tutorial/sample_data.csv

doc_id,text
1,"The next item is the debate on the report by Miriam Dalli, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles, and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (recast) (COM (2017) 0676  C8-0395/2017  2017/0329 ((COD)) (A8-0287/2018)."
2,"Rapporteur. – Mr President, thank you, Commissioner Cañete, and all the shadow rapporteurs for the way we work together. I am proud to be standing here to defend the Committee on the Environment’s position on legislation that respects our climate targets, the environment, public health, industry and competitiveness. I am proud because together we realised that the way forward is to ensure the environmental integrity of the industry as a whole. We agreed that real driving emissions are a necessity, and that any emission values that the European Commission bases itself on have to be measured values and not simply values declared by the car manufacturers. We agreed that we have to move from measuring emissions at the tail pipe to analysing the whole life cycle of a vehicle. That, together with the well—to—wheels approach, can really promote cleaner technology and cleaner fuels. We agreed that investment in recharging infrastructure is to be promoted, and battery and battery cell manufacturing close to vehicle manufacturing sites should be supported. I am for more ambition than what the European Commission is proposing. I am for more ambition, because we have studies that clearly show that we need to take decisive action. More ambition will stimulate innovation and investment in the European Union. It will create jobs in the years to come, particularly if the European Union embarks on a long-term strategy that seriously attracts battery production investments to the European Union. This is confirmed by the European Commission itself. I did not want to speak about numbers, but I want to set the record straight. Let’s take a 40% CO2 reduction: we would be creating 69 000 jobs in the EU if we imported batteries from outside the European Union. If we had to produce batteries within the EU, we would be creating 92 000 jobs. With a 40% CO2 reduction, there would be 12 000 fewer jobs in the automotive sector over a period of 12 years until 2030. However, at the same time, in its blueprint for cooperation on skills and the automotive sector, the Commission is saying that there will be 900 000 employees, who will retire or leave the sector between 2017 and 2025. Because workers are a priority, we are proposing a gradual transition complemented by targeted programmes to ensure that no one is impacted negatively. An ambitious proposal is all about car manufacturers having the right incentive to invest and create quality jobs right here in the European Union. I ask two questions: why are car manufacturers investing seven times as much outside the European Union as they do within the European Union when it comes to cleaner cars? Why are car manufacturers, telling their workers’ councils that they cannot invest in battery production in the EU because of high salary costs, but then Chinese companies open battery production sites in the EU paying EU salaries. As far as I’m concerned, the answer is simple: there aren’t the right incentives for the industry to invest in cleaner cars. And we have a choice: we have a choice between attracting investment to the European Union or letting other continents take the lead, with all the disruptive effects that this will have on our industry, on our companies and our small producers, our environment and our cities. This is the time to act. This is the time to show that, for us, it is not a question of industry versus the environment, but an issue of making sure that we address both the environment and industry together. We have the opportunity to act tomorrow in our vote in this plenary."
3,"Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here today for the debate on the Commission proposal setting CO2 emissions standards for cars and vans for the period up to 2020. This is a key proposal to implement the 2030 climate and energy framework, to continue delivering on our commitments under the Paris Agreement and to contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy. This is not just essential for the climate, but also for Europe’s economic prosperity and global competiveness. With the adoption of the legislative proposals on the 2030 climate and energy framework, thanks to the excellent work of all our institutions, the European Union is turning its global commitments into reality and is determined to continue as a world leader in the fight against climate change. Under the Effort Sharing Regulation the Member States now have binding emission reduction targets up to 2030 in the sectors not included in the European Union Emissions Trading System – that is transport, buildings, agriculture and waste. Now it is time to make sure that at European level we have the right regulatory framework in place to contribute to meeting these targets. With almost a quarter of the European Union’s total greenhouse gas emissions coming from transport, this sector has a vital role to play in this transition. While Europe has reduced its emissions by some 23% since 1990, road transport emissions have grown by about 20% and today, transport accounts for more than 20% of Europe’s total emissions and this continues to grow. The Commission’s legislative proposal setting the new CO2 standards for cars and vans for post-2020 is therefore an essential instrument to address this. Your vote tomorrow is instrumental to allow the adoption of the proposal during the current legislative term and we need to give a clear and stable regulatory signal to industry as soon as possible because this will stimulate the right investments in the transition towards zero emission mobility. I want to thank the rapporteur, Ms Dalli, for her hard work on this proposal, putting together the position of this Parliament, as well as for our constructive discussions and cooperation. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their work. I want to underline that the Commission proposal, underpinned by a thorough impact assessment, is both ambitious and realistic. It strikes the right balance between the three main policy objectives that cannot be considered in isolation: firstly, achieving environmental benefits, secondly, bringing savings for consumers and finally, safeguarding employment and competitiveness in the European Union. The Commission proposal allows for a smooth, gradual and realistic transition to zero emission vehicles. The pace of the transition is essential, as the automotive sector is crucial for Europe’s prosperity, providing jobs for 12 million people in manufacturing, sales, maintenance and transport and accounting for 4% of gross domestic product. We need to give sufficient time to achieve this reformation, to undertake the necessary investments and to reskill and upskill the workers in the current automotive supply chain. Our target will have positive impacts on the overall economy. At the same time, the number of jobs will remain stable in the automotive sector. Our proposal will also bring significant environmental benefits. The proposal is projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road transport by around 22% between 2005 and 2030, contributing to our necessary efforts to implement the Paris Agreement. We have already agreed, or proposed, additional policies which will further reduce emissions from this sector, including the recently agreed Renewable Energy Directive, as well as the proposal on CO2 standards for heavy duty vehicles, the revised Eurovignette and the Clean Vehicles and Combined Transport Directives. From the side of consumers, the 30% target will bring significant economic benefits. Consumers will save money – up to EUR 400 for the average new car bought in 2025 and more than EUR 1 400 in 2030. Let me conclude by saying once again that the Commission remains fully supportive of the efforts of Parliament and the Council to conclude positive discussions on this proposal still this year. I look forward to continuing to work with you on the proposal and bringing it to a positive successful conclusion. This is what our citizens, our consumers, our companies and our workers expect from all of us."
4,"The Committee on Transport and Tourism has tabled a number of amendments to the proposal.  Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transport accounts for more than 20% of CO2 emissions in Europe, and 70% of these emissions come from road transport. As a result, air pollution causes the premature death of 500,000 people in Europe each year. If we don't change, we're going into the wall. To meet the COP 21 targets, emissions would need to be cut by 70% by 2030. There, they propose a 45% reduction by 2030. It is better than the Commission's proposal, but it is far from enough. What do you say? That it's too ambitious. But it's too ambitious for who? For governments, for the auto lobby? I say to you, we, the European Parliament, cannot compromise the climate, the health of our citizens or the 12 million jobs in the automotive sector in Europe that are already threatened by international competition. Clean mobility is not a threat but an opportunity for the health and conversion of the automotive sector."
5,"I am speaking on behalf of the PPE Group. The Commission is not Let me make one thing clear right at the beginning: The question today is not yes or no on climate change. All the proposals we will be voting on tomorrow will help us achieve our climate goals. The question is, what happens if we try to miss the target again? In other words, what do the exaggerated demands of some colleagues mean for consumers, the economy and jobs? The answer is clear: They would be devastating. The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the Community's energy policy is not undermined by the fact that the Community's energy policy is not in line with the Community's energy policy. The penalties for zero- and low-emission vehicles alone will cost us dearly. The Commission has calculated what the Environment Committee's proposal would mean. The economy would lose €1 450 on the sale of a car, each consumer would have to pay €1 000 more and 60 000 people would lose their jobs. It is often said that new jobs will be created and that people can be re-trained. I have met with trade union and industrial representatives and they have made it quite clear that thousands of jobs will be lost. We have to stop that. It is only in the European Parliament that this message has not yet been received. I am firmly convinced that we can set ambitious targets, protect the climate and at the same time strengthen the competitiveness of our industry and thus safeguard jobs in Europe. We need no ideology, no quotas and no bans, but openness, innovation and technological neutrality. It would be good for the climate, it would be good for the consumer, and it would be good for the workers. The EPP Group made major concessions during the negotiations. Let's vote tomorrow for the 35% target and reject the penalty system for e-car quotas."
6,"on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, this is an absolutely crucial file and that’s why, Mr Commissioner, we need more ambition than the Commission proposal offers – to make sure that we can get our climate goals, but also to make sure that we can reduce the cost for consumers and improve the air quality in our Member States. Some, like Mr Gieseke, argue that increased ambition will lead to a loss of jobs. Well, it’s not the case. The Commission’s own impact assessment states that with a 40% reduction, total EU employment will increase by 69 000 to 92 000 jobs. In any case, colleagues, regardless of electrification, if you look at what will go on in the sector on everything that is to do with automation and digitalisation, fundamental changes need to occur in the sector. That’s why I am so proud that, under the leadership of Ms Dalli, there are many issues on just transition within the proposal of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) that we should all support. What workers should be really be afraid of is that we lose out in the automotive sector; we lose our leadership on technology. Ms Dalli mentioned it already. Why are European car manufacturers making so much effort in China to make electric cars and not do so within Europe? What do we want? To be left with all technology that is killing our people because of the effect on climate and air quality? That’s why we need to have ambition. It’s encouraging to see that not just in the progressive forces in this Parliament, but also in the Council, there’s an increasing amount of membership that wants to improve the targets in this regulation. That’s why I’m really saddened that Ms Merkel, whom I respect a lot and who used to be a climate Chancellor, will now miss her national climate targets by 2020 and 2030 by putting the brakes on this ambitious legislation. So please, let’s vote tomorrow on the ENVI proposal."
7,"The Commission is also proposing to extend the scope of the directive to include the use of the term 'competent authority' to cover all the activities of the European Parliament. We support at least 40% less CO2 and 40% new green cars by 2030. This is indeed essential in the fight against climate change, but also for the air quality in our cities and our municipalities. And when you put your proposal to the vote last year, I did not hide my disappointment in the Chamber, and I stand by my position: weak CO2 standards are undermining climate goals. My own Member State must reduce its CO2 emissions by 35% by 2030. Without the necessary technology to reduce CO2 at source, this will not be possible and we fully support the demand for a technology-neutral greening of the new fleet. This is an important link in attracting investment, in stimulating innovation and in improving air quality. Our citizens have a right to clean air. If the European Union is to compete with China, our manufacturers must offer a sufficient number of low- and zero-emission cars. We need to invest in that, not in some bogus software to circumvent the standards. I hope we've learned our lesson after dieselgate."
8,"on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, after the COP21 meeting in Paris, we decided that we were going to stand for these principles, and therefore we created a framework which consisted of emissions trading, effort sharing and LUCF. That is the framework. When you speak about effort sharing, we know that effort sharing is also already included in a social manner; that Finland has 39%, Sweden has 40%, Denmark about 40%, and Bulgaria 0%. We took into account the different possibilities of the different countries. That, I think, is fair. What we are now doing is trying to take a further step, and this step, if you look at the figures, is very important. If we fail in transport, then transport will kick back on effort sharing, on agriculture and on the budgets of the Member States if they are not able to reach the goals. That is what we are actually now deciding on; we are deciding on the way in which we will go forward. Therefore, if you look at the figures, transport is the only part of CO2 that is rising. All the other curves are going down, but transport is rising. We have to take measures, and the only way you can take measures is to have clear—cut and ambitious goals; that’s the 40%. We also have to fix all the other things, and remember that when we speak about efforts sharing, it is running until 2030. To be able to look at effort sharing, we need something in between. That is 2025, which is in this year, so there is just one way to go, and that is forward."
9,"The Commission is therefore proposing to extend the period of validity of the directive to the period of 1 January 1999. The Commission is not Commissioner Caňete, you have said that the European Commission is working seriously and ambitiously to implement the Paris Agreement. I have to tell you, I can't see it. You just said last week that you're not going to align the European Union's overall climate target with the Paris Agreement as intended - so three years after Paris. The EU Commission has failed to adapt its own climate targets and is heading to Katowice without an adapted target. So it is not at all surprising that you are not ambitious in this important area of legislation we are discussing today. Their own experts have told them that a CO2 reduction target for the automotive industry must be at least 60% by 2030. They have proposed 30% by 2030. So far, the recommendations of science and the proposals of the Commission have never diverged in the time that I have been here advising on climate policy. I should also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Dalli, who has really achieved something good with the compromise we have found in the Committee on the Environment. But this compromise must at least be defended now, so that we can be seen if we want to represent something good in the international debate from this House. The auto industry, along with some governments, is on the brakes. This is not surprising, it has a system, we have seen it many times. But the trade unions, Mr Gieseke, are discussing something else. We have heard from the unions that they know very well that our industry will be dependent on international markets unless we are ambitious and committed to innovation, climate protection and environmentally friendly cars. The workplace argument has been very important all along. And I want to tell you: I have rarely seen such a manipulative use of numbers in a debate as this one, as in the last few weeks. It is unconscionable to operate on figures of job losses that occur when we are discussing reduction targets such as 80% by 2030. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is aware of the fact that the Commission has not yet taken a decision on the matter. The job losses that will affect industry in the European Union in the foreseeable future will be generated by digitisation and productivity gains, as always. And there is no interference from you at all, Mr Gieseke. Panic over climate change, that's what you're doing, and that's what's going to end up taking over the European markets by Chinese manufacturers. (The speaker agrees to answer a question under the 'blue card' procedure under Rule 162 (8) of the Rules of Procedure)"
10,"The Commission has also proposed that the Council should adopt a decision on the application of the 'blue card' procedure. Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Harms for her report. You have criticised the Commissioner for not having proposed to raise the 40% target. I was at the climate conference in Bonn last year, and I systematically asked all the partners we talked to, is there any debate in the other countries -- the United States, let's leave it out -- but in Japan, Russia, South America, Brazil? There is no debate anywhere. And do you not think that, before we criticise the Commissioner, who has already outlined a way forward, we should do more to involve other countries in this debate?"
