This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

An excellent thing, as well as the revision of the ETS. We can start our debate.

Could I ask all colleagues to be very strict in terms of their speaking time.

We have a lot of catch the eye requests.

We already have to close the list for catch the eye, so we have Mr. Mariantzela.

Thank you, honorable Commissioner, dear colleagues, first and foremost,

I would like to thank the rapporteurs and Olof my colleagues for this excellent cooperation that we've had.

As EPP shadow,

I have been particularly proud to experience this because the establishment of the temporary decarbonisation fund is so important.

It provides us with a solution for extremely important sectors for the EU as a whole and for Cyprus in particular. I'm thinking about cement. I'm thinking about steel. These are absolutely necessary points.

We want to make sure that Europe becomes more competitive going forward because what's happening right now.

Is that our industry, our businesses, our companies are losing market share.

But thanks to this decision, we will be able to fund more decarbonisation in the future.

The European Parliament has done its job and what was expected of it.

We're proposing a very ambitious policy now over to the Council to break the impact.

Thank you, we often speak of ecological transition and decarbonisation,

linking these concepts to the risk of deindustrialization, which is unfortunately affecting the European Union.

This is a risk that does not affect all sectors in the same way.

It is a false issue, for instance, for the energy sector,

where decarbonisation and competitiveness go hand in hand.

Whereas the manufacturing sectors are open to unfair competition,

the answer is not to dash our ambitions in terms of the protection.

Of our ecosystem and tackling the climate crisis, but we must make use of the strength of the Union. CEBAM is a concrete example of this. The principle is straightforward.

We are asking European enterprises to reduce their emissions, to innovate and invest in decarbonisation,

but there is a price for this effort, and we cannot allow it to become a competitive.

Disadvantage compared to those who produce outside Europe without having to adhere to the same environmental and social constraints.

That is why CBAM was set up to reinstate fairer competition conditions and protect our quality industry.

Today we are taking a step forward, extending protection to the value chain, not just steel and aluminum,

but also the products which can We retain these metals, such as domestic appliances, industrial components and equipment.

Compared to the 180 products which were initially proposed by the Commission, we are now at 460.

We are stepping up checks on those who are trying to cheat the system, because an effective CEBA must be solid, predictable.

It must be able to give certainty to companies who invest in the transition.

Thank you, Commissioner, surprisingly, I am not so optimistic.

Some improvements in ETS and SEBALM go in a good direction and patriots will be able to support them,

but just be clear,

these are only very cosmetic changes targeting symptoms and not the cause of EU industry downfall.

In medicinal terminology, EU industry is a critical state.

A dying patient poisoned by wrong industrial and climate policy over the past years,

a patient that needs a real antidote and not just soft painkillers.

In reality, EU industry needs a much cheaper ETS 1 price for EU exporters, effective,

uninterrupted TBAM to protect the EU market and up need compensation for some sectors, such as for farmers.

Simply measures that are not at all reached by the small improvements that we have today on the table.

The more alarming is to hear that you consider these good but soft measures sufficient,

completely ignoring the critical signals from industry across Europe.

Trust us, Mr Commissioner, industry needs much more,

and every delay to deliver real corrections in climate policy from your side is damage for Europe. The choice is very simple.

Either you protect EU industry from wrong EU climate policy over the past years,

or you continue with this policy far from global reality, based on unrealistic targets and damaging our European economy.

So what will be your choice, Mr Commissioner? Mr. Good evening, dear colleagues.

I think that high energy prices are the largest headache for everybody in Europe,

for the people, for the business, industries.

That's why we are lagging behind the US, China and other competing powers.

So the receipt is very clear what we must do.

We need stable prices of the ETS allowances, and ETS1 in particular now.

So we need to improve the sectoral imbalances and avoid the risk of allowing scarcity and price spikes.

The European Commission and I am very critical of this, but now I would be applauding because It understood the assignment and came up, you,

Commissioner, with a simple proposal for the reform of MSR I stop invalidation of allowances,

build big enough reserves, and I applaud that. And your EPP.

The committee could have a simple majority to support this, but because of this policy of firewalls,

it decided to negotiate with the left to give the Greer flavor with the compromise, the so-called compromise. So the ECR is Different.

