 Och då sätter vi oss tillsammans, så jag tror att du står med mig uppe här, jag tycker det, det är trevligt. Ja, det kan du göra, exakt. Ja, det är hur gott som helst det är. Det är samma här, men det är... Okej, så, good afternoon everyone. We are past 12 o'clock, so we say good afternoon. It's very nice to see so many of you here. We heard that there were some challenges in the subway, so some people may be stuck somewhere in Stockholm. So it's great really that so many are still here. My name is Johan Kylansjana. I'm the executive director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. One of the three organizations today organizing this seminar. The seminar will really focus very much on Commissioner Potosnik. So I will only say the sort of 30 second introduction about the Stockholm Environment Institute. We are an independent research foundation established about 25 years ago by the Swedish government. And we are today 180 researchers in six countries. We have nine offices, a very international organization focusing on environment, development issues, science for policy. So very mixed and diverse group of staff members based here with headquarters in Stockholm. Very close by here at Gardinstone and about 70 people. So that's the 30 second introduction. I really would like to welcome all of you here, but in particular a certain group, because I checked the table of contents or the table list of people. I hope you are here now. All should feel equally welcome of course, but I know there's a group of students from the mountains. Yes, as always, students are sitting in the back. It's very nice to have you here. Why I want to highlight this is because they are from a high school nearby here. We quite often talk about all the challenges we have 2050. It's an easy way for us in, well, slightly older generation now. You know to say that 2050 will be all these challenges. These guys up there, they are the one going to work in the middle of those challenges 2050. I think we should never forget that. So we have to talk about challenges and opportunities. A warm welcome to you. I'm very pleased to introduce Astrid Söderberg-Viding, vice chancellor of Stockholm University, also one of the organizations organizing this today. Astrid. Thank you. Welcome all to this lunch seminar and of course a particularly warm welcome to Commissioner Potocnik. We are very honored and very pleased to be able to host you here today. And we are also very pleased on behalf of Stockholm University. I can say that we are very pleased to co-arrange this with the European Commission and Stockholm Environment Institute, with which we since a couple of weeks have a strategic partnership established. We are all, I think, looking forward to the talk of Commissioner Potocnik about the need to change European Union economies. A question central to us as researchers at Stockholm University. We have a very strong environmental research spanning from social sciences to science. But it is also a question central to our common future in the Union. So without further ado, I would like to introduce Commissioner Potocnik. Thank you very much. So Commissioner John Potocnik, if you can join me here on stage. So give an applause when he's coming up here. So European Commissioner for the Environment, indeed a very interesting position to have in the EU. And one thing that we appreciate very much, and when we were contacted by the EU officer here in Stockholm, was the fact that when you visit different countries, you always try to make time to also have a more open public presentation and discussion. And we have quite a lot of time. We know that you will speak for around half an hour or so, which gives us half an hour plus or even around 40 minutes for questions and having a discussion. So please start to think about questions you may have for the commissioner after his presentation and we will move forward directly to that. I won't introduce you a lot because I really would like to have as much time as possible. So if you want to say a few words about yourself, please feel free to do so. So the floor is yours. Thank you. Good afternoon to everybody. Also to the ones in the last row, of course. This time, as you can see, the European Commission is in good company. And I'm really pleased that I have the possibility to share those two hours or an hour and a half with you. Maybe you will anyway notice from what is my education and so on from my presentation, so I will not go into that. I would rather start by saying that what is pretty commonly happening to me as the European Commissioner for Environment whenever I enter to any kind of room, they are looking to me a bit like a shrek or incredible hulk. In both cases, a green monster. So they assume that of course I will firstly defend environmental interests but today you will hear talking me at least as much about economy as also about environment because I firmly believe that the real answers to the challenges which we are facing in environmental area go to the very roots of the economic behavior. So I would like to speak to you today more as a father, concerned citizen, an economist, Slovenian. But yes, I happen to be also the Commissioner for Environment. I would like you to leave this room with one simple message to which the whole lecture will be about. We need to change that message which I would like to take with you home. We need to change the way we produce, the change we consume, actually the change to change the way we live. And there are two kinds of arguments which I would like to develop that you would understand why this change is simply unavoidable. One side of the arguments is the environmental arguments, another side of the arguments are economic arguments. Environmental arguments are more difficult to sell nowadays in Europe while economic arguments, they are easier. And that's why it is absolutely necessary using them both if you want to be successful in policy making. But let me start with environmental arguments which are solid enough that they should convince everybody. I have read in nature in the scientific journal a bit more than a year ago quotation which goes approximately like that human population growth and per capita consumption rate underlie all of the global of the other present drivers for the global change. So population growth and per capita consumption rate. Let me try to explain you a bit more in detail what is happening in the world about the population growth. You all know that we are currently 7 billion on the planet. You have probably all heard that we will be 9 billion in 2045 approximately. But let me translate that 9 billion the figure which we have all got used to to something which becomes a bit more ringing the bell. That means that in one generation we will have on the planet additionally more people than it was the total amount of population at the beginning of 20th century because the total amount of population at the beginning of 20th century was 1.5 billion that means daily more than 200.000 people it means Germany approximately in one year Sweden in 45 days or if you want 6 weeks and 4 days and Slovenia in 9 days and 6 hours you have to introduce hours when it comes to Slovenia so that's what's happening and the other trend which we are also facing is the trend which for example McKinsey is estimating that we will have 3 billion additional consumers which are today living in poverty in the middle class consumption till 2030. This is part of the quotation which talks about per capita consumption rate. So these are all the citizens which are today living in the countries which are big countries with big amount of population and where they have relatively a lot of poverty still present. So these two trends are there and what is basically the problem which is connected with that. It's the fact that we are living in the world of limited resources talking about fresh water, oceans, land and soil clean air, raw materials, biodiversity, ecosystems fuel, whatever