This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.

Thank you very much, Executive Vice President and Commissioner. We're now ready to take your questions.

Like always, please say your name and the media outlet for which you work. Let's start here in the press room. Go ahead.

Dutch newspaper The Volks, you've included a global warming trajectory of +3 degrees in 2100,

but of course we're signed up to the Paris climate accord which aims for below 2 degrees.

So what's the signal that you're sending there by now saying to member states prepare for 3 degrees.

Crystal clear on the 1.5, that remains our goal, and even though scientists are currently saying we're moving towards 1.8,

the absolute objective of the European Union is to continue to try to stay within these boundaries and if we were to overshoot,

then to bring them down.

Hence my statement at the beginning that there is no alternative, and I repeat that no alternative for continuing to cut emissions much more thoroughly and move full frontal into the domain of electrification with all the elements that come with it solar,

wind, nuclear, battery capacity, interconnectors between our member states all of that is needed.

At the same time, it would be unwise not to prepare for the scenarios science with the current trajectory the world is on,

puts on the agenda, so scientists are saying 1.5.

More or less for now, but by 2050, you're looking at 2 degrees, and by 20,100,

at least with the current state of development, you're looking for 3.

So I would argue we need to do two things.

One is do our utmost to stay close.

To 1.5 and make sure that if there is an overshoot we bring things down and at the same time let's let's not contemplate and wait but let's prepare for also a hotter future. That is the logic of the proposal. Thank you.

We go to Zia and then to David. Thank you, Adviser for Politico.

Why has it taken a Commission so long to propose legislation on adaptation?

For for me, for May I, may I, may I comment and probably you can complete,

I think that the main, main, main, main, policy on the European scale is to reduce emissions.

That's, that's for sure, as I say, this is the very first and priority measure in terms of climate action and climate adaptation.

And it is not only one continent, one country, one sector that can cope with global warming.

We need to invest in, adaptation and resilience.

You may remember that for a very long while adaptation and resilience has been considered something.

That er relies on local capacities and responsibilities because the impacts take place in a very uneven manner at the local scale,

which is true.

They take reality, they are real on the, on the local scale, but it is also true that even if the best action and the best consideration and the best participation to identify who is more vulnerable,

how to reach consensus on how to tackle these impacts is at the local scale.

We need to work in an enhanced manner through the different layers of responsibility, including the added value that counting on a European framework can provide because counting on common references,

mainstreaming climate modeling climate scenarios in our action,

being consistent in the way we react and we define and shape policies can help into this in the very same way.

That we did with wildfires back in 2009 and I remember that very well because I was responsible for that to,

to provide support at the Spanish regional authorities.

Wildfires were considered something to tackle at the local and national level,

but we realized that counting on common instruments and common capacity to strengthen and back the local impacts could be very useful and efficient.

This is the very same case when thinking about water, when thinking about transboundary impacts.

So the fact that the Commission finally decides to strengthen, it's not that we hadn't done before, we have done lots of things at the European scale,

but now it is a common approach that can help to be much more, much more effective in the type of response that at the local level can be provided.

Just very briefly, I mean, it's of course you can always wonder why previous commissions have not,

have not done it, particularly if you see how large the damage is.

At the same time, you know, you only have what you can do today, none of us can change the past.

So the good thing here is that this Commission deliberately comes up with something that is both systemic but also I would say retail and has very concrete examples.

And that will work for individual citizens in it, and we're delivering on that within the 1st 2 years of this mandate.

By the way, let's also acknowledge that this is far from over with this package, right?

If it is only half true, and unfortunately it will be more than half true that the summers ahead of us will be worse.

Also this package might well need to be beefed up, and national and regional and local governments will have more ahead of them in terms of funding,

in terms of planning, and in terms of work. Thank you.

So, let's go to David and then I'll also take John from remote to try to give the floor to as many as possible. David Diego from Arcus Media, two questions.

11 on cooling, air conditioning, I mean, how,

how can this framework or another framework actually make sure that it doesn't increase,

GHG emissions via the, the electricity system?

How can you do that in a way that's not wholly individualistic?

And the second one is squaring the message of, say, The methane regulations postponement, the, the, the back, backing down on the, ice, the combustion engine phase out and,

and other things, the flexibilities with the ETS, how do you square that message with,

with what you're bringing out today on climate resilience? Thanks. Let's also take John from remote.

