Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety 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.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Final vote by roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed and it's adopted, 58 in favor, nine against, three abstention. Now we move to the vote on the market stability reserve. We start with the rejection, the proposal of rejection. It's a roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. 8 in favor, 62 against. The proposal of rejection is rejected. We can now proceed on the vote, compromise number 2, raising our hands.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number 1, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Final vote by roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. It's adopted, 43 in favor, 21 against, 6 abstentions. Now we have the final vote for today concerns an objection to a Commission regulation raising maximum residual levels for flupiradifurone.
Unfortunately, we were not able to hold a debate on this objection, that is why we don't remember exactly the name of flupiradifurone. This is because it relates to an RPS measure with a curtailed scrutiny period and the deadline for Parliament to object already expires on 22 of September. The September plenary is the last opportunity for a plenary vote on this objection, so this ENVI meeting was the only vote at which it could be addressed. So now let's proceed with the vote, it's an electronic vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it's adopted, 39 in favor, 25 against, 6 abstentions. Thank you. Now we close our voting session and we will go on with our work at 9:00 AM.
Hello. We are now moving for our annual exchange of view with Mrs. Ila Mononen, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency. Those annual exchanges are a good opportunity to take stock of the work that has been carried out by the EEA and discussing upcoming activities. Mrs. Ila Mononen, it's always a pleasure to have you in the ENVI Committee, so you have the floor for your introductory remarks.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Thank you also for this opportunity to reflect on the pressing environment and climate challenges. I also want to outline some of the recent and upcoming work of the European Environment Agency that is relevant in addressing these challenges.
Leena Ylä-Mononen
This summer has been a brutal reminder of what we can expect, both here in Europe, the world's fastest warming continent, and across the globe. Exceptionally strong El Niño phenomenon is building in the Pacific. The predictions point to sharply increasing threats and more extreme weather to come. Last week, UNEP reported that we are clearly on the way to overshoot 1.5 degrees Celsius ceiling. How much and how long that will be critically important for our common future.
Already this summer, we have seen record-breaking heatwaves, massive wildfires, severe droughts. And these have caused significant impacts: loss of lives, injury, impacts on the quality of life of European citizens, and they have also disrupted agriculture, transport and energy infrastructure. I'm actually sure that each one of you know people affected directly or indirectly: people in villages destroyed by wildfires, people with businesses disrupted due to major waterways dried out, farmers losing their crops because of severe drought. Economic damages from extreme weather in Europe are now averaging around 50 billion euros per year and they are accelerating rapidly.
We know that the cost of inaction far outweigh the cost of adaptation. Extreme weather is also adding to geopolitical and economic pressure Europe is facing. Therefore climate and environment must be at the heart of Europe's competitiveness and security agendas. Investment in climate and environment policies improves energy security, food security, mitigates the impact of economic shocks and saves lives. But even with the best mitigation efforts, our climate will continue to change.
We need to be absolutely focused on delivering all the initiatives set in motion under the European Green Deal and those under this commission mandate. Decarbonizing our systems, mitigating and adapting to climate change, building clean energy, restoring nature and transitioning to an innovative and clean circular economy. Our agency is working on all these topics and we have demonstrated that the climate and environment challenges are all interlinked and that they are also linked with the wider societal, economic and security challenges of our time.
And that therefore we need systemic, cross-cutting solutions to address those challenges, not piecemeal, sub-optimal fixes. This is also where cascading benefits and opportunities are to be found, such as reduced air pollution and public health benefits from decarbonization, or thriving clean-tech businesses on renewable energy, water resilience and climate adaptation, or the quality of life and economic benefits derived from restoring nature for climate resilience. Our agency has recently published several significant pieces of work highlighting these kind of cross-cutting policy-relevant issues and pointing to practical, real-world solutions. These include key reports on the circular economy, climate resilience, and issues like protein diversification.
We have published a briefing on the compound benefits of renewable energy sources, another one on artificial intelligence and sustainable consumption, and a briefing on twin green and digital transitions, to name just a few. You may remember that last autumn we launched the big five-year report, Europe's Environment 2025. And soon we will publish two thematic flagship reports bringing together new reported data, analysis, and assessment. First, by the end of the year, we launch the State of Europe's Seas report. It is based on the information reported by Member States under the third Marine Strategy Framework Directive reporting cycle, and it will support the implementation and future development of EU marine policies, including the said directive, the European Ocean Pact, and broader biodiversity restoration and zero pollution objectives.
Second, early 2027, we will publish the State of Nature report. This will be a comprehensive assessment of the condition and trends of Europe's protected habitats, species, and birds. It will provide an evidence base for tracking progress towards the objectives of EU's nature directives, Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and Nature Restoration Regulation, and for identifying where further action is needed. I also want to mention the second edition of the European Climate Risk Assessment, or EUCRA 2, planned to be ready in 2028, but we are already full speed working on it. It will assess and highlight risks, but also focus on solutions.
It also serves as a good example of how research, research that is funded under the Horizon Europe, directly informs policymaking in Europe. It is now becoming clear what the future with accelerated climate change will look like. Threats to food and water security, public health, infrastructure, social cohesion, all these underline the fact that action on climate and environment must be at the heart of Europe's competitiveness and security agendas. Nature itself is the buffer we rely on to mitigate climate impacts, and without a stable climate and functioning environment, without investing in the resilience to face the unavoidable climate extremes, without these we will be neither competitive nor secure. For our part, our agency will continue working to provide timely inputs to the evolving policy and political landscape, and in line with our mandate, we will also continue to support our member and cooperating countries.
I am delighted to inform you that this year we have welcomed both Moldova and Ukraine to the EEA family, and this brought our country network to a total of 40 countries.
We are also prioritizing an ambitious digitalization strategy to support both the EU policy making and the countries themselves. We see an increasing request from policy makers and stakeholders for on-demand intelligence and insights alongside the traditional publications and reports. But this requires us to integrate environmental data services and to strengthen our digital and AI, artificial intelligence, capabilities. We want to continue providing cross-policy insights based on both reported data and on Earth observation data. Our ambition is to equip policy makers, including you, the European Parliament, and the public, with more timely, easily accessible and actionable environmental intelligence.
At the same time, we want to reinforce EEA and its country network's role as Europe's trusted provider of environmental data and knowledge. And all these considerations must feed into the ongoing negotiations around the multiannual financial framework. The right investments need to be made if we are to safeguard our environment and all the critical services and safeguard it provides. And adequate funding is also needed to continue providing the data and knowledge.
Data and knowledge that Europe needs to design and refine policies and track progress, and to inform European citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders. Finally, let me reiterate, our agency remains at your disposal, ready to offer any specific support you may need, as far as we can. So please feel free to reach out to us anytime. So thank you for your attention. I'm really looking forward to the discussion.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Now we open the discussion with our contact person. Pär Holmgren is substituted by Rasmus Nordqvist. Rasmus, you have the floor for three minutes. Thanks.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you, Chair. And yes, unfortunately, Pär Holmgren couldn't be here, so I will raise some points on his behalf. But first, let me start by thanking you for coming here, and not least also the collaboration. And I think the point you made today on the interlink between the environmental, the biodiversity, and climate challenges, that crisis, but also the interlink in some of the solutions that we actually can see, that solutions in one field is actually good for all the other fields as well.
So thank you for restating this. It's not new, having followed your work for a long time. On behalf of Pär, I want to especially raise two questions. First is on the Arctic, because one thing is what happened in Europe this summer, and which has happened year after year, but also the Arctic is warming three to four times faster than the global average. So we really see an extreme challenge there.
And the Commission is updating the EU Arctic policy this quarter. The agency's last dedicated Arctic assessment was in 2017, which is some years back now. So what we'd like to know is what role do you see for the EEA in assessing the Arctic environmental and climate, and can you provide any details on the upcoming update to the Arctic assessment? And then a point you were mentioning yourself on digitalization.
I mean, yes, I mean, what stakeholders increasingly need is on-demand intelligence, the options to get data directly and the granularity and moment they need it, rather than just waiting for the next flagship report, even though we love reading them as well. And it it looks like your digital capability strategy points in that direction, but could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on on how far the agency can actually go in becoming a live knowledge service rather than the publisher of of the good reports so we so we can learn a bit more about that also for the work here in the house. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the political group representative for two minutes. We start with S&D César Luena for two minutes.
César Luena
Pues muchísimas gracias, presidente. No deja de ser significativo... Gracias, presidente. No deja de ser significativo, querida directora, que el primer grupo de la cámara, el Partido Popular Europeo, ni siquiera venga a su comparecencia. Eso a mí me parece significativo.
Cuatro cosas muy rápidas. Mire, según los científicos, esta misma semana hemos podido ver del panel internacional de Naciones Unidas y vienen a decir que estamos muy cerca de posicionarnos ante un punto de no retorno en relación a la al calentamiento del planeta y al nivel de temperaturas.
Entonces, no solo como directora, sino como experta, ¿qué opina usted? Es decir, claro, decir que no estamos a tiempo de solucionar el cambio climático es es complejo, pero me gustaría que usted nos diera su opinión. Mire, a pesar de la evidencia, usted lo ha dicho de lo que ha pasado este verano, no deja de haber cierta inconsciencia, ciertos retrocesos que se resumen en una palabra: los que no han venido aquí a la comparecencia, negacionismo. Porque fíjese, en esta cámara tenemos normativas sobre ómnibus medioambiental para recortar las directivas y reglamentos del mandato anterior que desarrollaban el Pacto Verde Europeo. Tenemos el reglamento para reducir las emisiones de coches y furgonetas.
Tenemos la amenaza para reabrir directivas del agua, de hábitats, de aves. Claro, ¿cómo contempla usted este panorama? Adaptación y resiliencia. El marco se presenta en octubre. ¿Qué debe contener ese marco de resiliencia y adaptación?
Me refiero a obligaciones, financiación, planificación. Por cierto, ¿cómo utilizar la aplicación de la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza, ahora que están presentando los planes, para que la Ley de Restauración de la Naturaleza no sea solo de protección y restauración de la biodiversidad, sino que también podamos utilizarla en el marco de adaptación y resiliencia?
En definitiva, ¿qué hacer para reducir los riesgos? Termino, gracias presidente. Entiendo que puedo utilizar algo del tiempo que sus señorías conservadores no han no han empleado. Tenemos en los próximos meses la COP del clima, la COP de biodiversidad. Ante este panorama, ¿qué papel cree usted que debe tener la Unión Europea?
Porque hemos de dejado de tener ese papel líder de tirar, digamos, con ambición del resto de países. Pero es la oportunidad. No lo sé, como le decía al principio, si es la última, pero desde luego que es una oportunidad. Gracias, presidente.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Yes, thank you, Chair, and apologies for coming in late. Fortunately, my assistant did listen to you, so I'm just going through the summary of what you've said.
My question is basically a very simple one and that is that what we see happening is a greater divide between what scientists are telling us, whether it's climate change or loss of biodiversity or other ecological threats that are coming towards us, and what the politicians are doing with that. And I see that even the Paris Agreement, which we applauded 11 years ago, is not well set in stone as we hoped in December 2015. And my question, and I know it's a political one and that's a difficult question for you, but how can we try to lower that gap and that politicians and not just politicians but society at large is listening more carefully to what our scientists are telling, even if it's a story that is maybe not very appealing because it means that we have to take measures that are not always on the short term the nicest things to do. So maybe you can elaborate on that.
And again, I know it's a very difficult question for a scientist because it forces you to step into the more political arena, but I think it's the key question we have to face all together. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For the Greens, Rasmus Nordqvist on his personal point of view now.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, many hats, same green heart. This time around, circular economy, something we have also talked about before. And my first is, I mean, we've seen the very slow movement of circular material use, I mean, over the last 14 years, and we have a target of doubling by 2030. So, and I know that your reports have highlighted that policies have been too focused on waste and recycling. But I mean, can we quantify how far prevention and resource reduction would actually take us in this context?
Because we can point to the problem in what we have done, but how far can we go with the right policy? Then as well on financing is something you have looked into, and you point to a financing gap for up to 1.2 trillion euros by 2040 when it comes to the investment needed. But you also flag that it's actually very difficult to establish what's actually being spent. So is it possible to get a more certainty on actual and planned investments?
Is that something that you can you can actually do with the data that is available or look into? And then I mean coming from the fashion and textile business I think it's been tremendously interesting to read your report on textiles of course because it's a business I know but there's also other very important industries when it comes to circular transformation. And here I think specifically of the construction. I would like to know if that's something you you plan to look more into the construction sector. And then in more general just with the circular economy act coming up how do you plan from from the agency to to also help and facilitate the work that has to go on in in the various institution after the the presentation from the from the commission and also before there's still work to be done there.
Thank you.
Catarina Martins
Muito obrigada senhor presidente. Queria começar por lhe agradecer muito a intervenção inicial que fez e a exposição clara que fez sobre os perigos que estamos a atravessar. Este ano morreram 14 mil pessoas na União Europeia com a onda de calor. Tivemos as maiores evacuações com os fogos desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial. No meu país em Portugal o rasto da crise ainda se vê com toda a destruição.
Seguramente, se há ameaça às populações, são mesmo as alterações climáticas. Mas também vivemos num momento em que a União Europeia não só recua no seu projeto de transformação para responder às alterações climáticas, como ainda por cima parece pôr em causa que essa transformação possa ter uma competição com a segurança das populações na sua agenda bélica e militar. E o que eu ouvi dizer, e tão bem, que restaurar a natureza é o que torna os territórios mais resistentes e tem de ser uma prioridade, queria colocar-lhe duas questões sobre duas políticas absolutamente contraditórias na União Europeia, por um lado, e uma outra que está a começar e que me parece que precisa do seu olhar, muito brevemente. Com o regulamento para as matérias-primas críticas, nós estamos a ver a abertura de minas na Europa, Portugal, o norte de Portugal sobretudo e a Galiza são muito sacrificadas por isso mesmo, em que as regras não estão a ser cumpridas.
Não há avaliações transfronteiriças, as comunidades não são ouvidas, estão a ser destruídas paisagens, territórios agrícolas riquíssimos, sem que se perceba o que é que ganhamos verdadeiramente com aquela mineração. Por outro lado também, ao mesmo tempo, estamos a ver megacentrais de produção fotovoltaica ou de produção de energia eólica a destruírem árvores, a destruírem paisagens contra as comunidades, o que aliás está a criar um problema democrático muito importante, que é as comunidades não percebem porque é que a transição lhes dá alguma coisa de bom e portanto levantam-se contra a política climática. E a verdade é que nós sabemos que a transição não tem de ser feita assim, não é sequer transição, é uma apropriação dos recursos de todos por uns poucos. E chego à minha última pergunta brevemente, sei que já não tenho tempo. Bases de dados enormes, megacentrais de bases de dados na Europa.
Não há nada que as justifique. Estamos a entregá-las nas mesmas mãos americanas que já têm tudo. Ninguém sequer pode falar de autonomia estratégica europeia. Estão a ficar com a água, com o sol, estão a aquecer e a piorar a qualidade de vida de forma extraordinária às populações e eu pergunto-me se está a analisar o que está a acontecer e o que é que tem para nos dizer sobre isso.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. For the catch the eye, I have two requests. Three. We start with Christophe Clergeau.
Christophe Clergeau
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Madam. My question is about exposome.
We have in this Parliament an exposome coalition with MEPs coming from different groups, from EPP to the Greens. And we just approved in this committee a few minutes ago the result of the trilogue about ECHA basic regulation. And in ECHA basic regulation, we introduced a formal support to the One Health task force between the agencies. And we asked for an enlargement of the scope of the mandate to One Health and exposome. So I think these two approach are very complementary.