you wish. And the fact that the estimates are showing us that if we will continue taking into account those trends we will by 2050 need approximately 3 times more resources that we are currently using that we will need approximately 70% more of food and fiber till 2050 till 2030 we will need approximately 40% more drinking water, fresh water than we can access and all that in the context of the fact that today 60% of ecosystems are already degraded and used unsustainably already today. So it's the conclusion that we have to change the way how we produce, consume and live it's pretty simple and especially one can connect it with the developed part of the world and that has nothing to do by the way with soft economic laws but it has a lot to do with clear physical requirements of the very limits of the planet on which we are living. I have mentioned at the beginning that the arguments which I have developed now and I think more than convincing are not always the ones which make the change and would make somebody really doing things in a different way but if somebody really doesn't believe in that then let's try to look at the economic arguments and I will give you four good reasons why you would come to the same conclusion especially this is of course valid for the Europe and European Union in Europe we live on the continent which is very densely populated we live on the continent which is locked in into resource inefficient production and consumption Industrial revolution started here we are currently using 15 tons per capita in a year per citizen of various materials five tons of that becomes waste and half of that waste almost three tons becomes it's landfill so lost forever that's the first reason the second reason is that we are seeing a total shift of resource prices while in the 20th century the composite resource price index was falling with the exception of two world wars and oil crisis at the beginning of this century starting from 1998 we call it a hockey stick the increase of the resource prices 300% 85% of European companies are expecting that the resource prices in their companies in the next five years for their companies will increase in the past people were more focusing on labour productivity logically because labour cost was increasing very fast now labour cost is more or less at least in the developed world were stable but the resource prices are increasing so the shift from labour to resource productivity it's only logical the third reason is that if we for example take the data from the biggest European economy in Germany and there are data which are valid for industry 45% of the cost in German industry can be connected with resources 18% with labour so still today we are very much focusing on labour productivity and we don't talk about the total factor productivity yet in our economic analysis and conclusions but it is wrong because you will come to the wrong conclusion and fourth reason is that Europe as a continent is extremely import dependent we import practically more than 60% of energy estimates that we might overshoot 80% till 2030 if you go to the periodic system I can tell you what we are importing and their dependency is also increasing we import 48% of copper or 64% of zinc and bauxite 78% of nickel 100% of cobalt, platinum, titanium, vanadium all rare earth metals half of everything what is inbuilt in our products it's imported so if you connect these four facts together coming to the conclusion that producing the products using less water using less raw materials using less energy reusing them, recycling them makes full economic sense it is the real way to keep industry in Europe if we are sincere in that that we want to keep it in Europe which I'm hearing constantly as one of the problems which we environmentalists are causing to the industry it is just the opposite if we are sincere to keeping it in Europe then this is their potential competitiveness gain and it's unavoidable so the conclusion which you can draw again from that what I have said it's yes we have to change we have to change the way we produce the way we consume and the way we live till now I have sounded a bit more like four horsemen of the apocalypse but let me use the quotes from two American presidents the last two yes we can and it is the economy stupid I would add it is not only the economy stupid because those two quotes I think are very important to be taken into account if you want to talk about the answer how we can and how we should address the questions we are dealing with today do we have answers to that yes I think we have them but let me start by some basic facts of life how today we are organized in economic sense we have inefficiencies still all around us turning coal into light is still only 3% efficient only 15% of the energy we put in our petrol tank is used to move our car down the road 80% of what we produce it's used once and then discarded only 1% of the valuable rare earth that we use in products are recycled at the end of the product life and the final most critical inefficiency or imbalances that 80% of the resources are basically globally used by 20% of population so if you just take one product I'm pretty much sure that each of you have it in your pocket mobile phone you can produce a wedding green by digging 10 tons of golden ore or you can produce using of course the cyanide which is one of the major poisons but you can also produce it by recycling 10 kilos of mobile phones 10 kilos only the same quantity yet we are currently recycling in European Union less than 10% of all mobile phones and more than 100 million of those yearly are at the bottom of the drawers more than 100 million and if you would just recycle them in Europe yearly you would get back 2.4 tons of gold 25 tons of silver 1 ton of palladium and 900 tons of copper I could continue because if you would go next step not to that they would not become the waste in the first place but that you would refurbish them to a state as good as new Alan McArthur foundation is estimating that you could generate 210,000 euros net material cost saving for each million euros of mobile phones so that's all there and of course when we talk about our as consumers we there is the idea of a consumer it's not to owe the thing but to use the thing that's why I think it's so important that we understand that some changes are relatively easy and could be also implemented one central question is the role of the market many believe that the market itself would be the best position that it would deliver all the necessary answers I certainly believe that markets are still here to stay for quite some time because we don't have better redistribution mechanism than the markets but there are some facts of life which we have to take into account markets cannot ensure efficiency in the location and use of resources if prices do not reflect the true value and cost of resources which is today the case if rewards to capital are disproportionate to rewards to other inputs which is today the case if managers on annual contracts are induced to make short term investment decisions overly influenced by bonuses based on short term share price which is today the case so we absolutely need something like market regulation that's always existing famous dilemma does the regulation goes together with the market philosophy my answer to you would be via since we talk about global markets and global game would be about global game the global game today you know it's football ask the best football players do they want to have good referee and do they want to have clear rules of the game and their answer would be of course yes because without good referee and without clear rules of the game you would have chaos on the place and the one who would prevail on that market place of football field will be the most aggressive players and that's not more football we want to enjoy and basically that's exactly the market economy which we don't want to enjoy anymore I think