Yesterday was a tumultuous day in the EU Parliament. The ETS reform, the introduction of the CBAM, and a social climate fund were supposed to open the door to the trilogue negotiations for three key parts of the Fit for 55 package. But instead, Peter Liese’s ETS report was rejected outright and referred back to the committee – right alongside the CBAM and the climate social fund. The Greens and Social Democrats had previously suffered defeats in two key votes on amendments. The groups then attacked each other. Lukas Scheid analyzes what will happen next.
At least the MEPs were able to agree on a common position on the revision of the regulation for land and forest use (LULUCF). This is an easily missed but important component of the Fit for 55 package because strengthening the natural CO2 reservoirs is considered essential if the climate targets are to be achieved. However, calculating the (possible) sink capacity of forests, peatlands, and co. is difficult, as is finding a compromise. In any case, the Parliament’s position now remains well below the ambition level of the lead environmental committee, as Timo Landenberger reports.
Parliament’s verdict on the future of the internal combustion engine was relatively clear: The majority of MEPs voted in favor of the ban on new cars with internal combustion engines from 2035, thus backing the EU Commission’s proposal. Criticism came from the EPP parliamentary group – but even here they conceded that the matter was probably unstoppable: “The 2035 ban on internal combustion engines will probably be unstoppable,” wrote MEP Jens Gieseke (CDU) after the vote. Stephan Israel captured more reactions.
So far, there has been little discussion in Germany about the nearly €7 billion in state aid that the German government wants to give Intel for its new chip plants in Magdeburg. There is less silence on this topic in other member states: One EU diplomat criticized the “massive transfer of money from taxpayers to American shareholders”. Behind this is the concern about a subsidy race in which the smaller countries cannot keep up. The differences are likely to come to light at the Competitiveness Council today when ministers discuss the European Chips Act for the first time. Read more about this in tomorrow’s issue.
The Greens and Social Democrats had to take this step: In the final vote on the adoption of the parliamentary report on the reform of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), they voted against. Previously, amendments were adopted in two areas of the reform that were crucial for the two groups.
The joint amendment on so-called rebasing by EPP and Renew received support from the conservative ECR group and thus the necessary majority. This would have meant that the ambition level for emission reductions of the ETS would only increase gradually and not abruptly, as is the position of the Commission or the Environment Committee (Europe.Table reported). Increases in the ambition level are to come from one-off reductions and from higher annual reductions in the number of emission rights in the ETS.
A joint S&D/Green compromise, which included a lower one-off reduction than originally agreed in the Environment Committee, convinced some liberal Renew MPs at the last minute, but it was not enough. The proposal was rejected. For the Greens, this was already a key vote that made it necessary for them to reject the report as a whole. The Social Democrats would probably have grudgingly accepted this, had it not been for the issue of free CO2 certificates for the industry.
The second key vote was also in favor of the EPP. It unanimously adopted the position of the Industry Committee on the introduction of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the phase-out of free allocations. According to this, the CBAM would have been phased in between 2028 and 2034, while free allocations would be reduced accordingly. This proposal achieved a majority, thanks in part to support from the right (ID and EKR).
However, 18 S&D deputies also voted in favor of this proposal. There were 18 decisive votes because the final voting result was 327 pro-votes with 297 votes against (18 abstentions). Particularly piquant: Among the S&D deputies are also the SPD men Jens Geier and Ismail Ertug.
Nevertheless, with this vote, the red line was crossed also for the majority of the Social Democrats and they decided after a short deliberation to vote against the parliamentary report in the final vote. Previously, they had unsuccessfully joined Renew in calling for a phase-out of free allocation and a phase-in of CBAM from 2026 to 2032.
Because EKR and ID also voted against the report, the result was a negative majority. Subsequently, the rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP) requested a vote on whether the report should be referred back to the committee, which was accepted. This cleared the way for renegotiations, which began immediately after the parliamentary session.
Environment Committee Chairman Pascal Canfin announced on Wednesday that he only wanted to renegotiate the free allocations. However, Europe.Table has learned from both S&D and the Greens that the ambition level will now also end up back on the negotiating table.