So my question is how your agency contributes? I know you do a lot, but if you can recall that. And how you could strengthen your contribution because there is no specific agency in charge of highlighting the link between health and environment, environment as products, pollution, but also living conditions. So how far can you go in contributing to this exposome approach, consolidation and crossing of data at European level? Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much and thank you for being here today. I'm up here. I just want to actually elaborate a little further on the fact that nobody from EPP is here in the room.
And I mean this room should be packed. It should be with a queue outside because we have experienced a nightmare across Europe this summer. I was in the insurance business for 35 years, many of those years in executive position. And I was in the room 25 years ago when the oil and gas industry had to admit to the insurance industry that something was going on in the climate and that we had to pay attention. Now this is 25 years ago and some of the predictions even then was telling us what would happen.
So in my opinion we need now to work on three levels. You mentioned them. Lower CO2 emissions still has to be at top of the agenda, otherwise we are letting down not ourselves but future generations because what we are tackling now is emissions many years ago. We have to mitigate. That's about how we build, that's how we make dams, that's how we plan cities.
And then of course we have to have a very, very good civil protection mechanism that we should invest in.
That has to be a very, very high priority for all of us. That points directly into the MFF. That's about data, that's about working together, that's about people on the ground. And then two questions to you. First of all, there are still very many common interests between what we see and how we can act as institutions and politicians and what they see in the insurance industry.
And I would like to hear if there's any cooperation, if there's any communication. I'm not saying they're all, you know, God's best children, but but there are a lot of knowledgeable people there and there's a lot to be done together. Second question, and I think that actually goes along with what my colleague Rasmus Nordqvist was saying, how do we get people, or perhaps it was you, Gabanha, how do we get people to understand that what we need to go through has some pain related to it, some change? We have to live in different ways than what we used to do. That is for me very crucial, because that is what is now being taken advantage of by the far right, saying, you know, Green Deal is to blame for everything, which is completely nonsense.
But we have to educate people to understand, and we can only do this collectively together to get through the pain. Thank you.
Martin Günther
Ja, vielen, vielen Dank. Vielen Dank auch, dass Sie sich heute mit uns treffen und den Austausch mit uns haben. Ich würde tatsächlich anknüpfen wollen an meine Genossin Martins in Bezug auf die Rechenzentren. Ich habe mitbekommen, dass es erklärlich viele Projekte innerhalb der EU gibt. Was mir bisher nicht untergekommen ist, und vielleicht können Sie uns da aufklären, die Projekte, die jetzt so alle in der Pipeline sind, was bedeutet das für den Rohstoffverbrauch, der dafür notwendig ist, um die zu bauen?
Was bedeutet das für die regionalen Wasserressourcen? Was bedeutet das für die regionalen Energie-, aber insgesamt auch Energieressourcen, also Stromkapazitäten, die da gebraucht werden? Wenn Sie das nicht gleich beantworten werden, würde ich Sie dringend bitten, vielleicht da auch zusammen mit anderen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, anderen Institutionen vielleicht uns Klarheit als Politik auch zu verschaffen. Ich halte das für eine sehr wichtige Aufgabe.
Auch in die gleiche Kerbe würde ich schlagen, insgesamt reden wir ja sehr viel über Rohstoffe. Über Rohstoffverbrauch. Sie kennen das vielleicht auch, die grüne Transformation wird dann auch gerne mal insbesondere von rechts angegriffen, weil dann Rohstoffe verbraucht werden, die dann aus Ländern wie dem Kongo kommen etc. Wo bleiben eigentlich diese ganzen Rohstoffe wirklich? Landen sie in der grünen Transformation?
Landen sie im Militär? Landen sie in den Datenzentren? Ich glaube, damit wir eine vernünftige Debatte, politische Debatte auch darüber gesellschaftlich führen können, müssen wir wissen, wo diese Rohstoffe am Ende des Tages tatsächlich landen. Was mich zum nächsten Punkt führt. Ich bin Herrn Nordqvist total dankbar, dass er auch Kreislaufwirtschaft angesprochen hat.
In vielen Bereichen der Kreislaufwirtschaft ist es leider so, dass ich nicht erkennen kann, wie das tatsächlich auch die soziale Frage dort beinhaltet ist. Wenn ich an die Reparatur von Waschmaschinen, Reparatur an einem Herd etc. denke, ist es meistens momentan noch so, trotz aller Bestrebungen, dass es teurer für einen normalen Arbeiterhaushalt ist, das reparieren zu lassen, als sich einen neuen zu kaufen. Und ich finde das einen Skandal.
Und ich finde, wir brauchen mehr Überlegungen darüber, wie wir tatsächlich eine Kreislaufwirtschaft hinbekommen, an der die Leute nicht draufzahlen, sondern wie zum Beispiel auch bei erneuerbaren Energien klar ist, wenn wir auf erneuerbare Energien setzen, dann hilft das den Arbeiterinnen und Arbeitern unserer Klasse. Okay, super. Dann belasse ich es dabei. Vielleicht noch einen letzten Satz. Ich habe gelernt, dass die fossilen Subventionen aus dem EU-Budget nicht klar sind.
Können Sie uns da vielleicht Aufklärung geben, wie viele Milliarden aus dem EU-Budget tatsächlich in fossile Subventionen gehen? Danke.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So, few speakers but many questions. You have the floor for answers.
Leena Ylä-Mononen
Thank you, and thank you for all your questions. And I warn already beforehand that indeed I may not have the data at hand to answer in detail all your questions, but we are able to come back to you in writing and follow up also in your detailed issues and of course can then also continue the providing you with the data that we have. I try to go with the in order. First of all, thank you, Mr. Nohlquist, also for your support and the questions regarding Arctic environment. Indeed, we already in our country constellation, we have five Arctic states, including the one that I know best, Finland has an Arctic region.
And I do admit that during last more than 10 years perhaps, Arctic environment issues have been deprioritized. And this has been also because of the resource scarcity in our agency. We have however, for example also with Greenland, which is of course now in the center of also geopolitical interest. And we know that President von der Leyen just visited Nuuk together with the Prime Minister from Denmark, that this Arctic policy is gaining importance. And of course in the previous Arctic strategy and policy, environment and climate have been in the center.
And now of course there's much more on also on security and the raw materials, so really these economic opportunities. But of course at the center has to be also what the Greenlandic people need and want. We have an existing cooperation agreement with Greenland actually, but they have had no resources to actually actively participate for the last 10 years.
Now with the also the remote online meetings possibilities, I think we we are ready to to definitely reinvigorate this collaboration also with them. I am asking my team how the next European climate risk assessment is able to look the whole Arctic specific issues because of course we know that the climate change is indeed, I mean much stronger there up north and there are specific risks, coastal erosion, really the the loss of permafrost, what does it mean for the biodiversity in these very vulnerable ecosystems. So we we try now to to see what we can do with our with our resources to also then cover in our work better the Arctic environment. I have I personally feel strongly about this. On digitalization, indeed, we are not yet there to be able to provide you with the snap of the finger, if if we were, I could answer all your questions, the online data, the latest intelligence on environment and climate.
This requires investment and hence we are still MFF proposal is there and it is not too bad for our agency, sort of stable financing, but we would love to have a bit more to invest in these capabilities. And of course artificial intelligence is bringing really novel opportunities to really also help those who don't know our agency and how our website is built to find the information. And we did that already in the Europe's environment, so there's a small AI tool that you can query. And we are now also having a small AI tool for the Copernicus or the land monitoring earth observation data. So with these tools we we hope to be in five years in a in a place where we can really, I mean offer this kind of more online online services.
Of course the key is also what is the data source. So yes, satellite data is is all the time taking pictures and that can be analyzed. But of course the reporting cycles from Member States, which is the core for our data and knowledge, they are only every so often, so like the nature data only every six years. So it it cannot be online unless we then can complement it with the more modern available monitoring techniques. And this is also something that I know that DG Environment in the Commission is now looking into, how can we also modernize the monitoring of environment environmental data.
To Cesar Luena's questions, indeed, do we are we already too far, is the are we in the point of no return especially on the climate climate crisis? Do we still have time to solve? Yes we do. And of course what I think all these also the global scientific reports are saying, it matters how much we overshoot. It matters how long this overshoot period is.
So we have to really, really, I mean, forcefully, I mean, fight to every, every, I mean, ton of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to keep that overshoot in the limit. And yes, at the same time, we need to, of course, prepare for the, for the worsening climate extremes and, and prepare our societies to, to for this resilience. Is there indeed this divide and, let's say, dichotomy or even schizophrenic issue that, I mean, yes, we have more scientific knowledge, more certainty on the, on the climate change and other global crisis, and at the same time, we see the backlash in the political debate. Yes, it is difficult, of course, I mean, from a, from a knowledge organization to, to see this, but on the other hand, we understand that there are these geopolitical and economic crisis in the, in the member states, in the regions, cities, they are, they're feeling also these other pressures. What we are saying is that these are all also interlinked.
That investing in the renewable energy is helping indeed against the shocks that the geopolitical crisis is, is causing, I mean, for the fossil fuel prices fluctuating so, so, so badly. And of course, also building the, the climate resilience through, for example, restoring nature will bring co-benefits, I mean, which are also very, very, I mean, tangible to the citizens living in the, in the different regions and cities.
So difficult to say what what what is the medicine against this divide and denialism. And of course we can only provide the data and knowledge, but also to communicate it at the best possible manner. And here of course your feedback, your input, what works, what kind of messages and data is useful to convince your constituencies or your stakeholders that you are collaborating with. We have now also in the scientific committee a communication scientist, which is really appreciated because we are working in a complex also disinformation landscape, so we have to also improve our skills to have the communication rightly pointed. On the adaptation and resilience, and indeed really well well put by Kessel-Louna that yes, there are clear co-benefits of restoring nature and I mean then climate resilience and climate adaptation.
This is exactly what we are we are saying, nature is buffering the risks to climate change, water water scarcity or or the flood controls is a great example. And many regions and cities are actually using these, not only the nature-based solutions, these spot-on solutions, but also the wider nature restoration to to find these benefits.
And we try in our work to also showcase these best examples. On the biodiversity conference that is approaching, yes, it is a very important global event. We are not there in the negotiation table. I know that the EU is preparing a negotiation position and of course EU is still leading also in this area. And with its existing legislation, including the new nature restoration regulation, is able to show that we also not only have the commitments and targets, but also the tools at least to make a serious attempt to reach those targets.
Regarding Mr. Gerbrandy's questions, indeed, how to lower the gap between the politicians and the scientists and how to also explain when the transition is not always nice. I mean, there are also trade-offs that we have to be honest about. And we also perhaps heard in Madame Martin's questions the dilemma that local communities may find even the renewable energy installations as depriving them from the natural landscape and the usual environment.
So these trade-offs are real. And of course, Member States in their implementing all these legislations and and planning their own activities and policies need to take these trade-offs carefully into account. And of course, follow the best practices of of hearing and making the assessments that are necessary, including the cross-border assessments. Be it the mines, which and of course, I mean, it is also clear that for the for the all the all the let's say technological developments, we cannot continue being so dependent on the critical raw materials produced elsewhere in the world. We are we are basically outsourcing the problems, outsourcing to the poorest in the world.
So we have to take ownership that we if we need critical raw materials and we cannot accommodate that need by only by recycling, we have to have some some new mines. But of course, they should be managed in an impeccable manner, respecting the environment and social aspects. But yes, how to to close this gap, it is it is really a tricky issue. I don't have the the right answer, but I think that is the in the key of also the debates that you have most likely every week in this room.
And how can we also bring some positive vision, positive perspectives to the citizens who are so desperate to understand where are we going? And of course that is also part of the our work. We try to also bring these solutions, what can work in the climate adaptation, what kind of business opportunities for local communities exist when you can find these these co-benefits, both I mean clean and green transition and at the same time then indeed thriving new business. So this is definitely definitely something that we are working on. Back to to Mr. Nordqvist on the circular material use rate and how do we the investment gap is indeed surmounting.
We don't have huge states now data now I mean on the on the what is what is actually real needs. And of course indeed very difficult to comment on the circular economy act. It is coming and we we don't we don't yet know exactly what we it will it will entail.
But of course the sectors that you mentioned, textiles, but also the constructions and building sector are definitely the key sectors, including and then also the electronic equipment, I mean these all these gimmicks that we have. Those will hopefully be looked at specifically and our agency will work continue working on those material streams because they are the key. So and also with the data now reported under the EU legislation, we are able to provide at least how are we progressing. No doubt there is a big gap of not only investment but also like yes, systems that are looking at the how can we utilize the internal market better for the circular circular economy and also looking at these business models that are it's not only about recycling. So indeed, how can we repair the washing machine and have it cheaper than buying a new one?
So price signals, pricing the the secondary raw materials in I mean lower than the virgin materials is of course key. So we hope that the Circular Economy Act is also looking at this elements of economic incentives. And we we are looking forward to to to see the Commission proposal and seeing whether there is also a role for us then to to monitor these these streams further. Madame Martins, you indeed also referred to not only to the renewable energy and the critical raw materials and these these dilemmas that the that citizens and regions are facing, but also the data centers, which then was also echoed by by a colleague.
And indeed, I mean, I think the data centers is a big big issue. There's a huge boom. Artificial intelligence, that boom is feeding into that need for data centers. I'm afraid also EU will need data centers. We need digitalization and we need the clever use of artificial intelligence to really help us also in this sustainability and and green transition.
But yes, there is a they come with the dependencies, I mean, from the yes, third country companies and also in some case not not well taken into account what are what is the energy energy portfolio of the country, what is the water issue, water situation in the in the region they are building these. And I'm afraid, I mean, they are there has been such a hype and boom and also in the in the local and regional authorities have been embracing this without necessarily considering the cascading impacts of this building of these many data centers. So we are looking at this and hopefully we can also then follow up on the more detailed aspects of of this issue.
Very specific question from Mr. Glucksmann on on the exposome, but indeed we are working together with the other One Health agencies, ECHA included. And of course our role also thanks to this this big PARC monitoring biomonitoring program has been to to complement the data that ECHA, EFSA, those other agencies are getting directly from from industry with the environmental monitoring data, but also the biomonitoring data from the analysis from human blood or other biological samples. And we find this very important. But of course, I mean, it is a limited number of countries who are participating in this PARC project, so our data from biomonitoring of of for example forever chemicals is very limited. So definitely here legislation, some more requirements or funding for for the Member States to to actually increase the biomonitoring would be beneficial to to complement the current data that we have.
But the biomonitoring, yes, it it really, I mean, is the the key to show it is not only chemicals in the environment, but also indeed what is already in our bodies. And that is key to also explain the the exposure and human health impacts of these substances and seeing the risks.
And we are working in exactly this environment and health area. I was last week in Munich in a big epidemiological conference and yes, there's a high interest on on the environment and health space there among the scientists. But we may lack some institutions or at least some frameworks, I mean, how to make that also in the EU more prominent. Madam Voss, I also really, I mean, the insurance business, we are looking at and have been looking already in the EUCRA, the first European Climate Risk Assessment. We had already first contacts with the sector, but also with the agency EIOPA, which is working with with these.
And we have currently increasing this collaboration because indeed insurance sector is is a is a key one to understand and sort of forecast and yes, also then wake up, I mean, or try to shout out, I mean, what kind of issues they as a sector, but also, yeah, we all are going to face in the future. So we are we are indeed, I mean, looking also at that.
