Speaker 1en
We should encourage innovation, not undermine the competitive advantage of companies investing in cleaner technologies. Third, on regulatory simplification, the Commission proposes an additional reporting requirement concerning the purpose of airport of call. Yet this formation is already relevant to determining whether a ship's stop qualifies as a port of call under the existing MRV framework. In this point, I propose deleting this additional reporting obligation, avoiding unnecessary duplication. Better regulations should mean more effective monitoring, not simply more reporting. And fourth, on competitiveness and carbon leakage, European shipping operates in a highly competitive global market; we need effective measures to prevent carbon leakage at the diversion of maritime traffic away from European ports, with therefore must preserve a genuine lever playing field and avoid placing European ports and shipping companies at a competitive disadvantage. Thank you.
Speaker 2en
Thank you. For SND, Andrew Katis.
Speaker 1en
Thank you. Thank you very much, indeed. I would like to speak in Lithuanian.
Speaker 1lt
I would like to draw attention to those colleagues who argue for the fundamental necessity of abolishing the ETL system. But I would like to remind them that both the Draghi report and the LETA report as well, I would like to draw attention to those colleagues who argue for the need to abolish the ETL system in principle. But I want to remind them that both the Draghi report, the LETA report, and the Ninisto report—three reports that present huge economic calculations—none of them recommend abandoning the ETL. On the contrary, they calculate that this is a major competitive advantage for the European Union. Next, I thank Peter Liese for his work, but I also want to remind everyone that pollution claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and when we talk about climate change, we must consider how many excess deaths from climate change there are in the European Union this year. Calculate the human losses. If you do not understand that climate change comprehensively affects the quality of life of our people, labour productivity, jobs, and reduces our demographic position, then perhaps you will understand how important it is to maintain ETL as a comprehensive measure not only for combating climate change, not only for competitiveness, but also for protecting human lives. We must once again turn our attention to that human capital which needs to be preserved. Without it, the European Union will not be able to maintain any competitiveness. We need to ensure that as many people as possible are protected from pollution and harmful substances. This is also about studies. This is health economics. The ETL is also active here, so to all those who argue against it, I would like to suggest reading the statistics and real numbers.
Speaker 2en
Thank you. Our last speaker is Ference from Patchets.
Speaker 3en
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Hungarian.
Speaker 3hu
Dear Colleagues! On the ETS reform, it is not enough to merely talk about a few technical adjustments. We have already held several debates on this topic, but the situation fundamentally has not changed. Honourable colleagues! With regard to the ETS reform, it is not enough to talk merely about a few technical amendments. We have already held several debates on this topic, but the situation has not fundamentally changed. Reading the proposal, several parts of the system are affected. However, one issue is conspicuously avoided: as the EPP representative put it earlier, the elephant in the room. And that is the ETS2, or the carbon tax. In our opinion, the ETS2 should be completely abolished, as its costs will be borne by European households. This carbon tax would impose a disproportionate burden on households, particularly in the areas of heating and transport. In light of current energy and fuel prices, we simply cannot allow this system to enter into force. And I would also like to ask the EPP a question: we have heard here that several of their Members also demand the abolition of ETS2. This is welcome. But then why does not every delegation of the EPP, particularly those coming from Central Europe, represent this position? It is also your responsibility to save the people living in our countries from further burdens.
Speaker 2hu
Thank you.
Speaker 1en
Okay, so now for the Commission. We give the floor to Mette Quinn, Head of Unit DigiClima B1. You have the floor for five minutes.
