Fuldstændigt Forhandlingsreferat

Onsdag den 20. oktober 2021 - Strasbourg

12. En EU-strategi for reduktion af metanemissioner (forhandling)

  Il-President. – Il-punt li jmiss fuq l-aġenda huwa r-rapport tal-Onor. Maria Spyraki dwar l-Istrateġija tal-UE biex jitnaqqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-metan (2021/2006(INI)) (A9-0277/2021).

  Maria Spyraki, rapporteur. – Madam President, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, warming the planet 80 times as much as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period before degrading to CO2. We should provide a fair, comprehensive and clear legislative framework, setting binding measures and methane reduction targets covering all sectors, leading to a significant reduction of methane emissions in the EU by 2030.

Ahead of COP26, a challenge is arising. By concluding a global agreement on reducing methane emissions, we can ensure a new era of fast-track reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. After the announcement by the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the US President, Joe Biden, of the Global Methane Pledge – an initiative to reduce global methane emissions to be launched at the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow in November – we have to start working intensively in order to prepare the legislative framework as soon as possible, and to engage all relevant stakeholders.

More than half of global methane emissions stem from human activities in three sectors: energy, waste and agriculture. In this framework, it is important to proceed with an ambitious revision of our environmental legislation. The upcoming methane regulatory measures should strive to achieve significant emissions reductions, swiftly and as cost-effectively as possible, and provide incentives and support to companies to achieve performance standards in an optimal manner, while fully respecting the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

In the energy sector, inputs account for over four-fifths of the oil and gas consumed in the EU, and most methane emissions associated with oil and gas are occurring outside EU borders. That’s why we must explore regulatory tools on fossil energy inputs, develop methods with importing and partner countries to align our efforts, and secure a UN-based pathway on methane as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we could proceed with bilateral agreements with these exporting partner countries. It is necessary also to provide credible data, identify issues and efficient measures and assess the progress achieved. A mandatory MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) system would improve Member States’ reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and a strong leak and detection repair system is also a critical element for our strategy.

We should encourage the Commission to proceed with initiatives on the mitigation of methane from coal mines. It is important for us to include the closure of abandoned sites. In Greece, we have Western Macedonia and the Megalopolis Lignite Centre. It is important, finally, to ensure that we provide financial aid so that the cost will not be paid by our citizens.

We also have to support the establishment of an independent International Methane Emissions Observatory, in partnership with the United Nations Developmental Programme and the Climate and Clean Energy Coalition under the International Energy Agency (IEA).

At the same time, we need to ensure a just transition for sectors in which methane emissions reductions may have socio-economic impacts, especially for agriculture. We have to incentivise farmers and SMEs to adapt, provided that a lot of innovative best practices are in place. It is important to establish a framework that incentivises and rewards farmers, along with the entire value chain, and especially front runners for their efforts.

In the waste sector, we should support Member States and regions to stabilise biodegradable waste prior to disposal, increase its use to produce climate neutral, secure and bio-based materials and chemicals, and divert this waste towards bio-gas production.

We must provide specific incentives suited to each Member State’s conditions to ensure separate collection of bio-waste, to the maximum possible extent, including by encouraging public private sector cooperation.

To conclude, I would like to thank all my colleagues and the shadow rapporteur for the collaboration and support during the negotiation process. We have managed to finalise a very balanced report and to send the right message to our citizens: by reducing methane now, we will prevent nearly 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2045. The immediate implementation of methane reduction measures for human sources of methane could reduce methane emissions by as much as 45% by 2030.

As the President of the Commission declared, on the road to COP26, we will reach out to global partners to bring as many as possible on board for tackling methane emissions with the EU Green Deal and the EU Methane Strategy, we are ready to lead the way.

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and congratulate Ms Spyraki on the very good, very balanced, report and for the good cooperation with the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). I also congratulate Commissioner Kadri Simson on the good new strategy to reduce methane emissions. We need to strengthen the business case for capturing methane emissions.

The main points for ITRE: highlighting the role of gas in energy transition and also highlighting the work done so far by the gas industry; leak detection and repair (LDAR) and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) as the key priorities to ensure better understanding of methane emissions to better data and more adequate reduction of emissions; compulsory MRV and LDAR framework that also includes imports in order to have an equal playing field for the industry.

We welcome the Commission’s consideration of rules banning routine venting. We call for stronger measures and incentives for methane emissions in coalmines in a specific programme to address methane emissions from abandoned and closed coalmines. And finally, recognising the role of infrastructure operators in tackling methane leaks and calling for incentives.