And yes, I mean, there's also definitely, I mean, common interest on the, on the, on this, I mean, and regarding the MFF proposals, also the how the data and, and yes, all the systems can work towards understanding better these risks is important. How do we make people understand the pain that may come from the, from the solutions? I think the key is to try to not only look at the immediate, like heating, boiling cities, I mean, the air conditioning being the immediate response, but of course, I mean, we need much more systemic, large-scale, let's say, longer-term solutions as well on all of our challenges, not only these, as I said, quick fixes, which come usually also with the cost. Explaining to the public and citizens what are these issues with the renewables or, or mines or, or where we are, I mean, it is a key aspect of our agency and we would love to do more, also resources allowing. Did I, and yes, data centers came back in, in Mr. Günther's response and also critical and other raw materials, where do they actually go?
We don't have full data available, at least not, I don't have it now with me, but we can look at that.
I suspect that we don't have visibility on all the material streams because this is also regarded very often as a business secret. So let's see whether we can provide you with at least a global picture of the of the material flows. And yes, we I already referred to the circular economy and also the social issues, the pricing, the making indeed repairing and reusing, repurposing, I mean, much more economically affordable as well instead of always buying new stuff. Did I address most of the questions? I'm afraid yes, I took some time, but I hope we can also then indeed follow up in writing.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much for your information. We look forward also the next meeting we will have. Now we have a pause and we go...
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Chair, Chair, if there's still time, can I have a follow-up question?
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Okay, thank you, thank you.
And thank you so much, Executive Director, for your, I would say, wise replies to our questions. But I again would like to come back to the divide between science and politics, because when I talk to individual scientists on the protein matter, for instance, they all say it's a no-brainer. We have to move much more quickly to a plant-based diet. It's a no-brainer. It is better for the planet, it's better for us, it's in the end it's even better for the economy.
And then I read your report from this summer with the title "Diversifying Europe's protein supply could cut emissions and reliance on imported feed". And the message is very clear, but it's, well, in a subtle way it is described. You're not asking for a brutal change, but gradual, etc., etc. But a few weeks before that, we as a Parliament adopted our resolution on the livestock strategy with two main elements. First was livestock is strategically important, it's 40% of the EU agricultural output, so we should be very careful with that.
If you copy that to the energy sector, you would never phase out fossil fuels because it's such a big part of your output, so don't touch it.
So there you see how arguments are being used. And the second message from this resolution, where I voted against, is no general reduction of livestock numbers. There I see such a huge divide between what science is saying and what we as politicians in a majority are doing. So once again, I know that it's difficult for you this question, but individual scientists can be much more vocal than you as an institute because your institute might become in danger if you're too vocal on this. But how can we, well, make more use of science?
How can you be more dominant in the public debate?
Leena Ylä-Mononen
Thank you. I hear a lot of encouragement in your question. So thank you, I take that to heart. And of course our organization, European Environment Agency, is really in a key role, I mean in trying in this policy science-policy interface.
So I do want that we are also more clear to all constituencies, all all audiences that we have on these critical issues. Yes, we have to of course, I mean, take into account also what what may be too provocative. And of course we have to always always base our our reports and and statements on science and facts and preferably on the data that is we have in our agency. But but of course there are many other scientists who may be indeed more independent. And we of course also try to to then include the the latest scientific information, the results research findings to our work.
Explaining it and and really making the change. We are talking about really culture, behaviors, really hard-core human human patterns and behaviors. And it is not easy to change. That we know from the behavioral science. So we also need to look what kind of new meth- new ways we can we can use to actually make make it sink.
I have learned during these three plus years that it is not only the facts that will change anybody's minds. We need also some kind of touching the emotions. Something has to be felt. But even that is not most likely enough because then you forget it. You you see a next movie and and you forget that feeling that you got from any any, let's say, message from science.
So we need to also really find ways where people can take action.
So action drives beliefs. That is what we just learned, I learned some in from a scientist, I mean actually in a scientific committee seminar. So how to make these small changes so easy, obvious, like the plant-based proteins? Make it so easy that the change starts to happen, so that you don't fight the need to fight the huge lobby behind the current agricultural practices or whatever else, but actually you can drive the change also via, really, I mean, these actions that are taken at our individual level. But it is not easy and it's not quick, I'm afraid.
Thank you.
Thank you. So we will go on with our work at 10:00.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Okay. Let me start by warmly welcome Wopke Hoekstra, Commissioner for Climate Action and Clean Growth, for this exchange of view on the EU's Emission Trading System. As we all know, before the summer break, the Commission published the long-awaited EU ETS revision package. Its objective is twofold: to align our carbon market with the EU's 2040 climate target while actively strengthening Europe's industrial competitiveness. In the ENVI Committee, our work on this package has already begun, making this exchange both timely and necessary.
Since 2005, the ETS has proven to be a powerful instrument to reduce emissions and drive decarbonization.
Looking ahead at this review and the next decades, we must ensure that climate ambition and industrial policy continue to go hand in hand. There are many elements that I'm sure we will be discussing today. To name a few: the emission cap trajectory and the linear reduction factor, the changes to the market stability reserve, the proposal of the free allocation and conditionalities, the proposed inclusion of waste-to-energy plants and the extension in the aviation and shipping sectors, key investment tools such as the investment booster and the industrial decarbonization bank. And finally, there is also one point on which this committee has been very vocal about: the use of ETS revenues. Having generated over 250 billion since 2013, these revenues represent a vital financial engine for our industrial transition and decarbonization.
Reinvesting these funds strategically will be key for our success. However, member states have not always been transparent or used them adequately enough. As I have stressed before, we need clear binding commitments on transparency and reinvestment to ensure every euro directly supports decarbonization, protects jobs, and boosts competitiveness. Commissioners, the topics are clearly many, and industry, civil society, and citizens have high expectations for this review.
The Parliament's ENVI Committee is committed to supporting an ambitious and pragmatic package that receives a broad political support. So, Commissioner Hoekstra, thank you for being with us today. Following your opening presentation, members will have the opportunity to ask questions and join the debate. Commissioner, you have the floor for 12 minutes.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much, dear Chair, and ladies and gentlemen, the light is a bit bright, but it's a pleasure and privilege to have this opportunity to have this exchange on this hugely important file. In terms of climate, if there was anyone who needed an additional reminder, last summer should serve as that. Unfortunately, this is going to be the new normal for Europe and it's going to stay with us for years to come, and likely to get worse before it gets better. The second thing, of course, that we have seen only last week is that we are now also formally beyond the hurdle that we knew we were already passing, which is the 1.5 degrees. So 1.8, unfortunately, now is the new reality, and that comes with significant ramifications.
0.3 degrees might seem small, but compared to something like your body, it really has a huge effect on our societies, on our economies, and on our health. Secondly, if you look at the competitiveness of the European Union, you cannot conclude otherwise than that we are unfortunately underperforming. And that more is needed to make sure investments take place here, that the level playing field is better guaranteed, and that we expose ourselves more to innovation, more to AI, and more to R&D. And there's a whole range of other things of course that we also need to do. And third, with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, we also get a sobering reminder how dangerous it is to be so dramatically dependent.
Europe imports roughly 85% of or 80% of its gas, 95% of its oil, and that comes with a very, very significant price. But frankly speaking, it is also something I think we cannot allow others to have in terms of of a leash that that they have upon us. So in terms of climate, in terms of competitiveness, and in terms of independence, it is hugely important that we do more and that we basically bring all those three huge endeavors hand in hand. And that is exactly where the ETS and the review of the ETS system comes in.
What I've shared with many of you, both publicly but also also privately, I am truly convinced that ETS 2 is one of the best tools we have developed in terms of policy setting. It is market-based, it is holistic, it touches upon a huge range of sectors and it is to a very large degree predictable. And it has done phenomenally well in certainly the energy sector and and I would argue also across the board. At the same time, it is also fair to to assess that the system has a couple of weaknesses that ideally we should repair. And two of these weaknesses have to do with in my view lack of reciprocity.
The first one is that when handing out free allowances, there is of course a large group of countries that then use of of companies as you say apologies, that then use these free allowances for what it was meant for, and that is decarbonization on European soil. But there's also the reality that you have companies who take the free allowance, sell them on the market, invest in China and come to Brussels to complain about the ETS system. And that is something that that we can no longer afford to allow.
The second thing is and you're alluding to that already Mr. Chair, the the commitment we have made with the ETS system to companies. We and some of you will have been part of that because you have more tenure here than I than I, the commitment always was that this was not a tax. That frankly, we were gonna use this as an investment engine. An investment engine not just by companies themselves but also by our governments. To give you the numbers and you know this, part of the money is of course stays at at European level, we then spend it through for example the innovation fund.
And that all goes back into clean technologies. But more than 80% of the money goes back to member states, and member states then spend of that 80% roughly 90% in some cases even more on all sorts of things, but not on industrial decarbonization. And that was the promise.
So in some cases, indeed, it is at least spent in the green domain and it is spent in the domain of renewables, where you could argue, okay, but at least it does provide companies with energy. But in many other cases, and money is fungible, it is used for other budgetary priorities. And sometimes it is used just to make sure that debt is being paid. And I sympathize with finance ministers who are looking for, you know, making it to the end of the month and managing different priorities, but the name of the game and the promise that we've made was different. So that is the second weakness, the second lack of reciprocity that we should try to fix.
And both of these elements, of course, you clearly find in the new design, because we are sticking fully to the 90% target that we have not just set as Commission, but that we've also agreed on with the co-legislators. So the proposal is fully in line with that. It repairs exactly those two weaknesses, because on the one hand, it allows for a bit of flexibility going forward, but it then demands and prescribes and requires that companies actually invest the money on European soil. Secondly, and I'm not going to hide from you that that is going to trigger political conversations, we do ask from member states to then spend that money on industrial decarbonization, to spend it on the sectors that have also provided us with the funding in the first place. And the third thing that we're doing is we are, of course, enlarging the scope.
You've all seen the proposal, but we made a couple of, in my view, very relevant changes to it. We're including negative emissions, which in my view is hugely important, not only because it works and it is something that we will need not just until 2040 and 2050, but frankly speaking also thereafter, because we will need to have a system where we're dealing with all the emissions that are already in the air. Secondly, we are broadening in my view in a smart way the scope in, for example, aviation. And you've seen the examples in terms of the range. You see that we are leveling the playing field.
You see that we include all private jets regardless of where they're coming from. You could wonder why we haven't done that before, but okay, that is life, and a couple of other things. We're including waste, but we're doing that in a way that actually takes into account local and geographical specificities. And I've been in contact with interlocutors also from specific cities and regions to be sensitive to specific local circumstances and at the same time make sure that we bring this into the scope. And I think that is a good thing.
Fourth, not a surprise, we've had a conversation in the larger debate about our 2040 legislation on how to include credits. And you have seen that indeed part of this is now included specifically in here in a way again that I think does justice to the agreement we have made with Parliament before. A last element that I would mention in terms of the design is that we have also sought to repair things that in my view were hard to explain, that did not help for climate but actually provided leakage out of the European Union. And that is for example the reason why in the domain of maritime we've included a larger group of ports on the other shore of the Mediterranean. Why?
Well, because if actually you see that the system is being gamed, it clearly doesn't help for climate.
It clearly also doesn't help for competitiveness, and it is likely to erode the support of politicians and citizens alike because they're saying, look, why are we doing this to ourselves if there's no climate effect, a negative competitiveness effect, please fix this regulation. And that in general is I think the mindset that we need to have, because we do that here, but we've had that similar conversation with some particularly on the outer borders of Europe who were saying, look, why is it the case that if you fly to my capital you need to pay ETS and if you fly to the neighbors, you're off the hook? That's actually also from a tourism perspective not really fair, right? And it's also not fair from an emissions perspective. So I would argue that next to the big things we have done, staying the course with our climate ambition, making it more business savvy, really making sure this is an investment engine for Europe, making sure that the money goes back to where the effect needs to be gained, broadening the scope, we are also more street smart, more pragmatic in a couple of these specific things that have been a stone in the proverbial shoe of some of our member states and some of our sectors.
That's it in a nutshell, or maybe a bit more than a nutshell.
We have been, and that is maybe good to say, we have been consulting very intensively with all member states, with sectors from all walks of life, with very, very different opinions, sometimes driven by geography, sometimes driven by specific circumstances. And sometimes I was meeting interlocutors of sectors, take for example the steel sector, where some are very much in favor of our current system, others want to do something completely different, and again others were in the middle. We've also talked, and I've also talked deliberately, with all political groups in this house. And I know this is something where people have diverging views. But that is precisely in my view what politics should be about: at least have the conversation, try to learn, and then find a course that does justice to the problems at hand.
That on the Commission's proposal, that on the process we have followed. The ball is now very much in your court, and I am sure that the proposal can and will benefit from your combined wisdom. Let me close there, Mr. Chair. I think we are roughly at, well, not completely 12 minutes, but we'll use that for the debate. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much, Commissioner. We have now a round from all the political groups for two minutes each.
We start with EPP, Peter Liese.
Peter Liese
Yeah, thank you very much, dear Commissioner, dear Wopke. Very good presentation and I think also a rather good proposal. The first message: the ETS is here to stay. The debate to stop it or abolish it is over. And that's good.
We need to achieve our climate targets, in particular when we have seen what happens this summer. At the same time, we need to improve the ETS to really be a good example for third countries. Competition and jobs must be more in the focus than before, because only then we are a good example for the rest of the world. And climate change is global, so the solution must be always looking how our activities also motivate third countries. And a very important message: I have talked to a lot of stakeholders.
I had stakeholder meetings with more than 800 people. And of course from industry and from also some colleagues, some member states, there's a hard criticism against the Commission. There's also, I think, unfair criticism from some NGOs. But the criticism from industry is maybe even tougher.
And there will be voices here in the room criticizing the Commission. My message to all those that criticize the Commission or that criticize any compromise that we will achieve: if you vote against the Commission proposal, if you vote against any compromise, you vote for the existing scheme. And I don't think that is responsible, so let's work for improvement, let's work for compromises. I would highlight now only two points where I think the Parliament and the Commission should be allies. The first one may be controversial, but think about it.
It's the international credits. You know, the Parliament voted for the international credits, 5% until 2040. And the Commission rightly says this should also be indirectly included in the ETS. And the Commission is the master. They control the quality of these credits.
And my question to all those that say no, it should be only for the member states, not for the ETS: do you really think the member states are more serious on high-quality projects or shouldn't we be a partner of the Commission to really do good projects that really help the climate and trigger the development also in third countries?
And last but not least, the revenues. You are absolutely right. We need to bring more revenues to the industry. But the Commission proposal can be improved. We need to focus also on the carbon leakage sector.
Steel, cement, chemicals. They have the biggest problem. They should guarantee, we should guarantee that they get a bulk of the money. Thank you.
Mohammed Chahim
I will speak in Dutch. I don't speak a lot of Dutch in this committee, so I will do that. I give you the time, you know, to collect yourself. And we have beautiful interpreters that can help. Oké.
Voorzitter, dit voorstel voor de herziening van het Europese emissiehandelssysteem verenigt drie hoofddoelen: klimaatactie, concurrentievermogen en onafhankelijkheid. Dat waren ook de mooie woorden van de commissaris. Het zijn namelijk uw eigen woorden. Want ik vraag me wel af hoeveel van die woorden we overeind blijven als we kritisch inzoomen op de plannen. ETS is één van onze belangrijkste instrumenten om de Europese CO2-uitstoot naar beneden te brengen.
