BRUSSELS — Cash-strapped Europeans are struggling to keep their homes cool as the continent’s summers get hotter, a major new survey has found.  More than 38 percent of the 27,000 respondents to a continent-wide poll published Wednesday said they couldn’t afford to keep their house cool enough in the summer. The problem was unevenly split down income lines: Only 9 percent of affluent Europeans said they struggled with overheating homes, while 66 percent of people experiencing financial difficulties reported being unable to afford adequate cooling. The survey, conducted by the European Environment Agency and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, comes as the European Commission drafts a plan for boosting the bloc’s resilience to climate impacts such as heat and extreme weather. The proposal is expected toward the end of the year.  Reacting to the findings, German Green MEP Jutta Paulus called for a “binding EU law on adaptation to natural disasters” that “could set clear rules, assess risks, and make strategies binding.” She added: “Only in this way can we ensure safe living conditions, a stable economy, and a natural environment that protects us.” The report underscores how global warming disproportionately affects those who have fewer resources to prepare.  Around half of respondents said they had installed shading or insulation in their homes, and nearly a third said they had invested in air-conditioning or ventilation. But while nearly 40 percent of well-off households invested in AC or fans, just over 20 percent of cash-strapped Europeans did the same. Accordingly, a larger share of low-income Europeans reported feeling too hot in their home at least once over the last five years. The divide is particularly stark between renters, which make up around a third of the EU’s population, and homeowners: Nearly half of renters said they were unable to afford to keep their home cool, compared to 29 percent of homeowners. As a result, some 60 percent of tenants said they had felt too hot at home at least once over the past five years, versus just over 40 percent of owners. Beyond heat, the survey looked at flooding, wildfires, water scarcity, wind damage and increasing insect bites. In total, 80 percent of respondents said they had been affected by at least one of these impacts over the past five years. But heat waves, which are made more frequent, longer and hotter by climate change, emerged as the top concern, with nearly half of respondents saying they had felt too hot in their home and 60 percent saying they had felt too hot outside. Income and property ownership aren’t the only dividing lines, however.  Europeans in poor health — many of whom may be homebound — are also more likely to be at risk from extreme heat, the polling found. More than half of people describing themselves as being in poor health reported being unable to afford to keep their homes cool, compared to just over a quarter of those who declared themselves to be in good health. Plus, Southern Europeans are far more vulnerable than those in northern Europe. While just 8 percent of respondents across Europe said they had been affected by wildfires, for example, that figure rose to 41 percent in Greece.  Anxiety over climate impacts is also far higher in southern countries: There, twice as many respondents worry about worsening heat, fires and floods compared to Northern Europeans.  Respondents in Central and Eastern Europe also reported high exposure to climate impacts. The highest share of households unable to keep their homes cool in the summer — 46 percent, compared to 37 percent in southern and western Europe and 30 percent in northern countries — was found in this region.  In general, the survey found Europeans to remain under-equipped to deal with extreme weather emergencies. Just 13.5 percent of respondents said they have an emergency kit at home, for example, and less than half have home insurance covering extreme weather.

The UK has historically been a global leader in life sciences innovation, but recent statistics paint a worrying picture for medicines access. The right policy can start to reverse this. We are living in a time where the intersection between breakthrough science, technology and data insights has the potential to transform treatment options for some of the toughest health conditions faced by patients in the UK. The UK has long played a central role in driving innovation when it comes to healthcare, and at Johnson & Johnson (J&J) we were pleased to see some positive signs from the Government at the end of 2025, illustrating an intent to reverse a decade of decline of investment in how the UK values innovative treatments. It was a positive first step, but now the real work begins to enable us to deliver the best possible outcomes for UK patients. To achieve this, our focus must be on ensuring our health system is set up to match the pace and gain the benefits of innovation that science provides. We need a supportive medicines environment that fully fosters growth, because even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be accessed by patients when they need them most. > even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be > accessed by patients when they need them most. At J&J, we are proud to have been part of the UK’s health innovation story for more than a century. We believe that turning ambition into delivery requires a clearer focus on the foundations that enable innovation to reach patients. We have had a substantial and long-term economic presence, with our expertise serving as the grounds for successful partnerships with patients, healthcare providers, clinical researchers and the NHS. Recent national developments are a step in the right direction The UK Government’s recent announcements on the life sciences industry are an important move to help address concerns around medicines access, innovation and the UK’s international standing. This includes a welcome planned increase to the baseline cost-effectiveness threshold (the first change to be made since its introduction in the early 2000s). While it is crucial to get this implemented properly, this seems like a step in the right direction — providing a starting point towards meaningful policy reform, industry partnership and progress for patients. The true impact of stifling medicine innovation in the UK compared with our peers These positive developments come at a critical time, but they do not fix everything. Over the past decade, spending on branded medicines has fallen in real terms, even as the NHS budget has grown by a third.