Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2023. március 29., Szerda - Brüsszel

12. A fluortartalmú gázokról szóló rendelet - Az ózonréteget lebontó anyagok (vita)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta:

- la relazione di Bas Eickhout, a nome della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sui gas fluorurati a effetto serra, che modifica la direttiva (UE) 2019/1937 e che abroga il regolamento (UE) n. 517/2014 (COM(2022)0150 - C9-0142/2022 - 2022/0099(COD)) (A9-0048/2023), e

- la relazione di Jessica Polfjärd, a nome della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sulle sostanze che riducono lo strato di ozono e che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 1005/2009 (COM(2022)0151 - C9-0143/2022 - 2022/0100(COD)) (A9-0050/2023).

  Bas Eickhout, rapporteur. – Madam President, colleagues, Vice-President, welcome, have a seat. We are here discussing, in the end, the phase-out of fluorinated gases. Fluorinated gases are very highly potent greenhouse gases. So one molecule of one of F-gases can even warm up the climate to the level of 24 000 times more than CO2.

And that is exactly what we’re trying to do here: what we’re going to do here is making an end to these F-gases and making sure that natural alternatives are being used so that this part of our economy will reach climate neutrality as promised also by 2050.

This goes back to when we were initially looking at CFCs that were causing, of course, a hole in the ozone layer and we replaced them with F-gases along the years but, of course, these, as I said, were very potent greenhouse gases. So there is an idea of some of the companies to say let’s every time then move away from these F-gases to other F-gases that have a lower impact, but still have an impact on our climate system and even to the level of going to PFAs, so damaging chemicals, whereas in many of these sectors natural alternatives are available, are existing and should be put at the front. And that is exactly what we are doing here and proposing here in the report.

So maybe just some highlights of the report. First of all, as I said, we are accelerating the transition to climate neutrality, meaning that in total quota F-gases will go to zero by 2050, ensuring climate neutrality in this low-hanging fruit. Secondly, we limit the risk of a lock-in to intermediate solutions like PFAs, so those sectors that can make the switch should make the switch to natural alternatives and skip the phase of PFAs that are damaging chemicals, and we would like to skip that and prevent that lock-in in intermediate solutions. Thirdly, we are providing certainty for consumers and investors. Those sectors that can move should move faster, and the bands that we are proposing in the report are very clear, are also thought of on making sure that they can deliver in time so that also the investors know what the direction of innovation in Europe should be.

We also take international responsibility by adding an export ban, which means that if we are going to clean up our own suppliers and we are going to clean up our own products, we are also making sure that we are not going to export steel products with F-gases to other countries outside the EU and this export ban is also part of the deal.

We are also there to prevent illegal trade and we want to accelerate training and employment in order to make sure that people, of course, also are being helped in making sure that they can do the new instalment.

There was, of course, a lot of discussion on heat pumps specifically, and we have paid a lot of specific attention also in our negotiations on the heat pumps, so there will be extra space in the quota system until 2030 and there is also a very clear check for the Commission to make sure that indeed we are still reaching the targets of REPowerEU. And if there are issues with quotas, then the Commission will also make sure that they will intervene and create more quotas where necessary.

Also with switchgear, we have been looking at specific needs there and, for example, for the high voltage, we will make sure that if there is a move towards an end of F-gases, that there will always be at least two bidders so that we are not creating any monopoly.

So all this together is very much clearly putting up European innovation for European SMEs central and, yes, you get a lot of lobby mills, but be aware most of those lobby mills are from American and Japanese companies who still would like to invest in these chemicals, which also have patents. Well, we here go for the natural alternatives which a lot of European SMEs are already innovating on, so a vote for what we have achieved in the ENVI Committee is a vote for European SMEs, is a vote for European innovation. And with that, I would like to thank my colleagues, and I’m looking forward to a fruitful and nice lively debate.

IN THE CHAIR: MARC ANGEL
Vice-President

  Jessica Polfjärd, föredragande. – Herr talman! När vi inledde den här mandatperioden så tog den här unionen på sig ett stort och avgörande uppdrag: att ställa om våra samhällen för att bli mer hållbara. Det var ett stort och viktigt steg för att göra Europa grönare, mer konkurrenskraftigt, men också mer hälsosamt. Det innebär såväl möjligheter som utmaningar. Det ligger ett stort ansvar hos oss beslutsfattare att leva upp till de miljö- och klimatmål som vi har satt upp. Samtidigt är dessa också möjligheter för en hållbar utveckling där vi kombinerar hållbarhet med tillväxt och konkurrenskraft.

