Пълен протокол на разискванията

Понеделник, 5 февруари 2018 г. - Страсбург

22. Разходоефективни намаления на емисии и нисковъглеродни инвестиции (разискване)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Julie Girlingin ympäristön, kansanterveyden ja elintarvikkeiden turvallisuuden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö ehdotuksesta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiiviksi direktiivin 2003/87/EY muuttamisesta kustannustehokkaiden päästövähennysten ja vähähiilisyyttä edistävien investointien edistämiseksi (COM(2015)0337 - C8-0190/2015 - 2015/0148(COD)) (A8-0003/2017).

  Julie Girling, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and all of his team, some of whom are with us here today. I would like to thank the Council and their hardworking team and, of course, all my wonderful hardworking colleagues here in Parliament.

Nothing is ever perfect, and the emission trading system (ETS) is certainly no exception to that, but it remains the cornerstone of our EU policy to combat climate change and we have done our best to agree an ambitious update. The ETS has had a chequered history. There have been many detractors over the years. We tackled many problems – from a carbon price that was clearly too low to make the market function to the extremely difficult issue of striking the balance between our environmental ambition and the protection of energy-intensive European industry. This is always open, and we are always discussing it, but it remains a system operating in 31 countries.

The rest of the world has sometimes been disappointingly slow to catch up, but now we have some momentum going. We have the recent agreement with Switzerland, we have President Trump to thank for the call to action in the United States, which has meant some ambitious plans in California and their tie—up with Ontario, and indeed even movement in China, where I know the Commission has been very active in terms of helping with their own putative system. So we are making this agreement in the context of a world that is moving forward. It would be nice, actually, to be criticised at some point for not being the best system in the world, so we look forward to that in the near future hopefully.

However, the background to this update is challenging. We must have a system that can deliver the EU’s Paris commitments, but sometimes reality is at odds with this. We were working against the background of the 2014 Council conclusions, which was not always helpful. There are challenging internal politics around the relationship between the EU 15 and more recent accession states, with a lively discussion on the absolute amounts and on the conditions that would be appropriate to impose in providing the flow of funds to assist these Member States.

We also had the difficult issue of indirect cost compensation, warmly embraced by some Member States and not by others, leading to a fundamental question as to whether, if some Member State governments are prepared to support their industry financially and others are not, EU funds should be used to iron out the differences. We await further developments on state aid rules to illuminate this question. I welcome the compromise that we reached on this, but we did not settle the matter. The discussions will continue.

I do not intend to list all the final conclusions of the deal, just a couple that are highlights for me. The 2023 review – in line with the global stock-take of the Paris Agreement – will include a possible increase in the 2.2% linear reduction factor. This is a major achievement. Secondly, there is the substantial withdrawal of excess allowances from the system. And, thirdly, what is called the ‘Duncan mechanism’ in tribute to the rapporteur who preceded me – I think we should now call it the ‘Lord Duncan mechanism’ – comes in if the cross-sector correction factor is applied. If it is not needed, then additional funds go to the Innovation Fund and the Modernisation Fund. We have changes to benchmarks and carbon leakage lists, offering a fine balance between carbon leakage protection and ambition.

These are just a few points. There is a clear stamp of the European Parliament on this agreement – new thinking and new mechanisms which have been taken on board – and I thank my colleagues for this.

But sometimes what defines the role of rapporteur is the most frequently asked question: what did you want that you didn’t achieve? Well, for me, there are two clear things here: the important issue of environment performance standards – we did our best, we made advances but we didn’t get the specific, clear numerical limit we wanted – and the issue of shipping. We got our recital on the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), but we wanted more. I think Parliament has made a very clear statement that this is not good enough. We pass this baton on to others in other pieces of legislation, but I hope they will recognise the job that we did.

  Fredrick Federley, föredragande av yttrande från utskottet för industrifrågor, forskning och energi. – Fru talman! Vi har kommit till vägs ände och vi ska nu egentligen bara klubba igenom beslutet som i vissa delar var väldigt komplicerat men i andra delar varit betydligt enklare. Jag tror att vi har gjort så mycket som vi har kunnat i de olika institutionerna, men också här i de olika utskotten i Europaparlamentet.

Jag tror att vi inför nästa runda som vi snart börjar ladda för ska ta med oss dels halvtidsöversynen, men också att vi om10 år ska ha ett nytt regelverk på plats. Så jag tror att vi måste ta oss en funderare i Europaparlamentet på hur mycket vi ska fortsätta att urvattna det här systemet, vilket vi har gjort på flera sätt. Vad de pengar och de värden som den här marknaden skapar faktiska ska användas till, tror jag är en grundfråga.

Det andra är hur många fler fonder kan vi se till att skapa för att göra saker som kanske inte alls ETS-systemet egentligen är tänkt för. Jag tror att vi måste ställa oss en fråga som kommer att vara hård, svår och smärtsam här inne: Hur länge ska vi fortsätta att göra undantag för vissa medlemsstater, och hur länge ska vissa medlemsstater anses vara nya? Efter hur många årtionden är alla medlemsstater lika och behandlas lika inför våra lagar?

