Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), Emma WIESNER (RE, SE), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI) and and Inna SOVSUN, member of the Ukrainian Parliament /Rada (remotely) hold a press conference on Taxonomy, the Commission’s plan to include certain nuclear and gas activities in the list of environmentally sustainable economic activities.

EICKHOUT, Bas (Greens/EFA, NL)

press conference

fight against climate change (T)

HANSEN, Christophe (LU, EC)

MODIG, Silvia (The Left, FI)

WIESNER, Emma (Renew, SE)

biodiversity strategy (T)

Press conference by Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA), rapporteur on Taxonomy; Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), Emma WIESNER (RE, SE), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI) and and Inna SOVSUN, member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), Good morning. My name is Bas Eickhout and we are here. We've done this before, but it's the same. I was always saying we can do a road show by now. This is the five cross-party coalition who also has been working on the objection, the resolution for objection, that will be voted tomorrow. So this afternoon, we will have a debate in the plenary on it and then we will take a vote tomorrow afternoon. It's quite soon. It's one of the first votes we're going to take. So quite soon after 12, you will know what what will happen.

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), I think since we last met, we had the vote in the lead committees of ECON, the Economic Affairs, and ENVI, the Environmental Affairs, and there was a clear majority supporting the objection. So we hope, of course, to get the same result in the plenary. I think what for today is also very important is that the discussion is also more and more turning into the what does this do with the situation in Ukraine and the war by Putin? And that's why also we have an external guest and it's a member of the parliament of Ukraine. So I hope she's on line. I see that indeed.

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), So I would propose before we speak, we give our external guest from Ukraine the floor, because I think there are some very good arguments why also in Ukraine, people are more and more concerned about this proposal by the Commission and therefore we thought it would be good to have her also speak. Inna Sovsun, good morning and I would propose you take the floor first.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), I so much wish I could have been a part of the what is called a road show. But travelling from Ukraine is extremely complicated right now, as you probably know. In order for me to arrive to Strasbourg, I did some calculations, it would have taken 28 or 29 hours because we cannot fly from Kiev, and we have to travel to Poland. And of course, the reason for that is very simple, is because Ukraine airspace is closed because of the Russian missiles hitting our cities every single day.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), Just this morning, the Russians have been targeting the central region of Dnipro with seven missiles. One of them actually hit the target and that became our everyday reality. And I wish there could be the situation could have been different, but it is what it is. And I think the major reason why I am speaking in front of you here today and I'm grateful for the opportunity, is precisely because of that, because we have to recognise the reality of what is happening over here in Ukraine, but also recognise that this is posing a threat to the whole European community altogether.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), And I believe that this is a fact that needs to be recognised, a fact being that today the situation, geopolitical situation that both Ukraine and European Union are in is completely different from the situation as it has been in early February when the taxonomy document was presented to the European Parliament. And I think that is the fact that cannot be argued against. So that is the situation as it is. That taxonomy was developed and was prepared in a completely different geopolitical situation and it was developed based on the idea that it is acceptable to rely on cheap gas from Russia.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), That is why what we are seeing in the taxonomy is reliance on gas, but also very specific reliance on gas is not just any gas because there are arguments right now that we can buy gas from the United States or from any other countries. But if you look at the document very precisely and into the details, you will see that it's not even mentioning, let's say, build LNG terminals, which could, you know, be a precondition for bringing in gas from the United States or anywhere else from overseas. It doesn't mention that yet. It does mention the usage of gas. Then my question would be where will that gas come from? And it's a very simple question. It doesn't take, you know, long to think about that.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), Clearly, the gas will come through that the routes that that are already established, which are the pipelines. And we know that the majority of gas that is coming through pipelines to European Union today is gas coming from Russia. And that is the major objective on my side or on many Ukrainian activists, one on many other people who are supporting in Ukraine is that the taxonomy that is developed and that is being presented now does not take into account the new geopolitical reality, and it is built on the presupposition of easy availability of cheap Russian gas.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), And that is why we are calling to reconsider the document and the big question of why the gas should be part of the of the deal all together. It needs to be discussed. But what I believe cannot be questioned is the fact that Russian gas cannot be part of the solution to the problems that European Union is trying to tackle with this taxonomy. And that is something that needs to be remembered. European Union cannot be at the same time supporting Ukraine, saying that it stands with Ukraine providing some weapons to Ukraine, not enough, but but yet some weapons to Ukraine. And at the same time to continue to build economy based on on easy access to cheap Russian gas.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), As of today, European Union unfortunately, send in almost €1 billion every day to Russia. And that is the money that the Russian government, Putin and his cronies are using with one single reason: to continue to build the missiles with which they target in Ukrainian cities. And I'm just asking you to help us stop that. That is extremely unfair. That is destroying lives, that is destroying families, that is destroying infrastructure, that is destroying the future of my country. And I believe if if people who are making decisions on the floor tomorrow answer the question honestly about how this document will affect the geopolitical stand of European Union.

