to this.
Also, renewables can contribute as regards the competitiveness and the know-how that is developed in Europe. EU region is part of a global dimension. This is particularly applicable for aviation and maritime, where you have ICAO and IMO.
So, the Commission is very active on this table, is supporting us as national experts, but it's very important to maintain this as much as possible dialogue and alignment with these international institutions. Indeed, to deploy investments, long-term stable policies is a constant request from industry and investors, which brings us, you, to other issues that are not my expertise, but the EU governance, so for instance directive versus regulation or other acts that can be shorter, quicker, or more, you know, developed under consultation. With this, I conclude and I thank you for your attention. Thanks.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, Professor Caramonti. Mrs. Pagan, you have the floor, madam.
Aisling Reynolds-Feighan
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. Good morning. I will focus on the impacts of the Middle East crisis on jet fuel prices and the competitiveness of European aviation.
Next slide, please. In my talk, I will look at the volatility of fuel prices and disruption to supply and their impacts on airlines and airports. I will examine the risks to competitiveness of European aviation and suggest measures to help strengthen the sector. Next slide, please. The attacks by Israel and the US starting on February 28th this year resulted in the closure of airspace over Iran, Iraq, and several Middle East countries bordering the Persian Gulf.
This further restricted flight paths between Europe and Asia and Australasia, where restrictions have already closed airspace over Russia and Ukraine since 2022. This has reduced long-haul flights to two narrow corridors: north over Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and south over Saudi Arabia and Oman, increasing the distance travelled, fuel burn, and associated emissions. Next slide, please.
The attacks had an immediate and dramatic impact on jet fuel prices and availability, with jet fuel reaching an historic high price in April 2026. The figure shows the price of crude oil in blue, the price of US jet fuel in red, and the difference between the two in black. This is known as the crack spread. European jet fuel prices were reported by IATA to be 10 to 15% higher than US jet fuel prices during the worst period in March-April. This reflects the refining costs, demand, and refining supply.
Now, by drawing down national reserves and quickly finding alternate suppliers, the immediate supply constraints have been eased for the summer of 2026, but global stocks remain low. Sustainable aviation fuels also experienced sharp increases and in prices and remain more than double the price of kerosene jet fuel. Next slide, please. Most European airlines buy future contracts or hedge a significant share of their fuel requirements, typically 70 to 80% as the table shows. Hedging insulates against price volatility, though the contract duration and the share of the airline's fuel requirement that is hedged vary significantly between airlines.
The portion of fuel of the fuel requirement that is not hedged is expensive when jet fuel prices spike as happened in March-April. So to give an example, Ryanair in the first quarter of 2026 had hedged 80% of its fuel requirement at $67 per barrel. That was down from the hedge price of 2025 which was $76 a barrel. The non-hedged jet fuel doubled in March-April this year to $140 a barrel. US carriers have generally stopped hedging as there was a long period of price stability between 2023 and 2025.
And fuel accounts for between a quarter and a third of an airline's total costs and can therefore significantly impact profitability. So for European carriers, it's expected that the Middle East crisis could give rise to an increase in fuel costs of between 5 and 10% for 2026. Next slide please. The most important way in which airlines can reduce their fuel requirement is by investing in newer aircraft which have significantly improved fuel efficiency and are larger. The graph shows that the average number of seats per aircraft has been steadily increasing, reflecting the gradual renewal of the European fleet.
Carriers also look to minimize fuel burn when they're on the ground and in their routing decisions. European carrier network strategies also minimize fuel burn per passenger with mostly direct routings between origin-destination pairs, rather than the typical connecting routes which dominate US domestic hub-and-spoke networks. Next slide please. To illustrate the importance of network strategy, this table shows that for the 27 member states, they had 375 airports receiving jet service at some point during 2025, and there were 12 and a half thousand direct routings with service. So if every pair of airports were directly connected, that would give you just over 70,000 routes.
So in 2025, 18% of all possible routes had service. This is significantly higher than other global regions where air traffic is much more spatially concentrated along a smaller share of high-traffic corridors only. The US, for example, operated just 4% of all possible routes in 2025.
Next slide, please. Passenger demand has been strong in 2026, but media reporting of potential jet fuel shortages impacted consumer purchase decisions with delays in purchasing flights until much closer to their departure time. Now when airlines experience sales that are below what they expect, below their estimated booking curve, they drop fares to avoid operating flights with empty seats. So this has squeezed airline revenue for summer 2026. And airlines cannot add surcharges once the ticket has been sold.
Airline profits, which are vital for longer term investment in fleet renewal, depend on revenues, costs, and the difference between the two. So revenues in 2026 are under downward pressure while costs have escalated upwards. The additional costs related to the ETS and SAF mandates in Europe will further pressure carriers and lead to reduced profitability in 2026. Next slide, please. The European Commission clarified rules for passengers and operators in their communication on the 8th of May.
Cancellations due to exceptionally high fuel prices are not considered extraordinary circumstances, though officially notified airport fuel shortages are.
So fuel surcharges are not permitted. The Commission also clarified that the ReFuelEU uplift obligation of 90% fuel purchase at each airport served would also be enforced. Next slide please. Passenger growth in January and February 2026 was strong and carriers were optimistic about the year in general. So additional capacity over 2025 was offered in the 2026 schedules.
Airlines publish their schedules 6 to 12 months in advance and make seats available for sale before they actually provide the service. So this figure shows the monthly seats for 2025 in blue for the European Common Aviation Area. The published schedule in February 2026 is shown in red and the June 2026 schedule is shown in black.
So what we see here is that airlines cut back on their seat offerings between February and June as the crisis unfolded, though the seats are still ahead of 2025 and there is increased capacity on offer for the second half of 2026. Airlines learned from their experience during COVID to continue to keep offering capacity as a way of generating revenue and then reassess much closer to departure time by augmenting, consolidating, or cutting services. Very little data is available on air cargo as most capacity is not publicly sold. Next slide please. This map shows the ratio of seats performed in the first half of 2026 relative to the first half of 2025 for the Eurocontrol countries.
