Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Joint meeting Joint Committee Procedure (Rule 59) of ENVI - SANT
Legenda
Marcadores da transcrição
- texto Frase em reprodução
- texto Resultado da pesquisa
- texto Intervenção citada pela ligação que abriu
Clique numa frase para reproduzir o vídeo a partir desse momento. Selecione texto para o citar com o orador, a marca temporal e a ligação.
Mais opções
Desfasamento
Desfasamento da transcrição
Exportar
Gravação
Versões deste vídeo
- Gravação Versão definitiva · 1 de outubro de 2026Em exibição
- Captado em direto Transmitido em direto a 1 de outubro de 2026
As transcrições podem diferir ligeiramente de uma versão para outra.
ENVI European Parliament
Seguir as suas sessõesTilly Metz
So she is in one committee replaced. In the SANT committee, she is replaced indeed by Rosa Serrano.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Mrs. Pajin and Mr. Veriga, please, you have the floor for one minute each.
Leire Pajín
Gracias, señora presidenta, voy a hablar en español. Quiero empezar diciendo que el mecanismo de protección civil es el instrumento que refleja claramente la solidaridad europea. Unos países respondiendo y ayudando a otros cuando sufren una crisis. Pero el contexto de emergencia climática que vivimos y desgraciadamente lo hemos sufrido en primera persona este verano, nos demuestra que no es suficiente con responder a las crisis cuando ya están aquí. Que debemos tomarnos en serio el contexto de crisis climática y que debemos fortalecer el mecanismo en su capacidad de anticipación, de prevención, en su capacidad de ser capaz de estar mejor preparados para las diferentes crisis que estamos ya viviendo.
Por eso la propuesta que hoy votamos tiene pone el acento precisamente en esa prevención para que seamos capaces de llegar rápido, de anticiparnos y sobre todo también de responder ante las desigualdades. Quiere hacer un reconocimiento especial a los profesionales y a los voluntarios que luchan contra el fuego en nuestros países y quiere también identificar a los más vulnerables para poder rescatar a los más vulnerables cuando sucede una crisis. Quiero acabar dando las gracias a nuestros equipos técnicos que han hecho un enorme esfuerzo hasta llegar aquí y a nuestros equipos porque creo que hemos construido un consenso serio y robusto. Gracias.
Aurelijus Veryga
Dėkoju pirmininke, aš kalbėsiu lietuviškai. Mieli kolegos, išties yra sunku pervertinti šio dokumento svarbą ir nini ataskaita labai aiškiai parodė, kad šiandien Europa susiduria su daug platesniu grėsmių aspektu, spektru nei anksčiau, todėl pasirengimas nebe yra pasirinkimas, tai yra būtinybė. Tačiau UCPM pirmiausia yra apie vieną svarbiausių mūsų europietiškų vertybių, tai yra gebėjimą nelaimės akivaizdoje susitelkti ir padėti vieni kitiems gelbėti žmonių gyvybes. Kad galėtume tai padaryti, turime būt pasiruošę iš anksto, turime turėti pajėgumus, aiškius mechanizmus ir svarbiausia tam reikalingą finansavimą, kuris čia šiandien šiame dokumente ir yra numatytas. Ir aš tikrai taip pat nuoširdžiai dėkoju visai prie dokumento dirbusiai komandai, kolegei pranešėjai ir šešėliniam pranešėjams už labai konstruktyvų darbą, o svarbiausia už supratimą, kad skirtingose Europos Sąjungos šalyse ir regionuose mes susiduriam su labai skirtingomis grėsmėmis ir labai svarbu tas grėsmes šiame dokumente atliepti.
Ir mūsų esminis tikslas turėtų būti, na, pasiekti, kad ištikus nelaimei Europos piliečiai galėtų tikėtis greitos, veiksmingos ir svarbiausia solidaros pagalbos, todėl kviečiu palaikyti šį dokumentą ir dar kartą dėkoju už bendradarbiavimą.