I will simply propose to my colleagues to reject the committee's so called compromise and to stay behind your proposal in tomorrow's vote. That's the only reasonable way forward. Thank you.

It feels like I am living in two different realities, one where we have had the most extreme summers in Europe, where Parisians have literally been boiling and cooking eggs on their rooftops,

where We have had massive wildfires where 35,000 Europeans have died prematurely, where we have had massive wildfires across the continent,

and where the scientists say that we have already surpassed 1.5 degrees.

Then we have the other reality, the one where competitiveness has become the argument to dismantle climate policy,

where competitiveness is used to oppose technological development,

where political forces ask to dismantle the polluter pay principle and to protect the fossil industry.

How can we have these two realities at the same time? How did we end up here?

Why are we discussing things in this room, pretending that this summer didn't happen?

This summer shows that we cannot slow down the reduction of emissions, that we cannot lower the ambitions of the emissions trading scheme,

and that we cannot dismantle the market stability reserve like the Commission proposes.

We in this House, the House of the Europeans, speak up, we will make resistance, and we oppose this change.

We do not always agree with each other, the political forces of this House,

but we have found a joint proposal and we are challenging the European Commission when we are obviously trying to live in two realities at the same time.

We need to live in one reality, and we need to fix this.

Colleagues, why should a washing machine made in Europe cost more simply because our European producers pay for their carbon emissions and a Chinese producer doesn't?

That's why we built CEAM, and tomorrow we take the next step by extending it from the raw steel and aluminum to the finished products, and thanks to the Greens,

We have extended this to essential Greer tech products like solar panels, like heat pumps,

and we also removed the so-called emergency brake that would have left the door open for products to be removed from the scope.

There were some conservatives who wanted to keep that possibility, but that colleagues would have created uncertainty for our companies.

By removing it, we are making CBAM more predictable and keep investment security.

So all in all, we'll have a stronger CEAM.

We're making polluting imports pay for their carbon costs, we're making clean investment more attractive,

and we give European industry the confidence they need to invest here. Thank you very much. Madam.

Thank you, there is nothing, no data, no science,

no nothing saying that we would have the option of slowing down cutting emissions.

Extreme heat waves are killing people, destroying crops, and yet here we are in Parliament,

faced with several proposals to change the emissions trading system that would mean slowing down the pace. That is unacceptable.

The ETS is a market based mechanism, meaning that it only works if there is scarcity.

If there is an oversupply of emissions allowances, emissions will not decrease.

That is why the invalidation mechanism in the MSR is so important it manages expectations.

We cannot afford the risk that releasing additional allowances from the MSR in the future will drive up emissions.

I am very happy that there are groups that are willing to improve these proposals that we get from the Commission, for example on the market stability reserve,

but it's also a problem for us when we end up making them a little bit better but still ending up in a situation that is worse than where we started out lowering ambition we really need to do better.

Steel foundries in the EU have to deal with a lot of CO2 costs because of the ETS,

and steel is going up in price, so it's better to import it.

ETS income from last year stood at €43 billion and our own steel works are in danger,

but instead of doing anything, trickery has been used to use.

And to apply it in one fell swoop to all external trade, and that will affect our supply chain.

So now there will be additional money coming into the EU's coffers every year, but the affected companies are in doubt. Imagine that you import screws.

You're going to have to pay a lot of additional duties,

and this is going to affect machinery producers, and this is.

Unashamed, this is a very costly climate policy.

The ETS is causing the prices to rise in the EU. It means CBAM imports are going up.

And there will be another series of products included,

so this is not having a measurable effect on the climate, but our economic fabric is being destroyed.

We have to stop the ETS and CBAM now.

That's why the ESN is needed in Europe and the AFD is needed in Germany.

Thank you, I've been looking forward to this new debating formula for weeks,

so I know we're short on time, so I'm going to do it a bit staccato.

First, I wanted to say, in the direction of gentlemen Confin and Sahim that I very much agree with the importance they have underlined in terms of pushing this proposal forward from a climate perspective as well as from a competitiveness perspective,

and that is also the message I will convey to the Council.