Met het principe dat de vervuiler betaalt, zorgen we ervoor dat verduurzamen loont en ja, zorgen we ervoor dat er ook geld komt om die verduurzaming en die innovatie te financieren.
Maar dan moet je dat principe wel natuurlijk handhaven en zelfs daar waar het kan versterken. Als we inzoomen op de plannen, als we gaan kijken naar het onderzoek van het ook van het Nederlands Planbureau, zeg maar de Europese JRC, dan zien we dat we inleveren op klimaatactie, dat het concurrentievermogen noch onze onafhankelijkheid wordt versterkt en dat vinden wij een probleem. Want anders blijven de mooie woorden van de commissaris enkel die mooie woorden. Wat laat dat onderzoek nou zien van het Centraal Planbureau? Dat laat zien dat door de huidige herziening we de uitstoot maar ten derde verhogen, met 33%.
Dat is meer dan 20 keer de uitstoot van Nederland. En wat laat het ook zien, dat de energiekosten voor die belangrijke industrie maar beperkt dalen, zo'n €2 per megawattuur. De gemiddelde burger, de normale gewone Nederlander, de gewone Europeaan zal misschien niet helemaal begrijpen wat het is, maar dat is minder dan 0,2 cent per kilowattuur. We verhogen de uitstoot met meer dan 30% en we verlagen de kosten voor onze ondernemers met 0,2 cent per kilowattuur.
En wie profiteert nu het meest van deze dit voorstel, voor deze versoepelingen? Want ik wil dat het geld ook echt gaat naar de industrie om te kunnen vergroenen. Dat de gewone Nederlander, de gewone Europeaan ervan profiteert, dat terugziet in hun portemonnee, maar ik zie dat nog niet. Daarom mijn vraag aan de commissaris. Gezien dit onderzoek, gezien de uitkomsten van het onderzoek.
Hoe kijkt u naar uw huidige plannen die volgens dat onderzoek meer uitstoot veroorzaken en minder bijdragen aan het verbeteren van onze concurrentievermogen? Dank u wel.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, for coming coming here and to share with us. I am going to speak Czech in order to keep the interpreters awake a little bit while not using Czech language very often. So, prošla jsem si návrh včetně včetně vlastně celého impact assessmentu. Musím říct, že pár věcí věcí mi tam přece jenom chybí na to, abychom to mohli komplexně vyhodnotit.
Co první otázka je, jak Evropská komise posoudila vliv systému ETS jako celku, jeho současného nastavení včetně pokračování po 2030 z pohledu carbon leakage?
Kolik přesně to představuje tun CO2 za rok, jaký byl způsob výpočtu a co vše bylo do něj zahrnuto? Druhá otázka je, jak byl posouzen vliv na downstream odvětví ekonomiky, konkurenceschopnost, bezpečnost a soběstačnost EU? Třetí, jestli má Evropská komise zhodnoceny důvody dramatického úbytku ETS průmyslových zařízení v EU, což je velice důležité. A poslední otázka je, jak si Evropská komise představuje konkrétně pojmout podmíněnost volných alokací a jestli si je vědoma toho, že je to sice dobrá myšlenka, ale v praxi to vypadá na velice komplikovaný investiční proces. A to bude asi všechno.
Děkuji.
Alexandr Vondra
Well, thank you. Welcome back, Mr. Commissioner. So today we discuss the legislation where everyone's position is crystal clear: yours, Parliament, members of this house, national leaders. The position of ECR is crystal clear and we had a chance to discuss with you, so thank you very much for this opportunity.
So I don't see any reason to repeat this for thousand times, you know, on free allowances and blah blah blah. But I have no doubts that in general, the ETS in its strictest form would somehow curb the European emissions. However, the global impact of it of efforts is minimal. But are our people and industry ready to accept this price? Are your honorable colleagues willing to pay this price at the politics?
Are you set to face frustrated constituents and explain why perfectly healthy factories like automotive industry are being closed and moved abroad or overtaking by Chinese? Are you all ready for extremism to enter high politics? I'm not and I'm genuinely flabbergasted that you cannot see this. The Germans apparently did not learn the lesson. Key elections are on the horizon next year in the big member states: Spain, Poland, France, Italy.
As legislators, we will directly affect public perception of the EU and the political elites. Either we appear completely detached from what's happening around us, deaf to voters' needs and fears, like high energy prices, hurtling towards the economic downfall and being overtaken by Chinese. Or we demonstrate a sense of pragmatism, a will to find a way where people's concerns are to be taken into account. I definitely and we in the ECR prefer the second way.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much, Chair. It feels like I'm living in two parallel realities here. One where we have had the most extreme summers in Europe, where the Parisians have literally been cooking eggs on their balconies, where the Southern Europes have had massive wildfires, where over 35,000 Europeans died prematurely because of the heatwaves, where scientists have concluded that we have exceeded the 1.5 degree target, where this August was the hottest month ever on this planet.
And then we have the other reality that we're discussing somewhat in this room, where competitiveness has become an argument to stop technological development, to dismantle climate policies, where countries are pushing to rewind the polluter pays principles, where political forces are running errands of the fossil industries and the emissions are increased by two gigatons in the Commission proposal. A reality where we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to realize the reality that unfolds around us. How did we end up here? How have we two completely different perspectives on what's going on? The worst thing with this proposal is that we are moving responsibility and investments from ourselves to someone else, somewhere else.
We're not just outsourcing climate responsibility, we are outsourcing also investments. And we have it black and white. The LRF is cut by 100% because of these international credits that are totally unregulated. So sorry, please interpret me correctly. I don't blame only European Commission and Renew Europe.
We also see a lot of positive elements in the Commission proposal, like the waste, like the permanent removal, like maritime, like aviation, the use of revenues.
There are a lot of good elements here, but to be very clear, we need to bring these two perspectives and narratives closer to each other. The proposal needs to stand closer to reality, and that's what we will focus on. Thank you.
Michael Bloss
Thank you very much, Chair, thank you, Commissioner. We experienced a summer like never before. The heatwaves were not possible without the climate crisis, and the climate crisis is hitting the European continent the hardest. And it was said before, over 35,000 people died with this heatwave, and the numbers are not yet fully complete. There was, it was almost impossible to ship goods down the river Rhine because there was no water left.
And I'm not even starting to talk about all of these wildfires that destroyed landscapes that were all over the news, and we even had wildfires in Belgium, in Germany, in places where 10 years ago it would not have been possible that there are wildfires. And in this very moment, the Commission, the Council, they are asking for a special summit on Ceuta and not for a special summit on the climate crisis.
And in this very moment, the Commission is proposing a legislation that would increase CO2 emissions by 1.8 gigatons. That's the amount that Germany emits in three years. In this very moment, you are proposing something where you are not sure you can reach the 2040 target. And there we have to say, I'm sorry, this is not enough. The Commission has to step up its game on fighting the climate crisis.
But also when we look on the industrial side, I was having a conversation with the head of the workers' council from the steel plant in Saarbrücken. And he told me they have been protesting, they have been changing, they have been reducing their wages in order to make the transformation in their steel power plant happening. And now you are basically telling them that this was not worth it, because you are changing the investment structures. Now for them, their business case is not clear anymore. Will it work or will it not work?
So lots of workers that know that with fossil-based steel you will not be competitive on the global market, they went to changing and now they are insecure again. So you have to make a choice: do you support those who are the frontrunners, who want to do the investment, who want to keep the jobs in Europe, or do you want to protect those who did not invest, who invested outside of Europe and just want to squeeze the last bits out of their plants? And currently you made the investments not for the future, so this has to change. Thank you very much.
Martin Günther
Sehr geehrter Kommissar, Sie stellen diese Reform des Emissionshandelssystems als Maßnahme zum Schutz der europäischen Industrie und der Beschäftigten dar. Wenn dies das Ziel ist, stellt sich allerdings die Frage, was bekommen eigentlich die Beschäftigten im Gegenzug? Der Vorschlag schwächt die Emissionsobergrenzen und weitet kostenlose Zertifikate für industrielle Emittenten aus. Damit wird es großen Unternehmen erleichtert, die Umwelt zu belasten.
Zwar knüpfen sie zusätzliche Zertifikate an Investitionen in die Dekarbonisierung, doch verbindliche soziale Auflagen fehlen. Wenn Unternehmen kostenlose Zertifikate oder öffentliches Geld erhalten, müssen sie der Gesellschaft etwas zurückgeben. Durch messbare Emissionsreduktionen, den Schutz von Arbeitsplätzen, Investitionen in Aus- und Weiterbildung, die Sicherung europäischer Produktion sowie die Einbindung von Arbeitnehmerinnen und Gewerkschaften in die Umbaupläne. Gleichzeitig wird das ETS 2 einen CO2-Preis auf die Brennstoffe für Heizen und Pendeln erheben. Es besteht die reale Gefahr, dass große industrielle Emittenten geschont werden, während Haushalte mit höheren Heiz- und Transportkosten konfrontiert sind, oft ohne echte Alternativen zu haben.
Nachsicht mit Unternehmen, höhere Belastung für Beschäftigte und ihre Familien, so kann Klimaschutz nicht funktionieren. Meine Fragen lauten daher: Werden Sie die Vergabe zusätzlicher kostenloser Zertifikate und anderer ETS-Fördermaßnahmen an verbindliche soziale Auflagen knüpfen, darunter Arbeitsplatzsicherheit, Arbeitnehmerrechte, Weiterbildung und eine sinnvolle Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmerinnen, und zwar parallel zu einer echten Dekarbonisierung? Und werden Sie sicherstellen, dass wir von den Haushalten nicht verlangen, durch ETS 2 mehr zu zahlen, während gleichzeitig große industrielle Emittenten schwächere Klimaverpflichtungen auferlegt werden und ihnen ein besserer Schutz vor CO2-Kosten gewährt wird?
Und als Letztes eine Frage, die Sie schon oft von mir gehört haben: Kommen wir denn eigentlich bei der Transparenz von Subventionen für fossile Energien im EU-Budget weiter?
Marc Jongen
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak in German. Herr Kommissar Hoekstra, das europäische Emissionshandelssystem ist in Wahrheit gescheitert. Es hat die weltweiten Emissionen sicher nicht gesenkt, es hat aber die Deindustrialisierung Europas vorangetrieben. Energieintensive Unternehmen zahlen horrende Preise für künstlich verknapptes CO2, Produktion wandert ab, Arbeitsplätze verschwinden zu Hunderttausenden.
Nach den geltenden Regeln würden die Zertifikate nach 2030 rasch gegen Null gehen. Selbst die Kommission räumt indirekt ein, dass dieser Kurs die industrielle Produktion in Europa gefährdet. Aber was folgt daraus? Keine Abkehr, sondern kosmetische Korrekturen, um ein gescheitertes System zu retten und vor allem, um den Weg in die Planwirtschaft weiter fortsetzen zu können. Die Zertifikate sollen nach 2030 etwas langsamer verknappt werden und, Sie sagten es eben, energieintensive Betriebe bis 2040 sollen weiter einen Teil kostenlos erhalten.
Das klingt erst mal nach Entlastung. In Wahrheit werden die kostenlosen Zertifikate aber an behördlich geprüfte Investitionspläne gebunden.
Dekarbonisierung bleibt planwirtschaftliche Pflicht für die Unternehmen. Gleichzeitig entsteht eine Industrial Decarbonization Bank, finanziert aus rund 400 Millionen Zertifikaten. Erst belastet der Emissionshandel die Unternehmen, dann dürfen sie über EU-Programme einen Teil zurückbekommen, sofern sie die Vorgaben der Kommission erfüllen. Die Industrie wird dadurch abhängiger von Genehmigungen, Subventionen und EU-Regularien, mit denen sich die Kommission zusätzliche Macht sichert. So funktioniert das System.
Das ETS wird jetzt auch auf kommunale Müllverbrennung und kleinere Schiffe ausgeweitet. Die Kosten tragen die Bürger über höhere Abfallgebühren, Fernwärmepreise und Transportkosten. Das 90-Prozent-Ziel für 2040 bleibt unangetastet. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor explodierenden CO2-Preisen gibt es nicht. Herr Kommissar Hoekstra, Sie verkaufen eine geringfügige Verlangsamung der Deindustrialisierung als neue Politik für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.
Sie sprachen von einem Investitionsmotor durch Dekarbonisierung. Wo sehen Sie denn die Erfolge? Und zwar die, die Arbeitsplatzverluste, die aktuellen, auch nur annähernd kompensieren würden. Und glauben Sie im Ernst, wie einige Klima-Ideologen hier im Saal offenbar, dass Sie durch den EU-Emissionshandel den weltweiten Temperaturanstieg von 1,8 auf 1,5 Grad oder wie auch immer welche Prozentpunkte senken können?
Ist das Ihr Ernst? Vielen Dank.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we have a round of answers from the Commissioner and then the catch-the-eye.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, and many thanks for the questions, comments, and suggestions that have been made. I'll do them to the extent possible, I'll review the questions or answer the questions in the order they have been asked. With Mr. Liese, who was not specifically asking a question but was very clear on the need for reciprocity, of course, I very much agree. I think that is at the heart of what we need to do.
And if we're truly honest, with all the appreciation for the current ETS system, that is a weakness. It is a weakness that we have not asked more from companies. It is a weakness that we have not asked more from our Member States, because we have been maybe too trustworthy that that would happen just by itself. And it didn't.
Just look at the numbers and look at some of the companies that have been complaining and look at what they've been doing with their free allowances. Again, what I just said before is truly what we see: sell free allowances on the market, invest in a factory in China, come to Brussels to complain about the ETS system because of the price, not of what you're incurring today in terms of cost, but what you fear that will happen in the future. And the same with Member States. Most of them have significantly underinvested in terms of giving the money back to the sectors where the money is coming from. And that has been the central promise of the ETS.
The central promise has been: this is not a tax, this is an investment engine to decarbonize European industry, and therefore the money is going to be used in such a way. Then the comments and maybe I should also say the criticism of Mr. Sijimane. He was also referring to a couple of the agencies that are running these models. And all sorts of criticism is of course always appreciated because you can learn from it. But I do think it is important to look into not just in general separating fact from fiction, but also be very clear about what some of the assumptions are that I think are, well, maybe debatable in the modeling.
First, and that is hugely important, this proposal is fully in line, and I say it again, fully in line with the 90% target that we have jointly set last year. And some of you will say it is 85 plus five, others will say it is 90 minus five, but it is in line with that proposal. So any modeling should go against that line. And that is the first thing that has struck me in some of the reporting that I've been seeing and some of the modeling that I've been seeing. And many of you were here before I was, so you will recall this.
What happened with the LRF in the past? And what happened with Fit for 55? We used to have an LRF of 2.2. And then to make 55% in 2030, we decided to accelerate the LRF for the remainder of this decade to 4.4. But at that time, at that time it has been communicated that that would not be the LRF for the 30s.
And by the way, if 90% is your goal, you also don't need an LRF of 4.4 to reach your target in 2040. So that's the first thing that is hugely important. So again, I know what politics is like and you're all completely, of course, allowed and warranted to criticize whatever the Commission does.
But it is important to recall what the fact base actually was. This is the fact base, and this is the first thing that at least in some of the reporting actually goes wrong, because some of the modelers are assuming that that 4.4 was always destined to be the case. If that were the case, then we would reach 90 also much earlier than 2040. That's one. Secondly, and again about at least some of the modeling I have seen, sometimes the assumption is that the credits, which you know we will introduce as of 2035, will be pushed in the market at once.