11,"The answer is the 'blue card' procedure.  It was also EU Commissioner Cañete who hailed the Paris Agreement as a great success. The Commission has already made a number of proposals to the Council, and I am sure that the Council will be able to accept them. And then, when we talk about the automotive industry, we talk about climate technologies that are available. This is where we have the technology, where we also have to advocate innovation and not systematically inhibit innovation."
12,"For the GUE/NGL group  Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fully support the position of the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology. The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the Community's transport policy is not disrupted by the introduction of new technologies. We cannot give the car industry any leeway unless we want to piss in our own, or our children's or our grandchildren's, crumbs in climate policy. The opening up of the car industry led to the diesel scandal, so we must now give the car industry a beating so that the new processes really move forward. If we want to save hundreds of millions of euros in European health care, we have to push this legislation forward. The money we save can also be used to innovate in the areas of climate, environment and health, which will also create new jobs that are badly needed here. I dare say that climate change pioneers will also create more of the much-needed new jobs back home than those who resist all the time."
13,"on behalf of the EFDD Group. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow's vote is historic. Our choices will shape the future of road transport, which is called upon to play its part in combating climate change and implementing the Paris Agreement. But not only that, tomorrow we will have to decide what kind of car industry we want in Europe, in our own country, if we continue to stick to the fossil fuel dogma and import clean technologies and propulsion systems from third countries, I am thinking in particular of China where, ironically, the same European manufacturers are investing many billions more than in Europe. Or if we want to help the automotive sector in the transition to zero-emission mobility, which is already being called for by European citizens and businesses who complain about the lack of clean models on the market. I would like to conclude by reminding you that in order to reap the social benefits of efficient vehicles, including cleaner air and increased employment opportunities in the green economy, we must preserve the balance we have found in the Environment Committee. The Five Star Movement is on the side of ambition."
14,"on behalf of the ENF Group.  Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is right to aim at an ambitious plan for reducing CO2 emissions from the transport sector, but such a plan must have realistic objectives and not result in increased costs for European businesses and citizens. The current proposed targets force the market towards the electric-only option. The electric car is not a bad choice in itself, but the market and the technology are not ready. We need a major adaptation of the electricity grid, the creation of many charging points, alternative solutions for the production and disposal of batteries which are more efficient and possibly in Europe and not across the border, as is happening at the moment. The Commission also found that the average price of electric cars in the Union market was higher than the average price of electric cars in the Union market. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises also need more flexibility to implement the new targets. We must not forget that light commercial vehicles are mainly used by those companies which have already been tested by years of crisis and cannot always afford to invest in the latest generation of vehicles. What is the environmental value of the electric car if part of the energy used to power it in Europe itself is still produced by coal-fired power stations? A strategy is needed which safeguards the principle of technological neutrality and keeps the way open to a right mix of technologies which can really contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions and to a calculation system which takes account not only of the CO2 emitted by the vehicle but also of the overall life cycle balance of the vehicle."
15,"Mr President, I think we all agree that we need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. We must be very careful, however, lest trying to fix a problem which we ourselves have created, end up in an even worse situation. I see there's a lot of support for electric cars. Have we really considered what it would mean to actually have all the cars on the road today, and especially the trucks, replaced by electric by 2050? Have we calculated the enormous amounts of electricity that would be required if this change were to occur? How will these amounts of electricity be generated? I am sure that the Commission will be able to support the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, Mr von Wogau, and that the Commission will be able to support the amendments tabled by Mr von Wogau. Many countries today are facing energy shortages. So it is reasonable to assume that the situation will get even worse in the future. Will the emissions from cars eventually be replaced by the emissions from the factories that produce electricity? In conclusion, we clearly need to work even more towards reducing emissions. But this should be done after careful and objective studies, so as to minimise the risks that may arise. The Commission has also proposed that the Council should adopt a decision on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement on the agreement on the conclusion of the agreement."
16,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your report. It's about driving, and I'm all for giving it a go. Give it a go on innovation and give it a go on climate change. I am against the idea that we are over-promoting this debate. Because if we look at where we're coming from, we're gonna have to take a little bit of gas off. We had extreme positions at the table. Mrs Harms, you said that 80% was never mentioned, but your group has already contributed 75%. That's not that far off from 80%, so not really. We have had the proposals of Miriam Dalli: 50%. We have the committee's proposal of 45%. And then the independent analysis of the European Commission, which I very much appreciate, says: we will then have job losses in Europe and losses for the economy. It is therefore good that we are now moving towards a new level of cooperation and that many groups are no longer supporting the 45%. I would also like to ask that we look again at the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment on Malus. The Commission's analysis shows that this again represents a burden of some 5% more. I would therefore be grateful if the committee's proposal does not pass the 40% benchmark. This is an additional tightening, and it's not technology neutral. So it would be good if we corrected that tomorrow as well. The Commission has calculated that this is the contribution of the car industry  if we accept the Commission's proposal  to reach our 40% target. We can discuss other figures, and we are prepared to go higher as the EPP. But I would like to say again - and Mrs Harms did not answer that - that the debate on doing more than what was decided in Paris is not being held in any other part of the world. And that is why we should not criticise our Commissioner, but he is travelling around the world and is initiating this debate in other countries for the first time. For that, we should support Miguel Arias Cañete and not criticize him. Thank you, Miguel, for doing this. (The speaker agrees to answer a question under the 'blue card' procedure under Rule 162 (8) of the Rules of Procedure)"
17,"Question No 3 by Mr Pimenta Subject: The amendments tabled by your group are designed to weaken the already very weak reduction target for conventional engines for 2030 by means of bonus and fee systems and credit systems, so that in our estimation conventional engines could be worse and more harmful to the climate in 2030 than they are today in 2018, on the basis of your proposals. They call that giving gas in climate protection?"
18,"Answer to a question on the 'blue card' procedure. So first of all, we have raised the target to 35%. That's something to consider. And we do not want to water down the proposal, but we want to support innovation - just as I said. The Malus is not included in the Commission proposal. That is why we do not want to see him in the final text. It's not technology neutral. The other proposals are also aimed at promoting the transitional plug-in hybrid technology. The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the European Union's energy policy is not undermined by the fact that it is not able to meet the needs of the people of Europe. That's the point."
19,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all agree that we must set our targets so that the Union can meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it is important to enable and create the framework for European industry to innovate and maintain its place as a world leader in this field. But we must first of all take account of the social aspect, so that this process does not negatively influence employment, and the goals and objectives we set ourselves must be realistic and, at the same time, reflect the real technological and development aspects. The proposals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by imposing targets on car manufacturers are indeed ambitious, but the question is: are they realistic? Because we also have to consider how the market relates to the changes we impose, to the purchasing power of the citizens of the European Union, but we also have to not ignore infrastructure. I believe that the Commission's proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - which is an ambitious one - can be improved so that we can achieve the environmental objectives on the one hand and see the negative impact on the car industry and reduce it on the other."
20,"Mr President, the automotive sector is undoubtedly the driving force behind European industry. That is why I am very concerned about the objectives proposed, which are very aggressive in their ambitions to enter the car market. They leave the customer's decision aside and dictate to the manufacturers how much they have to sell under sanctions and what the product should look like. They set beautiful goals, but they don't think about how to make sure that there's enough electricity to meet the needs of these cars. At the same time, there is no major technological change in the storage of sufficient electricity, including really fast charging. The solution is not the violent political gestures that we have had in our negative historical experience. It would be more sensible to give a huge boost to research and development in this area. The only thing that can bring about a fundamental change are new technologies and innovations in transport. All the revolutionary technological inventions we use today have been gradually promoted on the free market. They became successful in the marketplace when not only the customers but also the whole society was ready for them. If the European Union wants to skip all this, it means that we are going the wrong way in a politically driven market, against free competition in an open competitive environment."
21,"Mr President, in essence, this debate is about a question: what kind of car will the future consumer prefer? Will it be the high CO2- and NOx—emitting combustion engine vehicle with quite high maintenance costs and very high fuel costs, or a zero—emission car with almost no maintenance costs and very low fuel costs, if any? I think we all know the answer: the good old combustion—engine car that served us so well for 130 years is ready for its well-deserved retirement. That also means that if in Europe we want to build tomorrow’s car, we have to develop it much more quickly than we are doing now. Market forces as we have seen are not sufficient, so the legislator should help. Therefore, highly ambitious CO2 targets are essential for the survival of the European car industry, and that we get climate and clean air for free with that is a wonderful side effect."
22,"Mr President, fascinating debate. Maybe just that everyone is aware, as we speak here in the plenary, in Korea people are discussing a report that will be published next week on 1.5 degrees. It will be very clear that our entire economy needs to go to zero emissions by 2050. The Commissioner agrees with that, I even see him nodding. So that means that all the sectors need to deliver because not every sector can go to zero emissions. To my EPP friends I would say that one of these is agriculture. Once we are going to discuss agriculture I know pretty well the agriculture sector will say, not us. Okay, then we need to do it where it can be done. And the transport sector, within the transport sector, CO2 standards on cars is the most cost—efficient measure we can take now. So we should do that, and even the Commission did some studies on it. One of them was a study which showed that if you go to higher targets, with these being 6% emission reduction annually, then you have the highest societal savings. By the way, the Commission forgot to publish this one right away – later on corrected it, but forgot to publish it. That can happen of course – pure coincidence. Then last week’s non—paper – even that paper showed that with the reduction target that the Committee on the Environment (ENVI) is proposing, 151 000 more jobs will be created. Even that politicised paper of the Commission showed more jobs when you go for higher ambition. So do we want the investments to go into the EU or out of the EU? That’s the decision. Hopefully we will support the ENVI proposal."
23,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. Ladies and gentlemen, Tomorrow we should vote for a 45 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from cars by 2030 and for a mandatory electricity quota with penalties. It is about stopping the ongoing warming of the climate that threatens the existence of all mankind. If we do nothing about global warming, it will soon cost millions of lives. I say to the German EPP Members: do not follow the car-driving Chancellor Merkel any longer and do not believe the lies of the car industry! The German government has blocked stricter CO2 rules for long enough, and quite specifically in the interests of the German automobile industry. Have you learned nothing from the diesel affair and the lip service of Chancellor Merkel? Many citizens are rightly outraged that this House too often acts in the interests of the corporations. And then you wonder why people out there are talking about a bought-up Brussels socialite? It is time for the EU to take a serious stance on climate action and stop being a mere tool of industry."
24,"Mr President, I recognise and fully support all initiatives that aim at improving air quality and life for European citizens. However, I strongly oppose the content of Ms Dalli’s report as, in order to combat climate change, it imposes extreme reductions in emissions standards for new cars and new commercial vehicles in Europe. I would like to remind colleagues that EU measures to reduce CO2 emissions, even if fully implemented, would have a trivial effect on the Earth’s climate, and even if they are implemented, it is unlikely that other major emitters such as China and India will follow suit. Several global studies have shown that the costs of implementing policies to mitigate climate change significantly exceed any possible benefit. For this, and several other scientific reasons, my colleagues and I refute anthropogenic climate change, and disagree with the current EU energy and climate policy."
25,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. I am amused myself to some extent when a Green person here in the House speaks of panic-mongering in connection with CO2 emissions and climate protection. I think the panic is more on your side. But let us return to the real politics. These objectives are unrealistic for me in terms of real policy. To some extent, we are also drifting. We are driven by some green people, but we are also driven by competition from outside Europe, which is taking a very massive hit on our car market. It is clear that we need to adapt our car market and, of course, car emissions to the challenges of the 21st century. We must create the conditions for this, create a fair framework. That's our job. The rest is up to the companies themselves. It's a bit shortsighted to commit to a battery initiative here. First, although electricity comes from the outlet, it is not produced there. You seem to be getting over it. And second, at the end of the day, there's going to be a lot of batteries that somebody has to dispose of somewhere. I don't know if you've thought about it, I don't think so. There are also many other alternative energy and propulsion options. In the end - I fear - the cost of all this nonsense will be borne by the consumer. In Austria, and especially in my home town of Graz, one in nine jobs is in the automotive sector. If we do not destroy it, we will not allow it to be destroyed, and we will not listen to the enemies of our own motor industry."
26,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I think this debate is reaching the point of equilibrium. It started off on a not particularly balanced level, I was a rapporteur on this matter both in the Committee on Industry and in the Committee on Transport, and I must say that there were moments in the discussions which are not exactly theatrical and picturesque. I have had colleagues who, compared with the Commission's 30% proposal which we considered balanced, had the courage to propose a 75% target saying that perhaps it was still too low. Today we have reached a point where the future of clean mobility in Europe is finally at stake, together with the future of European industry. We must discuss as politicians not our obsessions but how to transfer this, which is a categorical environmental imperative, to the possible industrial challenge we face. We have an automobile industry which has made us great in the world and which employs so many of us in Europe, we must create the conditions for those jobs which will be changed because of the inevitable change in the mobility landscape to see a new outlet, for example, the subject of batteries has been discussed, so having a European battery industry will be a major challenge. These things are done with a proper, moderate and competent approach. Anyone who has to put himself forward in these discussions is doing the European Union harm. The European Union is a gradual process accompanied by intelligence and competence. I think your proposal goes in that direction."