Mycket har redan gjorts under den här mandatperioden, men vi behöver ta ytterligare steg, och i morgon tas ett viktigt och konkret steg framåt i det här arbetet när det kommer till att förbättra vårt ozonskikt. Utsläpp från ozonnedbrytande ämnen har resulterat i ett sämre ozonskikt som bidragit till den globala uppvärmningen. Förebyggande av utsläpp från dessa ämnen är nyckeln till att förhindra skador mot hälsa och miljö. Det är nämligen precis det som blir följden av ett skadat ozonskikt, och därför någonting vi behöver arbeta med för att klara unionens klimatmål. Det nuvarande regelverket är det viktigaste EU-instrumentet för att fortsätta arbetet med att förbättra och återställa ozonskiktet. Det har också visat sig fungera väl och därför bygger vårt förslag på tidigare framgångar med ytterligare åtgärder för att minska utsläppen.

Detta är inte bara en framgång för hälsan och miljön, utan också för europeisk industri som garanteras långsiktighet i sitt arbete med det nya regelverket. Jag är glad över att vi i de politiska grupperna kan stödja ett ambitiöst och balanserat förslag om att fortsätta att göra våra ansträngningar. Jag vill därför tacka skuggföredragandena för deras engagemang och arbete under det senaste halvåret, men också det tekniska teamet som har jobbat hårt.

På detta sätt höjer vi ambitionerna samtidigt som vi skapar rätt förutsättningar för alla inblandade parter att kunna leva upp till det nya regelverket. Tillsammans har vi kunnat enas om några viktiga saker. För det första innebär de högre ambitionerna att vi får ett regelverk som sätter fokus på ozonutsläpp där de är som störst och allvarligast jämfört med tidigare. Detta är viktigt för arbetet som vi gör, för att det ska få så stor effekt som möjligt för att förbättra ozonskiktet. För det andra har vi säkerställt att vi inte vidtar drastiska åtgärder som riskerar göra mer skada än nytta. Ska vi exempelvis fasa ut vissa substanser ska andra alternativ finnas tillgängliga och redo att användas.

I miljö- och klimatarbetet är en sak vägledande: höga ambitioner kombinerat med realism, och att tillväxten säkras. Med texten vi har på bordet visar vi Europa ännu en gång att en mer hållbar ekonomi går att kombinera med rätt förutsättningar för människor och industrin. Jag hoppas att ni alla vill ge stöd till det här förslaget, och att vi också kan gå in i förhandlingar med ministerrådet med ett tydligt och starkt mandat ifrån Europaparlamentet.

  Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, today we discussed two important proposals. In our view, they represent a step forward towards limiting global temperature increase and fulfilling our promises on the Paris Agreement.

Fluorinated greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances are extremely potent human-made greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming when released into the atmosphere. Ozone-depleting substances damage the very ozone layer itself that protects earth and humanity against dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

These chemicals have or used to have many very practical applications in our everyday life, for example in fridges, air conditioners, insulation foams, in fire protection and as propellants in asthma sprays. Our existing rules have been quite successful and have already delivered very important emissions reductions. However, scientific evidence pushes us to be more ambitious.

To start with fluorinated gases or F-gases: these were the fastest-growing greenhouse gas emissions before we regulated them. Since we introduced the HFC phase-down in 2014, the emissions of F-gases in the EU have started to decrease. In 2020, they were already 20% below their peak. But it’s not enough. We need to do better and innovations on the way allow us to do so.

The new rules before you today will further reduce F-gas emissions, contributing to Europe’s 2030 climate target and beyond. It equips our economy better and our pathway towards climate neutrality, setting an example to the rest of the world, and hopefully they will follow. We can transform this part of our economy so that it is no longer dependent on these highly warming gases.

In the end, the whole world will have to make this transformation, and our industries will be the first to supply these low-carbon and climate-neutral solutions. This transition will bring benefits for citizens as well, with, for instance, heat pumps that are more energy efficient. We want to have more heat pumps, but we also want them climate-ready. All sectors have to be part of this, be it for medical dose inhalers or switchgear. They will all have to make the switch. Still, I have to stress the regulation only gives incentives for the switch but does not prohibit existing safe solutions where these are required.

On the report of Bas Eickhout, in detail, we welcome that it supports the introduction of a quota price, as it will reduce misuse of the system and help us in implementing the regulation and the Montreal Protocol. However, we should analyse carefully the added value of the additional earmarking proposed for the remaining quota revenue. The new F-gas rules must facilitate better control and prevent illegal activities, and we welcome Parliament’s efforts to further strengthen them. With your vote tomorrow, you will start and we will start building an economy where F-gases are no longer part of the problem, but rather part of the solution.

Turning briefly to the ozone-depleting substances regulation: going ahead with their successful phase-out is really essential for our climate agenda. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, we can expect that the ozone hole will recover by approximately 2070 and prevent a major impact in global warming.

Models indicate that the existence of the protocol has prevented up to 2 ºC of climate warming by 2070 because of ozone-depleting substances only. But these effects are, in short, only if there is no backsliding. The danger is real, as shown by recent illegal production of ozone-depleting substances in China. The EU must continue leading by example and inspire others in the world to be ambitious.

