The biggest group in the European Parliament supports the proposal of the European Commission for the 2030 climate target in the EU. “We support a net 55% climate target for 2030 but we will focus very much on the ways and means how it will be implemented”, says the environmental spokesperson of the biggest group in the European Parliament (EPP Christian Democrats), Dr Peter Liese. Liese puts a lot of emphasize on the fact that the European Commission will accept the contribution of sinks for example from forests or modern technologies. “If we want to climate neutral we need to work on sinks intensively and we think it is more cost efficient than only to look at the reductions.
The huge majority in the European Parliament agrees that we need to do more to avoid dangerous climate change. If we do not meet the Paris target, it is quite likely that we reach dangerous tipping points and our children and grandchildren can no longer control climate change. It is very encouraging that other important economies in the world like China and South Africa have announced ambitious targets in the recent days and weeks. At the same time, the 55% proposal of the European Commission is by far the most ambitious target by any major economy worldwide. Nobody should hide the fact that it includes a lot of challenges, not only for business but also for every citizen.
Today the environmental committee in the European Parliament has voted on the climate law. The most contradicting decision dealt with the 2030 target. The result of the vote was tight and the majority within the ENVI committee voted for a 2030 reduction target of 60%. „This is a Pyrrhus victory for the left and for the rapporteur Jytte Guteland. The result in ENVI was very tight and as far as I know, also the S&D Group was also not united”, says MEP Peter Liese, environmental spokesperson of the largest Group in the European Parliament (EPP, Christian Democrats).
“I am sure the Parliament will go for a lower figure. We will watch carefully the impact assessment of the European Commission. Personally, I am in favour of supporting the 55% if the impact assessment that will be published next Wednesday is convincing. Definitely, we need to look at the measures. We are strongly against too much command and control but in favour of market-based measures. The national target cannot just be increased by 15%”, insisted Liese. “It is good that the Parliament is united for the target of climate neutrality. We are also united that we have to increase the 2030 target. But to declare targets without having a plan how to achieve them does not help the climate”, concludes Liese.
The European Parliament wants to avoid complete border closures and above all “stay at home order”. This is clear from a resolution adopted by the Parliament last week by a large majority. According to the MEP and health policy spokesperson of the largest group in the European Parliament (EPP-Christian Democrats), Peter Liese, one of the original draft resolutions also included the issue of stay at home order as an option for the member states. At Liese's insistence, however, this word was removed and replaced by contact ban.
"We are very concerned about the dramatically increasing infection rates in many EU countries, e.g. France and Spain. I am also convinced that without additional measures we will not be able to prevent a major spread of the virus in the coming weeks. We urgently need to have stricter rules for indoor events in many countries. The virus spreads 18 times more indoors than outdoors. I cannot see that the rules for indoor events are 18 times stricter and I am therefore very concerned. However, a general “stay at home order” is counterproductive for exactly this reason. There is no risk just from going outside. Of course, you have to try to avoid crowds of people outdoors too. However, that can be sufficiently regulated by a contact ban. A “stay at home order” is associated with many health problems. Exercise in the fresh air strengthens the immune system and mental illnesses could increase, especially in the autumn and winter months when people do not leave the house," says Liese. MEPs also call for complete border closures like the one in March to be avoided whenever possible.
Read more: European Parliament wants to avoid “stay at home order” and complete border closures
"The interruption of AstraZeneca's vaccine trial shows that the authorities in Europe and the companies are proceeding cautiously and not taking unnecessary risks in the development of a vaccine". This was stated by MEP Peter Liese, health spokesperson of the largest group in the European Parliament (EPP-Christian Democrats). "In contrast to the situation in Russia, we in the European Union have clear rules. A vaccine can only come onto the market if a large group of test persons (usually a five-digit number) has been tested in a so-called phase three trial and the vaccine has few side effects and is effective. In the case of AstraZeneca, it is now necessary to investigate whether the problems observed are indeed related to the vaccine and whether they can be avoided in future administrations and tests or whether the project must be abandoned altogether. I would not dare to make a prediction at this stage as to whether the vaccine will eventually be approved".
Read more: Interruption of AstraZeneca study shows that risks are taken seriously