SOUNDBITE (English), Inna SOVSUN (member of the Ukrainian Parliament/Rada), The answer will be very, unfortunately, simple. The taxonomy, as it has been developed itself, was based on a different geopolitical reality, which is not true anymore. And which relies too much on Russian gas. And Russian gas should not be limiting their political action and political stance of the European countries. That is why I'm here with the colleagues today, and I'm wrapping up on that, calling you to reconsider the document, and please take into account the promises made to Ukraine, to the people of the European countries in terms of fighting against Putin and realise and this this taxonomy is very much part of the Putin efforts to change European politics. That is why it needs to be rejected and reconsidered in the future.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), Thank you very much, Bas. And as well, thank you very much Inna for having been with us. You have very clearly highlighted the further dependency that we would create on Russian gas by doing this taxonomy delegated act, of this complimentary delegated act. You have highlighted many of the reasons why it doesn't make sense. Anyhow, I could add some of them.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), You have mentioned already the LNG terminals that could be eventually not an alternative to Russian gas, but nonetheless we have as well in our partnership with Egypt and Israel to get LNG inside. But the terminals are not electricity power plants, so this will not be eligible, you have highlighted. So I think even on that sense, the delegated act is obsolete before it could even enter into force and we have to acknowledge that.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), And then on the other side, on nuclear for example, as well, the precondition to be eligible under the EU taxonomy, you would need a final repository for highly radioactive waste by 2050, and there are currently only three member states that eventually would get there. So it doesn't make sense anyhow because it's just focussing on some. And the same goes for the gas power plants. You need to replace the existing coal infrastructure by a gas infrastructure that needs to be bigger as well and you need to have an exit strategy from the coal.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), So there are many countries that are now still supporting or officially supporting this delegated act, even though they are not going to benefit at all, neither on nuclear nor on the gas side. Poland, one of the biggest member states and as well a big industrial country, will not benefit neither from the nuclear part nor from the gas part. So I don't really understand the reasoning we have done as well. And there are many other examples like that. Spain would not even be eligible as well. So we have all the big member states, most of them would lose are not even getting something other out of that.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), So I really think this is a proposal that is from an environmental point of view, counterproductive because we are labeling sustainable infrastructures that are not sustainable. We would as well just go into the direction of some member states. I think this is the wrong way and I believe and Innes showed it very clearly, we are furthering or deepening a dependency that is very, very bad for us and that is killing lives on the ground. We have to be very clear about that. I did a lot of work of convincing in my political group and there are many delegations that are now doubting and having as well a second thoughts about that when I explained to them, you are not going to benefit and they are not now, of course, sensitive.

SOUNDBITE (English), Christophe HANSEN (EPP, LU), The problem is that this is not a black and white decision. This taxonomy delegated act is not, we are pro-nuclear, pro gas, contra nuclear, contra gas. That's the wrong message here. We are just saying sustainable finances should be used for that. They are meant for and should not be used to finance a war. This needs to be avoided and I think we are going into the good direction to have a majority, even if it will be tight. Thank you.

SOUNDBITE (English), Paul TANG (S&D, NL), How many people have come to me after the Russian immigration in Ukraine and asked me the question, will the Commission withdraw the delegated act? I think many people did ask that question to me for a very obvious reason, because it would indeed increase the dependency on Russia. I'm very glad that, you know, Inna Sovsun is here today with us to present this message. I think this is an important message and at the right time, because this is a time that the last MEPs have to make up their own minds and it's going to be a tight vote. We're going to see tomorrow. But indeed, this is the message that needs to get across.