Tilly Metz
Thank you, thank you very much to both of the rapporteur. I give the floor back to Mr. Moran.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we start our voting session.
We have a test vote, so I open the vote. Let's wait a little. Yes, not in a hurry. No stress. Okay, I close the vote.
Everything is fine, so we can start. We will vote some compromise raising our hands. We start with compromise number one. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number five. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number eight. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number two. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number nine. Who's in favor? We slow down.
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. We go to compromise number three. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number four. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number six. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number seven. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Compromise number ten. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstained? Adopted. Now we have the final vote by roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. And it's adopted, sixty-one in favor, nine against, nine abstention. Congratulations to both rapporteurs. Now we have a small pause. We thank the SANT committee and we will go on with our voting session for ENVI in a few minutes.
Colleagues, if we go back to our seats, we can start with the ENVI session. The first item is the adoption of the agenda. If there are no objections, the draft agenda can be adopted without modification. Interpretation and webstreaming are the same of the previous committee. The coordinators' recommendations have been circulated electronically.
If there are no objection, they can be deemed approved. And now we can move to our voting session. The first item is an opinion. The rapporteur is Nicolás González Casares. He asked to have a speech for one minute to introduce the vote.
Nicolás González Casares
Gracias, señor presidente. Hablaré en español. Quiero agradecer el apoyo de los distintos grupos a los principales compromisos. Partíamos de posiciones distintas y ahora hemos llegado a buenos acuerdos. Y estos compromisos permiten llevar a los comités de ITRE y SANT un mandato claro de este comité de ENVI en defensa de los principios medioambientales, de seguridad alimentaria y con el enfoque One Health.
Y yo creo que el mandato debe ser claro. La biotecnología debe ser un reglamento en beneficio de la ciudadanía europea, promoción de la innovación al servicio de la ciudadanía para el acceso a medicamentos innovadores al mismo tiempo que creamos una industria robusta en Europa. Son por ello unos compromisos equilibrados que buscan el consenso, incluso en partes polémicas como la extensión de los certificados de propiedad. Quiero agradecer el trabajo de los ponentes y espero pues un buen resultado y mucho consenso. Muchas gracias.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you.
Now we make a test vote to check if even in our ENVI side everything is fine. I open the vote. I close the vote. Okay. Okay, now we can start with the compromise number five.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number three.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number six.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number seven.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number ten.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Amendment 312.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Rejected. Compromise number eleven.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number one.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number eight.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number two.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number four.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number twelve.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number nine.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. And now we go to final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open.
The vote is closed and it's adopted, 53 in favor, 11 against, 5 abstention, congratulations to the rapporteur. And now we have the resolution about the UN Climate Change Conference in Antalya. We start with the compromise number one. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. The DEVE 12 amendment. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Check. I close the vote. It's rejected by one vote.
Compromise number two. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise number three. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
DEVE amendment number seven. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Check again.
I close the vote. Rejected the same way. Compromise number four. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? Adopted. DEVE amendment number two. Who is in favor? Who's against?
Who abstain? By one of difference I have to check otherwise you never know. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted in this case.
38 in favor in this case. Compromise number five. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise number six. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Adopted. DEVE amendment number nine. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain?
Check. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's rejected. Compromise number seven.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number eight.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number nine.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number ten.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number eleven.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number twelve.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. ITRE amendment 1A.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. ITRE amendment 1B.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. ITRE amendment 1C.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. ITRE amendment 1D.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. ITRE amendment 1E.
It was quite clear. If you need we can check 1D anyway. I open the vote 1D. I close the vote. Yeah, it was 50 in favor.
1E. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted.
And now final vote by roll call vote. The vote is open. I close the vote. And it's adopted. 50 in favor, 16 against, three abstentions.
Congratulations. Now we make a one minute interruption before the next item.