The map shows that for most EU states they saw an increase, with the exceptions being Austria and Germany. Growth was strongest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans as well as in the large Mediterranean markets. European carriers cut most of their Middle East services and reoriented routes within the single market towards the Mediterranean. Next slide please. The strong growth in 2025 and 2026, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, has increased the average number of seats per head of population towards the EU-27 average of two departing seats per head of population.
This has significantly increased mobility in these states. There are many new direct intra-ECAA services from these states now. Some of the growth may reflect diverted traffic arising from the closed Ukraine airspace. Next slide, please. So taking a longer-term view of European carriers, it's concerning that in external markets, most ECAA carriers have experienced a declining market share.
So for the largest external market, for example, the North Atlantic, ECAA carriers have seen their share of all departing seats between the two continents fall from 48% in 2019 to 43% in 2015. European carriers were less exposed in Middle East markets, where their share was 10% of all available departing seats in 2025. Next slide, please. Even more notable is that for the EU-27 registered carriers, shares fell in every external market between 2019 and 2025.
The table shows the shares of EU 27 carrier seats across the main internal and external markets, where again North America is the largest external market. Here EU 27 carrier share of traffic fell from 38% to 37% between 2019 and 2025. Next slide please. The EU's emissions trading scheme and the proposals in the energy taxation directive, as well as the SAF mandate, will disproportionately drive up costs for EU carriers relative to external competitors. European carriers will likely continue to experience declining market shares, with passengers potentially avoiding these taxes and charges by flying with the external competitor airlines.
By increasing costs and eroding profitability, this risks delaying fleet renewal investments and potentially damaging the long-term financial resilience of European airlines. Next slide please. So to look at what policy makers can do, I have four recommendations.
While the requirements for minimum stocks of oil worked very well in dealing with the crisis in March-April, specified stocks of jet fuel are not required. Given the strategic importance of aviation, specific requirements for jet fuel should be mandated. Second, EU carriers are under considerable financial pressure this year with downward pressure on revenues and upward pressure on costs due to the Middle East crisis. Policy makers should consider delaying imposition of additional environmental taxation measures. Thirdly, there's limited public information to allow tracking of European jet fuel prices and quantities as well as SAF information.
Such data would aid analysis linked to environment, transport and climate policy goals and should be reported in a timely and detailed format from official sources. And finally, policy makers should mandate regular reporting of key performance indicators for strategically important sectors like aviation, both air cargo and air passenger, to allow member states to monitor and better assess sector performance. Next slide, please. Thank you very much again for the opportunity to present this morning.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, professors. Now we open the debate. First, I give the floor to Mr. Gieseke.
Jens Gieseke
Yes, thank you very much indeed, very interesting presentations. But of course, it's a difficult environment and predictability is a question. And if you consider the Strait of Hormuz, the situation changes every day. So that is of course difficult. We have to react.
And Mr. Chiaramonti, professor, you mentioned the complex environment, the CO2 standards, the RED, the new RED. We have this week the Commission coming with the new ETS proposal. So in a way, the question is how can we prioritize our legislation in order to get the competitiveness guaranteed? I was wondering on, you did not mention anything about the SAF, the origin of the feedstock. So from my point of view, this is more or less, to put it quite simple, we use Chinese cooking oil to fly sustainably.
So a smarter approach would be to in a way rely on own resources, on feedstock from Europe and to come up with own production.
So do you see any chance by co-funding, do you have any idea how we could perform better to get less dependency? And one technical, more legal question, regulation versus directive. There is always the idea of creating a common market, book and claim, or the sustainable aviation fuels. If you say the preferred option is a directive, if we want to create this European market, it's better to have the same rules apply in each member state, so it's better to have a regulation. I would like to have an answer on that.
And Professor Reinhold Fiegand, thank you for your presentation. In your final remarks, it was a bit, I was electrified, I would say, because you will listen in any committee debate here, less bureaucracy, less reporting obligations, less KPIs, and your recommendation was we need more data, we want to check it, we want KPIs on the availability. So in a way we have to find a smart approach between less reporting obligation, but simply making the fuel available. So the same question is to you on the feedstock, more on European origin. And if it comes to legislation, we have the ReFuelEU Aviation, the SAF quotas, they just apply to our European airlines, so we create a discrimination.
It's in a way it's a distortion of competition because then if you fly the long haul to to Asia, our people get charged via Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, you name it, and the others pay half of the price. With full transparency and in a highly cost-intense market, that is of course difficult. So there we have to find a solution to get back to a level playing field. What is your your answer and then give us three short recommendations and we will implement them within 12 months. Thank you.
Volker Schnurrbusch
I'm surprised. Okay, thanks, thanks very much, Madam Chair, and thanks also for to our guests for their insights and talk. Very interesting. And I was listening very closely when you mentioned that the politics in the EU are indeed very complicated with ETS, with RED III, with ReFuel and the other regulations. And in fact, taken all together, they they do not provide for a level playing field, unfortunately.
Because the aircraft industry has suffered severely during COVID and is still not on the former level of operations.
But the carriers also are very intent to meet the goals set by the EU. They reacted by buying new, modern and fuel-effective aircraft and have adopted measures to save fuel also while on the ground. But now in this situation with the US-Israel attack on Iran, we should think, reconsider that the EU should be more flexible in its regulations. Because right now, the EU regulations are detrimental to the competitiveness of the industry. So the airlines based in Turkey and the Gulf area, they have a big advantage right now for the long-range flights.
And the European EU-based carriers have a disadvantage. And even disadvantage in comparison with British Airways, for instance, because the UK, they don't have to comply with our regulations. And they also, if it's true what I read, they already relaxed the import restrictions on jet fuel from India.
