René Aust, July 8, 2026, Climate, Balkans, Taxpayers

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-08
(3-0021-0000).

Frau President. 

Europe and Germany already have a thousand heat deaths to lament 
and, during this, one wants to make the price for energy still more
expensive by means of the CO2 emissions trade so as to influence 
the climate worldwide. Precisely this is the distinction between theory 
and practice; this is the distinction between those on the left side and 
the patriotic powers of Europe.

We do not believe that higher taxes and an added burden for the citizens 
would somehow change the world climate - and this thesis has, ja, 
already failed in reality. Instead, we want to quite practically help the 
people; for example, in which old folks homes, care residences, 
hospitals, schools are outfitted quite completely and systematically
with climate systems. We want practical Politik instead of Cloud
Cuckoo Land. 

Something else which is on the daily order is the question of 
the expansion. The Balkans are an unbelievably important region
for us; they are strategically important for Europe. On that account, 
we also want that the Balkans and the European Union work together
much more closely; for example, by means of privileged trade relations
- that these be still further expanded. 

What we however do not want is that these countries in the present 
situation are accepted into the European Union. We do not want that 
additional recipient countries are accepted which at the end of the day
further and still more burden the German taxpayers.

The last expansion rounds have not been completely processed by the 
European Union. As before, there are large conflicts; as before, the 
institutional rules have not been laid out at this dimension. We first 
need to work out that this European Union and the European 
cooperation again become feasible, in which one concentrates on 
the essentials and to which are plainly not added ever new duties
and countries.

We want that the Balkans are brought up [herangeführt] nearer to us, 
but plainly without burdening the German taxpayers.

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, July 6, 2026, European Investment Bank

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, 
P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-06(1-0106-0000).

Frau President.

The report makes clear the growing role of the European Investment 
Bank within the European Union. With a balance of around 600 
billion euros and a record volume of 100 billion euros in financings, 
the EIB has become one of the most influential of Europe's financial 
institutions. This expanded role nevertheless needs to remain anchored 
in AEUV Article 309.

The EIB was created as an investment bank, and not as a replacement 
for a political decision process. Its strength lies in the financing of the 
European economy, not in the expansion of its mandate. 
True economic sovereignty begins with a strong productive economy; 
the investment priorities thus pose a question: While 53.5 billion euros 
are foreseen for climate goals, agriculture and bio-economy receive 
merely 6.2 billion euros.

Beyond that, ten percent of the EIB financing flows outside of the 
EU. Europe should nevertheless not afford itself this capital outflow. 
The EIB should undertake exclusively investments in our national 
economies, strengthen our member states, and promote industry, 
innovation and competitiveness.

The EIB should ultimately be measured by one, simple standard: 
Whether it helps strengthen Europe's productive economy and 
the interests of its member states. 

[trans: tem]

Marc Bernhard, May 21, 2026, Heating Law and CDU

German Bundestag, May 21, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 2/80, pp. 9558-9560. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Hurrah, the heating law will be abolished, and everyone can again install what he wants – that is the fairy tale which you of the Federal government want to tell us. Your proposal of a so-called modernization law [Gebäudemodernisierungsgesetzes] is nothing other than Habeck’s heating hammer through the backdoor. 

With your Biotreppe [Bio-stair] you obligate the people to operate new construction oil and gas heating with initially 10 percent, later 60 percent bio-gas or bio-oil. Ja, where then shall all the bio-gas and bio-oil at all come from? According to your own statements, you yourselves do not know. The green energy minister from Baden-Württemberg confirms that initially there is not enough of this bio-manure. 

You also do not know what this madness will cost, yet proceed on, according to your own testimony, it will be so expensive that, practically, the people will simply no longer be able to afford operating an oil or gas heating. The people thereby remain – 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague, there is a wish for an interim                         question from the Union delegation. Do you want to permit it? 

Gladly. 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague Koller, please.

    Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): Many thanks, Herr colleague, that you have permitted the interim question.     You indeed have said we ourselves did not know where all the bio-manure shall come from. Have you     actually, really spoken with the branch? In this week, the bio-gas council came together, the bio-gas         technical associations met and on all sides is clearly confirmed: We have this potential. We have here     structures, and we can also service this. Do you not want to know, or does this not suit your ideology? 

You should perhaps preferably know your government better. I have put precisely this question to State Secretary Bartel yesterday in the Building Committee. I put to him the question: Where will all of this bio-manure come from? And he then correspondingly said to me: That, we do not know. 

    Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): The branch! Perhaps not him, but the branch! 

In the summer there will be a commission which will be occupied with this theme. This is completely irresponsible, what you are doing here. You introduce a bio-stair, and do not know where all the fuel shall come from. That is the reality.

And the green Energy Minister in Baden-Württemberg has exactly confirmed it: This bio-manure is not on the market. You coax the people and introduce some kind of stairway into nothing. You will not thereby come to grips. Stop lying to the people! 

         Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): I’ld recommend that to you!

Finally make reasonable Politik for the people out there, that they then can again pay their heating costs! 

There is besides: You do not know what this madness will cost, yet thence end in the people will no longer have sufficient money to operate this heating. Thereby remains for the people only the warm pump or distance heating, exactly so as with Habeck. 

Not only Habeck’s heating hammer remains practically in force, you worsen the situation for not already today installed oil and gas heating to the point of inability to pay; namely, through the certificate trade in 2028, decided in common by you, CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens, already in the German Bundestag. That is in fact in one and a half years. All experts thence proceed on that the CO₂ tax will thus at least be quadrupled to quintupled. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): Rubbish! AfD experts council, apparently! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): You have the source of the numbers? Nonsense!