The negotiations are likely to be difficult above all because the alliances are blaming each other for the failure of the report. Peter Liese and some of his party colleagues attacked Greens and Social Democrats for voting alongside ID and ECR against the report. “Right-wingers, Greens and Social Democrats sink our compromises,” Liese wrote on Twitter. Delara Burkhardt (S&D) and Bas Eickhout (Greens) pointed out in response that the EPP only got its amendments through with the help of the ECR and ID.
However, it is also clear that both the Liberals and the Social Democrats must first reach internal agreement before new alliances can be forged with other groups. If this does not happen, neither the Greens nor the Christian Democrats will have any reason to back down from their maximum demands – the stalemate could repeat itself.
Parliamentary sources say that a new vote on the ETS report will be held as early as the second June plenary session (June 22/23). The negotiators will have until then to reach an agreement. The CBAM report by Mohammed Chahim (S&D) and the report on the climate social fund by Esther de LANGE (EPP) are also to be voted on then. As both dossiers are closely linked to the ETS reform, the rapporteurs requested after the failed ETS vote that these be referred back to the committees as well.
Less noticed but nevertheless elementary for achieving the climate targets is the regulation on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). In addition to reducing the still high emissions in the sector, the regulations are intended to strengthen the role of forests, peatlands, and soils as natural CO2 reservoirs, in particular.
As an important part of the Fit for 55 package, the revision of the LULUCF Regulation was also put to the vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday. With 472 votes to 124 with 22 abstentions, the MEPs voted in favor of the report by rapporteur Ville Niinistö (Greens) from Finland. However, the position of the Environment Committee was significantly weakened again by means of some amendments.
Thus, the reduction performance of the sector, divided among the EU states, is to be set at a binding level of at least 310 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents by 2030. This corresponds to the original proposal of the EU Commission.
The Environment Committee’s demand to create additional sinks for a further 50 million tons of CO2, particularly through so-called carbon farming in agriculture, was rejected by the plenary. The EPP and ECR had already spoken out against the expansion in advance. The target was already very ambitious, and the potential of carbon farming was still completely unclear, according to the ranks of the parliamentary groups. Environmentalists had called for an increase in the sinking capacity to up to 600 million tons of CO2.
The MEPs also rejected separate sub-targets for arable land, grassland, and peatlands by a narrow majority. The Environment Committee had proposed introducing separate quotas for these areas to increase their contribution to climate protection and CO2 reduction. In the past, peatlands, in particular, were increasingly transformed from CO2 reservoirs into emitters through artificial drainage, as the greenhouse gas stored there escapes through drainage.
However, the majority of MEPs did not want to dictate to member states in which ecosystem how much CO2 should be stored, thus taking into account differences between countries, insiders say. In addition, the areas are important for agricultural use and food production.
Observers, therefore, see a link to the issue of food security and the tense situation on world markets. “Some political forces like to play on people’s fears there,” S&D shadow rapporteur Delara Burkhardt said in the debate. “But what we’re seeing right now is not the price of change, but the price of postponement.” That’s why all sectors need to do their part, she said.
Now, the focus of natural sinks will continue to be strongly on forests. However, these have been progressively weakened in recent years by droughts, pest infestations, and increasing logging. In fact, sink output in the LULUCF sector declined from 322 to 249 million metric tons across the EU from 2013 to 2019 and continues to decline.
This is another reason why Norbert Lins (CDU) is pleased that the level of ambition in the LULUCF sector has not been increased. After all, this must also be in line with active forest management, says the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. “We need to replace fossil products with sustainable and renewable ones. It must not be easier and cheaper to import wood than to promote local production.”
However, more than half of the member states would still practice clear-cutting as a normal timber harvesting method, Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Greens) counters. “Entire forest areas are being savagely cut down, turning the forest floor into a CO2 emitter for decades to come,” said the MEP. The new LULUCF regulation introduces a change here.
By 437 votes to 142 with 40 abstentions, the EU Parliament also adopted its position on the Burden Sharing Regulation, which sets out binding annual emission reductions for individual EU states. The regulation covers those sectors not covered by emissions trading, which currently accounts for around 60 percent of EU-wide emissions.