27,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. The transport sector must become climate neutral by mid-century to meet the Paris Agreement targets. There is no doubt that there is a global competition for the cars of the future between Asia, America and Europe. And whoever offers the best technologies, whoever offers the best cars, they have the world markets, they have the markets of the future. I want us to continue to produce cars in Europe for years and decades to come, and I do not want us to have to import these cars from overseas. I believe that with this legislation we are shaping the future of transport in Europe. It will have different types of propulsion, it will be much more environmentally and climate friendly, and it will also provide new technologies and new jobs. Because we're always talking about electric cars, I'm sure that as an intermediate step, we'll also take hybrid and plug-in cars, and maybe in a shorter period of time, we'll also use car gas and natural gas, which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We Social Democrats are of course concerned about climate protection, but also about jobs. We have highly skilled jobs in Europe. It is also necessary to develop it further into new productions. And we also think about the companies that may need to make a radical change. That is why we have proposed a Just Transition Fund, so that we can help cities and regions, but also certain companies. (The speaker agrees to answer a question under the 'blue card' procedure under Rule 162 (8) of the Rules of Procedure)"
28,"blue-card question. – Thank you for accepting the question. You speak about changes being made to the automotive sector and state control and provision to ensure this happens. In your vision of the future, do you see a situation where the countries outside of the EU that may not apply the same rigorous policies as yourself to the climate – are still using petrol and diesel and so on – will EU manufacturers have a loophole where they can manufacture to export to them or will your state control of this clamp down on those exports?"
29,"Answer to a question on the 'blue card' procedure. I am here in the house of the chairman of the Chinese delegation. I have been watching for years what this great country is doing, which has really introduced quotas year by year and which wants to serve the world markets. It has already been mentioned here that South Korea and Japan have been offering hybrid cars for a long time, whereas the Europeans have still stuck to diesel. The legislation we are making here, Mr President, applies to all cars entering our market, all cars produced here, and of course also to imports. There is no preference for imports over cars made in Europe."
30,"I am glad, Mr President, that the rapporteur is showing greater ambition than the Commission has shown so far. I think it is really time for the transport sector to take responsibility and work substantially on CO2 reduction and that we also avoid the shifting of ambitions between, for example, the transport sector and the agricultural sector, of 'who is finally taking real responsibility?' So I think we really need to take a step forward to get rid of fossil fuels, and I also see that car manufacturers really want to do that. Car manufacturers are also thinking about the near future and there is a desire among car manufacturers to take a step towards zero-emission vehicles or at least vehicles that have significantly lower emissions than what we are talking about now. So I think we can also get car manufacturers on our side for that kind of shift and change. In short, Mr President, I support the rapporteur's efforts and I think it is good for all of us and also for air quality."
31,"Mr President, Commissioner, there are many open questions about this regulation. For example, that proposed emission reduction targets are often not accompanied by appropriate measures that could achieve those targets. What is the position of this proposal for a regulation in the whole network of European Union legislation on renewable energy and emission reductions? Will it be technologically possible to achieve these goals in such a short time - five or ten years? And finally, how much will it cost and how will it affect the competitiveness of the European economy? I support the compromise proposals of my ALDE group of 40% CO2 reduction and 35% share of low and zero emission vehicles, but I think the Commission proposal or the opinion of the Transport Committee with 30% reduction and 30% share of low and zero emission vehicles is also a step in the right direction."
32,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. The EU must be carbon neutral by 2050 to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees. Road transport today accounts for 27% of emissions. At the same time, passenger car traffic is expected to increase by 42% by 2050. It is clear that if we are to live up to the Paris Agreement, we must vigorously reduce the emissions of the new cars entering the market. At the same time, however, conservative parties seem to believe that strong climate action is harming industry, but in reality the opposite is true. It's no coincidence that Tesla is based in California, which not only suffers from climate problems in the form of drought, but also has an ambitious climate policy that in turn fuels innovation and industrial development. In Sweden, for example, we provide long-term investment support for the conversion of the energy and industrial sectors. We think it's good for industrial development. Like every industry, the automotive industry needs clear policy objectives if we are to succeed, and it is policy that must guide and provide strong incentives for the green transition so that we get new electric cars to market. Now is the time - now is the time for proof - for the conservative parties who say the EU should act on climate to show that they are serious about keeping their promises. We can't keep dragging this thing along. Now is the time for the EU to lead."
33,"Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Miriam Dalli, on the report before us, which sets ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions from new vehicles. The Commission's proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment and the environmentally harmful effects of certain substances and preparations is a very good one. The proposal to use technology and measure car emissions in real road conditions to avoid future car industry scandals such as the 'dieselgate' scandal is also particularly positive. It is equally important that appropriate measures be taken in good time to deal with the employment implications. We therefore support the proposal to promote targeted programmes to re-train and upskill workers so that quality and decent jobs are maintained."
34,"I think we can all agree, Mr President, that the transport sector must reduce its CO2 emissions drastically. We signed the Paris climate agreement and I think we should now live up to our promises. The 30% reduction proposed by the Commission is therefore an absolute minimum. And we are prepared as a group to go a step further, to increase that ambition considerably. We need to get the heat under control. We have no choice. But in the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, we must of course drive and look, as they say. In other words, to ensure that the price of cars does not rise too quickly, because that would of course have a negative effect. And as Mr Leinen rightly pointed out, we must ensure that the negative effects on employment are also taken into account and that they are reduced. In short, ladies and gentlemen, a more ambitious reduction would be a very good thing to do, to send the signal to other continents too that we want to put our words into action and also continue to take the lead in tackling the climate problem. I therefore assume that this is feasible, that this is reasonable and that we can reach a good agreement on this in the short term, together with Parliament, the Council and the Commission."
35,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. It is not difficult to live up to or bask in the glamour of climate agreements if you do not intend to live up to them. It is therefore up to the legislative process to prove which parties and politicians are truly ambitious. Today, cars and vans account for up to one fifth of Europe's total carbon dioxide emissions. Climate emissions must be reduced in all sectors of society if we are to meet both the EU and the Paris Agreement climate goals. This is why this framework is one of the most important pieces of EU climate legislation at the moment. Sweden is one of the countries in the world that is most dependent on the automotive industry in the social economy. We actually have the highest number of employees in this industry per capita. We know how important it is to create the right conditions for a viable and greener automotive industry, both today and in the future. That is precisely why the Swedish position on behalf of the Social Democrats, both here and in the Council, has been very ambitious. We are working to send a clear signal to the market that it pays to invest in climate-smart vehicles and to be at the forefront of the development. Anything else - low ambition - is actually a dead end for the automotive industry. It is a matter of putting the European car industry in the backwater of global competition, and I do not want to see it in that position either. We have a good and possible vote tomorrow on a good report, for which I would like to commend rapporteur Miriam Dalli. It's important to vote for ambition tomorrow. It's up to the evidence."
36,"Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear that the European Union has a vital role to play in reducing overall emissions and combating climate change. But we can't be reckless in this fight, throwing a baby out with a bathtub. Our objectives for the automotive industry, which employs 13 million Europeans, must be realistic and achievable. We must not allow this traditional sector to lose its competitiveness in global markets. Let us encourage innovation, let us green-light all new technologies that use non-fossil fuels, but let us not be overly demanding and let us not concentrate our efforts in one direction only. A direction that could make the car manufacturers scapegoats, albeit for the sake of certain noble goals."
37,"Mr President, Mr Commissioner, since it is not the same whether you come from a country which produces cars or not, I shall speak of Spain. Spain is the second largest manufacturer of passenger cars and the first manufacturer of commercial vehicles in Europe and, speaking in figures, it has 17 car factories plus the supplier industry, contributes to the trade balance with 10% of GDP and is the largest exporter with over 34 billion euros. In addition, no other sector has made environmental progress or investments since 2005 as the automotive sector has done. The reduction levels being proposed by the European Commission are already very ambitious. For this reason, it seems disproportionate that even higher reduction levels are being discussed that go well beyond the strategic framework. The Commission has also proposed that the Commission should be able to provide the Commission with a report on the implementation of the new rules on the internal market in electricity. In this respect, the system of incentives for zero- and low-emission vehicles proposed by the Commission is a positive one. However, the introduction of a malus penalty system, as approved by the Committee on the Environment, is neither appropriate nor in accordance with the principle of technological neutrality. I think that the 35% reduction by 2030, as proposed by the EPP, together with a number of flexibilities, is an ambitious and reasonable position."
38,"Mr President, I would like to pay tribute to my good colleague, Ms Miriam Dalli, for her excellent work on this because it is very, very important that Parliament sends an extremely clear signal to the Commission that we want the highest ambition when it comes to CO2 emissions from cars. We have to get real. I listened with interest to the previous speaker saying that ambition has basically reached the point that it needs to. We have to get real about where this transition is going. It is inevitable that zero emissions transport will be the solution to the problems we face, not just on climate but also, of course, on air quality. At the moment our own car manufacturers here in the EU are investing seven times more in China than they are doing in production here when it comes to electric vehicles. If we decide to carry on with business as usual, if we decide to carry on with existing technology, we will effectively destroy our own domestic car industry. Let me be clear, I am talking from a position where my own car industry is coming under existential threat in the form of Brexit, but of course when it comes to legislation on CO2 the targets that we are talking about are not unachievable. Under a 40% reduction, we are looking at 10% penetration for electric vehicles across the EU – 10%. Are we really saying that 9 in 10 cars in 2030 will still be petrol and diesel driven and that this would somehow represent a success? We have to be real. We have to go for the highest ambition because this is good not just for the environment but for consumers and our own industry and jobs."
39,"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your work. The Paris climate targets have been signed by all countries, and now all countries have to implement them in principle. We know that CO2 emissions from transport have been rising steadily, even though we have had reduction targets. Now, you can see this in the debate, the countries that produce cars are doing more than the countries that don't produce cars. I am not sure that the Council will be able to do so. It's about jobs. That's right, I did. The fact is that many say that diesel needs more jobs than e-mobility. Of course, that's what the competition with China is all about. We don't want to lose jobs because the cars are now made in China. We have an alternative energy infrastructure under construction. Way too slow from my point of view. If we could do this faster, we would have the kind of technology neutrality we want, much stronger and much more likely to be on the streets. I'm against the painting system, I don't think it's a good thing. Basically, it should be said that since we have realized that even the targets we have are useless, if more and more cars are coming, it would be best to have a strict emissions trading for the whole sector. Unfortunately, that's not up for debate, but it might help us."
40,"Mr. Chairman, please! I think there's a word that's been going around in this debate that's been unspoken, and that's ""trust"". Trusting us as MPs, but also as customers, to industry. I think the Dieselgate thing is still going strong around here. We need to take care of the environment and the climate, and create incentives for the production and use of low and zero-emission cars. I believe that environmental objectives can also be reconciled with the pursuit of jobs and economic growth. This is not just the case for manufacturers, but for the whole automotive sector in general, of which a large proportion are small and medium-sized enterprises, and these too should not be forgotten. The question is whether the proposed reduction target of 35-40% will allow such synergies to be maintained. I don't think that's the most important thing. What matters is that we want to do it. The most effective solutions are those that are widely accepted not so much by producers but, above all, by consumers, also because of the size of their portfolios. A reduction rate that is too high can raise that price too rigorously, and as a consequence, in countries where incomes are lower, it can even temporarily increase CO2 emissions because there is no money to buy new, relatively more expensive cars. I think we can all agree that the most energy efficient cars are electric cars. But on the other hand, let's not say that other technologies are worse. Hydrogen, biogas - I think especially in the next generation - second, third and fourth - we should accept that too."
41,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. Today the Danish government has proposed that we in Denmark completely stop selling petrol and diesel cars by 2030. Look at that ambition! So as I listen to the debate here tonight, I do think it is regrettable that there are some who think that a 45% reduction target for CO2 emissions by 2030 is too ambitious. We need to ensure that we comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change, and we cannot do that without the transport sector contributing. We have to be ambitious. And we also have to be ambitious, because if we don't set the standard for our own car industry, we're going to be overtaken by industries from other parts of the world. The most ambitious thing is to make demands. It is ambitious to demand a 45% reduction. I fully support the position of the Committee on the Environment on this matter."
42,"Mr President, as CDA, we want CO2 emissions from passenger cars and vans to be drastically reduced by 2030. All sectors should contribute to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The sacred cow, the passenger car, must also contribute to achieving these climate goals, just as this house also requires great sacrifices from agriculture, the ordinary cow. Climate innovation will create additional opportunities and jobs for the automotive sector and other high-tech companies in Europe. Economic growth and sensible, ambitious climate goals just go hand in hand. More ambition, combined with the closing of loopholes in legislation, will lead to strengthening our European automotive industry. More ambition will create more jobs for the European economy, both in car manufacturers and in the innovative companies in the field of electric cars and hydrogen production. More ambition also means less dependence on oil dictatorships and cleaner air in cities. European manufacturers are already investing heavily in electric car production in China. Let's not get left behind. All sectors must contribute: The Commission has already made a number of proposals to this effect. It would not be good if the transport sector in 2030 emits even more than it does now. That is why, together with the whole CDA Group, I will of course vote tomorrow in favour of my 40% amendment in the ENVI Committee, which we tabled together with Peter Liese and Karl-Heinz Florenz."