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am glad we are meeting tonight to finalise the adoption of the revised European Union Emission Trading System (ETS) Directive, creating a solid framework for the European carbon market for the next decade.

The European Union ETS remains the most important instrument to realise our ambition of a reduction of at least 40% in greenhouse gas emissions within the European Union by 2030. With the political agreement reached in early November last year, we can proudly show to our citizens and to the world that the European Union is delivering and turning political words into legal commitments.

The trilogue agreement on this proposal is the result of a long, complex and thorough negotiation process that necessarily involved compromises from all sides. The support and active engagement of the rapporteur, Ms Girling, and also of the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Belet, Ms Guteland, Mr Gerbrandy, Ms Konečná, Mr Eickhout, Ms Evi and Ms D’Ornano, was crucial in this regard.

I would like wholeheartedly to thank Ms Girling for her skillful work on this challenging file and congratulate her on the result. Only the constructive spirit of the negotiators of both institutions made it possible to reach a solid compromise and I am happy that the Commission could facilitate this trilogue agreement as an ‘honest broker’.

As I said, the agreement required compromise from all parties involved. It strikes a proper balance between strengthening the European Union carbon market and incentivising industry to decarbonise with innovative solutions and renewable energy, while being mindful of the specific challenges of lower-income Member States, in particular regarding the modernisation of their energy systems.

The European Union ETS is a great example of a forward-looking regulation where European legislation enables innovation and modernisation of our energy system. The European Parliament has greatly contributed to the final shape of the trilogue outcome. Each side of the triangle of issues at the core of the discussion clearly carries the European Parliament’s signature. The political impetus for strengthening the European Union ETS originated in the European Parliament. The temporary doubling of the feeding rate for the Market Stability Reserve and the limitation set for the validity of allowances in the reserve will ensure that market balance will be restored swiftly and that the carbon price creates incentives for long-term low-carbon investments.

Regarding the free allocation to avoid carbon leakage, a free allocation buffer of around 450 million allowances was created, at Parliament’s request, to avoid a cross-sectoral correction factor. This provides European industry with certainty in terms of free allocation and a reliable planning horizon. And finally, because of the European Parliament’s insistence, the modernisation provisions will also enable activities fostering a just transition of labour on the way towards a low-carbon economy; and, as an additional safeguard for investments, no support from the Modernisation Fund will be granted to coal-related energy generation, with the exception of district heating in Bulgaria and Romania.

I could continue this list, referring to other issues such as a larger Innovation Fund, but I think that, together, we can be proud of the result of our joint effort to agree on an improved and robust architecture for the renewed European Union ETS.

I invite you to lend your support to the political agreement in tomorrow’s vote to ensure that the legislation enters swiftly into force and the necessary changes are in place by January 2021. There is no time to lose in the European transition to a low-carbon economy. This is what we have promised to our citizens. This is what they expect from all of us.

  Florent Marcellesi, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Desarrollo. – Señora presidenta, la transición energética también es una cuestión de justicia y reparto entre los países del Norte y los países del Sur. Y es una pena que este informe, bastante débil, no lo haya tenido mucho en cuenta. En línea con el Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea habría podido convertir su régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión en un instrumento potente para el clima y la solidaridad.

Algunas ideas para el futuro: que la mitad de los ingresos de la subasta se asignen a la lucha climática en los países vulnerables; que el sector de la aviación contribuya al objetivo climático para 2030 al mismo nivel que los otros sectores y que esos ingresos vayan a la lucha climática en los países vulnerables; que el transporte marítimo internacional contribuya en función de las emisiones generadas en, hacia o desde los puertos europeos; que se limite el factor de emisión cero de la biomasa a los desechos y residuos para evitar acaparamiento de tierras y deforestación en el Sur.

La transición energética en Europa no se puede hacer a costa de los demás, sino en solidaridad con los demás.

  Ivo Belet, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, anderhalf jaar hard werken en onderhandelen, en dan anderhalve minuut spreektijd: het blijft een uitdaging natuurlijk.

De hervormde ETS is ongetwijfeld een van de absolute pijlers van het Europese klimaatbeleid. We mogen zeggen, in tegenstelling tot wat de vorige spreker zei, dat de ingrepen wél ambitieus zijn, maar dat ze ook realistisch zijn en dat ze haalbaar zijn.

Het doel van het ETS is om de bedrijven en ook de energiesector stimulansen te bieden om energie op een duurzame manier te produceren en te verbruiken en tegelijkertijd koolstoflekkage te vermijden. We weten allemaal wat koolstoflekkage is. Meneer Eickhout, het heeft geen zin dat we maatregelen nemen om bedrijven te laten versluizen naar andere regio's waar geen maatregelen zijn, zoals wij die wel nemen. Dat is totaal zinloos.

Een derde punt: we rekenen erop dat het innovatiefonds ook in de huidige periode snel wordt ingezet om de transitie te ondersteunen. We zijn inderdaad, zoals de commissaris zei, zeer tevreden dat de financiële ondersteuning voor het innovatiefonds onder impuls van het Parlement is opgetrokken.