MEPs followed the EU Commission’s proposal to increase the reduction target at EU level from 30 to 40 percent. This means that for the first time, all member states will have to reduce their emissions. The targets are based on GDP per capita and range from ten percent (for example Bulgaria, previously no reduction target) to 50 percent (for example Germany, previously 38 percent).
Parliament also called for more transparency on the individual measures taken by countries and wants to restrict the possibility of carrying over emission allowances or “borrowing” from subsequent years more than the Commission had envisaged. Trading of allowances between countries is also to be minimized, and proceeds from this are to be used for climate protection measures.
In the end, the majorities were relatively clear: 339 MEPs voted in favor of banning new cars with combustion engines in 2035, with 249 against and 24 abstentions. “An ambitious revision of CO2- standards is a crucial element to reach our climate targets,” said a pleased rapporteur Jan Huitema (Renew). This would provide clarity for the car industry and stimulate innovation and investment.
This will make it cheaper for consumers to buy and drive zero-emission cars. “I am thrilled that the European Parliament has backed an ambitious revision of the targets for 2030 and supported a 100 percent target for 2035, which is crucial to reach climate neutrality by 2050,” said Huitema.
The majority thus backed the EU Commission’s proposal, which presented the revised carbon emission standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles as part of the Fit-For-55 package last year. Transport is the sector where carbon emissions have continued to rise in recent years. A reversal of the trend is important here if the EU wants to achieve its climate goals.
This means that from 2035, manufacturers will only be allowed to introduce cars and vans to the market that do not emit any harmful greenhouse gases. By 2030, manufacturers must also cut carbon emissions of their fleets by 55 percent for passenger cars and 50 percent for vans in an interim step. Before the regulation comes into force, the Parliament still has to negotiate with the EU member states. Member states want to set their position on the ban on new internal-combustion cars by the end of June.
In Parliament, it was mainly members of the conservative EPP group who opposed the end of the internal combustion engine. Jens Gieseke (CDU) accused the majority of having abandoned the principle of technological neutrality. He said that the internal combustion engine offered great opportunities, especially with synthetic fuels. The decisive factor, he said, was the fuel and not the technology. This applies to the internal combustion engine as well as to the electric car. As long as the electricity required is generated from fossil energy sources, even an electric vehicle will not be emission-free.
The Greens, Social Democrats, and Liberals are putting all of their chips on electromobility. This would neither help the global climate nor European competitiveness. Gieseke accused them of accepting the loss of up to one million jobs.
Tiemo Wölken, climate policy spokesman for the S&D parliamentary group, on the other hand, was pleased. Synthetic fuels would not be a sustainable solution. Fortunately, the “sham solution” of the conservative EPP group had not found a majority. Synthetic fuels will continue to be expensive in the future and are based on green hydrogen, which is more urgently needed in other sectors. The investment signal would help the industry to become future-proof, reduce air pollution as well as oil dependency, and bring efficient cars to the market that would soon be cheaper than internal combustion engines.
Michael Bloss from the Green Party takes a similar view: “We have decided in favor of the future of Europe as an automotive location.” In the future, the best EVs and the most advanced batteries will come from Europe.
The ban on combustion engines is unlikely to be stopped, even Jens Gieseke admits defeat: “The ban on combustion engines in 2035 will probably be unstoppable,” the MP writes in a reaction after the vote.
German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, speaking on behalf of the German government, already committed to the 2035 phase-out date in Brussels in March. Several major automakers, such as Mercedes and Ford, have also called for a sales ban on internal combustion engines in leading markets in 2035. The ban on internal combustion engines in 2035 is to apply only to new cars.
For many MEPs, it takes years to get their way in the European Parliament. Not so Mohammed Chahim, rapporteur for one of the most controversial political dossiers in the Environment Committee. “From the beginning, I was interested in CBAM,” the 37-year-old politician from the Dutch Labor Party tells me over the phone. “It’s the first time in history that a region or country has imposed its climate legislation on producers outside that region.”
