This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Good reason. OK. Me.

Thank you, not that many questions, but two things I do feel compelled to share here,

given the nature of the debate.

Of course you can debate what are the most effective measures.

Of course you can debate what type of mix you need to have in terms of renewables and nuclear and so on.

Of course you can debate what works best in terms of the level playing field, but if you deny the economic cost.

Of climate change, you're deep into the domain of voodoo economics, and I would suggest we steer away from that.

Secondly, why are energy prices in Europe so high?

We import more than 80% of the gas, more than 95% of the oil,

and the price tag only since Hormuz has gone up with an additional half a billion every single day.

That is money that European citizens and European companies are paying, and the only way out of this nightmare is more dirt cheap, Europe made energy,

and that means renewables, it means nuclear, it means green investments,

it means interconnectors, it means geothermal, that whole mix with more speed. Thank you.

Finally, I'm still pondering whether we have further enriched this style of debate,

but that is of course not up to me, that is up to Parliament. Commissioner. And now we have Mr. Shahid who's the rapporteur.

Yes, so, a lot has been said today, so, a couple of things that I would like to, to reiterate.

I think it's very easy to yell and shout and claim that you are a hardworking politician,

but at the end of the day we discuss at the table.

If you have any ideas on any of the legislation that we work on, join the table and come up with your ideas.

I noticed that many people that were not during many discussions I've had,

are now having the hardest voice, claiming that we're all fools and we don't know anything about this.

Let me tell you something about the ETS.

There's no more successful emissions trading scheme in the world than in Europe.

We've decarbonised that industry with more than 30%, while it grows with more than 60%.

Talking about decarbonisation, please look at the facts.

There was a question here, like where in the world are they doing the same as we're doing in ETS.

China, the US, India has announced it, Vietnam has announced it. There's a whole list.

Maybe use some Googling and find out the world is following the EU, and why?

Because they see that with the revenues, you can decarbonise your industry.

We have doubled the modernisation Fund to show solidarity within Europe.

That's what you conclude if you take the facts and read the legislation and read what we work on.

It's ridiculous, it's really ridiculous,

only making noise with 00 effect and zero contributions to the legislation.

A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise people can answer,

and I can tell you the difference between stupidity and intelligence is that intelligence is limited. Thank you very much. Mr. Mr.

Colleagues President,

I'm glad that we've had this high quality debate.

Apart from the far right's contributions over the last hour or so. They have been climate skeptics. They ignore climate change.

Climate change is happening more quickly than ever. The scientific studies prove it.

We're decarbonizing and renew and investing in renewable energies, so that's not causing prices to go up, it's causing them to go down.

You in Romania and in Italy are completely dependent on gas,

which is thus leading to higher energy prices than Sweden, France, Spain. It's your responsibility.

You failed to invest in green technologies which we wanted to invest in.

You are forcing people to be dependent on high cost, polluting imported energy.

I know you don't mind being dependent on Putin and other enemies in the US of Trump.

But we, the true European patriots, we, the true European sovereignists, we are the ones who want to create a strong Europe.

Yes, it bothers us to be dependent on fossil fuel exporters in the rest of the world.

That's why we need CAM and other mechanisms, and that way we will continue to fight against Olof your lies and everything else that you're spewing. Mr.

Thank you, I listened very carefully to everything that was said, and I would like to thank colleagues for their contributions.

It is only natural that with such an important topic such as ETS,

there are bound to be different positions and sensitivities in this House.

We are dealing with one of the most complex and politically sensitive issues of this legislature at a moment in time when international competition is fierce and after a summer.

Which had us really feel what climate change is all about.

However, I'd like to reject what I believe to be a false dichotomy,

the idea that we have to either be for the climate or for European industry.

To choose to improve the ETS or CAM doesn't mean that we're abandoning industry and our workers. To choose to defend.

The competitive edge of our companies does not necessarily mean that we have to give up our climate change objectives.

Europe cannot choose, and must not choose between the two. Quite the opposite.

Europe must have the ambition and the ability to deal with these two challenges together.

This is a strategic necessity, and innovative,

decarbonised industry is the only one that will be able to be competitive in the decade. To come.

Ecological transition cannot function properly if it leads to the deindustrialization of our content and the relocation of our companies.

So the compromise we are discussing shows us that by listening to each other painstakingly, we can find compromises which do strike a balance between these two challenges, and this is very much At the heart of the work which I and my colleagues have been working on in our respective committees,

and I think that with the vote tomorrow, we will be able to show that it will be perhaps hard to find compromises on the ETS,

but we have a working method which will enable us to find those compromises and find the best possible agreement among most of us.

So the joint debate now is closed and there will be a vote on that tomorrow.

So now on the agenda, we have the Commission declaration on public procurement.