That has not been our assumption, but of course that skews then the picture. And then the third, and I think that is in general much harder to read, so I understand that people make different assumptions, Mr. Shahim and of course some of the reporting are also making all sorts of assumptions what is going to happen to the energy price. I would argue that one, that is going to be extremely hard to do given all the uncertainties in terms of geopolitics.
But secondly, the one thing we see that is completely changing that picture is the combination of ever more renewables, where the costs are falling ever further, always outperforming any expectation, and the nuclear renaissance that I'm sure we will see. None of that is in the modeling, or at least not to the extent that it, in my view, should be. And I'll give you one more number that I think is, is always intriguing. You know that solar has fallen, the costs of solar have fallen by some 90% since the beginning of this century. In, I believe it was 2014, the UN calculated what would happen with the price of solar panels.
Their most optimistic calculation for the year of 2040, the year of 2040, their most optimistic calculation, we reached at the beginning of this decade. So apparently it's hard. So I'm not saying to, I don't want to criticize those who are doing the modeling, but I think it is hard to filter in and to factor in what exactly will happen to energy prices. And I think those, those models are too conservative here. And in any case, and that is just, that is, that is factual, the conversation on the LRF has never been that it would stay as it is now.
So I wanted to be a bit explicit because I fully understand, and I saw the reporting as well, I looked into it, that Mr. Shahim quotes. And I think that at least gives at least some direction of travel also for Madam Wiesner, who was also critical specifically about the linear reduction factor. But I hope I have, if not convinced, then at least contextualized that. Then Madam Nagyova was asking about leakage. And there I would argue that leakage is indeed a valid point, but that is precisely the reason why we have come up, and particularly in the previous legislature, you have already come up with CBAM.
And again, we don't need it to reach our target.
In hindsight, but that's always easy, in hindsight we should have done that right from the beginning. Having an ETS without a system like CBAM, even in the rosy days that we had 20 years ago, was probably unfulfilling, not completely in balance. But with what happened to the international trade landscape, it is even more important. And that is not only why, with a huge push from this Parliament, by the way, we have embarked on CBAM in the previous period, we are beefing that up significantly in terms of simplification, in terms of scope, in terms of going downstream, that was her second question.
And I think we're going to have another conversation on this next week. By the way, I'm going to say one more thing on CBAM. That topic of enlarging the scope, looking into new pockets, in my view, will stay with us for years to come because others might seek to circumvent it. And we owe it to our own industry that what we ask from them, we should also ask from the others. Mr. Vondra was not asking specifically a question.
There was, I think, an undercurrent of mild criticism and he was looking for the celebration of democracy that is on our European doorsteps. So I'm not going to further comment on that. But I will say that, of course, as always in politics, it is not only about coming up with great ideas, you also need to have the majorities to allow you to pursue these policies. And that is precisely what the Commission seeks to do.
I think I have answered many of the points made by Mr. Bloss. Maybe one thing just to be very clear on: what this system does, it actually does continue to reward and help the frontrunners. At the same time, it gives those who are maybe more in the middle of the pack, who might not have completely lived up to our expectations, who might be in different industries, a recipe of future success, because they can still come on board, but they will need to make these investments in Europe. And by the way, I was talking to many of those frontrunners last week also in Denmark and Finland. They embrace this system.
They embrace the changes. They are for the reciprocity that Liese and I just mentioned. So I think we are absolutely doing justice to them as well. Then Mr. Günther was making another I think very valid point, and that was, if I summarize it, the wallet of our citizens. And I think that is exceptionally valid, particularly in the times we're living in.
My answer would be, look at what—and it's not to flatter the Finns in the room—but look at what Finland has done. And I've been amazed more often by how the Nordics have approached this, but looking at the numbers last week again in Finland, what have they done? They have an exceptionally strong grid. They are high on nuclear.
They are high on renewables. That combination makes that they import hardly any fossil fuels so they're doing amongst the best in their energy system in terms of climate. They are no longer dependent on Russian gas or on gas from others and they have the lowest energy prices for their companies and their citizens in Europe. Corrected for taxes I don't know their exact tax base but I think even after taxes they're the lowest. That is the recipe.
That is the recipe and that is exactly what we need to do in Europe at large. More electrification more solar more wind more geothermal more interconnectors more battery capacity more nuclear SMRs and and existing machines. All of that is needed because it will help for climate for competitiveness and for for independence and our citizens will feel that in their wallets. Just look at the energy prices across Europe and it is not a perfect causality and you need to correct for taxes but it is no coincidence that you see this pattern across the continent.
That brings me to Mr. Jongen, who is talking about deindustrialization. And let me separate there fact and fiction as well. Of course, there is a valid point about how our industry is in some cases eroding and in some cases under fierce attack from the outside. And I'm all for competition. Competition brings lower prices for us as consumers and better products for us as consumers, but it needs to be fair competition.
If you then look at what is hindering our industry, it is that unfair competition. It is dumping. It is first and foremost much higher energy prices, again driven by the fact that some others are pumping it out of the ground and we have to import it in any case, particularly if we're still dependent on fossil. They're also hindered by huge dumping and all sorts of other malpractices. So there is something that we do need to do.
That is a much longer conversation. But then looking at the ETS and blaming the ETS, which is only a very small proportion of the overall price, is not just intellectually lazy, it is also incorrect.
Mr. Chair, I think that is the first round from my side.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we open we have the catch-the-eye. During the first speaker time, if somebody else want ask to speak, it's the moment, otherwise we will close. Every speaker has one minute and 30. We have many speaker that request to talk, so I kindly ask to stay in 90 second.
We start with Čanžek Tomšič from EPP.
Zala Černilec Tomašič
Thank you. Well, it's absolutely clear that we need a revision of ETS and I'm very happy that the Commission has recognized that and that you proposed something.
I have to admit that after the summer, after conversation with the Slovenian industry and also my own opinion, we were a little bit disappointed and for a different reason than my colleagues from the left. So I do agree with you, Commissioner, that the ETS has decreased the emissions in the previous decades, but we do need to be aware of the fact that globally they have increased and that right now we're at the point where the competitiveness cost that our industry is paying in the EU market and especially in the global market, it is way greater than the environmental benefits coming from the ETS. So we do need concrete actions and I don't have time to go through all of it, but we would like to see the suspension of the further reduction in allowance availability. And I do have two very specific questions. One is my strong objection, but also a question that Slovenia is, according to your proposal, losing access to the Modernisation Fund.
And secondly is that although I welcome the carbon capture that we have in, I wonder why are we also not acknowledging the natural carbon sinks that we have, such as our forests. Thank you.
Ingeborg Ter Laak
Thank you, dank u wel, en ik spreek ook in het Nederlands. Dank u wel en dank Commissaris Hoekstra dat u hier bent. ETS is één van de belangrijkste en succesvolste instrumenten die we hebben om onze klimaatdoelen te realiseren en tegelijkertijd maakt het de Europese industrie sterk en concurrerend.
En dit laatste is wellicht iets wat we in Europa in het verleden iets te weinig oog voor hebben gehad en daarom ben ik positief over dit voorstel, maar ik wil wel een toelichting op een aantal zaken. Allereerst is het heel belangrijk dat we ETS-inkomsten terugbrengen naar de industrie overal in Europa. Dus de voorgestelde Industrial Decarbonisation Bank en de Investment Booster kunnen echt helpen om investeringen in elektrificatie, waterstof, schone technologieën van de grond te krijgen, want dat is de toekomst van Europa: cleantech. En een sterk Europa is een groene industriepolitiek. En we willen onze industrie verduurzamen en daarmee zijn we concurrerend en hebben we de innovatie, de strategische kennis behouden voor Europa.
En dan kijk ik ook naar voorbeelden in Nederland, dan kijk ik bijvoorbeeld naar de Rotterdamse haven waar ik onlangs was. En daar zijn bedrijven die investeren in groene waterstof, elektrificatie, circulaire productie en CO2-opslag. En dat laat zien dat de groene industriepolitiek niet alleen gaat over emissiereductie, maar ook over het behoud van banen, over het vernieuwen van hun productie en zorgen voor een stevige industrie van de toekomst. En daarvoor is een stabiel Europees kader nodig. Dus dat wil ik eigenlijk wel heel graag benadrukken.
We moeten investeren in de frontrunners en hen behouden voor de toekomst.
Tiemo Wölken
Thank you, Chair, thank you, Commissioner.
I think the biggest strength of the ETS is and has always been its predictability. Every year we would know what the cap would be and what that would mean for the emissions of the European Union overall. That is why I'm so perplexed that you want to undermine this principle by your approach to removals. You are planning, if I understand correctly, to massively inflate the cap by 250 megatonnes under the very, very optimistic assumption that at some point in the future, maybe the additional auction revenues will fund enough removal projects to make up for that gap. So given the level of the technological maturity of removals, you and I both know that calculation will not work out.
Why not turn it around? Why not fund the removal projects with funds first and then later recoup those funds from additional auctions when we actually know how much emissions the projects have actually removed?
I think this would be the more honest approach. And a second question because it has come up and you also mentioned it after this summer. How can we credibly talk about more power from nuclear power plants as a reliable source when we know that we will face severe water needs and droughts even more often?
Annalisa Corrado
Grazie. Grazie mille. Io volevo tornare su una cosa già nominata, ma renderla più specifica. Sono assolutamente d'accordo con l'approccio che l'ETS è uno strumento fondamentale, importante, che si lega ad altri strumenti su cui si sta lavorando, l'Accelerator Act, il Circular Economy, l'elettrificazione e così. E sono molto d'accordo anche che in qualsiasi modo rallentare è un costo che paghiamo complessivamente.
Ma in alcuni settori rallentare significa anche andare incontro alla mancanza di tecnologie davvero affidabili e abbordabili economicamente per fare la decarbonizzazione. Mentre giustamente in altri settori addirittura si è fatto margine, si sono venduti le revenues delle quote, insomma si è fatto un gioco sporco.
A maggior ragione per questo e perché è così costoso decidere di rallentare, non capisco l'approccio trasversale nel benchmark. Nel senso che anche la Commissione stessa nell'impact assessment aveva valutato la possibilità di differenziare i settori proprio perché per alcuni potrebbe essere troppo poco, per altri potrebbe essere moltissimo. Quindi volevo capire perché si è scelto di restare sull'orizzontalità e l'ultimo tema è se è prevedibile che ci siano degli strumenti più forti perché poi gli Stati membri usino effettivamente le revenues come devono. Grazie.
Jadwiga Wiśniewska
Thank you very much, I will speak Polish. I'm here. Panie komisarzu, ja myślę, że nasze spotkanie jest też okazją do wymiany poglądów, nie tylko do zadawania pytań. Otóż ja chciałabym zwrócić uwagę i podkreślić bardzo wyraźnie, że w ocenie mojego środowiska politycznego ETS przyczynił się do deindustrializacji Europy, upadku firm, wzrostu kosztów życia, utraty miejsc pracy.
I Komisja Europejska zamówiła raport Draghiego po to, żeby ustalić przyczyny spadku konkurencyjności przemysłu w Unii Europejskiej. I w tymże raporcie państwo macie wskazane, że w 2008 roku unijne PKB lekko przewyższało PKB Stanów Zjednoczonych, a w 2023 było już o jedną trzecią mniejsze. I jako przyczyny wskazuje się politykę klimatyczną. I każdy z nas wie, co dzieje się na europejskim rynku, że rynek, gospodarka unijna upada. Najlepszym, czy też najgorszym przykładem jest sytuacja w przemyśle samochodowym.
Ja dziwię się kolegom z krajów, gdzie ten przemysł był kiedyś bardzo wysoko rozwinięty. Dzisiaj ten przemysł jest już na poziomie schyłkowym. Zalewają nas chińskie produkty, chińskie samochody de facto zalewają europejski rynek. A państwo proponujecie, nazywacie to państwo jakąś reformą ETS-u, a tak naprawdę to jest pudrowanie systemu, który nie przynosi nic absolutnie dobrego. Pan odnosi się do energii pozyskiwanej z solarów, ale przecież pan doskonale wie, że 80 do 90 procent komponentów instalacji OZE pochodzi z Chin.
Zatem kiedy wreszcie nastąpi przebudzenie w Komisji? Dziękuję.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Thank you. Pär Holmgren. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for your statements and your answers. First of all, I would like to say that the beast we're fighting is called climate change. And that means that we have to change ourselves as well.
We have to change the energy we use. We have to change how we produce, our means of transport, and what we eat. We have to change. And what I feel in this room from right-wing parties, they're not against fighting climate change. No, they have a fear for change.
And if you don't want to change, you're not going to fight climate change and you're never going to be competitiveness in the future. So please stop your false narrative. Yes, energy prices are a huge problem in Europe, but they're not caused by climate policy.
On the contrary, climate policy will lower energy prices in the end. And I think Commissioner Hoekstra was completely right by saying that we have been maybe too trustworthy towards both Member States and businesses, but also to many politicians. Not using, not spending the revenues from ETS for helping, assisting our industry to decarbonize is a huge problem. Yesterday's Court of Auditors report on REPowerEU, only 50 billion out of the 300 billion that was made available is being used by our Member States to get rid of fossil fuels. So the instruments that we are all giving them in order to fight climate change and to become more competitive, they're not using it because, and why?
Because of fear of change. So please step over that fear, stop with your false narrative and help us to change and fight climate change. Thank you.
Majdouline Sbai
Je vais parler en français. Merci.
Monsieur le Commissaire, vous nous avez invités à contribuer et je vais aller droit au but. Nous venons à peine de faire entrer en vigueur le mécanisme contre les surcapacités mondiales dans le secteur de l'acier au sein duquel j'ai obtenu l'ajout d'un critère sur la décarbonation. Cet outil permet au secteur de l'acier de faire sa transition tout en le protégeant. Vous voulez maintenant revenir en arrière. Vous annoncez qu'il n'y a pas d'urgence, que les quotas gratuits seront distribués plus longtemps.
Nous mettons ainsi nos industries de l'acier et leurs travailleurs en grand danger en étant incapables de fixer un cap clair et maintenir nos réglementations. Les producteurs d'acier européen vert rappellent que le marché carbone n'est absolument pas la cause de leurs difficultés. Ils vous ont cru, certains d'entre eux se sont endettés de plusieurs milliards d'euros. Des milliards de tonnes de CO2 vont résulter de cette baisse de l'ambition du marché carbone. Alors j'ai une question très simple pour cette Commission : après l'été meurtrier que nous avons connu, comment allons-nous pouvoir justifier ce retour en arrière ?
Merci.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you. In our opinion, the proposal goes overall in a positive direction.
It recognizes the reality that we will need some allowances in the system still after 2039 by lowering the LRF. The tempo of phasing out of free allowances in CBAM sectors was too fast also. Particularly good news is that the solidarity mechanism will continue. While the free allowances should be closely tied to investments in decarbonization, we need to further look for the right balance of conditionality on the one hand and administrative simplicity on the other. There are also concerns about the lack of capacity within the European Commission to fulfill the deadlines for the publishing of the implementing acts and subsequent processing related to free allocations.
This can complicate the timely calculation of free allowances and its administration in order for the companies to have allowances before the surrender deadline. Therefore, I would like to ask if the Commission is planning on internally increasing these capacities so there is a better predictability for the industry and national authorities. Thank you.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Commissioner for being here.