In regards gas heating, that leads to a price increase of around 60 percent – just by the CO₂ tax. And in regards heating oil, we are speaking of a costs explosion of around 100 percent. Here, the CO₂ tax portion will climb from the present 21 cents to then almost 1 euro per litre of heating oil. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right!

That means added yearly costs of around 1,200 euros for gas and 1,800 euros for oil. 

That is to say: You are worse than Habeck, who simply verboten the people from newly installing oil and gas heating, while you act as if you would leave to the people themselves the free choice to decide which heating they install. At the same time you, however, make oil and gas so expensive that no one can afford it as well, thereby drive the people in fact to the warm pump and thereby force them to expend 100,000 to 150,000 euros for the installation and the necessary reconstruction and insulation measures. Most of all owners and landlords will simply not be able to pay that, and thereby they will have no other choice than either to need to sell their dwelling at far under value, or again install a gas or oil heating. 

Because you quite precisely know that many renters can no longer pay the heating costs on account of your CO₂ cascade of increases, you now want to defend the renters from your own Politik in which you leave it to the landlord to pay. The landlord in the future shall pay 50 percent of the CO₂ tax of their renters, even though they have no influence on the heating consumption. This is nothing other than a bad, immoral contract at the cost of a third  party. 

And is thereby long since fully clear that the heating hammer is fully ineffective, absolutely ineffective. Since the optimistic accounting of the former Habeck ministry itself proceeds on a yearly savings of just one, single percent of the entire German CO₂ emissions, thus the CO₂ quantity which China blasts into the air in just five hours. And, for that, you destroy the savings,  the old age provision and the prosperity of the people in our country. How insane are you, actually? Had you simply let just the last three nuclear power plants continue to run, we would each year save double as much CO₂ as through your entire heating hammer. 

Heating law becomes modernization law. Raider is now called Twix, but changes nix! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): Children’s talk by the AfD!

  

[trans: tem]

 

Arno Bausemer, April 30, 2026, Local Livestock Industry

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-30(4-0026-0000). 

Herr President. Herr Commissioner. Esteemed ladies and gentlemen. 

Over almost all of Europe, the temperatures in these days climb to over 20 degrees. And here many Europeans use the opportunity to begin grill season. The grill is hauled out of the garage, the charcoal is hauled out, packed into the grill, on the grate steak, bratwurst – and it gets going. This is for many years a good tradition and this should remain so. 

The green climate hysterics and chive proponents thereby of course break out into selective panic, tears or gasping. Coal, a dangerous climate killer! Happily gaseous stockyards also drive the CO₂ figure to the heights. And meat? Meat, unhealthy, dangerous. The Apocalypse is at hand. Nein, it is not so. On the contrary: Meat is healthy. To Europeans, meat is tasty. In Germany alone, the citizen last year consumed 55 kilograms of meat, tendency rising. And a guaranty for that are the functioning structures in our agriculture. 

I am very happy – out of personal experience – to read in the report of colleague Carlo Fidanza that the role of regional, local slaughterhouses was emphasized. This is of course important, and exactly such matters are produced to prevent animal transport and animal suffering when animals are kept and slaughtered locally. That is the future for Europe. And, if I may say a bit loosely, the only good wurst is a grilled wurst. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rainer Kraft, March 18, 2026, Nuclear Power

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7836-7837. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

When I draw the comparison between the panic which presently prevails in that part of the room, and the utterly complacent arrogance in the 19^th and 20^th legislative periods, I need say: Yes, we of the AfD, we are on the right way; in this question, we do everything right. We take on this difficult task [Wir bohren diese dicken Bretter]. 

Let us start with an experiment. We ask an AI. Question to the AI: What happens when one does not correct a serious strategic mistake? Answer: A serious strategic mistake not corrected leads, as a rule, to wide-ranging, negative consequences which can extend from financial losses up to long-term failures of an organization or of a project. 

            Nina Scheer (SPD): That should give thought to you!

The most important consequences are destruction of resources, disadvantage of competitiveness, loss of reputation, and irreversibility in regards too late action. 

Let us leave the AI. Let us put another thought experiment. What if in 2002, instead of the atomic withdrawal, we had reached a decision which was no serious strategic mistake but a genial investment in the future, namely the massive entry into nuclear power. What would we have? 

First. The 2026 Federal budget need not designate 30 billion euros so as to subsidize inefficient electricity producers and compensate for their high electricity prices. 

Second. The question of Economy ministers Altmaier, Habeck and Reiche, “How many gas power plants and where?” will not be presented because we do not require these power plants. 

Third. 60 billion euros for a hydrogen network in Germany we can do without; it will not be needed. 

Fourth. 250 billion euros for the massive network construction parallel to wind and solar installations will not be needed. The money can be spent otherwise, or will be remitted to the taxpayers. 

Fifth. Around 180 billion euros for large storage batteries will not be required, since there are no more generation fluctuations which need be compensated. 

Sixth. Since the electricity costs just about half, a family of four saves around 750 euros per year in electricity costs. 

Seventh. The previous costs of around 600 billion euros for the energy transition remain with the electricity consumers and taxpayers. The asozial redistribution from below to above does not occur. 

Eighth. A subsidized industrial electricity price is not needed. The electricity is already well priced. Energy-intensive business does not abolish positions and does not emigrate to foreign lands. A recession does not occur. 

Ninth. The brown coal mining is ended. A structural change nevertheless does not occur; the workers switch to the nuclear power sector. 

Tenth. German nature parks on land and on water are not industrialized. Environmental protection in forests and tidelands continues.                                                                                                                         

Eleventh. Since electricity is available at a good price and in large quantities, electric autos and heat pumps enjoy a broad social acceptance. Subventions and laws to force these on the market are not necessary. 