Chahim is not the only one interested in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Given the burden of climate targets on EU companies, the planned carbon tax is intended to ensure that countries with more lax regulations do not flood the EU market with cheaper imports. When it was announced by the EU Commission three years ago, the United States, Brazil, India, China, and South Africa voiced criticism.
Chahim, a Dutchman who soon also became one of the nine vice chairmen of the Socialist Group, was not deterred and kept his sights set on his goal. He was careful not to take on too many other tasks, he says. His expertise probably helped him get appointed rapporteur: He has a doctorate in economics and worked for six years as a researcher on the energy transition.
Following Wednesday’s dramatic rejection of the emissions trading system (ETS) reform, the vote on CBAM was postponed at Chahim’s request. According to a statement, he himself voted against the ETS reform. The proposal “does not sufficiently contribute to the energy transition” and is a victory for lobbyists, he said. He hopes the CBAM vote can still take place in June. “We need time to reconcile the proposals. I don’t want to rush the vote.”
With the Christian Democrat EPP Group and the Social Democrats at odds following the ETS vote, this could be a challenge. Not least because Chahim has helped raise the stakes again on CBAM. Under his leadership, the Environment Committee made proposals that made the plan even more ambitious – and controversial.
Chahim is proud of this ambition and believes many countries will follow the EU’s lead. “I think CBAM is one of the new pieces we really need to solve the climate puzzle.”
He also thinks little of accusations of protectionism. “Anyone can sell their goods in the EU. But those who emit carbon dioxide have to pay at the border.” EU companies, after all, must bear their burden. That’s how you create a level playing field.
In conversation, he appears solution-oriented and confident. “Ninety percent of the time, I’m a very serious person,” he says. Every now and then, however, he lets lose. After his CBAM report was approved by his colleagues on the Environment Committee, he cheered on Twitter with a meme he created himself. In it, a young man can be seen dancing to the news in a nightclub.
Chahim is the child of Moroccan immigrants and has spent almost his entire life in the Dutch city of Helmond. In Brussels, where he has lived since 2019, he likes to go with his parliamentary colleagues to a Moroccan fish restaurant on Avenue Stalingrad – far from the upscale eateries in the EU district. Ella Joyner
Yesterday was a tumultuous day in the EU Parliament. The ETS reform, the introduction of the CBAM, and a social climate fund were supposed to open the door to the trilogue negotiations for three key parts of the Fit for 55 package. But instead, Peter Liese’s ETS report was rejected outright and referred back to the committee – right alongside the CBAM and the climate social fund. The Greens and Social Democrats had previously suffered defeats in two key votes on amendments. The groups then attacked each other. Lukas Scheid analyzes what will happen next.
At least the MEPs were able to agree on a common position on the revision of the regulation for land and forest use (LULUCF). This is an easily missed but important component of the Fit for 55 package because strengthening the natural CO2 reservoirs is considered essential if the climate targets are to be achieved. However, calculating the (possible) sink capacity of forests, peatlands, and co. is difficult, as is finding a compromise. In any case, the Parliament’s position now remains well below the ambition level of the lead environmental committee, as Timo Landenberger reports.
Parliament’s verdict on the future of the internal combustion engine was relatively clear: The majority of MEPs voted in favor of the ban on new cars with internal combustion engines from 2035, thus backing the EU Commission’s proposal. Criticism came from the EPP parliamentary group – but even here they conceded that the matter was probably unstoppable: “The 2035 ban on internal combustion engines will probably be unstoppable,” wrote MEP Jens Gieseke (CDU) after the vote. Stephan Israel captured more reactions.
So far, there has been little discussion in Germany about the nearly €7 billion in state aid that the German government wants to give Intel for its new chip plants in Magdeburg. There is less silence on this topic in other member states: One EU diplomat criticized the “massive transfer of money from taxpayers to American shareholders”. Behind this is the concern about a subsidy race in which the smaller countries cannot keep up. The differences are likely to come to light at the Competitiveness Council today when ministers discuss the European Chips Act for the first time. Read more about this in tomorrow’s issue.
The Greens and Social Democrats had to take this step: In the final vote on the adoption of the parliamentary report on the reform of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), they voted against. Previously, amendments were adopted in two areas of the reform that were crucial for the two groups.
