Fuldstændigt Forhandlingsreferat

Mandag den 13. februar 2017 - Strasbourg

13. Omkostningseffektive emissionsreduktioner og lavemissionsinvesteringer (forhandling)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Ian Duncan im Namen des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit über die Kosteneffizienz von Emissionsminderungsmaßnahmen und Investitionen in CO2-effiziente Technologien (A8-0003/2017).

  Ian Duncan, rapporteur. – Mr President, let me begin by thanking each of my shadows who have brought us to this particular point, to Mr Belet, to Ms Guteland, Mr Gerbrandy, Mr Eickhout, Ms Konečná and Ms Evi. I did not believe we would get here if I am being very frank. Just before Christmas, when we were contemplating this being a committee vote, I really did not think we had the vote at all. And yet, lo and behold, here we are. And coincidentally, it is my birthday. It is not for me to suggest that passing this would be a perfect birthday present. But I might just hint that that would be a useful thing for us to be doing tonight.

It is important to stress again that is 197 days since I was given this particular dossier to move forward. Many of you here will remember I resigned as well during that process but you did not accept my resignation. So here I stand and again I am very appreciative of all who helped that be achieved. I should also again give thanks to the former chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr La Via, whose wise counsel at various points stopped me going slightly off the rails, which was very helpful. I should also of course, as I look toward the front of the room and I see in the form of Mr Cañete, a gentleman I once described as the Father Christmas of the College of Commissioners because again he brought back from Paris quite an extraordinary agreement. And let us keep to the fore of our minds during both this debate and the vote that follows that we have indeed got to stick with Paris. How do we ensure that we can stop the rise in the temperature of the globe? It is a simple as that. We often lose sight of it, and I have more than once lost sight of it, in various amendments, in various elements of this particular package. But what we are really focused upon, and I believe we must be focused upon, is making Paris a reality.

I know that the Council conclusions are not there yet. I know the Council is not yet ready to embrace this; but they will because they have to. And I hope that the agreement that we secure by passing this report will help move it in that direction, will help remind those Member States they have a commitment which they have signed up to, that we must deliver against the Paris ambitions.

It is also important for me to stress each of the elements of the package. I have been describing it to others a bit like a Jenga tower. I am not sure if Jenga exists in all the Member States of the EU but broadly, it is a tower of various blocks, and again the game is for you to pull out different blocks, hoping that the whole thing does not topple over. Well here we are folks. The question is which blocks are you going to try and pull out of the agreement right now and will the tower remain standing? I do not know the answer to that. That rests, I suspect, more in your hands than it does in mine. But what I do stress is as you pull out each block, just remember: if that tower topples, we have to rebuild it and we will rebuild it in a much less favourable climate, literally, and will also rebuild it in a much more challenging way. So please be under no illusion, when you are considering which amendments you wish to pull out or push in, that we need to deliver a package that works for everyone together. It is important, I suspect, for all of us here; each of us has particular constituencies and constituency issues, but nonetheless we must come together to deliver what is required for the climate and indeed for the European Union.

Let me also stress that we must make sure that the agreement is Brexit proof. But I will say no more about that but leave that for the negotiations themselves. This is bigger than Brexit, it is bigger that the EU. Let us get it right.

Final point again. I have been very blessed by an assistant system called Ross McKenzie, who helped me deliver this particular package. He is soon to be leaving my team, which I think is a bit of a shame. But nonetheless I am hoping through trilogue that we will continue to make progress.

So let me conclude by saying: this is the time to get it right. We have got to pass this and I hope with all your support we can do that very thing.

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Kollege Duncan. Ich spreche für das ganze Haus, wenn ich Ihnen hier herzlich zum Geburtstag gratuliere. Versprechungen über Geschenke in Form von Entschließungsanträgen kann der Vorsitz aber nicht machen.

  Fredrick Federley, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I can reassure the House that the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr Duncan, has been so focused on this report that when I texted him at about seven o’clock this morning and said ‘Congratulations’, he replied ‘The report is not through the house yet.’ Then I said ‘Isn’t it your birthday?’ He had forgotten about that and was all focused on the Emissions Trading System (ETS).

As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy in respect of its opinion and shared competences on a few of the sections relating to the EU ETS, I must say that I am pleased by the team’s devotion to delivering a broad majority in committee, where the report was supported by more than 80% percent of the members, as one of the main tasks for us was to make sure we did not trigger the cross-sectoral correction factor and that we did deliver a strong voice for the forthcoming negotiations in the Environment Committee. We can see that we have done that. The vast majority of the proposals we had in the Industry Committee’s opinion were actually accepted and on board in the Environment Committee proposal, and we are grateful for that and also for the cooperation we had with the Environment Committee team.

It is good that we made sure to keep the carrot in front of the industry. They were pushing for more innovation but, at the same time, it is a fragile proposal, as Ian Duncan was saying. If we start taking bits and pieces out of this, it will not add up in the end. We will not create stable conditions for industry, and we will not meet the climate targets.

In my last few seconds I would like to call upon my colleagues to make sure that we deliver a broad majority for a strong proposal and do not take it apart during the vote on Wednesday.

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, when Father Christmas scrutinises the behaviour of the children, you can be sure that Mr Duncan’s conduct this year will be taken very seriously because, Mr Duncan, you have done excellent work, unbelievable work, and I congratulate you and all the co-rapporteurs who have worked on this exercise because you have delivered a very ambitious report.

Also, as you said, we live in crucial times for climate policies, and following the historic achievement of the Paris Agreement, the European Union now needs to lead from the front. We need to deliver and put our commitments into a clear and binding framework.

The Commission has put several legal proposals on the table of the co-legislator, but the revision of the emissions trading system (ETS) was the first and has been debated the longest. The heads of state and government agreed in 2014 that the ETS is the European Union’s flagship climate policy and it is now time to show our citizens, our businesses, our society and the world that we are serious about making the ETS fit to meet our Paris commitments and our 2030 climate and energy targets.

We need to learn from experience and agree on a workable system that will do three things simultaneously: deliver the required emission reductions in a cost-efficient manner; protect vulnerable sectors in European Union industry; and support the clean energy transition where most needed.

This is the only way for the European Union to be credible when we are discussing with China, South Korea, Mexico and other G20 countries about carbon pricing and carbon markets. This is the only way to lead by example, showing how to drive emission reductions at the least cost to the economy, creating new opportunities for jobs and growth through innovation, and maintaining a competitive edge in Europe. Parliament has been working on this important file for more than a year and I am pleased to see the report is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday.

Forging agreement on the different aspects of the European Union ETS revision has been a very challenging task. I therefore again express my gratitude for the fine work undertaken by many of you present here this evening in Parliament. Multiple committees have been actively involved in the process. All views and angles have been discussed and weighed. The same topics are being discussed with Member States in Council. On some issues we can see signs of convergence between the co-legislators, which will be helpful in defining the final deal later on.

The Council is also busy working towards establishing its position, enabling it to enter into interinstitutional negotiations. I am convinced that the political momentum is there to take decisions that will enable both co-legislators to start discussions. We need to bear in mind three key aspects which the revised ETS Directive must deliver and I welcome the fact that Parliament intends to send strong signals on all of these.

Firstly, we need to ensure that the ETS is fit to deliver the emission reductions to honour our Paris commitments, and Parliament is sending a clear message on the need to strengthen the European Union ETS via the doubling of the feeding rate of the market stability reserve. I see the importance of considering measures to strengthen the EU ETS which can ensure the carbon market functions and delivers the necessary emission reduction and innovation incentives. This is to restore the role we all want the ETS to play.

Secondly, we want to continue to build on our success in preserving the competitiveness of our industry and avoid the carbon-leakage risk and Parliament is enhancing in many ways the aspects of the Commission proposal catering for our businesses. We see the merit of the overarching objective of these amendments.

A notable aspect of this is the update of the benchmarks for free allocation. The report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety keeps the architecture of the Commission proposal with the flat rates and further enhances the role of verified data. It therefore rewards faster moving sectors by setting a maximum contribution and it ensures that the slower moving sectors also play their part by requiring a minimum contribution of 0.25%.

Last but definitely not least, we want to increase the innovative power of the European Union ETS as a driver for investment in low-carbon technologies, and Parliament is discussing to send a clear signal on the need to boost the Innovation Fund for the benefit of European companies and to ensure that the Modernisation Fund spurs decarbonisation in lower-income Member States. When looking at these funds we need to be mindful of their effects on Member States auction revenues and favour elements that would bring the Council and Parliament together.

Thus Parliament is on track to set a constructive agenda for the interinstitutional negotiations. I encourage Members of the European Parliament to be constructive and to take the final step on Wednesday. This will give Parliament a united and a strong voice in the negotiations with the Council.

  Florent Marcellesi, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Desarrollo. – Señor presidente, la reforma del sistema de mercado del carbono nos deja una sensación agridulce. Agria, por un lado, porque desde un punto de vista de la Comisión de Desarrollo no ha incluido puntos muy importantes para nosotras y nosotros, como pueden ser, por ejemplo, la revisión completa del sistema en 2018 y, sobre todo, una asignación económica específica para el Fondo Climático Internacional, porque sabemos perfectamente que los países del sur son los que menos han contribuido al cambio climático y los que más lo están sufriendo.

Por otro lado, también algo más dulce –digo solamente «algo» más dulce– porque la reforma que se propone, por lo menos propone suprimir las asignaciones gratuitas de derechos de emisiones para el cemento, y limpia la llamada lista «de fuga de carbono» por la que las empresas pueden ir fuera de Europa para seguir contaminando.

Desde luego, no es el acuerdo soñado, pero, siempre y cuando no aceptemos las pretensiones del lobby cementero, es un primer paso en la dirección correcta para cumplir con el Acuerdo de París.