[i] Years of cost-containment have left the UK health system ill-prepared for the health challenges of today, with short-term savings creating long-term consequences. Right now, access to innovative medicines in the UK lags behind almost every major European country[ii]; the UK ranks 16th and 18th among 19 comparable countries for preventable and treatable causes of mortality.[iii]These are conditions for which effective medicines already exist. Even when new medicines are approved, access is often restricted. One year after launch, usage of innovative treatments in England is just over half the average of comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain.[iv] The effect is that people living with cancer, autoimmune conditions and rare diseases wait longer to access therapies that are already transforming lives elsewhere in Europe. And even at its new level, the UK’s Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) clawback rate remains higher than in comparable countries.[v] J&J is committed to working together to develop a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive — enabling the UK to regain its position as a leading destination for life sciences. Seeing the value of health and medicines investment as a catalyst for prosperity and growth Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and a thriving economy. New research from the WifOR Institute, funded by J&J, shows that countries that allocate more resources to health — especially when combined with a skilled workforce and strong infrastructure — consistently achieve better outcomes.[vi] > Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people > healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and > a thriving economy. The UK Government’s recent recognition of the need for long-term change, setting out plans to increase investment in new medicines from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.6 percent over the next 10 years is positive. It signals a move towards seeing health as one of our smartest long-term investments, underpinning the UK’s international competitiveness by beginning to bring us nearer to the levels in other major European countries. This mindset shift is critical to getting medicines to patients, and the life sciences ecosystem, including the pharmaceutical sector as a cornerstone, plays a pivotal role. It operates as a virtuous cycle — driven by the generation, production, investment in, access to and uptake of innovation. Exciting scientific developments and evolving treatment pathways mean that we have an opportunity to review the structures around medicines reimbursement to ensure they remain sustainable, competitive and responsive. At J&J, we have the knowledge and heritage to work hand-in-hand with the Government and all partners to achieve this. Together, we can realise the potential of medicine innovation in the UK Patients have the right to expect that science and innovation will reach them when they need it. Innovative treatments can be transformative for patients, meaning an improved quality of life or more precious time with loved ones. We fully support the Government’s ambitions for life sciences and the health of the nation. Now is the moment to deliver meaningful change — the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks and mechanisms that support access and uptake. Practical ways to do this include: * Establishing a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive. * Evolving medicines appraisal methods and processes, to deliver on the commitments of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. * Adapting thresholds and value frameworks to ensure they are fit for the future — in the context of wider system pressures, including inflation, and the evolution of medical innovation requiring new approaches to assessment and access. > the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what > valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks > and mechanisms that support access and uptake. By truly recognising the value of health as an investment, rather than as a cost, we can return the UK to a more competitive position. The direction of travel is positive. At J&J, we stand ready to work in partnership to help ensure the UK is once again the best place in the world to research, develop and access medicines. Follow Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine UK on LinkedIn for updates on our business, our people and our community. CP-562703 | January 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] House of Commons Library (2026). ‘NHS Funding and Expenditure’ Research Briefing. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/ (Accessed January 2026). [ii] IQVIA & EFPIA (2025). EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf. (Accessed January 2026) [iii] The Kings Fund (2022). ‘How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?’ Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries (Accessed January 2026) [iv] Office for Life Sciences (2024). Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2024: summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-sector-data-2024/life-sciences-competitiveness-indicators-2024-summary (Accessed January 2026). [v] ABPI. VPAG payment rate for newer medicines will be 14.5% in 2026. December 2025. Available at: https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/december/vpag-payment-rate-for-newer-medicines-will-be-145-in-2026/. (Accessed January 2026). [vi] WifOR Institute (2025). Healthy Returns: A Catalyst for Economic Growth and Resilience. Available at: https://www.wifor.com/en/download/healthy-returns-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-resilience/?wpdmdl=360794&refresh=6942abe7a7f511765977063. (Accessed January 2026).