  Asger Christensen, ordfører for udtalelse fra Landbrugsudvalget. – Fru formand! Metanreduktion er ekstremt vigtigt, fordi det vi beslutter i dag, det kan vi se resultatet af i morgen. Som rapportør for landbrugsudvalget vil jeg gerne takke de øvrige udvalg for et fantastisk godt samarbejde, som vi har haft omkring denne betænkning. Mit mantra har været, at vi skal reducere metanudledningen og ikke produktionen. For mig er det helt afgørende, at vi ikke skubber landbrugsproduktionen ud af EU. Det vil kun gøre klimabelastningen større. Derfor skal vi fokusere på ny teknologi, innovation, som kan reducere metanudledningen. Det er helt nødvendigt, at vi bruger alle de værktøjer, der er i værktøjskassen. For eksempel nye foderadditiver, som kan reducere køernes metanudslip. Vi skal også blive bedre til at udnytte vores husdyrgødning til biogas. Her vil den nye teknologiske udvikling omkring biochar virkelig skubbe os i den rigtige retning. På den måde kan restprodukter fra landbruget bruges til at producere fornybar energi, grøn energi. Det er en win-win-situation for landmændene og for klimaet. Jeg er meget optimistisk med hensyn til, at vi nok skal finde de løsninger, der skal bruges, for at nå vores mål om metan. Strategien understreger, at landbruget er en del af løsningen på klimaudfordringen.

  Kadri Simson, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank honourable Members for inviting me to this timely discussion.

The Commission welcomes the Parliament’s own-initiative report on our methane strategy prepared by Ms Spyraki and its recommendations. Many of them are in line with, and endorse, the actions set out in the Commission’s strategy.

Methane has accounted for roughly 30% of global warming since pre—industrial times and is proliferating faster than at any other time since record—keeping began in the 80s. The most rapid and cost effective methane emissions savings can be achieved in the energy sector. This is why we are preparing a legislative proposal to reduce methane emissions in the energy sector for adoption in December this year. It will rest on the following key pillars: improve the accuracy of information on the exact amounts and main sources of methane emissions to allow for more effective and more targeted methane abatement measures, and achieve immediate emission reductions across the energy supply chain by intervening on those fronts where action is possible. This includes mandatory leak detection and repair and limiting venting and flaring. We are also exploring the possibility to incentivise methane emission reductions outside the EU from our trading partners. The EU is a global fossil fuel importer and must use this leverage to foster methane emissions commitments among its suppliers.

This can only be a progressive process, and we will work on further measures once more accurate and reliable data becomes available. I also want to underline that, alongside this proposal, we have been working with our energy partners and other key fossil importing countries to tackle methane emissions globally. Thanks to EU energy diplomacy and partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in October 2020, the independent International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) was created. Furthermore, in September 2021, the Union and the United States announced the Global Methane Pledge, which represents a political commitment to reduce collectively global methane emissions by 30% by 2030. So far, 36 countries have committed their support, representing one third of total world methane emissions. Many more are expected to join. The Pledge will be launched at the COP26 in Glasgow.

The European Parliament report also covers environmental legislation. We are now reviewing these parts and the options set out in the report in the ongoing impact assessments. Moreover, the revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) will look into measures such as methane emissions from relevant sectors – agriculture, industry and energy – whilst ensuring that there is no overlap in regulation.

Agriculture also has a significant potential to deliver on methane emissions savings. A range of mitigation technologies and practices are available. These are mainly related to the improvement of animal diets, herd management, manure management and soil protection, breeding, herd health and animal welfare. The current common agricultural policy (CAP) is supporting mitigation actions for methane reduction in the livestock sector. In the post—2020 CAP, the higher level of flexibility will give Member States the possibility to design a specific combination of interventions for reducing emissions from agriculture. The Commission is encouraging Member States to include methane reduction schemes in their strategic plans for the CAP.

A significant share of global methane emissions in the agriculture sector originates outside of the EU. The Commission and the Member States have been very active in various international fora for reducing emissions from agriculture and agri—food systems.

In conclusion, I welcome the Spyraki report and take it as an encouragement for the Commission to move forward with these bold and concrete legislative measures. I am looking forward to continuing the excellent cooperation with the Parliament on this topic.

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA
varapuhemies

  Peter Liese, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal herzlichen Dank an Maria Spyraki und herzlichen Glückwunsch zu dem Bericht, den sie vorgelegt hat.

Methan ist ein riesiges Problem: Es ist das zweitwichtigste Klimagas. Auch wenn es eine kürzere Lebensdauer als CO2 hat, hat es doch ein erheblich höheres Treibhausgaspotenzial. Gerade die nächsten zehn Jahre – genau wissen wir es nicht, aber die nächsten Jahre – werden entscheidend sein, um gefährliche Kipppunkte im Klimasystem zu vermeiden, zum Beispiel das Auftauen der Permafrostböden in Sibirien. Also zu viel Methan in den nächsten zehn Jahren kann sehr, sehr viel Methan für unsere Kinder und Enkelkinder bedeuten, und dann können wir den Klimawandel nicht mehr in den Griff bekommen.