innovation can give you a lot of answers because human imagination is without limits but if you want to unlock the real potential of innovation it is absolutely necessary that there are right incentives coming and right messages right targets coming from the policy makers otherwise the innovation is following the target which is not exactly the right target I think that that's one of the parts on which we still have a lot of reserve products it would be at most important that design of the products it's improved in a way that you think when you produce a product that that product could at the end of life cycle could be entirely recycled or reused so the design of the product it's already the beginning or the end of the story of the product consumers we are extremely important part of the decision making because we can easily see from all the studies that we are concerned about what is happening in our environment but on the other hand I can give you the data that today globally we have 400 environmental echo labels 400 48% of consumers are saying we do not trust anymore the labels so if we want to be informed consumers then we need space in which we understand and situation in which we can quickly judge on the basis as being not abused but consumers who use the proper information finally also about business models the thing which I briefly mentioned before so we do not actually we are not guided by by using something so leasing, sharing will have to become more our reality that it's today and when we many times when we talk about the future changes of the economy people immediately switch to the echo industries and to the potential of echo industries which is enormous because this is by the way sectors which was growing during the crisis seriously growing but the trick it's not in echo industries they are neighbors the trick is in changing all economic activities and behavior so resource efficiency and circular economy will be two words which you will be probably hearing more with resource efficiency according to some of the estimates which I mentioned already before you could you could you could meet the approximately 30% of the needs till 2030 of increased use of the resources so it is important but it's absolutely not the final decision or solution that's why circular economy it's so crucial and so important actually conclude we live in the 21st century which is defined determined by fragility we are more interconnected than ever we are more interdependent than ever our personal responsibility and collective responsibility is much bigger for the our own common future than it was in the past it is at most important that we turn this fragile century from this fragility to sustainability in the environment policy making what I have learned in those four years and a half since I am responsible for this portfolio in the past I am a bit simplifying but it's not far from the truth in the past the policies were done in a way that each of the sectors each of the stakeholders was following their own interest and when those very same persons who were in the morning working in a factory came home and take off the jacket they recognize that the water which is coming out of the pipe it's not clean anymore and the air which they are breathing it's not clean enough and that public they became kind of public person and that kind of public concern started to create then legislation, new limits, new targets when it comes to the water quality when it comes to the air quality of course the damage has already been done because many investments in the business sector were also done and in good faith because nobody was telling them something is wrong and the direction was simply wrong that's why it's so important to understand that only through the integration of policies integration of environmental concerns in agriculture, fisheries, industry energy name it whatever you wish trade policy, research policy you can truly achieve what you want it's a bit like preventing the disease or curing the disease major reasons why it's better to prevent the disease than to cure it for the people who want to hear economic arguments because it's much cheaper but for the common sense people because you are not ill and that's why it's important that you basically go into the prevention story one of the problems which I am seeing as the major dilemmas we have to address it's this long term, short term policy making I'm hearing that argument ok we are in economic crisis and because we are in economic crisis we have to focus on short term issues and those long term issues could be left for somebody else and for later times we know that they are important but not now all this is an illusion all the things which I'm talking here about it's here and now simultaneously via addressing the economic crisis we are fiercely running into another kind of crisis and it would be it's with all the honesty I think also that our systems our democracies are unfortunately organized in a way that we are not at all contributing contributing a lot that this longer term thinking would become more the essence of our policy making how many politicians you know they were re-elected and we are the one who are electing them because they are thinking long term how many entrepreneurs are actually rewarded on the basis of their 5 years economic results and not yearly or even quarterly income income sheets so that's where I think we are failing the problem is that all the challenges of the 21st century can simply not be addressed without taking long term vision and long term questions into consideration seriously so for the people who are saying and that's an argument which also I'm hearing quite commonly that the environment protection is an obstacle to economic growth my answer is it is just the opposite it is just the opposite ignoring those things it's the best way how you will limit the growth and if you don't understand that now continue but those times when you will understand are from day to day closer I think when we talk about circular economy the best example from which we can learn it's of course the example of nature nature is a circular economy millions of years of adaptation where nothing is lost and everything has a purpose and we are part of the nature and I think it's high time that we start to behave like that people are saying that the best time to plan to tree it's 20 years from now in the past of course but we have missed that point the second best it's now because we certainly would not like that in 20 years time somebody would stand in front of you and ask you the same question so yes I think it's of fundamental importance if we want to change the way we produce we consume, we live that we go that we understand that environment and economy are two sides of the same coin and that we have to go in the very roots of the economic theory and economic behavior if we want to provide the proper answers to the challenges which are lying ahead of us we are supposed to be intelligent human beings but we still have to prove that we are intelligent thank you thank you very very much commissioner that was really great I personally believe that we need at least an incredible Hulk in Brussels having that vision and sometimes when you get angry I think a little bit more extra strength wouldn't hurt wouldn't hurt at all I'm sure about that we're going to have a question and answer session so who will help me with the microphone the reason we need a microphone in particular is the fact that this is webcasted live as well don't speak before you're having a microphone while you are thinking about some questions just very quickly if I can follow up on your final unfortunately you have to stay with this microphone here but as you said long term is difficult to really get into the political system and partly we as voters are of course responsible for this what can we do then this continues to be a challenge in a democracy you could say yeah I think that the real answer is sitting