43,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is moving towards a new model of development, a low-carbon economy. That's the challenge, while today the transport sector is still 94% dependent on oil and is responsible for over 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. The aim of this regulation is to have cars on the road that pollute less and consume less fuel, to the benefit of the health and pockets of European citizens, as well as the environment. But it is not enough to set ambitious new targets for reducing car emissions, it is important to ensure that the paper-based emissions certificate corresponds to the real one. And so I agree with the article in the regulation which proposes the introduction of a test of emissions in real driving conditions on the road, to avoid new scandals like dieselgate. The Commission has also proposed that the whole life cycle of emissions from vehicles be analysed. It is not enough to measure pollutants at the boiling point, at the discharge in the years of operation, but also to take into account the production and disposal phases."
44,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. More stringent and binding CO2 targets are needed. The Commission proposal, at 30%, sets the course for greater environmental protection. But we should leave the church in the village, that is, keep the car industry in Europe. Two points: Firstly, 45 or even 50% by 2030 is utopian. This will destroy tens of thousands of jobs throughout Europe. And a narrow vote by the European Parliament with these unrealistic targets and no impact assessment weakens us vis-à-vis the Council. A European Parliament which goes into negotiations in this way without having used its own means of impact assessment will not be taken seriously in the trilogue. We have seen this repeatedly. I wonder why the Reds, the Greens and the Greens in this Parliament are not taking up the offer of Parliament's impact assessment. Secondly, the introduction of an electricity quota through the back door is a dangerous self-limitation. Instead of letting the market act, left-wing politics wants to set a technical direction, and again without an impact assessment. The Commission shall assess the compatibility of the aid with the internal market by examining whether the aid is compatible with the internal market. Disposal of waste  Question mark Rare earths  question mark Obviously, these are words that are foreign to many in ALDE, the S&D and the Greens, following the motto: why the market economy, if it can go through the wall with its head? Responsible environmental policy means thinking from the end, analysing the consequences of legislation carefully. Ideology cannot be the compass of politics. So let us work together again on a compromise."
45,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our objectives are clear: 45% less CO2 emissions by 2030, plus 40% of zero-emission or low-impact cars, to meet the Paris targets, to protect our health, to make the European car industry more competitive. We Socialists and Democrats, in this transitional phase of industrial conversion, must ensure that workers and technicians do not pay the bill. The world's automobile industry is undergoing major transformation. Europe cannot stand still, it can and must become the world leader in the production of electric cars, low-emission hybrid cars. Without courage and ambition, Europe will lose the global automotive challenge and we will have more pollution and less employment. With the proposals voted by the Committee on the Environment, we shall have a regulation which brings together development, work and environmental quality."
46,"Members of the House! I represent a country that has always supported the predictable development of emission requirements, but also sees economic factors such as car manufacturers as strategic partners. That's what you're supposed to be up to. As a member of the Environment Committee, I have no doubt that zero and low-emission vehicles are the future, but it is also important to pay attention to international and global developments and not just to our own EU climate goals. The implementation of the Paris Agreement is a priority, but the Union, which is responsible for around 10% of global emissions, is not alone and cannot do it alone. Over-ambitiousness on the part of the EU alone will not in itself lead to 1.5°C. In the US, transport emissions are twice those in the EU, while in some countries around the world, the figure is rising by hundreds of percent. In order to preserve the Union's competitiveness, we need to set targets that are realistically achievable for car manufacturers, but reduce pollution within reasonable limits. The Union automotive industry is currently facing a number of challenges, such as transatlantic trade barriers, digitalisation and decarbonisation. It's not possible. Anyone who knows, anyone who has been around knows that it's impossible for manufacturers to adapt technologically to a 40% emissions reduction target. The reduction target should be set in a way that encourages car manufacturers and does not place additional burdens on them."
47,"Mr President, we must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and improve the quality of life of our citizens now. How the European institutions, national governments and the car industry deal with the emissions challenge will be a barometer of their ability to take technological and economic leadership in a sector that our competitors are hard at work to compete with. European industry must be an ally in the energy transition if it is to be globally competitive. It is not wise to set environmental objectives against the competitiveness of industry and its ability to maintain and create sustainable jobs. Indeed, if European industry does not adapt to the new environmental challenges, it may survive in the short term, but it is doomed. By contrast, taking the moment to lead the transition to new industrial models and respond to new mobility systems will ensure its long-term survival and competitiveness, creating wealth, jobs and better environmental conditions. This regulation is a contribution to that end. I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work and hope that this will be a major and positive turning point for the European automobile industry."
48,"Mr. President, fighting climate change is not an option. It's a duty. And so reducing emissions in a sector which produces a quarter of the European Union's is also an obligation. And we have to find the right balance between industry, which generates economic activity and employment in countries like Spain, which are very important, and the obligation to reduce emissions. That is the debate we have to produce. And we must invite industry to make the necessary technological changes to maintain a leading position in European production and industry too. Why would you do that? Because we're talking about the future. We're talking about our health. And so making those technological changes is also going to mean maintaining that future and that activity in the medium and long term. So we have to meet Paris and we have to pursue an ambitious reduction in emissions."
49,"Mr President, Commissioner, I have always believed in the need to preserve jobs while ensuring the improvement of the quality of the environment. Because there is no fight against climate change if you fight against industry, behind the back of industry or without industry. There can no longer be room for an industry that does not firmly see that the way forward is a low-emission economy, or rather, a de-fossilised economy. In this sense, there is no hierarchy between the survival of the planet and the creation of jobs. We trust in European industry and society, which is leading a new industrial revolution and transforming the European economy into a low-emission economy. This is already happening. We trust in European society, which is on track to meet the Paris objectives under the leadership of the European Commission. And yes, of course, we must be ambitious, yes, of course! But without jeopardizing any workplace. We don't create them here, the industry does. I'm finished, President. Few of us, I think, are automotive engineers and, in any case, today we are Members of Parliament. Our task as legislators is not to play the role of engineers but to set targets and ensure technological neutrality that gives engineers the freedom to move forward in the technological transition in the most coherent way possible. If we do not do this, we will only be making progress on paper, and we want to make progress in reality, as the Commission proposal does."
50,"Mr President, we’ve just had the latest news from the Trump administration in the USA: a forecast that the climate is going to warm up by four degrees, and the result is ‘we are not going to do anything’. We are going to have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report within one week. That will tell us how drastically different the world would be with the warming up of two degrees that we have already caught up with, without even talking about the future. If you refer to science, CO2 emissions should be reduced by more than 50% in new cars, maybe 70%. We should make a drastic change to electric cars and new ways of moving. So this is a wake-up call. How seriously we are taking climate change is an issue. It is not adequate that we talk about the Paris Agreement. It is not adequate that the Commission is coming up with new plans and commitments for 2030. It is a question of what we are doing here in Parliament and the Council right now and in different pieces of legislation. This is one of the key pieces of legislation, so I appeal for us to go for at least a 45% reduction in CO2 emissions from cars."
51,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. No one is questioning the need for action on climate change. I must admit, however, that Mrs Dalli's report gives me quite a tummy ache. Luxembourg is one of the two Member States with the highest reduction targets to be achieved by 2030 in the non-ETS sectors. We're talking about minus 40 percent of that. Passive houses are already standard in Luxembourg. We are also at the forefront of agri-environmental measures in agriculture. The transport sector accounts for 64% of non-ETS emissions. I am therefore not able to avoid calling for a more ambitious target than the 30% set by the Commission. What makes sense in the short term may not be right in the long term. Some in this House are calling for a reduction target of minus 50% or more. The only way to achieve this goal would be to switch to electric mobility. But where does this electricity come from? 25% of our electricity comes from coal, 24% from nuclear energy, and that certainly explains why the electricity giants who rely on nuclear power are trying to influence us massively. We do not want to roll out a new red carpet here to give coal and nuclear power new possibilities. We want to have a technology-neutral discussion here. Like my colleagues Belet, Leinen and Pieper, I too call for alternative hybrid vehicles to be given a chance. There's a kind of myopia that can be corrected with glasses. Let 's get this wrong ... (The President cut the speaker off)"
52,"Colleagues, I need to ask you all to respect your time slots. We are running behind and will have to catch up, and we also have the catch—the—eye procedure, so please respect the time that has been allocated to you."
53,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. Thank you very much for the word, I will save a little time. I would like to thank our shadow rapporteur, Mr Gieseke, for his sharp teeth on Mrs Dalli's report, which is not the usual thing to do. I think the Commission proposal was already committed and well-founded. The unrealistic figures that have been thrown into the debate are, as I have said, unrealistic. The biggest problem, in my view, is that we have not taken the citizens along. We cannot explain why we are discussing 30%, 40% 50% and even 80% in this House. I think we need to take a different approach. I do not think that electric mobility is the philosopher's stone, or the only philosopher's stone. I think we have to think very hard about other forms of propulsion, fuel cells, synthetic fuels. Just as a small example: electric mobility 0.7% of cars sold, SUV over 23%. So where is the will of the citizen? I think that's where we need to look if we're going to really work together to achieve this important climate goal."
54,"Mr President, there has been a great deal of debate in the last few weeks about how much we can demand of the car industry. It is clear that the car industry must do its part to reduce emissions. Europe must become a leader in clean transport. But it must be remembered that the automobile industry cannot solve this problem alone, especially when we are talking about things that will be in force for decades. We need to be able to cut traffic emissions much faster. At present, more than a quarter of Europe's emissions come from transport. We know that traffic volumes are forecast to only increase, and transport emissions are the only sector where emissions have also increased in Europe over the decades. So the challenge is very big, and it requires much more than just solutions from the automotive industry. The fastest way to cut emissions is to use renewable sustainable fuels in cars that already exist, because it takes decades for the fleet to renew. What I do not like about this proposal is that it is so strongly driven by electric cars. The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the European Union's energy policy is not undermined by the fact that the European Union is not able to meet the needs of the world economy. We know that there are many environmental problems in the mining of battery metals and battery production that also need to be solved. So the fact that we want to cut emissions in Europe and globally is very important, but it requires a lot of action. This is only part of it, but it's important."
55,"Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Miriam Dalli, for her excellent work. In Paris, we committed to cutting by 2030 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990. By 2015, all sectors had reduced their emissions except the transport sector, which, on the contrary, increased them by 20%. In 2015, road transport alone accounted for 72% of emissions, with 44% coming from light vehicles. The decarbonisation of transport is urgent, and let us not forget that self-regulation has been ineffective and state control has been insufficient for a sector where emissions results have even been forged. Moreover, persistent investment in combustion engines has made the European automotive economy less competitive in an international context of electrification of the sector. The industry needs a clear signal that it cannot do business as usual. To meet these targets, more stringent measures are needed, such as the promotion of zero-emission vehicles over fossil fuel vehicles, real-world emission measurement and awareness raising for responsible consumption, as well as incentives for shared mobility in cities."
56,"Mr President, I had the privilege of representing Parliament, along with others, at COP21, and I remember that prior to that we were drafting a resolution, and finally we came to agreement with Peter Liese here, Karl-Heinz Florenz and Jerzy Buzek to add once sentence. We were in favour of increased ambition, provided other countries did the same, and we got the agreement in Paris – a global problem going to be solved globally. That brings me to the point made by my colleague, Peter. I’m all in favour of pushing the car industry, and indeed every other industry, as far as we can in terms of reducing emissions, but not to push them over the edge. In other words, we do not want job losses, we do not want carbon leakage, but at the same time, we do not want to listen to them either saying they can’t do anything. So we have a very important role here to try and find what is the maximum attainable in the interests of the environment and in the interests of jobs."
57,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your report. I am very much in favour of setting realistic targets and setting what emissions are achievable for cars and small commercial vehicles. We have 250 million registered and running cars in the European Union. If we think about it, if they're going 40,000 kilometers, they're emitting 100 grams of CO2 per kilometer, and if we do the math, we're going to get to a billion tons of CO2. We want to reduce 300 or 350 million tonnes of CO2 over a period of 12 years. It's only for new cars for now. But the fleet will have to renew itself within those 12 years. That means we need new combustion engines that use three and a half or four liters of fossil fuels. We really need new dimensions in electric mobility too. We must achieve that. I don't want to stand at the end and say, ""Yes, unfortunately, this was all too ambitious and it didn't work out"". Then we will... (The President cut the speaker off)"
58,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the transport sector is the only one which continues to increase its greenhouse gas emissions. According to WHO, air pollution kills 7 million people every year, and 9 out of 10 people in the world breathe air with very high levels of pollutants. The black shirt of Europe is Italy, where smog kills 91,000 people a year. The new regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from light vehicles addresses the environmental and industrial issue, to reduce pollution through the transition to electric transport modes and to ensure the competitiveness of the European automotive industry. I agree with Mrs Dalli, whom I thank, we must be ambitious. We need a common strategic framework for sustainable vehicles, infrastructure, electricity grids, battery production, supply and recycling where economic incentives and employment incentives go hand in hand at national, Union, regional and local level."
59,"Mr President, I think that the debate which has been going on for too long has highlighted the main problems we are observing. There are the ambitious targets, the 2030 climate targets, with commitments in action, with efforts to reduce emissions. There is of course an opportunity to promote the green economy, to have environmental protection and investment at the same time. The transport sector, as has been said, is responsible for at least 20% of carbon dioxide emissions. Serious measures must be taken. The solution is electric cars, although there is still a lot of investment to be made, particularly in batteries. This does not mean that all problems will be solved. On the other hand, account must also be taken of the difficulties facing European industry and the fact that it is not possible to replace all lorries. There will be a big cost to smallholders too."