SOUNDBITE (English), Paul TANG (S&D, NL), It will increase dependency on Russia and that is unacceptable now that we are fighting for the European democracy in the Ukraine. At the same time, let me also reiterate very briefly that I've been discussing with many national delegations. Broadly speaking, the S&D is in favour with some national delegates having doubts and they start to realise more and more that this deal is unfair.

SOUNDBITE (English), Paul TANG (S&D, NL), It's cater to the needs of Berlin and Paris, but doesn't apply to many of the countries that it's supposed to do. So again, the Commission should withdraw it and come up with a better proposal. And that time around, it will not be the lobby from Gazprom and Rosneft that is influensing the delegated act, but it should be a serious discussion on what is sustainable and what are the answers that Europe needs to give on energy security. And that combines, and so the Commission needs to withdraw and come up with a better proposal. Thank you.

SOUNDBITE (English), Emma WIESNER (Renew, SE), First of all, let me be very clear. There is nothing sustainable about fossil fuels. There's nothing sustainable about fossil fuels. And the International Energy Agency, it's absolutely clear we need to reduce our dependency and completely eliminate fossil fuels out of our energy system if we are to be able to tackle the climate change. And that is evident. So we standing here on this podium, we are not naive. We understand that we cannot change and completely reduce the gas dependency overnight, but we absolutely should not continue this naive site and classification of fossil fuels as sustainable.

SOUNDBITE (English), Emma WIESNER (Renew, SE), And that's why we are here once again on this podium explaining why we object to this taxonomy. And I absolutely urge all my colleagues in this House, in this Parliament, to support this objection so that we don't continue with this naive dependency on fossil fuels. And thank you so much Inna for being here from the Ukrainian parliament also underlining the security and the safety and geopolitical aspect of this. Because this is about our climate, but it's also about our dependency on Russia. I think I will I will end there. But I just want to once again urge the rest of the members in this House that they should absolutely support us.

SOUNDBITE (English), Emma WIESNER (Renew, SE), And I'm sorry, my final point. Yeah, we only have one chance. This is our only shot of actually managing to be able to label our investments, our savings, our pension funds. It's yours and it's my money that we want to be able to label in the financial sphere. We want to be able to label our savings and place the money into green investments. The taxonomies are one chance to do that and to do that right. And if we fail, that means that fossil fuels will be classified as green in this. And the ones that want to have their money placed in something green, they don't have the opportunity of doing that. You will not know if your money is spent on fossil fuels or in renewables because fossil fuels will be included in the Green Label. So I'm sorry, we only have one chance and we need to do this now in this objection.

SOUNDBITE (English), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI), My colleagues here spoke very well. I'm just going to continue from where Emma left off. This is exactly what it's about. We only have one chance. We are the first generation of decision makers who see clearly the effects of the climate change. At the same time, we are the last generation of the decision makers who can make the necessary decisions because the time is running out.

SOUNDBITE (English), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI), And the problem with this delegated act, the complimentary delegated act is that is in complete contradiction with the already passed taxonomy regulation. It states very clearly it has to be science based and it doesn't take a master's degree to understand that natural gas is a fossil fuel and it is not sustainable and it cannot be green. And we cannot afford to lose this important tool because the recipe for tackling climate change is very simple in words, harder to do, but it's getting the emissions down, getting the biodiversity up, and redirecting the money flows to support the transition.

SOUNDBITE (English), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI), And now we are with this Commission's complementary delegated act, losing this tool to redirect the investments needed. And we are going to need historical investments in order to succeed with this transition. I also want to thank Inna for being with us today in the difficult situations they are, and I think she very well underlined how this decision could further the dependency on Russian gas and how this was written in a completely different time with not understanding the geopolitical situations where we are now.

SOUNDBITE (English), Silvia MODIG (The Left, FI), And to conclude, I just want to say that I have run into journalists who said to me that doesn't this mean that you are prohibiting nuclear and gas investments? No, the taxonomy is not prohibiting anything. It's just about labelling scientific based green investment. Is that prohibiting anything? The member states are still completely free to make those decisions and investment decisions and energy decisions that they wish. Of course, it is best in their own interest to make them in a sustainable way. But this does not prohibit anything. Thank you.