  Ivo Belet, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to wish the rapporteur, Ian Duncan, a happy birthday and to congratulate him on accomplishing an extremely complicated effort with a combination of intelligence, flair and contagious Scottish humour. Thank you very much for that, Mr Duncan.

This reform is key in terms of our commitment to the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It gives incentives to stakeholders from industry and the power sector, and it supports the best performers – those performers that strive for innovative and sustainable production techniques. But, at the same time, the new Emissions Trading System (ETS) and, in particular, the additions made during the vote by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, give guarantees to those sectors that are confronted with fierce international competition.

Currently, a lot of attention is focused on the so-called carbon adjustment mechanism and, in particular, the fact that it will be targeted on particular sectors such as lime and cement. You will not be astonished if we say that we are not in favour of this particular proposal for several reasons. One reason is that it would be damaging for those cement and lime producers which export to countries outside the European Union. What is worse is that it would be implemented by means of a delegated act. For every true Member of this Parliament, I think that should be a no-go. Therefore we propose to support the proposal adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which is moderate and could be acceptable to all. Let us not forget that the cement sector continues to fall under the general system, meaning that the allowances will be attributed only to the 10% of best performers.

So, as the Commissioner has said, the momentum is there to find a broad majority for a robust and balanced ETS. Let us choose the moderate option. Let us not jeopardise this proposal by focusing on one particular sector.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – You have mentioned some issues on which you disagree, and I have said that I agree with what you had expressed previously. However, do you not think that the Commission ought to be more ambitious and more in line with the goal of 1.5 degrees, set in Paris? This would be good for all of humanity, for all of mankind. As we speak now, there are islands that are disappearing – sinking. The water is going to cover them largely because of inaction.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), blue-card answer. – As I made clear at the beginning of my speech, this is about implementing the Paris Agreement – and not just the building sector, the transportation sector and the agricultural sector but also, of course, industry and the power sector have to implement what we agreed in Paris. Therefore, I must mention again that there is a lot of ambition in this proposal: what the Commission has proposed, the linear reduction factor of 2.2%, is much more ambitious than what we have now.

And do not forget the Market Stability Reserve (MSR). I was a rapporteur on the MSR a few months ago, and the level of ambition now contained in this proposal is much higher than what we proposed a few months or a year ago, even if the MSR is not yet operational. Supporting that ambition is a very important aspect of this.

  Jytte Guteland, för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack till föredraganden Duncan för både ditt vänliga sätt att leda arbetet och för all den humor du har visat och ett stort grattis på födelsedagen. Jag hoppas att övriga grupper också lyssnar till dina viktiga uppmaningar inför omröstningen om att hålla samman denna kompromiss.

På onsdag kommer Europa att bekänna färg. Vi har en historisk möjlighet att visa att vi menar allvar med vårt arbete mot klimatförändringarna och den globala uppvärmningen. Vi har chansen att visa nu att Europa menar allvar, att vi vill ta ledarskapet för ett hållbart klimatsmart samhälle, byggt med nya fossilfria och smarta tekniker i världsklass, att vi förstår att ett bra klimatarbete och ekonomisk tillväxt inte är motsatser, utan tvärtom hör samman och är beroende av varandra.

Utsläppshandeln ETS är EU:s enskilt viktigaste klimatpolitiska verktyg för att minska utsläppen av koldioxid. ETS är helt centralt för att vi ska lyckas. Det innebär att ETS nu spelar en nyckelroll, inte bara för Europa utan också för världen och för hur vi ska leva upp till Parisavtalets ambitioner att begränsa temperaturökningen till väl under två grader.

ETS är inget perfekt system. Det är ingen av oss som säger det. Vi har under årens lopp sett en rad fel och brister i det här systemet som måste åtgärdas, men det är det vi ger oss på nu, för ett starkt system som levererar.

För oss socialdemokrater har det varit tre principer som har varit vägledande: 1) att se till att ETS verkligen läggs i linje med Parisavtalet och levererar för klimatet, 2) att det är mer rättvist och precist för industrin, så vi får bort de obalanser vi har sett i det historiska ETS och 3) att vi också ser till att arbetare får chansen att vara med i omställningen till ett klimatsmartare samhälle, så att det blir rättvist.

För oss socialdemokrater är ETS den enskilt viktigaste delen för att leverera efter Paris. För att göra det måste vi spräcka utsläppsbubblan och då måste utsläppsrätterna minska med minst 2,4 procent varje år.

2) samtidigt är det viktigt för oss att industrin ges rätt verktyg för att ställa om till en klimatsmart produktion utan att tappa konkurrenskraft, utan tvärtom stärkas. Därför ger vi mer pengar till innovation så att företag kan investera i grönare lösningar.

3) Det är också viktigt att klimatomställningen är solidarisk och inte ökar klassklyftorna. Det får inte bli så att de som redan har minst är de som hamnar på efterkälken när samhället moderniseras och blir klimatsmartare. Därför kräver vi socialdemokrater en särskild social omställningsfond som ger ett stöd för att arbetare i alla sektorer och regioner som omfattas ska kunna följa med i den här viktiga omställningen i samhället.

Omröstningen på onsdag är ett elddop för EU:s klimatarbete. Det är nu EU måste visa att man är villig att agera inte bara med vackra ord, utan också med konkreta åtgärder så att Parismålen hålls.

För oss socialdemokrater är det här en självklarhet och inför omröstningen på onsdag finns det en överenskommelse som alla politiska grupper skrivit under. Det är en kompromiss där alla får ge och ta, men som förhandlare för den socialdemokratiska gruppen så vet jag hur känslig en sån här kompromiss är.

Vi tar ansvar nu och står upp för kompromissen och tycker det är viktigt på onsdag. Vi står upp för klimatet och ser till att ETS blir den klimatlagstiftning den ska vara och det här är så viktigt så nu fick jag mitt sista ord ... (talmannen avbröt talaren)

  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in the ECR we are firm proponents of market-based mechanisms and there are many positive elements in the agreement reached by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I do not accept the analysis that you have to agree with them all at this stage in plenary, because there are a few things that are not so good. One in particular for us is the issue of Member States having final say over the use of their receipts from this scheme. In order to ensure their continued commitment, we would be rejecting the issues of fiscal sovereignty.

I firmly believe that any legislation should be based on robust evidence. Parliament should not simply add new components that have not been impact-assessed. If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gases, then the policy framework must be evidence-based and encourage industry to invest in low-carbon technology. Moving the goalposts or, at worst, scoring an own goal, will not do any good in lowering emissions in the long run.

We are particularly concerned about the late inclusion of a border-adjustment mechanism, added days before the vote in the Environment Committee, with no study on its impacts or costs. For the ECR, this is not the way to protect against carbon leakage. Indeed, the provision of free allocations for those sectors most at risk is the best way forward.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, ‘it is not always enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what is required’. With these words attributed to Winston Churchill, Secretary of State John Kerry made a very impressive speech in Marrakesh during the COP 22 last year. He made absolutely clear that we have to do what is required instead of just doing our best.

Those words went through my head many times during our negotiations. Are we doing our best or are we doing what is required? I am afraid we have not done that. Yes, we did improve the original Commission proposal here and there. We increased the ambition with a higher linear reduction factor. We do intend to cancel 800 million allowances and we found a way to limit the amount of free allowances given to industrial sectors with low trade intensity without endangering their competitiveness internationally.

But we have to be honest; we also watered-down parts of the original proposal. We lowered the annual benchmark, we lowered the threshold for qualitative assessment and we opened a door to lower the auction share.

The package that came out of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for me, is far from ideal, but it is the best that we could get out of it. Does it pass the Churchill test? Is it doing what is required? I doubt it.

Let us make clear what is in the Paris Agreement: two degrees and even if possible stay close to the one point five degrees. Two degrees means that we have only 20 years left of current global emissions. One point five degrees, we have less than five years left. That is close to nothing. To those who simply and only want to do their best, please vote Wednesday in favour of the total Environment Committee package without any amendments. Stick to it and you are not doing what is required; you are only doing your best.

  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, předně mi dovolte poděkovat nejenom zpravodaji, panu Duncanovi, ale především všem kolegům, protože byť ta jednání byla velmi dlouhá, někdy docela tichá, tak si myslím, že byla nakonec velmi konkrétní a věcná, a ukázali jsme, že umíme spolupracovat, když jde o dobrou věc.

Nicméně nyní se nacházíme v kritickém okamžiku. Nebudu tady sáhodlouze rozebírat veškerá pozitiva či negativa, která předložený dokument má. Všichni jsme po hlasování ve výboru ENVI věděli, že přijatý text asi plně neuspokojí žádný tábor. Na jedné straně tady máme řadu skvělých opatření, které povedou ke zvýšení ceny povolenky a k omezení emisí CO2, jako nové LRF, vyšší odtok do MSR, škrtnutí 800 milionů povolenek apod. Na stranu druhou opatření chránící případný nárůst průmyslové výroby v EU či výjimky z aplikace korekčního faktoru pro sektory nejvíce ohrožené únikem uhlíku. Při pohledu na předložené pozměňující návrhy mě napadá, že se lze bavit o drobnostech, nicméně ve zbytku bych volala po umírněnosti. Každá strana musela někam couvnout. Ale obávám se, že nejsme schopni teď a tady tuto vybalancovanou dohodu z výboru ENVI na plénu jakýmkoli způsobem přepracovat. Politika je prostě umění možného. A silný mandát na Radě nám dá jen silný mandát z pléna. Jako dárek k narozeninám bych svému kolegovi přála, aby dostal tu silnou a pevnou věž bez toho, aby z ní někdo vytáhl nějaké kostičky.

  President. – We have noticed up here that you cannot see the time while you are speaking. The technical services are trying to change this. After two-and-a-half minutes, I will just hammer and you will hear that.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to refer back to December 2015 when everyone in this room was applauding the Paris Agreement. As a Green, I was happy to see how from the left to the right of Parliament they were embracing Paris. Well, we are now discussing the only climate tool we have for European industry. That is what we are discussing here, so this is now the moment when all those nice words on Paris should be translated into action.