60,"Mr President, the Paris Agreement must not be a mere set of commitments that will never be fulfilled, and we all have a responsibility for this, including the European Union and the biggest polluters. Air pollution is killing millions of people around the world, and Europe is no exception, and we need radical and drastic action. And the automobile industry also contributes a significant share. And I'm convinced that with actions that could be much more ambitious, we can reduce CO2 in the air, but that will also mean restructuring the automotive industry and finding new alternatives to oil, gasoline, including electric vehicles and other forms of energy. And of course, we can't compromise here, because health, of course, is no compromise, and so we have to be very determined and very firm about it. And above all, the fact that we have to protect the consumer here as well and not mislead him, which we do a lot."
61,"Mr President, this is the second Green Paper on this subject, but first I would like to congratulate Mrs Dalli on her excellent report and I would like to mention a few facts because the debate here is very interesting and I think you and the Commissioner will find this information interesting. And speaking of innovation, Europe was the first to invent and manufacture an electric car, and to manufacture batteries for electric cars. Looking back today, we see that we are actually lagging behind our global competitors, and we will be lagging even further behind if the money that we have invested so far in innovation through Horizon 2020, what we will invest through Horizon Europe, is also planned to be invested through other European funds. How many billions has the European Union automotive industry invested so far in innovation in electric cars, and we don't see that as a result on our roads? If we talk about the alternative fuels directive, only eight Member States have implemented the policy that should have been under the directive that it prescribes."
62,"Mr President, the management of innovation and the pace of large-scale application of new technologies must be guided by the defence of the public interest, the improvement of the quality of life of the population and the preservation of the environment. So too with car emissions. We are advocating in this, as in other areas, a regulatory approach as opposed to market approaches, which have shown themselves to be unable to protect the interests I have mentioned. Public policies must frame this approach with strategies to defend and promote employment, particularly in industrial sectors, by combating existing imbalances and asymmetries and the predatory logic of multinationals. But it 's important not to forget something very important: The Commission has already taken a number of initiatives to improve the quality of public transport, and I am sure that the Commission will be able to support the Commission's proposals."
63,"Mr President, the construction of new passenger and light commercial vehicles with high-spec engines, in order to limit carbon dioxide emissions and protect the environment, is achievable. The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the Community's energy policy is not affected by the consequences of the crisis. An intermediate solution would be to produce high-quality fuels that would limit air pollutants. The dream of many, the electric vehicle, is currently subject to many constraints, e.g. the availability of electricity, batteries, charging points and so on. We must concentrate on ensuring that production costs are not passed on to the consumer, that jobs are not lost and that European industries are not bought by Chinese ones."
64,"Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have listened carefully to the debate today and I have heard a broad range of positions, in particular on the level of ambition, and that is also the situation in the debates that have taken place in the Council. The transition to zero-emission mobility needs to happen during the next decades. However, this transition should happen at the right pace to allow sufficient time for the re-skilling of workers in the supply chain. And a smooth transition is particularly important for the many small and medium-sized enterprises operating in this sector, which are the backbone of the economy in many regions. Some Members addressed the issue of the introduction of a malus in the zero and low—emission vehicles incentive mechanism, in particular Mr Liese and Ms Ayuso. The Commission proposal contains a new mechanism incentivising manufacturers to put more zero and low—emission vehicles on the European Union market. It leaves manufacturers the choice as to how they compose their fleet but provides this benefit for those choosing to go for zero and low—emission vehicles. Adding a malus would mean that manufacturers meeting their CO2 targets could actually be penalised if they do not meet the benchmark, and analyses also show that the economic impacts depend on the combination of the target level and a possible bonus/malus benchmark for zero-emission or low-emission vehicles. With the increased penetration of zero and low—emission vehicles, driven by the high bonus/malus benchmark level, less effort will be needed in improving the efficiency of conventional vehicles to meet the fleet-wide CO2 targets. And this results in a projected shift towards larger segments for conventional vehicles, leading to an increase in the net economic costs for consumers. Some Members commented on the non-paper on assessment of higher ambition levels, produced by the Commission, and my friend Bas Eickhout actually said it was a political document. Well, I would point out that the Commission services have not manipulated any calculations and are not misleading the co—legislator: the non—paper clearly and objectively presents the results of recent analytical work and it aims to inform the ongoing decision-making process on the impact of options not considered in the impact assessments. The non—paper’s analysis is therefore only factual. It is fully transparent and based on the same methodological approach: as in the impact assessments, we provided all the necessary underlying background. In particular, the non—paper confirms that the only impact on jobs up to 2030 is positive for more ambitious scenarios. However, it also points to the fact that the transition towards zero-emission mobility will lead to differences between sectors. While overall employment increases with the level of ambition, existing jobs in the automotive sector related to the combustion engine risk being lost if the transition is too fast. The non-paper also confirms the key role of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in this respect, allowing a transition to zero-emission vehicles while limiting automotive job impacts. In conclusion, I want to thank all of you for the very interesting debate tonight and I am looking forward to tomorrow’s vote. I am also confident that the Council and the leadership of the Austrian Presidency will be able to reach an agreement on a general approach at the Environment Council next week and that a final positive political agreement among the co—legislators can be found before the end of the year."
65,"Thank you Commissioner. We are all looking forward to the vote tomorrow. Madam rapporteur, Ms Dalli, your closing remarks."
66,"Rapporteur. – Mr President, there is one statement by a Member from the EPP that will remain imprinted in my mind tonight, saying that we need to take the venom out of the Dalli report. Seriously, is this the level of the debate about such important legislation? What I heard tonight is not necessarily always based on fact. To the MEPs who think that by going low on ambition they are doing the industry a favour, I ask you to look at what is going on around you. See what is happening in Japan, see what is happening in China, see what our cities are doing, and see what our governments are doing. Case in point: the Danish Government is saying that it will ban gasoline and diesel cars by 2030. This is what is happening at this point in time, and not all EPP Members necessarily agree with this or are happy with this, but to come here tonight and say that having ambition going to 40% will be devastating really shows how much some people are out of touch. I will refer colleagues to what the chief of a major trade union in Germany said: that 40% is achievable. He said that infrastructure needs to move forward, and that is something we agree upon and that we also addressed in the environment position. We also heard about the push towards one technology over the other. It is not true. If we are speaking about a 40% CO2 reduction, let’s be factual with people. We are talking about a 10% battery electric vehicle market share by 2030. It does not mean that we are going towards battery electric vehicles overnight. It means that there will be a large share of efficient internal combustion engines and a large share of plug-in hybrids, which are labour—intensive and which require more employees across the European Union. So yes, I urge colleagues to be united, at least on a 20% CO2 reduction by 2025 and a 40% CO2 reduction by 2030."
67,"The debate is closed. The vote will take place on Wednesday, 3 October 2018. Written statements (Rule 162)"
68,"in writing.  The car manufacturers' emissions scandals of recent years have significantly weakened consumer confidence, which is currently difficult to regain. The greening of the automotive industry is a key means of meeting existing environmental objectives, given its importance in European countries. This is linked to the development of a low-carbon economy and further increasing the competitiveness of European carmakers. There is also a need to promote efficient development of battery and fuel cell technologies. This is part of a comprehensive approach where, in addition to reducing emissions, it is essential to focus on reducing the use of heavy metals, especially lead. With a stronger focus on the use of electric cars or other alternative fuels, a gradual shift from dependence on imported oil towards domestically produced electricity is expected in the future. This should help in further economic growth and increase employment in the electricity generation and supply sector."
69,"in writing.  Cars are the final link in the chain of energy flow from primary to usable kinetic energy. Therefore, their harmful environmental impact should be measured by a comprehensive efficiency indicator, calculated as the ratio of the efficiency of each link in the chain. The comprehensive efficiency estimate for combustion engine vehicles is the production of fuel in refineries (petrol or oil) from oil with an energy efficiency of e.g. on average around 50%, and then used in vehicles with an efficiency for mechanical propulsion of around 20%, giving a final efficiency of around 10%. For the propulsion of vehicles with electric motors, we can start from about 40% of the energy efficiency of the generation of electricity and about 80% of the energy efficiency of its use in the energy chain, which gives an estimated final vehicle efficiency of about 30%. As you can see, the energy efficiency of 'electric vehicles' would be about three times higher than the energy efficiency of combustion vehicles. Assuming that 1% efficiency increase is about a 2% reduction in CO2 emissions, we see that a complete switch to electric mobility would result in a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions. However, the transition to electric mobility is fraught with challenges. The available capacity of the power plant should be significantly increased and new power plants built. There will still be problems with the electricity storage. But I think in the near future, hybrids will be the basis for new market solutions."
70,"in writing.  It is a well-known fact that greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector in the Union continue to show an increasing trend. At the same time, reducing emissions and promoting the deployment of clean vehicles at Union level is essential for the European Union to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change. At the same time, I believe that the decarbonisation of the economy must be achieved in a way that ensures the continued competitiveness of the European automotive industry. Moreover, a shift away from dependence on oil imports may not only lead to a switch to electricity but also to an increase in domestic employment. The proposal to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles sets emissions targets that are stricter than the current ones, with a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions from new cars by 2030 and a 20% increase in the market share of zero- and low-emission vehicles for new and small cars by 2025 and 35% by 2030 for car manufacturers. In light of what has been said, I fully support this ambitious proposal."
71,"in writing.  It is paradoxical to argue about whether the industry should reduce emissions from new cars by 30, 40 or 45% from 2021, when the reality is that in China there are almost 500 electric car manufacturers and 9 of them each produce more than 7,000 vehicles a week that Tesla manufactures, or when the Government of India has on its agenda 100% new electric vehicles by 2030, which will save it more than 60 billion US dollars in oil imports and 1,200,000 fewer deaths from pollution, and that without counting the huge health costs that it entails. For our part, in Europe we are discussing absurd percentages without any ambition, while industry is again caught in flagrante delicto manipulating emissions, but this time upwards so that, as if by magic, emissions would be reduced beyond 2021 after the imposition of the regulation we are discussing today. The European car industry has a blindfold, or rather a curtain of polluting fumes, which does not let it see that other economies are betting on the electric vehicle, at the risk of making them disappear or, rather, relocate."
72,"in writing.  There is an urgent need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors, but particularly in transport, whose CO2 emissions have been rising for the last 30 years. The Earth is suffocating, it is too hot: we cannot afford to wait until 2030 to actually reduce CO2 emissions from cars and vans! The Commission has also proposed that the European Parliament should be consulted on the future of the European Union's energy policy. Europe has every reason to invest in innovation, to remain competitive and to create new jobs, otherwise it will be overwhelmed by international competition, because Asian manufacturers, for example, are not afraid to make the technological shift. If we start the transition now, we can do it gradually, to keep pace with the change in the affected territories and to ensure that jobs are maintained. Five years from now it will be too late, we must start the transition to clean mobility today, all over Europe!"
73,"The rapporteur.  Thank you Chair, allow me, first of all to thank the Shadow Rapporteurs for their attitude in being here today, and thank you to this House for understanding that this is a law where we really need to be ambitious. In this connection, I would therefore like to request a mandate to enable us, on the basis of the fourth subparagraph of Article 59 (4) of the Rules of Procedure, to open interinstitutional negotiations. Thank you."
74,"Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain why I did not vote in the final vote to change the emission standards for new passenger cars. Reducing CO2 emissions is important in the fight against climate change and the European Union is a leader in this. The Commission has proposed to amend the emission standard to reduce CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030. I think it was a wise decision. I was willing to vote for a 35% compromise, and that's already a very ambitious plan. However, despite the fact that many of us in the EPP voted against the amendment, Parliament finally approved the 40% emission reduction commitment, and that is already an unacceptable ambition for me, counterproductive, because the European car industry will be less competitive, we will clear the space for Chinese competition. I hope that this decision will be corrected in the negotiations with the Member States."
75,"Mr President, Parliament today has pushed further on the Commission’s proposal to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars in the EU market by at least 40% by 2030. I am really happy with the political will and ambition shown by Parliament in this regard. I fully support the aim of the proposal to help Member States to reach the EU climate commitments under the Paris Agreement for the transport sector by incentivising the best use in production of new technologies such as electric vehicles. The vote was motivated in part by a reading of the impact assessment which estimated that this proposal could possibly create up to 70 000 new jobs in the European Union and that it will allow our citizens to save up to EUR 17 billion a year on fuel. Lastly, the decision to reduce environmental pollution will also significantly reduce the EU’s geopolitical dependence on transport fuel imports, and it carries a very clear geopolitical message."
76,"Mr President, I would like to express my pleasure at the adoption of the Dalli report on emission control, which is a milestone in the contribution of the road transport industry to the fight against climate change. I would like to stress the importance of putting an end to the traps in CO2 measurements, because measurements were not confined to the laboratory, and I hope that there will be no more dieselgate in this sense. And in that sense it is positive that we have approved awards for those who exceed the minimum targets for the sale of zero or low emission vehicles, and punishments, too, for those who do not. On the other hand, it is important that this transition be gradual, that it be realistic and that we prevent our manufacturers from experiencing that fearful Nokia effect or Nokia moment, whereby an industry either makes a leap forward or is irremediably doomed to die. And I would like to stress, lastly, the importance of green job creation. This transition means a reduction of 1% in jobs in this sector, but it means the creation of tens of thousands of new, more sustainable jobs in industry."