One major area where emissions still occur is an insulation foams in old houses when buildings are demolished or renovated. This can be avoided by obligations to recover and destroy the ozone-depleting substances. I very much welcome that the ENVI Committee supported this concrete measure.

As regards the use of ozone-depleting substances in feedstocks. It is the Commission’s belief that our proposal is already fully aligned with the Montreal Protocol, in which feedstock use is not restricted. We will continue the debate but urge for caution that a deviation from this approach might result in relocation of EU companies and potentially higher emissions globally.

On both files, it is important for Parliament to be ambitious. This is again climate leadership in the making and I warmly want to thank the rapporteurs and their shadows for a job extremely well done.

  Stelios Kympouropoulos, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, F-gases are used in many applications, from medical devices to heat pumps, refrigeration and switchgears. Their reduction is crucial, as they are several thousand times stronger than carbon dioxide. By supporting this report, we have the opportunity to help our climate targets and secure a safe environment. However, we are not only supporting the environment, but we are also supporting the industry and giving a clear direction.

We are supporting leading EU manufacturers who are global frontrunners in clean alternatives, and who are showing the way to other manufacturers worldwide. We support the fundamentals of the compromise text from the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), as it is important to give a clear message for this direction to all parts of the industry and provide solid ground for all EU companies, especially the SMEs.

For the EPP, it was important to table very specific amendments – some jointly with Renew – to ensure that those who have not yet moved to clean alternatives have the time to do so safely, by taking into consideration the safety concerns, energy efficiency and the priority targets. I would like to thank the ENVI rapporteur, Bas Eickhout, and the rest of the shadows for their help during the conciliations. I would also like to thank the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) rapporteur, Sara Skyttedal, for her valuable contribution. I would like to ask you all to vote in favour of the proposal, the specified EPP Group amendments, and to support this report as a whole.

  Günther Sidl, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das inzwischen verbotene FCKW ist sicher noch vielen ein Begriff. In der EU ist es seit 1995 verboten. Hier hat das Verbot sehr eindrucksvoll gezeigt, dass dies der wirksamste Weg ist, wenn es darum geht, Forschung und Innovation für echte Alternativen voranzutreiben.

F-Gase finden sich in Klimaanlagen, Wärmepumpen, Schaltanlagen oder als Treibgas in Asthmasprays. Doch sie haben ein besonders hohes Treibhauspotenzial. Gleichzeitig können sie in fast allen Anwendungsfeldern relativ gut vermieden werden. Die EU hat daher bereits 2014 mit der F-Gas-Verordnung einen wichtigen Schritt gesetzt. Und es geht jetzt darum, bei dem vorliegenden Bericht nachzuschärfen und unsere Ansprüche auf die Höhe der Zeit zu bringen.

Ich verstehe, dass jede Änderung zunächst zu Verunsicherung führt. Wir setzen aber auf europäisches Know-how, und wir wollen hier bei uns Forschung und Innovation stärken. Es geht uns vor allem darum, dass wir europäische Unternehmen fördern und unterstützen, daher braucht es Augenmaß und Planungssicherheit. Das ist mit Sicherheit hier bei dem vorliegenden Bericht gewährleistet. In Folge haben wir auch einige Sicherheitsnetze eingezogen. Was wir aber mit Sicherheit nicht haben wollen, sind teure und vor allem kurzzeitig anwendbare Zwischenlösungen sowie der stärkere Einsatz anderer chemisch giftiger Substanzen – das wollen wir mit Sicherheit nicht.

  Ondřej Knotek, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the protection of the ozone layer is one of the priorities of Renew Europe and, therefore, we really welcome the agreement that is put on the table on the ozone-depleting substances.

We believe that further restriction of those substances will help close the ozone layer and as such will contribute to the public health. So I believe we will be able to support this proposal successfully tomorrow.

Now, concerning the second regulation on fluorinated gases, we have here, as correctly said, ambitious proposals from the Environmental Committee aiming to vastly and fastly reduce the use of fluorinated gases. The direction is good, to my feeling with this report, we would undermine further sustainability elements such as the circular economy, energy or material efficiency. And as well, we could put a risk on meeting the goals of the REPowerEU.

This is the reason why some elements have been some amendments, parallel plenary amendments have been tabled in order to address those concerns. I believe that we will be able also to support those amendments.

One example for all Renew Europe proposes to bring into the game the spare parts, because we definitely do not want to force the public to buy new devices before the end of the given life of their currently used product.

At the end, I would like to thank to both rapporteurs and all the shadow teams and all those working on those two pieces of legislation. They are very interesting, very technical, and I believe we will have tomorrow a successful vote.

  Pär Holmgren, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Först av allt ett stort tack till min svenska kollega Jessica Polfjärd. Det har varit väldigt roligt att jobba ihop. Det har varit ambitiöst och det har blivit ett bra resultat, men med tanke på det så undrar jag verkligen, hur kommer det sig att Moderaterna hemma i Sverige inte är ambitiösa i klimatfrågan och klimatomställningen?