Let us see what those words were worth, because we know that the current system is not functioning well enough and that is why, for example, one of the crucial elements is raising the linear reduction factor, which brings us a bit closer to Paris, just a bit. We are now at the low end of the two degree scenario. So that is what we are doing.

Anyhow, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety they managed to strike a deal spanning the political groups, from GUE to ECR – a broad agreement in the Environment Committee – and they all said yes to this package, and yes, it has higher ambition, which makes it good for us, but it also has a lot of additional protection for industry. It protects, in addition, the fertiliser and the steel sector. It has a higher innovation fund. It gives new benchmarks. It provides a compensation fund for indirect costs; all kinds of things added. This has all been put together now, and yet this package is being attacked again. Why? Because of one sector which is complaining.

Maybe, first, everyone should realise that the rule is auctioning. When we single out sectors we do that by making them free allowances. That is singling out. We want to do that for those sectors which have international competition. Looking at the cement sector, they have increased their exports because of the free allowances. They halted their innovation because they are dependent on those free allowances and therefore keep to high carbon cement, and they earned windfall profits of EUR five billion in the last phase.

That is what cement did with innovation, and that is what we are now going to address. We will put them back where they belong, outside free allocation. But we are giving them an alternative and that is the border adjustment measure. We are giving an alternative. We do not leave them on their own. That is exactly what we are doing. It is a balanced package and this will help us not to trigger the cross-sectoral correction factor, because now the real sectors deserving free allowances will get them, and that is what we should do.

  Eleonora Evi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in questi mesi di lavoro sul file ETS abbiamo dedicato moltissimo tempo ad approfondire le problematiche a cui vanno incontro le industrie: i codici commerciali, le complesse operazioni di calcolo per l'assegnazione delle quote gratuite, i vari fondi di compensazione e di innovazione. Ma è stato scarsissimo il dibattito sulla reale efficacia dell’ETS nel ridurre le emissioni.

Nessuno ci ha spiegato, ad esempio, in che modo possiamo essere sicuri che applicando una diminuzione percentuale, il cosiddetto fattore di riduzione lineare, ovvero la riduzione graduale delle quote di emissione assegnate agli impianti, si ottenga una reale riduzione delle emissioni. Ripeto una reale riduzione e non virtuale. Infatti, dato che le emissioni reali sono note solo l'anno successivo a quando avvengono, l'unica certezza che si può avere è che gli impianti che emettono più di quanto gli è concesso dovranno semplicemente acquistare permessi di emissioni supplementari a quelli ricevuti precedentemente. Ecco a voi l'applicazione più assurda, folle e distorta del principio “chi inquina paga”. Ma consoliamoci visto che almeno l’ETS produce dei soldi con la vendita delle quote. Ma chi spera che questi soldi vengano utilizzati per finanziare interventi di compensazione delle emissioni che sono già in atmosfera, si sbaglia, è solo un'illusione, non c'è nessun obbligo per gli Stati membri su questo.

Per non parlare della compravendita dei titoli sul mercato finanziario, che continuerà a rappresentare un mero profitto per gli speculatori. Ma c'è di più: abbiamo chiesto all'industria quale prezzo della CO2 fosse conveniente, secondo loro, investire in miglioramenti strutturali per applicare le migliori tecnologie, considerando un prezzo della CO2 soggetto a fluttuazioni. Tutti, nessuno escluso, hanno ammesso di non essere in grado di fare queste valutazioni e di non essere incentivati a fare investimenti importanti in mancanza di stabilità. Ma l’ETS non doveva incentivare l'innovazione a basso contenuto di carbonio? Insomma, il sistema non funziona. Dal nostro punto di vista dei target più ambiziosi e vincolanti su rinnovabili, efficienza e risparmi energetici potrebbero portare risultati molto più concreti e immediati.

  Mireille D’Ornano, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, nous rejetons la réforme relative aux quotas d’émission de gaz à effet de serre, aussi bien pour des raisons juridiques que sur son principe.

Nous n’acceptons pas le renforcement des prérogatives de la Commission ni l’inclusion des secteurs maritimes et aériens internationaux au mépris des compétences de l’Organisation maritime internationale et de l’Organisation de l’aviation civile internationale. Sur le principe, ces nouvelles contraintes liées aux émissions doperont la concurrence effrénée d’États à bas coût, souvent peu scrupuleux en matière environnementale.

En surcapacité de 350 millions de tonnes, l’acier chinois inonde déjà le marché de l’Union européenne, qui est importatrice nette depuis 2015. La France ayant déjà perdu 900 000 emplois industriels en quinze ans, nous ne souhaitons pas nous associer à cette réforme qui risque de sonner le glas de notre industrie, ainsi que des 437 hauts-fourneaux du secteur de l’acier européen.

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, I would like to wish Mr Duncan a happy birthday. Mr Duncan, I am sorry that I cannot offer you a birthday present in terms of supporting what you have done, but I am grateful for the effort you have put in.

Let us just remind ourselves about the European Union’s Emissions Trading System and what it has brought about. Recognised as being one of the most flawed policy initiatives in history, since 2005 it has been a shameful litany of mismanagement, hidden subsidies, lobby power, environmental degradation, job losses, theft and fraud. One of my colleagues made a very important point: where is the risk analysis in all of this? Just think about the impact that this is going to have if it goes through – and I do not doubt it will. Creating an impetus for unemployment and exporting pollution are hardly two aspects that this organisation, the European Union, ought to be proud of. Neither is the inclusion in the system of, for instance, aviation and shipping – two pivotal elements in making food imports possible.

I am sorry, everyone: I will not be able to support this.

  Esther de Lange (PPE). – Thank you very much, Mr President. Thank you, congratulations also to the rapporteur, Ian Duncan, who is not listening but who chose a very unfortunate example of the Jenga tower. Mr Duncan, as it happens to be, I am my family’s...

(Interruption from the floor: ‘Ian, Ian’)

First of all, I congratulated you to your birthday, despite your very unfortunate example of the Jenga tower because, as it happens, I am my family’s Jenga champion, so I am available for a match at any time. I am confident, however, that on this issue I will not need too much of my Jenga skills because I do think that, with Frederick Federley’s opinion in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, we had a very good opinion which then served as a basis of the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

I have a whole list in front of me, of the elements of Frederick’s opinion that were then carried over to the Environment Committee report. I will mention just one of them, which is the free allowances – the 5% additional free allowances that are really, and should be, a key point to the entire Parliament. Hopefully we get broad support for that tomorrow, knowing that it is not very popular in Council.

On the border adjustment mechanism, it was never a secret and therefore cannot have come as a surprise that the EPP Group would prefer the broader and the fairer wording of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

You are looking at me very sternly Mr President but I had to start over again because the rapporteur was not paying attention.

Let me just still say two more things.

(Interjection from the President: ‘No, no, the rapporteur not listening does not change the Rules of Procedure’)

I was being nice to a colleague. Since we started working on this issue, the world has changed. We now have someone in America who could easily walk the road of climate scepticism. That means that we in Europe should choose leadership but that we also should not be naive. The others are playing hardball and therefore we should be prepared.

  Edouard Martin (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, au cours de ce débat, le groupe socialiste a été le seul à défendre l’alliance de trois ambitions: climatique, industrielle et sociale.

Une ambition climatique, d’abord. Contrairement à ce que fanfaronne la Commission, le système d’échange de quotas d’émission (SEQE) n’a pas permis jusqu’ici de décarboner notre économie à moindre coût. Les variations d’émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont venues principalement de la crise économique et de choix nationaux de transition énergétique indépendants du SEQE.

Tout le monde s’accorde à dire, d’ailleurs, que le prix actuel de la tonne de CO2 est très insuffisant pour encourager les investissements à faible intensité de carbone chez les industriels et les électriciens. Ce prix fortement déprimé répond aux gigantesques surplus de quotas dans le système – entre deux et trois milliards de tonnes. C’est pourquoi il est important, au nom de la cohérence avec les engagements que nous avons pris à Paris, de resserrer plus fortement le robinet en votant un facteur de réduction linéaire à 2,4 % et en supprimant un contingent de 800 millions de tonnes de quotas en surplus.

Une ambition industrielle, également. Je viens du monde ouvrier, je connais la qualité de nos industries et la compétence de nos travailleurs, mais il est faux de prétendre que c’est par la simple prolongation du statu quo, c’est-à-dire en distribuant largement des quotas gratuits, que l’on relancera les investissements. En effet, qu’ont fait les industriels des millions de quotas gratuits distribués souvent en excès? Bien souvent – trop souvent –, les produits de la vente de ces quotas reçus ont été directement dans la poche des actionnaires. Il faut donc mettre un terme à ces dérives. C’est tout l’objet des changements proposés, comme la distribution de quotas sur une base plus dynamique, la révision des critères de référence, un fonds d’investissement plus ambitieux ou encore, tout simplement, l’orientation obligatoire des surplus vers l’investissement.

Mais je pense qu’il est temps de passer à une méthode alternative de protection contre les flux de carbone. L’ajustement carbone aux frontières pour certains secteurs comme le ciment sera déterminant.

Notre ambition est aussi de soutenir la modernisation des producteurs d’électricité. Il est parfaitement légitime que l’Union européenne, dans une démarche de solidarité, finance un volet spécifique pour les pays économiquement moins avantagés, mais il est tout aussi légitime que ces sommes soient investies dans des projets énergétiques en accord avec notre feuille de route commune. Les nouveaux critères proposés permettront à tous les pays bénéficiaires de moderniser leur parc, même à la Pologne qui part effectivement de très loin pour sortir progressivement du charbon.

J’en finis, Madame la Présidente, en mentionnant aussi le fonds pour une transition juste en faveur des travailleurs.