We do 2 by 2, otherwise we won't have enough time because we have about 10 minutes left together. Hello, John Ainger from Bloomberg News.

Fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change, and Europe's obviously warming at twice the global average.

Commissioner Hoekstra, you said this is just the start, this package.

Do you both think that the fossil fuel industry should be on the hook to pay for some of these climate resilience investments?

Going forwards, via possibly a levy or some other mechanism. Thank you.

So, so, so maybe, maybe you do them in the in the order that have been asked.

When, when you look at ICS, that definitely is something that is important in our toolkit, particularly if you look at vulnerable citizens, right?

If you look at the 35,000 of access deaths due to warming,

there is a case to be made that at least for some of these groups it would have helped to have been in a situation of better cooling.

And the answer on how to do that is also crystal clear.

At the moment you move, as I said, full frontal into electrification and the source is clean, then we don't have this debate.

And again, whether our member states then choose solar or wind or nuclear, that is then up to them,

but an abundance of cheap Europe made energy and electricity is simply what we need.

Secondly, of course we all acknowledge that globally, but also in Europe there is pushback on the domain of climate action and at the same time I would argue that if you look at the core things the Commission has been doing,

we're not just staying the course, we're actually we're becoming more ambitious in the decade that is ahead of us.

So if you look at what we are doing fit for 55% in this decade, and then we move to 90%,

which is An increase in the trajectory towards 2040, we have put that into legislation that is one.

Secondly, the first lag that that proposal stands on is the ETS.

And indeed we are more flexible provided investments in clean.

Energy in Europe by industry are being made and that is on top of the adjustments and the increasements we were seeking to make in the domain of maritime,

in the domain of aviation, in the domain of negative emissions, in the domain of CCS, and so on.

So I would argue that the headline really needs to be we stay the course,

but we are more street smart in our application.

You're touching upon, of course, a hugely complicated conversation that we cannot solve just in this press conference.

There is a clear case to be made,

and the good news is we're increasingly doing it across this across domains to make sure that polluter pays is a principle that is more put into practice in our policy mix.

We're doing that, by the way, Member states are doing that as well. And at the same time.

It is complicated to just, you know, off the cuff add something on top of the ETS and all the other elements as you were mentioning,

so when we have anything to announce, we will definitely do so,

but it's not something I think I should speculate on now here at this press conference.

Thank, thank you, thank you for the questions.

I will comment on the cooling and on this very last question being raised by John.

On the cooling, I remember very well 20 years ago when thinking on how to distribute the burden between the European member states according to the Kyoto Protocol,

the modelers thought that heating was a necessity and cooling was a luxury.

Being at 40 degrees or 37 degrees one day after the other and reaching 30,

40 nights that are tropical nights is not an issue of luxury, it's a question of public health.

And yes,

the question is how we can manage something that is a question of public health and that could be only for some who have more resources and others could be coping with serious physical er disarrays.

We have lots of things to learn from the traditional manners in hot villages have been handling on cooling in summertime.

The window blinds, cooling early in the morning, the use of some cover.

Better isolation and orientation in the way we construct, we build houses.

That is for sure, things that we need to do.

But we also realized that no parent could send his or her children to a school at 37 degrees.

That no person could send his father, her mother,

to a hospital with no cooling at 37 degrees.

So yes,

we need to think on ways to address cooling as a public health issue in a way that does not increase emissions.

And this is where Commissioner Hoekstra is absolutely right.

Thinking in the way we produce electricity, thinking in solar rooftops, thinking of being much more efficient,

thinking in retrofitting buildings are part of the solution, but I would never say.

That cooling is a luxury if you are forced to live as a poor citizen with 37,

40 degrees one day after the other during two months, so I think that we need to address this in a very serious and responsible manner. On the fossil fuels levy.

I think that as Commissioner Hofstraat has said,

we don't come with an announcement on this because it is not an easy topic, it is complicated.

But it is not new either, and I think that, on a personal basis and as some other member states have already done,

the idea has been shared by Secretary General Guterres on counting on a global levy on fossil fuels how to contribute to invest in better adaptation and resilience is a good idea to take into consideration.

There is no concrete stance or concrete approach coming from the Commission apart from.