In concluding, let me warmly thank and congratulate my colleague Julie Girling and her team for the excellent job they have done in a sometimes challenging context. Let me also thank you, Commissioner, and your team, the cabinet and administration, for the tremendous work that you have done.

  Jytte Guteland, för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Var sak har sin tid och jag är en av dem som har fajtats och verkligen varit tuff i förhandlingarna för att få det här att bli en skarpare klimatlagstiftning, men i dag tänkte jag vara glad. Jag tror att det är viktigt för nya fajter framöver i lagstiftningar om klimatet att man också firar när man har skärpt lagstiftning och lagt en bättre, i linje med Parisavtalet.

Det här har varit långa och tuffa förhandlingar, och det är tydligt att synen på klimatet är tudelad, både i Europaparlamentet och i EU:s medlemsländer. På ena sidan finns de progressiva som ser möjligheterna och som vill göra mer för att lösa klimathotet. På andra sidan har vi de konservativa som vill fortsätta att stoppa huvudet i sanden och som gärna vill krama gamla fossila bränslen och bibehålla utsläppsrean. Vi socialdemokrater och S&D-gruppen har varit pådrivande i förhandlingarna.

Genom att skrota upp till 2 miljarder utsläppsrätter får vi slut på den rådande inflationen i systemet och vi gör det dyrare att släppa ut; det är bra. För oss har det också var viktigt att göra omställningen till ett klimatsmartare samhälle på ett mer rättvist och socialt hållbart sätt. Alla ska följa med, och i synnerhet i regioner där det är svårt med omställningen på grund av stora utmaningar att lämna det fossila är det viktigt att det finns stöd för arbetare, så att man kan följa med i omställningen.

Jag är också glad att reglerna tydligt signalerar att alla sektorer måste bidra. Ingen ska åka snålskjuts på andras förbättringar. Klimatarbetet angår oss alla. Och visst – jag hade gärna sett ett ännu stramare bättre regelverk, men vi har skärpt systemet, vi ser till att EU tar ansvar i den här lagstiftningen, och det ger oss styrka att fajtas ännu mer i kommande lagstiftningar.

  Mark Demesmaeker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Klimaat én jobs beschermen, dat was de hoge inzet bij de hervorming van het emissiehandelssysteem. De werking van de Europese koolstofmarkt moet beter en efficiënter om klimaatvriendelijke investeringen verder te stimuleren. Tegelijk moeten we vermijden dat bedrijven wegtrekken uit Europa naar derde landen waar de klimaatregels minder strikt zijn, want dan verliezen we twee keer: we verliezen de jobs en we doen niets voor het klimaat. De Europese Unie neemt wereldwijd de leiding in de strijd tegen klimaatverandering. We mogen van winnaars geen verliezers maken. Het akkoord is op dit punt zeker een stap vooruit in vergelijking met het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel, maar voor ons had de bescherming tegen de koolstoflekkage best nog verder mogen gaan.

Tot slot: de sterke focus op innovatie is bijzonder welkom. Een koolstofarm Europa bereik je niet alleen door een werkbaar systeem van emissierechten, maar ook door duidelijk in te zetten op innovatieve oplossingen van het klimaatprobleem in én buiten Europa.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Julie Girling for the excellent job she has done as our rapporteur, especially jumping in late when Ian Duncan had to step down. She might not yet deserve the title of Baroness but the mechanism should certainly be named after Julie Girling instead of Ian Duncan.

Today’s result: what shall we make of it? Well, only the future will tell us whether what we have been doing has been sufficient. We do know that the price of carbon credits has gone up by about 20% so far, so it might be successful. Surplus of allowances, we tackled that. I think the coal phase-out in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy is easier to achieve now. The Innovation Fund has been increased, which is important; and I think one of the major improvements that Parliament has made is that the Modernisation Fund is not applicable to coal-fired investments. That is very successful.

But there are two elements I would like to stress. First of all, carbon leakage. We are still handing out 95% of all allowances for free to industry, even for sectors that have no real trade or carbon intensity. That is still something that is not too good.

And lastly, we continue referring to conclusions from the European Council from 2014. That is like in the Renaissance looking back to the Middle Ages! Let us please stop referring to those pre, pre, pre-Paris conclusions from Council – and that applies to both the Commission and the Council. Let’s move forward! Paris is beyond 2014.

  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, dovolte také mně se přidat k zástupu všech, kteří chtějí poděkovat Julii Girlingové, která se ujala tohoto dokumentu de facto v polovině, jak již bylo řečeno, a dovedla ho podle mého názoru zdárně do úspěšného konce, protože po letech usilovné práce Vám dnes předkládáme reformu systému obchodování s emisními povolenkami. I přes velmi obtížná vyjednávání se domnívám, že předložený text uspokojivě vyvažuje jak otázku ochrany klimatu a implementaci Pařížské dohody, tak i ochranu evropského průmyslu a jím garantovaných pracovních míst.