in the last rows so they are mastering the social media and they can master also the power which us politicians and business sector will not be able to ignore you mentioned I mean I take a couple of sort of direct follow up questions on your presentation you mentioned the fact that it's essential to really integrate environmental issues in the broader policies of the EU and at the country level don't ask me if this is easy is that easy, no I will be even more provocative in this sense how do you do that what is it what are the sort of opening points when you talk to your fellow commissioners in the different DGs to make them actually take this seriously and see the same perspective as you do first you have to step in their shoes and try to understand why for some things they would have the problem sometimes those problems are not connected with them but connected with the whole system which stands behind and trying to develop argumentation which is easily understandable and that's the trick through which you can get the support I think that at the end of the day for example if I go I take a simple example of of a fisherman and some passionate environmentalist short term they would have totally different interest that is the first one would like to catch all the fish because that is basically maximizing the profit the second one would like to stop all the fishing because that's we already have overfished fish and that's the way how we should approach in essence they both agree that sustainable fishing is the way ahead because we have fished forever and the other hand we would like also the fisherman would like that his neck generations would still be in the position of comfortably living out of that activity and I think that's the kind of logic which we need to start to present that there are common interests that there are common ways how we can understand and overcome some of the divisions which are the first line existing and I can say that during these five years I have really talked a lot and worked a lot and also my colleagues from the DIGI with the colleagues from other other areas which of course also having their legitimate interests and concerns to whom you have to listen to and try to find the best answer not that you would always find the way ahead which would entirely fit the the needs and also fit your ambition but it's closer to that than if you sometimes go to an open fight and you create a kind of opposition which does not help and at the end you know that among us humans many times the things don't move from better stupid personal relations and that are the things which you have to put behind you simply have to create these relations as good as possible because on the personal understanding and also on the fact that at the end you work for the same purpose and with the same ideas in that you can move ahead So it's almost as part of the whole European Union vision in a way and we have a common interest there. I know I mean I'm sure there are going to be questions about the common agriculture politics and policy as well related to environmental issues but if I can just select one other area that has been very much in the media here is the goals targets that we are setting in the EU for on climate the 40% reducing emissions the 28% on renewable energy and still waiting for a target on energy efficiency it's easy to be very critical and many are on the other hand the EU is also part of a much broader context in the world with falling energy prices in the US etc How much do you think the EU should be and can be a driver of international environmental policy and proactive also for instance to make sure that we have a positive agreement in Paris next year We can be, we should be and we have no other choice How much and the level of ambition is the one which is the only one which for me is debatable but I sincerely hope that in 2015 there will be a bit more of the things that we are currently seeing in practice from the statements coming from the United States or from China about more openness about those issues that this will be capitalized in some decisions which will be done during that year of course personally I would not be against targets which would be more ambitious but as you said at the end of the day it's not one it's the whole bunch of interests which come into consideration when you are discussing and deciding on those years even with the things which we proposed we are firmly staying in the leadership because it is more than obvious that we are still the only ones who have the legally binding targets and that we insist on that policy and in the direction of that policy What I was a bit missing during the discussion I was constantly trying to convey those arguments back into this discussion when we were doing that internally was the fact that we have a bit too much discussed of exactly what was your immediate reaction was how much the others and what are the costs and that so what a bit too much disappeared from the table is why the hell we are doing that and that we have recognized that that we have to stay inside the two degrees Celsius otherwise we will have major disaster and for me the core question was either these targets are keeping us inside that framework because if they are not keeping us if we don't have scientific proof that this is enough and we know clearly that till 2050 we are aspiring to something between 80-95% reduction of CO2 Are we well on target on those things? These are for me the vital questions which are there and this would for me be the primary leading questions then engaging with the international society trying to be more precise than in the past Yes, of course that's difficult part of the story but I think that the facts are also working facts are coming in stronger and stronger on our side and that you can see big countries like China understanding some environmental challenges much differently than in the past for example okay air quality it's not directly connected to climate but in many cases you have the same result but you are seeing today that nobody can neglect anymore the real problems which none of the political leadership there can ignore that problem because people are rising and they are openly asking the question why for example studies which are showing that in the northern part of China the life expectancy is 5.5 years than in the southern 5.5 years who is ready to invest as much of his or her life for better economic development and I don't know what so I think these are the things which are changing and these are the things which we have to spread where we have to show and understand what is the essence of the challenge which we are trying to face because if we will lose that major reason that we started with energy and climate policy dealing with them together in the same package if we lose that reason then we have lost the direction which is essential if we want to have problems addressed properly and just the final and as you say keeping the long term vision there at the same time and not get lost only in technicalities I agree it's really really important but understanding also if we go back to almost the first question getting the political momentum and having the support of the populations and so on a recent Gallup in the US pointed out the fact that now 52-53% of the American population are quite hesitant to climate change not that they don't recognize it or long term issue compared to short term challenges have you seen a difference in how when you are traveling around Europe how people in general are looking at environmental issues considering the fact that we've had also this economic challenges unemployment etc or is there a strong commitment you would argue I know this is a general question for strong environmental policies broadly in Europe but in this way to seeing the differences to measure it to do a kind of public opinion pool and see it so that would be my way of approach to judging either there are differences or not