This very important statement being made by the commissioner, the polluter pays principle is already considering this when thinking on the ETS, when thinking on the national taxation systems,

but I think that this is a debate that will certainly come up again in the in the coming months as climate impacts. To. OK, let's take another couple of questions.

Let's go to this side of the press room. Go ahead.

Now, David Vidueiro, Spanish National Radio, Spain has the president of Valencia and the devastating floods.

How are you going to guarantee the national and regional authorities there in Valencia, for example, invest and take all the decisions about public infrastructure,

taking into account this new scenario,

and my understanding is that there are no legally binding adaptation targets as Spain has for.

Why and the consequences for a region as Valencia fails to adapt. Thank you.

OK, second question, do we have other hands raised? I only see Christian. Christian, we come to you then. Thanks Erin and Christiane with Europe.

The climate resilience law presented today promises a new strategic plan on climate resilience by 2028.

And this will require the Commission to ensure that climate risks remain tolerable.

So I was wondering, can you clarify how you envision to, to determine this tolerable level of loss? Thank you.

You want me to do No thank you, thank you, thanks for the questions, and I think that, yes,

The first thing I would say is that your question show to what extent it is important to to deal with climate and to remind ourselves that this is not a hoax,

this is real.

So asking for a much more er responsible approach coming from those holding institutional responsibilities.

Dedicating resources to understand and to develop the capacity to warn citizens whenever there is an event is very important in Valencia and in any other place in Europe and all over the world.

In fact, these early warning systems and capacity to prepare what type of message, what type of adequate response in case of an emergency.

Happens is part of what we committed to to support at the at the global scale,

so understanding, learning, communicating, improving and factoring in,

as I said, climate when taking policy decisions.

I mean when thinking of special planning, when thinking about education,

when thinking about communication, when thinking about the development of of this climate action.

We need to be serious, and I think that this is, as the commissioner was, was sharing what it is behind this request of being aware of the importance to,

to identify in a clear manner who is responsible to do what because there may be different elements in the.

In the policy value chain that do need to take into consideration different aspects and each one needs to be the one being identified by the public opinion on who should be communicating on what,

what, what to do and of course there is much that we still need to do.

The worst case scenario is just denying that this is, this is a problem.

The other thing is, what about compulsory commitment to adapt. This is a little bit more complicated.

Because the impacts do vary a lot between the north, the south, the east and the west, the coastal, the inland, er, local geographies, and this is why,

the main reference is counting on the enabling tools and stressing that we are going to be paying attention and be reflecting on how things evolve in the European,

in the European semester, but imposing.

A, a concrete result which is so wide is,

is difficult because there may be different things to be taken into consideration, different priorities and different vulnerabilities.

This is why this is this, stress on being ready to identify, to prepare, and to work with the,

with the different, communities and neighborhoods to ensure that the adequate means and the responsible measures are,

are taking place.

Just, just very briefly on, on, on, on the first one, of course, I mean, the, the, there is no absolute guarantee like there's, there's hardly ever an absolute guarantee in life, but the,

the very least we can do is make sure that there's clarity on the level of responsibility, and in our experience, in my experience,

it does make a lot of difference when you have written something like this in your national laws,

because then it becomes much harder.

Particularly in our democratic systems to basically ignore that.

So I do think it will have a very, very significant effect.

On the second question, and, and what is tolerable, and I think that is that is that is of course a great question because even if there's only one citizen in Europe who would get hit by this,

if you are that one, you would not think that the heat wave or the flooding is tolerable, right?

So there is no, there is of course no absolute answer.

And the difficult thing here we have to do is make sure we bring the impact down while the events go up, but what is at the very least important is that we make sure we're driving down the costs, we're driving down the impacts,

and we will not be able to bring it down immediately to the levels of the 1980s that are just cited,

but making sure we mitigate it much more aggressively than we are doing today, I do think is important. Thank you very much, Executive Vice President.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for having been here with us to present the EU framework for climate resilience that the College adopted today.

The College also adopted several measures to strengthen Frontex and digit digitalize the return process.

Executive Vice President Virkkunen and Commissioner Brunner will be in this press room in a couple of minutes to present this to you,

and this concludes today's readout of the college meeting. Thank you. Goodbye.