Přijatý dokument asi plně neuspokojí žádný tábor. Na jedné straně tady máme řadu skvělých opatření, která povedou ke zvýšení ceny povolenky. Na stranu druhou opatření chránící případný nárůst průmyslové výroby v EU či výjimky pro ochranu našeho ocelářského sektoru.  Ano, vidím tam ještě řadu nedodělků, které jsme z různých důvodů nemohli odstranit. Jako je například nedořešená otázka ochrany evropského průmyslu před dovozem surovin a výrobků ze států, které nesdílí náš postoj k boji s klimatickými změnami, jako je tzv. carbon adjustment mechanism.

Bylo by dobré, aby v dalších letech Evropská komise tuto otázku konečně jednou provždy vyřešila, když se to nepodařilo zde. Zvláště pak s přihlédnutím k ohrožení našeho silného průmyslu levným dovozem z Číny. Mluvila jsem o tom na této půdě již mnohokrát.

Před dokončením této práce nám do celého procesu vletěl nemilosrdně tzv. zimní energetický balíček, který nám však některé instituty a nástroje z předchozího teprve dokončovaného balíčku značně narušuje. Nemohu si odpustit apel na Komisi: Prosím, dělejte ty věci tak, ať se spojí.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, first of all I too would like to thank Julie Girling, who stepped in later in the process and did a great job in delivering this result.

I know you probably are not happy back home, Ms Girling, but the Greens too are thanking you. That doesn’t help you at home, but still the thanks are there, and we as Greens can also support the reform because it’s an improvement on what we have. Though let’s be honest: it is not very difficult to get an improvement on what we have, right?

And that is really still the problem. Finally we are doing something on the surplus of allowances, and getting rid of that surplus to a certain extent, but we’re not there yet. This system is still not functioning right. The prices are now around EUR 10, whereas we know that, for Paris implementation, prices need to be around EUR 40 or 50, and we know that the emission trading system alone will not deliver that.

So this is a good basis we have developed, we can support the improvement, but now it’s time for Member States to take national action and implement additional, national, policies because this alone will not deliver Paris, and you all know that.

  Eleonora Evi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi dal canto nostro abbiamo sempre spesso espresso diversi dubbi su un sistema basato sul mercato per affrontare le politiche climatiche e la questione climatica. Non riusciamo a vedere l'ETS come il pilastro delle politiche climatiche dell'Unione europea. Non lo riusciamo a vedere perché non lo è stato in passato e purtroppo temo non lo sarà neanche in futuro, nonostante tutti i numerosi tentativi di rafforzare questo strumento.

Ovviamente mi auguro fortemente di sbagliarmi. Io personalmente mi sono chiesta più volte se stiamo però tentando di tutelare il clima o stiamo cercando di costruire un meccanismo complicatissimo di ingegneria finanziaria e di speculazione, se stiamo cercando di ridurre le emissioni nel mondo reale o stiamo facendo soltanto dei calcoli basati su numeri virtuali e su proiezioni, se stiamo applicando seriamente il principio "chi inquina paga", oppure vogliamo capovolgerlo – ovvero per continuare ad inquinare è sufficiente pagare un obolo – e, infine, se stiamo cercando veramente di spingere verso la trasformazione energetica industriale dell'Europa, perché sia davvero sostenibile e competitiva, o stiamo tentando di tenere in piedi il modello legato al fossile.

  Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Morgen wird hoffentlich ein sehr guter Tag für den Klimaschutz in Europa und weltweit. Ich glaube, wir werden eine Reform beschließen, die dazu führt, dass das ETS endlich seinen Zweck erfüllt. Wer in klimafreundliche Technologien investiert, wird belohnt. Wer alte Dreckschleudern weiterbetreiben möchte, wird bestraft. Nach Ansicht von Experten wird der Preis schon in wenigen Jahren – etwa in vier, fünf Jahren – auf deutlich über 30 Euro steigen und im Schnitt der nächsten Periode deutlich über 20 Euro liegen. Da werden wir dann Investitionen sehen, die wir bisher leider nicht gesehen haben.

Aber damit diese Investitionen auch tatsächlich in Europa passieren und wir die energieintensive Industrie, die im internationalen Wettbewerb steht, nicht aus Europa vertreiben, war es für uns als EVP wichtig, kostenlose Zertifikate für diejenigen zu liefern, die auf dem neuesten Stand der Technik sind. Also nur wer schon auf dem neuesten Stand der Technik ist oder entsprechend investiert, der wird kostenlos versorgt – die anderen müssen zahlen.

Wir helfen der Industrie zusätzlich durch den Innovationsfonds, und wir helfen Mittel- und Osteuropa durch den Modernisierungsfonds. Ich glaube, das ist insgesamt eine sehr gute Sache. Wir schützen Arbeitsplätze, wir schaffen Innovation, und wir helfen dem Klima.

Deswegen auch mein Dank an Julie Girling, an die Schattenberichterstatter, vor allen Dingen an Ivo Belet für die EVP, und an den Kommissar und sein Team. Ich glaube, das ist ein gutes Gesetzgebungswerk, und ich bitte alle, morgen zuzustimmen.

  Edouard Martin (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, je crains qu’une nouvelle fois nous ne rations le train de l’histoire, car le texte qui nous est proposé est un texte fade. Il est fade parce que, tout au long des discussions, les uns pour des intérêts nationaux, les autres pour des intérêts sectoriels ou d’autres pour les deux en même temps, en arrivent à ces résultats.