In our view, we look at the ETS with a skeptical aspect, so we welcome any effort to review this instrument. The Chair mentioned the impressive revenue of 250 billion euro from ETS, but the key question has always been, has, I'm here, has always been how much, how much of this revenue has actually been invested in new technology. So thanks to the Commissioner for giving us this very low and disappointing number, which does not speak for the success of this instrument. But now to my questions. As a member of the TRAN Committee, I'm interested in the enlargement of the scope of ETS to the aviation and the maritime sector.
Could you tell us if CORSIA, the carbon reduction scheme for the aviation industry, is efficient, is efficient enough in your view, or will ETS have to be expanded to flights to non-EU destinations as well? And are there any data available yet for aircraft emissions other than CO2, and how much, how much would they affect ETS? And regarding the maritime sector, will ships smaller than 5,000 gross tonnage be included in ETS?
I think the Commission is planning to decide on this until the end of the year, so now we have mid-September, so it's not very far to take this decision or not. So maybe you can tell us already about this. Both of these expansions will be another blow against the competitiveness of the European transport sector in our view, so we would like to have a heads-up in this effect. Thank you.
Heléne Fritzon
Thanks, thanks Commissioner for your introduction. And the green transition in Europe must continue, and it relies on green investments. So I'm worried, the proposal punishes the first movers, companies, frontrunners who have already made investments in decarbonization. They are, we can see weakening, you weaken their business case, and it rewards those who did not make those investments. So my first question is, I think you need a better answer to those first movers who have already made these investments and now are very, very concerned, I have met them.
And my second question is, how confident are you about the availability of international credits that will meet our standards? You have given some comments, but we can see in the absence of such credits, the LRF needs to be adjusted according to your proposal. So do you really think it would even be politically possible to raise it again? I think we are maybe we are setting ourselves up for a trap where we fail to meet the EU climate target or are forced to accept these international credits of a lower standard. But to end in a positive way, there are also positive elements.
Thank you for including waste incineration. Our experience from Sweden has been really positive. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you, Pär Holmgren. Thank you very much, and thank you, Commissioner, for being here. And I listened carefully to all your words on what has happened during this summer. It has been echoed now also by other members, so I won't repeat it. But I want to reiterate a couple of things.
And that goes mostly for my colleagues here, actually, mostly for the colleagues from the Patriots and the ECR. Fortunately, the ESN people, they stay here, and that is that is actually listening to each other.
That is where you are facing the biggest problem. That is people who just do not want to understand that this climate change comes already with a huge cost. So please take with you to the negotiation table the cost of not acting. What does that add up to? Not only in lives, Emma had all the numbers of the lives, but you can also translate this into billions, hundreds of billions of euros.
It is extremely expensive not to act. And then also, please, to my colleagues here, yes, increasing prices on energy is a huge topic, and it should be on our agenda. But that has only a little bit to do with the green transition. Yes, it has to do with it. But the main factors are two wars.
Why does this not sink in? It's the war in Ukraine. It's the war now in Iraq. That is what is actually pushing the energy prices into the sky. So take all this with you to the negotiation table.
Thank you.
Leire Pajín
Thank you, Chair, I'm going to speak in Spanish. Gracias, comisario, por una vez más permitirnos este debate.
Estamos somos conscientes de que estamos ante una propuesta compleja. Tiene que ser ambiciosa y efectiva ante la actual emergencia climática y al mismo tiempo garantizar que es justa y que se atiene a las realidades de empleo, de competitividad y de diversidad industrial de la Unión Europea. Yo le traigo algo muy concreto una vez más. Vengo de una región que alberga el principal clúster de fabricación de cerámicas en España, de la Comunidad Valenciana, una realidad también presente en otros en otras regiones. Y quería preguntarle sobre el impacto que la actual propuesta de reducción horizontal va a tener en esta en esta industria.
Quiero preguntarle qué datos concretos se han utilizado para determinar la actualización del benchmark horizontal utilizada o propuesta, porque no acoge las condiciones reproducibles para la mayoría de las instalaciones cerámicas. Y quiero también recordarle que la propia Comisión había identificado ajustes sectoriales como una propuesta mucho más realista y concreta para este sector.
Por eso le pregunto por qué la solución propuesta consiste únicamente en una corrección horizontal del benchmark en lugar de una corrección con ajuste sectorial específico como han pedido países como España, Italia, Francia y muchos de los diputados que estamos aquí. Gracias.
Jeannette Baljeu
Dank, dank Commissaris Hoekstra, en het is duidelijk dat u een goede balans aan het zoeken bent tussen klimaatambitie en het concurrentievermogen van Europa. En we steunen dan ook de koppeling van gratis emissierechten aan investeringen in schone productie in Europa. Maar bedrijven moeten die toezeggingen waar kunnen maken. Dus ik heb twee vragen op die lijn. Als een bedrijf nou bijvoorbeeld investeert in een elektrische oven, maar een redelijkerwijs netaansluiting verwacht, dan weten we ook dat netaansluitingen niet altijd even soepel verlopen in de tijd.
Dus wat gebeurt er nou als het bedrijf wel klaar is en die aansluiting uiteindelijk niet komt? Is er iets van een de-risking systeem om dit op te vangen, zodat de resterende gratis emissierechten niet misgelopen worden? Hoe gaan we met dit soort onzekerheden om? Want we willen die investeringen nadrukkelijk in Europa. En de tweede vraag over de Europese energie-intensieve industrieclusters, zoals bijvoorbeeld Rotterdam, Antwerpen, Noordrijn-Westfalen, de hele driehoek daar.
We willen dat die clusters echt die transitie maken, maar juist ook heel sterk in Europa blijven.
En wat kunnen we nog meer garanderen, hoe we die versnelling juist in die clusters extra kunnen aanpakken, maar ook goed kunnen ondersteunen in het belang van een sterke industrie in Europa. Dank u.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. First, Andy Anagnostopoulou. I will speak in Greek.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Κύριε Επίτροπε, ακούσαμε μια πολύ αναλυτική τοποθέτηση για το πού πρέπει να κατευθύνονται οι πόροι του ETS. Ωστόσο, για ακόμη μια φορά, κύριε Επίτροπε, όσο και αν έχω προσπαθήσει να μου απαντήσετε, και είναι πολλοστή φορά, δεν ακούσαμε μια συγκεκριμένη απάντηση για τις περιοχές που έχουν ήδη πληρώσει ίσως και σε πανευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο το μεγαλύτερο κοινωνικό και οικονομικό τίμημα της μετάβασης. Και αυτές οι περιοχές είναι η Δυτική Μακεδονία στην Ελλάδα και η Μεγαλόπολη. Ακούγοντάς σας μάλιστα, θα πρέπει να πω ότι μου δημιουργήθηκε και ένα συγκεκριμένο παράδοξο σε αυτά που είπατε. Είπατε ότι τα έσοδα του συστήματος εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πρέπει να επιστρέφουν περισσότερο στους τομείς που τα δημιουργούν και να χρηματοδοτούν την απανθρακοποίηση στην Ευρώπη.
Αν όμως τα χρήματα πάνε πίσω στους τομείς που τα δημιουργούν, τι γίνεται με περιοχές όπως η Δυτική Μακεδονία όπου οι ρυπογόνες δραστηριότητες ήδη κλείνουν, αλλά το κοινωνικό κόστος είναι τόσο μεγάλο, τεράστιο θα σας έλεγα, καθώς μαζί τους έχουν χαθεί θέσεις εργασίας, η οικονομική δραστηριότητα πλέον είναι ελάχιστη και οι νέοι άνθρωποι έχουνε φύγει; Μήπως λοιπόν δημιουργούμε ένα σύστημα όπου όσο πιο επιτυχημένα απανθρακοποιείται μια περιοχή, τόσο λιγότερη πρόσβαση θα έχει τελικά στους πόρους της μετάβασης; Το διοξείδιο του άνθρακα μπορεί να μειώνεται γρήγορα. Το κοινωνικό όμως και το οικονομικό κόστος όχι. Και θα ήθελα επίσης να μου απαντήσετε πώς θα διασφαλίσετε ότι ο νέος σχεδιασμός του ETS και η Τράπεζα Βιομηχανικής Απανθρακοποίησης δεν θα αφήσουν επιτέλους πίσω ή ακόμη χειρότερα να σας πω, δεν θα τιμωρήσουν ακριβώς τις περιφέρειες που κινήθηκαν στην ουσία πρώτες σε αυτή την απανθρακοποίηση, όπως η Δυτική Μακεδονία και η Μεγαλόπολη.
Συμφωνώ μαζί σας και επαυξάνω.
Ευχαριστώ.
Christine Singer
Vielen Dank, Herr Präsident. Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, die Erfahrung der letzten Jahre zeigt uns ja, dass sich mit marktwirtschaftlichen Instrumenten ein effizienter Klimaschutz organisieren lässt. Bei der Überarbeitung des Emissionshandels kommt es nun darauf an, Klimaschutz, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Technologieoffenheit noch besser miteinander in Einklang zu bringen.
Und deshalb möchte ich ein weiteres Thema ansprechen. Neben dem verlässlichen CO2-Preispfad und einem wirksamen Schutz vor Carbon Leakage sollten wir deshalb auch die Chancen permanenter CO2-Entnahmen stärker nutzen. Hier wäre gerade die Pflanzenkohle besonders interessant. Eine zeitnahe Integration in den Emissionshandel könnte die notwendigen Wertschöpfungsketten fördern, private Investitionen mobilisieren und wichtige Innovationsanreize setzen. Meine Frage ist daher: Sieht die Kommission eine Möglichkeit, Pflanzenkohle zeitnah in den Emissionshandel zu integrieren, und welche konkreten Voraussetzungen müssten dafür noch geschaffen werden?
Vielen Dank.
Wopke Hoekstra
Thank you very much, Chair. It would cost me, I think, some two and a half hours to do this in full, but I'll squeeze it all in, what is it, 10, 12 minutes. Again, I'll seek to do them in the order the questions have been asked. And I'll start with Madam Tomasic.
And she was starting by she started by saying that, you know, wasn't there a reason to give industry more time? I am personally convinced that whilst we have to make sure we protect the level playing field, we help with investments in innovation, the best way forward for our industry, and again, I'm citing the example of the of the Scandinavians, is to push this thing through. If you think about the future the the economy and the industry of the future, it will not look like today. The energy system will not look like today. Our companies are paying massively for the import of fossil.
That's just a recipe for future disaster. So we need to change that. And and trying to keep that change out of the the equation simply is not going to work. So I would not suggest we do do that. I think we we absolutely need to continue the way of this proposal.
On the modernisation fund, yeah, that is that is a a result of success. The result of success is that as with all these European instruments that are helping those with less less affluence, the moment you graduate, you are no longer eligible in terms of the criteria. That's just the reality.
And of course what we would hope is that in the end everyone is above such a threshold. So I would view it as an indicator of past performance and therefore success. Madam Terlaque was very clear and I very much agree with everything that is related to predictability. And that is exactly what industries, citizens and others always ask, on which we too often fail as politicians. Staying the course, being clear about the true north.
And of course sometimes you have to adapt given the crises that we're encountering along the way. But having a true north like our 2040 goal and sticking to it is simply hugely important. Mr. Wülken was also making this point on predictability, so I'll not repeat that. But he was critical about the removals. And I would say two things to that.
One is we unfortunately don't have the luxury anymore, simply because the climate problem is so large, to exclude parts of the solution. And that is why I am for everything that works. And then of course, you know, from an investment point it needs to be in the money.
But let's go for that full recipe. And if I were to make a bet, I'm sure that solar is going to grow massively, the same is true for wind, but there will certainly also be a future for CCS, for nuclear, and for many other industries. I was just this week, I was at what is now the largest and already operational CCS project in Europe, 800,000 tons being shipped on a ship from the southwest of the Netherlands to Norway. And that has pretty much the same dimensions as the project I was last year in Stockholm, that also ships 800,000 tons per year. And there were a couple of additional other benefits to that system in Sweden.
I cannot completely recall the details, but what I do recall is that we were talking about roughly 2% of the total emissions of Sweden. So this is huge. This is really very big. So CCS is never going to be the panacea. We will need to have all the things that we are talking about in terms of industrial decarbonization and renewables.
But it is also part of the toolbox that I would like to further unpack, and that is why we have included it.
Where you're absolutely right is that it does take public investments, because both the business case in Sweden and the business case in the Netherlands were being advanced by national public money, and I believe in the case of Sweden also by to some degree by European public money. Madame Cuartero was making a very good point on sector specificity, and it is true that various sectors have various paths in terms of their decarbonization. That is exactly why as of 2030 we will be sector-specific in our benchmarks, because we feel that that does justice to the decarbonization paths that sectors have ahead of them. Then Madame Wiśniewska was bringing Mario Draghi in in the debate. And here I I have to just completely disagree.
Draghi indeed makes a very clear point on investing in innovation, on on on how indeed the gap with the Americans has become outrageously large, and he makes all sorts of recommendations. He absolutely completely doesn't tell anywhere that we just need to throw the ETS out of the window or anything that closely resembles that.
If anything, his plea is one of tech, of clean tech, of R&D, of innovation, all the things, to cite one of the other speakers, that means change, that might be difficult, but that is very necessary. So Mr. Draghi can absolutely hold his own, but I'm I'm I will defend his report on this specific occasion. Mr. Gerbrandy, I think he has left the room, but I very much agree with what he is he was saying, and he was making almost a philosophical point on change. It is difficult to embrace, but it is one of the most well it's probably the one of the main things of our lives. Everything changes all the time.
And and this whole energy system and this whole economy and this whole geopolitical situation are changing. And on top of that, we have a dramatic situation in terms of climate change, and that requires us to not live in the past, because that will not do. Then Madame Szwaj, I'm probably pronouncing her name incorrectly, apologies for that, happens to me all the time as well. She was rightfully asking to strengthen the the trade safeguards. That's by the way exactly what we have done in the domain of steel.
We are also developing a label on clean steel. And yesterday, and I think that goes very much in the direction of maybe not specifically her question, but as I understood her statements, the public procurement proposal that was launched yesterday by the Commission is next to simplification very clearly a step in the direction of a cleaner future, because there are criteria much more important in there in terms of a cleaner economy, in terms of protecting workers' rights, but also buy European and making sure that under decent conditions produced stuff is used from European soil. So it might not be completely what you were looking for, but I think this actually does go in the direction you were alluding to. Then I think Madame Niepovo was asking about simplification, also about conditionality. Just to be clear, the new conditionality actually also replaces a lot of the paperwork and the necessities that are currently in the system.
And again, but I've said that before, but I will not get tired of repeating it, ETS is of course part of the price in the whole domain of energy. But let's not make the mistake to think that ETS is the game changer in driving competitiveness and energy prices for our industry. Our industry is hindered by a whole set of other things, most importantly the much higher prices of importing oil and gas. And that price has gone up dramatically even since February or March of this year. That is the main thing.
And again, look at the places, and I'll cite two other countries just to stop flattering the Scandinavians, look at the prices and look at what happened to those places that have embarked on nuclear and renewables. The Iberian Peninsula has made a huge step forward in the last ten years in the domain of renewables. That works. And then of course you need to recalibrate for taxation, which is different in those two countries and also in the three Nordic countries.
But if you have a recipe where you're almost complete where you almost got completely rid of of fossil fuels and you have nuclear and you have solar and you have wind and you have the other renewables instead, that is helping your business case and your citizens. Then Madam Fritzon was rightly asking again for the fast movers. And and I can only articulate one more time, that is precisely what we're doing with this proposal. And if that would have been different, you would have seen a huge price shock on the ETS on the day of our proposal, which was not the case. And if I look at what again, I mean, we're both talking to to industries from all walks of life.