77,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. It was a bit of a beauty contest to see what was going on in the Environment Committee here during the process leading up to the vote today, with all the incredibly ambitious proposals put forward by the various groups. We ended up with a good compromise, and our delegation and our group were able to agree with that, partly because of course it is important to do something about the climate, but it is also about our strategic and major political independence, which is a neglected theme in this debate. When we import large quantities of coal and gas and oil, it is from regimes and states with which we generally do not want to be associated and certainly not in the pocket of - in the Middle East, Russia and so on. I think it is important that we also talk about this dimension of the whole energy supply business, that it is really also about who we ally ourselves with - and that must of course be the Western alliance with the United States at the head, NATO, etc. Not various regimes in the Middle East."
78,"Mr. Chairman, please! This is another irresponsible resolution of this Parliament. Once again, you pass a law without knowing the facts, and then others have to worry about how to enforce it. If the aim of this Parliament is to get to a situation where only Members of Parliament and European officials can afford to drive, then I think we are going in that direction. If this is your idea for solving the traffic problem on the bridge in Strasbourg, then I really congratulate you. I voted against it."
79,"Mr. Chairman, please! The protection of the environment, including air, is perhaps one of the most important goals of our civilization. It is worth the effort and the money that is put into this important work. But everything must be done in the right time frame, rationally, reasonably, so that one good does not overwhelm another good. One of those goods that I mentioned at the beginning is the natural environment, a clean, healthy natural environment, but the other equally important good is the human being, his family, his work, his life, his development opportunities. The State and the international community are also such assets, and therefore the objectives we set for ourselves in the field of environmental protection should take account of the needs of people, society and the countries of the international community. I think that we would have had a chance of doing so here if we had accepted a compromise solution, but we have gone much further as a Parliament and that is not a rational and sensible solution."
80,"Mr President, I could not support this proposal, I considered the original proposal from the European Commission to reduce emissions from new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 compared to 2021 to be realistic, and I considered the more restrictive proposal of 35% to be reasonable and acceptable. However, I would no longer set myself ambitious goals that I would back down from anyway, and this is I think one of those goals that was approved. 40% reduction is one of those targets that is very ambitious, but not realistic. The setting of these limits must, in my view, reflect both the need for the changes that the climate is causing and that are set out in the Paris Convention, and the possibilities of the automotive sector, which provides thousands of jobs not only in the Czech Republic but also throughout the EU. We need to encourage car manufacturers to invest in the development of low-emission and electric cars, while avoiding measures that would have a dramatic impact on the price of the car and thus on the end consumer."
81,"Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because the environment cannot wait any longer. Emission targets must be ambitious if we are to reverse the calamitous global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. We have to set a value at least above 40%. The targets set out in the Commission's text are insufficient and provide for an overly positive scenario. History shows that the automobile industry has been systematically failing to meet its targets by abusing exceptions and subterfuge. It is time to give a strong political signal that clearly indicates a trajectory away from fossil fuels, a commitment to electricity technologies from renewable energy sources and a demand for greater transparency in emissions measurements. Efficient cars bring enormous benefits. In addition to reduced emissions, they bring more competitiveness to European industry, they bring more jobs and they bring less dependence on oil imports. By giving preference to low- and zero-emission light vehicles and, on the other hand, penalizing the rest, we are allowing greater accessibility of these types of vehicles with obvious savings for the consumer and for air quality. Colleagues, there is only a future with clean air."
82,"Mr President, I am delighted to support this report today, particularly the 40% reduction target for 2030 for both cars and light vans. It’s a big step forward in the ambition of the European Union and everyone who has, as I have, dealt with transport policy and looked at emissions from transport, knows that without serious action on emissions from vehicles, you will not meet climate targets and you will not address key problems of air quality in urban areas. Every time we’ve had a step forward on this we’ve had to have the automotive industry dragged, kicking and screaming, in the direction of reform. But they have nothing to fear, because this will make the industry more competitive in the future and it is essential that we have just transition funding for workers who would otherwise, potentially, be thrown out of work because of these changes. I believe they have nothing to fear if we do this properly."
83,"The next item is the report by Miriam Dalli, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (Recast) (COM (2017) 0676 - C8-0395/2017 - 2017/0293 (COD)) (A8-0287/2018)."
84,"Rapporteur. – Mr President, allow me, first and foremost, to start by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs with whom I worked on this legislation. Thank you for your ambition. Thank you for your different points of view and your ideas, which many times allowed me to formulate and push for a strong position. The last months were tough. We negotiated hard, but we are here today because we do understand that the transition to a carbon—neutral economy can help address climate change, improve our health and environment, and can bring a new impulse to our countries’ industrial competitiveness. The legislation aimed at reducing CO2 emissions for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles is part of this whole transition. It’s part of a bigger picture, one that requires a shift from traditional economic models to ones rooted in sustainability, where new technologies can flourish, where innovation takes centre stage and where further investments are channelled into research and development. The final CO2 reduction targets agreed upon during the trilogue negotiations for 2025 and 2030 are a step in this direction, but they are just the beginning of a transitory path towards the economy of the future. After a number of meetings with the Council and the Commission, we managed to agree that new cars will need to emit 37.5% less CO2 and new vans will need to emit 31% less CO2 from 2030 onwards. Between 2025 and 2029 both cars and vans will be required to emit 15% less CO2. Electric cars, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, fuel cell technology and efficient combustion engines will all play a role. I am glad that we managed to achieve this. The road was not always easy and we had to overcome some tough lobbying and initial opposition, even from some Member States. But anyway, what’s easy? At the end of the day we managed to successfully close a number of loopholes that would otherwise have weakened the legislation. We made sure that during the transition to the new test cycle manufacturers will not be allowed to inflate the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) value. For the very first time, there is an obligation on the Commission to monitor and report fuel consumption meter data to ensure emission reductions are delivered on the road and not only in the laboratory. Acknowledging the importance of new infrastructure, the legislation is echoing Parliament’s position, pushing for more investment to develop recharging infrastructure all over Europe and in favour of mobilising and incentivising significant public and private investment. Understanding the concerns of trade unions, the legislation allows for the allocation of excess emission premiums to a fund that would help the reskilling and upskilling of workers. This fund is aimed to achieve a climate—neutral economy without negative social implications and, in particular, to support workers in the European car manufacturing industry, a key priority for myself and my political group, the S&D. The new law means fuel savings for consumers and will make it affordable to buy zero- and low-emission vehicles in the years to come. I have always said that I believe in policymaking that pushes change. Policies need to move the shift towards cleaner transport and we, as policymakers, need to encourage and stimulate this move, as I believe we’ll be doing in this legislation. This is our opportunity to inject new life into the EU’s manufacturing sector, create new skilled jobs and boost economic growth in Industry 4.0. Once again allow me to thank Commissioner Arias Cañete for his participation and positive help in this legislation. Thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and thanks to everyone for their input."
85,"Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am glad to be here today as we bring to a successful conclusion the legislation setting CO2 emission standards for new cars and vans for the period post-2020. The agreement reached by Parliament and the Council is an important achievement and – together with the legislation on heavy-duty vehicles – marks the completion of a comprehensive legislative framework on climate and clean energy for 2030. This has been possible thanks to the excellent work and constructive efforts of the negotiators from both institutions. In particular, I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur Ms Dalli for her leadership on this challenging file. It required a lot of work and dedication from her side to bring together the different views and to lead successfully the negotiations. I would like also to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their crucial role in these negotiations. This agreement is both ambitious and balanced. It is a major step forward in regulating CO2 emissions from cars and vans. Its main elements for new cars: the European Union fleet-wide average CO2 emissions will have to be 37.5% lower in 2030, compared to 2021, and 31% for new vans. Intermediate reduction targets of 15% for 2025 for both cars and vans will ensure that investments are already kick-started now. An innovative and technology-neutral incentive system will stimulate manufacturers to deploy more zero- and low-emission vehicles in the next decade, and a strong governance system will make sure that emission reductions occur in reality, not only in the laboratory. A comprehensive review in 2023 will evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation. This new legislation puts the road transport sector on a clear pathway towards clean mobility, and the broader transition to a climate-neutral economy. Let me highlight its main benefits. The targets agreed, together with the targets agreed for heavy-duty vehicles, will lead to a 24% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from road transport in 2030 compared to 2005. This will help Member States to reach their binding targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation and for the European Union to deliver its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Citizens will benefit from cleaner air as the result of the new legislation, and consumers will also benefit economically as they are projected to save around EUR 1 100 over the lifetime of an average new car bought in 2030, and nearly EUR 4 000 for an average van. The legislation will also help to modernise the European Union economy, and the automotive sector in particular, to channel investments and strengthen innovation for clean vehicle technologies. The incentive system for zero- and low-emission vehicles will reward the front-runners in developing such vehicles. As a result of this legislation, around 35 million zero- and low-emission vehicles are projected to be driving on the road, compared to a bit more than one million today. The new regulation is also projected to have positive impacts on the overall economy, creating around 60 000 jobs and more, around 80 000, if batteries are produced in the European Union. In this context, the Battery Alliance was launched to create a sustainable and competitive battery value chain in Europe. This is a market with huge opportunities for economic growth and job creation. At the same time, the legislation allows for a smooth, gradual and realistic transition to zero-emission vehicles. In 2030, a very large majority of new vehicles – around 87% – will still have an internal combustion engine, as plug-in hybrid vehicles will play an important role. This will give sufficient time to undertake the necessary investments to re—skill and up—skill the workers in the conventional vehicles supply chain. A clear signal is also provided for investors in refuelling and recharging infrastructure. In particular, by 2030, around 4.5 million public charging points will have to be operational. This represents a substantial increase, requiring significant investments, including at local, regional, national and European Union levels. Let me conclude by inviting you to support this ambitious and balanced agreement when voted tomorrow. I would also take the opportunity to inform the Members of this House that the Commission has tabled a statement concerning the review provisions of the regulation to accompany its full support for the overall agreement. This will put Europe on track towards the necessary transition towards clean mobility, and I thank all of you for your support."
86,"The Committee on Transport and Tourism has adopted a number of amendments to the proposal.  Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a bit of a joke: the chairman of the car manufacturers' lobby, Mr Tavares, has called us, the European legislators, amateurs because we want to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in Europe. Amateurs, because we hear the young people marching for the climate, who expect us to act responsibly to protect future generations. Transport accounts for 30% of CO2 emissions in Europe, the majority of which comes from road transport. Here we are setting a reduction of 37.5 per cent for cars and light vehicles, not for tomorrow, but for 2030. Anyone who delays the fight against global warming is a climate sceptic. So I say to Mr Tavares, if he wants to be on the right side of history, he should invest now to produce low-emission cars as soon as possible because it's good for the climate and it's good for jobs."
87,"I am speaking on behalf of the PPE Group. The Commission is not The European automobile industry, its suppliers and its workers are getting serious. Tomorrow we will vote on a significant tightening of the CO2 limits for cars and light commercial vehicles. The CO2 emissions from passenger cars are to be reduced by 15% by 2025 and by 37,5% by 2030. The Commission has already made a number of proposals to the Council and Parliament. Climate action is important, there's no doubt about it. But I also tell you that reaching these limits will not be a child's play. The result of the negotiations has once again gone far beyond the original Commission proposal. We must not forget, however, which limits were actually being manipulated at the beginning of the debate in the European Parliament. The Socialists wanted a 50% cut, the Greens wanted a 75% cut - absolutely absurd, unrealistic, and tens of thousands of jobs would have been destroyed. At what cost? The unilateral focus on electric mobility would have merely shifted emissions from the tailpipe to the power plants. We now have a compromise. We've accomplished a lot. The interim target of 15% by 2025 is realistic, the review in 2023 of how far we really are is important, and the separate target for light commercial vehicles of 31% is also fine. The EPP has also been committed from the outset to improving the accounting of innovative technologies such as synthetic fuels. It is very regrettable that for ideological reasons a majority for a technology-neutral solution was not possible. Clearly, we have missed an opportunity here. I will continue to fight for this openness to technology. Nevertheless, we should now put this law, this compromise, into effect. We must give producers the necessary planning certainty. The development of the vehicles that are to be on the market by 2025 is already well under way."
88,"The Commission is therefore proposing to amend the proposal to the effect that the Commission should be able to take part in the discussions. The Commission is also proposing to extend the scope of the directive to include the following areas: I do not want to say too much about the regulation itself tonight. We have had a very intensive debate on this. I believe that with this regulation we are indeed moving towards clean mobility, a mobility which will also ensure that consumers pay less. That's good! The transport revolution will happen, and it is right that we Europeans should help shape it and create the conditions for it. But we also have a responsibility towards working people, particularly as Social Democrats, and it is therefore right that this regulation should be designed to be open to technology, as my colleague Mr Gieseke has just said. It is also right that we have excluded the inclusion of synthetic fuels in the automotive sector, because we know that with the space available we must make better use of these fuels, for example in air transport, for example in lorries, where we do have them included. In future, we as Europeans must ensure that just transition is at the heart of our efforts, also in this House. We must put a lot more money into the hands of the workers to provide them with further training. We must also think about working hours in the future, and how to divide the work available better. All of this is a societal task, and as a societal task we must understand climate protection. The demonstrations of the Fridays for the Future and the young Europeans who are demanding that we leave them something of this planet are proof of this."