Den utvärdering som klimatpolitiska rådet gjorde i dag på förmiddagen var ju inte bara en sågning – det var en motorsågsmassaker av den nuvarande moderatledda regeringens klimatarbete hemma i Sverige. När det gäller ordförandeskapet i ministerrådet så har det varit allt annat än ambitiöst när det gäller klimatomställningen. Så fort ordet skog kommer in så har man till och med agerat snarare som en bromskloss i klimatomställningen.

Men du, Jessica, har gjort ett jättebra jobb. Jag hoppas att du kan vara en inspiration för andra moderater hemma i Sverige. Om inte annat får du väl ringa hem till statsministern och säga att det är dags att höja ambitionerna även på hemmaplan. För det behövs verkligen!

  Alexandr Vondra, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, well, if you know, we will vote tomorrow on the revision of the Regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases, also known as ‘F—gases’, which belongs among the greenhouse gases. Therefore, like CO2, they have come under the Commission’s scrutiny.

It is, of course, right to limit the use of F—gases, because they have a high global warming potential, even greater than CO2 itself. At the same time, it should be done wisely and definitely not by shooting ourselves in our own foot. Besides their other applications, F—gases are used in heat pumps, which become one of the most effective tools to save energy and to cut off from Russian gas. That is why more and more households are installing them and public demand is increasing.

I want to thank Bas Eickhout for his rapporteurship, which he carried out in an open—minded and constructive way. I want to thank him, for example, for finding a solution regarding the usage of F—gases for the cooling of nuclear power plants.

On the other hand, some crucial elements are still missing in the final compromise. The phase-out of the F—gases in the heat pumps is, in my opinion, too fast for us to be able to meet the requirements. Therefore, I want to recommend that we vote for some amendments.

  Danilo Oscar Lancini, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la revisione del regolamento F-Gas tocca molti settori e avrà un'importanza cruciale per l'industria europea e italiana.

Ancora una volta il Parlamento ha prodotto una relazione che, se adottata, porterà ad un'importante contrazione del fatturato di imprese italiane leader, compromettendo posti di lavoro in Europa e spostando gli investimenti fuori dall'UE.

Questo testo è negativo per l'ambiente, danneggia gli obiettivi di REPowerEU e rallenta la decarbonizzazione e l'indipendenza da combustibili fossili. In alcuni settori, vietare le apparecchiature che contengono F-Gas a effetto serra, anche se a basso potenziale di riscaldamento globale, non è oggi realizzabile rapidamente. Poche apparecchiature che utilizzano F-Gas possono usare fonti alternative, o per mancanza di innovazione tecnologica o perché potenzialmente pericolosi o peggiori da un punto di vista ambientale.

Bisogna riconsiderare la parola "transizione ecologica". Dobbiamo tener conto dei tempi, scandirli meglio e condividerli con le industrie. Dobbiamo consentire alle industrie di salvaguardare l'ambiente, i lavoratori, le famiglie e tutto l'indotto colpito da questa revisione. Proseguire in questa impostazione ideologica utilizzata fino ad ora, non aiuta l'economia europea, ma va a danno delle imprese, dei nostri territori e fornisce l'ennesimo assist ai competitor esteri. Questa è una direzione sbagliata, se vogliamo sostenere l'ambiente e la nostra industria.

Noi sosterremo gli emendamenti che presenterà il PPE, perché l'impostazione ambientale è corretta e la condividiamo, siamo tutti a favore dell'ambiente, ma dobbiamo farlo rispettando dei tempi che ci consentono oggi, attraverso le nostre industrie, di poter mantenere il benessere che abbiamo raggiunto.

  Nikolaj Villumsen, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, Hello? Hello? Are you aware that there is a climate crisis? Frankly, I’m just asking because tomorrow we are voting on the extremely climate-harmful F-gases. But the right wing in this House are trying to undermine the compromise agreement we made in the committee. We agreed on a complete phase-out of F-gases. This agreement is now in danger.

We all know that F-gases are up to 24 000 times more damaging to the climate than CO2. We all know that F-gases contribute to more EU emissions than several Member States. We all know that the technology to get rid of and phase out F-gases exists.

I would therefore like to ask my friends, my colleagues on the right wing, why are you trying to punish those innovative companies that have developed the needed green technologies? Why are you gambling with our future to protect technologies of the past instead of creating green jobs for the future? Why not be ambitious when we can? Let us adopt the compromise we made in the committee. Let us choose a green future for our children. Let us take climate action now.

  Edina Tóth (NI). – Elnök Úr! A fluortartalmú üvegházhatású gázok és az ózonkárosító anyagok csökkentése elengedhetetlen az éghajlatváltozás elleni küzdelem és polgáraink egészsége érdekében.

