An incident in the Polish Parliament drew attention as Elżbieta Burkiewicz, a Polish2050 vice-chair of the environmental protection, natural resources and forestry committee, appeared to react emotionally during a session. After questions from representatives of PiS and Sovereign Poland, the meeting was abruptly closed and Burkiewicz left quickly. Opponents, including Paweł Jabłoński, Dariusz Piontkowski, Michał Woś, and Paweł Sałek, who sat in the presidium, pressed Deputy Minister of Climate and Environment Urszula Zielińska to state whether Poland would join the EU forum seeking a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emissions.
Yesterday, Mirosław Suchoń, the chair of the parliamentary Infrastructure Committee, interrupted a session and left the room. Today Burkiewicz, a colleague from Polski2050 and vice-chair of the Environmental Protection Committee, repeated a similar maneuver during a committee meeting, refusing a motion from Paweł Sałek and ending the session abruptly. The event was described by observers as a display of mood and procedure rather than formal debate.
The situation was highlighted in a news item noting the disruption at the infrastructure committee, where Suchoń fled after a break was ordered. The same pattern appeared again in the environmental committee, where Burkiewicz chaired and later exited as tensions rose. A subsequent article noted the moment as a striking scene in the political conversations around climate policy.
Questions for Deputy Minister Zielińska
Urszula Zielińska, associated with the Civic Coalition and its environmental wing, attended the OSZ session as a State Secretary of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to discuss treaty changes related to the European Union climate policy. As MPs prepared their questions, a tense exchange began. The focus was a request for Zielińska to clarify whether a 90 percent reduction target had been proposed, and whether that position reflected personal views or the government’s stance. The question also asked about potential consequences for such views expressed in a European context.
PiS member Dariusz Piontkowski asked for clarification, and Burkiewicz, acting as spokesperson for the Ministry of Culture and Environment, indicated that Zielińska would not answer directly. The exchange intensified when Michał Woś, a Sovereign Poland MP, accused Zielińska of arriving unprepared and relying on broad statements rather than addressing specific questions. He pressed whether a 90 percent target had been committed to and whether Poland could halt negotiations, while asserting that responsible voices for Poland’s interests were being labeled as aligned with external interests, which he argued was not true. He also noted claims about funding links involving Gazprom and Russian entities supported by German climate foundations, pointing to sources in German outlets as examples of ongoing discussions in the public sphere.
After a short period, Zielińska’s deputy minister posture was described as not answering the direct question. The session paused while the government official explained that the European Commission’s communication about a 90 percent target signaled the opening of a dialogue about a potential 2040 target and an ongoing year-long discussion, rather than an immediate commitment. The question remained: what had been stated on behalf of the Polish government?
Michał Woś reiterated the demand for a clear answer and suggested that Poland would pursue negotiations differently, aiming to shape domestic opinion before engaging with European partners. A representative from the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage added his own commentary during the discussion.
At one point, Paweł Jabłoński referenced a recording from Zielińska, implying a commitment to a 90 percent reduction in energy and emissions in the name of the government. Burkiewicz responded by calling for a formal adjournment of the session until the following day, insisting on a vote despite the concerns raised about the process. Sałek attempted to contribute, but the motion proceeded in a way that left the room with unresolved questions about procedure and substance.
As the session closed, the chair declared the meeting over and urged attendees to participate in the vote on the motion. The exchange left observers with questions about the balance between domestic climate policy and international negotiations, as well as the broader political dynamics at play within Poland’s climate and environmental governance. A public discussion continued about the role of different parties and leaders, and how their stances align with the interests of Poland and its citizens.
In reflecting on the day, observers noted that a party dynamic was visible, with some arguing that the situation underscored a broader debate over Poland’s approach to European climate goals and the leadership of a coalition that includes a range of voices from across the political spectrum. The events were cited in discussions about how Poland might participate in future EU climate policy efforts, and what statements from government representatives should be considered official positions versus personal opinions. The episode was viewed as part of a larger conversation about accountability, transparency, and the handling of sensitive policy issues in a highly charged parliamentary environment.
Source: wPolityce