PRÉSIDENCE: Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

  La Présidente. – J’ai bien compris qu’il y avait un problème d’affichage des temps de parole. Je vais essayer de me caler sur ce qu’a fait mon collègue Lambsdorff, c’est-à-dire de vous signaler que vous êtes au bout de votre intervention.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Voorzitter, om de CO2-uitstoot fors te verminderen, hebben we een emissiehandelssysteem nodig dat efficiënt, evenwichtig en innovatief is. Willen we het Akkoord van Parijs omzetten in de praktijk, dan moet de werking van de koolstofmarkt beter en efficiënter. Zo moeten we een robuustere prijs voor CO2—klimaatvriendelijke investeringen stimuleren en hierbij moeten we een belangrijk evenwicht creëren. De hervorming moet het klimaat en banen beschermen en dat is essentieel. We mogen van winnaars geen verliezers maken. Wanneer bedrijven uit Europa wegtrekken naar derde landen waar de klimaatregels minder strikt zijn, verliezen we twee keer: de banen zijn weg en we doen niets voor het klimaat.

Ook de sterke focus op innovatie is cruciaal. Een koolstofarm Europa bereik je niet alleen door een werkbaar systeem van emissierechten, maar vergt ook innovatieve oplossingen. Onze beleidskeuzes moeten duurzaam, efficiënt en effectief zijn, zodat ze decennialang kunnen meegaan. Wij willen met Vlaanderen en met Europa vooraan in het peloton rijden zonder een lekke band te krijgen. Deze hervorming is een stap in de goede richting en krijgt mijn steun.

  Σοφία Σακοράφα ( GUE/NGL). – Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, επισημαίνω τρία κρίσιμα προβλήματα που προκαλούν οι προτάσεις εξαίρεσης από τη λίστα κινδύνου διαρροής άνθρακα και η καθιέρωση ενός μηχανισμού αντιστάθμισης αγωγών με αδιευκρίνιστες δυνατότητες πρακτικής εφαρμογής τους. Πρώτον, η εξαίρεση του κλάδου τσιμέντου από τη λίστα θα καταστήσει μη ανταγωνιστικές τις εξαγωγές πολλών κρατών μελών απέναντι σε χώρες εκτός συστήματος. Ειδικότερα, η ελληνική τσιμεντοβιομηχανία, με 13.000 εργαζόμενους και ένταση εμπορίου 45%, δηλ. υπερπολλαπλάσια του ορίου του 10%, θα οδηγηθεί σε μαρασμό και εξαφάνιση. Δεύτερον, η επιλεξιμότητα χρηματοδότησης νέων έργων από το νεοσύστατο Ταμείο Εκσυγχρονισμού επιβάλλεται να βασίζεται στο 2015 ή το πολύ στο 2014 ώστε να αντανακλά την τρέχουσα οικονομική πραγματικότητα στα κράτη μέλη. Τρίτον και όσον αφορά την ένταξη της ναυτιλίας στο σύστημα εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπής, οποιαδήποτε ρύθμιση σε περιφερειακό επίπεδο ενδέχεται να έχει δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις στον κλάδο σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο. Στόχος μας θα πρέπει να είναι η έγκαιρη θεσμοθέτηση ανάλογου συστήματος σε επίπεδο Διεθνούς Ναυτιλιακού Οργανισμού. Για τα παραπάνω έχουμε καταθέσει τροπολογίες και θα παρακαλούσα για την ιδιαίτερη προσοχή των συναδέλφων και την υπερψήφιση τους.

  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Der vorliegende Bericht sieht vor, dass die energieintensiven Branchen der Stein- und keramischen Industrie von der Carbon-leakage-Liste gestrichen und dafür Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen eingeführt werden sollen. Hier sind Änderungen notwendig, und ich würde Ihnen gerne ein Beispiel nennen, warum diese Änderungen notwendig sind.

Der Erwerb von Emissionszertifikaten kostet allein die österreichische Zementindustrie 80 Mio. EUR im Jahr. Das ist eine Kostensteigerung von 20 % des Gesamtumsatzes der Branche, und das, obwohl die österreichische Zementindustrie laut World Business Council for Sustainable Development weltweit den niedrigsten CO2-Ausstoß und den mit Abstand höchsten Nutzungsgrad alternativer Brennstoffe ausweist und führend ist bei innovativen Technologien zur Emissionsreduktion. Dass unausgereifte und ungetestete Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen ausreichend Schutz und Kompensation vor Importen aus Drittstaaten bieten, darf bezweifelt werden. Es ist auch fraglich, ob diese Maßnahme überhaupt WTO-kompatibel ist.

Und eines ist klar: Die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Zement-, Kalk-, Ziegel- und Glasprodukten gegenüber Bau- und Grundstoffen sinkt, und der Preis für die Produkte steigt. Carbon leakage ist also auch investment leakage. Und das kostet Arbeitsplätze und Wachstum und bedeutet eine Schwächung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Unternehmen.

  Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Wenn das ETS richtig funktioniert, dann ist es ein starkes Instrument, um Investitionen in klimafreundliche Technologien auszulösen.

Damit helfen wir Klima und Arbeitsplätzen. Deswegen müssen wir das ETS stärken, die Preise müssen anziehen. Aber wir müssen auch klarstellen, dass die besten 10 % der Unternehmen, die investiert haben, dann auch sicher sind und nicht durch das ETS belastet werden. Beides tut der Bericht im Prinzip. Aber wir haben eine große Ausnahme bei Zement und einigen anderen Produkten, und das macht uns doch Bauchschmerzen. Deswegen möchten wir an dieser Stelle dringend eine Änderung.

Die Mechanismen, die vorgeschlagen wurden und die von einigen Kollegen jetzt unterstützt werden, stehen auf tönernen Füßen. Ob wir sie durchsetzen können, wissen wir nicht. Gleichzeitig wissen wir auch nicht, ob wir mit einem so eng zugeschnittenen Border Tax Adjustment nur für Zement, auf der Basis eines delegierten Rechtsakts, nicht zu kurz springen. Wenn wir das machen, dann sollten wir uns das vielleicht für den Fall vorbehalten, dass andere Nationen, wie die Vereinigten Staaten, komplett aus dem Klimaschutz aussteigen. Aber so ist es jedenfalls unausgereift, und deswegen bitte ich die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dringend, den Änderungsantrag 144 zu unterstützen. Dieser hat im Industrieausschuss auch die Unterstützung von Sozialdemokraten und von Liberalen gefunden. Also scheint er doch ganz vernünftig zu sein. Wenn wir da morgen eine Zustimmung haben, dann wird es eine breite Mehrheit für den Bericht geben und dann können wir alle zufrieden sein.

  Miriam Dalli (S&D). – L-ekonomija Ewropea s’issa wriet li kapaċi tirreġistra tkabbir ekonomiku filwaqt illi tinvesti fit-teknoloġija u l-innovazzjoni biex tnaqqas t-tniġġis; u ħafna mill-industriji Ewropej dan għarfuh, imma oħrajn għandhom bżonn l-inċentiv regolatorju biex jagħmlu dan il-pass b’mod effettiv.

L-ekonomija Ewropea trid tkun ibbażata fuq industrija mħaddma b’teknoloġija nadifa fejn min iniġġes jagħmel tajjeb għat-tniġġis li jikkawża. Fejn ikun hemm stabilità u prevedibilità għal setturi differenti għaliex huwa biss b’dan il-mod li jista’ jkollna setturi industrijali li jibqgħu kompetittivi u joħolqu aktar impjiegi.

Il-qbil li lħaqna, b’maġġoranza kbira fil-Kumitat tal-Ambjent, jirrifletti l-ftehim fuq soluzzjoni progressiva u bilanċjata li tista’ tibda tgħin l-ambjent u l-industrija. Ftehim delikat fejn ħaġa waħda torbot mal-oħra u fejn ċaqliq fuq kompromess jew ieħor se jkollu impatt dirett fuq il-pakkett finali. Irridu naċċertaw ruħna li ngħinu lill-industriji li jeħtieġu l-għajnuna imma ma nistgħux nibqgħu nippremjaw lil min qed jagħmel profitti kbar minn din is-sistema.

Irridu nassiguraw sistema li tgħinna nindirizzaw il-klima. Għalhekk li ma nistgħux nappoġġaw tentattivi li qed isiru biex idgħajfu dak li qbilna dwaru diġà. Min sa ftit tax-xhur ilu insista fuq il-ħtieġa li nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima u naċċertaw ruħna li l-ftehim ta’ Pariġi jidħol fis-seħħ, illum għandu l-opportunità li jimplimenta l-għodda biex dan isir mingħajr ma jdgħajjef il-ftehim milħuq.

Il-ftehim milħuq huwa bilanċ li jħares l-ambjent, il-kompetittività, il-ħolqien ta’ impjiegi u rwol ewlieni fit-tranżizzjoni lejn soċjetà “low-carbon” għal setturi importanti.

Appell tal-aħħar biex naċċertaw ruħna li nivvutaw favur pożizzjoni b’saħħitha u progressiva. Jekk ser indgħajfu idejn in-negozjaturi tal-Parlament minn issa se nispiċċaw b’sistema li tfalli u li ma tilħaqx l-għanijiet li twaqqfet għaliha.

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst einmal möchte ich auch dem Berichterstatter Ian Duncan dafür danken, dass er sich so eingesetzt hat. Happy birthday, Ian.

Ich möchte aber auch dem ITRE-Berichterstatter, Herrn Federley, für seinen Einsatz danken. Dass nun die Industrie gezwungen werden soll, jährlich statt 2,2 % – wie von der Kommission vorgeschlagen – 2,4 % pauschal einzusparen, muss der Rat unbedingt verhindern. Wir haben es ja gerade wieder gehört, es sind immer wieder die gleichen Abgeordneten, die hier über die Deindustrialisierung klagen und dann mit Umweltauflagen die Industrie in andere Regionen vertreiben. Es sind immer die gleichen Abgeordneten, die hier über die Arbeitslosigkeit in Europa jammern und dann über zu hohe Energiekosten ihren Beitrag dazu leisten, dass die Arbeitsplätze verschwinden.