Fontos a most hatályban levő határértékek felülvizsgálata, azonban minden új intézkedésnek arányosnak és kellően megalapozottnak kell lennie. Sajnos az EP javaslata ennek nem felel meg. Fontos megérteni azt, hogy egyes alkalmazások esetén, például nukleáris erőművek hűtésénél igenis szükség van ezen gázokra, hiszen azok központi szerepet játszhatnak az uniós klímacélok elérésében.

Tisztelt Timmermans Biztos Úr! A mostani helyzetben nem engedhetjük, hogy európai munkahelyek ezreit sodorjuk veszélybe átgondolatlan uniós szabályokkal. A klímasemleges gazdaságra való átállásnak minden tekintetben méltányosnak kell lennie, ezért arra kérem Önt, hogy az embereket, a munkavállalókat helyezze középpontba, most is, és minden jövőbeni jogalkotási javaslatánál is.

  Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Man sieht es nicht, aber diese F-Gase sind wirklich ein Sauzeug, und ich versuche das auch auf Englisch zu übersetzen: F-gases are a very dirty stuff. Wir müssen sie loswerden. Das ist wichtig für Klima und Umwelt.

Jetzt heißt es: Ja, aber das ist ein Problem für die Wirtschaft und für die Arbeitsplätze. Aber ich bin davon überzeugt, das Gegenteil ist der Fall: Die europäische Industrie ist innovativ. Sie hat die Alternativen schon entwickelt und bietet sie an, oft im Gegenteil zu amerikanischen und japanischen Unternehmen. Und das ist dann kein Protektionismus, sondern Unterstützung von Innovation, wenn wir Gesetze machen, die die Umwelt schützen, und die europäischen Unternehmen einfach besser sind.

Ich bin deshalb sehr dankbar – dem Berichterstatter und allen anderen, vor allen Dingen Stelios Kympouropoulos in der EVP –, dass wir hier einen guten Bericht haben. Aber ich bin auch davon überzeugt, dass wir Änderungsanträge brauchen. Ich bitte insbesondere um Unterstützung der Änderungsanträge 152 und 160. Hier geht es um das Handwerk, um Reparaturen und Ersatzteile. Und ich denke, das müssen wir berücksichtigen; dann kann aus einem guten ENVI-Bericht ein sehr guter Plenarbericht werden – gut für das Klima, gut für die Umwelt, gut für die innovativen Unternehmen und gut für Europa.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D). – Mr President, dear Vice-President Timmermans, dear colleagues, first of all, allow me to congratulate Ms Polfjärd for the report and also the cooperation during the negotiations. I would also like to thank our staff.

Well, in the ozone-depleting substances field, more than 2 000 small- and medium-sized enterprises operate at EU level and it is important to strengthen the Commission proposal with the social dimension being in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights.

On the other hand, introducing maximum emission levels and the schedule for phasing out for quantitative limits are important pieces of the emissions and pollutants package under the European Green Deal. The EU’s Ozone Regulation, we can say that this is one of the big success stories of the EU environmental policy and shows how excellent results can be achieved with clear, binding rules, which were missing over years and decades at the level of climate ambition, and in addition cementing Europe’s position as a global leader at the Montreal Protocol.

  Emma Wiesner (för Renew-gruppen). – Herr talman! Visste ni, att det förra året såldes dubbelt så många värmesystem som använde fossilgas, jämfört med värmepumpar, i Tyskland? Det här visar oss att vi behöver varenda värmepump om vi ska klara av att fasa ut den ryska gasen. Men f-gaser används i värmepumpar – f-gaser som har otroligt hög påverkan på klimatet och växthuseffekten och som måste fasas ut.

Här, kära kolleger, står vi som så många gånger förr i ett dilemma. F-gaserna måste fasas ut, men gör vi det för fort så skjuter vi oss själva i foten. Vi hindrar elektrifieringen och vi får svårare att fasa ut den ryska gasen. Gör man som de i det högra hörnet vill, då ignorerar man klimatpolitiken och gör ingenting, men gör man som i Miljöpartiets drömvärld, då fasar man ut allt av ondo över en natt och har inga alternativ att byta ut gasen med.

Därför behöver vi en realistisk miljöpolitik, så att man gör saker, men har två tankar i huvudet samtidigt. Vi måste fasa ut f-gasen, men vi måste göra det med realistiska alternativ, och vi måste klara av att lösa klimatfrågan både på kort och på lång sikt.

  Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Grupa ECR nie ma problemu z zagłosowaniem za rozporządzeniem dotyczącym substancji zubożających warstwę ozonową. To rzeczywiście porządkowanie, dostosowanie definicji czy też dostosowanie do innych aktów prawnych. Rzeczywistość się trochę zmieniła i trzeba unowocześnić ten dokument. Natomiast mamy duży kłopot z rozporządzeniem dotyczącym gazów fluorowanych, dlatego że on jest nierealny i niemożliwy do zrealizowania. I tak naprawdę jest wbrew temu, co jest w dokumencie RePowerEU, do którego pan Timmermans jest szczególnie przywiązany. Nie ma takiej możliwości, żeby w takim tempie odejść od gazów fluorowanych i jednocześnie nie martwić się o pompy ciepła, które są tutaj alternatywą. To spowoduje zaburzenie systemu energetycznego, efektywności energetycznej, upadek małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw i wreszcie właściwie niedostępność pomp ciepła na rynku, bo będą tak drogie.

Tutaj trzeba się zastanowić, wydłużyć czas, pokazać alternatywy, wycenić te alternatywy, żeby nie być podejrzanym, że dbamy o interesy kilku – szczególnie niemieckich – firm.

  André Rougé (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je voudrais illustrer l’hypocrisie de formations politiques de notre assemblée. En exemple: le cas très concret de la centrale électrique de l’Ouest guyanais, projet très innovant, résidant dans la création d’une centrale photovoltaïque au sol pour alimenter en énergie une zone autour de Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni.

La société qui porte le projet est pionnière dans le domaine de l’hydrogène d’origine renouvelable. Cette technique remplit à 100 % les critères européens en termes de transition verte et d’indépendance énergétique. Les procédures terminées, et alors que les travaux commençaient, certains activistes soutenus par des écologistes et LFI tentent d’empêcher l’avancée du projet en bloquant physiquement les travaux.

La seule alimentation électrique actuelle de cette partie de la Guyane française est une centrale thermique très polluante. Il est curieux de voir cette schizophrénie pour la transition et les énergies renouvelables, ici, pour la surenchère et l’affrontement, comme seuls savent le faire les écolos-terroristes qui l’ont rappelé samedi à Sainte-Soline, là-bas.

Le tout alimente encore une fois la stratégie du chaos et de la zadisation généralisée. J’appelle à défendre ce projet bénéfique et à ne pas trop accorder de crédit aux écologistes virtuels que nous pouvons croiser ici.

Le Président – Cher collègue, je trouve que le terme de terroriste n’est pas approprié pour qualifier des activistes écologiques.

   Catch-the-eye procedure

President. – We go to the catch-the-eye now. We have five speakers and I would ask you to be brief, one minute.

  Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule prim-vicepreședinte, trebuie să găsim și să implementăm cele mai bune soluții pentru protejarea mediului.

Însă să ne amintim că însuși Pactul Verde European menționează că această tranziție trebuie făcută în detrimentul unei Europe care prosperă, care este echitabilă pentru toți și care are o economie modernă și competitivă.

Această propunere a Comisiei, de revizuire a Regulamentului privind gazele fluorurate, pune în pericol industrii întregi, locuri de muncă, competiția justă pe piața europeană și independența energetică a statelor membre.

Nu este inteligent să luăm decizii pentru care societățile și statele noastre nu sunt încă pregătite și pentru care nu vor fi pregătite nici după 2026. Să fim realiști, trebuie să ne asigurăm mai întâi că măsurile necesare pentru eliminarea echipamentelor de bază de gaze fluorurate se fac treptat, completând ambițiile UE în materie de climă și energie, fără să ne facem rău singuri, să ne adâncim dependența energetică de alte state. Și am văzut ce s-a întâmplat atunci când am fost dependenți de Rusia și ne-a șantajat.

  Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, o Regulamento dos Gases Fluorados é ambicioso, projetando uma meta de zero emissões a partir de 2050 e que apoiamos.

É verdade que os gases fluorados são prejudiciais para a atmosfera, mas gostaria de chamar a atenção para o desflurano, que é um gás anestésico usado para cirurgias de doentes pediátricos, idosos e obesos e porque até agora não existe nenhuma alternativa segura e eficaz que substitua este gás anestésico.

Em terceiro lugar, também dizer que as emissões do desflurano são muito limitadas, dado que acontecem em locais estritamente necessários e quando existem tecnologias capazes de recaptar o desflurano e prevenir a sua emissão para a atmosfera.

A proibição deste anestésico poderá colocar milhares de cirurgias em risco. Chamo a atenção para este facto. Não se trata de escolher um caminho em detrimento de outro. Temos que salvaguardar estes doentes enquanto salvamos o planeta com esta proposta ambiciosa e pela qual saúdo ambos os relatores.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señor presidente, quiero manifestar mi total compromiso con el objetivo de que la Unión sea climáticamente neutra en 2050 y apostar por que esta transición hacia una economía cero en emisiones se guíe por la participación, la puesta en valor del conocimiento social disponible, el consenso y la tecnología.

Así, evitaremos episodios como el recientemente vivido con la prohibición de la venta de vehículos de combustión. Una carrera por obtener el titular más vistoso penalizó propuestas igual de eficaces, pero desde la neutralidad tecnológica. Espero que aprovechemos las lecciones aprendidas.