The joint amendment on so-called rebasing by EPP and Renew received support from the conservative ECR group and thus the necessary majority. This would have meant that the ambition level for emission reductions of the ETS would only increase gradually and not abruptly, as is the position of the Commission or the Environment Committee (Europe.Table reported). Increases in the ambition level are to come from one-off reductions and from higher annual reductions in the number of emission rights in the ETS.
A joint S&D/Green compromise, which included a lower one-off reduction than originally agreed in the Environment Committee, convinced some liberal Renew MPs at the last minute, but it was not enough. The proposal was rejected. For the Greens, this was already a key vote that made it necessary for them to reject the report as a whole. The Social Democrats would probably have grudgingly accepted this, had it not been for the issue of free CO2 certificates for the industry.
The second key vote was also in favor of the EPP. It unanimously adopted the position of the Industry Committee on the introduction of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the phase-out of free allocations. According to this, the CBAM would have been phased in between 2028 and 2034, while free allocations would be reduced accordingly. This proposal achieved a majority, thanks in part to support from the right (ID and EKR).
However, 18 S&D deputies also voted in favor of this proposal. There were 18 decisive votes because the final voting result was 327 pro-votes with 297 votes against (18 abstentions). Particularly piquant: Among the S&D deputies are also the SPD men Jens Geier and Ismail Ertug.
Nevertheless, with this vote, the red line was crossed also for the majority of the Social Democrats and they decided after a short deliberation to vote against the parliamentary report in the final vote. Previously, they had unsuccessfully joined Renew in calling for a phase-out of free allocation and a phase-in of CBAM from 2026 to 2032.
Because EKR and ID also voted against the report, the result was a negative majority. Subsequently, the rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP) requested a vote on whether the report should be referred back to the committee, which was accepted. This cleared the way for renegotiations, which began immediately after the parliamentary session.
Environment Committee Chairman Pascal Canfin announced on Wednesday that he only wanted to renegotiate the free allocations. However, Europe.Table has learned from both S&D and the Greens that the ambition level will now also end up back on the negotiating table.
The negotiations are likely to be difficult above all because the alliances are blaming each other for the failure of the report. Peter Liese and some of his party colleagues attacked Greens and Social Democrats for voting alongside ID and ECR against the report. “Right-wingers, Greens and Social Democrats sink our compromises,” Liese wrote on Twitter. Delara Burkhardt (S&D) and Bas Eickhout (Greens) pointed out in response that the EPP only got its amendments through with the help of the ECR and ID.
However, it is also clear that both the Liberals and the Social Democrats must first reach internal agreement before new alliances can be forged with other groups. If this does not happen, neither the Greens nor the Christian Democrats will have any reason to back down from their maximum demands – the stalemate could repeat itself.
Parliamentary sources say that a new vote on the ETS report will be held as early as the second June plenary session (June 22/23). The negotiators will have until then to reach an agreement. The CBAM report by Mohammed Chahim (S&D) and the report on the climate social fund by Esther de LANGE (EPP) are also to be voted on then. As both dossiers are closely linked to the ETS reform, the rapporteurs requested after the failed ETS vote that these be referred back to the committees as well.
Less noticed but nevertheless elementary for achieving the climate targets is the regulation on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). In addition to reducing the still high emissions in the sector, the regulations are intended to strengthen the role of forests, peatlands, and soils as natural CO2 reservoirs, in particular.
As an important part of the Fit for 55 package, the revision of the LULUCF Regulation was also put to the vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday. With 472 votes to 124 with 22 abstentions, the MEPs voted in favor of the report by rapporteur Ville Niinistö (Greens) from Finland. However, the position of the Environment Committee was significantly weakened again by means of some amendments.
Thus, the reduction performance of the sector, divided among the EU states, is to be set at a binding level of at least 310 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents by 2030. This corresponds to the original proposal of the EU Commission.
The Environment Committee’s demand to create additional sinks for a further 50 million tons of CO2, particularly through so-called carbon farming in agriculture, was rejected by the plenary. The EPP and ECR had already spoken out against the expansion in advance. The target was already very ambitious, and the potential of carbon farming was still completely unclear, according to the ranks of the parliamentary groups. Environmentalists had called for an increase in the sinking capacity to up to 600 million tons of CO2.