in essence of course if you do that kind of measurements you would always come to the conclusions that there are differences but at the same time about climate change in all Europe it's present and it's convincing and that should be convincing enough tools for the policy makers and that are facts which we have to take into account of course that in the context when we discuss those issues in the context of growth and jobs and dealing with the future my and I sincerely hope that people understand when we say green growth that we are basically saying taking into account those things which I mentioned you still have enormous opportunities of innovation to deliver new ways of to the and new ways to fulfill the expectations to to to fulfill the demands of the consumers in a new way which is again still job you are not losing the job because of that but I personally believe that when we talk about future growth and we many times say that green growth is an important part of the future growth no green growth is the future growth there is no other growth full stop I think we should start to understand that and why that I don't really want to open the question how much growth we can expect in Europe because I can tell you the figures and you can judge from the figures yourself in the 1960s the average growth rate in Europe was 5.3 in 1970s it was 3.8 in 1980s it was 3.1 in 1990s it was 2.3 in the last decade of the previous century it was 1.4 so now you can guess if somebody thinks that this happened because of environmental legislation welcome so I think it's really important to understand that in this globalized world where the knowledge is flying like that where investments are flying like that where people are living comparing to us in of course position which is totally unacceptable that it's more than normal that they are growing faster than we are growing and that we should be happy if we stay with something and if we fulfill if we have the quality of life which we have developed and maybe answer some of the questions of redistribution how to address the poverty which is existing in our societies and so on and that are the questions which we will have to start sincerely asking but currently we know where we are and I think that it's absolutely important that we try to convince everybody that also with the answers which we are providing through the protection of environment we are basically creating also development opportunities Thank you very much and I can really interpret from your last point again that we do need a green, incredible hulk in Brussels and try to convince all other Digis about this common vision as well only one type of growth green growth. Ok, so let's take a number of questions and comments and you can keep them Maybe we start in this section here Yes, we start in this section We have four here in this section we take these four and we say your name also. Thank you very much I would like to thank Mr. Commissioner for really comprehensive explanation and you have tackled actually the point which is in the middle that this our economic model which we are proud of is actually generating the unsysternability so the more growth which we want we need more consumption and consumption is for the human pleasure so we have forgotten the modesty which should be the virtue here in the north it is modesty so how do we actually influence this because the things would go then down if we are, should I say starting this so we would have to have a kind of a broader consensus and my question of course it is also to what extent you think now the state actors we are still on the state actors sovereign state actors and we are solely those who are deciding on this global level to reach the consensus are there some other forces behind which we have to in a way incorporate, thank you very much by the way it's good to see some known faces so let's take a few more please and I'm happy that we could agree to use only one language though so please thank you very much for the interesting presentation my name is Daphne Tuverson I came here today from Calmar to demonstrate outside for the climate parliament that we're going to have in the beginning of June because as it's been made very clear as you said the science has been done but the policies are not in place and climate is a very serious problem that we have to face when I listen to your analysis I can agree with everything you've said what worries me one of the problems of being my age is that I feel it's a deja vu we've heard it all before limits to growth came out 40 years ago they were saying the same things the situation in the world today compared to then I think has changed considerably we have degraded our natural resources and ecosystems to a horrible state and we have today concentration of power in the hands of multinational corporations and financial institutions that we did not have 40 years ago the situation is much more difficult to deal with today and when I hear people analyzing the problems and nobody's talking about the power dimensions and how we deal with this then I don't think we haven't gotten there yet so I want to know how is Europe going to help Poland stop using coal within the next 5 years because that's what we have to do the power dimensions I think is a very interesting point so please later there and then we have 2 more can you keep 5 people 5 will be too much so we take one more and then we take the 2 of you after so one more hi thank you for a very inspiring speech I can't come from H&M we're major fashion retailer and fashion brand and since last year we're also collecting clothing in all our stores worldwide for reuse and recycling and my question to you is how the European Union could ease and facilitate the flow of recyclable materials in our case textiles to other countries because today what we are facing is a lot of barriers in trying to close the loop on textiles and actually recycle these old textiles that are recyclable to new textile material we can't import for example or export in our case from the European Union to our major textile spinning market like Turkey, India China not in any form, not as fibers not as old garments not in cut pieces because it's considered waste so that's actually a huge problem for us to recycle these resources into new raw material ok, thank you very much just to raise your hands so we can see how many are planning to ask the question it's very much focused in so these 3 and then we take 2 questions more here I will try to answer quickly so that we can be more into the loop consumers story and the first part of question basically of how we act how we create these consumers power and so on it's of course an important part of the answer I think one part on which I have alluded already in the presentation was that we have to think about different kind of business models for example good example would be Michelin instead of, they have a pilot instead of producing selling the tire that they lease the tire what is the difference, if you sell the tire your interest is to maximize the number of tires and the tire should not last too long but rather but if you lease the tire your interest is totally different that they are the best and that they last as long as possible because that's your profit but the same fulfilled fulfilled need and I think these types of things which are already existing as pilots but the real question is how to mainstream that that it would become the core of the policies on the power of the global states comparing to the rest I was in a way at least from a substance point of view heading European delegation in Rio Pass 20 and my conclusion after that was that if somebody was really lacking behind what is happening in the world were us politicians the leaders while the business sector was pretty much opened not to mention the civil society which was of course pushing further and I think that sometimes we do not hear what actually we are bit behind what is happening I also believe