Okay, if we take a seat we can go on with the next item. I kindly ask all the colleagues and also all the people in the room. We continue our meeting with the consideration of the draft report on the review of the ETS. These two files are important elements of a legislative package implementing the EU's legally binding 2040 climate target. The rapporteur will present his amendment to the Commission proposal and as usual this will be followed by intervention by of the shadow rapporteurs and then of the other member.
Unfortunately Peter Liese cannot be present, so Jessica Polfjärd will speak on behalf of Peter Liese. Please you have the floor for seven minutes.
Jessica Polfjärd
Thank you chair and on behalf of Peter Liese is very sorry that he could not be here due to medical conditions but I will read out what he has already.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Pardon Ms. Polfjärd, I kindly ask the colleague to give attention to the speaker.
Jessica Polfjärd
So I start over again and I I thank you chair for on the behalf of Peter Liese who cannot be here on behalf of medical conditions but I know that he really really would like to have been here with you to to also state what is on his mind. But I will try to do my best to read out what Peter's thoughts are about the review. The review on the ETS is extremely important and it's urgent. We need to improve the ETS to address four of the biggest challenges of our time. First, climate change.
We need to meet our climate targets, that is why we need to keep the ETS the most successful climate instrument in the world. Since its introduction the ETS has reduced emissions by 1,060 tons of CO2 since its introduction. That is more than 137 countries and territories of the world, including EU members like Denmark, Croatia and Slovakia. And the ETS is now also influencing climate policy beyond Europe together with CBAM. Senator Whitehouse in the US once called CBAM the last lifeboat of international climate policy and an MIT professor recently told me it is bigger than a lifeboat.
Second, competitiveness and jobs. Tight is right, too tight is broke. And the ETS is too tight. The ETS need to give industry more breathing space and a realistic path to decarbonization. That means looking at free allowances, third country allowances, negative emissions and other issues.
Third, energy prices. We need to reduce the cost of energy, especially electricity. The ETS is not the main reason for Europe's high electricity prices but a well-designed ETS can be part of the solution. Look at Europe, countries with the same ETS have very different electricity prices, the main problem is our dependency on fossil fuels, especially on gas. We need to invest in clean domestic energy, that is how we would reduce both costs and dependence.
And fourth, resilience. Europe needs to become more independent, including when it comes to defense. It is encouraging to see companies created through the Green Deal now working with European defense companies to produce fuels independently of imports. So how do we bring these four priorities together? It may seem like squaring the circle, but I believe there is one clear answer.
That is why, in principle, I strongly support conditionality. Trade unions support giving industry more breathing space, they also rightly insist that additional free allowances should be linked to investment and protecting jobs. My draft proposal is not perfect, and I'm open to working with all of you to improve it, but we need to work fast. The timeline is extremely ambitious. We are determined to support the one European market roadmap by the top of the three institutions, which obliges us to finish early next year.
We need investment in clean domestic energy.
And we cannot be significantly later than the Council. The Council will fix its position on the 8th of December. And there is one issue that should unite us all, including industry and environmental NGOs. Member states need to use ETS revenues much more effectively. These revenues should drive investment in clean domestic energy.
Too much of the money has not been used efficiently enough. If we want that to change, we need to act together and we need to challenge member states to do more. A few words on the sectoral issues. On waste. Parliament has repeatedly called for waste to be included in the ETS.
I understand that 2028 would be too fast. The Commission's gradual approach towards 2034 is more pragmatic. But we must use this time to prevent landfill from becoming the alternative. Landfilling must stop. Incineration is better, but is it not the final solution.
If we burn waste and emit CO2, we still harm the climate. The current situation is also unfair to the cement industry, which use similar waste but has to surrender allowances. Other industries including chemicals also support inclusion. On maritime transport. I think the Commission has made a good proposal.
We are looking at improvement, particularly to protect European ports against evasion. And on aviation. I also think that the Commission has found reasonable balance, including intercontinental flights to the US and Asia could have triggered serious reaction from third countries. The 5000 kilometer approach improves environmental integrity while being fairer to European hubs and tourism regions. But the devil is still in the details.