The MEPs also rejected separate sub-targets for arable land, grassland, and peatlands by a narrow majority. The Environment Committee had proposed introducing separate quotas for these areas to increase their contribution to climate protection and CO2 reduction. In the past, peatlands, in particular, were increasingly transformed from CO2 reservoirs into emitters through artificial drainage, as the greenhouse gas stored there escapes through drainage.
However, the majority of MEPs did not want to dictate to member states in which ecosystem how much CO2 should be stored, thus taking into account differences between countries, insiders say. In addition, the areas are important for agricultural use and food production.
Observers, therefore, see a link to the issue of food security and the tense situation on world markets. “Some political forces like to play on people’s fears there,” S&D shadow rapporteur Delara Burkhardt said in the debate. “But what we’re seeing right now is not the price of change, but the price of postponement.” That’s why all sectors need to do their part, she said.
Now, the focus of natural sinks will continue to be strongly on forests. However, these have been progressively weakened in recent years by droughts, pest infestations, and increasing logging. In fact, sink output in the LULUCF sector declined from 322 to 249 million metric tons across the EU from 2013 to 2019 and continues to decline.
This is another reason why Norbert Lins (CDU) is pleased that the level of ambition in the LULUCF sector has not been increased. After all, this must also be in line with active forest management, says the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. “We need to replace fossil products with sustainable and renewable ones. It must not be easier and cheaper to import wood than to promote local production.”
However, more than half of the member states would still practice clear-cutting as a normal timber harvesting method, Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Greens) counters. “Entire forest areas are being savagely cut down, turning the forest floor into a CO2 emitter for decades to come,” said the MEP. The new LULUCF regulation introduces a change here.
By 437 votes to 142 with 40 abstentions, the EU Parliament also adopted its position on the Burden Sharing Regulation, which sets out binding annual emission reductions for individual EU states. The regulation covers those sectors not covered by emissions trading, which currently accounts for around 60 percent of EU-wide emissions.
MEPs followed the EU Commission’s proposal to increase the reduction target at EU level from 30 to 40 percent. This means that for the first time, all member states will have to reduce their emissions. The targets are based on GDP per capita and range from ten percent (for example Bulgaria, previously no reduction target) to 50 percent (for example Germany, previously 38 percent).
Parliament also called for more transparency on the individual measures taken by countries and wants to restrict the possibility of carrying over emission allowances or “borrowing” from subsequent years more than the Commission had envisaged. Trading of allowances between countries is also to be minimized, and proceeds from this are to be used for climate protection measures.
In the end, the majorities were relatively clear: 339 MEPs voted in favor of banning new cars with combustion engines in 2035, with 249 against and 24 abstentions. “An ambitious revision of CO2- standards is a crucial element to reach our climate targets,” said a pleased rapporteur Jan Huitema (Renew). This would provide clarity for the car industry and stimulate innovation and investment.
This will make it cheaper for consumers to buy and drive zero-emission cars. “I am thrilled that the European Parliament has backed an ambitious revision of the targets for 2030 and supported a 100 percent target for 2035, which is crucial to reach climate neutrality by 2050,” said Huitema.
The majority thus backed the EU Commission’s proposal, which presented the revised carbon emission standards for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles as part of the Fit-For-55 package last year. Transport is the sector where carbon emissions have continued to rise in recent years. A reversal of the trend is important here if the EU wants to achieve its climate goals.
This means that from 2035, manufacturers will only be allowed to introduce cars and vans to the market that do not emit any harmful greenhouse gases. By 2030, manufacturers must also cut carbon emissions of their fleets by 55 percent for passenger cars and 50 percent for vans in an interim step. Before the regulation comes into force, the Parliament still has to negotiate with the EU member states. Member states want to set their position on the ban on new internal-combustion cars by the end of June.