Aber nicht nur das, meine Damen und Herren. Es sind eben oft auch die gleichen Kollegen, die sich hier laut für einen geringeren CO2-Ausstoß in der EU einsetzen und dann leise den weltweiten CO2-Ausstoß erhöhen. Denn angesichts der Globalisierung der Wirtschaft auf der einen Seite können wir doch nicht die Globalität des Klimaproblems auf der anderen Seite ignorieren. Schon heute werden in Europa Zement, Aluminium, Keramik, Stahl und Chemieprodukte zu wesentlich umweltfreundlicheren Bedingungen hergestellt als überall woanders in der Welt. Wenn wir die Herstellung solcher Produkte durch ein kostenträchtiges Emissionshandelssystem ins Ausland treiben, dann schaden wir ja nicht nur der europäischen Industrie und nicht nur europäischen Arbeitsplätzen, sondern wir schaden auch dem weltweiten Klima.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il relatore e tutti gli shadow rapporteur per l'impegno che hanno profuso in questo dossier. Un dossier complesso, un dossier nel quale tutti hanno collaborato per dare una visione di lungo periodo, migliorare la qualità dell'ambiente e contribuire con uno sforzo complessivo alla riduzione delle emissioni di carbonio.

Nel complesso abbiamo raggiunto un buon compromesso. Forse c'è ancora qualcosa da correggere per far sì che qualche settore possa trovare ancora spazio in Europa di crescita ma, dall'altro lato, la linea è segnata e credo e voglio invitare tutti i gruppi politici a sostenere col voto finale, qualunque siano le piccole modifiche apportate, un grande pacchetto legislativo che ci porta sulla strada dell'accordo di Parigi per raggiungere degli obiettivi di lungo periodo, ambiziosi, che abbiamo difeso in Parlamento e che dovremo continuare a negoziare col Consiglio, indicando una strada di lungo periodo che è una strada importante, quella della progressiva decarbonizzazione della nostra economia e un ambiente migliore, nel quale vogliamo far vivere i nostri figli e i nostri discendenti.

  Dan Nica (S&D). –Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, Directiva 2003/87/CE a instituit o schemă de comercializare a certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de seră în Uniune pentru a promova reducerile emisiilor de dioxid de carbon într-un mod rentabil și eficient din punct de vedere economic.

În actuala revizuire trebuie să ținem cont și de consolidarea durabilă a industriei Uniunii în ceea ce privește riscul de relocare a emisiilor de dioxid de carbon, a investițiilor și a locurilor de muncă.

Subliniez deci că, obiectivul directivei este acela de a realiza un nivel de reducere a emisiilor, astfel încât să nu existe relocări ale emisiilor de dioxid de carbon și ale investițiilor și a locurilor de muncă. Aș adăuga aici, care să nu crească artificial prețul energiei pentru consumatorii europeni, fie ei cetățeni, fie industria producătoare. Securitatea aprovizionării cu energie, alături de combaterea schimbărilor climatice, este un prim obiectiv politic atât european, cât și al statelor membre.

Revizuirea ETS trebuie să asigure un echilibru între reducerea emisiilor, situația economică reală a statelor membre, nevoia de dezvoltare a industriei, inclusiv sectorul energetic și a specificităților din diferitele state membre.

Avem nevoie de un cadru de reglementare predictibil, eficient și stabil pentru stimularea investițiilor în tehnologiile cu emisii scăzute de carbon, fără a afecta competitivitatea sectoarelor ETS și atingerea obiectivelor stabilite la Paris pentru reducerea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! EU ETS ma znaczenie dla przyszłości. Niestety kształtuje negatywny klimat inwestycyjny w Europie, ponieważ przedsiębiorcy nie wiedzą, jaka będzie cena uprawnień i w jaki sposób będą chronieni przed konkurencją państw trzecich. A ponadto w proponowanym kształcie EU ETS pogłębi ucieczkę emisji, a tym samym utratę miejsc pracy w Unii, a także pogorszy warunki bytowe ludzi żyjących w biedniejszych państwach.

Jednak są w tym sprawozdaniu również elementy pozytywne. Dziękuję za docenienie wagi ciepłownictwa sieciowego, o które zabiegałam.

Niestety zdecydowanie więcej jest w sprawozdaniu elementów, z którymi zgodzić się nie mogę. Przede wszystkim z restrykcyjnym podnoszeniem wskaźników redukcji emisji, sztucznym windowaniem ceny uprawnień, majstrowaniem przy rezerwie stabilności rynku i niezrozumiałym atakiem na sektor cementu, czy też z próbą ograniczania działania mechanizmów kompensacyjnych, które Rada przewidziała dla sektora energetycznego w biedniejszych państwach członkowskich.

  Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Przede wszystkim dziękuję bardzo sprawozdawcy i innym sprawozdawcom za ciężką pracę. To rzeczywiście bardzo ważne sprawozdanie. Zadecyduje nie tylko o spełnianiu naszych celów klimatycznych, ale także o tym, czy gospodarka europejska się obroni, zwłaszcza teraz, kiedy niektórzy najwięksi światowi emitenci chcą się wycofać ze zobowiązań paryskich.

Warto wrócić do rozwiązań, które zaproponowała Komisja Przemysłu. Muszę tu bardzo mocno podkreślić niektóre z tych rozwiązań, jak na przykład niezwiększanie liniowego współczynnika redukcji emisji, czy też konieczność bezpłatnych uprawnień dla producentów cementu. Bardzo ważne jest, abyśmy ten fundusz modernizacyjny, który jest ważny dla wielu państw, pozostawili w rękach państw beneficjentów z doradztwem Europejskiego Banku Inwestycyjnego. Powtarzam raz jeszcze, jeśli chcemy naprawdę wygrać walkę ze zmianami klimatu, na ochronę klimatu potrzebujemy gospodarczej siły Europy, a więc dbajmy o gospodarczą siłę Europy.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Det er kun under et halvt år siden, at vi her i Parlamentet ratificerede Paris-aftalen. Her tog vi imod Ban Ki-moon, og vi forpligtede EU på at reducere vores emissioner med mindst 40 % fra mod 2030. Og det er så nu, at vi skal levere på de forpligtelser, vi sagde ja til. Det kan vi kun gøre, hvis vi reformerer EU’s kvotehandelssystem. Vores målsætning bør være den, at det skal koste at forurene, det er den eneste måde at sikre, at virksomhederne har incitamenter til også at lave grønne investeringer. Lige nu er priserne så lave, at kvotehandelssystemet nærmest overhovedet ikke har nogen effekt. Det er ærgerligt, det er skidt for klimaet. Men det er vi ved at lave om på nu, og med det forslag, der ligger her fra Parlamentet, tager vi et rigtigt stort skridt i den rigtige retning. Der er ikke noget i dette system, der er perfekt, der er meget, der kunne være bedre, men ved at reformere kvotehandelssystemet går vi i den retning til fordel for klimaet. Vi reducerer antallet af kvoter med 2,4 %, og vi sikrer, at CO2-tilladelserne i 2021 rent faktisk kommer til at være tilpasset det faktiske emissioner, der kommer til at være i 2021. Samlet set vil det betyde, at vi får reduceret emissionerne, og at vi også sikrer, at vores industri bliver mere grøn. Det er nødvendigt, hvis vi skal levere på vores forpligtelser i henhold til Parisaftalen, det er nødvendigt, hvis vi skal sikre vort klima i fremtiden.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, l’accord de Paris sur le climat a eu le grand mérite d’ouvrir la voie à une prise de conscience internationale à l’égard du changement climatique, et j’espère que cela va durer.

Nous devons donc réduire notre empreinte carbone, sans quoi les conséquences pourraient être très graves. Ce marché des quotas d’émission joue à ce titre un rôle fondamental, puisqu’il va inciter les industries les plus polluantes à innover sans cesse et à réfléchir aux moyens d’avoir une croissance ancrée dans nos territoires et respectueuse de notre environnement.

L’industrie européenne est l’une des plus performantes au monde dans ce domaine et elle a déjà mis en œuvre des normes de plus en plus élevées. C’est pourquoi nous devons l’accompagner, parce qu’il ne faut pas la laisser s’étouffer face à la concurrence internationale et que des millions d’emplois en dépendent, et je ne peux pas consentir à laisser notre industrie en pâtir.

Polluer plus ailleurs, ce n’est pas une option. C’est pourquoi nous devons conduire une vraie stratégie industrielle, tout en menant une diplomatie climatique active. En tout cas, moi, j’attends aussi que les États membres s’engagent dans cette voie ambitieuse.

  Pilar Ayuso (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en 2003 aprobamos la Directiva de comercio de emisiones para que las reducciones de emisiones se pudieran hacer de una forma flexible, eficiente y sin exponer nuestra industria a la competencia desleal de terceros países.

Este tercer elemento es especialmente importante en la cuenca mediterránea, que está mucho más expuesta al tráfico marítimo y a la competencia de terceros países. Por poner ejemplos, podemos poner el cemento. Lo importante es no crear agravios comparativos entre sectores industriales por un fallo de diseño del sistema. Sé que la cuestión no es fácil, pero es necesario que existan las mismas condiciones, cargas y privilegios para sectores que tienen que competir en el mismo ámbito económico.

La cuestión de la sobreasignación queda resuelta en el informe mediante un mecanismo más dinámico de adaptación a los niveles de producción.