We are also making a couple of suggestions about Article 27A.

I know that that is a disputed area, if that is the way to describe it.

I look forward to continuing to engage on that,

and I am sure we can achieve our joint goal of dealing with exceptional circumstances while at the same time maintaining sufficient legal certainty. Ms. Gomes Lopes asked me about own resources there.

I just have to refer to the Commission proposal. I cannot deviate from that. Ms.

Boyle was asking about technical assistance and use the money of CBAM exactly for that because. That's exactly what we're doing.

We're giving I would say a lot of technical assistance to absolutely everyone who wants it,

and Europe continues to be the absolute frontrunner in terms of climate commitments and financing across the globe.

So we might not be doing it one on one, but we are doing more than our fair share.

To Ms Soukupova, I would want to say that I very much agree with keeping bureaucratic monsters out,

but it was this Commission that actually took out 90% of the companies from the scope.

That is what we did, so I think we have a bit of a track record, particularly in this domain. Mr.

Krone, my only advice would be to further work on his analogies involving patients and hospitals. Mr.

Van der Graaf, that's a bit of a recap of the debate of last week.

If you look at Europe and you look at who has the lowest prices. It is Finland's lowest energy prices. Why?

Because they have a combination of renewables, nuclear grid capacity, and that works phenomenally well,

and that is a recipe all should embark on.

But let's not make the mistake of doing as if just the ETS is the component that drives prices, that is driven, as Mr.

Vondra well knows, by the intrinsics first and foremost.

To Emma Wiesner, I would say as much as I'm a fan of recycling,

this was maybe a bit too much rape to jour compared to last week, but I very much enjoyed hearing it again.

And then I think I have done justice to everything that was more or less formulated as a question,

I think.

So let me pause there because that keeps one minute in the bank. Hansen. Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner.

I have very much sympathy for the fact that those who admit CO2 also want to know what the bill will look like.

We have a responsibility to ensure that changes we are making right now allow our businesses and voters to continue trusting us.

Because when we see that in this House, we have boost the 90% fewer emissions by 2040,

then we also need to deliver the tools to get there.

One of them we are discussing today the emissions trading system already loses most people at the door,

and it doesn't get any easier when we start to talk about the market stability reserve.

Just like in any other market, the question is the same what should it cost?

We, as politicians should not set the price,

but we must ensure that the rules and direction are transparent.

We owe the business community one word predictability, otherwise,

both the investments already made and those yet to be made will collapse like a house of cards. Thank you. Vice President Lopez.

Thank you, and thank you to the Commissioner, Mr. Hoekstra.

We've had the hottest summer of our lives. It's been confirmed.

We're talking about an increase of 1.5 degrees around the planet, hospitals that have collapsed in the whole of Europe,

and hundreds of thousands of Europeans who have been suffering, temperatures of more than 35 °C. It's unprecedented.

So we need to not only maintain and strengthen our climate policies,

we also need to make sure that we remember that this is not some kind of choice between competitiveness and climate action. They're not in competition with one another.

We can protect our industry and at the same time step up our climate efforts.

How do we do this with the CAM?

To protect our industry,

making sure that imports into Europe have to abide by the same standards and the same regulations as everyone else.

There's also the temporary decarbonisation fund that's also necessary for adjustment purposes in the process and making sure that we keep. A strong and stable carbon market.

Climate action will protect our industries, but it will also help shore up our competitiveness for the future,

and we need legal stability, legal certainty.

That's what is required for investment both today and tomorrow for you. Please, Mr. Dossat. OK. Just 1 2nd for the translation.

Do you have the No, we don't have a blue card, sorry. Perfect. No, no, they canceled. OK. Perfect. Mr. Thank you, 20 years have elapsed since.

This system of the emissions trading system was set up in Europe. It is a dreadful system.

We have all these companies in Europe and they have to pay into this system in order to be sustainable,

and this has led to deindustrialization in Europe, with sometimes unfair competition from Southeast Asia,

which is simply Exceeding Olof our, heavy industry capacity.

Then you invented the so-called C ban, a mechanism which is basically a type of duty.

