Remarks by Executive Vice-President Ribera and Commissioner Hoekstra at the press conference on the EU framework for climate resilience

The two main topics we have been discussing this morning are adaptation and resilience to climate risks, addressed in the package that Commissioner Hoekstra has tabled.

Let me start with a very strong statement that we need to remind ourselves of. Climate change is not a hoax. Climate change is not only real. It is also a powerful killer. It kills people. Think about the 30,000 to 50,000 premature deaths that occurred this summer in Europe.

It is also destroying wealth and infrastructure. Let me quote research by the European Central Bank, which found that local output is, on average, 1.5 percentage points lower two years after a summer heatwave, 3 percentage points lower four years after a drought and 2.8 percentage points lower four years after a flood.

Let me also refer to Allianz Research data showing the strong negative economic impact that heat stress can have on labor productivity. If each country's five hottest years between 2014 and 2024 were repeated over 2026–2030, cumulative GDP losses could reach between 5% and 7% for the most exposed economies. France, Italy, Germany and Spain could each lose between $120 billion and $240 billion.

The impact is structural, with a steep decline of 8%, on average, in gross fixed capital formation. It disproportionately depresses tax revenues, with many EU countries expected to breach the Maastricht criteria as a consequence of heat stress.

Europe cannot be competitive without being resilient. Resilience is therefore not only an environmental objective; it is an enabling condition for long-term competitiveness. In this context, Europe has world-class capabilities in observation and the natural and social sciences, as well as digital infrastructure.

The challenge is to convert these assets systematically into timely, trusted and decision-ready information. This explains why we have come forward with this proposal today. It shows the extent to which we need to work differently when thinking about climate change.