Find a petition
Petitions do not appear instantly on the Petition Portal after their submission. They are published following their adoption by the Committee on Petitions. This processing takes some time as it depends on the number of petitions being processed at any given time.
According to the petitioner, there is allegedly an issue with the implementation of Directive 2014/31/EU, which pertains to the weighing of bulky waste. The petitioner states that this directive, as it is currently applied by waste disposal companies, has several negative consequences. The petitioner asserts that the current regulations or their implementation by disposal companies, particularly regarding the weighing of bulky and old wood waste, are problematic. Allegedly, the inclusion of the minimum load requirement of the scales used, typically set at 100 kg, leads to irrational consumer behaviour and increased operational efforts for waste disposal companies. This, in turn, results in higher CO2 emissions, thereby exacerbating climate change unnecessarily. Furthermore, the petitioner mentions that feedback from the relevant metrology offices indicates that they are simply enforcing EU Directive 2014/31/EU. However, the petitioner believes that the practical effects of this enforcement are counterproductive, leading to greater environmental harm instead of mitigating it. The petitioner demands that the mentioned directive be amended in the interest of consumers and climate protection, and that all remaining and future EU directives be reviewed for their impact on climate change.
The petitioner calls for an amendment to the fleet consumption calculation for the model range of car manufacturers by considering not only the consumption but also the current share of regeneratively produced fuel. The petitioner argues that electric vehicles are currently classified as zero-emission, even though the regenerative share in the electricity mix in Germany averages only around 50 percent. This allegedly distorts the competition against other similarly low-emission vehicles, such as compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles powered by methane. According to the petitioner, the proportion of climate-neutral biomethane is also around 50 percent and rising. The lack of consideration of the share of regeneratively produced fuels in the fleet regulation of car manufacturers allegedly leads to a disadvantage for CNG vehicles compared to electric vehicles. As a result of this allegedly distorted classification, the industry is allegedly no longer developing the CNG technology, which is comparably climate-friendly to e-technology, and new concepts are not being brought to market maturity quickly. According to the petitioner, the fleet consumption calculation should have a stronger steering effect for climate-friendly vehicle models.
The petitioner raises several concerns regarding the Leipzig/Halle Airport, Germany. These concerns encompass the airport’s financial situation, potential subsidies, environmental pollution, noise pollution, non-compliance with a night flight ban, and violations of conservation and climate policies. According to the petitioner, the ongoing or planned financial support for Leipzig/Halle Airport might breach EU state aid rules, particularly Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Moreover, he claims that the environmental and noise pollution caused by the airport could violate several EU directives, including the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). The failure to enforce a night flight ban undermines citizens’ right to a quiet environment and could lead to harmful noise levels, potentially breaching the mentioned EU directives. According to the petitioner, any activities or planned expansions of the airport that contradict the objectives of the European Green Deal or fail to meet the requirements of the Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action need careful scrutiny. The petitioner urges the European Commission to conduct a comprehensive investigation to determine if there are breaches of EU law and to take appropriate actions to ensure compliance.
The petition denounces the setbacks in sustainable mobility in the city of Logroño (La Rioja). Specifically, the petition denounces the dismantling of bicycle lanes built with European funds, the lack of progress in the implementation of Low Emission Zones, and asks for the continuation of the pedestrian and bicycle lanes in the neighbourhoods of Madre de Dios and San José. She emphasises that this regression is not only a significant harm to sustainable mobility, but also a threat to the health of the citizens and a serious setback in actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the quality of the environment, and may cause economic damage. The petitioner recalls the EU’s objective to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. She is concerned about the risk that the municipality will have to return EU funds granted for the implementation of measures to decarbonise urban transport and improve more sustainable mobility in Logroño.