Speaker 4en
Thank you very much. Delivering a five-minute reaction to more than 3,000 amendments is challenging. To say the least. But following this debate, I would like to highlight three things. First, the need for a stable, credible, and predictable framework for the EU ETS. This is essential for business investment planning and for decarbonization. This means a decarbonization pathway that is fully in line with the climate law and delivers on its 2040 target. Also, avoiding more costly and complex efforts outside the EU ETS. This is exactly what the Commission proposal delivers, based on targets and flexibilities set in the climate law. The cap in 2040 is based on economic modeling for a cost-effective distribution between the EU ETS and the non-ETS sectors. This also means safeguarding the ETS as a clear, transparent, and robust market-based system that is key to its success, to market participants, investment predictability, and to cost effectiveness. And it means stability and clarity from the start. No change in conditions all the time. So that the future ETS continues to be a long-term framework for industrial decision-making. Second, we welcome the very clear support from the Parliament to the solid investment and innovation drive in the proposal. A strong industrial decarbonization bank is crucial to support industry accelerate low-carbon investments and enhance competitiveness. We would therefore like to stress the need to maintain the proposed budget so it remains commensurate with the challenge that we are facing and to strike the balance between funding the best projects avoid fragmentation administrative simplicity and speed as well as solidarity. We also thank you for the strong support for more targeted spending of national ETS revenues for the ETS decarbonization. And we remind of the importance of balancing continued solidarity with reciprocity in spending. Third element, talking about effective reciprocity, we urge you to follow a strategic direction of travel.
Europe needs a contract with industry. To increase support and continue carbon leakage protection, as we have proposed it, to reward those who has invested and protect those who are investing in Europe. But also to expect a commitment to Europe in return. Ultimately, this is the best competitiveness guarantee and carbon leakage protection. Reciprocity is also about level playing field. For companies making long-term investments, fragmentation is the enemy. One of the ETS's enduring strength is that it supports a level playing field across the single market and avoids a patchwork of carbon pricing approaches. That's why it's important to effectively extend this in aviation, in maritime, and in circularity. To conclude, I would like to thank the members of the Parliament for the many very good proposals tabled. Let me underline the urgency to advance on this key file in line with the One Europe, One Market roadmap to deliver certainty to our industry. We call on the Parliament to take your responsibility to deliver a timely and robust result, focus on what really matters, and work towards a reform that makes Europe fit for clean competitive future. We have a strong ETS architecture in place; no need to reinvent the whole wheel. And we stand ready to facilitate your work, and we wish the rapporteur and the shadows bon courage. Thank you.
Speaker 1en
Thank you. And last, we leave back the floor to the rapporteur, Peter Lise.
Peter LiesePPEen
Yeah. Thank you to all the colleagues that made many of them quite constructive proposals. I will start with Emma Ytterell, with a new name, also from this place congratulations to your marriage. And I fully support, and that's also a priority for EPP, that we should look at the front runners. Those companies that have been investing shouldn't be punished, and these projects that were construction has already started. There is still grain in Sweden, Michael Bloss mentioned Zarstal, in Germany there are many, many others. They should really be supported with the review. However, you know, like Michael Bloss, I met the CEO of Zarstal, and he understood that this support cannot mean an unamended LRF. Now, that was their position for quite some time, but they also understand that in the chemical industry, for example, the companies will not sustain an LRF of 4. 4. That's why many, many colleagues, including from Sweden, for example, Helen. Fritzon, and also Timo Völken from S&D, Manuela Ripa, and me from EPP, we put forward a specific solutions for the front runners. And we will discuss it tomorrow in the shadows meeting: how can we support these investments even if the LRF is lower? And I'm convinced it's possible, and you know, at least the CEO of this very big steel plant in Germany said it's a good way forward. And I think it is very important also to see the magnitude of these investments. What is the biggest industrial investment in Europe? That is STEGRA in Sweden. The biggest investment in Germany? That is Zarstal. So when we speak about jobs and industry, let's also talk about this front runners. Second point on the ambition level, Michael Bloss mentioned some analysis that the proposal of the commission and my proposal are not in line with the 2040 target. The commission has modeled that we even overachieve the 2040 target. So we not only go for 85% domestic reduction as it's foreseen in the climate law, but to 87. You know, the reason why people think it's not enough is that they think in other
sectors like road transport and buildings, we will not be able to do the same ambition. But when you really look at the facts in chemical industry, the abatement cost at least for the last percentage is 450 euros. In road transport and heating, we sometimes in prices like crisis like this, we have negative costs. So in the end, you will save money if you invest in decarbonization in these sectors. So the question is not should we overburden the industry, but how can we enable people to decarbonize also in their private home and in their car. In their road transport? It's very difficult to argue with Anja Arndt, but I still try to give some arguments. You know, she mentioned RWE, a big electricity producer in Germany. I know them very well. And you know what? When there was the first discussion about weakening the ETS, the boss of RWE called me and said, "Peter, please don't crash the ETS. We need to make it survive. Our investment in renewable energy is dependent on a stable ETS, so it's the opposite of what Mrs. Arndt said. " And when it comes to the effect of Europe, you know, please study the international situation. Look at the studies of Professor Catherine Wolfram from the MIT in Massachusetts. She says that due to the CBAM, 80% of the global production of steel fertilizers and other CBAM products are already covered by the ETS. So you shouldn't look only at the European effect, but our effect on the global situation. We have to do better. That's for sure. But this calculations are just nonsense. Very important point that Radan Karnev made. You know, the elephant in the room is not ETS. It is not the ETS2. It's the energy price. Why do we have high energy prices? It's because of Putin. Because of Putin cutting the gas supply to Europe invading in the Ukraine. And it's because of Trump and the war that he started and the consequences of the street of Hormuz. And the patriots are friends of Putin and friend of Trump. And that should be spoken out loud and clear every day.
