Peter Liese: European emissions trading must be maintained and will be maintained, but adjustments are necessary
“The European emissions trading system must be preserved and will be preserved,” stated Peter Liese, climate policy spokesperson for the largest group in the European Parliament (EPP, Christian Democrats), ahead of the European Council summit on Thursday and Friday. Among other things, the future of Europe’s most important climate protection instrument will be discussed at this summit.
“The European Emissions Trading System is by far the most important instrument for climate protection, not only in the EU but worldwide. It is important to recognise that we cannot save the world from climate catastrophe on our own, but it is equally clear that if, following the US withdrawal, the European Union now also ends its climate protection efforts, we will be pulling the plug on global climate protection,” emphasised MEP Peter Liese.
“Equally important in the current debate is the fact that climate protection also means reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. Last week, Ursula von der Leyen emphasised in the European Parliament that emissions trading has already led to a reduction in our gas consumption of 100 billion cubic metres. That is roughly equivalent to the amount of gas Germany consumes in a year. In a situation where we are suffering from high gas and oil prices, jeopardising investments that move us away from this dependency would also make no economic sense. I am therefore very pleased that many companies, including Total Energies, many steel companies and associations such as the European Cement Association and the Nordic business associations, are speaking out very clearly in favour of the ETS. I am also very pleased that Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz has clarified his position on the ETS on several occasions (quotes at the end of the press release). It is therefore clear that the European Emissions Trading System must remain in place. However, adjustments are both possible and necessary. The most important thing is that there are still sufficient allowances available after 2039. It is completely unrealistic to expect that there will be no emissions at all in the sectors concerned – such as steel, cement or aviation – from 2039 onwards,” explained Liese.
Liese called for six specific points:
1. In the upcoming revision of the benchmarks that determine free allocation, the Commission must take a more moderate approach than previously envisaged.
2. The market stability reserve must be amended as soon as possible to allow for more allowances, and therefore the cancellation of allowances must be stopped immediately. I expect the Commission to present the proposal before July and urge Parliament to adopt it under the urgent procedure. Further changes must then follow in the revision that the Commission has announced for July.
3. The linear reduction factor should be changed. My proposal is from 4.4% to 3.4%.
4. The inclusion of negative emissions.
5. The ETS sector must benefit from international credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. However, this should be done indirectly through a controlled mechanism and not by individual companies purchasing on the international market.
6. Free allowances must be phased out more slowly than provided for in the current legislation, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) must be introduced more gradually.
In recent weeks, some Member States, such as Italy and Hungary, had expressed strong criticism of the ETS. A relatively large group of Member States (Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Slovenia), on the other hand, had expressed unreservedly positive views on the ETS. “I believe that Germany can play an important mediating role here: ‘yes’ to the ETS, but also ‘yes’ to moderate adjustments,” affirmed Peter Liese.
Quotes Friedrich Merz on EU ETS
“(...) There are colleagues who are highly critical of the ETS; I do not share this criticism in this form. The system has now been in place for 20 years and has helped us to implement an effective instrument in Europe that ensures growth is possible in tandem with climate protection. (...) This is also evident from the fact that industry has grown by 70 per cent since the introduction of the ETS, whilst emissions have fallen by 70 per cent. This shows that we have the right instrument. Nevertheless, it needs to be improved so that this system continues to function effectively (...)
Source: 12 February 2026, Informal European Council (Alden Biesen): https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/mediathek/videos/video-pressekonferenz-kanzler-europaeischer-rat-2407044?view=detail
“The ETS 1 system has been in place for 20 years and has been very successful. The question is how we can adapt it now so that it can continue to be successful. [...] But creating the right incentives to encourage climate-friendly behaviour, using a market-based instrument, is and remains the right approach.”
The [...] ETS 1 and ETS 2 systems were not introduced to generate revenue, but rather to make the switch to climate-neutral technologies more attractive, so to speak, by increasing costs. So, this is the goal we want to achieve, and we must achieve it; and, again, we can always make adjustments along the way – indeed, we will have to [...] but the system is the right one, because it leads precisely to what we want, namely climate neutrality and technological development.
Source: Podcast Machtwechsel: „Der Kanzler im Interview“, 18th February 2026
Contact for questions: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.