That is why we must work hard and work together to make the text better. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we open the floor to the shadow rapporteur, we start with S&D, Mohammed Chahim for... no... okay, for Elisa Corrado for two minutes.
Annalisa Corrado
Grazie Presidente, parlo in italiano. E grazie al relatore per il lavoro svolto. Partiamo da un'osservazione: l'ETS ha contribuito a ridurre le emissioni, ad alleggerire la nostra drammatica dipendenza dai combustibili fossili e dai loro prezzi fuori controllo, creando un forte incentivo alla decarbonizzazione.
L'ETS funziona. Prima di passare al provvedimento sul settore marittimo, per il quale sono relatrice ombra, due messaggi sulla revisione generale. Il primo: se ci sono delle storture, una è che l'ETS non è una tassa, ma lo diventa se le risorse che genera non vanno a sostenere la transizione, ma sono invece disperse nei bilanci pubblici. Questo è un punto cruciale: perché l'ETS funzioni davvero, i proventi devono sostenere la transizione. Punto secondo: i benchmark devono essere rigorosi e calibrati sulle eccellenze dei settori, ma aderenti alla realtà.
Se i dati mostrano distorsioni significative, come stiamo discutendo sui fallback benchmark, non possiamo aspettare anni per correggerle. Vengo quindi al sistema di monitoraggio, comunicazione e verifica delle emissioni, cosiddetto MRV. Partiamo da una buona proposta della Commissione, che giustamente il relatore preserva: un unico monitoring plan, un reporting più integrato tra MRV e FuelEU, meno duplicazioni. Semplificare deve significare meno burocrazia, non meno informazioni o meno controlli. I dati sono essenziali anche per decidere quando e come estendere l'ETS a nuove tipologie e tonnellaggi di navi, e non possiamo guardare soltanto alle dimensioni: contano l'uso delle navi e i servizi che garantiscono.
Una nave che assicura un servizio essenziale a una comunità insulare non è la stessa cosa di un'imbarcazione ad alto impatto destinata al lusso. Infine, attenzione al transshipment: traffici europei possono essere spostati verso hub appena fuori dall'Unione Europea per ridurre l'esposizione all'ETS. Così non si riducono le emissioni, si rischia di spostare lavoro ed emissioni fuori dall'Europa. La Commissione propone giustamente di rafforzare le regole contro queste elusioni: dovremmo verificare se sia sufficiente e se necessario fare di più. Grazie.
Thank you. For the Patriots, Mathilde Androuët, two minutes.
Mathilde Androuët
Vous le savez, nous sommes opposés au marché carbone. Pour nous, la compétitivité de nos entreprises et le pacte vert ne sont pas conciliables. Mais nous prenons part au débat pour défendre les entreprises européennes contre l'idéologie verte qui veut leur fin. Si l'industrie a besoin de dizaines de milliards d'euros de subventions pour supporter la décarbonation imposée par l'ETS, ce système est-il réellement viable économiquement ? Assurément non.
Monsieur le rapporteur, nous soutenons les assouplissements proposés pour l'industrie, mais nous voulons aller plus loin : ramener le facteur de réduction linéaire à 1,7 % de 2031 à 2035, puis à 1,3 % à partir de 2036 pour laisser aux entreprises le temps d'investir. Nous vous suivrons sur la mise aux enchères de quotas supplémentaires lorsque la trajectoire des émissions ou les conditions du marché le justifient. Nous soutiendrons aussi la prolongation et l'augmentation des allocations gratuites ainsi que le retour d'un maximum de recettes de l'ETS vers les secteurs concernés avec le moins de charges administratives possible. En revanche, nous refusons l'inclusion des incinérateurs de déchets municipaux. Renchérir le traitement des déchets ne les fera pas disparaître.