89,"Excuse me, there's a blue card for you from Mr. Rübig. Will you accept this blue card?"
90,"No, I think that the CDU colleagues must learn to behave in this House and not to shout like a mob in between, and the blue card would encourage that behaviour. (The speaker rejects a question on the 'blue card' procedure by Mr Paul Rübig.)"
91,"I understand that today we are witnessing a dispute between the coalitionists in the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, but we don't have to watch this spectacle. I'm asking you to behave in a civil manner."
92,"The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the Community's financial resources are used to the full. They are demanding a special Belgian climate law. I think that we should first of all leave the symbolism behind and get down to business. To work on the plans that are on the table, with the objectives that have been set. We already have a Flemish climate and energy plan waiting to be implemented and also in the European Parliament we have been working on a real climate and energy package in the last parliamentary term, on the way to 2030. Today we are giving the green light again for a very concrete measure. New vehicles must reduce CO2 emissions by 37.5% by 2030. The NVA, my party, fully supports this. In Belgium, transport accounts for a quarter of CO2 emissions. We have the innovative technology to reduce CO2 at the source that is so necessary to achieve our climate goals. We also support the demand for a technology-neutral greening of the new fleet. This is a very important link in attracting investment, stimulating innovation and improving the quality of air in our towns and cities. Our citizens have a right to clean air. If Europe is to compete with China, we must encourage our manufacturers to continue to innovate and to offer and market a sufficient number of low- and zero-emission vehicles. We should invest in that and not in some bogus software to circumvent the standards."
93,"on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to start with saying some nice words about Miriam Dalli because, as you probably know, we had fairly tough conversations with the Council and if Miriam hadn’t been as tough as she is, we probably would have had very different results. So, thank you once more. Some facts about the background. We did some counting. In Finland, an electrical car would produce emissions by kilometres of 48 g/km. Why? Because the mix in the grid makes the difference. In Germany, an electrical car would actually produce emissions of about 131 g/km and that was actually the reason why we had a hard fight. In the middle of the night, we waited for a call from Berlin. So, the real problem is actually what kind of mix we have in the grid and if we don’t make a really great effort to change the mix in the grid in the future, we will fail. That’s a fact. I can tell you, my 7—year—old diesel, with renewable second-generation advanced biofuel, produces less CO2 emissions per kilometre than an electrical car in Germany. So, my dear German friends, I think you have to take your efforts and your technological knowledge and do something real to change the grid. If you don’t change the grid then you are going to be a loser – and a European loser. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))"
94,"The Commission has also proposed that the Council should adopt a decision on the application of the 'blue card' procedure. I would like to ask Mr Torvalds whether he has not noticed that the price of CO2 in the ETS has risen to over 20 euros. This will reduce the CO2 emissions in the power plant area. And I would like to ask the honourable Member whether he has not noticed that Germany is in the process of getting out of coal - with first measures in the next two or three years. It's a hell of a journey, and we're hoping for support, not just ignorance."
95,"Answer to a question on the 'blue card' procedure. - Mr President, I have to say that I am very pleased. I'll be happy to answer. We've all read the German Coal Commission report, and we know that the exit happens in 2036, if I read that correctly. To create something, we want to have a little bit more speed. Thank you very much, and we're going to continue this with great energy to change everything."
96,"on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I too would like to thank the rapporteur Miriam Dalli for her great work in getting this deal. It was a huge fight within the Parliament, as you still sometimes hear – some old voices are still a bit unhappy, but it was also a big fight in the Council, where there were huge splits between progressive countries and countries that didn’t want to do any policy. Unfortunately, Germany itself was even split. The Environment Ministry wanted to have higher ambitions, but the Industry and Transport Ministry did not. So it was a very difficult file. It’s great that we are finally getting these policies ahead. I just want to mention to the Commission that yes, you put the proposal forward, but it doesn’t happen that often that both the Council and Parliament made it more ambitious. I hope that this is a lesson for the Commission when putting forward proposals. In the old days, the Commission tried to be in the middle; now, a bit too often on climate proposals, both sides improve it. So there is room for improvement also for the Commission for future proposals. Just on the targets that are now on the table, these are very desperately needed in order to get innovation in the automotive sector within Europe and what you can see already is the impact of these regulations. Even the German car industry is now talking about wanting to fully electrify their transport. So you see that the automotive sector in Germany is even now going ahead and this shows that regulation matters and putting ambition in place matters and that’s what we have done."
97,"for the group GUE/NGL.  Mr President, Commissioner, if I were to take account purely of the outcome of the negotiations in this document, perhaps I could say that I am satisfied because, as my colleagues have said, it was a tough negotiation and certainly a lot of good came out of it, for which I owe a special thanks to Miriam Dalli. But the overwhelming demands on manufacturers to develop new technology were passed on, and that was the end of it. We're already short of the B. The new version of the Clean and Energy Efficient Road Vehicles Directive, which was supposed to kick-start the clean vehicle market, is simply not ambitious, public sector purchases are too late and the resulting obligations are full of loopholes. And so I ask myself: Who will the car manufacturers sell to, if the public sector is not willing to buy them? And how will the manufacturers meet the targets we've agreed? The Member States have simply washed their hands of the solution, leaving the burden solely on European products. The infrastructure for clean vehicles is still missing, and we're in a vicious circle of needing to start a market for these cars, but no one is willing to buy them yet because of the missing infrastructure, and no one is willing to build them until there's a greater proliferation of these cars. Fellas, don't be mad at me, but we may have taken the right first step, but it's just an open Pandora's box, because all the other steps we were supposed to take, and it was supposed to be a package, we failed. And if we're going to say that this one step is going to save something, then I'm telling you that this decision is wrong."
98,"on behalf of the EFDD Group.  Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in 2017, greenhouse gas emissions in Europe increased as well as the average CO2 emissions of new cars, due to the consumption of oil in road transport. Furthermore, although sales of diesel cars are declining, and those of hybrid and electric vehicles are growing rapidly, in 2019 there are less than 20 electric models available from European dealers and therefore their spread is clearly limited everywhere. All of this tells us how important the regulation we are adopting is, because it will drive the decarbonisation of the automotive sector, which is needed now more than ever, and transform the car and van market into a sustainable one, stimulating the spread of zero- and low-emission vehicles. I am proud to have worked for the Five Star Movement on this regulation and to have also helped to contain the attacks of those who would like to anchor the European car to a fossil fuel future, at the expense of the environment and the health of our fellow citizens. Instead, they should be invested in renewables and hydrogen, which are five times more labour-intensive than oil, and support the creation of the estimated 200 000 new permanent jobs in the sectors related to electromobility by 2030, so that the transition is truly fair and no one is left behind. I also sincerely thank Mrs Dalli for her work."
99,"on behalf of the ENF Group.  Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the CO2 emission reduction targets contained in this proposal are totally unrealistic: The Commission has already taken a number of measures to ensure that the Community's financial resources are used to the full. The text is not technologically neutral, it is a force for the electric solution, it does not benefit the competitiveness of the sector, but rather makes Europe dependent on raw materials  rare earths for batteries  which come largely from one country  China  with the aggravating fact that the vast majority of patents for batteries are held in Asia, not to mention the lack of charging infrastructure and that a large part of electricity in Europe still comes from coal and lignite power stations. The inclusion of a clause which could, hypothetically, open up a revision of the targets by 2023 is not sufficient to rebalance this regulation. Sectors such as the automotive industry need medium and long-term industrial plans: Legislative acts like this are irrational and irresponsible."
100,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your report. Climate protection and safety at work must go hand in hand. So it was very important to look at this legislation and what the impact on jobs would be. I am very grateful to the Commission for having carried out an additional impact assessment to assess the proposals that were on the table. The result was clear: proposals for 75% or even the original proposal by Miriam Dalli for 50% would have cost jobs in Europe. But this analysis by the Commission - and I have not met anyone who can refute it, other claims are not supported in my view - also shows that it is wrong to say that every percentage above 30 is a disaster. The Commission shows that even if we are at around 40% - and we are now at just below that with a margin of safety - there are still positive effects on jobs in Europe as a whole. And that is why it would not have been wise not to use this margin of manoeuvre, especially when many people, especially many young people, expect the European Union to do more to protect the climate. So it is a sensible compromise and I hope that we will support it tomorrow by consensus or by a large majority. I would like to thank all those who have contributed: the rapporteur, of course, but especially the EPP group, Jens Gieseke, Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete and the President of the Council, Elisabeth Köstinger. It's a good result!"
101,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is a movement. Europe is moving towards the new development model, a low- and zero-carbon economy, a virtuous alliance between growth and the environment, production and industry, with less energy waste and pollution. In Europe, the movement of people is expected to increase by 40% and that of goods by 60%. Transport currently contributes 25% of emissions and over 70% is accounted for by road transport. Today, the transport sector accounts for 5% of European GDP, a wealth that we spend largely on medicine and hospitals to deal with the pollution in our cities and to repair the damage caused by climate change. We have to change! This regulation sets binding and ambitious targets for the emissions and fuel economy of cars and vans. He says no more lab tests that don't reflect real emissions and he wants data in real driving conditions. We are now working together, all of us, to encourage the public and private investment needed to convert Europe's motor industry, which is still 94% dependent on oil. We now accompany and support workers in their retraining and updating of their skills. We must change and this regulation is a step in the right direction towards a different way of life, one that is more respectful of people and the environment."
102,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. Environmental goals are obviously good to have. But we must also be careful to ensure that environmental objectives are realistic, that is, that there is always a realistic chance for manufacturers to develop the technology. There is no need to go above and beyond just to get there. Then we have failed. We cannot meet the requirements. I therefore believe that there must also be agreement with the manufacturers on what is technically possible or not. I drive an electric car myself. It's working great. I'm super happy. But I live in the country, and I think that's where the electric car is an option for the future. In the big cities, there are too many problems with the charging infrastructure. There are not enough charging points and therefore the electric car will never be an option in the big city. There'll be constant worries about how to charge the car. I'm doing great. At home at my villa I can plug in, that's no problem, but in the cities I don't think that's going to be an option and then we have to be able to release cars that are environmentally friendly. (The speaker accepted to answer a question (blue card) in accordance with Rule 162 (8) of the Rules of Procedure.)"
103,"The Commission has also proposed that the Council should adopt a decision on the application of the 'blue card' procedure.  My question goes in the direction that in e-mobility, a battery weighs about 700 kg, while a diesel load weighs 70 kg. Now, of course, we have the problem that you can drive a total of 700 kilometers with diesel, but only 350 kilometers with e-mobility. So there's a big question of efficiency here. How do you see it?"
104,"(blue card) That's right. That's absolutely true and that's also why I have a regular car too, with an internal combustion engine. The electric car works for a certain part of my needs, but it doesn't work for all my needs. That is why we must also ensure that we can keep the normal cars. The electric car doesn't work for everyone, that's how it is. It works great for me. I have a daily driving requirement of about 70 kilometers, and that's where the electric car works. Especially in winter, the range is down to about 90 to 100 kilometers on a full charge -- that's actually the reality of it -- so I wouldn't be able to do it with just an electric car. We must therefore also ensure that there are alternatives to renewable fuels, i.e. where we produce environmentally friendly fuels, simply as an alternative to petrol and diesel. The electric car is not the solution to all problems, but to some of them."
105,"I think it would be nice if we agreed to meet again in three or four years' time and look back with a smile on the rearguard action we have taken in these days. Because the sad thing is that social transitions are happening so terribly fast that we as legislators are simply too slow. We're riding together in that little diesel, ducking down the right lane with the conservatives behind the wheel, while we're being squeezed hard into the left lane by the car of the future. BMW announced yesterday that it's launching a whole new range of electric cars with a range of 600 kilometers. Volkswagen announced in November that it will invest 44 billion euros in e-mobility over the next five years. That's what's happening now. The market is passing us on all fronts. I am going to vote for the compromise, but I know now that in two years it will be obsolete and fortunately: The market is moving much faster than we as legislators can."
106,"Mr President, civil society applauded us for adopting an ambitious report last October, and for taking a strong stance and sending a clear message to car industries that they must also keep up to speed on climate ambition and demands. However, what is disappointingly clear from the final agreement between the Council and Parliament is that the Council and EU Ministers are happy to water down bold environmental legislation that aims to tackle one of the EU’s biggest polluting sources. CO2 emissions from transport are increasing and efforts to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars are slowing so we must demand a lot more from the sector. We need to stop striking political compromises where the science sets us the limits. Fulfilling the Paris Agreement obligations is not only Parliament’s duty, but it’s also the Council’s duty and they cannot ignore their part in this."
107,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. We are talking today about schizophrenia, which is expressed in the immense new CO2 emissions requirements that this House has wanted. We are talking about the EU's struggle to find an industrial strategy in the best economically planned way, while it wants to put an end to its best industrial workhorse - the automobile industry. We're talking about the EU assuming zero emissions for electric cars, which is scientifically wrong and physically completely impossible. Mrs Dalli, when you talk about zero-emission vehicles, it is above all because you are clueless. We are talking about the fact that you are now hitting the big German car manufacturers in the face and thereby weakening Germany, which they expect to guarantee their savings in banks, to finance cohesion policy and agricultural subsidies and to tolerate their weakness in competition. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not going to work. Let them go! Hold it right there! And this applies not only to you, but also to the German Government, which I do not appreciate at all, and which unfortunately suffers from the same schizophrenia."