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen has summoned her team of European commissioners to a meeting to try to defuse mounting tensions and improve the way they work. The meeting is set for Feb. 4 in Leuven and is open to all members of the College, though attendance is not mandatory, according to a Commission official involved in organizing the event. The idea for such a meeting was conceived after tense exchanges between commissioners and frustration at the repeated late arrival of files on the desks of top officials, Commission officials said. POLITICO spoke to eight officials from different commissioners’ cabinets, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal dynamics. While the meeting will focus on competitiveness and will feature a special guest — IMF Managing Director and former Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva — also on the agenda are discussions on “geopolitics in the current context and the working methods of the European Commission,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Arianna Podestà told POLITICO. The latter element was prompted by what staffers inside the Berlaymont, the Commission’s HQ, describe as an unusually tense atmosphere. The spark for the idea of the meeting, according to four of the Commission officials, was a tense exchange in early December in which Dan Jørgensen, the energy commissioner, confronted Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a meeting of the College of Commissioners — as first reported in Brussels Playbook. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Both commissioners declined to comment on the incident but one official said Jørgensen had raised his voice when confronting Ribera, while another said the Danish commissioner “made a point toward Ribera that was unusually forceful by College standards” as they discussed a key environmental file. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. Meetings of the full College in the new year are not unusual, and in fact have been a regular practice since 2010, Podestà told POLITICO. However, this one features a session explicitly dedicated to finding better working methods and preventing differences of opinion between commissioners from getting out of hand. Descriptions of the meeting varied, with one official calling it “talks” rather than a formal team-building exercise, and another describing it as “a working group on working methods.” Several Cabinets are growing frustrated with files arriving on their desk just hours before College meetings, or late at night, on the weekend, or on the eve of the presentation of legal proposals. “This prevents us from working professionally,” one official said. “Of course emergencies happen but this can’t be the norm.” The frustration peaked during the presentation of the EU’s long-term budget plan last July, when official figures were reportedly shared with commissioners only hours before the presentation. According to officials close to von der Leyen’s Cabinet, the late arrival of the budget figures was justified as a tactic to prevent leaks. But the approach has only deepened irritation inside the College. According to one official, the “altercation” between Jørgensen and Ribera also concerned fast-tracking files. To get a file presented to the College, an executive vice president must “push the button” (Berlaymont jargon for putting something on the agenda). Faced with a tight deadline to examine the details of a file — the environmental omnibus, designed to simplify green rules — Ribera decided to wait before pushing the button, as she is entitled to do, according to her team. This led to tensions with Jørgensen, a fellow member of the socialist family. One Commission official noted that both center-left commissioners lead teams “with strong views,” making friction likely. “There’s a lot more infighting in [the] College than one might think,” a Commission official said. Some of these frictions reflect genuine differences of opinion but are magnified by a highly centralized system, in which many decisions must get approval on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont — home to von der Leyen’s Cabinet. “The way it works now creates situations that are avoidable and some problems where there aren’t any,” another official said. Jørgensen and Ribera are not the only pair under strain. Tensions have surfaced between Executive Vice President Stéphane Séjourné and Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, for example, particularly over the Biotech Act. Várhelyi has long objected to the package’s non-health elements, and insiders say his resistance has only hardened as Séjourné pushes a broader industrial strategy. Two officials also said Várhelyi’s behavior is sometimes interpreted as provocative — keeping his phone ringtone on or sprawling in his chair. According to the same officials, Várhelyi has even insisted that only von der Leyen, not fellow commissioners, may substitute for him at events. Neither Séjourné nor Várhelyi responded to requests for comment. Séjourné will not be present at the seminar, as he is taking part in ministerial discussions in Washington on critical raw materials, but will submit written contributions, according to his team. Várhelyi did not confirm if he would be attending the Feb. 4 meeting. Commission officials say that friction between EVPs and other commissioners is almost built into the system. EVPs are meant to coordinate and oversee the work of others, whereas under EU law all commissioners are supposed to be equal. That ambiguity, one official said, is manageable on good days, but doesn’t help when tempers flare. Von der Leyen did not respond to requests for comment. The meeting comes ahead of an EU leaders’ retreat on competitiveness scheduled for Feb. 12.