Le surcoût risque surtout de retomber sur les collectivités et les ménages : développons d'abord des solutions de tri et de recyclage accessibles. Nous refusons également les conditionnalités et les obligations imposées aux États sur l'utilisation de leurs recettes d'enchères, notamment les seuils minimaux de dépenses : les États doivent rester libres d'utiliser ces ressources. Pour le transport aérien, nous privilégions CORSIA plutôt qu'une extension de la tarification européenne. Soutenir l'innovation, oui, mais à un rythme soutenable pour l'industrie. Enfin, les objectifs européens de décarbonation restent trop élevés.
On ne peut pas reporter les efforts de l'industrie sur l'agriculture et les transports, déjà en difficulté. Il faut revoir les objectifs et leur calendrier. Nous soutiendrons les assouplissements utiles, mais ces petites corrections ne seront pas tenables à long terme : ce marché carbone est une balle dans le pied de l'industrie européenne.
Viktória Ferenc
Thank you chair, I will speak in Hungarian. Az ETS jelenlegi formájában a magas energiaárakhoz és az európai ipar elvesztéséhez járul hozzá. Miközben a Bizottság javaslatának vannak ugyan pozitív elemei, ezek messze nem elegendőek. Ezért a frakciónk több módosítót is be fog nyújtani Liese úr jelentéséhez. Az európai versenyképesség javítása csak akkor valósulhat meg, ha rendelkezésre állnak a szükséges infrastruktúrák, technológiák és energiaárak.
Az ETS további szigorítása nem történhet meg ezek hiányában. Sajnos sem a Bizottság, sem a néppárti rapportőr javaslata nem foglalkozik az európai családok fűtési és közlekedési költségeit 2028-tól jelentősen megemelő ETS2 rendszerével. Nem fogadhatjuk el, hogy újabb terheket hárítsunk a háztartásokra, miközben az európai kibocsátások aránya globálisan elenyésző. Ezért mi javasoljuk az ETS2 azonnali hatályon kívül helyezését. Ami a részleteket illeti, elutasítjuk az ingyenes kiosztások feltételességhez való kötését.
Nem fogadható el, hogy az ingyenes kvóták 80 százalékát dekarbonizációs tervekhez és beruházásokhoz kössük, miközben sok európai vállalat számára éppen a magas energiaárak és a karbonköltségek jelentik a legnagyobb versenyhátrányt a szennyezőbb technológiákkal előállító globális versenytársakhoz képest. A lineáris csökkentési tényező korrekciójára tett javaslat helyes irány, de mi tovább csökkentenénk azt. Eltörölnénk a 2036-ra tervezett korrekciós mechanizmust és automatikusan kiigazítanánk az LRF-et. Ellenezzük a lakossági hulladékégetés ETS alá vonását, valamint fontosnak tartjuk a távhő számára biztosított ingyenes kvóták megtartását. Sőt, további ingyenes kvótákat tartunk szükségesnek a távhő számára, különösen az alacsonyabb jövedelmű tagállamokban.
A földrajzi egyensúly és szolidaritás elvét hatékonyan kell alkalmazni a különböző finanszírozási eszközökben, így javasoljuk fenntartani a modernizációs alaphoz való hozzáférést. Az exportáló vállalatokat is támogatni kell, hogy az európai ipar versenyképessége ne szenvedjen további hátrányt. A CBAM hatálya alá tartozó ágazatok számára a Bizottság javaslatához képest tovább halasztanánk az ingyenes kvóták kivezetését. Tisztelt rapportőr, Európában és az Európai Parlamentben is létezik egy jobboldali többség. Arra kérem, hogy éljen vele és hozzunk végre olyan döntéseket, amelyek védik az európai ipart, az európai munkahelyeket és az itt élő családokat.
Köszönöm.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you chair, you know, in our life as members of parliament we have to be someone sometimes in parallel meetings, apologies for me being late. I mean, my main point here is the following and I've been looking at it for quite a long time and I can only conclude the following. I don't believe that the Commission proposal nor Peter Liese's proposal will fulfill the climate law that we have supported. It's a very, very simple statement and maybe we should ask the European Climate Council to have a look at it. When we hit the 55 target for Fit for 55, the ETS sectors contributed 67 percent of decarbonization to that target.