Vous n’êtes pas sans savoir que je défends l’ajustement carbone aux frontières mais, vous—même, vous vous y êtes toujours opposé parce que vous disiez – vous dites toujours – que c’est une mesure protectionniste. Protectionniste, oui: protectionniste du climat, de l’environnement, des emplois. Je plaide donc pour l’ajustement carbone aux frontières. D’ailleurs, beaucoup de pays tiers, dont la Chine, l’ont très bien compris et investissent massivement pour décarboner leur industrie et leur économie.

Imaginez le ridicule de la chose si demain, dans cinq ans, dans dix ans, les produits importés sont moins carbonés que les nôtres. Nous aurons l’air idiot, ne trouvez-vous pas, Monsieur le Commissaire? C’est donc pour cela que nous manquons d’ambition et là nous avons raté le train de l’histoire. Et vous savez, moi, les soupes fades, je n’aime pas les manger.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W europejskiej polityce energetycznej niezbędne jest zrównoważone i realistyczne traktowanie ambicji środowiskowych i powiązanych z tym kosztów wynikających z ograniczeń technicznych. Niestety kompromis w sprawie EU ETS nie uwzględnia tych założeń. Wprawdzie gwarantuje on Polsce możliwość wykorzystania niewykorzystanych uprawnień z okresu 2013–2020 i zwiększa trochę liczbę uprawnień w ramach mechanizmu kompensacyjnego, a także – co ważne i za co dziękuję – uwzględnia specyfikę produkcji ciepła na potrzeby komunalne przez kontynuację bezpłatnego przydziału uprawnień dla tego sektora na korzystnych zasadach. Jednocześnie niestety ogranicza możliwość finansowania w ramach mechanizmów kompensacyjnych inwestycji opartych na paliwach kopalnych, nawet takich, które są efektywne ekonomicznie i charakteryzują się wyjątkowo niską emisyjnością. Z tego powodu nie będę mogła w całości poprzeć tego sprawozdania.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W telewizji i w tej epoce pamięta się tylko to, co było dwa tygodnie temu, nie wcześniej, ale ja wychowałem się bez telewizji. Chodziłem na studia, gdy nie było jeszcze telewizji, dlatego świetnie pamiętam czasy, kiedy setki tysięcy młodych ludzi szły ratować Ziemię, kiedy profesorowie robili wykresy, udowadniali, że grozi Ziemi katastrofa, że grozi Ziemi potworne globalne oziębienie. Wszystko to było udowodnione dokładnie tak samo, jak teraz jest udowadniane przez innych wariatów, że grozi Ziemi totalne przegrzanie. Otóż wtedy na szczęście nie było Unii Europejskiej, czyli grona ludzi, którzy gotowi są zmarnować biliony, byle pokazać, że coś się robi, byle co. Dlatego wtedy nikt nie poszedł siedzieć, natomiast Wy pójdziecie siedzieć za zmarnowanie pieniędzy ludzi na bezsensowne działania. A poza tym sądzę, że Unia Europejska musi być zniszczona.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chère Madame Girling, merci à vous, parce que nous attendions depuis longtemps cette réforme du marché du carbone.

Je tiens à remercier aussi mes collègues du groupe PPE, parce que nous avons beaucoup travaillé avec Ivo Belet et Esther de Lange pour finaliser notre position sur un sujet aussi complexe. Parce que, lorsque nous avions mis en place le système OTS, on pensait que le prix serait de 30 euros la tonne. Nous en sommes bien loin puisque ce prix oscille entre 6 et 9 euros en raison d’un surplus de quotas sur le marché.

Cela, bien sûr, empêche d’accélérer les investissements «bas-carbone» et le passage de la réduction annuelle de l’allocation des quotas de 1,7 % à 2,2 %, révisable en 2024, permettra d’enrayer ce surplus.

Grâce à cette réforme, les quotas seront distribués de manière plus juste, pour être en phase avec les émissions réelles des sites industriels et cela permettra de créer le Fonds pour la modernisation de nos secteurs électriques et de mobiliser dans un fonds d’innovation l’équivalent de plus de 400 millions de quotas pour l’innovation en Europe. C’est fondamental.

Ainsi, nous respectons nos engagements suite à l’accord de Paris mais, en même temps, nous défendons nos secteurs industriels qui font face à une concurrence internationale difficile. Notre industrie est performante, elle doit absolument mettre en œuvre des normes très élevées. Nous devons l’accompagner pour qu’elle garde sa compétitivité car, ce qui est essentiel, c’est de concilier une vraie stratégie industrielle avec une diplomatie climatique active.

  Puhemies. – Minun on vielä puututtava edelliseen puheenvuoroon. Edustaja Korwin-Mikke, Te sanoitte, että kaikki, jotka ovat tekemässä tätä päätöstä, joutavat vankilaan, ja tämä on ehkä asia, jota Te tässä salissa ette voisi sanoa.