that sometimes various industrial associations are not doing favor too much to themselves defending some things which are in the long term undefendable and better they would need to get the voice of the progressive part of industry the part which is seeing and wanting and differently in the future that they would be more clearly coming with their messages to us and that's basically also partially answering to your question about the division of the powers it's I can agree with you that it's probably the Javui okay but there is a minor difference I'm commissioner so I have some power and I try to do what I'm saying in practice as much as I can the fact of life is that for example I'm seeing all the people coming from business sector because I have to listen to them and listen to their interest I'm seeing also the people coming from civil society NGOs at the end it's your personal credibility when you do the policies and you can't change that the fact that in this power distribution what I think it's an unfinished job inside the business sector it's exactly that inside the business sector the progressive part would become more vocal than actually the defending status quo part because it's a bit but unfortunately it's like I don't know with the pupils in the school if you are a teacher you never deal with the ones who are doing well because you know they are doing well and they have no problems but you deal with those who have problems and then when this becomes part of policy making then we all have problems and I think that's in essence where we are sometimes doing the things wrong Poland stop using the coal you know that they are in essence desperately trying themselves and they see a lot of a lot of hope in the shell gas story and replacement I'm barely stating the facts in replacement of the coal with the with the shell gas which if that would be a transitional arrangement for some phase then for me it's logical but you know the energy story if I try to cut it short and present it how I am understanding it it's I was before science and research commissioner and I will never forget the fact that investments for science in the energy area in 1970s after the oil crisis in Europe were five times higher than 2005 2006 those years where I was where the latest data came so we lived in a period of time where where we believed that everything it's under control and there are no serious problem it's existing and we were really not investing in new ways of getting new energy sources grid system storage system so these are basically the core problematic things which today we still have to deal with so there was an illusion that and when the climate change emerged we all wanted to have immediately the answers but we have really not invested in that that we would be close to that and now we started to regenerate the machine but we are in a kind of a transition time in which we are step by step trying to change some of the developments and where I hope that the logic of support of the renewables will stay with us that policy because also with shell gas my answer it's always it has a potential certain potential in transition and in replacing control but we should never forget it's still fossil fuel so full stop and that's with the consistency of the policies which you have to keep but it's also important to say that we have to understand that currently how we function in European Union is that energy mix is decided by the member state so it's not European policy so what is European policy it's what we collectively agree for example CO2 reductions 20% of renewables that's a bit limiting the flexibility but that's what we agree collectively the rest they have the full flexibility and we see also those days which we are living how this energy independence security and so on questions become again more visible and more important so for me going into the direction of strengthening internal market creating internal market for energy in Europe would be logical logical direction to go and if this would happen then of course also a bit more discussion actively on some of those things would make sense finally on on the recycling story with a package which we will present still during this mandate we will basically strengthen the requirements from member states for recycling so we have an agreement inside 7th environment election program that we would implement through the target setting the waste hierarchy in practice and waste hierarchy is basically saying the best waste is no waste then it's reuse recycle then it's the question which is connected to incineration and energy recovery and finally it's about landfilling we want to phase out landfilling and we want to increase recyclability to something like 70% or something which basically we know it's feasible some regions are already achieving it some member states are close to that but the target must be such that it's inspiring and moving the society somewhere so we would like that the message is understood that the waste would never anymore in the future be understood as a problem but as a valuable resource which should be recycled and put back into the pump it back into the production cycle because if we don't do that first of all we do economic harm to ourselves because it makes no sense that we basically use the resources while the resource prices are increasing very much and secondly of course we harm our health environment and both terrible consequences which we should not accept okay thank you very much we have two questions here first I noted a few questions in the middle but I also want to give priority to any of our students up there if you want to answer questions as well then I will give you a priority line in that but please we start with two questions here first good afternoon my name is Jens Holm, I'm a member of the Swedish parliament from the left party and used to be a member of the European parliament by the way thank you very much for a very inspiring lecture I think you should hold this to your colleagues in the European commission too I would like to ask something about environmentally harmful subsidies we know that environmentally harmful subsidies is a huge obstacle in the transition to a more environmentally friendly economy worldwide we subsidize fossil fuels highways, intensive livestock production with more than 500 billion US dollars a year I think on the European Union level there is more or less a consensus that we should phase out environmentally harmful subsidies my question, I have two questions my first question is which environmentally harmful subsidies would you like to phase out short and long term and there is a new proposal for the European Commission regarding sale promoting measures on the agriculture level that means funding marketing money in order to increase consumption of for instance alcohol meat chocolate, pastries and so on and this was commissioned from the European Commission last year and it will be dealt with on the agri meeting in Brussels next week and the proposal from the commission is to increase these subsidies threefold and I just can't see the logic in it can you, thank you so policy coherence again maybe an issue there we had one more somewhere in the middle here where was that okay yes please hi, Rini Trapp from the Danish Embassy and I would also like to thank the commissioner for an excellent lecture I'm afraid this might be a little bit repetitive the question has already been posed sort of but in Sweden there's a fairly high degree of recycling for instance if you look at household waste it has to be segregated into different garbage cans do you see that this might be an initiative the EU commission can look at for implementing in the EU or do you have any other concrete initiatives that you're looking at recycling for garbage household waste okay thank you very much can we, it's okay to take one more I think it was actually one of the students are you a student otherwise I won't allow it no but anyway it's