Second Amendment advocates are warning that Republicans shouldn’t count on them to show up in November, after President Donald Trump insisted that demonstrator Alex Pretti “should not have been carrying a gun.” The White House labels itself the “most pro-Second Amendment administration in history.” But Trump’s comments about Pretti, who was legally carrying a licensed firearm when he was killed by federal agents last week, have some gun rights advocates threatening to sit out the midterms. “I’ve spent 72 hours on the phone trying to unfuck this thing. Trump has got to correct his statements now,” said one Second Amendment advocate, granted anonymity to speak about private conservations. The person said Second Amendment advocates are “furious.” “And they will not come out and vote. He can’t correct it three months before the election.” The response to Pretti’s killing isn’t the first time Second Amendment advocates have felt abandoned by Trump. The powerful lobbying and advocacy groups, that for decades reliably struck fear into the hearts of Republicans, have clashed multiple times with Trump during his first year back in power. And their ire comes at a delicate moment for the GOP. While Democrats are unlikely to pick up support from gun-rights groups, the repeated criticisms from organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights suggest that the Trump administration may be alienating a core constituency it needs to turn out as it seeks to retain its slim majority in the House and Senate. It doesn’t take much to swing an election, said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “All you have to do is lose four, five, six percent of their base who left it blank, who didn’t write a check, who didn’t walk districts, you lose,” he said. “Especially marginal districts — and the House is not a good situation right now.” And it wasn’t only the president who angered gun-rights advocates. Others in the administration made similar remarks about Pretti, denouncing the idea of carrying a gun into a charged environment such as a protest. FBI Director Kash Patel said “you cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she didn’t “know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” These sentiments are anathema to many Republicans who have fought for years against the idea that carrying a gun or multiple magazine clips implies guilt or an intent to commit a crime. “I sent a message to high-place people in the administration with three letters, W.T.F.,” Brown said. “If it had just been the FBI director and a few other highly-placed administration officials, that would have been one thing but when the president came out and doubled down that was a whole new level. This was not a good look for your base. You can’t be a conservative and not be radically pro-gun.” A senior administration official brushed off concerns about Republicans losing voters in the midterms over the outrage. “No, I don’t think that some of the comments that were made over the past 96 hours by certain administration officials are going to impede the unbelievable and strong relationship the administration has with the Second Amendment community, both on a personal level and given the historic successes that President Trump has been able to deliver for gun rights,” the official said. But this wasn’t the only instance when the Trump administration angered gun-rights advocates. In September after the shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis that killed two children, reports surfaced that the Department of Justice was looking into restricting transgender Americans from owning firearms. The suspect, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the scene of the shooting, was a 23-year-old transgender woman. “The signaling out of a specific demographic for a total ban on firearms possession needs to comport with the Constitution and its bounds and anything that exceeds the bounds of the Constitution is simply impermissible,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, told POLITICO. At the time, the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Trump in three consecutive elections, said they don’t support any proposals to “arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” Additionally, some activists, who spoke to the gun-focused independent publication “The Reload,” said they were upset about the focus from federal law enforcement about seizing firearms during the Washington crime crackdown in the summer. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office wouldn’t pursue felony charges in Washington over carrying guns, The Washington Post reported. Trump, during his first term, infuriated some in the pro-gun movement when in 2018 his administration issued a regulation to ban bump stocks. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the rule in 2024. “I think the administration clearly wants to be known as pro-Second Amendment, and many of the officials do believe in the Second Amendment, but my job at Gun Owners of America is to hold them to their words and to get them to act on their promises. And right now it’s a mixed record,” said Gun Owners for America director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston. In the immediate aftermath of the Pretti shooting, the NRA called for a full investigation rather than for “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” But now, the lobbying group is defending Trump’s fuller record. “Rather than trying to extract meaning from every off-the-cuff remark, we look at what the administration is doing, and the Trump administration is, and has been, the most pro-2A administration in modern history,” said John Commerford, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director. “From signing marquee legislation that dropped unconstitutional taxes on certain firearms and suppressors to joining pro-2A plaintiffs in cases around the country, the Trump administration is taking action to support the right of every American to keep and bear arms.” In his first month in office, Trump directed the Department of Justice to examine all regulations, guidance, plans and executive actions from President Joe Biden’s administration that may infringe on Second Amendment rights. The administration in December created a civil rights division office of Second Amendment rights at DOJ to work on gun issues. That work, said a second senior White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking, should prove the administration’s bona fides and nothing said in the last week means they’ve changed their stance on the Second Amendment. “Gun groups know and gun owners know that there hasn’t been a bigger defender of the Second Amendment than the president,” said a second senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak on a sensitive issue. “But I think the president’s talking about in the moment— in that very specific moment— when it is such a powder keg going on, and when there’s someone who’s actively impeding enforcement operations, things are going to happen. Or things can happen.” Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Europe is on track to pay at least €440 billion to deal with the pollution and health impacts from toxic PFAS chemicals by the middle of the century, according to a study released Thursday by the European Commission. The cost could soar to nearly €2 trillion under more ambitious clean-up goals, the analysis warns, describing the roughly half-trillion-euro estimate as a baseline for addressing PFAS pollution across the European Economic Area. PFAS or “forever chemicals” — man-made chemicals used in a wide variety of industrial processes and consumer products — have been linked to a range of health problems, including cancer and fertility problems. The EU is preparing to propose a ban on their use later this year, with exemptions for “critical sectors” — a position likely to draw pushback from industry and some political groups. But even a full ban would leave Europe with costs of €330 billion by 2050, the report warned. “Providing clarity on PFAS with bans for consumer uses is a top priority for both citizens and businesses,” said EU environment chief Jessika Roswall. “That is why this is an absolute priority for me to work on this and engage with all relevant stakeholders. Consumers are concerned, and rightly so. This study underlines the urgency to act.” The study, carried out by consultancies WSP, Ricardo, and Trinomics, shows that how Europe acts matters just as much as whether it acts. In one scenario, where emissions continue, and authorities rely largely on wastewater treatment to meet strict environmental standards, the total bill would soar to around €1.7 trillion by 2050, driven mainly by clean-up costs. If the EU bans forever chemicals, the health costs would fall from about €39.5 billion a year in 2024 to roughly €0.5 billion by 2040, under a full phase-out scenario. “The Commission’s study exposes the staggering costs of PFAS pollution. Every day of inaction inflates the bill,” said Noémie Jégou, policy officer for Chemicals at the European Environmental Bureau. “The EU must turn off the tap now through an ambitious EU restriction of PFAS present in consumer products and used in industrial processes.”