Twelfth. The great availability of inexpensive electricity in Germany leads to a settlement of AI and tech concerns. Germany would in fact have one of the top ten global tech concerns. 

Thirteenth. An EU money penalty for non-fulfillment of climate goals of up to 34 billion euros need not be paid; the proceedings will simply not take place.

Fourteenth. Sweden with its withdrawal will not threaten the European electricity market, since Germany’s solid electricity network does not destabilize the electricity price in southern Sweden, as is presently the case. 

Fifteenth. Large gas pipelines and LNG terminals will not be needed because the gas requirement is much less. 

Sixteenth. Autocratic countries earn less with the sales of gas. War chests for support of terror and invasion remain empty and the world is a more peaceful place. 

I could name still additional reasons; but my time runs out. On that account, ladies and gentlemen: That the Chancellor can use majorities in this house, if he wants, was made evident last year regarding the intensification of the migration question. You thus do not have an excuse, all the same how very much you need it. 

As a result: The re-entry into nuclear power is for Germany’s future more important and more significant than the continued existence of this governing coalition. 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, March 26, 2026, Global Gateway

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-26(2-0059-0000). 

Frau President. 

In the multi-polar world order, influence, raw material and energy will be fought over in the Ukraine, in the Near East, or in competition with China in the developing countries – precisely for this, the Global Gateway program was created: As a European answer to China’s New Silk Road, as a geo-strategic instrument of the EU in global competition. 

Yet instead of a pragmatic interests Politik, the Commission continues the worldwide enforcement of climate goals, Herr Sikela, the export of woke values and the exclusive cooperation with like-minded partners. Energy and raw material projects are set in motion in the narrow framework of the Green Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Over 300 billion was so far expended for that. Frau Bentele of the CDU, you have rightly criticized that, yet some good critical approaches are unfortunately ruined in that you also want to export into the world the climate ideology which evidently furthers the downfall of Europe. No geo-political influence can thus be gained! 

Listen, if not to me, then to the German Industry and Commerce Chamber which just last year said to you that the Global Gateway does not work for German business. That, we can no longer afford. 

[trans: tem]

 

Anja Arndt, December 16, 2025, Automobile CO2 Limits

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-16(2-0472-0000). 

Frau President. 

Our automobile branch finds itself, due to technically unfulfillable CO₂ limit values which were decided here in parliament, in this dramatic situation. For this year were around 15 billion in penalties imposed. How absurd and cynical is all of that actually? The EU decrees are the origin and ought to be immediately lifted. They are politically negligent incompetence [Pfusch]. And now we see the consequences. 

I now want today for once to turn the tables. You as Commission, due to the EU Decree 2023/851, are obligated to put forward by December 31, 2025, the long overdue method for measuring the CO₂ emissions over the entire life-cycle of e-autos and combustion engines. Why do you withhold this report? I can well imagine and hereby propose that against the Commission a penalty be imposed if this report by December 31… 

(The President withdraws the word from the speaker.) 

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Buchheit, October 8, 2025, Combustion Engine Verbot

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE REV(2025)10-08(3-0208-0000). 

Herr President, my valued ladies and gentlemen. 

In 2019, as the Green Deal stood directly in the starting blocks, and as Greta Thunberg here still strode through the meadow, we already had studies which said that we in the next years alone in Germany would lose 200,000 to 400,000 workplaces in the automobile industry, if it came to the Verbot of the combustion engine. Now we stand here again today, and the question is put: Man, the industry, it goes so badly; we just don’t know why it goes so badly. 

Herr colleague Wölken of the SPD: It goes badly for the industry because people like you want to represent an activating industrial policy, and it is called nothing other – the viewers may want to look at the previous video of colleague Wölken – than a planned economy. You want to interfere in the production management of individual firms, and that certainly cannot be. If here is brought in the examples of iphones and the accomplishment in relation to Nokia, of the horse and carriage and the setbacks of the automobile, then to all that can only be said: These projects, these technologies have succeeded – planned by free undertakings, demanded by free citizens. 

What we require is freedom, not still more planned economy, not still more Wölkens in this house here. We again need freedom for our businesses and for our citizens. In this sense: Away with this Verbot, yet also away with the fleet penalty payments! 

 

[trans: tem]

Sebastian Münzenmaier, July 8, 2025, Housing Ministry

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/16, p. 1506. 

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Brand new housing in record time, despite a shortage of construction land and tight funds, for 1,000 people is impossible? – Wrongly reasoned! In Berlin-Kreuzberg, our state shows what is possible; at least, if the renters are so-called refugees. Then an office complex will in short order be reconstructed into housing units – money plays no role, the rental cost of 1.2 million euros per month paid by the diligent German taxpayer. If, however, it’s about housing space for one’s own citizens, then the matter suddenly appears quite different. Then all is complicated, and unfortunately there is often no more money. 

Happily, we now have a new Housing Minister with whom all shall be better, quicker and, before all, cheaper. Everyone here in the house is, I believe, aware: Building costs must go down. And which ideas does Minster Hubertz present to us with Lanz on the television? In the future, in regards new construction, underground parking should be simply omitted, and the parking places instead be moved above near the housing. Thus would 20 percent of the costs be saved. Frau Hubertz, what an inane proposal! In big cities, there is simply no room for such parking places near high-rise housing, but only the possibilities of underground garages or just no parking space.  In rural areas, that could be done, but honestly I know of only a few of which under a single family house one may, for a heap of money, accommodate one’s own underground garage. 