difficult for me to see here you all look so mature so we have the gentleman up there hello my name is Peter Henkins I'm master student at Stockholm University thank you for the nice lecture indeed I agree with you that present and the future generations actually can put pressure on politicians and corporations but we also need support from the European Union and I think that the European Union can play a very defining role in regulating economy so which measures is the European Union going to take to give the corporations the incentive to take that green thinking into account instead of supporting excessive consumerism and also a continuous strive for profit okay thank you a very small question to answer I mean they are circulating partly around similar topics I would argue so please if you can provide a consolidated answer to this that would be excellent after that I will invite to have two people in the middle here and still you were a student so that was perfectly fine but I am also asking my high school students if they have any questions so anyway so please first on environmental subsidies as you rightly said by the way there is a high consensus on phasing it out but this high consensus is when we have to agree about concrete measures that's a fact of life because I have seen in many documents already written we have to phase out high environmental housing subsidies what I am trying to do and this is something on which we are pretty much succeeding is that we are now working in the commission that through the semester process where we have the possibility to influence on the governance of member states and giving kind of recommendation of member states should phase out environmental subsidies there are also other recommendations which are connected with the taxes but we use that I think could become one of the strongest tools which you can in practice use that those words which we have in many documents would become a reality so also I don't know in the coal sector this is more than obvious in the agricultural sector what I was trying to do was basically connecting as much as possible of the subsidies which go there with public good philosophy so that the farmers could receive that money if they do some public job public good job because for me it's logically if it's public money you don't deliver public money for production as such because with all the side effect consequences because if you do it like that then we have many who would like to have that kind of subsidy but if you via that provide protection of biodiversity if you via that provide protection of good quality water and so on if you pay the farmer not to pollute water rather than first pay him to pollute the water and then punish him through he is overshooting the nitrates directive and then you have to punish the state and so on that makes no sense for me so we have really tried hard I sincerely I can tell you that I was at the end of the process a bit frustrated because the proposal of the commission was not bad at all but when it passed the council when it passed the parliament that's not what I hoped for at the beginning and we have still a bit too much of this hypocrisy which means we all are in favor of greening when that suits us but we don't want really when it hurts us to implement it in practice but we should understand that by the way I am farmer son so I absolutely know what farming is and how I hated it when I was young no I hated it from this very simple reason I was addicted to sport and of course I was always on the field where it was nice weather and I was always free when it was raining so that addiction was then of course under severe threat anyway I think it's I think it would be really important that the farmers and the community there also understand that it's very much in their interest protecting the biodiversity protecting the water, protecting some of the things which do not may become as a first instinct but you need to look to those questions again like we explained before with the fishery and fisheries sustainable fisheries, sustainable agriculture it's also the same story either you work inside that or you try to to concentrate more short time interest and for that concrete thing which you talked about in the cap frankly I don't know about it on your question about yes the new proposals on which we will work connected to the household waste so which is basically the municipal waste and we will strengthen the standards there so that's what you can expect currently we have 50% till 2020 you can expect some I don't know 70 till 2030 but currently we have few member states who are already over 60% and we have some regions which are over 70% we know that it's feasible we know it's possible but the problem of European Union it's not countries who are over 60% but countries who are close to zero so we have 8 countries which land fill more than 85% still and as you know we are commission and we have to take care for everybody and finally to Peter to one of the ways again worth mentioning so how you best convey the message to to the business sector you have two types of two types of approach which they like more it's of course the incentive approach which means that via for example innovation funds or research funds you basically channel those funds into direction that it's supporting the research type and development of their products which go in that direction that's what we are doing in the new horizon 2020 it's a requirement that 60% of that money which will be used for the research and innovation should be connected to the climate change and greening of the of the society so that's a pretty so we are making tracking either we are committing what we are committing but I remember very well that for example in transport all the research was done for the purposes of greening the transport or greening the energy and so on so we have never really done seriously through our money anything which would stimulate the direction which would go in different way the second way of how you address that it's of course through a bit more biting things like if you move the taxes from labor to the resources so if you tax more resources that means that of course somebody has to accommodate that to their economic activity if you remove environmentally harmful subsidies it's the same I think in the crisis times where majority has the budgetary problems it makes all the sense to remove environmentally harmful subsidies because you hit two targets at the same time so budgetary stability and on one hand and on the other hand I think which was from the very first instance wrong then of course there are various things which we do through setting out the regulation so when you set out we have enormous requests for the companies which have to fulfill we have for example industry emissions directive emissions clearly saying you will receive your ticket to work only if you fulfill this this this and this and this and these requirements of course strengthened from year to year and many of them have a complaining a lot that we are simply asking too much and pushing them on the limit of competitiveness but I could continue and continue because whatever we do even before the the investment is done we have environmental impact assessment so you can't invest in something which will fundamentally cause damage to the environment and so on so it's really practically all the legislation which we adopt and there are if there is anything where people are complaining is that we have too much of it not too little we are doing exactly that but step by step with knowing and having understanding better knowledge we try to strengthen those requirements and sometimes we would need to go faster that's the only thing where we could basically discuss thank you very much we have not very much time left so I would ask the two remaining and still if there is one of the students from who wants to say something so very short yes thank you mr commissioner jacob granitz from the