Czech President Petr Pavel on Tuesday accused Foreign Minister Petr Macinka of blackmail in an extraordinary dispute over the government’s controversial pick for environment minister. The rift between Pavel and Macinka points to a deeper divide in Czech politics, pitting Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s anti-establishment, right-wing coalition government against a staunchly pro-Western president and former NATO general committed to the alliance and the EU. “He can have peace if I get [right-wing populist Filip] Turek at the Environment Ministry. If not, I’ll burn bridges in a way that will end up in political science textbooks as an extreme case of cohabitation,” Macinka wrote in a text message to Pavel’s adviser, adding that he has the support of the populist prime minister and the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), the other coalition partner. Macinka added that the president will be “surprised by the consequences” if he “does nothing, or at least refuses to enter into negotiations over Turek,” adding that “he is ready to brutally fight with the president for Turek.” Pavel, who holds veto power over ministerial appointments, blocked Turek from becoming environment minister over his embroilment in various scandals. “I consider the foreign minister’s words in the text messages to be an attempt at blackmail. I regard that as unacceptable and, under our democratic conditions, absolutely intolerable,” Pavel said in a press conference Tuesday. Pavel, who published the text messages addressed to his adviser, said he will contact the police, which confirmed it has received the report. Speaking at a press conference Tuesday, Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. ‘HOSTAGE TO PERSONAL ANIMOSITIES’ Turek, honorary president of the right-wing populist Motorists for Themselves party from which Macinka also hails, has been investigated for sexual assault, racist, sexist, and homophobic Facebook posts, and an image of him making a Nazi salute, all of which he denies. Petr Macinka rejected claims of blackmail, accused the president of overstepping constitutional limits by vetoing Turek and threatened Petr Pavel’s participation in July’s NATO summit. | Martin Divisek/EPA “If he really has the support of the Prime Minister … then Petr Macinka’s statements are not only an illustration of the new government’s approach to power-sharing in our constitutional order, but also proof that the fundamental issues of our foreign and security policy have become hostage to personal animosities and interests,” the president said Tuesday. Pavel previously noted that strong pro-NATO and pro-EU stances, along with safeguarding the country’s democratic institutions and respecting the constitution, will be key factors in his decision-making regarding the proposed Cabinet. Babiš said in a post on X that Macinka’s words were “unfortunate” but refuted claims about blackmail. “It was in a private communication with his adviser, so it definitely isn’t blackmail,” Babiš said. Pavel’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Macinka’s office said the minister will speak at a press conference later. Jakob Weizman contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — Pressure is mounting on the European Commission to exempt fertilizers from its new carbon tariff scheme, as national capitals side with farmers over industry to unpick one of the EU’s newest climate policies. During a discussion requested by Austria on Monday, 12 countries called for a temporary exclusion of fertilizers from the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a levy on the greenhouse gas emissions of certain goods imported into the bloc. They argued that CBAM, which only became fully operational on Jan. 1, is sending already-rising fertilizer even higher, adding to economic difficulties for crop farmers. “European arable farmers are currently facing not just low producer prices, but also rising production costs. The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. Eleven countries backed Vienna in Monday’s meeting. Yet critics — which include fertilizer producers, environment-focused MEPs and several governments — warn that such an exemption would not only penalize the EU’s domestic producers but threaten the integrity of the carbon tariff scheme. “High prices of production inputs, including fertilizers, have a direct impact on the economic situation of farms… However, we want an optimal solution in order to maintain food security on one hand and on the other [avoid] possible negative impacts on the competitiveness of EU fertilizer producers,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski, whose country is a major fertilizer producer.  Germany, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands expressed similar sentiments.  CBAM was phased in over several years and is supposed to protect European producers of heavily polluting goods — cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen — from cheap and dirty foreign competition. EU manufacturers of these products currently pay a carbon price on their planet-warming emissions, while importers didn’t before the CBAM came into force. By introducing a levy on imports from countries without carbon pricing, the EU wants to even out the playing field and encourage its trading partners to switch to cleaner manufacturing practices. (Those partners aren’t too happy.) The CBAM price is paid by the importers, which are free to pass on the cost to buyers — in the case of fertilizers, farmers.  