This unworldly proposal is unfortunately typical of our new Housing Minister. You, Frau Hubertz, wrap yourself in marketing phraseology. Yet as soon as it becomes substantial, you ever again show that you unfortunately have no idea of the real life of people out there. If you really want to lower the construction costs, then you please need to begin with yourself; since more that a third of the construction costs – all of 37 percent – originates at the monent with the state by means of insulation prescripts, taxes and duties and regulations. Fewer underground garages are thus not the solution, but fewer environmental investments, less bureaucracy and fewer taxes, ladies and gentlemen. 

And quite besides that: If you want to make housing at least a bit cheaper, then you could do, ja, as the coalition in the coalition contract promised, to reduce the electricity tax for private households. Yet even this mini-relief you grant to our citizens out there not at all, and instead cheerfully continue to shut it off, and indeed not only in regards electricity, but also in regards heating. 

You have quite openly conceded this, Frau Minister, recently in the Bild newspaper. To the question of what you would advise someone whose heating has gone kaputt, and who needs to renew the heating, you said: “Thus in no case install gas heating; since that will be so expensive when now the CO₂ price further rises.”  Instead, one should preferably take a peek at district heating [Fernwärme]. – In most cities in Germany, district heating is not at all extensively available. There where district heating is available, the costs straightaway explode – the May numbers for Frankfurt: Up 36 percent. From where the district heating in small towns in the country should come, for example in regards to you, Herr Limbacher, would interest me. How that should work, no one here in the house can explain to me. 

In addressing these problems, the Minister shows her completely clueless side: One can lease or rent a heating system – thus for one to two years – until one knows where the communal heating plans were going. That is no joke – I wish it was – but the Minister actually proposed that. Frau Hubertz, I knew that you are utterly fact-free. Yet your statements show me that you are also utterly extraterrestrial. 

Your priorities are obviously not in housing construction, but elsewhere. As the Handelsblätt reported, in the last two weeks you heaved two of your representatives into well endowed jobs at a new ministerial office. One co-worker will be remunerated, non-pay-scale, according to the highest possible pay, and the other co-worker shall as an official ad interim receive a basic salary of more than 11,000 euros per month. You have thus set up not a single impulse for new housing. Yet the old-age provision for two additional comrades has been secured, ladies and gentlemen. 

Fact-free, unworldly nepotism – to that add a bit of PR blah-blah – that perhaps suffices to make a career in today’s SPD. But the Housing Ministry is for you two sizes too big. 

Hearty thanks for the attention. 

                  Esra Limbacher (SPD): Yet we have no priors! 

 

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, May 21, 2025, Carbon Border Adjustment

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2025)05-21(1-0244-0000). 

Herr President. 

The Green Deal has become a gigantic economy destruction program. European businesses needed to pay 39 billion euros in the year 2024 alone for emissions certificates. In Germany in the last year, 120,000 industrial workplaces were lost. Imports from non-EU countries meanwhile are essentially more advantageous, and are causing problems for our producers. 

And now shall CBAM – the CO₂ Border Adjustment – bring it again into order? From 2026, our importers of, for example, steel, aluminum, cement and fertilizer shall now also pay CO₂ penalty duties. Shall that reconstruct the competitiveness? That is the big question. A dangerous semblance of a solution. A very dangerous semblance of a solution. Farmers will be further ruined, who are dependent on the international economy. Deloitte estimates that, as a result of the CBAM, a VW Golf will become 1,500 euros more expensive, and even wheat around 7 percent on account of higher prices for fertilizer. The CO₂ certificate and the CBAM will have no influence on the Earth’s temperature, and ought to be abolished without replacement. All else is extremely dangerous. 

Germany needs the AfD. Europe needs the ESN.

  

[trans: tem]

Rüdiger Klos, April 10, 2025, Automobile Industry Employment

Baden-Württemberg Landtag, Plenarsitzung 17/121, pp. 7293-7295. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

The AfD expressly acknowledges the social market economy and international trade as bases of our prosperity and of peaceful partnership. We want to deconstruct trade barriers in Europe and worldwide. 

            Andreas Stoch (SPD): Putin sees that otherwise!

Normally, I would have said, Herr Minister-president, Listen! Since all of these citations are from our principles program. Thus all of you stop the permanent spreading of false assertions concerning us! We know that for the worldwide increase of prosperity, for the abeyance of hunger on this planet, we have primarily to thank global trade. Because it brings profits of worldwide welfare. 

Andreas Schwarz (SPD): Who wants to withdraw from the EU? Who wants to withdraw from NATO? 

Anton Baron (AfD): That is yet again Fake News! That is in no program! 

Andreas Schwarz (SPD): All of that is verified! 

Daniel Lindenschmid (AfD): Simply nothing is verified! In your dream-world perhaps!

We are therefore against tariff and non-tariff trade impediments. The foreign trade theory of comparative costs advantage according to Ricardo is part of the AfD DNA. We want industries of general interest – the pharmaceutical industry, for example – to again settle in Germany, and at best of course in Baden-Württemberg. We are thus dismayed that today, just in terms of business, we stand before an economic policy tipping point. Mercedes-Benz removes a part of its vehicle production to Hungary. That means annually 100,000 fewer vehicles from Germany. A concern rich in tradition withdraws piece by piece from its home market. The same applies to the automobile suppliers like Bosch, ZF in Friedrichshafen, Marquardt – to name only some examples. 

That is a pauper’s oath of your failed regional economic policy, if you ever had one. Herr Minister Hermann, you have concisely commented on the emigration of Mercedes-Benz with the words – I cite – “That does not sadden me”, and further expressions circulated from you. Unfortunately, your statements of yesterday have raised more questions here in plenary session than were clarified. Yet you can now explain yourself in detail. Thinking myself in your position would nevertheless yield that these expressions on everything would be immediately evaluated as credible and ideologically acceptable. That is no seal of approval, Herr Minister. 