Aber ich bin sehr dafür, dass wir das Ganze nicht zu einem Streit zwischen Klimaschutz und Landwirtschaft machen. Landwirte sind Teil der Lösung. Sie bieten auch viele Senken an, zum Beispiel durch Humusaufbau oder nachhaltige Forstwirtschaft. Deswegen sollten wir sie nicht stigmatisieren, sondern gemeinsam mit den Landwirten an der Reduktion von Methanemissionen arbeiten.

Wir sollten im Gassektor Leckagen verhindern, und wir sollten endlich dafür sorgen, dass in ganz Europa kein Abfall mehr auf der Deponie landet. Das muss ein Ende haben, denn auch da entsteht Methan, und wir vernichten wichtige Rohstoffe, die unsere Kinder noch brauchen.

Und als Letztes: Frau Kommissarin, herzlichen Glückwunsch zu dem Abkommen mit den USA. Klimaschutz ist keine nationale oder rein europäische Aufgabe. Wir brauchen internationale Zusammenarbeit, und auf dem Weg müssen wir weitermachen.

  Marcos Ros Sempere, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, cada día que pasa y no actuamos contra el cambio climático es un día perdido para las próximas generaciones y para nuestro planeta; el tiempo pasa: no podemos perder un segundo en conseguir el cumplimiento del Acuerdo de París y la reducción del 55 % de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero para 2030.

El metano, después del CO2, es el segundo mayor contribuyente al cambio climático y representa más del 10 % de las emisiones totales de gases de efecto invernadero en Europa; contribuye además a la formación de ozono en la atmósfera inferior, un potente contaminante del aire que causa graves problemas de salud.

Quiero agradecer a la ponente, la señora Spyraki, y al resto de sus señorías el trabajo realizado para poder llegar a este informe, con el que estamos pidiendo a la Comisión que la estrategia de la Unión Europea para la reducción de emisiones de metano contemple la creación de un marco legislativo amplio respecto a las emisiones de metano, con medidas vinculantes en todos los sectores —energía, reciclaje, agrícola y ganadero, especialmente—; la imposición de medidas de control de emisiones en las importaciones, en toda la cadena de valor —la Unión Europea lidera las políticas de control, pero debe imponerlas a sus socios en el exterior—, y la prohibición de prácticas como el venteo y la combustión, así como la apuesta por la conversión de residuos agrarios y ganaderos en biogás y la implicación de los Estados miembros introduciendo medidas eficaces y sostenibles en sus planes estratégicos nacionales, que deben ser supervisados estrictamente por la Comisión. La Comisión debe incorporar estas y otras medidas contempladas en este informe en su propuesta legislativa, que presentará en diciembre, sobre la reducción de emisiones de metano en el sector energético.

No podemos decaer en nuestro empeño de que Europa sea el primer continente climáticamente neutro en 2050, materializando el Pacto Verde Europeo y contribuyendo al bienestar y a la salud de los ciudadanos actuales y de las generaciones futuras.

  Martin Hojsík, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, we have to do the utmost to limit the global warming to 1.5 degrees. We got a taste this summer and honestly, I think we are standing on the brink of a climate disaster. But there is no chance to achieve this if we don’t act on methane, if we don’t properly act on methane, and act now, because honestly, we have overlooked it way too much.

I’m not going to repeat the words of Maria Spyraki about potency and the timeline, but it’s clear that we have something on our hands where we clearly need to act. Sadly, we don’t really even have a proper overview. We see the releases of documentations about the previously unknown leaks all around the world, and this is something which needs to call us even more urgently to action. We need to act above all in the energy sector. MRV and LDAR – these might be shortcuts, but they are really important words. We need to ban routine flaring and venting, and we need to act at home and abroad, because not just climate has no boundaries, but most of our footprint is abroad. And it will provide a level playing field for European businesses.

We have to look at our agriculture – not just the cows’ diet, our diet; together with the farmers, not against the farmers. We have to solve the landfills with circular economy, and we have to take methane to the global stage in Glasgow. I hope that we will see some proper action led by Europe there as well. Madam Commissioner, I hope that what we see from you is soon also an ambitious legislation that will not only deliver for this House but for our future.

  Jutta Paulus, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I really want to thank especially Maria Spyraki for her great leadership on this file and to all colleagues who have contributed so much to making this own-initiative report a really strong call for action.