Un ejemplo es la enmienda 56 —que apoyo— al artículo que vetaba un anestésico administrado por inhalación y difícilmente sustituible, especialmente en cirugía pediátrica. La propuesta original planteaba una excepción para el veto cuando su uso fuese imprescindible y no hubiese alternativa clínica. Obligaba, además, a justificarlo mediante un procedimiento complejo, pero eso no evitaba las emisiones. Nosotros apoyamos que, además, se permita el uso de esta sustancia cuando se utilice en combinación con un sistema de captura de estas emisiones nocivas. Me baso en un proyecto en marcha en el Servicio Público Vasco de Salud (Osakidetza): una tecnología que evita las emisiones, reduce la huella de carbono del hospital que lo implanta, garantiza a los anestesistas la libre elección de anestésico y se adapta fácilmente a las prácticas de trabajo de cualquier hospital.

Conocimiento, consenso y tecnología mejor que titulares e ideología.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми заместник-председател на Комисията, направеното предложение е нереалистично, неизпълнимо, наивно и до голяма степен ще причини загубата на работни места в европейския континент и отговаря на интересите на лобисти, като например сектора на пропана.

Не се съмнявам в добрите намерения на докладчиците, но си мисля, че за пореден път сме свидетели на това как едни добри намерения ще пренареждат и ще помагат да бъде пренареждана индустрия и тази зала ще бъде използвана да гласува в една или в друга полза. Пак казвам, това е в интерес например на немски фирми, но в никой случай не е в интерес на фирмите в Централна и Източна Европа, които работят в тази сфера.

Отново повтарям, тук виждам лобизъм в интерес и в посока на фирми, които се занимават и произвеждат, както и продават пропан, с който се предполага да се заменят тези газове, както ги наричате, и виждаме същото нещо, което се случи и с пакета Мобилност, което се случи с двигателите с вътрешно горене. Един климатичен истеризъм, който обаче минава в лобизъм и всъщност застрашава работни места.

  Ladislav Ilčić (ECR). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, dame i gospodo, mjesecima ovdje raspravljamo o važnosti ušteda energije i prelaska na čišće izvore energije. Postavili smo si jako dobar cilj da ćemo imati novih 50 milijuna toplinskih pumpi u Europskoj uniji do 2030. godine.

No, s ovakvom Uredbom o fluoriranim plinovima to jednostavno nećemo postići. I tko će tada odgovarati?

Ljudi će zbog povećanih cijena manje prelaziti na toplinske pumpe. Nećemo uštedjeti energiju, a poskupjet će i hladnjaci, nastradat će maloprodaja, nastradat će poljoprivreda i turizam.

Da, fluorirani plinovi su štetni, pogotovo neki. Međutim, potrebno nam je vrijeme da razvijemo alternative. Kakvu odluku ćete donijeti, onu koja sad dobro zvuči, ali je nerealna ili odluku koja donosi dobre rezultate za ljude i okoliš?

Zato vas pozivam da budete realni i učinkoviti, da odbijete ENVI amandmane i da glasate za naše amandmane koji mogu ovo izvješće učiniti dobrim.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you, and thank you to the Members for their contribution to the debate. The proposals we’re discussing today together could bring about a total reduction in the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions of 490 million tonnes in CO2 equivalents by 2050. It’s a significant number, slightly higher than the total annual greenhouse gas emissions of a country like France.

I’m very pleased to see that Parliament agrees on the general architecture of the proposals and that there is broad support. It’s fundamental that we remain united in the fight against climate change, that we do not to close our eyes to science and that we let scientists guide us. That’s what we’re doing today: taking science as your guiding principle – that’s realistic; closing your eyes to science – that’s unrealistic and dangerous, especially for jobs.

I recognise that the timing of some requirements for when products need to make the shift to more climate-friendly gases has been here an element of discussion? I note that several amendments seem to think it is better to delay these dates, for instance, for heat pumps. And I do also note that my good friend Alexandr Vondra is now such a warm proponent of heat pumps – that came as a welcome surprise. But for heat pumps, this comes at a time where we need to increase deployment rapidly to meet our REPowerEU and 2030 climate goals. The Commission is well aware of this and included heat pumps as a strategic sector in the Net-Zero Industry Act.

And let me add, since this issue was mentioned just a while ago, two of the biggest factories for making heat pumps, in the world, will be built in eastern Europe. And that is going to lead to a lot of jobs and well-paid jobs and long-term jobs. So let’s not create caricatures here, please.

But as many in EU industry, we don’t think it helps to continue business as usual. These two plans show that clearly. We need to invest now in the right manufacturing, not the obsolete ones. Technologies exist and by asking to make the shift early on, we create a competitive advantage for our industry, not a disadvantage. Some of us are fighting every day – every day – to convince you and others that we do not help our workers, our industry, our growth by tying ourselves, by chaining ourselves to the past. And I hope this Parliament has the wisdom to understand that this can be done and it gives us a competitive edge, an advantage over other parts of the world if we are forward—looking.