If I'm getting any feedback from them, it is that they are happy that we are staying the course. And of course, I mean, they all look at this from their own specific competitive situation. So they have different opinions, sometimes even different opinions within industries. But my read truly is that those who are on the frontier of the transition are glad with our 90% target, are glad with the additional steps that we're taking, are glad we're bringing reciprocity into it, and are glad that we're staying the course. And and I understand the the politics and the criticism that we that we also generate in this room.
But if you look at the facts, that is what we are getting back. You also you were also thanking me for waste and and including that.
Thank you very much. I think many of the new elements that we have included were not discussed today in great detail, but I'm very glad you're mentioning it. And on international credits, I'm going to repeat something that I've said before. We've had this debate before and it probably will not die until it is 2035. What we have done is we have generated an option, an option to then buy credits.
We now have eight, nine years left to prepare that. We will make sure that these credits are additional, that they're verifiable, and that they basically work. Are we then going to use them? And are we going to use all of it? I don't know.
We've created this option. It's a very smart thing, I think, to have in the domain of optionality, but we're only going to do it if that actually works for the system. And I cannot fully judge whether that will be the case. What we do need to do, and that is where I'm fully with you, this needs to be a gold standard in terms of performance, because otherwise it doesn't make sense.
It's not worth our money. Madame Bossuyt was talking about the cost of inaction, and I think that is very right, and that's an undervalued element in this debate. The numbers vary a bit, but if you look at the last summer, most experts are saying, look, the cost of that number is probably north of 50 billion. Some are saying even above 100 billion. And why is that?
Well, we have lost the square kilometers roughly twice the size of Luxembourg. We have had two major rivers that were unable to transport ships. We have had deaths, excess deaths in the thousands. We have had hospitalization and we've had all sorts of other effects, and that just comes as a cost. So that's the thing I've also been saying here before.
It is not as if we're accumulating additional costs with climate action against the base case that is zero.
No, actually, this is very much about the economy. If you don't do anything or if you don't do enough, not just in Europe but also beyond, the price of climate change is gonna go up significantly. And that is why it's so important that we're having this conversation in full, why we're bridging those domains, why we're bringing the economic conversation into the domain of climate change. And we also have that with others across the globe. Because you cannot just look at the ecosystem or at specific species and then decide whether this is enough of a case to change things.
This is very much about us. It is very much about our economies and very much about our societies and our lives. Then I wanted to move to Madame Boyeux. The first what-if question I find a bit tricky because this proposal is for after 2030 and she was asking, okay, but then what happens if in that case, and she was mentioning a certain member state we both know, what if then there would not be enough electricity? Let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Where I am very much on the same page is that in my view, she was mentioning one specific cluster. I think more of these clusters need to have an integrated approach.
And maybe there's a bit of a role to play for Europe, but in any case, if you are, if you have a national responsibility and you have that type of a cluster and you do want to make that competitive, you do want to make that more climate friendly, you probably will need to also invest public money and then ask reciprocity from the players in this case, the harbor, but the same is true for many other clusters. That is in my view the only way forward. That's by the way also the only way for many of these players to make sure that they are able to pay for the energy prices. So it is going to be a public-private arrangement in my view. Mr. Tuglu was talking about specific areas and the people living in these areas.
And I'm fully on the same page, but I would want to remind him, if he allows me, that whatever you could say about the European Union and all those policy instruments, they are by nature deeply, deeply social. I don't know any other set of countries that distributes so much money from one member state to, or one entity to the next as the European Union. And that is in the Modernisation Fund, it is in the Social Climate Fund, it is in the MFF. There are very, very significant transfers to make sure that we help those areas that are below the average level of affluence.
And that is, by the way, exactly what we're continuing in our new ETS design. Then, and I know I have skipped a few people, I'm going to look for them. But I'm first going to do Madame Singer, who is I think one of the Freie Wähler, if I'm well informed. And she was asking, could we then also include plants and other things in the ETS? That is I think the second leg that we will soon discuss, right?
So if you look at our 2040 package, it basically stands on or will stand eventually on two legs. One big leg is the ETS, that's what we're doing today. The second leg is the conversation on all the other domains, and the Commission will come up with a proposal for that by the end of this year. Then, and I know we're almost running out of time, let me just flip through because I think I have forgotten a few things and people. Yes, so maybe first to Madame Picierno on the ceramics.
The fallback benchmark should actually help this specific sector.
We have made adjustments specifically for them because we know that this is a problem. By the way, they would be helped also with fast adoption. And again, after 2030, as I said to Madame Corrado, after 2030 we will have sectoral benchmarks. Then I got one question from the gentleman over there on on CORSIA. Well, let's be honest, the jury is out whether they will deliver.
It is so far I am not overly convinced. Ideally, of course, in the domain of shipping and in the domain of maritime, you come up with global solutions for something that is a global problem. But if I phrase it diplomatically, the track record has not been impeccable. So I do understand why already in the past, but certainly with this additional step, we're seeking to at least beef up the things we're doing here in Europe, again in a way that helps for climate and for competitiveness. Then I think I have exhausted not just my breath but also my answers.
Thank you, Chair.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Thank you, dear Commissioner. Now we have a quick pause and then we go on with the next item.
So Mr. Stiell, welcome to the ENVI Committee and thank you for taking the time to join us as head of COP31. This change comes at an important moment. Members are keen to hear your assessment of where preparations stand and what you see as the main priorities for the conference. Parliament is currently finalizing its resolution ahead of COP31, which will form the mandate for our delegation, so your input today will feed directly into that process and maybe also connected with our previous debate that you were so kind to hear with us.
I so now give you the floor to make your opening remarks, after which we will move to questions from members. Please.
Simon Stiell
Thank you very much, Pierre Francesco, and thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak to you all this morning. And I think the previous session with Commissioner Hoekstra, I think sets a tone for what we'll be covering in this session. I will start with some broader remarks with regard to where we are regarding the climate crisis and then we can get into the more specific questions regarding COP 31. So once again, thank you for this opportunity. Climate is sometimes seen as a partisan issue, as territory in culture wars.
This is palpably false, and we've seen just why. Europe's summer has been hot as hell.
This is the price of global fossil fuel addiction hitting home. And it shows both that the climate crisis is now a continent-wide economic security emergency, and that doubling down on Europe's long-standing climate leadership is entirely in the continent's best interest. This summer's climate-driven extreme heat has killed tens of thousands of people and hammered Europe's infrastructure, businesses, and economies. We've seen mass evacuations, power stations closed, and trade routes choked, crops lost, yields down, and food prices up and set to rise further. Elsewhere, horrifying floods have ripped through the Himalayas.
In North Africa, devastating heat has meant lost lives, power outages, water shortages, and economies slowed. In many places, climate impacts are fueling forced migration internally and across national borders, taking a dire human toll. And the costs of the climate crisis are spiraling.
Disasters are pushing up insurance premiums, leaving some entirely uninsurable. One study calculates that this summer's extremes will cost Europe 180 billion euros in lost labor productivity and disruption to food, energy, and transport. That's equivalent to carving a full percentage point from European GDP, the same amount the EU economy is forecast to grow. No wonder some EU member states are calling for a dedicated climate adaptation fund. The EU's summer of hellish heat comes on top of the ongoing fossil fuel cost crisis, and both are driving up prices for households, businesses, and governments in a deathly double blow.
Dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports has long been an economic Achilles' heel for Europe. This year again, households and businesses have been hit with higher bills. Now another European winter fuel crisis is looming due to fossil fuel dependency.
Increasingly, to be soft on climate action is to be soft on inflation and the cost of living, soft on sovereignty and security, and soft on economic growth and jobs. The fossil fuel cost crisis is also pushing up the costs of government borrowing, meaning less fiscal space to deliver vital services that populations need and expect. Understandably, Europe wants to insulate itself from volatile fossil fuel costs you cannot control. Understandably, Europe wants affordability, economic stability, energy security, and policy-making autonomy. Clean energy is the surest path to deliver cheaply and safely.
Thanks to growing investment, renewables now provide around half of Europe's power. In the first six months of this Middle East conflict, solar alone saved Europe more than 30 billion euros in avoided gas imports. And you have so much more to gain from accelerating the shift to clean energy across this continent and the world. The clean tech boom is already driving European growth, jobs, and living standards.
Your companies are at the forefront of some key clean industries. The opportunities will only grow. And some countries developing national transition plans will reap particularly strong benefits. Globally, over 2 trillion dollars was invested in clean energy last year, double fossil fuel investment. As all countries at COP30 said, the move to clean energy is now irreversible.
That means a gold mine of jobs and commercial opportunities. By standing firm behind your climate policies, going further and backing clean, resilient growth, you can better position Europe to thrive, locking in higher living standards now and in the long term.
Colleagues, it's clear. Climate cuts across the core concerns of voters, whatever their politics. Family health, community safety and economic stability. Affordable food and available water. Jobs, business costs and household bills.
It's entirely in Europe's interest to stand firm behind climate action and to boost it. To build resilience to climate impacts, protecting global supply chains on which all economies depend, and to slash global emissions. If humanity doesn't cut the fossil fuel pollution baking our planet, this summer's brutal heat, fires and droughts will seem mild compared to the permanent climate nightmare that will follow. We have made progress, but still not enough. Without UN-convened climate cooperation, humanity would be heading for un-survivable global heating well over 4 degrees Celsius.
With it, current policies are taking us to a 2.6 degree temperature rise. That's a long way from the 1.5 degree limit demanded by science to avert the worst climate impacts and agreed among nations time and time again. A recent report from the UN Environment Programme reaffirms that this limit will now be breached. But the report is equally clear that this can and must be temporary.
Concerted global action can bring the temperature rise back down to 1.5 degrees. For years, Europe has been a climate leader and a champion of multilateralism. You're instrumental in building the international climate system and the Paris Agreement at the 21st UN Climate Conference. Europe's continued leadership is essential, including in supporting vulnerable nations. And it's entirely in the interest of Europe's people and economies.
All nations win by avoiding a two-speed global transition. We need you working in partnership, forging international alliances that secure supply chains for clean energy and new industries, and continuing to deliver on your current climate finance pledges, boosting quality and access, building on existing work, which strengthens trust. No single COP can solve the climate crisis overnight, but each moves global efforts forward, building on the last and looking to the next.
From a global agreement in Dubai to transition away from all fossil fuels, to a new climate finance goal in Baku and steps forward on a just transition in Belém, which ushered in the era of implementation. I ask the EU to throw itself behind helping COP31 in Türkiye to deliver further progress. The need now is not to reopen decisions already taken. It's delivering what's already been agreed. Countries implementing their plans and targets and striving to do better where domestic conditions allow.
By the second global stocktake of climate action in 2028, we must be much closer to meeting the global commitments made at the first, laying the ground for greater ambition. This is negotiations can help support implementation across mitigation, adaptation and finance, including quality and access of access to finance. For example, through developing the just transition mechanism to support countries deliver fair transitions that create opportunities for all.
I ask the EU to come to Türkiye prepared to find solutions. That means spending time considering what you would like the outcomes to include and what others need from COP 31. It means forging compromises and developing a clear plan on how to use the spaces we've created together. That includes the global climate action agenda, which is key to turning targets into results, accelerating real economy action and supporting countries to implement their national adaptation plans and NDCs. The Turkish COP 31 presidency working closely with Australia has set key action agenda targets including 35% of final global energy demand met by electricity by 2035.
The EU is already making gains here. And you have ambitious electrification targets. Around one in four new cars sold in Europe is now electric and battery deployment is now accelerating. It's in your interest to push forward and to drive progress in other areas where the impact and urgency are greatest.
Methane, a super pollutant crucial to reducing near-term heating and cutting costs. Food waste and security, as climate-driven droughts hit crops and food prices, and building the resilience of cities to climate extremes. These topics strike at the heart of everyday concerns of people across the continent. Colleagues, we live in a polarized age, but inflation is a common enemy. Security is a common cause.
Health, jobs, community and prosperity matter to us all, and every one of them demands action on climate. I thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Now we open the floor to the groups. We start with EPP Lídia Pereira for two minutes.
Lídia Pereira
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stiell. The climate crisis is very visible, not only in Europe, where this summer was pretty obvious that there's something imbalanced, but as well around the globe.
And yet the political willingness to take difficult decisions seem to be weakening because there is not the same level of support on the streets and it seems like the priority of the environment has shifted to respond to other crises. And therefore this is one of perhaps of the greatest challenges ahead of COP31. The overall message should be clear: the problem is no longer a simple lack of commitments, it is lack of implementation. And we hear about this every single year we take part in these conferences. And so COP31 should be once again about moving from commitments to delivery, so turning the climate ambition to investment in clean technologies, in resilient infrastructure and concrete emissions reductions while promoting, as you rightly pointed in your speech, a change driving a change in the economy, in the prosperity, in salaries and overall in people.
But there's obviously also questions of credibility when we continue to ask for greater global climate ambition and some countries are simultaneously expanding their dependence on fossil fuels.
This is not only about Australia versus Turkey, it is about ensuring that national policies are consistent with the commitments that governments make at the international level. I have two questions. One is what you consider to be the concrete test of success for COP31? How can we ensure that it is measured not by the number of new commitments announced, but by the implementation of commitments already made in terms of investment, emissions reductions, climate resilience and accessible finance? And second, how can the UNFCCC strengthen accountability and coherence between international climate commitments and national energy policies, particularly when countries continue to invest in or expand fossil fuel consumption and production?
Thank you. I will come back to replace my colleague Ingeborg Ter Laak. Thank you.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, President, Executive Secretary, for your introduction and for this important exchange. Yes, today we learned that August was the hottest month on record. So here we are. The importance of COP35 in this context cannot be overstated.
We cannot afford to slow down. We need action, we need investments, and we must continue to phase out. COP30 showed that despite the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, that climate multilateralism stands strong, and the Paris Agreement and the COPs remain our most important global tools for advancing climate action. We must use the opportunity at COP25 well. But we know that there are many challenges in these negotiations, and it is sometimes difficult to reach a final agreement on all important agenda items.
We saw it in Belém last year, and we saw it in Bonn earlier this year.
It will be very interested in hearing your views on how we can move ahead in the best possible way. For example, how do we move forward the mitigation ambition and implementation work program and indeed the global goal on adaptation? What process does the secretariat foresee? We are also seeing complementary processes to the COPs, such as the Santa Marta conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels. The key, however, is for them to catalyze global action and feed into the COPs in a useful way.
And what is your view on how complementary processes can pave the way for ambitious agreements at the COPs? And finally, I have been very pleased to note the ambitions presented by the COP 31 presidency. The proposal targets on electrification, waste reduction, and energy efficiency in buildings, for example. What do you think would be the best way for us to move forward in the negotiations to reach ambitious consensus on this? Thanks, it's time to deliver.
Sigrid Friis
Thank you, and thank you very much for coming here today, speaking so clearly to us. I agree that we need European leadership. When it comes to policy, here in Brussels we always talk about implementation, and I think that's exactly one of the challenges for this COP31. For Europeans, the energy crisis of recent years have made one thing very concrete. Our dependence on fossil fuels, it's not only a climate risk, it's also about economic and security vulnerability.
So this transition is not simply about lowering emissions, it's about building a more resilient economy with cleaner, more affordable, and more secure energy. That's why I very much welcome the focus on electrification ahead of COP31, but getting electricity to 35% of final energy demand by 2035 cannot simply be another target on paper. It means massively expanding clean power, grids, storage, and energy efficiency, and making that investment happen globally. At the same time, we should move from the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels to actually delivering on that commitment.