Maria has already pointed out that we need to tackle all sectors. We must not focus only on the energy sector, as the Commission proposed in its methane strategy last year, but we need to focus on agriculture too, since this is the biggest contributor in the European Union, and the waste sector.

We have heard of the global methane pledge. Of course, this is a fantastic document of international cooperation but, unfortunately, it falls short of what is actually needed. A 45% reduction by 2030 is possible, and it is necessary if we want to stand a chance to get onto the 1.5 degree path, which is really important because our survival may hang on this number.

So we need binding targets for all sectors. I want to reiterate that measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) and the leak detection and repair programme (LDAR) should therefore be tackled in the legislation and not limited to the energy sector. And they have to be implemented as quickly as possible, for example by 2023. The same goes for venting and flaring. And, of course, we must extend our legislation to the imports, so give the suppliers a clear timeline for their right to export to the EU. They have to adhere to this legislation. But, of course, this must not be used as an excuse to prolong the use of fossil fuels. The phase-out of fossil fuels is the most valid instrument for reducing methane emissions in the energy sector.

  Sylvia Limmer, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Nach CO2 werden also die Methanemissionen angegangen, die – so der vorliegende Bericht – das zweitwichtigste Treibhausgas seien. Als Quellen werden ganz klar die Landwirtschaft mit 40 %, die fossilen Brennstoffe mit 35 % und die Abfallwirtschaft mit 20 % genannt.

Da nach grünem Selbstverständnis ein Ende der fossilen Energieträger aufgrund der CO2-Emissionen möglichst gestern eh beschlossener Konsens ist, bleiben noch zwei Stellschrauben: Die Landwirtschaft – explizit die Viehhaltung – und die Stickstoffdüngung seien die Hauptquellen.

Die Lösungsansätze bleiben dennoch vage: vegane Ernährung, die Nutzung irgendwelcher Rückstände in Biogasanlagen – Dung gäbe es in der idealen veganen Welt nicht mehr – und dass „in einer Bioökonomie neue Fertigkeiten und neues Wissen“ irgendwie vom Klimahimmel fielen.

Den Stickstoffdünger bräuchte man übrigens in einer veganen Welt mehr denn je. Es mag ja stimmen, dass 53 % der Methanemissionen in der EU aus der Landwirtschaft stammen. Aber nur 5 % der weltweiten Emissionen stammen aus der EU, und damit beträgt der Anteil der landwirtschaftlichen Methanemissionen aus der EU global gesehen also nur 2,6 %.

Selbst wenn Sie auf der Stelle komplett auf die Nahrungsaufnahme verzichten, werden Sie die Welt nicht retten. Das ist die schlechte Botschaft. Die gute Nachricht ist – zumindest für mich –, dass über 6,5 Milliarden Menschen auf der Erde nicht von ihrer lächerlichen EU-Verbotspolitik betroffen sind.

  Anna Zalewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Koleżanki i Koledzy! W sprawozdaniu czytamy o bardzo wielu wartościowych pomysłach i rozwiązaniach, ale niestety jest kilka, które budzą poważne wątpliwości i o których trzeba byłoby jednak powiedzieć. Po pierwsze, brakuje dokładnych analiz i rozwiązań, a przede wszystkim informacji o tym, ile już zrobiły przedsiębiorstwa w Unii Europejskiej, żeby osiągać różnego rodzaju rezultaty. Warto to odnotować, dlatego że od bardzo wielu lat prowadzona jest taka praca.

Po drugie, wątpliwości budzi jednak propozycja aktu prawnego z wiążącymi celami. Dlaczego? Dlatego że takie rozwiązania już są. Przecież razem pracujemy nad pakietem „Fit for 55”. Właściwie zaczęliśmy tę pracę i w kilku dokumentach rozwiązania dotyczące metanu już są. Naprawdę zbędna jest biurokracja.

Po trzecie, nie ma źródeł finansowania. Nie możemy wprowadzać kolejnych aktów, które są tylko pomysłem bez źródeł finansowania. I wreszcie, bez rozwiązań globalnych naprawdę nie uda nam się tego zrealizować. Nie wiem, czy Państwo wiedzą, ale budowa Nord Stream 2, którą przede wszystkim dwie grupy wspierają – S&D i EPP, została sprawdzona przez m.in. satelitę Kopernik i mamy tam systematycznie ogromne wycieki metanu. To my za to odpowiadamy, bo my, czyli Unia Europejska, współuczestniczymy w budowie Nord Stream 2.

  Mick Wallace, on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, there are many positives in this report, which calls on the Commission to propose for the first time a legislative framework specifically for methane, which would set binding measures and reduction targets for 2030, in line with science-based pathways for 1.5 degrees.