Creo que la colaboración de las comisiones ITRE y ENVI ha sido buena. Quiero felicitar al señor Duncan y, también, agradecer al señor Belet el gran esfuerzo que ha hecho dentro del Grupo PPE.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ehrgeizig zu sein, reicht alleine manchmal nicht, man muss auch vernünftige Lösungen finden. Und ich finde, das ist mit dem Projekt durchaus ganz gut gelungen. Es ist schon eine Riesenleistung, dass wir vom Parlament die Kraft aufbringen, fünf Prozent in der freien Zuteilung zu verändern. Das wird im Rat nicht einfach werden. Aber das ist eine Auseinandersetzung, die sich lohnt und die vernünftig getragen ist.

Weniger klug ist es, wenn man an einer Stelle ein neues Instrument einführt, das nicht geprüft ist und von dem man nicht weiß, ob es Wirkung hat, und damit einen Industriezweig trifft, der zumindest in Europa super Zahlen liefert. Es ist doch nicht klug, jemanden, der wirklich gute CO2-Zahlen liefert, wie der Zementbereich, jetzt noch zu sanktionieren, zu bestrafen. Insofern wäre meine Bitte, dass man an der Stelle wirklich nochmal korrigiert. Peter Liese hat das eben präzise beschrieben: Wir müssen versuchen, dieses Instrument, dieses marktwirtschaftliche Instrument so auszustatten, dass es funktioniert und auch der Industrie hilfreich ist.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. formand! (lyd mangler) … en vigtig beslutning, som kommer til afstemning på onsdag, og det er vigtigt, at Europa bevarer sin konkurrencekraft. Vi står med en bunden opgave med at reducere CO2-udledningen, og så må de bærende pragmatiske kræfter i Europa stå sammen med et klart signal om, at vi vil levere en mere bæredygtig industri og et bedre klima. Der bliver en reel pris på at forurene, og industrien får klare incitamenter til at forbedre og forny sig og får hjælp til det. Men ingen roser uden torne! At begynde at regulere shippingindustrien uden om IMO er direkte tåbeligt og skadeligt på lang sigt. Border ajustment mechanism, den er ikke forenelig med WTO, og det vil være meget skadeligt for cementindustrien – som også påpeget af andre kolleger – det håber vi, at ændringsforslaget kan rette op på.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Priekšsēdētājas kundze, kolēģi! Mums ir milzu izaicinājums Eiropā. No vienas puses, mums ir svarīgi, ka attīstās Eiropas ekonomika. Tajā pašā laikā mums ir nepieciešams samazināt CO2 izmešus. Mēs labi zinām, ka ļoti bieži šie divi mērķi ir pretrunā viens otram, jo, protams, — jo lielāka mums ir ekonomiskā aktivitāte, jo kaut kur mēs kaut ko vairāk dedzinām, un tas nāk par ļaunu tieši klimatam ar CO2 izmešiem.

Tas ir risinājums, kas ir izstrādāts emisijas tirdzniecības sistēmā. Mēs redzam, ka sistēma nav perfekta. Ja tā būtu perfekta, tad nebūtu atkal otrās reizes, kad mēs esam spiesti to mainīt. Un kas notiek, kad mēs mainām? Mēs zinām, ka ļoti daudz sanāk tādi politiski kompromisi, kuri varbūt ir, bet varbūt nav klimata interesēs un/vai ekonomikas interesēs.

Tātad, tas mērķis ir — ko mēs vēl varētu darīt, lai gan industrija attīstītos, gan klimatam nebūtu slikti.

Kolēģi, es saredzu tikai vienu ilgtermiņa risinājumu. Nākamreiz es aicinu Komisiju, ka tad, kad mēs atkal konstatēsim, ka ET sistēma nedara to, ko mēs gribētu, lai tā dara, nopietni izsvērt oglekļa nodokli kā iespējamu risinājumu. Vērsties prom nevis no procesa, bet uz gatavo produktu: caurspīdīgu, vienkārši pielietojamu sistēmu. Tas, kas ir vajadzīgs, ir mazāk politikas. Paldies!

Interventions à la demande

  Ivica Tolić (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, svjesni smo i suglasni o potrebi zaštite zdravog okoliša i nužnosti borbe protiv klimatskih promjena, no moramo biti svjesni nužnosti i pronalaska održivog balansa između zaštite okoliša i zaštite radnih mjesta u industriji u Europskoj uniji. Već učinjena dislokacija industrije izazvala je štetu za industrijski potencijal i zatvaranje brojnih radnih mjesta u Europskoj uniji.

Neki amandmani u izvješću vrlo su štetni, posebno 12. i 84., za cementni sektor u Republici Hrvatskoj te bi prouzročili zatvaranje svih tvornica i gašenje 3000 radnih mjesta. I to u korist konkurentskih, trećih zemalja, na rubu Europske unije, koje jednako zagađuju europski zrak, a nemaju nikakvih ograničenja. Industrija cementa najviše je na udaru, ne samo u Hrvatskoj, nego i u drugim zemljama: Portugalu, Španjolskoj, Italiji, Grčkoj, Estoniji i Irskoj.

Osim cementne industrije, ugrožena će biti industrija čelika jer su mjerila i standardi koje postavljamo u ovom trenutku pred industriju, tehnički nedohvativi, te bi njihovu profitabilnost doveli u pitanje.

  José Blanco López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, lo que hoy debatimos y esta semana votamos es la clave de bóveda del sistema de reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, de emisiones contaminantes. El RCDE debe ser un instrumento ambicioso para cumplir los objetivos de lucha contra el cambio climático; debe servir de acicate a las industrias para desarrollar tecnologías punta en reducción de emisiones; debe servir para reforzar el liderazgo europeo en la lucha contra el calentamiento global.

Sí, todo ello es cierto. Pero nuestra obligación es promover normas que aseguren condiciones equilibradas para los sectores industriales afectados; nuestra obligación es promover la actividad económica, el empleo y la competitividad de nuestra industria, al tiempo que incentivamos su capacidad innovadora para reducir sus emisiones.

Por lo tanto, ambición y equilibrio. Y ese, desde luego, fue el propósito de alguna de las enmiendas que yo presenté en la Comisión ITRE. Si alguna de ellas recuperamos, recuperaremos también la ambición y el equilibrio.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Voorzitter, maar hoe moet het Europees emissiehandelssysteem er na 2020 uitzien? Wel, ik ben in ieder geval blij dat de Milieucommissie de voorstellen van de Europese Commissie heeft aangescherpt. Want het huidige voorschot aan rechten doet denken aan de melkplassen en de boterbergen van weleer en dat was eigenlijk een teken van falend Europees beleid. Die kant moet het dus niet op.

Ook de scheepvaart kan niet langer buiten spel blijven. Ik verkies een mondiale regeling maar ik steun ook wel de stok achter de deur die nu is opgenomen in de tekst. De scheepvaartsector heeft tot 2021 de tijd om in het kader van de Internationale Maritieme Organisatie tot een wereldwijde afspraak te komen voor de reductie van CO2, maar gaat dat niet lukken, dan gaat de Europese Unie dat oppakken.

De luchtvaart heeft in 2016 afspraken gemaakt over een wereldwijd emissiehandelssysteem dat in 2020 vrijwillig begint en in 2027 verplicht wordt. Ook hier moet Europa vooroplopen, rechten veilen en uitstoot verminderen.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης ( GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, δυστυχώς, αντί να έχει πρωταρχικό στόχο την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και την ενίσχυση της ποιότητας ζωής των ανθρώπων, το Σύστημα Εμπορίας Εκπομπών επιδιώκει, στην πραγματικότητα, την παροχή δωρεάν δικαιωμάτων στις μεγάλες βιομηχανίες, ως κίνητρο για να παραμείνουν στην Ένωση. Δεν θα στηρίξουμε λοιπόν την εμπορευματοποίηση των εκπομπών που, σε τελική ανάλυση, ευνοεί τις μεγάλες πολυεθνικές για να αυξάνουν τα κέρδη τους, παρόλο που αυτοί είναι και οι κύριοι υπαίτιοι των κλιματικών αλλαγών. Δεν θα στηρίξουμε ένα σύστημα που, όπως έχει αποδειχθεί, σε καμιά περίπτωση δεν συμβάλλει στη μείωση των εκπομπών. Ιδιαίτερα δε όταν σήμερα, εν μέσω οικονομικής κρίσης, θα έπρεπε να στηρίζονται οι μικρομεσαίες τοπικές βιομηχανίες, ιδιαίτερα στα κράτη της Νότιας Ευρώπης, που έχουν πληγεί περισσότερο από τα μνημόνια και τις πολιτικές λιτότητας. Για αυτό και καταθέσαμε συγκεκριμένη τροπολογία για προστασία της τσιμεντοβιομηχανίας που στον Νότο αποτελεί μια από τις κύριες εξαγωγικές βιομηχανίες, για να προστατεύσουμε χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας, προστατεύοντας ταυτόχρονα το περιβάλλον. Διότι, σε αντίθετη περίπτωση, δίνουμε πλεονέκτημα στις βιομηχανίες από τις τρίτες χώρες.

  Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospođo predsjednice, poštovane kolegice i kolege, prije četiri mjeseca smo u ovoj istoj dvorani usvojili Rezoluciju kojom smo potpisali, odnosno prihvatili, Pariški sporazum i omogućili da on stupi na snagu.

Što nam zapravo ovaj sustav trgovanja emisijama pruža? Ako imamo jedan robustan i stabilan sustav, zapravo smo osigurali način financiranja da osiguramo tu tranziciju s prljave energije na čistu energiju. Međutim, ja bih se osvrnuo sada na posljedice, odnosno na modernizacijski fond, koji treba omogućiti da se ta tranzicija i dogodi.