Baden-Württemberg was indisputably the land of the automobile in Germany. Here beat the industrial heart of the Republic. Yet the environment, which once made possible the economic power of our State, was systematically demolished for ideological reasons. With the false assertion of a solely man-made climate change, you shoved aside healthy human understanding and all scientific recognition. Finally stop denying the natural climate change. The climate has always changed, will always change, and how we deal with it is the political challenge of the future, ladies and gentlemen. 

So as to once more go into your facts, which are: CO₂ makes up just 0.04 percent of the volume in the atmosphere. Of this minimal value, 90 percent is of natural origin. Thus the worldwide portion of man-made CO₂ contibutes 0.0016 percent. Because Germany’s part herein contributes 2 percent, our portion thus contributes 3.2 billionths. 

For this ideological madness, you destroy workplaces, you destroy leading technologies, you shift workplaces to foreign countries. That, ladies and gentlemen, is no reasonable policy, but nonsense. Yet what should one make of political groups which present themselves and say: “There are an endless number of sexes”? 

Origins of this dangerous trend are thus primarily not economic reasons, but a purely politico-ideological induced weakening of regional economic policy: Combustion engine Verbot, chicanery with automobile drivers like the Trojan Horse mobility pass, chicanery and Verbot against individual transportation. The State government openly applauds the resulting de-industrialization of Baden-Württemberg, and then calls the whole a “transformation” – ja, a transformation into nothing, ladies and gentlemen. 

A central problem is the one-sided, simply ideologically-driven fixation on the e-mobility. While Germany is known worldwide for the diesel- and benzine-driven vehicles, 

            Thomas Hentschel (Greens): Which can no longer be sold!

the government of our State fights this technology: Driving Verbot in the cities, CO₂ penalty payment, damnation of diesel in the media and politics, excessive exhaust norms. All of that contributes to insecurity in the markets of manufacturers and purchasers. 

Yet at the same time, e-mobility will be kept artificially alive by means of massive tax investments, purchase premiums, lightened taxes, construction of the charging infrastructure, promotion of battery research: That is green ideology at the cost of the taxpayer. That the demand nevertheless stagnates, says all. 

Our supply networks are meanwhile run to their limits, yet what does the still in office Federal Minister for the Economy propose? Industry production should in the future – I cite – follow “after the availablity of electricity”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is nonsense hostile to regional economic policy. It can no longer be formulated otherwise. 

The alignment of prosperity within Europe is doubtless an important theme. Yet with permission, Herr Minister Hermann, when you comment on the workplace deconstruction in the automobile business in our State with the words – I cite – “Eastern Europe is not allowed to remain poor”, the end effect of that is a mockery of all those in the automobile industry who presently fear for their workplaces. What then are they supposed to do with your notion of “local for local”? Yet the green State policy does not think of regional economic policy factors, it thinks in dogmas. And for that, you bear the responsibility, Herr Minister-president and Herr Minister Hermann. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, April 2, 2025, Steel and Metallurgical Industry

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)04-02(3-0018-0000). 

Frau President. 

In Germany and Europe there is everything needed so that our industry can be successful: Ability, brains, technology and a centuries-old industrial tradition. Yet, despite these strengths, our industry falls behind, not because our people have become worse, but because Brussels always puts new chains on our economy: Bureaucracy, energy prices, duties – made by people far away from the practice. And now comes the EU Commission with an action plan for the steel and metallurgical industry. Yet like every plan of the EU Commission, this one also brings no added freedom, but new formulas. Not relief, but new hurdles. 

We who demand fighting for a strong economy, therefore demand: An end to patronization, and away with the blockades! CO₂ limit compensation, compulsory works decree, data defense basic decree, supply chain guidelines – all that sounds nice and is well meant, yet steers our businesses away form innovation and production, into control, paper shuffling and bureaucracy. Ever more operations thus think of emigration. Not because they want to, but because they need to. 

I want that Germany and all Europe are again places where industry can gladly invest and grow, where workplaces originate in our homeland and not elsewhere. We have the potential, we have the brains, we have the diligence. What we do not have is a good EU Commission. Let us finally give our industry the freedom to be successful.

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Kaufmann, January 30, 2025, Nuclear Power

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/210. p. 27311. 

Frau President. Honored colleagues. 

Due to the advanced election, the investigating committee did not have the planned time for its work. The result is nevertheless clear: The leadership levels of the participating green ministries set all levers in motion so as to adhere to the disconnection of the nuclear power plants on December 31, 2022. Supply risks were accepted. One did not shrink from confusions and lies and examinations guided by interests. 

            Konstantin von Notz (Green): Such rubbish!

The example of the two stress tests makes this clear. The second stress test should have performed a realistic estimate of the energy supply security. Yet what happened? Minister Habeck personally 

            Jacob Blankenburg (SPD): …made the requirements still stronger!

made the guidelines for this analysis. A section leader of the Federal Network Agency informed his co-worker, cite: 

“Please do not attempt to alter anything of Habeck’s guidelines. The study                             serves a political purpose.” 

            Rainer Kraft (AfD): Hear, hear!

Thus it appears. That means nothing other than these opinions are no scientific report, but was a political order job. A green result was needed, thus a scenario in which nuclear power plants are apparently superfluous. 

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): That is false!

Facts were distorted, alternative scenarios understated, while risks were intentionally ignored. 

And then came the next act of the drama: As the illusion was no longer to be maintained, because even in the most prettified scenarios load shortfalls of up to twelve hours threatened, the green dogma needed somehow to be saved. Thus was discovered the operating reserve which from the beginning was a fata morgana. Nuclear power plants should be disconnected and then – as required – be again powered up. Nuclear power plants are nevertheless not light switches; they cannot be turned on and off at whim. Every professional knew that. Yet the continued operation somehow needed to be prevented or at least relabeled so that it did not appear to be a crashing defeat for the Greens. 