Farmers often feel that agriculture is the only sector being targeted, but this report acknowledges that methane emissions in the energy sector are also a huge problem. Therefore, we are asking for mandatory MRV, mandatory leak detection and repair, and a ban on routine venting and flaring for all fossil fuels placed on the EU market.

But agriculture is still by far and away the biggest source of methane emissions in the EU. We need to reduce livestock production and consumption. We should do this by targeting large-scale farms and by properly supporting family farms to prevent the further loss of family livestock farms and the further concentration and intensification of livestock farming.

  Colm Markey (PPE). – Madam President, we all know that global warming is the challenge of our time, and after carbon, methane is key among the gases that we need to address. But if we are to solve the methane problem, we need to recognise the different sources of methane and the different approaches needed.

Biogenic methane is just one of the key sources that needs to be addressed.

Science recognises that biogenic methane is essentially a 12-year cycle, and we need to reduce the amount of methane being produced in that cycle by the animals, as opposed to an ideological and unrealistic position of eliminating the animals altogether.

Research and technology has shown us that we have tools. Things like dietary supplements, advances in breeding, manure management and greater use of pasture based systems can be key to solving the problem. I’ve put forward sensible, constructive, practical solutions that could create the framework to allow this to happen.

Farmers also want to play their part. They are probably closer to nature than anybody. For most farmers, their love of nature and the environment is the very reason why they became farmers in the first place.

I believe farmers who are closest to the problem are best placed to solve the problem, but we have to give them the tools and the chance to get on with it.

  Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, lo cierto es que reducir las emisiones de metano es una forma rápida y eficiente de lucha contra el cambio climático. La Unión Europea es el principal importador de gas y petróleo. Entre el 75 y el 90 % de las emisiones de metano están asociadas a combustibles fósiles importados y que se emiten fuera de la Unión. Por lo tanto, debemos trabajar para que esto lo contemple un marco legal, para que nuestras importaciones estén libres de metano.

Para eso necesitamos crear ese marco regulatorio robusto. Y en eso hemos trabajado en esta Estrategia. La esperada próxima propuesta reguladora de la Comisión en el sector de la energía es una oportunidad para implementar medidas obligatorias de detección y reparación de fugas, así como reglas para prohibir el venteo y la quema más allá de situaciones de seguridad con objetivos vinculantes.

Permítanme decir también que ni la ganadería ni el mundo rural son culpables de las emisiones de metano. Podemos trabajar con ellos. Podemos aprovechar las oportunidades que esto supone para el mundo rural en el ámbito de la economía circular y el aprovechamiento del biogás y del metano.

  Mauri Pekkarinen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, se on sanottu jo monta kertaa, aiheutamme ilmakehään metaanipäästöjä paljon vähemmän kuin hiilidioksidipäästöjä ja metaanipäästöt pysyvät siellä huomattavasti lyhyemmän aikaa. Mutta metaanipäästöt ovat valtavan paljon vaarallisempia ja haitallisempia kuin muut kasvihuonekaasupäästöt. Siksi niiden kimppuun on käytävä.

Ihmisen aiheuttamista metaanipäästöistä maatalouden osuus on suurin, energian osuus toiseksi suurin. Energiasektorilla metaanivuotojen tunnistaminen ja virheiden korjaaminen maakaasuinfran osalta erityisesti on kiireinen tehtävä. Tässä satelliittiteknologia on avainasemassa runsaasti päästöjä tuottavien ongelmallisempien alueiden havaitsemisessa. Kiinnitän tässä kuitenkin erityistä huomiota maatalouden, lähinnä kotieläintalouden, metaanipäästöihin. Lannan ja lietteen metaanipäästöistä voidaan erittäin merkittävä osa tuottaa biokaasuksi, fossiilisia raaka-aineita korvaavaksi raaka—aineeksi. Prosessissa syntyy kaiken lisäksi kuiva-ainesta, joka soveltuu puolestaan erittäin hyvin biolannoitteeksi.

Osana Euroopan vihreän kehityksen ohjelmaa EU:n tulisikin edistää biokaasun tuotantoa jäsenvaltioissa. Eräissä jäsenvaltioissa onkin jo ryhdytty tällaisiin toimiin omatoimisesti. Metaanista tuotettu biokaasu soveltuu moniin eri tarkoituksiin: liikenteen polttoaineeksi ja lämmitykseen. Sitä voidaan myös nesteyttää, mikä edelleen laajentaa sen käyttömahdollisuuksia.

  Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ja, Methan ist ein effizientes, leider sehr effizientes Treibhausgas, und ja, Reduktion ist natürlich ein wichtiges Ziel. Aber ich denke, die Debatte, die wir hier führen, muss auch auf wissenschaftlichen Fakten basieren. Deshalb muss man schauen: Woher kommt das Methan? Kommt es von Tieren? Wenn es von Tieren kommt, kommt es von Nutztieren oder kommt es von Wildtieren, die es auch in der Natur gibt, oder kommt es von anderen Faktoren wie zum Beispiel für die Energie genutztem Methangas?

Wie bereits mehrmals in dieser Debatte gesagt: Methan wird zum Glück in unserer Atmosphäre in 10 bis 12 Jahren abgebaut. Es geht also darum, zu schauen, ob der Viehbestand aufgestockt wird. Wenn er nicht aufgestockt wird, dann befindet sich dieses Methan ja in einem ungefähr zwölfjährigen Zyklus. Und die Aufstockung von Nutztierbeständen, die es leider in der Welt auch gegeben hat, findet vor allem außerhalb der Europäischen Union statt. Wenn man schaut, wie sich Tierbestände in den letzten zehn Jahren verändert haben, dann sind in manchen Teilen der Welt, aber nicht in der Europäischen Union, die Nutztierbestände regelrecht explodiert, und hier gilt es sicherlich anzusetzen.

Aber ich denke, man muss auch aus dem Denken heraus, dass wir Methan nur allein sehen. Man sollte auch bedenken, dass Tiere Gras nutzen, dass Tiere Dauergrünland nutzen, dass gerade Dauergrünland auch ein ganz wichtiger Faktor ist, damit Photosynthese stattfindet, damit also CO2 – ein anderes wichtiges Treibhausgas – wieder absorbiert werden kann und Kohlenstoff damit gebunden werden kann. Also ja, man muss die Sache angehen. Aber nein, wenn es nur darum geht, Tierzucht, Fleisch- oder Milchkonsum zu verteufeln.

  Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Methanemissionen sind in der Tat viel zu lange vernachlässigt worden, und dabei sind sie besonders kurz- und mittelfristig sehr gefährlich, weil sie eine starke Klimawirkung haben.

Es ist daher außerordentlich wichtig, dass wir schnell wirksame Maßnahmen ergreifen. Daher finde ich es, ehrlich gesagt, etwas enttäuschend, dass die Kommission erst im Dezember mit legislativen Vorschlägen kommen möchte, die sie uns schon seit Jahren verspricht. Umso mehr gilt jetzt: Dieser Versuch muss sitzen, Frau Kommissarin.

Die internationalen Bemühungen zur Methanvermeidung sind gut und notwendig. Aber von der europäischen Seite muss noch mehr kommen. Das Global Methane Assessment zeigt, dass wir weltweit bis 2030 ohne große Kosten 45 % des Methans vermeiden können. Das muss unser Ziel sein, und vor allen Dingen brauchen wir dafür eine schnelle Reduktion, auch im Energiebereich.

Eine Leerstelle bleibt, die wir uns anschauen müssen, das ist der Landwirtschaftsbereich mit den 40 % Emissionen. Und schließlich ist es nicht nur aus Klimasicht notwendig, Methan zu reduzieren, sondern gerade auch aus Gesundheitssicht. Denn am Boden entsteht gefährliches Ozon, wodurch jährlich Hunderttausende Menschen weltweit sterben. Auch daran müssen wir arbeiten. Ich hoffe, dass wir Erfolg haben werden.

  Elena Lizzi (ID). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la strategia è sicuramente di notevole importanza, ma presenta diverse criticità che siamo obbligati a esaminare e sulle quali dal dossier non arrivano garanzie o non arrivano certezze. Anzi, noi vediamo ancora alcune minacce per le nostre piccole imprese.

Come gruppo ID, e noi della Lega in particolare, abbiamo proposto gradualità e progressività nella riduzione delle emissioni, poiché un taglio repentino andrebbe a danneggiare in primo luogo le nostre piccole imprese e le nostre medie imprese e noi non possiamo autorizzarlo o perlomeno avallarlo.

Sappiamo tutti che l'Unione europea contribuisce solo per il 5 per cento alle emissioni totali di metano e che le emissioni rilasciate al di fuori dell'Unione europea per produrre e fornire gas fossile nell'Unione europea sono pari a 3-8 volte la quantità di emissioni provenienti dall'interno dell'Unione. Seppure l'obiettivo di riduzione delle emissioni sia quindi condivisibile, il problema derivante non è solo europeo.

Abbiamo piacere di sapere che altri paesi si allineano, ma noi chiediamo di verificare l'intreccio delle responsabilità nel mondo globale, che però nella richiesta non viene affrontata.