Tu bih skrenuo pažnju našem cijenjenom povjereniku Cañeteu na ono što se zapravo događa u Europskoj uniji. Dakle, svi moramo na jednaki način sudjelovati u smanjenju emisija CO2, bez obzira u kojoj državi članici živimo. Međutim, ako idemo gledati nerazvijene države članice u istočnoj i jugoistočnoj Europi, kapitalne investicije u čistu tehnologiju i obnovljive izvore energije su puno veće nego u drugim državama članicama. Dakle, jedan neravnopravni odnos kada govorimo o investicijama u čistu energiju.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η πρόταση της Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος για μείωση των εκπομπών έως 40% μέχρι το 2030 για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση περιλαμβάνει, μεταξύ άλλων, εξαίρεση του τσιμέντου από τον κατάλογο κινδύνου διαρροής άνθρακος, καθώς επίσης και την εγκατάσταση στο μέλλον ενός μηχανισμού αντισταθμίσεως για τους εισαγωγείς. Εάν γίνει δεκτή αυτή η πρόταση, θα υπάρξει μεγάλο πρόβλημα στον κλάδο παραγωγής και εμπορίας τσιμέντου, διότι, θεσπίζοντας αυστηρούς κανόνες μειώσεως των εκπομπών στις ανεπτυγμένες χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως, δημιουργούμε τη διαρροή άνθρακος, δηλαδή τη μετακίνηση παραγωγής σε άλλες χώρες για τις οποίες δεν ισχύουν αυτοί οι αυστηροί περιορισμοί και οι οποίες γίνονται άρα περισσότερο ανταγωνιστικές. Κάτι τέτοιο θα έχει καταστρεπτικές συνέπειες για την τσιμεντοβιομηχανία της Ευρώπης και κυρίως για εκείνη της Ελλάδος, διότι θα τεθεί σε κίνδυνο η λειτουργία τεσσάρων ή και πέντε από τα έξι εργοστάσια παραγωγής τσιμέντου στη χώρα, κάτι το οποίο δεν πρέπει να συμβεί διότι θα χαθούν πολλές χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας. Καταψηφίζουμε συνεπώς αυτή την πρόταση, έστω και αν αυτό στεναχωρήσει τον αγαπητό εισηγητή που έχει σήμερα τα γενέθλιά του.

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen, verehrte Kollegen! Zunächst auch ein Happy Birthday an Ian Duncan und ein Dankeschön an ihn und alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die so intensiv an dem Dossier gearbeitet haben.

Ich sage Ja zum Klimaschutz, ich sage aber auch Ja zum Erhalt unserer Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union. Denn es nützt dem Klima gar nichts, wenn unsere Arbeitsplätze ins Ausland verlagert werden. Genau das aber würde drohen, wenn das Votum des Umweltausschusses zum sogenannten alternativen border adjustment im Plenum bestätigt werden wird. Diese Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen würden bestimmte Sektoren besonders hart treffen, unter anderem die Zementindustrie, die Ziegelindustrie und die Kalkindustrie. Diesen Werken droht die kostenfreie Zuteilung verlorenzugehen. Warum sollten wir gerade diese Industrien, diese Werke bestrafen und damit auch unsere Arbeitsplätze gefährden? Ich selbst habe ein Zementwerk oder mehrere Werke bei mir in der Wahlregion, wie viele andere Kollegen auch. Jedes Jahr besuche ich diese Werke und habe gesehen, was in Sachen Energieeffizienz, Prozessoptimierung und CO2-Minderung dort investiert wurde. Also: Bitte, lassen Sie uns dafür Sorge tragen, dass diese Industrien nicht abwandern!

  Νίκος Ανδρουλάκης ( S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση αποτελεί το πρώτο βήμα για την εκπλήρωση των στόχων που συμφωνήσαμε στην COP21 στο Παρίσι, για την αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Θέλω όμως να αναφερθώ σε ένα σημαντικό θέμα, το έτος βάσης που έχει τεθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την εισαγωγή στο Ταμείο Εκσυγχρονισμού. Η προϋπόθεση συμμετοχής μιας χώρας στο εν λόγω Ταμείο είναι να βρίσκεται το ΑΕΠ της κάτω από το 60% του ευρωπαϊκού μέσου όρου το 2013. Η Ελλάδα ήταν λίγο πάνω από το 60%, ενώ από το 2014 και μετά βρίσκεται κάτω από το όριο. Η επιλογή του 2013 ως έτος υπολογισμού για ένα Ταμείο που θα αρχίσει να λειτουργεί το 2021 δεν έχει καμία λογική και είναι βαθιά άδικη. Με την τροπολογία 149 που κατέθεσα, σε συνεργασία με Έλληνες συναδέλφους ευρωβουλευτές, ζητούμε να οριστούν το 2014 και το 2015 έτη βάσης. Ένα Ταμείο, το οποίο έχει στόχο την αλληλεγγύη, δεν μπορεί να αποκλείει χώρες που βρίσκονται σε τέτοια κρίση, όπως η Ελλάδα. Για τον λόγο αυτό σας ζητώ να μας στηρίξετε. Είναι, βασικά, ζήτημα αλληλεγγύης απέναντι στην Ελλάδα.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, having had the honour of representing Parliament both in Paris and Marrakech, I am totally committed to the targets set out in Paris. I think the message has to go out loud and clear, to every single Member State and country and every sector, that there is no escape.

However, there is a difference between that and people saying we should increase ambition in Europe, especially in view of what is happening across the pond. We cannot be naive, and naivety is when we have carbon leakage leading to the loss of jobs in Europe and increased emissions worldwide. That makes no sense.

So for that reason I back my colleagues, particularly in the PPE Group and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, regarding cement. Having a different policy for one sector is not good policy making, so I hope we can adjust that.

Also I welcome the qualitative assessment being reduced to 1.2, and hopefully that can be done at Prodcom rather than NACE-4 level. We are not looking for a free pass for any sector, but every sector is entitled to sit the exam. I hope we get it right and that we then have a strong position for trilogues.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony, ebben a mai vitában számos képviselő aggodalmát fejezte ki bizonyos iparágak, különösen a cementipar kapcsán. Jómagam azon a véleményen vagyok, hogy bár igazak azok az érvek, amelyek itt kollégák által felsoroltattak, azonban azt is látni kell, hogy ez az iparág tulajdonképpen még azért borzasztó nagy csökkentési, szén-dioxid-csökkentési potenciállal rendelkezik. Ennek értelmében én igazából azokat a törekvéseket szeretném támogatni, és a jelentésnek ezeket a részeit tekintem nagy értéknek, amelyek elsősorban a technológiai fejlesztésre hívják fel a figyelmet. Meggyőződésem, hogy a versenyképességünk, az nem a technológiai bezárkózásban, a meglévő technológiák konzerválásában, hanem az újdonságokban vannak, így nem lesz kiszolgáltatva Európa sem a világ többi részének.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would first like to thank all the MEPs who spoke in this debate, raising issues that are important not only for European climate policy broadly but also for our citizens and businesses.

Forging agreements on the different aspects of the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) ambition has been a very challenging task. I therefore reiterate my gratitude to Ian Duncan and Fredrick Federley, as well as to the Chairs of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Jerzy Buzek, and Adina-Ioana Vălean, for all the efforts they made to deliver this excellent and ambitious report.

But all the work done may become meaningless if, on Wednesday, Parliament is unable to give ample support to this report. We need a very strong position from Parliament in order to start inter-institutional negotiations with the Council. I am confident that, in view of all the challenges facing us in climate policy, there will be in this House the same degree of responsibility and spirit of compromise that we found in Paris in December 2015. That is what European citizens expect from all of us.

  Ian Duncan, rapporteur. – Madam President, thank you very much to everyone who has taken part in the debate today. I can think of nowhere I would rather be for my birthday than right here, right now.

I know that I have not made everyone happy but I think I have shared a little bit of unhappiness across the whole spectrum, and that will be the challenge for all of us – recognising that we have to take a little bit of unhappiness.

Let me make a few points which are worth making. The Emissions Trading System (ETS) is not working well right now: that is the first point. The second point: Paris changes everything. The third point: we need to offer to our industry sensible protection but we must expect from them sensible efforts as well. It is also important that this is a stepping stone to a serious trilogue.

I was trying to think of a way of combining all of these points with regard to their urgency. I too was in Marrakech for the climate change talks. By the middle of the week I had clearly eaten something which I found a little bit unsettling. Halfway between the conference centre and my hotel I was faced with a serious choice: I could try and go backwards and hope that I made it in time or I could try to go forwards to get to my hotel and try to make sure that I got there without soiling myself. In fact, that is what we have before us right now. The real challenge is to get to our hotel and get to that lavatory because we have got to avoid making a mess. The real danger we have tonight is if we are not able to find that compromise, then we will make a mess. It is time now to move forward. There is a compromise on the table and we have got to get there.