Fertilizers make up a substantial share of farms’ operating costs, and EU-based companies do not produce enough to match demand. CBAM is therefore expected to push up fertilizer costs, though estimates on by how much vary greatly. A group of nine EU countries led by France mentioned a 25 percent increase in a recent missive, while Austria reckons it’s 10-15 percent.  The main cost drivers are fertilizer prices, which have increased markedly since 2020,” Johannes Frankhauser, a senior official in Austria’s agriculture ministry, told ministers gathered in Brussels. | Olivier Hoslet/EPA Carbon pricing analyst firm Sandbag, however, says it’s far lower for the next two years — less than 1 percent, or a couple of euros per ton of ammonia, a fertilizer component that costs several hundred euros per ton without the levy. Responding to governments on Monday, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen noted that the EU executive already tweaked the policy to provide relief to farmers in December, and followed up in January with a promise to suspend some regular tariffs on fertilizer components to offset the additional CBAM cost. SUSPENSION SUSPENSE The Commission in December set in motion legislative changes that could allow it to enact such a suspension in the event of “serious and unforeseen circumstances” harming the bloc’s internal market — in effect, an emergency brake for CBAM. The suspension can apply retroactively, the EU executive said earlier this month. Yet EU governments and the European Parliament each have to approve this clause before the Commission could make such a move, a process expected to take the better part of this year. Environment ministers can vote on the changes in March or June, and MEPs haven’t even chosen their lead lawmakers to work on the Parliament’s position yet. That’s why Austria on Monday called on the Commission to “immediately” suspend CBAM until “the regular possibility to temporarily suspend CBAM on fertilisers is ensured.” The legal basis for such a move is unclear, as the legislation in force does not feature an exemption clause.  Vienna’s request for a debate came after a group of nine countries — Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania — wrote to the Commission requesting a suspension earlier this month. During Monday’s discussion, Croatia and Estonia also expressed support for such a move.  Ireland welcomed the Commission’s proposal of a suspension clause but asked for additional details.  Spain was ambivalent: “We need to strengthen our industrial capacity to contribute to the strategic autonomy of the European Union. But clearly, the decarbonisation of this sector mustn’t jeopardize farmers’ livelihoods,” said Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas.  Italy, which previously signaled its support for a suspension, did not explicitly endorse such a move — merely backing the Commission’s already-announced tweaks to normal fertilizer tariffs in its intervention on Monday.  Not all countries took to the floor. Czechia, for example — whose new government is opposed to large parts of EU climate legislation, but whose prime minister owns Europe’s second-largest nitrogen fertilizer producer — remained silent. The Czech agriculture ministry did not respond to a request for comment. INDUSTRY ALARMED While exempting fertilizers may win governments kudos from farmers, European fertilizer manufacturers would be irate. The producers’ association Fertilisers Europe warned that such a move would be “totally unacceptable” and “undermine the competitiveness” of EU companies. Yara, a major Norwegian fertilizer producer, said that “CBAM was designed to ensure a level playing field. Weakening it through tariff reductions or retroactive suspension sends the wrong signal to companies investing in Europe’s green transition.” Mohammed Chahim, the vice president of the center-left Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, said that EU companies “need regulatory stability.” “European fertilizer producers have spent precious time and significant resources, often with support from taxpayer money, to decarbonize,” said the Dutch MEP, who drafted the Parliament’s position on the original CBAM law. “Any exemptions for CBAM send a terrible signal — not just to our own industry, but to the world.”  It’s not only makers of fertilizer that are up in arms. Companies in the heavy industry sector — whose competitiveness CBAM is supposed to protect — are warning that granting an exemption once could produce a domino effect, encouraging buyers of all CBAM goods to lobby for relief.  German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “Once one sector gets an exemption, other sectors will want this too,” warned the Business for CBAM coalition, a lobby group of companies and industry groups. “We therefore call on the European Parliament and [ministers] to remove” the exemption clause, it added.  Similarly, German MEP Peter Liese, environment coordinator of the center-right European People’s Party, said earlier this month that a retroactive exemption would be “theoretically possible” but that he was “very much against it because I believe that if we start doing that, we will end up in a cascade. If we suspend it for fertilizers, there are immediately arguments to suspend it in other sectors as well.” 