I know this is a word you can't use, but it's a way of trying to compensate for this damage.

But you forgot about farmers because without Article 27A, the safeguard clause,

fertilizers aren't going to be protected, and this sort of Europe is not a Europe we like. Thank you, Mr. Brosse.

Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to legislation, the conservative circles almost say as a mantra that the market will sort it out,

but that is not the case when it comes to climate protection and the CO2 price.

It works this way when CO2 emissions fall, then it is cheap, and then otherwise there is a price incentive that is good.

Because then there will be an advantage for environmentally friendly cars and heat pumps,

and then that can be good for citizens, but what we're deciding on here is.

The opposite, you know, as soon as the price begins to work, we cap it.

So we have a smoke alarm that is buzzing,

but we're turning the smoke alarm off because it's buzzing and making a noise. Now.

We've had a very severe set of heat waves this summer which has cost €180 million.

We should all know that we cannot allow ourselves less climate protection.

There are two blue cards if you accept it. From Mr. Tres and Mr. Ben Hayes. Do you accept? OK, yeah. Please, Mr. Terras, for 30 seconds, please. Thank you. OK.

Thank you, you claim that the Conservatives are wrong when they say that CEBAM or ETS are jamming and destroying our economy,

but please explain to us.

Who else in the world, and in their right mind,

applied these schemes they are claiming that are working in the EU?

Show me one country, not many countries,

another country outside of the EU that applied something they are claiming that should be applied in the EU that is making us all poorer. Thank you.

I can tell you, for instance, California, together with Canada and China, they have emission trading systems,

but what I would like to understand from you is why are the prices in,

for instance, Romania so high? Why are the electricity prices so high? Do you know what?

It is precisely because there is a difference between Europe and China and the US.

Europe is importing Olof its energy, fossil energy that costs us a billion euros and in addition,

we have this cost from the climate crisis.

So if you want to do something against prices,

then you have to switch to renewables because that brings prices down, and in Romania we could see it.

When Bulgaria delivered from their batteries, energy to to to Romania this summer,

when because of the climate crisis, your nuclear power plants went down. If you want to react, please. Just 1 2nd. You can switch on.

This is exactly the reason why the price of energy in Romania is higher.

Because a lot of unsane politicians in Romania believed exactly what you are saying that we should destroy our coal power plants,

close down hydroelectric power plants and move on to renewables.

The problem is this what do you do if there's no sun?

If there's no wind and if there's no water.

This is the reason why the Romanians currently are paying pretty much the highest energy price in Europe.

So the solution is to have energy addition, not energy transition.

Keep the old energy sources and add new ones as much as you can. Thank you.

Thank you I mean, I think the rivers didn't dry up because of some politicians that thought that would be a good idea, but because of the climate crisis,

so I I think that you should stay here to to reality, but what I think is interesting,

if you look into Europe, then you see that in places where you have the highest renewable share.

Where you have the lowest energy prices, and I think this is what we all should understand that the gas prices, the fossil prices,

they bring their energy prices up, and only if we produce our own energy, homemade energy from Europe, this is what brings prices down. Thank you Mr. Blas. Mr. Bernd Huber, please, for 30 seconds. Thank you so much.

You mentioned CO2 prices and you talked about the system.

I wanted to flag the question of agriculture. Fertilizer prices go up. Costs in the European Union go up.

At the same time we've got imports from Ukraine, so grains from Ukraine or the United States of America,

but they've of course got completely different production costs.

So therefore, how do you want to make this fair for our own farmers here? Mr. Mr.

I know you wanted to say something about agriculture, as you often do,

but if I look at fertilizer producers in Europe. They say they want CBA. They say that they need it.

They say that only if we have CBAM can we as producers be competitive with others.

So that is our own industry in Europe that wants CBAM. Is that something new? Is that something you didn't know? I'm glad. Mr. Our industry is falling to its knees.

Our companies are leaving Europe and are closing down their industrial factories.

People are worse off and young people do not see any prospects in the EU.

Energy, fuels, everything is skyrocketing, it's going up.

These are the results of your climate policy.