The petitioner requests the European Parliament to issue an opinion on the appropriateness and legitimacy of using the EAFRD for a project to reopen the Rhône–Rhine canal in Alsace for pleasure boats. The petitioner believes that the project will cause serious damage to the environment, biodiversity, wetlands and the landscape and will have an impact on the climate and the ecological transition. In his opinion, the project’s economic benefits have been overstated and will do little to help rural development. The petitioner explains that the canal, which has not been used for shipping since the 1960s, has been rewilded and has become an ecosystem containing habitats for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including numerous species protected in France and Europe. He estimates that its EUR 45 million cost is exorbitant and emphasises that the project is reliant on EU funds (EUR 5 million from the EAFRD and EUR 11.2 million from the ERDF). The petitioner also bemoans manipulation of the EAFRD and the ‘artificial’ division of the project into two phases, the first of which would, in his view, be exempt from a full environmental assessment and compensating measures.
The petitioner claims that Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction of invasive alien species cannot be fully implemented in Germany, given that Germany’s first action plan did not identify or prioritise any pathways pursuant to Article 13(2) of the regulation that refer to private or commercial/industrial land, waters and rivers. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, Germany’s first action plan was also drawn up much later than stipulated by the EU (3 years after adoption). In the petitioner’s view, this resulted in a non-harmonious approach and various neophytes (such as giant hogweed) were able to spread unchecked. Given that invasive species spread extensively on private land, resulting in contaminated areas and spreading via other pathways, the petitioner believes that these pathways should be covered by Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014. The petitioner states that the German law implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of 8 September 2017 (BGBl. I, p. 3370) added implementing measures for the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatschG) and the Federal Hunting Act (BJagdG), but that measures or action plans to regulate spreading on privately owned land were missing. The petitioner considers that, in order to effectively address the issue of invasive species, it is necessary to implement an overarching nationwide measure in line with Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014, which covers all pathways and forms of spreading, also for climate reasons.
The petitioner reports that in her town, Marina di Massa, a project has been approved for the redevelopment of a disused seaside holiday accommodation complex (from the early 1900s) and the adjacent public park using National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) funds under Mission 5, component 2, Investment 2.3. She stresses that the original project was for renovation of the complex for use as halls of residence for students and multipurpose centres, while the park was to be upgraded by cutting down diseased plants and replanting new trees. She alleges that the project has been overhauled and now entails demolishing historic buildings to construct new ones as well as sports fields and car parks on the site of the park, thus using two hectares more than were originally planned. She adds that these buildings are to be demolished following a prior technical report establishing the complex’s poor static and seismic resistance, which in reality only referred to a single building in the complex. The petitioner therefore believes this to be a serious infraction owing to the lack of necessary documentation – attributable to the developer’s negligence – and the project’s breach of the PNRR’s basic and comprehensive principles such as its ban on land consumption, the ‘do no serious harm’ principle, the requirement to renovate historical and culturally significant buildings and its ban on any activities liable to contribute to climate change (it entails cutting down 7 000 trees). The petitioner is therefore calling on the EU institutions to take action.
The petitioner complains that the importance given to the development of renewable energy in the province of León (and in Spain as a whole) in order to take urgent measures to combat climate change has led to the neglect of the conservation and restoration of sustainable ecosystems and biodiversity, in breach of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The petitioner, therefore, asks the European Union to require the Spanish government and regional authorities to slow down the pace at which renewable energy projects are being implemented, as they threaten large areas of natural and agricultural ecosystems. She considers that the energy and environmental transition should be carried out in a slower and more considered way, not for the profit of large electricity companies, and that the obligation to carry out the Strategic Environmental Assessments, as provided for in Directive 2001/42/EC, should be respected, in order to determine the best way to reconcile environmental and energy objectives, as well as to comply with the recently adopted Nature Restoration law. The petitioner states that the abovementioned lack of spatial planning also affects the socio-economic environment, seriously endangering, inter alia, the agricultural, tourism and hotel sectors of the regions concerned. According to her, in addition to the systematic failure to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, due to the poor choice of the areas of establishment of wind farms and photovoltaic plants, other European Directives are infringed. The petitioner requests the suspension of all wind farm and photovoltaic plant projects currently being processed in the province of León until this comprehensive plan for the implementation of renewable energy in the province is subject to the corresponding Strategic Environmental Assessment.