BRUSSELS — Powerful political allies helped automakers force the EU to water down climate laws for cars — and now the aviation sector is borrowing those tactics. Their big target is getting the EU to dilute its mandate forcing airlines to use increasing amounts of cleaner jet fuels, alternatives to kerosene that are also much more expensive and harder to source. Aviation is emerging as the next crucial stress test for the EU’s climate agenda, as key leaders push to do whatever it takes to help struggling European businesses. With industry and allied governments pressing for relief from costly green rules, the fight will show how far Brussels is willing to go — and what it is willing to give up — in pursuit of its climate goals. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” French energy giant TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month. Carmakers provide a model on how to get the EU to backtrack. The bloc mandated that no CO2-emitting cars could be sold from 2035, essentially killing the combustion engine and replacing it with batteries (possibly with a minor role for hydrogen). But many carmakers — allied with countries like Germany, Italy and automaking nations in Central Europe — pushed back, arguing that the 2035 mandate would destroy the car sector just as it is battling U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, sluggish demand and a rising threat from Chinese competitors. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” Patrick Pouyanné said. | Ludovic Marin/ AFP via Getty Images In the end, the European Commission gave way and watered down the 2035 mandate, which will now only aim to cut CO2 emissions by 90 percent. AVIATION DEMANDS The aviation sector has a similar list of issues with the EU. It is taking aim at a host of other climate policies, such as including aviation in the bloc’s cap-and-trade Emissions Trading System and intervening on non-CO2 impacts of airplanes like contrails — the ice clouds produced by airplanes that have an effect on global warming. Brussels introduced several regulations over the last 15 years to address the growing climate impact of air transport, which accounts for about 3 percent of global CO2 emissions. Those policies include the obligation to use sustainable aviation fuels, to put a price on carbon emissions and to take action on non-CO2 emissions. Each of these green initiatives is now under attack. The ReFuelEU regulation requires all airlines to use SAF for at least 2 percent of their fuel mix starting this year. That mandate rises to 6 percent from 2030, 20 percent from 2035 and 70 percent by 2050. “Today, all airline companies are fighting even the 6 percent … which is easy to reach to be honest,” Pouyanné said, but then warned, “20 percent five years after makes zero sense.” He is echoed by CEOs like Ryanair’s combative Michael O’Leary, who called the SAF mandate “nonsense.” “It is all gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do,” O’Leary said last year. “We have just about met our 2 percent mandate. There is no possibility of meeting 6 percent by 2030; 10 percent, not a hope in hell. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.” Brussels-based airline lobbies are not calling for the SAF mandate to be killed, rather they are demanding a book-and-claim system. Under such a scheme, airlines could claim carbon credits for a certain amount of SAF, even if they don’t use it in their own aircraft. They would buy it at an airport where it’s available and then let other airlines use it. That would make it easier for airlines to meet the SAF mandate even if the fuel is not easily available. However, so far the Commission is opposed. LOBBYING BATTLE The car coalition only worked because industry allied with countries, and there are signs of that happening with aviation. The sector’s lobbying effort to slash the EU carbon pricing could find an ally in the new Italo-German team-up to promote competitiveness. The German government last year announced a plan to cut national aviation taxes — with the call made during the COP30 global climate conference, something that angered the German Greens. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend the Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit at Villa Doria Pamphilj. | Vincenzo Nuzzolese/LightRocket via Getty Images Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Friday that she and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wanted to start “a decisive change of pace … in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses.” “A certain ideological vision of the green transition has ended up bringing our industries to their knees, creating new dangerous strategic dependencies for Europe without, however, having any real impact on the global protection of the environment and nature,” she added. Her far-right coalition ally, Italian Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, has called the ETS and taxes on maritime transport and air transport “economic suicide” that “must be dismantled piece by piece.” COMMISSION SAYS NO As with the 2035 policy for cars, the European Commission is strongly defending its policy against those attacks. Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the transport commissioner, stressed the EU’s “firm commitment” to stick with aviation decarbonization policies. “Investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets. It is as simple as that,” the commissioner said in November when announcing the bloc’s new plans to boost investment into sustainable aviation and maritime fuels. Climate campaigners fought hard against the car sector’s efforts to gut 2035, and now they’re gearing up for another battle over aviation targets. “The airlines’ whining comes as no surprise — yet it is disappointing to see airlines come after such a fundamental piece of EU legislation,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. She was incensed about efforts to dodge the high prices set by the EU’s ETS in favor of the U.N.’s cheaper CORSIA emissions reduction scheme. Airline lobbyA4E said its members paid €2.3 billion for ETS permits last year. “By 2030, [the ETS cost] should rise up to €5 billion because the free allowances are phased out,” said Monika Rybakowska, the lobby’s policy director.  A recent study by the think tank InfluenceMap found that airlines are working to increase their impact on policymakers by aligning their positions on ETS. T&E also took aim at a recent position paper by A4E that asked the EU to postpone measures to curb non-CO2 pollution — such as nitrogen oxides and soot particles that, along with water vapor, contribute to contrails. The A4E paper said that “the scientific foundation for regulating non-CO2 effects remains insufficient” and “introducing financial liability risks misdirecting resources.” This is “an outdated excuse,” responded T&E, noting that the climate impact of contrails has been known for over 20 years.