  Simona Bonafè (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con l'approvazione della riforma dell'ETS l'Unione europea ribadisce il proprio impegno sottoscritto con l'accordo di Parigi e ringrazio anch'io la relatrice Girling per il lavoro fatto. Si tratta di un'importante direttiva, dove si è riusciti a coniugare l'obiettivo di politica climatica di ridurre le emissioni di CO2 del 40 % entro il 2030 con la competitività del settore manifatturiero e la spinta a una sua ulteriore innovazione con il fondo ad hoc.

Importante, da questo punto di vista, aver aggiornato le regole per definire quali settori industriali siano maggiormente esposti al fenomeno del cosiddetto carbon leakage, in modo da cogliere il reale livello di esposizione alla concorrenza commerciale di paesi che non applicano i nostri livelli di tutela ambientale.

Sono stati poi compiuti passi avanti sul tema della compensazione dei costi indiretti. Avrei auspicato la creazione di un meccanismo di compensazione a livello europeo, come richiesto dal Parlamento, ma ritengo comunque significativo l'impegno preso dalla Commissione di effettuare una valutazione del mercato del carbonio, che serve anche a capire quanto sta funzionando il meccanismo, e nel 2024, se ritenuto opportuno, presentare proposte legislative che vanno verso un meccanismo europeo.

  Esther de Lange (PPE). – In dit debat is heel veel al gezegd. Ik voeg me namens de EVP uiteraard bij de felicitaties aan Julie Girling en haar hele onderhandeling.

Zowel in de milieucommissie als in de industriecommissie stond voorop dat we aan de ene kant uiteraard ambitie wilden – want, ja, het systeem moest worden aangepast –, maar ook realisme, zodat onze industrie, onze innovatie en onze banen niet naar elders vertrekken. Daar schiet noch het klimaat iets mee op – aangezien we vaak de schoonste producenten van de wereld zijn – noch de werkgelegenheid. Natuurlijk moet je de industrie blijven aanzetten tot innoveren. Maar daar moet je ze mee helpen, in plaats van ze hier weg te pesten.

Ik ben dus ook heel erg blij met de versterking van het innovatiefonds, zodat ontwikkelingen, zoals bijvoorbeeld ook koolstofafvang en -opslag, de projecten die nu in de haven van Rotterdam voor liggen, hopelijk doorgang kunnen vinden. Datzelfde geldt ook voor koolstofafvang en -hergebruik, het plan dat er ligt om vanuit het chemische cluster in Geleen CO2 naar de kassen in Noord-Limburg te vervoeren, die daar weer als grondstof gebruikt kunnen worden.

Dat zijn volgens mij de projecten die we in Europa nodig hebben. De slimme oplossingen die zorgen voor innovatie, maar die ook Europese handen aan het werk houden.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Dziękujemy za przygotowanie reformy EU ETS. Na tej sali różnimy się co nieco w ocenie tej reformy, ale w jednym się nie różnimy: wszyscy dziękujemy pani sprawodawczyni. Ja chciałbym jeszcze dołączyć do tego wszystkich kontrsprawozdawców, a także tych, którzy byli w komisji ITRE, dlatego że ta komisja miała pewne zadanie do wykonania, mianowicie obronić naszą reindustrializację, obronić przemysł, producentów stali, producentów cementu, papieru, nawozów. Myślę, że to się udało. To bardzo ważne. Proszę jeszcze pamiętać, że często w walce o ochronę klimatu czy środowiska grozi nam ubóstwo energetyczne, a to bardzo wiąże się z problemem ciepłownictwa w wielu regionach, które odchodzą od węgla stopniowo, krok po kroku. Dlatego zachowanie w funduszu modernizacyjnym, a częściowo także innowacyjnym, możliwości potraktowania sektora ciepłowniczego w sposób szczególny powoduje, że mamy szansę na ochronę ludzi, którzy mogliby cierpieć na skutek braku dostaw energii. To jest również zaleta systemu, który wprowadzamy.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, io non sono molto contenta. Devo dire che ringrazio prima di tutto i colleghi del Parlamento, a cominciare dalla relatrice Girling a Ivo Belet, Esther de Lange e tutti gli altri. Avevamo fatto un buon lavoro per un anno e mezzo, ma per avere veramente quell'equilibrio che serve tra la politica climatica e ambientale e la protezione della competitività delle nostre industrie e la preservazione dei posti di lavoro manca un capitolo, quello della compensazione dei costi indiretti, che è rimasto allo status quo.

Il Parlamento aveva messo in piedi qualche cosa di meglio e di più. Si è sfranto nel negoziato per la resistenza degli Stati membri, incomprensibile, perché provoca, anche secondo l'antitrust italiano, un vero scompenso e squilibrio all'interno del mercato unico. La maggiorazione dei costi dell'elettricità derivati dall'ETS diventa, per alcuni paesi come l'Italia, che già paga l'elettricità un 30 % di più della media europea, una cosa insostenibile.