Stockholm environment institute my question is slightly perhaps more political than technical many people argue that EU is a club and I would argue personally a very successful club in many many many policy areas not to least in the environment we have a lot of collective action problems that we are now tackling together at the same time we have upcoming EU parliamentary elections and for instance also in this country there is a lot of skepticism where the EU is moving there is a lot of debate about regions even splitting off and which I think in a sense is of course jeopardizing our joint project and it's a real concern I would argue so my question to you is could we somehow utilize the environmental area of the success that we have actually achieved together over the past 40 50 years or so to demonstrate that there is a huge value of working together and could that be better enhanced and parallel also could we utilize the vision that you paint so nicely between environment and economy as a new alternative and that we can go ahead so that we create some sort of a vision for people here which seems now to be slightly fading and which I think is a huge concern thank you thank you very much so one question was cancelled responses we have one more there then we take that opportunity still no one in the back row come on I have teenagers at home in high school and they are never quiet I don't know what happened something is wrong with you I know they always like to challenge me it must be the same for you I have two they are never quiet oh you recognize it okay we have a common mission there so please hello and thanks again for a very good interview my name is Magnus Benzi also from the Stockholm environment institute you gave environmental and economic reasons why we need change but thinking especially long term strategically I wonder if is it helpful or dangerous to also talk about the security or the geopolitical reasons for change and I'm thinking particularly of your metaphor with the football pitch and with a bad referee it's the most aggressive players that win thank you very much I can actually say yesterday we had a seminar here in Stockholm on food security from a Swedish context and a lot of discussions fell back on the fact that while we talk about food security from a European context but we are also importing a lot so the security issues coming in into many of these aspects as well how vulnerable are we actually to change issues also in the broader environment so last chance from you up there you don't want to they are passing I'll take the chance then you look like a student so it's okay Pani Labralti European Commission in Stockholm we are approaching the European elections and the votes in Sweden will take place on the 25th of May it will be interesting to hear your perspective on how the environment is used according to you you think will be played out in the debates in the different member states towards the election okay thank you so that's great I think they are all somehow well the last question is very specific as well but please yeah the first one was very similar question but a bit different angle it was more could we utilize environment better of course the answer is yes I can give you the most convincing argument is the life of each and every citizens of Sweden would be worse off without European Union in the area of environment I can guarantee you that 80% of all the legislation which its guiding your life has origins in on European territory 80% and I'm pretty sure that in many cases we would not reach such standards as we are reaching if we would not work together and so there are other things also when you talk about European Union which one has to take into consideration but I will not start expounding it because that would become a long story I only have 3 minutes left yeah Magnus yeah we tend not to talk too much about potential conflicts because we somehow assume that we are so intelligent that this is our past but reality is that we know that this is not our past yes I think you are right geopolitical questions if we seriously consider those issues should be part of the reason why we should avoid it all the conflicts in the past were about resources land oil water name it so there were not all but majority were the real reasons were connected with that more if you combine the story which I explained then of course logical conclusion would be if you do not solve and start to solve the issues then of course more demand more competing demand for the same resources that means that more potential conflicts could emerge and I think it is important so important to understand that if not properly addressed I am afraid that this kind of developments could lead to also potentially to more conflicts as I said I hope we are intelligent enough not to lead into that direction because when the conflicts are there then you know that I am coming from Slovenia we have had a 10 days war and during that war I promise to myself I will be a good guy till the end of my life if something like that would not come closer again and finally the question which was also on EP elections how environment will be present I know one answer that's not enough I don't know how much it will be but it would be really good if it would be present more than it was because it makes sense and you know majority of citizens don't really know what is public depth deficit here deficit up deficit down this austerity measures and others but they will know what is water to swim in of good quality water to drink air to breathe biodiversity preservation and so on and so on so it's something which is easy understandable and also very much very much of our life and if we don't care for the essence of our life in those election days then missed opportunity and you see this is a very representative group of Swedish population how many people in here think environment is important so you see it's a very clear majority so it's going to be like that this is as I said a representative group no bias so we have a 10 second final yes because it's ok I will try my name is Samuel Jarek I represent climate action organisation in Sweden trying to make politicians do politics in I mean based on science really and actually what we need to be honest I'm really happy about your speech if we are honest we have to admit that we are not even close to what we need to do in order to make keep below 2 degrees target what lies on the table now 30% for 2030 is almost unnecessary we could just as well skip doing it because it's not even close to what we need to do if you read modern climate science like Kevin Anderson and the two main tools that you have at the moment is the ETS system that has collapsed almost and the CDM projects that are not additional at the moment and the CDM schemes are very cheap at the moment so they don't work as well so given this we are not even close to what we need to do and the tools are so weak how do you deal with your frustration in the commission so in 10 seconds this is a question to bring with you yes we are close to the end of mandate no it's you have to know whatever job you have I think it's you will be and you are forced to compromise this and I'm a fierce defender of the things inside of the house outside of the house I try to be loyal to the things which we adopt because that's the only way how we can basically have have worked the things in reality but I think that's a fair approach in the house you have to fight in the house you have to be what? incredible so thank you very much a warm applause to commission and we thank you in particular also for being very honest in your presentation and for providing really substantial answers to the many questions I also would like to thank the EU office here in Stockholm for the collaboration we've had with them the vice chancellor for the external collaboration and the audience have a good afternoon climate change is coming this afternoon it's going to be 70 degrees instead