And we all know where the crude oil is coming from there. So they have acknowledged the crisis and they have reacted very swiftly and very cleverly on the British islands. And we are, we have still this disadvantage in the EU. So in our view, we should reconsider also the trade defense measures of biofuels from the US, Indonesia, and Argentina. I mean, we are huge importers of biofuels, but still they have to pay more taxes and that makes the price go up.
And that's not good for the industry. And speaking of biofuels, of course, we need more production here in Europe. I agree with that totally, but again, we also want to have our food independence. So, and we have a very restricted area in Europe, being the small continent that we are. So we will be dependent on biofuel imports as well from South America, for instance.
So we should aim for more European self-production, yes, but we also have to aim for a level playing field for our airlines.
And I was very glad to see at the end of your first presentation that you, that you, that you recommend more directives versus regulations. And I think this is the first step in the right direction. So thanks very much for your, for your insight and we hope we will hear from you more. One more question that I have is, can you give us a figure of how many airports in the EU are already able to supply SAF right now? Because in Germany, that's not, not many airports right now.
And I think we are still below 30% in the EU, but I'm not sure about this. So maybe you can help us with this information. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Schnurbusch. Mr. Musoiu for the S&D.
Ştefan Muşoiu
Thank you, Madam Chair, I will speak in my language, so please put your headphones. Aș începe cu un exemplu de bune practici din alte state cu care noi avem parteneriat strategic și aici mă refer la Japonia.
M-am întors de curând din Japonia în urmă cu o lună de zile și vreau să vă spun că costurile combustibililor la pompă nu s-au ridicat pentru populație și pentru companii cu nici măcar un yen. Mai mult decât atât, atunci când am ales un avion sau o rută în călătoria spre Japonia, diferența între o companie asiatică și una europeană a fost de 2,5 ori, ceea ce spune foarte mult despre nivelul de competitivitate al transportatorilor aerieni din Europa la acest moment. Mai exact, am dat pe un bilet Bruxelles-Japonia 700 și ceva de euro, în timp ce o companie aviatică europeană avea în jur de 1700 și ceva de euro, 1800 de euro. Acest lucru spune foarte mult despre exemplele de bune practici din alte state. Dacă Japonia a putut să învețe din experiența anilor trecuți, războiul din Yom Kippur din '73-'74 și revoluția iraniană din '79 și și-a dat seama că aceste crize petroliere nu sunt episodice, ci sunt sistemice, așa ar fi trebuit să învețe și Europa, pentru că noi traversăm deja de cinci ani de zile o criză sistemică a combustibililor și ar fi trebuit să investim mai mult în stocuri.
Japonia și-a permis să aibă costuri mici încă pentru combustibili fosili, inclusiv kerosen, pentru că are stocuri de aproximativ șase luni sau mai mult de atât.
Europa și România au stocuri aproximativ pentru trei-patru luni de zile, dar ar fi trebuit să mărim aceste stocuri, astfel încât să preîntâmpinăm aceste șocuri care afectează competitivitatea Uniunii Europene. Și vedem că aceste costuri, de fapt, se răsfrâng asupra pasagerilor care de multe ori aleg alte rute. Așadar, dincolo de această recomandare pe care am auzit-o și la prezentarea antevorbitorilor, ar trebui să suspendăm pentru o perioadă de timp inclusiv această taxă de carbon de aproximativ 200 și ceva de euro pe tonă metrică de kerosen a companiilor aeriene, pentru că inclusiv aceasta pune o presiune suplimentară asupra companiilor europene raportat la companii aeriene din de pe alte continente. Și bineînțeles că susțin în continuare inclusiv investiția în acești combustibili alternativi sustenabili, dar de așa manieră încât să nu ne afecteze competitivitatea, să putem să traversăm această perioadă, astfel încât să nu riscăm închiderea multor companii și nu numai din domeniul aviatic. Vă mulțumesc.
Am încheiat.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Mrs. Paulus, please, from the Greens.
One minute is the speakers. Okay, please.
Jutta Paulus
Okay, I'll take the same minute as my the speakers before me have taken. I have several questions actually.
Sorry, Mrs. Paulus, I didn't say that for you. Okay, I just saw it now. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentations. I'm a bit puzzled by your by your analysis that ETS is hitting European airlines only because as far as I know, all airline operators have to pay for their emissions. The same goes for ReFuelEU Aviation where all flights from EU airports are covered regardless whether it's a European, an Asian, a Japanese or whatever airline operator. So please could you explain again why this is not a level playing field? Then I have a question on a study which came out this week on which analyzed different scenarios on how to include long-haul flights in the ETS, in the new ETS.
And they also looked at a scenario similar which to the one which we have in FuelEU Maritime where the transshipment ports are included, which we could do with the hubs like London or Istanbul.
I would like to hear your views on that. And on bio-SAF, I was rapporteur for the ITRE opinion for ReFuelEU Aviation. And in this opinion we took into account that land on this planet is a limited resource and therefore also biomass is a scarce good. So if amounts should be redirected to aviation to produce SAF, please could you specify which sector should then make amends? Should it be the chemical industry, should it be feed for animals, should it be the cosmetic sector, because someone has to give up the biomass which is then used for aviation.
And last but not least, I was missing an outlook on the rest of the year or even 2027 because right now, as you have said, Strait of Hormuz is blocked again and the reserves are already depleted in a lot of countries. Thank you.
Dariusz Joński
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would like to thanks a lot for the interesting presentation. I have two short questions.
In your presentation, you mentioned about North, South America, Africa, but my question is about China impact on the European aviation fuel market. It's the first question. And the second is about data, maybe about SAF. So do you have any data, I mean from which non-European country European airlines buy sustainable aviation fuel? Do you have any data about it?
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other colleague wants to take the floor? Okay, so I give back the floor to the representative.
Aisling Reynolds-Feighan
Okay, thank you for your questions. So in terms of the reduced bureaucracy and more data and KPIs, the data is there and available. It's how it is packaged and reported for EU countries. It's not consolidated and collated. So I don't think there are additional reporting requirements.