So how do we think to reach the 85 or 90 percent gross target that we have in the EU by only getting to 88 percent? That either means that the effort sharing sectors have to do more, agriculture, I'm waiting for the proposal to come from the Commission and I'm also waiting for the EPP to support that approach.
It doesn't add up. So I'm either we are making laws that we are willing to break directly and then my conclusion is you're not taking yourself serious, or there's an omission that we are not looking at. Maybe I'm not smart enough, that could be, maybe and I'm of course I would love to be explained a bit more than how we will get to the 85 or 90% whether you add the 5% of domestic or international credits. It doesn't add up. Oh, so let's stick to that because I think that's the fundamental part of this whole debate.
Then we can discuss on what to do, what measures, where to go a bit more, where to create a little bit more flexibility or not. And I told this to the Commission many, many, many times. Therefore I'm a bit also annoyed by it. You cannot say that the 90% target of the EU in 2040 should be connected to a 90% ETS target. It could be, but then the effort sharing sectors have to do more.
That's agriculture, that's transport, that's all non-ETS sectors. That's my main point. Whether I look at the report of Peter Liese or whether I look at the report of the Commission, it doesn't add up. My conclusion is that willingly the European Commission has presented the climate law, we have an agreement from Council and the Parliament to the climate law, and then they come with legislation that breaks the climate law. And I think that's not a good way to do legislation.
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you Mr. Chahim. We have for ECR remotely connected Alexandr Vondra. Can you hear us?
Yes we do.
Alexandr Vondra
You know, you see the cars behind me so I'm greetings, we have a ECR study days and we are in the polygon of the Škoda automotive car makers. So many greetings.
Alexandr Vondra
Okay. So look, I wish you could stand here with me, with us, to feel the pride of the European industry, what it has achieved and at the same time the shadow of the economic disaster that looms over it. We discussed various elements of the ETS file and surely there will be two approaches: a defense and conservation of the flagship climate legislation, or an attempt to reform it and adjust it to the current state of affair in the world. And just to react what Mohammed has said, for us the 2040 is not a gospel, is not a Bible. Yeah, if we are feeding the Chinese monster with that idealistic approach and seeing that the Americans, Russians, Chinese, Indians are not doing the same, so I'm refusing to commit this suicide online.
Yeah, so I think Peter as a rapporteur is not among us so I would address here specifically EPP because it holds the key to the success of the reform of the ETS system. And in fact the key problem lies within the German coalition that does not allow CDU to fully deploy reform, no matter how much you wish. And EPP amendments bear all sign of this dilemma despite the commitments of the EPP leadership to saving industries in Europe. A trajectory of the linear reduction factor is way too quick. The industry need more time and the curve is supposed to be much, much flatter.
The phase-out of the free allowances as proposed will soon put European industries under the tremendous pressure. They must be kept in abundance with more flexibility for member states and for a longer period of time.
The investment conditionality is a no-go. Even softened by your amendment, it's yet another regulatory layer. Free allowances are bridge, not a reward for good behavior. The CBAM factor can progress if and only if we see tangible effects. Remember, this carbon tariff is a new tool.
Let us not use our industry as laboratory rats. The modernization fund is successful tools that's worth to be increased. Support from the modernization fund should be used for investment ensuring security of energy supply. Member states need more flexibility. And last but not least, there is the challenge to keep the district heating alive and also this waste incineration as it proposes a problem because it will lead just to more landfilling.
And that's exactly what the environmentalist would not wish for. So it all boils down to this. We are ready to make a clear cut and send the world a signal. Europe is still vital and ready to restart itself in a fight for its future or not. If so, count me and on my group in.
If the vision is yet another reiteration of a choking law, we refuse to be part of it. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now the next speaker from Renew Emma Wiesner, you have three minutes, so and who want take the floor as a catch the eye can make us a sign.
