Debate: Revision of the EU Emissions Trading System - Social Climate Fund - Carbon border adjustment mechanism - Revision of the EU Emissions Trading System for aviation - Notification under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
Date: TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 2022
Speaker: Frans Timmermans
Language: EN

Parliament was also quick to rightfully call what we’re in a climate emergency. We saw what the floods did last year in Germany, in Belgium and even in the Netherlands, killing people, levels of destruction hardly ever seen. We had a tornado in the Czech Republic – never before. We had completely erratic weather patterns – snow in Spain when you don’t expect it, droughts and floods all over the place when you don’t expect it. So I don’t think there’s any European citizen we need to convince that we’re in the middle of a climate crisis. It’s not a crisis that will be coming down the road. It’s here already. What we need to do is make this transition happen. The war has only accentuated the importance of making this transition happen as quickly as possible. Money spent on renewables in Europe is money that stays in Europe. Money spent on fossil fuel bought in Russia is money that disappears in Putin’s pockets and is then used to wage a war against his peaceful neighbours. This reality is the reality that should dictate the urgency of the measures we need to take. Today, I would like to plead for two things: I would urge you to vote for a consistent package to reach our climate targets; and also I would urge you to make sure that in doing this we leave no one behind. Our policy will be just or there just will not be a policy. And I have to admit, with all the admiration I have for what Parliament has done so far, some of your positions do worry me. First, emissions trading for fuels and road transport and buildings. This is an incredibly important extra tool to tackle emissions in buildings and transport. In transport, emissions are not just rising gradually, they’re shooting up instead of going down. In buildings we need to double our effort to reduce consumption of energy. This is helping our citizens reduce their energy bills, delivering better—quality homes, reducing air pollution that still kills prematurely 400 000 Europeans every year. It’s urgent. And then, of course, we need this instrument to fill a Social Climate Fund that could help us help vulnerable households. If you look at what’s happening, this is what we need to help vulnerable households to switch to clean forms of heating and mobility. Now, many Members now want to reduce the new ETS to commercial buildings and transport, at least for the beginning. This will take two thirds of the emissions out of the system. Instead of delivering 45% of emissions reductions in buildings and transport, it would only deliver 10%. We agreed in the first European Climate Law to put ourselves irrevocably on the path towards climate neutrality. This is what Parliament asks for every time. Parliament also says the earlier, the better. We know it can’t be denied that change must urgently happen in road transport and buildings. We know that Member States have not delivered the reductions in the past, and yet you plan to weaken an instrument that can deliver the emissions reductions in a socially fair manner. Here I would like to address the Members from Member States with many vulnerable households: please, please make the right comparison. Look where you are now. You’re paying astronomical amounts of money for gas and oil to Russia and other countries. That money disappears. With our proposal for emissions trading and the Social Climate Fund, you would not only keep more money, but you could use it to help your vulnerable households and you could do so before the effects of emissions trading are felt – first, the Climate Social Fund, and only then the emissions trading effects will be felt. That is, socially, I believe, the right thing to do. It is only fair to ask those driving on petrol to pay a carbon price. Those driving electric already pay that price. It’s only fair that those polluting more pay more. The heating and mobility of the 20% poorest in society only produce 9% of emissions. The 20% richer households emit 32% of emissions. A Social Climate Fund that uses revenues from the wealthy, who could change their habits in order to help the vulnerable, who cannot, is a fair way of redistribution. Yet your proposal could cut the Social Climate Fund by half. This won’t be enough to ensure a fair transition. We will have to discuss this in the trilogues. Members try and compensate with more ambition for heavy industry and maritime transport, but don’t think that this will shield the vulnerable. This too will have consequences. Power plants could lose an extra 16% of the free emission allowances. This would increase energy prices for citizens and this time without help for vulnerable households. And obviously it would impact jobs and industry, too. We do not want jobs to get lost in industry, we want more jobs in industry. So the Commission reserves its position ahead of the vote and will stand in trilogues for a package that is complete, coherent and socially fair. I am really grateful to Parliament for moving the package towards trilogues. Let’s agree that ultimately we want to transition in line with the Climate Law, the Climate Law which is binding on all of us. I want to end by telling you I was in Poland last week talking to people who are faced with incredible price hikes, not just for oil and gas, also for coal. Coal is also unattainable for many people. And everybody’s saying, how can I get my hands on solar panels? Where is the heat pump I can install? So that country is transforming itself at lightning speed – at lightning speed, if you see how many solar panels you see on rooftops everywhere. So let us assist our citizens who know they need to do this by giving them the right incentives and by protecting the vulnerable against the consequences.