It's really that it is available in a, I suppose, a transparent way for EU member states. Particularly, say, Eurocontrol publish a lot of KPIs and they could very easily just report for the EU 27 and the European Common Aviation Area. In terms of prices for jet fuel and availability, their data is from a subscription service. And the agency where it's publicly available is the US Energy Information Agency. So I think in this regard, given the criticality of fuel, energy prices, I think that we need to look at making up-to-date and timely information available in a granular way in Europe.
In terms of pursuing a level playing field, I think that one way in which the European Union is looking at pursuing an international level playing field in long-haul is via the CORSIA agreements in ICAO.
And I think that is fruitful in terms of ensuring that European carriers are not disadvantaged relative to other global carriers. I suppose in terms of systematic crises and the fact that European carriers might not be prepared, I think the evidence would show that in relation to fuel price volatility, the fact that European carriers hedge such a large proportion of their fuel requirement, I think is evidence that this is a way in which they have decided to try and insulate themselves from fluctuating prices. And as I mentioned in my presentation, most US carriers now don't hedge and have been exposed to these escalating prices in March, April. I think in terms of the ETS, as I say, I think that we have to ensure that we're not disadvantaging European carriers because aviation is a critically important industry for Europe in terms of enabling mobility.
And I think we have to look at the broader context when we're looking at policy regulations and directives and seeing what impact it's going to have on the relative competitiveness of European carriers. And finally, in relation to China's impact in the fuel markets, China reduced its fuel requirements during the crisis this year, its import requirements, and that has helped the market in terms of not competing with European carriers from alternative sources. So maybe I'll hand over to my colleague now.
David Chiaramonti
Thank you. Well, thanks for the very interesting questions. Very much to the point. So I start with your question, which partly also answer one of the last. The issue of the feedstock.
It's very much debated. That was part of the study that is public, available on the EC portal, that we carried out and presented here in Brussels a month, a month and a half ago. You're absolutely right, but it's a chicken and egg issue. It's related to the regulation we set for the feedstock eligibility, the amount that is available. And for instance, in this moment, just to make an example, I mentioned the regulation 996.
It deals with intermediate cropping and marginal land. The definition of what is a marginal land, we call it severely degraded land, but actually is a marginal land, and what is eligible as intermediate cropping, now, which doesn't remove any availability of food and feed material to the market, is additional to this. Of course, this is a significant internal potential to EU. The estimates go to 5 million ton oil equivalent, but it could be probably more than that because seed companies are already working to adapt the genetics of the crop to fit into the definition of an intermediate crop. So there's a potential unexplored there without touching the food and feed.
Not only, in some configurations like the one treated in the CRCF DG CLIMA initiatives, there are co-benefit for the soil. You bring organic matter to the soil, which in turns also support other productions. Well, about the retro-regulation, it's not my role, but of course it's relevant. The point is about how quick we can react to crisis and how in depth of the matter we can enter. But very interesting your comment on the fact that it's a systemic.
This was exactly my point, what I tried to convey here. If we want to address security in a situation where this kind of crisis are systemic, we need a medium-term clear policy to address this. It cannot be done in urgency. Of course you do whatever is possible when it's needed, but it cannot be a solution. So I completely agree that that this.
On the risk to reduce competitiveness because relaxation of climate target, I say that's not really true, in the sense that it can happen, of course. But the ambition can be matched with a well-designed policy in the SAF stuff. In fact, the Americans in 2010 published a very important paper named Biofuel Done Right, which then was translated in my country in Biogas Done Right, but there are many others. What does this mean?
This means that if you focus the attention rather than on the crop, on the sustainable agricultural management, you have huge opportunities without diminishing the ambition of climate and CO2 reduction. And in that sense, the CERCF initiative by DG CLIMA, which was an example of in-depth consultation with stakeholders for more than three years and that released the delegated acts February and this month, I think is a good example and probably the energy sector will bring this legislative act into the energy packages or related legislation. Yeah, if I'm not wrong, there was a point, a correct point about 2027. I think it was there, this comment. It's an unknown.
It's an unknown scenario in this moment because as some of you already said, the stocks are being consumed, which was very helpful to keep the cost of SAF within 80 to 100. But to what we know, the first semester 2027, if the crisis is not over, it can be critical. And this means that it could happen a demand reduction and this will bring refining operation in further troubles and so is a degenerative process, unfortunately.
So we really have to hope. Also keep in mind that due to the disruption to some refineries supplying fossil to Europe, like in Qatar, the recovery to full previous situation will not be that rapid. In some cases of some refineries, it will take years to go back. Nevertheless, if the crisis is over, maybe we can compensate for a while, but there will be the need to rebuild capacity there, which, and I conclude, could be taken into account as an opportunity to build this in Europe, diversifying the supply. But of course, it's a political decision.
Thanks.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, professors, Mrs. Fagan, Mr. Keramonti, for the very much interesting intervention and presentation and discussion. And I would also like to thank our colleagues from the policy department for the very good work. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Thank you. Yes, yes, please.
We thank you once again. Thanks. Now, colleagues, let's move to the next agenda point, which is the consideration of amendments of the opinion to ENVI on the CO2 emission performance standards for new light-duty vehicles and vehicle labelling. The rapporteur is Mr Gieseke. Mr Gieseke.
What? Okay. Yeah, I know. 524 amendments have been tabled in TRAN, including the 56 tabled by Mr Gieseke in his draft opinion. The discussion on this file has started at technical level.
I would now like to invite the rapporteur to comment on the amendments tabled and the start of the discussions of this opinion. Mr Gieseke, for three minutes you have the floor. Thank you very much.
Jens Gieseke
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende, es geht ja hier beim Automobilpaket um die Frage der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit einer Schlüsselindustrie in Europa.