Emma Ytterell
Thank you so much chair. I have the privilege of shadowing this file on behalf of Renew Europe group. And I want to thank the rapporteur. We are are facing a very tough timeline, but we will have to do it. We will do it because sometimes you should not do only what's easy but what's necessary.
And for this we need necessary in our climate agenda, sorry, it's necessary to have clarity in the climate agenda and clarity for our industries. I think it's very important to look at where we would be without the EU ETS. We are in the middle of a fossil crisis and the facts and reports show that without the ETS, we would have had much higher use of fossil fuels in Europe and we would have have much higher energy prices, a much tougher situation on Europe's industry. Without the ETS. The ETS has been lowering our cost, making us deal with this crisis much better.
Without the ETS we would be more dependent of Putin, of oligarchs, of the Hormuz Strait, but it's thanks to the ETS that we actually manage this crisis without rationing of fossil fuels. So when some of you says you want to protect the European industry by deleting the ETS or delaying it or weakening it, you are not protecting the industry, you're protecting the fossil industry and you are protecting the high prices. Without ETS it will not be possible to lower energy costs for Europe's citizens. So at some point you need to take a firm decision.
Do you support the ETS or do you don't? The Commission say they believe in the system, but on the other hand, they also present an ETS pointed out by Mohammed Chahim here, that with the LRF, the changes to the MSR, the benchmark, the CBAM, the international credits, the free allowances, we are weakening it. We're not standing up to what we said in the climate law, and we are not providing certainty and clarity to the industry. And this cumulative effect of all of these changes is really weakening it, and it's not sending the signal that we are backing and supporting the ETS. So that's indeed what I will have in my mind.
Our industries, yes, they need certainty. Yes, they need more investments. Yes, we can do that with ETS, but we cannot also do that by lowering and weakening all of the other parameters building the ETS strong. So that's what we in Renew Europe group will focus on. But I want to end on a on a happy note and look at also the good parts of the proposals, the strong ones where we see a positive development.
Renew we always been in favor of including waste incineration and landfill also with a carbon cost. We are positive seeing more revenues directed towards ETS sectors. And finally, we are seeing a market for carbon removal. So the CDR market is a really positive element, that indeed with all of these three we want to do more, but this is a good step in the right direction. Yes, it will be tough, but it is manageable and we will do it.
Thank you.
Michael Bloss
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, colleagues. We are looking forward to a good, constructive debate and I hope we come to good conclusions. And let me start by saying I think it's it's very telling that Alexandr Vondra sits at the Škoda factory and he's ranting against future technologies. And if you look at to Škoda, you see that their electric car has a year-to-year take-up of 75% growth, whereas all of their combustion engine cars are going down. So the question for me is, what do you actually want to achieve?
What do you want to support? Do you want to support those companies that have a future, that create workplaces, that create wealth, or do you trying to protect something where we all know that it doesn't go further? And I think we should choose the future, not the past. And if you look at the Commission proposal, I agree, Mohammed, with you, it's really problematic that we do not reach the climate targets. The Commission proposal alone would add around two gigatons of emissions, three times the amount of annual German emissions.
And then Peter Liese's proposal adds another 60 megatons. That's an increase of the overall cap of 45%. And the problem is not only the climate, the problem is that this is the tool, the most effective tool for Europe's transformation and for investment. And we can be really proud of it. It's working.
And when you do this, you are destroying the business cases of the frontrunners, the certainty, and that's the least what we need to have in this current economic situation. My inbox is full of companies that say, please, we need to protect the LRF. We have made investments from the steel industry, but also from energy industry, from cement industry, because they want to go forward. And now the problem is that Peter Liese says, okay, we give them free allocation. But that doesn't help them because they have made their investments on the basis of the LRF.
And there are analysis that says that the price would drop almost a would drop around 40% with this LRF proposal. So we need there is a conditio sine qua non for us Greens, and this is the frontrunners, those who are creating the future, they must not have a worse deal with this with this proposal than beforehand. And currently this is unfortunately not inside.