In Parliament, it was mainly members of the conservative EPP group who opposed the end of the internal combustion engine. Jens Gieseke (CDU) accused the majority of having abandoned the principle of technological neutrality. He said that the internal combustion engine offered great opportunities, especially with synthetic fuels. The decisive factor, he said, was the fuel and not the technology. This applies to the internal combustion engine as well as to the electric car. As long as the electricity required is generated from fossil energy sources, even an electric vehicle will not be emission-free.
The Greens, Social Democrats, and Liberals are putting all of their chips on electromobility. This would neither help the global climate nor European competitiveness. Gieseke accused them of accepting the loss of up to one million jobs.
Tiemo Wölken, climate policy spokesman for the S&D parliamentary group, on the other hand, was pleased. Synthetic fuels would not be a sustainable solution. Fortunately, the “sham solution” of the conservative EPP group had not found a majority. Synthetic fuels will continue to be expensive in the future and are based on green hydrogen, which is more urgently needed in other sectors. The investment signal would help the industry to become future-proof, reduce air pollution as well as oil dependency, and bring efficient cars to the market that would soon be cheaper than internal combustion engines.
Michael Bloss from the Green Party takes a similar view: “We have decided in favor of the future of Europe as an automotive location.” In the future, the best EVs and the most advanced batteries will come from Europe.
The ban on combustion engines is unlikely to be stopped, even Jens Gieseke admits defeat: “The ban on combustion engines in 2035 will probably be unstoppable,” the MP writes in a reaction after the vote.
German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, speaking on behalf of the German government, already committed to the 2035 phase-out date in Brussels in March. Several major automakers, such as Mercedes and Ford, have also called for a sales ban on internal combustion engines in leading markets in 2035. The ban on internal combustion engines in 2035 is to apply only to new cars.
For many MEPs, it takes years to get their way in the European Parliament. Not so Mohammed Chahim, rapporteur for one of the most controversial political dossiers in the Environment Committee. “From the beginning, I was interested in CBAM,” the 37-year-old politician from the Dutch Labor Party tells me over the phone. “It’s the first time in history that a region or country has imposed its climate legislation on producers outside that region.”
Chahim is not the only one interested in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Given the burden of climate targets on EU companies, the planned carbon tax is intended to ensure that countries with more lax regulations do not flood the EU market with cheaper imports. When it was announced by the EU Commission three years ago, the United States, Brazil, India, China, and South Africa voiced criticism.
Chahim, a Dutchman who soon also became one of the nine vice chairmen of the Socialist Group, was not deterred and kept his sights set on his goal. He was careful not to take on too many other tasks, he says. His expertise probably helped him get appointed rapporteur: He has a doctorate in economics and worked for six years as a researcher on the energy transition.
Following Wednesday’s dramatic rejection of the emissions trading system (ETS) reform, the vote on CBAM was postponed at Chahim’s request. According to a statement, he himself voted against the ETS reform. The proposal “does not sufficiently contribute to the energy transition” and is a victory for lobbyists, he said. He hopes the CBAM vote can still take place in June. “We need time to reconcile the proposals. I don’t want to rush the vote.”
With the Christian Democrat EPP Group and the Social Democrats at odds following the ETS vote, this could be a challenge. Not least because Chahim has helped raise the stakes again on CBAM. Under his leadership, the Environment Committee made proposals that made the plan even more ambitious – and controversial.
Chahim is proud of this ambition and believes many countries will follow the EU’s lead. “I think CBAM is one of the new pieces we really need to solve the climate puzzle.”
He also thinks little of accusations of protectionism. “Anyone can sell their goods in the EU. But those who emit carbon dioxide have to pay at the border.” EU companies, after all, must bear their burden. That’s how you create a level playing field.
In conversation, he appears solution-oriented and confident. “Ninety percent of the time, I’m a very serious person,” he says. Every now and then, however, he lets lose. After his CBAM report was approved by his colleagues on the Environment Committee, he cheered on Twitter with a meme he created himself. In it, a young man can be seen dancing to the news in a nightclub.
Chahim is the child of Moroccan immigrants and has spent almost his entire life in the Dutch city of Helmond. In Brussels, where he has lived since 2019, he likes to go with his parliamentary colleagues to a Moroccan fish restaurant on Avenue Stalingrad – far from the upscale eateries in the EU district. Ella Joyner