            Stephan Schmidt (Greens): Who then wrote this speech? Putin himself?

Internal warnings and reconsiderations from the professional level of the ministries were suppressed. Operators of nuclear power plants were put off, while it was publicly so done as if they were guilty of delays. Just as it was clear that Germany without nuclear power plants in winter would suffer supply shortages, Chancellor Scholz needed to intervene in a most personal way. The authoritative decision [Machtwort] – note well, one day after the Green party day – for the continued operation served only the Green face-saving. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this government has played with the energy supply of our country, and we all pay the price for that. 

Thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Dirk Brandes, December 5, 2024, Aviation and CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/203, p. 26322. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

This motion rather impressively shows what kind of green child the Union has become. The CDU is not only the party of the bungled energy transition, of the ban on combustion engines, and of illegal migration; the CDU as of now is also responsible for the decline of the aviation branch in Germany. 

            Björn Simon (CDU/CSU): That is just nonsense! You propose nothing!                                Zero!

In your motion, you demand more strongly promoting climate-neutral flying. What is climate-neutral flying? I fear some soon fly out of the parliament climate-neutral. Yet we do not thereby bring forward the aviation branch. Your 15 point motion reads like a position paper of the Greens. With money from the aviation tax and the CO₂ pricing, you want to drive forward the de-carbonization. Yet a few weeks ago, you complained that German aviation finds itself in the worst crisis, and now you want to redistribute still more money in climate projects. 

We now have a brief window of time so as to reduce with parliamentary majorities the costs for aviation. 

            Michael Donth (CDU/CSU): For that, there is no majority!

Yet what does the CDU/CSU do out of fear that the AfD could put this thing to a vote? I say to you: Out of pure panic, you form a backroom coalition with the SPD and Greens. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): Boring!

You paralyze this parliament and stuff the daily order with alibi motions! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Right! Well reckoned!

With your firewall, you continue to prevent a policy for the future. You are not part of the solution for this country but, with your Habeck friend Merz, you are presently the biggest problem for Germany. 

We want no aviation tax, no kerosene tax, and no CO₂ pricing. If you want to ruin the CDU and CSU traditional parties, that is your matter. Nevertheless, stop mimicking the innovation driver. You have already with your e-mobility led the automobile branch into crisis. I believe that suffices. 

The AfD would now drive forward innovation and progress. We Germans were once the pioneers of aviation and automobiles. With you, we are just pioneers of bureaucracy and ideology. That will change, ladies and gentlemen; that, I promise you. The voters will decide wisely. 

I wish you a good night. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, December 18, 2024, Economic Policy

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2024)12-18(3-0028-0000.) 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The world changes. Demographic proportions shift to the disadvantage of Europe in the direction of population growth of Asia and Africa. And the knowledge advantage of Europe in the natural sciences and technology has shrunk in the past 30 years; we were in part overhauled. In addition, Europe by means of a moralizing foreign policy, by all too careless sanctions, closes itself off from access to the world’s resources, especially energy, coal, nuclear power and gas. 

The world changes, yet the establishment, the established political parties, do politics as always. That is displayed in the ambitionless economic policy of the new president of the European Council, Herr Costa. In the invitation to his first session on Thursday with the heads of state and government, not a single time was there the term competitiveness, not once the term economic growth. On the daily order, the themes of innovation and investment played no role at all – and this in a time in which France and Germany are stuck in an economic crisis, and growth in the EU is slower than in any other large economic region of the world. 

The EU establishment still has not understood the dramatic economic situation of Europe and its citizens. Economic policy needs to be a top priority! Instead, economic policy is worth not a word for the heads of state and government; patriotic governments place at mid-point the everyday life of our citizens, not feminist foreign policy. As a reminder: It is the duty of the European Council of the European Union to give the required impulse for the development of Europe. Let us then look in the world for which economic impulse is necessary. 

One wanted to make additional competition for the farmers in Europe by means of Mercosur. Yet then one needs also prepare them for the competition by relieving them through bureaucracy and from bureaucracy in the European Union. 

Artificial Intelligence: In the European Union there is no business of relevance in the area of artificial intelligence, yet the EU has already concluded comprehensive prescriptions for that. Our continent requires freedom and desire for innovation, not fear of the new. 

Automobile Industry: In the coming 50 years, more autos will be sold in the world than in the past 100 years. The markets however are in Latin America, in Africa, in India, and there will be no complete electrification strategy. Thus also here is the clear demand: An end to the combustion engine ban! 

Steel Industry: The ton of so-called green steel costs 30 to 40% more than conventionally manufactured steel. We need an end of the leftist-green transformation dreaming. 

Bitcoin: While the entire world prepares itself for that here there is a new way, there is from the European Union regulation and prescriptions. MiCA decree afuera! 

You see, another economic policy would be possible. Instead, the EU establishment continues as previously. Under your leadership, Europe becomes poorer, more insecure, and dependent on other regions of the world. 

Therefore, Europe needs to vote for change in the year 2025, and that the citizens of Europe can do: For example in Czechia in which they vote for Svoboda, for example in Poland in which they vote for Konfederacja in the presidential election, for example in Germany when they vote for the Alternative für Deutschland in the Bundestag election. 

 

[trans: tem]

Frank Rinck, June 6, 2024, Farming

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/172, pp. 22279-22280. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. Dear fellow citizens. 