Offenkundig ist die Transformation schwierig und ich meine feststellen zu können, dass das Verbrennerverbot in der Form, in der wir es beschlossen haben, auch ein Fehler war. Full stop. Ich glaube, die Industrie braucht mehr Flexibilität. 2035 100 % Elektrifizierung zu erreichen, war nie realistisch. Von daher war der Kommissionsvorschlag schon ein guter Anfang, wir versuchen jetzt diesen Kommissionsvorschlag noch zu verbessern.
Die EVP-Position ist da sehr eindeutig. Wir wollen tatsächlich echte 90 % und bei den Kraftstoffen nicht die 3 %, die von der Kommission vorgeschlagen sind, sondern 10 %. Um Transformation möglich zu machen, um sie nachhaltig zu machen, braucht man auch neben der Frage des Kraftstoffs, da wollen wir eine eigene Kategorie für die Fahrzeuge, die mit erneuerbarem Kraftstoff laufen, brauchen wir auf jeden Fall auch bei den, also bei den Stählen, beim Stahl, bei den Produktionsmitteln auch eine Dekarbonisierung. Von daher unterstützen wir den Kommissionsansatz da die 7 % grünen Stahl vorzugeben. Gibt jetzt wieder Diskussionen um grünen Stahl und Aluminium und noch andere Materialien, recyceltes Plastik, whatsoever.
Ich glaube, wenn unser Anspruch ist, es nicht zu kompliziert zu machen, sollten wir nicht zu viele Unterquoten machen.
Das heißt, keep it plain and keep it simple sollte schon für uns das Leitmotiv sein. Wir müssen auch andere Flexibilitäten berücksichtigen. Die Frage der Plug-in-Hybride, wenn dieses oft diskutierte Wort der Technologieneutralität gilt, dann sollten wir auch die Plug-Hybride nicht ausschließen. Also müssen wir den Utility-Faktor einfrieren. Ich habe jetzt drei Minuten und wir haben 524 Änderungsanträge.
Jeden einzelnen zu kommentieren würde mich ein wenig überfordern, weil im ENVI-Ausschuss auch noch 1000 Änderungsanträge sind und im ITRE 600. Das heißt, wir haben über 2000 Änderungsanträge. Und das ist eigentlich jetzt die politische Botschaft und die Botschaft an das technische Level. Wir dürfen Fehler nicht wiederholen und müssen jetzt eine kohärente Gesetzgebung machen. Wir haben zusätzlich zu unserem Automobilpaket, was schon relativ kompliziert ist, noch von der Kommission einen Vorschlag bekommen zum Industry Accelerator Act, wo, ich sag mal, politisch ist da weitgehend Konsens.
Wir wollen europäische Produktion stärken. Wir wollen den heimischen Automobilstandort auch schützen oder zumindest unterstützen. Da müssen wir uns auch die Frage stellen, wie ist es mit Made in Europe? Wie funktioniert das? Der grüne Stahl kommt idealerweise natürlich auch aus Europa und nicht aus anderen Staaten, aus, ich nenne jetzt keinen, aber kann man sich ja überlegen, wo der herkommen könnte theoretisch.
Und jetzt müssen wir aufpassen, dass die Vorgaben, die wir machen, auch kohärent sind mit den Regelungen, die wir im Industry Accelerator Act haben. Also jetzt mal ganz einfach, wir haben hier 2000 Änderungsanträge bei CO2, im Industrieausschuss wird der Industry Accelerator Act diskutiert und wir müssen dann aufpassen bei den ganzen Diskussionen um 70, 30, 25 Prozent bei Local, machen wir das mit Europa, EU 27 plus UK plus EFTA plus jedes Land, das ein Free Trade Agreement hat. Also Vorsicht an der Bahnsteigkante, auch da gilt das Prinzip so einfach wie möglich, so vorhersehbar wie möglich. Und das ist jetzt die Herausforderung, die wir haben, komplexe Verhandlungen und wenig Zeit. Also ist mein Appell an die Kolleginnen und Kollegen, gute Erholung in der Sommerpause und dann im September an die Arbeit, damit wir bis Weihnachten fertig werden unter irischer Ratspräsidentschaft, das ist mein Anspruch als Berichterstatter.
Vielen Dank.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr Gieseke. Now I will open the floor for the shadow rapporteurs for two minutes each, please, Mrs Costanzo. Thank you.
Thank you. Wir haben gerade was von Botschaften gehört und ich glaube, wenn wir sehen, dass die Botschaften in Deutschland der Beschäftigten ist, dann sind diese Botschaften, diskutiert nicht über irgendwelche Zahlen, sondern macht jetzt was, kommt in die Gänge. Es waren Zehntausende Menschen auf den Straßen letzte Woche, die Woche davor, Mercedes, Volkswagen, die Meldungen reißen nicht ab.
Vivien Costanzo
Und ich glaube, es ist eben auch unsere Verantwortung, jetzt in die Gänge zu kommen. Sommerpause ist schön, aber wir bräuchten, glaube ich, einen Zeitplan. Das wäre ganz gut, um eben zu schauen, dass wir bis Ende des Jahres fertig werden. Für die Sozialdemokratie ist klar: Flexibilisierung, mehr Zeit brauchen wir. Und das Ziel dabei nicht aus den Augen zu vergessen, weil wir dann nämlich die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit eigentlich auch vergessen können.
Und da sind drei Punkte immens wichtig. Einmal ist: Lassen Sie uns bitte nicht über Überschriften diskutieren. Nicht darüber diskutieren, wer bietet mehr: 80-10, 90-10, was auch immer. Wir haben die 90-10 auf dem Tisch. Lassen Sie uns im Detail darüber diskutieren, was 90-10 bedeuten und nicht eben über die Schlagzeilen.
Wer nämlich daran rüttelt und mit den Schlagzeilen Politik machen will, der versteht aber, glaube ich, nicht, dass die Situation so fragil ist und so schwierig gerade ist, dass wir eben da genau ins Detail gehen müssen. Das Zweite ist: Wir haben ein Paket. Das haben Sie eben auch gesagt. Wir haben drei verschiedene Gesetze jetzt auf dem Tisch liegen. Wir haben den IAA, der noch kommt.