So, delaying these bans, as some amendments propose, cannot, in all earnestness, be seen as being in the interest of the European Union, of its people and of its workforce. So I call on the European Parliament to be also ambitious on this tomorrow and engage in a swift negotiation process to reach an agreement with Council before summer so that the new rules for both F—gases and ozone—depleting substances can apply from 2024 onwards. This will send an early signal to industry as well as getting better tools to prevent illegal activities.

  Bas Eickhout, rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all, I really would like to thank all my colleagues who have been part of the negotiations. Here I want to stress that, during those negotiations, we have been talking to many European industries: from Poland, from Czech Republic, from Italy, from Greece. Exactly those companies in those countries who are saying, ‘We are ready.’

When you are saying this is a green ideology, you are defending American and Japanese companies who like to sell some of these chemicals and are only interested in innovation in the chemicals themselves, which in the end even deliver PFAS in heat pumps. That’s what you’re aiming for, and that’s not what we are aiming for.

We are aiming here for European innovation, and it is not only Germany. This is exactly indeed what Vice-President Mr Timmermans is also rightfully saying. This is not the kind of old argument to say, ‘Ah, this is promoting German industry.’ This is an industry that is all over Europe, and it’s all over Europe investing in innovation and in new jobs. And that’s exactly what we’re supporting here. It’s the American and the Japanese companies that are not going into that innovation. It’s the European ones.

So, this time it is very clear-cut and we have sufficient time. We have talked to a lot of industry who said we can do it already next year, but we even allow them more time; we even have safeguards; we even have asked the Commission to make sure that they are keeping it on track for the implementation of REPowerEU. All that is in place, and then now still delaying things because some of the American and Japanese lobby is asking you to do so? I think this is time to choose for European industry and European innovation, and that’s what we’re going to do tomorrow.

  Jessica Polfjärd, fördragande. – Herr talman! Tack till alla er som har bidragit till debatten, även om den här gången inte var så hård. Jag kan konstatera att det råder en stor samstämmighet och ett brett parlamentariskt stöd om hur viktigt det är att vi arbetar ambitiöst och målmedvetet med vår miljö- och klimatpolitik. Det gläder mig också att vi sätter sakfrågan i centrum och lämnar orealistiska förslag därhän.

Som jag inledde denna debatt så visade Europaparlamentet med detta förslag hur vi kan arbeta fram ambitiösa och realistiska förslag för att möta våra miljö- och klimatutmaningar. Miljö- och klimatutmaningar är vår tids stora fråga, och precis som utmaningarna är också möjligheterna det. Den gröna omställningen kan bidra till Europas välstånd, utveckling och konkurrenskraft. Låt oss tillvarata dessa möjligheter och göra det möjligt så långt det bara går.

Tack igen till de politiska grupperna, och tack till skuggföredragandena som har varit med och arbetat och förhandlat fram detta förslag. Jag får också rikta ett extra tack till Pär Holmgren från Gruppen De gröna som riktade beröm åt mitt håll. Jag ska gå hem och fundera på om det var bra eller dåligt.

  President. – The joint debate is now closed, and as you heard from many colleagues, the vote will be held tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 171)

  Mihai Tudose (S&D), în scris. – Raportul privind gazele fluorurate este un exemplu trist de bune intenții compromise de lipsa de realism și excesul populist-ecologist. M-am abținut la votul final, după ce o serie de amendamente, împotriva cărora am votat, au alterat substanța propunerii Comisiei Europene. Un exemplu elocvent sunt termenele pentru interzicerea de produse, sisteme și echipamente. A institui interdicția de la 1 ianuarie 2024 pentru unele echipamente de refrigerare și de la 1 ianuarie 2025 pentru echipamente de climatizare și pompe de căldură autonome care conțin gaze fluorurate înseamnă o presiune nejustificată asupra pieței, a producătorilor și a consumatorilor deopotrivă.

Sunt de acord cu eliminarea gazelor fluorurate, din cauza efectului lor de seră, dar reducerea trebuie să fie treptată, pentru ca sectoarele vizate să se poată adapta tehnologic pentru a dezvolta alternative nepoluante, iar cetățenii să nu fie forțați să cumpere produse noi înainte de finalul ciclului de viață al celor deținute deja. Nu e normal să fie astfel bulversate industria deja lovită de pandemie și de criza energetică, piața afectată de disfuncționalitățile lanțurilor de aprovizionare și consumatorii împovărați de greutățile traiului zilnic. Pentru ce? Pentru eliminarea accelerată a gazelor fluorurate, care reprezintă 2,5 % din emisiile de gaze cu efect de seră ale UE!