Instead of taking a sober look and adopting measures that will lead to the stopping and seizing of these allowances which the companies have to buy,

and you are not going to push them on the households, you are coming up with further nonsense,

with emission standards which are being more stricter for any types of vehicles with carbon.

Taxes, which are going to be an additional burden on our households, and people are going to ultimately pay more for their daily lives,

and this is in the light of your climate mantra destroying the lives of the people in the Union.

You have no results and your measures have no significant bearing on climate change. You are making it worse for anyone.

Step down or seize what you are doing and bring people back to their freedom. That's for you if you accept it. OK, please, Mr. Hipper.

I am very happy that you took the blue card this time.

You said that what the Commission is doing here is not actually doing something to protect the climate.

So I am just very interested to know in your opinion, because I think you would not deny climate change, you would not deny the billions and billions and trillions that climate change could cost us later down the line,

and I also know that you, in particular, would not want the climate migration that will happen,

so what can we do to protect the climate, if not this? Thank you very much. Mr. Hipper, you are absolutely excellent.

Finally, question related to the topics which we are discussing.

It is the first time from you, so I really appreciate that, but I would really hope that in the past,

the people who lived during the ice age would have exactly people like you,

because you would be those ones who would stop the climate change during that age. You would be those ones.

Who would stop the melting of the ice, because you think you are gods among the humans and you can stop the climate change.

Nothing from that ideology works in real life. Look at what China is doing. Look at what India is doing.

They are fulfilling the oceans with the waves.

They are producing so much emissions which we can't even compare.

This is absolutely useless, what you are doing. Thank you Do you wanna react? Please.

Mr Mazurek, I want to thank you for your compliment that I actually posed a question regarding the topic.

I am therefore extremely disappointed that you didn't actually reply to my question.

So I'm sure I'm a great guy, I could stop the climate change after the ice age, I'm very sure about this, so I will ask you once again, talking about the climate change now,

what would be a way to stop it or to mitigate it,

because all the statistics show that there is in fact a difference between the heightening of temperature after the ice age,

and now, which is the speed.

So what can we do to at least slow it down? Thank you very much. Maybe this time you can actually reply. Thank you very much, Mr. Tupper.

I see you don't understand me, but to be honest, I think none of what they are doing is going to reduce climate change,

is going to do anything we need, and I believe there is nothing we can do to stop it,

because the climate was changing during the whole existence of.

Our planet, and you cannot deny it, because during the times when dinosaurs were walking through this earth,

the climate was changing without our industry.

What we can do are the measures to adjust to those changes which we support,

not those emission standards and business for the few chosen companies. Thank you, Mr. Haider, for 30 seconds, please. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. ETS.

We've talked about investments, mobility throughout the whole of the European Union.

Basically we know that this is bad for our farmers, bad for our industry, and it's also costly. Our households are already paying a lot.

In the meantime you've got China, India, they're carrying on producing, but they're they're not subject to any such restrictions.

Do you have an idea by how many degrees this ETS or CAM and all these bureaucratic tools,

to what extent and to what extent they would actually reduce temperatures around the globe,

because we're destroying farms, we're destroying industry, at what cost?

I think you already know the answer, and the answer is no.

The answer is that those measures enacted here by the European Commission will have no Impact on the ongoing changes in our climate. They are useful.

They are good only to fulfill their ideas, this crazy Greer ideology, and also they are good for some businesses.

They are good for a few chosen companies and entities which are gaining so much money from Olof this ideological nonsense.

We need to,

we need to make Europe free again and give businesses a chance to work properly again and to live a normal life.

Thank you, Commissioner, tomorrow we are going to vote on CEBAM, the negotiating mandate,

and here I want to thank very much our rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation.

If CEBAM is to work in practice and if our European industry is to be protected, we have to close all the gaps. This report enhances the.

This is everything that we need to fight avoidance behavior.

We expand the list of protected products, and we have a special regime for aluminum products. Yes, Article 27A is super important.

We do not need to introduce more legal uncertainty. We cannot just suspend.

We have to divert to those who are most affected by distortions on the market.

We have to focus also on our farmers.

This solution is much better than 27A because this article has the potential to dismantle the whole system and we lose the trust of our citizens. We have now closed the debate.