So my question here today is, we already have some commitment to transition away from fossil fuels, but how are we working on making sure that the action agenda does not become just a parallel collection of voluntary initiatives, but actually creates accountability and help countries deliver to what they have agreed? And what do you think is still missing to turn that into concrete implementation framework with clear timelines, sector-specific pathways, better accountability on whether countries are still investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure? Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you chair and Mr. Thiel, thank you for coming here today and and speak very clearly. I hope that a lot of people are sitting behind their screen in this house and listening to this because the reality is real. This summer in Europe, yes, it's hard on the economy, but it's also people's lives. We see people dying now. We've heard it from scientists for years, now we count it in lives.
And that is the reality from which COP 31 is also being organized. And and what we have seen at many of the COPs over the last three decades has been very important decisions and we have seen a lot of action as well, but there's one point where where we're still not really treating the real cause and that is the continued production and expansion of coal, oil and gas.
And that's where we need to see a change. I mean, we need an explicit, funded roadmap for the fossil fuel phase-out, building on what was decided in Dubai, of course. But a paper on this phase-out is not enough when government can be sued for actually delivering on it. So the big question is, I mean, we see it already also in Europe with ExxonMobil using some of these mechanisms to challenge climate measures here in Europe, and we see it across the globe. So do you see anywhere that the COP31 process can ensure that the fossil phase-out is not only agreed but also protected, so these old-fashioned ISDS mechanisms can no longer be used to punish governments for actually delivering on the decisions we have made?
Thank you.
Martin Günther
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Steele, dass Sie heute hier sind und sich unseren Fragen und dem Austausch hier stellen. Ich kann das, was der Kollege von den Grünen gesagt hat, nur unterstreichen, die Antworten würden mich sehr interessieren.
Die arbeitende Bevölkerung wird ja immer dazu aufgerufen, die Emissionen in ihren Haushalten und durch ihre Autos zu reduzieren, denn jede Tonne zählt. Jüngst forderte beispielsweise Kanzler Merz ein hohes Maß an Mitwirkung der Familien in Deutschland bei der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Das ist blanker Hohn, wenn man an die völlig unzureichenden Klimaschutzmaßnahmen der deutschen Regierung denkt. Zudem bleibt ein eklatanter blinder Fleck: die Emissionen des Militärs. Schätzungen zufolge verursachen die Streitkräfte weltweit rund 5,5 Prozent der globalen Treibhausgasemissionen.
Dennoch werden sie bislang nur unzureichend erfasst und müssen in den UNFCCC-Berichten nicht separat ausgewiesen werden. Das ist kein technisches Versagen, sondern eine politische Entscheidung. Während Regierungen der Bevölkerung im Namen des Klimawandels Opfer abverlangen, werden Militärausgaben und Rüstungsproduktion massiv ausgeweitet. Ihre Klimakosten bleiben weitgehend ungesehen. Das Conflict and Environmental Observatory schätzt, dass der aktuelle NATO-Aufrüstungsplan jährlich zusätzliche 98 bis 218 Millionen Tonnen CO2-Äquivalente verursachen könnte.
Am oberen Ende entspricht dies etwa einem Drittel der jährlichen Treibhausgasemissionen Deutschlands. Mehr Aufrüstung führt zu mehr Klimawandel, führt zu mehr Zerstörung und Tod durch beispielsweise zunehmende Hitze und andere Extremwetterereignisse. Mehr Sicherheit durch Aufrüstung? Wohl kaum. Im Januar nannte die Hohe Vertreterin Kaja Kallas auf meine parlamentarische Anfrage weder einen konkreten Mechanismus zur Einbeziehung militärischer Emissionen in den Klimaaktionsplan der EU, noch beantwortete sie direkt die Frage nach einer Emissionslücke.
Werden Sie die COP 31 in Antalya nutzen, um die Doppelmoral anzusprechen und eine verbindliche, umfassende und aufgeschlüsselte Berichterstattung über militärische Emissionen im Rahmen der UNFCCC einzufordern? Ist die UNFCCC bereit, sich ernsthaft mit den Forderungen von Forschern und zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen auseinanderzusetzen, das Militär endlich in die Klimabilanzen einzubeziehen?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now for the catch-the-eye, if I'm not wrong, you have, Ms. Pereira, you have to read something from Terlacke, yeah, please.
Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, on behalf of MEP Terlacke. Thank you, Mr. Stiell. The core challenge for COP 31 is clear.
Lídia Pereira
This must be a COP of implementation. We have made commitments and set targets, but now we need to turn them into concrete results on the ground. For me, water should be an important part of that implementation agenda. Climate change is increasingly a water challenge, more extreme droughts, floods, and growing pressure on water availability. We therefore need to strengthen the link between climate mitigation, adaptation, and water resilience.
The Netherlands has a lot of experience in this field, but we have also, we also need to make sure that water receives sufficient attention in international climate finance. A second priority for me is strengthening our partnership with Africa. African countries are facing some of the most severe consequences of climate change, while at the same time having enormous potential for sustainable economic development and renewable energy. COP31 should therefore be about more than providing climate finance. It should be about building long-term partnerships that combine climate action with jobs, energy access, water security, and economic development.
First, how can we make sure that adaptation and water resilience receive a more prominent place in climate finance, particularly for projects that are already ready to be implemented? And secondly, how can COP31 strengthen the partnership with Africa in a way that moves beyond traditional donor-recipient relationships and instead supports sustainable economic development and investment? Thank you.
So I have two questions.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
I will speak in Greek. Κύριε Στιλ, έχουμε ήδη καταγράψει, γνωστό είναι βέβαια αυτό, ένα ολόκληρο έτος με παγκόσμια μέση θερμοκρασία πάνω από 1,5 βαθμό σε σχέση με την προβιομηχανική εποχή. Τα περιθώρια λοιπόν για αποτελεσματική δράση στενεύουν και εσείς το ξέρετε καλύτερα από όλους. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση διεκδικεί ηγετικό ρόλο στις κλιματικές διαπραγματεύσεις. Θεωρείτε όμως ότι τα εθνικά σχέδια ενέργειας και κλίματος των κρατών μελών ανταποκρίνονται στην ταχύτητα της κρίσης;
Πού χρειάζεται μεγαλύτερη φιλοδοξία και πού ταχύτερη τελικά εφαρμογή; Και το δεύτερο ερώτημά μου αφορά τον εξηλεκτρισμό που αναδεικνύεται σε προτεραιότητα της COP31. Οι στόχοι για ηλεκτρικά αυτοκίνητα, αντλίες θερμότητας και εξηλεκτρισμό της βιομηχανίας αυξάνουν τις απαιτήσεις από το ηλεκτρικό σύστημα. Θα πρέπει λοιπόν να καλυφθεί αυτή η ζήτηση όταν η παραγωγή από ήλιο ή άνεμο είναι χαμηλή και να αξιοποιούμε την καθαρή ενέργεια όταν περισσεύει.
Μέχρι εδώ όλα λογικά. Θα έχουμε όμως επιτέλους μια πλήρη δημόσια εικόνα των εθνικών αξιολογήσεων αναγκών ευελιξίας και των επενδύσεων στην αποθήκευση, στα δίκτυα, στις διασυνδέσεις και στην απόκριση της ζήτησης; Θεωρείτε ότι η COP31 πρέπει να συνδέσει τον στόχο εξηλεκτρισμού με συγκεκριμένα σχέδια καθαρής ευελιξίας και χρηματοδότησης; Και πώς θα διασφαλίσουμε ότι ο εξηλεκτρισμός θα μειώσει επιτέλους την εξάρτηση από τα ορυκτά καύσιμα χωρίς όμως οι πολίτες να πληρώνουν το κόστος ενός ανεπαρκούς σχεδιασμού; Σας ευχαριστώ.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. So questions are over. I leave the floor to Mr. Steel for your answer.
Simon Stiell
Okay, thank you, thank you very much for the comments, inputs and questions.
The first question that was raised, and this actually cuts across a number of the comments that were made, and it speaks to what success looks like for COP31. The first thing I would say is we should not be simply looking at a single COP success factors. Yes, there are key things that need to be delivered, but we need to be looking over a wider arc. In terms of the work that we've been doing within the UNFCCC, the narrative and the guidance that we have been providing, it is looking at arcs of delivery. And the arc forward, the clear starting point is the Paris Agreement at COP21, which sets out very clearly what needs to be delivered.
The how to deliver it has been unpacked over multiple COPs, we would actually say culminating in COP30 last year in Belém, where the final key rules, delivery of NDCs, the next round of NDCs, kind of culminated.
And that very clear signal that we've now moved into the era of implementation. So those statements that this is no longer about new pledges, new declarations, even new targets, it's about delivering on what has, um, has already been agreed and, and set out. So the backward look is starts with the Paris Agreement. It coalesced, um, in Dubai, um, for the, the first global stocktake, which told us very clearly where we were, um, where what course corrections were required to get us, um, to get us on track. Out of that came, um, with many other things, um, that key, um, decision to transition away from, from fossil fuels.
The arc forward then is to the second global stocktake, which will be, um, COP 33 in 2028. So where we are right now, um, in terms of our forward planning for COPs 31, 32, and COP, um, is for delivery at, at COP 33.
And the key success demonstrator will be proof points of delivery. So it's not about a new ambition target. It's very clear where the current set of targets, whether they are in line with what science and the climate impacts are telling us or not, those are the targets that have been agreed. So it is implementation against those and being able to demonstrate implementation across this year, next year leading up to that second global stocktake which will tell us precisely what we're actually doing in practice both inside of the process and outside of the process. And one of the important areas that was signaled coming out of Belém last year was the role of the action agenda within that.
Parallel to but wholly complementary to the negotiated process, but a new five-year action plan which is based on the six target areas that were identified for action coming out of the first global stocktake.
So the action agenda for the next five years speaks deliberately specifically to the implementation of the first global stocktake. So these are words, but those words outline a joined-up process as to how we're taking what has been committed to in the past to where we are now and how we bring them forward. So further articulation of demonstration delivery within the negotiated spaces, those outside spaces within the action agenda is going to be absolutely key. So the focus is on implementation. Implementation of NDCs, there was a two-year cycle to get countries to submit the third generation of NDCs which were to be aligned to the first global stocktake, aligned to the 1.5 Paris target.
That now is the responsibility of each country in terms of their delivery. There is a separation of those developed countries and emerging economies who have the financial means, technologies, capacity to deliver much of that on a national basis. There are then the others, developing vulnerable countries who have ambitious plans, who have come forward with ambitious targets and pathways. The question is how are they going to deliver on that, and the key response there is support from developed countries and the international community. So the first focus is going to be on the 20, 30, 35 of the largest economies who from a spectrum of degrees have capacity to deliver with varying degrees of external support, and then you have all of the rest, and there international cooperation is, is absolutely key.
Moving on, so there was a question about accountability and the need for accountability within the action agenda and this is a critical point. There is accountability through transparency frameworks for those areas within the negotiated process. What is required is to bring that same level of transparency and accountability to the action agenda, so that is an area that requires greater attention. Within the UNFCCC, we have the Net Zero Accountability Framework, which is focused primarily on the action agenda and a significant amount of work is taking place, will be taking place in the near term in strengthening that accountability framework to bring that transparency to what is happening within the action agenda. And then within that, an accountability and recognition framework, recognizing those who are going further, faster.
So there will be focus, focus there. With regard to multilateralism, the current geopolitics, which are extraordinarily fractious and difficult. There is a lot of work and one of the success factors of this upcoming COP and COPs to come is that demonstration that multilateralism is working. And within that, the leadership, traditional leadership of the EU and others will be called upon. But it's easy for us to focus on what is still to be done, looking at the shortcomings of the process, questioning the credibility of the COP process.
We are now, we will now be attending our 31st and there are those that have said, well, what have we achieved over 30, the last 30, 30 COPs? I think it's important that we remind ourselves where we came from, where we are now.
And before Paris, the world was on track for close to five degrees of warming, and we all know what the consequences, dire consequences of that will be. Since Paris, based on the framework, based on commitments made, work being done, we're now at around half of that, around 2.6, which as I said in my opening remarks, is still a long way from the 1.5 that we are about to to breach. So yes, we need to be extraordinarily concerned about about what is ahead of us and closing the gap as to where we are now and where we need to be in terms of staying inside that 1.5 limit. But it is also important for us to remember where we came from before before before this this this stage. And in terms of there was a question about the mitigation work program, about the global goal on adaptation there.
This year and next year, which has been different to to previous COPs, there is no one big ticket negotiated item as we've seen in previous years, whether it's delivery of NDCs, whether it's the global stocktake, whether it's the new goal on on finance.
There are no big negotiated outcomes this year, next year. However, there is a lot of technical work that needs to be negotiated and that includes items such as the mitigation work programme, reviewing where we are and that review will demonstrate we haven't made the progress that is needed, but important conversations about what is the direction it needs to take, especially when we consider the summer that we have just had. On adaptation, the adaptation indicators which will give a granular view of those metrics that can be measured and performance rated against. Just transition, operationalising the just transition mechanism which is of critical importance, especially to developing countries and those just transition pathways that will guide them.
So, in terms of expectations, I cannot predetermine what parties will decide. But what is absolutely clear is we need a political and a technical environment in Antalya that will squeeze out the strongest possible outcomes. There were comments on Santa Marta parallel process. I believe this is helpful now that we are in this era of implementation where you do not need consensus to decide on how, where to implement. So if there are coalitions of the willing who are willing to go further and faster, then I can see, once they are supportive of the Paris goals, I can only see that as helpful.
And what we are seeing coming out of Belém and what we will see in these coming years, I will anticipate more coalitions of the willing within the action agenda, voluntary groupings who are willing to demonstrate accelerated implementation and greater ambition. We have seen a narrative shift.
We have seen, um, a weakening of political appetite, um, here in Europe. I would question whether on the streets there is still strong appetite, strong polling that the general public still have climate as, um, as, as, as an important issue, um, despite some of the other crises, um, that, um, that are being faced. But we have seen a narrative shift from emissions, um, reduction, which is absolutely critical, um, if we are to avert, um, the, this climate crisis, um, to economic competitiveness and energy security. The reality is whichever of the three, emissions reduction, economic competitiveness, or, um, energy security, whichever one of these we place our attention on, we will be supporting the other. So whichever political route is needed to get us, um, to move us forward, um, one could argue is a secondary debate.
The key thing is we focus our attentions on doing what we know the science and technology prescribes and economics prescribes in each of these areas. And whichever one we focus on, we will be addressing reducing emissions. How am I doing for time?
Simon Stiell
Okay. The final comment I will speak to is partnerships with Africa. Next year's COP32, which will be hosted in Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. There is already forward engagement with the Ethiopian incoming presidency as what an Ethiopian COP would look like, and the consensus is this is an African COP. This is an opportunity to reflect in COP32 the needs and realities of the African continent.
How the climate process, how our COP process can be supported on a global level in terms of what needs to be achieved, but specifically how Africa's role within that.
But specifically how Africa's role within that, its role as a continent that has contributed some of the least to the climate crisis but suffering the worst, has significant, whether it is from solar, from wind, whether it's from critical minerals, but the resources to play a significant role in the energy transition. So how can we put Africa's development needs and climate needs on the agenda? And that is the agenda that is being put before us. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much, Mr. Stiell. I hope, I know you will have very intense days during the COP, but I hope you will find also time for a short meeting with our delegation during those days. I thank everybody. I thank the translator also. We don't have any other item in the agenda.
The next meeting will be the 1st of October.