  Norbert Lins (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als Europäisches Parlament sind wir ja immer gut darin, ambitionierte Ziele zu setzen. Ich möchte allerdings jetzt über konkrete Maßnahmen sprechen, insbesondere was die Methanemissionen in der Landwirtschaft betrifft, denn da gibt es positive Nachrichten. Eine Studie zeigt, dass wir allein durch technologischen Fortschritt die Emissionen im Bereich der Landwirtschaft erheblich senken können, und zwar durch drei mögliche Instrumente.

Erstens: Die Nutzung von Zusatzstoffen im Futter, eine Anpassung der Ernährung der Rinder könnte das Methan deutlich senken. Es gibt viel Forschung dazu. Wir sollten es einfach in der Praxis fordern. Zweitens: Die Züchtung auf niedrigen Ausstoß von Methan könnte die Emissionen erheblich senken. Und drittens – das haben schon einige Kollegen genannt: Der Erhalt von Grünland ist nicht nur wichtig für die Kohlenstoffspeicherung, Biodiversität oder schöne beweidete Landschaft für den Tourismus, sondern vor allem klimarelevant durch die Fütterung von Wiederkäuern sowie die erhebliche CO2-Vermeidungsleistung durch die Bereitstellung von klimafreundlichem Biogas als Energieträger.

Neben den Innovationen, glaube ich, sollten wir eine Debatte führen über die unterschiedliche Berechnung von fossilem und biogenem Methan. Ich fordere die Kommission auf, das genau zu prüfen.

  Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Gerbiama komisare, gerbiami kolegos. Kovoje su klimato kaita metano daroma žala minima antroje eilėje po anglies dioksido, o kai kuriais požiūriais – kaip troposferos ozono formuotojas, taip pat ir sveikatos problemų kontekste – jis netgi kenksmingesnis.

Vis dėlto metanas gali būti puikiu pavyzdžiu grėsmę paverčiant galimybe. Remiantis inovacijomis ir mokslu įmanoma ne tik sumažinti išmetamo metano kiekį, bet ir efektyviai panaudoti esamą. Pavyzdžiui, metanu varomi traktoriai nebėra nepasiekiama ateitis, tikėtina, metano panaudojimas bus plėtojamas ir plačiau. Mano rankose publikacija, visai nesena, apie Lietuvoje sukonstruota hibridinį – turbūt pirmąjį pasaulyje profesionaliam naudojimui skirtą – biometanu ir elektra varomą traktorių, o panašias technologijas plėtoja ir kiti gamintojai.

Tikiuosi, kad technologiniai sprendimai ir parama jiems, orientacija ne į draudimus, o į paskatas bei žiedinę ekonomiką prisidės prie bendro metano taršos mažinimo ne tik žemės ūkio, bet ir kituose sektoriuose.

  Kadri Simson, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their interventions. Most of these relate to the three most important sectors for methane emissions, and therefore I will also reply on these three sectors.

As concerns energy, many of you mentioned this. Many of the issues mentioned, and also included in the report, such as the call to establish binding rules on the measuring, reporting and verification of methane emissions and mandatory leak detection and repair, are planned to be covered in our December legislative proposal. At this very moment, with the high energy prices, I think that it is also important to note that the higher the gas prices, the higher the cost—effectiveness of the measures to mitigate methane emissions is, because methane should be used as a natural product rather than escaping to the atmosphere.

On the international side, the International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) will provide reliable data on methane emissions and will therefore represent a powerful tool to drive global action to reduce global methane emissions. The Global Methane Pledge, as a joint EU—US initiative, represents a strong outcome of our renewed transatlantic agenda to continue and strengthen our cooperation on climate change and decarbonisation of energy. It includes a commitment to move towards using the best available inventory methodologies to quantify methane emissions, with a particular focus on high emission sources.

As concerns the environmental legislation, we are reviewing the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Sewage Sludge Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Landfill Directive. Although it is too early to go into more details, I hope that, during the review process, we will be able to address most of the issues mentioned in the report.

As concerns agriculture, the current common agricultural policy is supporting mitigation actions for methane reduction in the livestock sector, mainly through the Pillar II rural development programming. This includes investments for the modernisation of animal housing, the creation of local innovation groups with farmers and specific thematic focus groups of the European Innovation Partnership on methane emission reduction and carbon sequestration in grasslands. The EU soil strategy also has the potential to become a milestone in EU policies related to a healthy environment in the long run.

The legislative ecosystem represented by the Green Deal will, directly and indirectly, affect millions of lives and jobs in all sectors, and the Commission is particularly careful to ensure a fair and just green transition for all, especially vulnerable groups in the energy, agri—food and other sectors.