Today it is once again about further complicating the German fertilizer law for our farmers, and introducing yet more bureaucracy – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): Nein!

but one thing after the other. To begin with, it must be stated – and this we may not forget – that the problems deliberated here were first generally produced by the old parties. A faulty and very questionable nitrate monitoring network provided that just these nitrate values, upon which we here proceed, have come to an end in Brussels. 

            Karl Bär (Greens): That’s not in the monitoring! 

Unfortunately, this is made a theme only by us, and unfortunately none of you appear to see a need for a correction. 

Ladies and gentlemen, everything which was passed here in the last years in regards agriculture policy generally needs to be on the test stand. And do not worry: Once we of the AfD govern, we will correct all of your failures. That is a promise upon which the farmers in the future can rely. 

Basically, it can be said that the good,  professional practices of our farmers and their economic interests do not allow that more fertilizer comes into the field than the crops require. It all of course costs money and resources. And, ladies and gentlemen, no farmer squanders his money or resources; they want to work economically. If you would for once pass some time with real professionals – and I mean practicing farmers – 

            Sylvia Lehmann (SPD): We do that!

and not with whichever demagogue from your associations, you would know that. Yet what have you here today to decide? It’s about the introduction of a nationwide monitoring of active ingredients for fertilizer supply.  

Till Steffen (Greens): Don’t fall asleep up there! Man, man man!

Besides in our view, we could in fact say, in so far as it would be connected, that demonstrably clean water agricultural operations in red areas would finally be freed of senseless fertilizer duties. Under-fertilization is besides an exhaustion of the soil, and that is actually also a form of expropriation of the affected farmers. Nevertheless, of that there is in your draft law no word to be found. Your motion indeed sets this as a goal; yet it’s spongy there, that then this should be first clarified with the EU. 

Ladies and gentlemen, that is unacceptable. If the active ingredients monitoring does not here include distinct goals, then it is to be rejected; especially since, for the first in line operations, the monitoring means new bureaucracy burdens and documentation obligations. 

With that, we come then to the next point, the planned expansion of the material flow balance in §11 of the fertilizer law; you now call it “nutrient balancing”. Ladies and gentlemen, the material flow balance shall in the future be obligatory for all arable farms and bio-has facilities. Why is that actually? That is neither asserted in EU law, nor is it purposeful when at the same time shall come the active ingredients monitoring. 

The experts at the hearing – this, the colleague Staubinger already said – have distinctly indicated that this is not sensible and brings with it no recognizable uses at all. The material flow balance is therefore, and in view of your robust promises of deconstruction of bureaucracy at the farmers’ protests, to be eliminated in its entirety. 

Now on that we have plainly heard that this besides costs all otherwise than much money. Ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly not as if your draft law costs no money: A quarter of a million euros will each be assessed in the BLE [Federal Institute for Agriculture and Food] – for that, three new positions will created; thus then come three new green ideologues who will make it still more difficult for the farmers – and a half million euros for the Julius Kühn Institute. 

Karl Bär (Greens): These people shall certify EU fertilizer products with CE labels. Yet that is fully unrealistic!

I can well imagine what happens with this money: Still more green ideologues will then be employed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you of the Ampel remain true to yourselves with your destruction of our German agriculture. The draft law put forward is just one additional vexation for the German agriculture. And we therefore reject it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rainer Kraft, April 10 2024, Energy Policy and Politics

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/162, pp. 20812-20813. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

After many errors and confusions, the Union again professes nuclear power. This could be debated long, wide and sarcastically. Yet I simply leave it and say: Welcome back to the rational side of German energy policy. 

This is besides an energy policy represented by the AfD since 2013, thus from the time of our formation. Your obligatory expressions for an acknowledgment of the renewables of course still appear in a motion, yet have already retired from your demands, and that is a step forward. Finally recognized is that a reliable and economic electricity supply with contingent energies, dependent on season and weather, is not feasible, and is thus a risk for Germany as a business venue. 

Herr Träger, last weekend, electricity customers needed to pay up to 56 euros per megawatt-hour in electricity disposal costs so that the German excess electricity production could be dumped in foreign countries. 

Generally, a comparison with foreign countries, for example France which you so readily criticize, is eye-opening. German is faced with around 500 billion euros in system integration costs for the massive construction of the network. France does not need this construction. France will not need a hydrogen core network for 20 billion euros. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Nevertheless!

France does not need 16 billion euros every 20 years for large electricity storage facilities. And electricity disposal costs for excess electricity no French electricity customer will ever need pay. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

Yet what France does have, Herr Träger, are emission values of around 20 grams CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of electricity. I venture in this place a prognosis: With your energy policy, Germany will never achieve this value. 15 million tons of CO₂ – for the science-adverse Ampel coalition, the most dangerous substance on Earth – since the final exit from nuclear power in 2023 will each year additionally be emitted in the German energy sector. 

             Harald Ebner (Greens): Wrong! Wrong! Less than ever!

To 2030, that will total up to around 90 million tons of CO₂. For the Ampel, it’s all the same. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): No, that’s simply not right! Fake news!

Dear colleagues of the SPD, Greens and FDP, finally admit that, for you, CO₂ emissions are all the same! For you, it’s only about an ideology, business nepotism for the re-distribution of tax billions, and the patronizing of the citizens. Throughout Europe, the hydrogen preliminary projects are dying:           

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Remain with the atom!

Lately, the H₂ Sines Rotterdam project in the billions; earlier, the German lighthouse project “West Coast 100” in Heide. Other projects like Uniper in Rotterdam are put off for the present. Nevertheless, billions in tax monies, provided for in means of promotion, die in one project after another. Yet in the BMWK [Economy and Climate Ministry], one continues to ride the dead hydrogen horse. 