Now in the framework of the catch the eye,

we'll only be able to have one speaker per group because we are lagging behind.

So we will have the first speaker from the EPP.

Thank you, I have to say that I listened to this debate very surprised because I think we all know that China,

India and the US are flooding us with their products,

especially China, and when the EU has a proposal, Parliament.

When the Commission presents over 400 products which will be especially protected, which will have a special tax if they come from outside the EU,

then I hear from the populists in this Chamber that it is something that we should not be adopting, and why are we talking about it? Well, then, in whose interest? Are they here? Why are they here?

Because we are talking about the branches of European industry which are key,

like cement, like steel.

This is extremely important, so I am really surprised, but I have a very concrete question to the Commissioner.

Apart from SEBE, apart from additional customs,

what can we do to lower energy prices, because this is so important? Yeah. Who's this name? Romania. I think it might be, Mrs.

The report that we're going to vote on tomorrow could be advantageous.

At the same time, the implementation will be tricky, you know this.

Temporary decarbonation fund is very important and it must not lead to any further disturbances on the market.

It's very important that we defend the European market.

It doesn't matter if he is an industrialist or a farmer.

An entity puts a product on the market that isn't in line with our rules,

and that is unfair trading, that is unfair competition, so we need to have the same.

Standards for European products and for imported products.

So that's why I hope that the amendments that have been tabled will further improve things. You know that we have a lot. There's really an outcry from farmers.

Farmers are suffering because of a higher input costs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Terras.

Mr Mr Commissioner, This carbon boarding adjustment mechanism.

A way to actually promote a social engineering scheme that Ursula von der Leyen mentioned in this plenary in 2019,

and she said, and I quote, Carbon emissions must have a price that will change our behavior.

So I'm asking you, what kind of behavior do you want to change in Europe,

because clearly what you guys are proposing has nothing to do with the free market economy.

On one side, everything they are proposing is leading to higher energy prices,

higher raw material prices, higher taxes, higher costs.

How do you think that European companies will be able to compete on the global market?

If we check the stats,

we see that the global GDP is €104 trillion by the Europeans' GDP it's €18.8 trillion. That makes it 18%.

How do you think the whole world is going to adjust to 18% of the European economy,

or do we should think twice before we promote these kinds of measures that are making us poorer and less competitive? Mr. Andrews. Thank you, climate policy isn't ideology, it's science.

Science makes the microphone work,

it keeps the lights on and it concludes that warming is anthropogenic warming is caused by human activity.

To have to explain that, to assert this in an adult Parliament, is frankly, depressing.

It's difficult to listen to conservatives criticizing emissions trading when it was them that insisted on a market-based intervention.

It was them that insisted on cap and trade,

and I agree with MEP Shahm and with MEP Confin that it is working and that it's effective,

and CBAM is working and is effective. I have criticized the simplification agenda.

When it has been deregulatory or when it has punished early adopters.

However, it would be naive to ignore the realities, and that's why our industry needs the competitiveness agenda.

We need support in the face of the energy crisis, including through social climate plans, and it also needs support on carbon pricing. Thank you. Now we have Mr. Brown. I just want to express my gratitude.

I just want to express my thanks to Olof you who repeated yours.

Climate change decarbonisation nonsense today, because you are making my work,

my political work, so much easier.

Please give me more of this bullshit,

and it will be easier for me to persuade my compatriots to leave the Eurool hosts behind. You know what ETS is for?

It is for extortion theft system,

and this is making Europe a dead end.

As far as industry, as far as progress, as far as innovation is concerned, please,

please talk more about your scientific climate change and helping the planet to survive,

because this is very good for me in Poland.

This makes it easier to make pole exit happen. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Could I ask you, to,

To limit the type of language you use to what is in keeping with this House. You already said it, Mr.

Brown, you pride yourself on your manners, you pride yourself on your behavior,

you act like a gentleman while spreading lies and deception towards the people of Europe.

If you do it, please maybe do it in a language that suits the charade that you want to play here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, we have now finished the catch the eye procedure.

Commissioner Hoekstra, you have the floor.