Wir müssen das Ganze als Paket sehen und nicht in dem einen das machen und in dem anderen das, weil das hilft keinem. Also wir müssen das irgendwie so koordinieren und so kohärent, wie ich es eben gehört habe, machen, dass es eben auch einen Impact hat. Und das Dritte: Für uns gibt's keinen Kompromiss ohne volle Kompensation. Wir brauchen die 100 Prozent und wir brauchen sie voll kompensiert in allen Flexibilitäten. Darüber können wir sprechen.
Ich glaube, da gibt's viel Spielraum, da gibt's viel zu besprechen, viel zu definieren.
Und ich glaube, wir kommen da auch zusammen, wenn es denn alle wollen. Und das wäre mein Appell, nicht nur eine schöne Sommerpause, sondern lassen Sie uns wirklich das gemeinsam diskutieren, lassen Sie uns das wirklich wollen, weil wenn wir es wollen, dann kriegen wir es auch hin.
Roman Haider
Ja, danke, Frau Vorsitzende. Jeder Mensch weiß es, China kontrolliert über 90 % der relevanten Rohstoffe für E-Autos, vor allem für Batterien und Elektromotoren. Und damit bestimmen die Chinesen nicht nur die Preise, sondern können ihre Lieferketten auch jederzeit als Erpressungsinstrument einsetzen, und das tun sie ja auch schon jetzt. Wir opfern also Hunderttausende Arbeitsplätze und unsere technologische Souveränität für eine einseitige Abhängigkeit von Kommunisten. Und das ist Wahnsinn.
Wir Patrioten sehen die Rücknahme des Verbrennerverbots als essenziell für die Zukunft Europas. Und wie Sie anhand der Amendments sehen, sind wir als Fraktion auch geschlossen. Und wer unsere Stimmen will, der muss sich in vier Kernbereichen auf uns zubewegen. Und zum Mitschreiben diese vier Kernbereiche. Erstens, das CO2-Reduktionsziel für 2035.
Der Kommissionsvorschlag mit 90 % Reduktion bedeutet 0,47 Liter, also ein halber Liter Benzin pro 100 Kilometer.
Das ist mehr als realitätsfremd, das ist unmöglich. Wir fordern die Rückkehr auf das Niveau vor dem Green Deal. Weil auch 80 %, das wäre das Ein-Liter-Auto, auch unmöglich. Wir wollen 40 % Reduktion, also das 2,85-Liter-Auto pro 100 Kilometer. Das ist mit einem wachsenden Anteil von Elektro- und Hybridfahrzeugen auch machbar.
Und das entspricht übrigens auch dem, was die Europäische Volkspartei damals unter österreichischer Ratspräsidentschaft vor dieser unseligen von der Leyen-Zeit ausverhandelt hat. Der Kollege Gieseke wird's noch wissen, er war damals federführend dabei. Zweitens: Wir Patriots fordern die volle Öffnung für europäische Biokraftstoffe. Egal ob Advanced oder erste Generation. Keine 3 %, keine 10 %, totale, völlige Öffnung.
Das schafft Einkommen für unsere Landwirte und reduziert auch wirklich unsere Abhängigkeit. Drittens: 95 Euro Strafprogramm CO2-Überschreitung pro Auto. Das sind Milliardenbelastungen. Allein die 2025er Schätzung lag da bei 16 Milliarden Euro. Wir fordern eine Senkung auf 5 Euro pro Gramm.
Man kann nicht die Hersteller mit absurd hohen Strafen belegen, nur weil die Kunden nicht das kaufen, was irgendwelche verrückten grünen NGOs unter chinesischer Führung unseren allzu willigen Beamten in der Kommission diktiert haben. Und jetzt viertens: Ab 2030 muss endlich die Well-to-Wheel-Methode verpflichtend werden, also die gesamte Emissionskette von der Energiegewinnung bis zum Kontakt auf die Straße. Und nur so bekommen wir echte Technologieneutralität. Und auch diese Forderung entspricht eins zu eins einer Position, die die Europäische Volkspartei seit Jahren vertritt. Und drum, liebe Kollegen von der EVP, es geht um die Zukunft unserer Industrie, Zukunft der Arbeitsplätze und unserer strategischen Unabhängigkeit.
Wir Patriots stehen für eine realistische, technologieoffene, proeuropäische Politik. Lassen Sie uns das Verbrennerverbot stoppen, bevor es zu spät ist. Der Wähler hat uns die Mehrheiten gegeben. Nutzen Sie sie, oder wir beerdigen das Verbrennerverbot dann 2029 alleine ohne EVP, wenn wir die Mehrheit haben.
Thank you, Mr. Haider. Mr. Axinia is here? No. Mr. Etgen.
Jan-Christoph Oetjen
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues, put a little bit of English into the debate. Let me put it like this. I think that we are in a situation where it's about the survival of an industry that is a core industry in Europe.
And the question is, what is the best recipe to save this industry? And I think that what is proposed by some, like even accelerating the electrification rules, is not the right thing. But the right thing to do is to give more flexibility to the OEMs in their way of conducting their operations, in developing offers for consumers that they want to buy, that are affordable, and that have a positive impact on European economy. That's why, in principle, I think that the proposal from the rapporteur is going into the right direction, but in my political group, we have a preference of compensating all of the flexibility.
I agree that we should go further than what Commission has proposed. We should go further on averaging, we should go further on counting fuels and other materials like aluminium towards the the targets, but we would be aiming for a full compensation of the CO2 reductions because for us it's important to keep the Paris Agreement and the targets that have been agreed on CO2 reduction alive. This being said, I think that we should aim for technological neutrality and that we should aim for having the possibility for OEMs to put to the market plug-in hybrids and for this reason I think that the freezing of the factor is the right approach. And in this spirit I hope that we can find a broad majority in helping this industry to go towards electrification because I think this will be the future. I just think that the pace that has been foreseen and that the curve that has been foreseen is not a realistic one, so we need to adapt to reality.