Quindi io chiedo, signor Commissario, di non aspettare il 2024 per aprire questo capitolo e che si tratti di un capitolo di giustizia sociale e di equità. Ne abbiamo parlato, l'Europa non può essere madre e matrigna.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mieliśmy bardzo różne oceny na początku, kiedy debata nad tą reformą się rozpoczęła. Chcę zauważyć, że po pierwsze, osiągnęliśmy ważny cel, który pozwoli na to, że europejskie firmy nie będą narażone na ucieczkę emisji i będą dalej podlegać ochronie. Po drugie, że wprowadzono instrumenty, które pozwolą na to, że sektor energii w krajach, które potrzebują transformacji – takich m.in. jak Polska – dostanie środki z systemu na pokrycie części kosztów niezbędnej transformacji. Po trzecie, wsparcie i wyjątkowe traktowanie otrzymał sektor ciepłowniczy, który w takich krajach jak m.in. Polska jest kluczowy dla redukcji nie tylko emisji CO2, ale również emisji zanieczyszczeń takich jak tlenki siarki, azotu, pyły i w ogóle całe zjawisko smogu, które związane jest z niską emisją. Chcę również podkreślić, że szkoda, że ciepłownictwo w całości nie trafiło na listę priorytetowych projektów funduszu modernizacyjnego. Wydaje mi się, że niewątpliwie ocena tej regulacji przyniesie dodatkowe jakieś oceny, ale to co udało się tutaj uczynić, jest też wspólną zasługą zarówno sprawozdawców, jak również wszystkich uczestniczących w debacie.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I think it is wonderful to behold the amount of MEPs from across the political floor who are working so hard so that we can put policies in place to meet our commitments on the Paris Agreement. Last month we had the clean energy package, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and tonight the ETS. I think that wonderful work has been done here. It is a very difficult file and I would like to thank everybody involved in moving towards the Innovation Fund, carbon capture and storage, limiting especially carbon leakage.

One area where I would especially like to thank my colleague, Esther de Lange, is where I badgered her about Prodcom, which was very important for the agri—food sector in Ireland. As a result of the work by Esther, Ivo and others, it saves them about EUR 40 million because the original proposal was so impractical. So that shows you the hard work that goes on behind the scenes and I think everybody can take a bow.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a redução da emissão de gases com efeito estufa em pelo menos 40 % até 2030 é uma meta fundamental para garantir a sustentabilidade do planeta, a qualidade do ar, mas também para dar um novo incentivo à modernização da economia europeia.

Saúdo o trabalho que foi feito e que deu um contributo importante em termos da flexibilidade na gestão das licenças para melhorar a transparência e a racionalidade do mercado. Foi também feito um esforço, ainda que não com êxito total, para reduzir as distorções de concorrência provocadas por diferentes políticas nacionais de custos indiretos. Foram introduzidos fatores de simplificação e foram criados dois fundos importantes para apoiar a transição das indústrias, fomentando a inovação e a modernização, protegendo emprego e a competitividade.

Estamos, por isso, não perante o ótimo, mas perante uma proposta razoável. É preciso eficácia e monitorização para que os objetivos de descarbonização e de inovação sejam plenamente atingidos.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση προσπαθεί να ανταποκριθεί στις δεσμεύσεις των Παρισίων για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και αυτό το έχει αναθέσει κυρίως σε ένα σύστημα εμπορίας εκπομπών άνθρακα, το σύστημα ETS, το οποίο στηρίζεται επί της ουσίας στην ίδια την αγορά. Θα έλεγα ότι δεν είναι σύστημα αποτελεσματικό και ότι πολλές φορές οδηγεί σε κερδοσκοπία ενώ δημιουργούνται παράλληλα ορισμένες απίθανες καταστάσεις. Για να εξηγήσω τι εννοώ, η Βουλγαρία και η Πολωνία έχουν πάρει εξαίρεση από την αγορά δικαιωμάτων αερίων ρύπων ενώ δεν ισχύει παρόμοια εξαίρεση για την Ελλάδα, με αποτέλεσμα η ελληνική ΔΕΗ να ζημιώνεται 400 εκατομμύρια EUR το χρόνο. Ταυτόχρονα, στην περιοχή γύρω από την Ελλάδα, οι βιομηχανίες στη Τουρκία, στη Βουλγαρία, στα Σκόπια, στην Αλβανία λειτουργούν όπως είναι και δεν δεσμεύονται από κανέναν περιορισμό. Το σύστημα λοιπόν είναι παράλογο και θα έπρεπε να έχει δοθεί και εξαίρεση και στην Ελλάδα για να μπορεί να λειτουργήσει η ΔΕΗ όπως λειτουργεί η βουλγαρική ομόλογος της, με εξαίρεση. Ευχαριστώ πολύ.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir machen im Moment wirklich eine ganze Menge auf EU Ebene, wenn es darum geht, das Klima zu schützen, Energie einzusparen, effizienter damit umzugehen, insgesamt könnte man also sagen: unsere Schöpfung mitzuerhalten und dazu beizutragen. Das ist eine ziemlich starke Herausforderung, weil wir zum Einen ehrgeizig sein wollen. Paris ist angesprochen worden, COP21, 22 und 23 hatten wir auch schon. Wir wollen das Klima schützen. Wir wollen es aber nicht alleine, wir wollen das möglichst weltweit machen, und wir wollen natürlich auch dabei sehen, dass wir zwar das Verursacherprinzip anwenden und sagen: Wer das Klima schädigt, der muss auch entsprechend dafür entschädigen und bezahlen. Das ist vollkommen richtig. Wir müssen aber auch in Betracht ziehen, dass wir Arbeitsplätze nicht gefährden wollen, dass wir ja auch wettbewerbsfähig bleiben wollen und dass wir möglichst ein ausgewogenes Instrument haben wollen.