108,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. Sweden is one of the countries in the world where the economy is most dependent on the automotive industry. We know how important it is to create the right conditions for a viable and more sustainable automotive industry, both today and in the future. That is precisely why we Swedish Social Democrats, both here in the European Parliament and through our government in the Council, have pushed for such high climate ambitions, to reduce car emissions more than today. We would have liked to see emissions fall even further, but this is an important step along the way, which we are voting on now. It is thanks to the Socialist Group and our rapporteur, Mrs Miriam Dalli, and her hard work and skill that we now have these new rules which will benefit both the climate and human health. We Social Democrats will stand up for this tomorrow and vote in favour of the stricter emission standards, both for the sake of the climate, for the sake of human health and for an industry that is strong for the future. A sustainable Europe is needed. It's the vision we have for our future."
109,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. The draft resolution is not only based on goals that are far removed from reality, but it also raises the question of what ideology is being pursued. And this ideology shows that it is against individual transport, because there are many arguments thrown around here that are completely baseless. Commissioner Arias Cañete, when you say that you want a zero-emission vehicle, that is utopian. There are no zero-emission vehicles, and they are not even foreseeable. And when we talk about electric vehicles, we say: ""These are the saviors"". This is nonsense, ladies and gentlemen! The electricity used there is produced in doubt - in Germany at least - in coal-fired power stations, in power stations that run on oil, where the emissions occur. There is scientific research that shows very clearly that an electric vehicle, compared to a combustion engine, when it gets on the road, has already created the same environmental impact as the other one at 110,000 kilometers. I mean, these are facts we can't ignore! We are also constantly dealing with individual transport, with cars. What about the real polluters, such as shipping? It is well known that only a few large ships produce the same environmental pollution as all German passenger transport. You should answer that. (The President cut the speaker off)"
110,"Mr President, Commissioner, this regulation provides us with a legal framework for all Member States to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement in the coming years. The European Union will set these objectives and give the sector clear guidelines for future investment and technology development. The passenger car and van sector is of great importance in many countries of the European Union, particularly in my own country, and the Member States are going to have to undergo a profound transformation. And having this legal framework for a sustainable transition is important. But this transition must ensure that environmental objectives are met while maintaining or increasing the level of economic activity and employment. We must therefore be particularly vigilant with regard to the most vulnerable groups and regions, and we must also bear in mind that the transition affects not only the car industry but also the whole of the component manufacturing industry. The European Commission must therefore have a real industrial policy, involving several directorates-general and with specific analyses and measures for the most important industrial sectors in the European Union. This is a very important question for the coming years. And I want to end, Commissioner, by congratulating you on all the work of this legislature, not only on what you have done in this sector, but also because the European Union's road map is already completed before the European elections. We have even already put on the table the strategy for reducing emissions by 2050. Thank you very much and congratulations."
111,"I would like to thank the Commissioner for his reply. 44 billion investment of VW was discussed here. This will also show that cars and private transport will become significantly more expensive. So buying cars becomes a social issue here. Traffic congestion in cities will be difficult to reduce because many people can no longer afford cars and mobility. The second thing I see as a problem is that it's measured at the exhaust. We all know that production, operation and recycling are of course important. Here we see that diesel has 219 grams of CO2 per 100,000 miles, e-mobility has 277, and gasoline has the highest emissions with 300 grams of CO2 per mile. I am in favour of introducing life-cycle costs because that is the future, and of focusing on synthetic fuels like hydrogen because they can be produced from renewable energy. We reject nuclear power because it is expensive and harmful to the environment."
112,"Mr President, I would like to thank you. If we in the EU are to help protect the climate, if we are to achieve our Paris goals in 2015, and if we are to create a low-emission economy, then our transport sector must contribute to achieving this goal. That is why the legislation we are about to vote on is an important step in the right direction. This is where we go in and demand that our cars become much more climate-friendly - they have to reduce their CO2 consumption. That is why I am glad that we are getting this legislation, and it is particularly thanks to Mrs Dalia that we have at all come to a conclusion with legislation which, after all, is taking us in the right direction. That said, I would also like to say that it is disappointing that we are not a little more ambitious. The European Parliament's Environment Committee would like to see a 45% reduction in CO2 - we get one in 37. That's just not good enough! The young people are standing outside this Parliament insisting that we make sure that we are climate friendly. We had the opportunity with this legislation, but we didn't get it. But that is not Parliament's fault. That is because the Council of Ministers does not want to be part of it. If we are to solve the climate problems of the future, our transport sector must contribute - even more than what is available here. That said, I shall probably support the proposal, because it is of course a colossal advance compared to what we have today. We must also keep the Commission in the loop to ensure that we also get measurements of whether they actually achieve these CO2 reductions on the cars. We're going to be watching you to make sure that the auto industry delivers."
113,"Mr President, Commissioner, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Dalli, and our alternative rapporteur, Mr Gieseke, on the enormous work they have done in the negotiations on this report. The agreement reached with the Council is a major step forward in achieving the decarbonisation objectives we have set ourselves, with guarantees to ensure a fair transition, while also guaranteeing the technological neutrality that the legislator must always maintain. The agreement we are voting on tomorrow is just one more measure added to the dozens we have negotiated during this mandate on the fight against climate change, in which we have made great progress during these years of the Juncker Commission, also promoted by Commissioner Arias Cañete; a fight that the European Union is leading around the world and that the European citizens demand of us and remind us every Friday that we cannot postpone; a fight that, moreover, we cannot lose."
114,"Mr President, the regulation we are considering ensures a sustainable energy transition in the sector of new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles. It also stimulates innovation in new technologies that make the acquisition of zero- and/or low-emission vehicles affordable. It introduces real-world CO2 emissions testing as a condition of vehicle type approval, which can help us to avoid fraudulent practices such as those identified by the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into Automobile Emissions of which I was a member. I therefore welcome the rapporteur, Mrs Miriam Dalli, and the whole team who have worked on this dossier for the extremely balanced proposal for a regulatory framework which makes it possible to articulate the transition to the mobility model, innovation and adaptation of European industry and safeguarding the interests of workers and taxpayers. We have to put this proposal for sustainable innovation into practice, we have to have the capacity to monitor, we have to have the capacity to train workers and develop territories sustainably to be one step ahead in modernity."
115,"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your reply. I would like to invite everyone to take a look at the big picture. Three percent of the annual and global CO2 emissions are caused by humans. The EU's share is 9.1%. Of this, just under 30 percent is transportation, 72 percent is road transportation, and 60 percent is cars, which are affected by this bill. The possible, but not so likely, savings would be a maximum of 0.013%. So what do we do? We are making expensive electric cars compulsory, making individual mobility more expensive and damaging the value added of our core industry. This is a disproportionate saving, especially if, as is the case here, we only measure the exhaust and consider electric cars to be CO2-neutral, even if the electricity is generated from lignite. Unfortunately, this is an ideological package that our party has shown time and again. But thanks to a left-wing majority in the House, our amendments were irresponsibly rejected. It would have been better for our citizens, for our businesses and, above all, for the environment."
116,"Mr President, every new report we hear brings before our eyes the reality of the need to tackle with determination the greatest challenge facing humanity, which is the fight against climate change. The transport sector accounts for a quarter of the European Union's emissions. The decarbonisation of the transport sector is therefore an obligation, not an option. The regulation we are about to adopt puts us precisely on the path to achieving these objectives of decarbonisation, which are irrevocable. And, in turn, it puts us in front of the European challenge of taking steps to enable our industry to make the great technological leap to maintain leadership, to maintain employment, but to maintain it in a clean transport, in a transport that is compatible with this challenge we have to face, which is the total decarbonisation of our productive sectors, of our economy."
117,"Mr President, Mr Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for your work. It is true that the CO2 limits for cars and light commercial vehicles are continually being adjusted and downgraded. We need energy-efficient cars, because that is the only way to achieve the EU's climate targets. But the limits we set today for 2025 and 2030 must also be achievable and provide the right incentives. In this respect, I welcomed the Commission's proposal, which, with a 30% reduction target in 2030, takes into account that mobility must be affordable and that we must also ensure that the jobs in the automotive industry and the supplier companies remain with us in the EU. I would like to say that there is no comparable standard in the world. We are lagging behind in almost all Member States in developing the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. The electricity demand for electric cars is huge, and consumers have to embrace electric cars. First, we say diesel is bad - diesel is a good alternative for reducing CO2 - then we do not give incentives for renewable fuels, and we do not give incentives for plug-in hybrids. We're just setting overambitious CO2 limits on the drawing board. I think that is wrong and I shall therefore vote against it. I want to see not only Teslas driving in Europe in the future, but cars that we produce in Europe."
118,"Mr President, climate change is making citizens and politicians more sensitive to the environment, and rightly so. Transport, of course, by its emissions of carbon dioxide and other substances, contributes to this problem, that is, to climate change. But I would caution against the irresponsible pursuit of ambitious limits. First, because the European Union is not a decisive producer of CO2, it accounts for less than 10% of global production. The second reason is that the automotive industry is a key player in the European Union and we simply cannot subject it to unrealistic targets, unrealistic pressure on its competitiveness. We could totally destroy it, eliminate jobs, and we wouldn't actually be reducing CO2 as much as we'd like. I was happy with the European Commission's proposal, and I was happy with the 15% by 2025, but I am not happy with the ambitious increase by 2030 proposed by the trialogue agreement."
119,"Mr President, despite the progress made in recent years, some 500 000 lives are lost annually in Europe because of air pollution. Moreover, the current climate protests in Europe's capitals send a clearer and clearer message - that we need to be more ambitious at home and set an example to follow globally, of course, without jeopardising the competitiveness of our industry in the European Union. It is an important step that, following interinstitutional negotiations with the Council, Parliament has managed to secure an agreement to reduce emissions by 37,5% by 2030 for new cars and by 31% for cars. I am convinced that these ambitious quotas will encourage innovation among car manufacturers, but we need to ensure that the incentive mechanism for these low-emission vehicles as well as for zero-emission vehicles is functional."
120,"Mr. Chairman, please! It's not an optimal solution, it's a compromise. The difference between a compromise and an optimal solution is that in an optimal solution, everyone is happy, and in a compromise, there are costs and there are two sides. On the one hand, environmentalists are calling for faster and more extensive implementation of the solution, and for better climate protection. Those of us who are car manufacturers are aware that the pace we're proposing is going to generate costs, and those costs are serious. There are countries -- and you can see it in this room -- that are car producers, and there are countries that are consumers only. What I want to point out is that there are too many technical data gaps, that is, the effects, the costs, which are often calculated in a separate way. I am drawing attention to this because it is a fairly balanced solution that we are proposing, and it must be balanced and well applied in practice."
121,"Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this debate, which shows the importance of this legislation. Let me stress again that we now have another key element to implementing the 2030 European Union Climate and Energy Framework and meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement. The legislation is not only to protect our environment: this legislation will help European Union industry to retain its leading competitive position in a fast-changing global market with a demand for clean products and business models that support sustainable mobility and is increasingly significant. The agreed CO2 emission standard for cars and vans will drive new jobs in Europe. Increased consumer expenditure, increased investment in infrastructure, reduction of oil imports and expansion in the battery sector are all positive drivers for job creation. This legislation will bring strong economic benefits and be good for consumers, who will not only benefit from cleaner air, but will also save money when fuelling their vehicles. To summarise, this is a very good compromise and together we can be proud of the result of our joint efforts. We all know about the scale of efforts needed to reach our long-term climate objectives and some contributions to the debate have pointed to that. This legislation is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I invite you to lend your support in tomorrow’s vote. It is important to ensure it can enter into force swiftly. There is no time to lose in our fight against climate change, and this is what our citizens, including our young generation, expect from all of us."
122,"Rapporteur. – Mr President, my thanks to all the colleagues, and thank you Commissioner once again. But allow me to address a couple of issues that were mentioned. First and foremost, let’s stop the scaremongering which says that more investment by companies equates to more expensive cars. With all due respect, all the studies that we were shown – even the impact assessment by the Commission itself – confirmed the financial benefits for consumers, as mentioned just now by the Commissioner himself when he was speaking about a decrease in consumer expenditure. Consumer benefits are the most evident thing in this legislation. I would have expected some of the Members speaking tonight to know the details of what we are going to vote upon tomorrow. So for example we had Mr Meuthen, who has not even realised that we are speaking about zero and low-emission vehicles defined as vehicles that would emit 50g per km. And we had Mr Kölmel from the ECR, who has not even realised that this is part of a whole package of legislation which addresses different sectors and that this Parliament doesn’t focus on mobility or passenger vehicles alone. The reality is that change is happening, investments are being channelled into new technologies and research is being carried out to ensure that the EU, for example, can produce batteries and battery cells within its boundaries. I am really glad that Members who originally proposed less ambition today are speaking about this compromise positively, because I am convinced that it was the initial ambition of this Parliament that changed things. And things will continue to change. Just look around at the models that are currently being rolled out and also the increased kilometrage that zero and low-emission vehicles have today. Things have changed from a couple of months ago to today. My concluding remark would be, let’s continue working to make sure that we attract investments to this continent, to the European Union, that we roll out the required infrastructure and charging stations and develop the necessary technology to produce battery cells and batteries here within the European Union. I look forward to the vote tomorrow. Thank you to all the colleagues for their contributions. Once again, thank you, Commissioner and to all the staff for their help."
123,Thank you very much for this discussion and for your closing remarks.
124,I'm closing the debate. The vote will take place on Wednesday 27 March 2019.