Thank you.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, Chair, and I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague Lena Schilling, who unfortunately cannot be here today. Before reading the notes which have been prepared for me, please, colleagues, go on pretending that the problems of the European car industry are not the declining sales in China and are not management errors, but it's only green legislation and that supply with fossil fuels is strategically actually not at risk at all, because that's what Mr. Haider is implying. Lena would like to thank you very much for the draft report. As Greens, we fought very hard in the past mandate for setting an end of the combustion engine in 2035 to give regulatory clarity, so we do not support the weakening of the legislation.
Lena would like to work on a basis that we can achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and also reach the intermediate targets and the emission reduction in the transport sector do play an important role because if we delay those emissions where actually emission reduction is achievable then other sectors will have to do more. So all sectors that want to weaken CO2 standards for cars and vans should please say which other sectors should compensate for that because 2030 and 2040 are set in law and 2050 is internationally agreed. Therefore it is important that the fleet-wide emission reduction targets for cars as from 2035 should be kept as 100%. For vans we would acknowledge an uptake of EVs being a bit slower and therefore middle ground would be 45% and we do see the the possibility of introducing some limited flexibility for 2030 in the form of well-targeted super-credits for small battery electric cars made in Europe which benefits both the industry and the consumers in particularly those households that today cannot afford an electric vehicle. The made in EU should be three conditions: first the vehicle must be assembled in the EU, at least 70% of the value of the vehicle components excluding the battery must come from the EU and the traction battery must include at least three of its main battery components made in the EU.
We do not support the use of low-carbon steel credits and also not the sustainable renewable fuel credits. We would like to introduce minimum fossil-free quotas installed on new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in order to sustain the lead markets for fossil-free steel and support the introduction of energy performance standards for new zero-emission passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. Furthermore, we do not support the inclusion of any liquid fuels into this definition because if there is greenhouse gas coming out of the tailpipe, it's not really true to say this is zero emissions. And when it comes to well-to-wheel, I think some colleagues would be surprised in how far the fossil and also the biofuels would be actually at disadvantage there. Regarding labeling, we suggest that the information is displayed in a visible manner directly next to the vehicle label or prominently when sold on the internet with a QR code inclusion.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende, und vielen Dank auch an Herrn Gieseke für die mutige Einsicht, dass das Verbrenner-Aus ein Fehler war.
Das ist schön, das mal zu hören aus berufenem Mund. Jetzt also, wo die Arbeitnehmer zu zigtausenden entlassen werden, wo die Leute auf die Straße gehen, wo es auch eine soziale Krise sich abzeichnet, da wird also plötzlich auf Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gesetzt, ein Punkt, den wir unter anderem in Deutschland, aber auch hier immer wieder nach vorne geschoben haben. Jetzt also die Rückkehr zur Realität. Und da muss ich sagen, 90 plus 10 statt 90 plus 3, das klingt zwar ganz irgendwie nett, aber das löst ja das Problem nicht. Das ist alles nur Makulatur, das ist Kosmetik.
Seien Sie bitte mutiger. Sie haben die Arbeit auf dem Tisch, Sie haben eine hervorragende Arbeit mit diesen 2000 Amendments. Ich finde die Amendments, die vorliegen, auch überwiegend gut, ist überhaupt gar keine Frage. Ich beobachte das auch aus dem Umweltausschuss heraus und auch aus dem Industrial Accelerator Act, also insofern auch Zustimmung zu Ihrer Mahnung, dass da auch eine Kohärenz entstehen muss. Aber wir sollten mutiger sein.
Wir müssen wirklich wieder zu einer echten Wettbewerbsfähigkeit kommen, zu einer echten Technologieoffenheit, die wir immer gefordert haben. Dieses Alles-Elektrisch-Narrativ war von Anfang an verkehrt. Der gesamte Lebenszyklus von E-Autos muss mit eingerechnet werden, um überhaupt fair regulieren zu können. Also gehören da auch die Plug-ins mit rein.
Bei dem grünen Stahl, da gibt es wirklich überhaupt keine Aussicht, dass wir wesentlich grünen Stahl produzieren können, schon gar nicht in Europa. Ist absolut nicht marktfähig. Beim Aluminium sieht es ähnlich aus bei den Energiepreisen, die wir hier haben. Bei Kunststoffen würde ich Ihnen sehr zustimmen, da hätten wir das Potenzial, vernünftigen recycelten Kunststoff herzustellen. Aber ich komme ja aus Leverkusen ursprünglich und die Kunststoffsparte von Bayer, Covestro, ist gerade an die Emirate verkauft worden und die machen zwei neue Fabriken auf, und die eine in China und eine in Emiraten.
Also Made in Europe wird täglich schwieriger, solange wir diesen Wahnsinnskurs Richtung Emissionsneutralität oder Klimaneutralität, das schöne Wort, dieses Kunstwort, beibehalten. Und auch wenn es Ihnen jetzt vielleicht wehtut, Herr Kollege Gieseke, diese Superkredite lesen sich toll, ich finde das eine super intelligente Lösung, aber auch das sind alles nur Hintertüren. Und insofern würde ich sagen, greifen wir das Problem bei der Wurzel an und machen keine Kosmetik. Danke.
Thank you, Mr. Schnurbusch.
Now I'll give the floor to Mr. ... sorry, Monsieur Calfon, n'est-ce pas? Non, Leonardelli, non. Okay. I'll give the floor to the head of unit from DG CLIMA, Mr. Eduardo Turano, for two minutes. You have the floor, sir.
Andrea TURANO
Thanks a lot. Good morning. We have listened to different opinion and we have seen different amendment going in different direction. That's why I think it's important to recall the Commission proposal approach. It's an approach that is based on a balance between two different elements.