ETS ist ein marktwirtschaftliches Instrument, das gut funktioniert. Ich glaube, dieser Kompromiss, den wir bei der Verhandlung gefunden haben – Julie Girling, herzlichen Dank–, der ist wirklich gut. Denn wenn keiner hundertprozentig zufrieden ist – so habe ich den Eindruck –, ist es immer ganz gut. Also ich glaube, damit können wir gut leben, darauf können wir gut aufbauen, darauf können wir stolz sein.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, há um problema de partida na abordagem ao objetivo de redução das emissões dos gases de efeito de estufa que é a opção e a insistência numa abordagem de mercado que revelou sobejamente não apenas a sua ineficácia, mas também a sua perversidade.

A partir do clamoroso falhanço inicial, pensaram algumas boas almas que, colocando alguns remendos no sistema, ele nos conduziria finalmente aos proclamados objetivos. Debalde. A criação de um comércio de licenças para poluir lançou as bases de mais um esquema milionário de geração de ativos financeiros fictícios, quem sabe se mais uma bolha especulativa pronta a ser insuflada. Nada fez, nem faz, pela desejada redução de gases com efeito de estufa, sobretudo se a queremos concretizada num quadro de justiça social e de sustentabilidade económica.

O que seria um mirífico incentivo à adoção de tecnologias hipocarbónicas tornou-se o maior desincentivo. Deixar nas mãos do mercado objetivos ambientais, que bem podiam e deviam ser lembrados por outras vias, será útil para alguns, sem dúvida, mas prejudicial para o ambiente e para as populações.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank all of you for your constructive work throughout the intensive co—decision process and for your interventions in this debate. As I have said before, we can be proud of the result of our joint efforts and I count on your support in tomorrow’s vote.

The European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a key instrument of our climate policy and we all managed to agree on a solid and robust framework for the next decade to ensure that we meet our ambitious emissions reduction target, while preserving the competitiveness of our industry and fostering low-carbon innovation and modernisation.

Internationally, many are looking at us and our European Union ETS as a model to develop similar forward-looking climate policies, and by putting in place the necessary legislation to renew and strengthen the European Union ETS, the European Union confirms its determination to lead the way in the fight against climate change and honouring our commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Let me make a final comment because there have been some interventions relating to the need for a centralised fund for indirect cost compensation. I know that this was a particularly difficult chapter in the negotiations, with almost irreconcilable views on issues such as a fully harmonised system. Indirect cost compensation will be continued in the form of state—aid schemes. We will not, however, see a mere continuation of the past. The continued use of a state—aid scheme is accompanied by substantially enhanced and timely transparency in reporting requirements.

Every Member State providing state aid will, as soon as the legislation is in force, have to publish, within three months of the end of a calendar year, the actual amount of compensation paid out in total and the benefiting sector, and this is a substantial improvement. The enhanced reporting that has been agreed will already start this year, and as part of future reviews the ETS Directive clearly foresees that the Commission should also consider whether measures in relation to indirect cost compensation should be further harmonised.

I hope that all of you will support this ETS new system because we have made a big effort to seek compromise. Our rapporteur did excellent work, as did all the shadow rapporteurs, and in this spirit of compromise we have improved the system that, as some of you said, has not worked perfectly in the past, but really this time I think we are going in the right direction and I hope it delivers as much as we expect from the work we have done.

  Julie Girling, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank everybody who spoke. It is very kind of you all – well, most of you – to speak highly of the work that we have done, but let us remember that it was a joint effort.

When you are listening to a debate like this, it is easy to get hung up on all the detail, all the things that we could have done, or should have done, a little bit better, or the bits we left out and the Member States for whom it does not quite fit. So we have to bring ourselves back to basics and remember that the cap-and-trade system gives us the opportunity for an increased carbon price, which creates the incentive for industry to invest. It also creates a huge amount of money for Member States to invest in their own industry around the whole issue of decarbonising technology.

I think we need to call on all those Member States, as we conclude these negotiations and put this into law. We need to call on all of those Member States to remember that this does not constitute drawing a line which they do not have to pass. They can see this as just the start of the efforts they make towards achieving our Paris commitments. There is so much that they could do, and here we really need to hold their feet to the fire, to make sure they take advantage of the flexibilities that we have given them, and that we have built in, in order to achieve and invest wisely for the future.

As all of you know, this will probably be the last thing for which I take responsibility as a rapporteur, but I can assure you that I will be going back to my Member State and trying, firstly, to sort out what we are going to do when we are not part of this ETS system. Whatever comes of that, I hope it will complement it well, that my own Member State will continue to be an exemplar in terms of carbon-reduction investment and that we will be able to continue to work together in the happy spirit that we have done.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan tiistaina 6. helmikuuta 2018.