In the post-2020 CAP, Member States will have the possibility to design a specific combination of interventions, reducing emissions from agriculture. Still, rural development programmes will be the main tool for supporting investment, innovation, and knowledge transfer advisory services. Finally, as already mentioned, the Commission is encouraging Member States to include methane reduction schemes in their strategic plans for the CAP.

Thank you for bringing to my attention many important issues concerning the reduction of methane emissions in your interventions today and, of course, in the report. I am pleased to see that our level of ambition in reducing methane emissions is very much aligned. Therefore, I am looking forward to continue working on this topic with Parliament.

  Maria Spyraki, rapporteur. – Madam President, I would like to thank all colleagues for their comments and say frankly that I was trying to take into account their concerns, especially when they were based on scientific evidence. I have to try to do my best in this long process.

Following the recent climate agreement with the US, it is our best hope in the EU to be able to lead the world in the right direction. It is now the time to suggest and negotiate a binding global agreement on methane mitigation at the COP26 meeting in Glasgow in line with the model pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and the 2021 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Methane Assessment. In this regard, it is of paramount importance to proceed with immediate and rapid reductions in methane emissions, paying attention to economic and social sustainability and, in this decade, it is one of the effective measures for the EU climate action.

Methane emission reduction complements the necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and many of the emission cuts required by the Paris Agreement and could already be achieved with low cost, as the Commission said, and technically feasible methane mitigation. Commissioner, we fully endorse your approach and your arguments on methane reduction in the energy sector and we are looking forward to our cooperation.

When it comes to the agriculture sector, I would like just to repeat that it is included in the report as it is important to establish a framework which incentivises and rewards farmers along with the entire value chain and especially frontrunners for their effort. I would like to kindly ask all of you, dear colleagues, here in this House on this day, to vote in favour and to support the EU strategy to reduce methane emission. Now we should not think about the next election, but above all, about the next generation.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Muutosehdotuksista toimitetaan äänestys tänään ja loppuäänestys toimitetaan torstaina 21.10.2021.

Ehkä te voitte mennä keskustelemaan salin ulkopuolelle, kun teillä on niin paljon sanottavaa.

Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)

  Асим Адемов (PPE), в писмена форма. – Селското стопанство се посочва като основен източник на емисии на метан в ЕС (53%), следван от сектора на отпадъците (26%) и енергетиката (19%). В същото време, трябва да отчетем различния ефект върху атмосферата от биогенния метан от преживните животни и метана от изкопаеми горива, и да ги оценяваме по различен начин. В допълнение, не трябва да забравяме, че селското стопанство крие огромен потенциал за намаляване на вредните емисии чрез инвестиции в иновации, нови фуражни добавки, подобрена селекция и генетика, пасищно отглеждане, интегрирано управление на оборския тор, производство на биогаз от селскостопански отпадъци и др. В тази връзка селското стопанство е част от решението и добрите практики за управление на животновъдството могат да доведат до намаляване с 30% на емисиите на парникови газове. За целта е необходимо да работим с фермерите, а не срещу тях с призиви за намаляване на консумацията на месо и на отглеждането на животни. Това производство е от жизненоважно значение за запазването на селските общности и е важен източник на заетост в селските райони. Земеделските стопани следва да разполагат с необходимите инструменти и финансови стимули за внедряване на практики за улавяне на въглерод и метан с цел по-нататъшно намаляване на емисиите в селското стопанство.

  Daniel Buda (PPE), în scris. – Obiectivul Uniunii Europene de reducere a tuturor emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră pentru 2030, vizează inclusiv emisiile de metan. Metanul este a doua cauză, după dioxidul de carbon, pentru schimbările climatice. În această luptă, UE are nevoie de parteneri. Fără eforturi globale și cooperare internațională, această bătălie este deja pierdută, întrucât o parte semnificativă a emisiilor globale de metan provin din afara UE.

Creșterea emisiilor de metan afectează biodiversitatea și producția agricolă, în timp ce reducerea emisiilor de metan, alături de utilizarea tehnologiilor existente poate oferi multiple beneficii, inclusiv un randament mai bun al culturilor. UE poate limita emisiile din agricultură prin inovație tehnologică, precum și prin stimulente și parteneriate cu fermierii. Fără stimulente financiare, fermierii europeni nu vor putea să facă față noilor condiționalități și politici europene, iar securitatea alimentară poate fi pusă în pericol.

UE trebuie să asigure condiții de concurență echitabile pentru producătorii europeni, iar importurile din țări terțe trebuie să respecte aceleași standarde. Este imperios necesar să se asigure o tranziție echitabilă pentru toate sectoarele în care reducerile emisiilor de metan pot avea un impact socioeconomic, astfel încât să evitam relocarea activităților economice și agricole în afara Uniunii Europene.