On the one hand, the need to have a more pragmatic approach to a cost-efficient transition towards zero-emission mobility based on conditional flexibilities and enhanced technology neutrality. On the other hand, the need to preserve the long-term signal for investments in the zero-emission mobility value chain. So in the Commission proposal, we have on the one hand recognized the challenges that industry is facing at the moment, which are related to high production cost in Europe, loss of volumes in EU and global market, in China in particular, and therefore overcapacity for the production, sometimes unfair competition, sometimes a bit of delay in innovation and new developments of technologies.
But on the other hand, we also need to make sure that the transition happens not only for climate reasons, but also for energy security. Transport is responsible for most of the import of oil and fossil fuels that we have in the EU. The bill is around 290 billion euro per year, that was in the last years, and we have to avoid this because it becomes of course a liability for our economies in general. And we have to preserve and strengthen industrial competitiveness and since the global markets are evolving towards electric vehicles, we need to make sure that our industry is ready to provide those vehicles which will be in demand, because the internal combustion engine has peaked on the global stage in 2017 already. The only market segment which is growing is the electric vehicles one, and this is why we have to make sure that we are able to produce this type of vehicles and we create the full value chain and ecosystem in Europe to support the competitiveness of our industry.
Now, the balanced approach that we have in the Commission is based on a number of elements, in particular the need to preserve the climate neutrality approach thanks to the compensatory mechanism for the 90% and 10% credits, which introduces in any case an important role for the renewable fuels, for the low-carbon steel made in EU and for technologies such as hybrids and PHEV as long as they are basically low-emitting in real world and not only in the test cycle. We have provided flexibilities for the period 2030 thanks to averaging and relief for the vans in recognition of some difficulty of this particular segment, and specific incentive for small cars made in EU that aims to incentivize EU production and value chain and also provide more affordable vehicles to the market. So I think we hope that let's say the co-legislator can agree to keep this balance, which is what we will enable us to reach our objectives both when it comes to climate, to industrial competitiveness and energy security. Thanks a lot.
Thank you very much, Mr. Turano. And now the floor back to Mr. Gieseke for two minutes to conclude the debate, please.
Jens Gieseke
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende, vielen Dank an die Schattenberichterstatter und auch vielen Dank an die Kommission. Wie so häufig teile ich die Einschätzung der Kommission nicht ganz. Ich würde nicht unterschreiben, Herr Turano, dass es ein balanced approach der Kommission ist, sondern es ist schon ein Vorschlag, der noch verbessert werden muss.
Das kann er auch. Und ich hoffe, dass bei diesen 2000 Änderungsanträgen ein paar dabei sind, die den Kommissionsvorschlag tatsächlich verbessern. Es geht um Technologieneutralität und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Und wissen Sie, hier in der Brüsseler Blase ist es manchmal weit weg, aber ich kann Ihnen nur sagen, in Niedersachsen die Transformation gestaltet sich schwierig. VW will 100.000 Mitarbeiter entlassen bis 2030, vielleicht 50.000 und 50.000.
Und dahinter stecken Familien, Einzelschicksale. Und da müssen wir schon ganz genau aufpassen, was wir hier für Gesetze machen und dürfen Fehler, die wir gemacht haben, nicht wiederholen. Und das ist jetzt hier keine neue Erkenntnis. Die EVP im Übrigen, bevor da Gerüchte entstehen, wir waren immer gegen das Verbrennerverbot, haben auch dagegen gestimmt. Wir hatten leider keine Mehrheit.
Insofern versuchen wir nur einen Fehler zu korrigieren, aber inhaltlich hat sich unsere Position nicht verändert. Und ich bin sehr für offene und konstruktive Kooperation und das auch mit den demokratischen Kräften der Mitte. Aber wenn jetzt angefangen wird, immer wieder neue Hindernisse einzuführen, neue Bedingungen aufzubauen, also wenn wir uns auf grünen Stahl einigen, bin ich ja einverstanden, aber plötzlich neue Definitionen von fossil-free einzuführen, das hilft nicht wirklich und macht die Prozesse auch nicht einfacher.
Also lassen Sie uns das gemeinsam jetzt voranbringen und zu einem guten Ende führen. Ich möchte noch einmal die Gelegenheit nutzen, weil die Transformation und die besagten 100.000 von Jobs, die wir verloren haben. Wir haben bei den schweren Nutzfahrzeugen, das ist gar nicht diese Gesetzgebung, sondern die Trailer und die schweren Nutzfahrzeuge, da hat die Kommission geplant, die Revision im Jahr 2027 zu machen. Und ich möchte das einmal hier öffentlich sagen. Ich habe auch schon Briefe dazu geschrieben, die blieben leider bislang unbeantwortet.
Wir brauchen ein Vorziehen der Revision bei den Trailern, weil wir ansonsten bis 2030 in diesem Bereich auch 70.000 Jobs verlieren. Insofern noch mal mein Appell an die Kommission, vielleicht wird er ja gehört, die Revision vorzuziehen auf das Jahr 2026. Dann können wir uns frühzeitig damit befassen, um hier auch Schlimmeres abzuwenden. Die EVP ist auf jeden Fall bereit dazu. Das waren wir immer und sind wir auch.
Und eine technische Frage von der Kollegin Constanzo zur Frage der Shadow Meetings. Constanzo, ja, Constanzo sag ich doch. Vivien, für dich nur jetzt noch mal, wir arbeiten gerade am Zeitplan.
Die Sekretariate gucken nach Sitzungssälen für die Shadow Meetings. Das ist in Arbeit und sobald das technisch geklärt ist, gibt's eine Liste mit den Shadow Meetings und dann können wir das auch im August und September vorantreiben. Das heißt, auch wenn formal Sommerpause ist, die Arbeiten gehen weiter und wir werden ein gutes Ergebnis präsentieren bis zum Ende des Jahres. Vielen Dank.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr Gieseke. Thank you all, colleagues. Now we have finished our morning session. We come back in this room at 2:30, 14:30. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.