It is thus right and important that the Union sees it as does the AfD, and that the society-splitting firewall falls in the energy policy. Doubts are nevertheless brought up, dear Union. The Union demands forbidding the decommissioning until a new government can conclusively clarify the question. It naturally needs be said more precisely: Until a new Chancellor and his coalition partner decide this. Since it well needs be asked, dear Union. How, with a Green coalition partner, do you want to introduce the fundamental, required change of direction in the German energy policy? 

Dear Union, if you seriously mean it with the return of nuclear energy and an end of the catastrophic green energy policy, then one thing is clear: The firewall must go! 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Oje, oje!

To sum up. Dear colleagues, your motion goes in the right direction. We agree with it, even if it is faint-hearted and lets miss precisely what this country in the present economic situation urgently requires: A basic avowal for a fundamental, long-term and reliable change of direction in the German energy policy. Since the contingent energies with immense integration costs do not deliver what our industry and citizens need. You thus have a choice: Either you sell out the welfare of our country in an ideological coalition with the Greens, or you decide for cooperation in energy policy with the AfD. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gunnar Beck, March 11, 2024, Climate Excommunication

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)03-11(1-242-0000). 

In 1633, the Inquisition excommunicated Galileo for helio-centrism – that is to say, for his renunciation of a Church dogma that the Sun circles around the Earth. Last month, ECB director Elderson threatened all co-workers with discharge who – cite – “deny the reality of solely man-made climate change, or that the climate change endangers the price stability.” 

Now, as a conservative, I rejoice over anyone who believes that earlier was much better. However, the ECB should preferably exchange its climate inquisitors for good economic historians, who know that not the climate change but the expansion of the money supply accelerates the inflation, just as Hans de Witte and Wallenstein managed it without limit in Galileo’s time. For its climate dogma and monetary policy are the greatest hocus-pocus in Europe since the geo-centric world view. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Sylvia Limmer, March 13, 2024, EU and Combustion Engine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)03-13(3-264-0000). 

Herr President. 

It is delightful that majorities across delegations could be repeatedly formed for the Euro 7 norm which, instead of green ideology and visions, could at least partially maintain measure and mean for the auto industry, and are thereby ultimately consumer-friendly, since it would have been autos in the low price segment which, with the EU Commission’s original draft, would have experienced a massive price increase. 

And that we could enforce with the stronger requirements the stability of drive batteries is in any case a success, and we are thereby a bit closer to the goal of ending the regulatory preference for e-autos. 

Obligatory on-board surveillance systems and stronger limit values for trucks and buses we definitely reject, yet it is of course a fact that it is basically not really about reducing harmful emissions, since these in regards nitrogen oxides have been reduced about 70% in the last 30 years, even though the permitted vehicles have doubled. The goal of the implementation of the so-called mobility transition of the Green Deal was always an accelerated end of the combustion engine. 

Thus in regards this vote out-weighs the fact that, with this vote for this Euro 7 compromise, the EU Commission’s fully unrealistic limit values are off the table, and we will vote for this proposal. 

 

[trans: tem]

Dietmar Friedhoff, December 14, 2023, Food, Africa and the AfD

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/144, pp. 18370-18371. 

Herr President. Valued colleagues. 

Germany is stuck in a budget crisis, the people in Germany become poorer and the government distributes ever more money ever further to all the world. And the CDU now sets out to strengthen the worldwide food security, yet in that regard seemingly does not entirely grasp the realpolitischen facts. 

I first want to state that the 17 sustainability goals also apply for Germany. 

Deborah Düring (Green): Hä? You nevertheless normally do not want it. Be a bit congruent! 

Meaning: It is a top priority duty of the German government to also directly and successfully implement the 17 goals in Germany. Thus in this case: No hunger also in Germany. In Germany are presently six million people, of whom two million children, affected by nutrition poverty. According to the association of child and youth doctors, in Germany far over 500,000 children regularly suffer unallayed hunger – here, in Germany. Inflation, rising rent, benzine and energy prices, an ideological trucking fee and CO₂ duties will further intensify this situation. Germany becomes more and more a problem child and even a developing country. 

Question: If a country does not fulfill its own sustainability goals, how can it then set out wanting to fulfill them elsewhere? It sounds like the “You’ll never walk alone” of our Chancellor. It sounds like weitere Häme. It sounds like Doppel-Wumms and “change of times” [Zeitenwende]. 

Yet where are now the most starved? In Ethiopia, for example, the former development policy exhibit country. Here will be built with assistance of the United Arab Emirates a palace on a grounds of 500 hectares; cost, 15 billion euros, which corresponds to the Ethiopian state budget. 

            Wolfgang Stefinger (CDU/CSU): Yet not with development monies! Mein Gott!

The UN presently investigates in Ethiopia because assistance deliveries have vanished into obscure channels and have been converted to money. Finally: In the last 20 years in Ethiopia, a man-made de-forestation of over 60 percent has taken place as a result of the high increase of population. That and not climate change is the principal problem in regards dried-out ground, water scarcity and the decrease of agricultural area. 

            Deborah Düring (Green): Ach Gottchen! 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Oje, oje!

How now is this challenge to be solved? Solution: An end to the classic development policy, into an economic cooperation guided by German interests for a sustainable strengthening of the African continent. To that pertains: Who says A, needs also say fD. AfD is the solution. 

Industrialization of Africa for A: Value-creating, sustainable work and training places. Which is concerned with f: Financial Freiheit, Fortschritt und Förderung [freedom, progress and promotion] of African industry and infrastructure. Which ultimately has positive effects on D: Democratic processes, demographic challenges and Durchhaltefähighkeit [perseverance], thus the countries’ resilience. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Come to a conclusion, please. 

Exactly this provides for food security also in Germany. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague. 

Sustainable, stable and effective – plainly AfD. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]