Thank you for your contributions. Thank you for joining me for my birthday, and let us get the deal done.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu mercredi 15 février 2017.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου ( PPE), γραπτώς. – Αναμφίβολα στηρίζουμε τις πολιτικές για την κλιματική αλλαγή που υιοθετήθηκαν με τη Συμφωνία των Παρισίων και θεωρούμε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να συμβάλει τα μέγιστα προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή. Ταυτόχρονα όμως, θεωρούμε ιδιαίτερα σημαντικό να υπάρξει μία ισόρροπη προσέγγιση του ζητήματος, ούτως ώστε η προσπάθεια για περιορισμό των αερίων του θερμοκηπίου και των επιβαρύνσεων στο περιβάλλον να συνοδεύεται και με τη προστασία του δευτερογενούς τομέα παραγωγής, της βιομηχανίας και των μικρομεσαίων Επιχειρήσεων. Υπήρξε λοιπόν η αναγκαιότητα να προστατευθεί τόσο η ανταγωνιστικότητα και βιωσιμότητα των ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρήσεων όσο και οι πολύτιμες θέσεις εργασίας. Προς το σκοπό αυτό, στηρίξαμε τις τροποποιήσεις που ήταν προς την ορθή κατεύθυνση και διασφάλιζαν την ανταγωνιστικότητα των τσιμεντοβιομηχανιών των μεσογειακών χωρών.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), na piśmie. – Zanim zaczniemy mówić o jakiejś reformie tego unijnego pseudo-rynkowego systemu ETS, powinniśmy przeprowadzić szczegółową analizę tego, co dał dotychczasowy system. Takiej analizy brak. Ten bardzo krytykowany system jest niesprawiedliwy w stosunku do krajów „gorzej postawionych ekonomicznie”. Nierówno bowiem obciąża obywateli państw członkowskich. Rodzą się następujące pytania: 1. Czemu system ETS nie jest wewnętrznie spójny? Dlaczego nie dotyczy efektywności energetycznej i udziału OZE? 2. Czemu system ten jest tak jednostronnie restrykcyjny i nie uwzględnia możliwości zarabiania dzięki wyłapywaniu i absorpcji CO2? 3. Dlaczego nie uwzględnia strategii grzania i chłodzenia, jako najefektywniejszego sposobu ograniczania emisji CO2? 4. Czy nie powinniśmy ustalić poziomów odniesienia emisji, tzw. benchmarków, na poziomie krajowym? Potrzebujemy dyskusji o charakterze fundamentalnym. Jest to problem dla przemysłu wielu krajów członkowskich, dla których obecne propozycje Komisji mogą stanowić hamletowski dylemat „być albo nie być”. Nie spieszmy się ze stosowaniem systemu, który dotychczas się nie sprawdził.

  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Rentabilizarea reducerii emisiilor prin sporirea investițiilor este obiectivul modificării directivei. Este important să creăm un echilibru între țintele propuse pentru emisii și posibilitățile de investiții pentru a nu periclita locurile de muncă. Statele membre au pe agendă securitatea aprovizionării cu energie electrică. Împiedicarea statelor membre să-și susțină mixul de generare pe care îl preferă ar fi împotriva spiritului UE. Consider că este necesară simplificarea guvernanței Fondului de Modernizare care ar trebui să fie, în primul rând, controlat de statele membre beneficiare conform avizului ITRE. Scăderea accelerată a certificatelor poate afecta securitatea energetică în UE. Scopul modificării Directivei este de a reduce emisiile, nu de a stabili un preț mai ridicat al emisiilor. Să nu uităm de produsele altor continente, care sunt mult mai poluatoare decât Europa, și de faptul că putem dezindustrializa și mai mult Europa.

  András Gyürk (PPE), írásban. – Az európai klímapolitika sikere mindannyiunk közös érdeke. Ahogyan a légszennyezés sem áll meg a határokon, úgy mi sem vagyunk képesek egyénileg megbirkózni ezzel a problémával, összefogásra és közös megoldásra van szükség. Ebben a küzdelemben azonban mindvégig óvatosnak kell lennünk, annak érdekében, hogy egy valóban sikeres átalakítást hajtsunk végre, az európai gazdaság védelme és az európai munkahelyek megtartása mellett. Ennek szellemében fogalmazódott meg a Modernizációs Alap koncepciója, melynek értelmében azok a tagállamok, amelyek a legtöbb pluszköltségnek lesznek kitéve az új szabályozás miatt, jogosultakká válnak a kvótaértékesítésekből befolyó összeg egy részére, melyet elavult eszközeik fejlesztésére és modernizációjára fordíthatnak.

Véleményem szerint az ENVI szakbizottságban megfogalmazott, a Modernizációs Alapra vonatkozó igazgatási struktúra átláthatatlan és veszélyes. Egy alaposan előkészített kritériumrendszer megfelelően képes érvényesíteni a közös elvárásokat, felesleges a túlbonyolított igazgatási struktúra. A szubszidiaritás elvét sérti, és további feszültségeket okoz továbbá, hogy a projektek elbírálásánál nem érintett feleket bízunk meg, ezáltal eltávolítva egymástól a döntést és a megvalósítást. Kérem tisztelt képviselőtársaimat, hogy mindezek szellemében támogassák a Modernizációs Alap átláthatóságát és hatékonyságát javító módosító indítványunkat.

  György Hölvényi (PPE), írásban. – Az európai ipari létesítmények kibocsátási jogosultságait szabályozó ETS-irányelv másfél éve húzódó parlamenti tárgyalásait heves viták kísérték. Az európai emisszió-kereskedelmi rendszer reformjának egyik fontos eleme ugyanis a Párizsi Klímamegállapodásból fakadó uniós kötelezettségek megosztásának szabályozása, az ambíciószint fokozása, ami tovább növelheti az alacsony kibocsátású technológiák elterjedését és a szénmentes gazdaságra való átállást Európában. A környezetvédelmi célok elérésének biztosítása mellett a tárgyalások során azonban végig figyelemmel kell lenni a termelői szektor jogos érdekeire is, hiszen az energiaintenzív ágazatok elüldözésével Európa versenyhátrányba kerülhet. Fontos azt is elkerülni, hogy az európai ipari szektor egyes szereplőit aránytalan terhekkel sújtsák, míg másokat jogosulatlan előnyökhöz juttassanak.

Remélem, hogy a plenáris szavazással sikerül a jelentést a megfelelő irányba terelni és a fenti szempontokat megfelelően tükröző, kiegyensúlyozott parlamenti mandátumot elfogadni a trialógusok előtt. Végül fontosnak tartom hangsúlyozni, hogy a környezetvédelmi bizottsági szöveg Modernizációs Alappal kapcsolatos része súlyosan korlátozza a kedvezményezett közép- és kelet-európai országok döntési szabadságát. A jelentéstervezet nem felel meg a 2014. októberi európai tanácsi következtetésekben elfogadott politikai megállapodásnak, ezért képviselőtársaimmal együtt egyéni módosító indítványt terjesztettünk elő, hogy a Modernizációs Alap irányítási struktúrája megfelelően tükrözze a kedvezményezett tagállamok érdekeit.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Политиките по климата трябва да вървят ръка за ръка със запазването на съществуващите и създаването на нови работни места. Затова е изключително важно да постигнем правилния баланс в изпълнението на целите за намаление на емисиите и да запазим конкурентоспособността на индустрията.

Секторите, които са изложени на най-висок риск от „изтичане на въглерод“ и преместване на бизнеса в трети страни, трябва да получават достатъчно безплатни квоти, за да се предотврати закриването на работни места и негативния ефект върху икономиката. Смятам също така, че трябва правилата да бъдат опростени за малките предприятия, които емитират малки количества парникови газове, за да бъде намалена административната тежест спрямо тях.

Смятам, че е важно страните с по-нисък брутен вътрешен продукт да бъдат подпомагани финансово, за да модернизират енергийните системи и да подобрят енергийната си ефективност. Трябва тези стимули да се предоставят чрез ясни и максимално опростени процедури, които да дават свобода на държавите членки да определят проектите, които да получат финансиране.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – The emissions trading system (ETS) is the principal instrument for lowering emissions in the sectors that it covers. The ETS has continuously been enhanced to tackle the changing environmental and economic realities. The current reform is vital for meeting the ambitious targets set in the Paris Agreement and enhancing the effectiveness of the ETS in long-term. Parliament must set a clear path towards successful negotiations with the Council whilst maintaining the balanced approach between industrial competitiveness and climate goals.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Noua propunere a Comisiei privind schema EU ETS este necesară, întrucât această reformă trebuie să ofere o anumită certitudine industriei și investitorilor din Europa de Est prin stabilirea regulilor în perioada de după 2021. Este și o oportunitate pentru a spori eficiența energetică și a sprijini acțiunile climatice.

Nu vrem ca economia europeană să se confrunte cu o relocare a industriilor energo-intensive în țări terțe. Alocarea cu titlu gratuit a certificatelor verzi este esențială pentru industriile de pe lista de risc de relocare a emisiilor de carbon. Flexibilitatea în ceea ce privește numărul de cote gratuite, față de cotele licitate, este foarte importantă pentru durabilitatea EU ETS pe termen lung.

Comisia trebuie să țină cont, în utilizarea fondului pentru inovare, de industriile care fac eforturi pentru a investi în tehnologii noi, în scopul de a găsi modalități inovatoare pentru viitor. Fondul de modernizare este binevenit și acesta trebuie să poată fi reglementat de statul membru beneficiar și luând în considerare circumstanțele naționale.

Aviația, transportul rutier, deșeurile agricole și clădirile ar trebui să continue să fie sectoare non-ETS. Statele membre trebuie să aibă cadrul necesar pentru a-și stabili propriile obiective climatice naționale, ținând cont de condițiile producției energetice specifice fiecărui stat membru.

  Владимир Уручев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Уважаеми колеги, ние всички сме убедени, че схемата за търговия на емисии трябва да бъде коригирана за следващия период след 2020 г., за да стане по-ефективна в постигането на целите от Парижкото споразумение. Но не трябва да забравяме, че въвеждането на твърде големи ограничения върху европейските енергоинтензивни индустрии ще доведе до тяхното изместване в страни с по-ниски изисквания, до загуба на работни места и приходи, но не и намаляване на емисиите в глобален мащаб.

Нека отчитаме факта, че ЕС допринася само за 10% от глобалните емисии на СО2 и дали ще ги намалим на 7% или 6% до 2030 г. няма да реши глобалния проблем, но би могло да нанесем непоправими вреди на собствената си икономика. Поради това не е оправдано да приемаме фактори и коефициенти за намаляване на емисиите, които застрашават съществуването на определени сектори в европейската индустрия. Затова приветствам връщането на текстове от становището на комисията ITRЕ, които са значително по-балансирани и в много по-висока степен защитават изложените на риск сектори и подсектори на нашата промишленост. Безусловно поддържам облекченията за страните с по-нисък брутен вътрешен продукт да получават безплатни квоти за емисии, но нека не въвеждаме такива условия за ползване на тази помощ, които да я направят на практика неработеща.