They are responsible for the high energy prices. And when we look at the energy prices in Europe, no, Kadri mentioned it. Finland has a very low electricity bill. They have the same ETS like Germany, Italy, and Poland, but in Germany the price is more than twice as high. Why? Because you have decarbonized. You have nuclear and I admit it was a mistake of Germany to face our nuclear, but it's good to invest in renewables like Finland did. Portugal the same many other parts of Europe. So it's not the ETS, but it is fossil fuel dependence that brings the high energy prices. On Christoph Clairvaux, you made a very important point on the maritime and I exactly share your position. We need to make sure that all the money that maritime industry pays go back to innovation in the maritime sector. We have agreed on this years ago in an initiative report. We had this position in the last parliament. But sorry, talk to your people in S&D. When I made this proposal in the shadow meetings, your staff and Mohamed Shahib didn't support it. So talk to them. It is the right position. We are united, but we need to convince your group. The maritime sector is environmental friendly and it makes no sense to spend the money for something else than decarbonizing this sector. On Dimitris Siodras, transshipment to avoid transshipment is very important. And I'm very impressed by the maritime sector. Because they are covered already with 50% of their trips from and to Europe. And they don't complain. They just want to be protected against transshipment. And they want the money back. And that's two reasonable proposals and we should make it work. In the aviation, we have a very small extension of the scope compared to maritime and they are up in arms. So that's a bit strange. Last but not least, I come to the end. I have to echo what Emma said on ECR. You know, I want to work with ECR. You should be on the table. But with speeches like that from Ana Zalewska, how can we find common ground? So look at your ITRA colleagues. They are working constructive.
They are doing compromises and not always repeating. And you know, my most difficult moment in this debate on ECS was last time and some people that are here now can witness this. Emma and others were around. We made a deal with the council, with the Czech presidency. The shadow rapporteur of ECR said it's a good deal. It was from the same party than the Czech presidency. And then you Polish delegation and others in ECR made the ECR vote a no. So there was a deal. The shadow rapporteur said it's a good deal. I support it. You delivered everything. So how can I trust ECR? When you behave like this? So that has to change. And I have some optimism when I look at the ITRA negotiations. But change your speech and be more constructive. Last but not least, now the last patriot is leaving the room. They all mentioned The far right majority. You know, sometimes it was unavoidable to bring the EPP position to the table and not look who votes in favor. This case, in this time, it is impossible. Because you know, the first sentence of the EPP position is we are in favor of the ETS. And when you look at the amendments of the patriots, their first amendment is we should kill the ETS. This won't enable any far right majority. We want to keep the ETS. We want to change it. We want to make it better. And most important is we need to work together. Everybody has to move. If we don't fix this, there will be uncertainty for the front runners and uncertainty for all the others. We need to do it and all the heads of states Roberta Metsola and Ursula von der Leyen said you finish by March next year. That's why we need to speed up. It is complicated, but delaying is no option. Thank you.
Speaker 1en
Thank you. The voting envy, we'll take place the 1st of December and also in the plenary it will be the month of December. Now we have a small break we will be back at 11. With the joint envy stunt.