It seems impossible to have a conversation today without artificial intelligence (AI) playing some role, demonstrating the massive power of the technology. It has the potential to impact every part of business, and European policymakers are on board. In February 2025, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said, “We want Europe to be one of the leading AI continents … AI can help us boost our competitiveness, protect our security, shore up public health, and make access to knowledge and information more democratic.” Research from Nokia suggests that businesses share this enthusiasm and ambition: 84 percent of more than 1,000 respondents said AI features in the growth strategy of their organization, while 62 percent are directing at least 20 percent of ICT capex budgets toward the technology. However, the equation is not yet balanced. Three-quarters of survey respondents state that current telecom infrastructure limits the ability to deliver on those ambitions. Meanwhile, 45 percent suggest these limitations would delay, constrain or entirely limit investments. There is clearly a disconnect between the ambition and the ability to deliver. At present, Europe lags the United States and parts of Asia in areas such as network deployment, related investment levels and scale. > If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, > economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a > limit and consumers will not see the benefits. What we must remember primarily is that AI does not happen without advanced, trusted and future-proofed networks. Infrastructure is not a ‘nice to have’ it is a fundamental part. Simply put, today’s networks in Europe require more investments to power the AI dream we all have. If AI does not reach its full potential, EU competitiveness will suffer, economic growth will have a ceiling, the creation of new jobs will have a limit and consumers will not see the benefits. When we asked businesses about the challenge of meeting AI demands during our research, the lack of adequate connectivity infrastructure was the fourth common answer out of 15 potential options. Our telecom connectivity regulatory approach must be more closely aligned with the goal of fostering AI. That means progressing toward a genuine telecom single market, adopting a novel approach to competition policy to allow market consolidation to lead to more investments, and ensuring connectivity is always secure and trusted. Supporting more investments in next-generation networks through consolidation AI places heavy demands on networks. It requires low latency, high bandwidth and reliability, and efficient traffic management. To deliver this, Europe needs to accelerate investment in 5G standalone, fiber to enterprises, edge data centers and IP-optical backbone networks optimized for AI. > As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI > must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Consolidation (i.e. reducing the number of telecom operators within the national telecom markets of EU member states) is part of the solution. Consolidation will allow operators to achieve economies of scale and improve operating efficiency, therefore encouraging investment and catalyzing innovation. As industry voices such as Nokia have emphasized, the networks that power AI must themselves make greater use of automation and AI. Policy support should therefore extend to both network innovation and deployment. Trust: A precondition for AI adoption Intellectual property (IP) theft is a threat to Europe’s industrial future and only trusted technology should be used in core functions, systems and sectors (such as energy, transport and defense). In this context, the underlying connectivity should always be secure and trusted. The 5G Security Toolbox, restricting untrusted technology, should therefore be extended to all telecom technologies (including fiber, optics and IP) and made compulsory in all EU member states. European governments must make protecting their industries and citizens a high priority. Completing the digital single market Although the single market is one of Europe’s defining projects, the reality in telecoms — a key part of the digital single market — is still fragmented. As an example, different spectrum policies create barriers across borders and can limit network roll outs. Levers on top of advanced connectivity To enable the AI ecosystem in Europe, there are several different enabling levers European policymakers should advance on top of fostering advanced and trusted connectivity: * The availability of compute infrastructure. The AI Continent Action Plan, as well as the IPCEI Compute Infrastructure Continuum, and the European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking should facilitate building AI data centers in Europe.   * Leadership in edge computing. There should also be clear support for securing Europe’s access to and leadership in edge solutions and building out edge capacity. Edge solutions increase processing speeds and are important for enabling AI adoption, while also creating a catalyst for economic growth. With the right data center capacity and edge compute capabilities available, European businesses can meet the new requirements of AI use cases.  * Harmonization of rules. There are currently implications for AI in several policy areas, including the AI Act, GDPR, Data Act, cybersecurity laws and sector-specific regulations. This creates confusion, whereas AI requires clarity. Simplification and harmonization of these regulations should be pursued.  * AI Act implementation and simplification. There are concerns about the implementation of the AI Act. The standards for high-risk AI may not be available before the obligations of the AI act enter into force, hampering business ambitions due to legal uncertainty. The application date of the AI Act’s provisions on high-risk AI should be postponed by two years to align with the development of standards. There needs to be greater clarity on definitions and simplification measures should be pursued across the entire ecosystem. Policies must be simple enough to follow, otherwise adoption may falter. Policy needs to act as an enabler, not a barrier to innovation.  * Upskilling and new skills. AI will require new skills of employees and users, as well as creating entirely new career paths. Europe needs to prepare for this new world.  If Europe can deliver on these priorities, the benefits will be tangible: improved services, stronger industries, increased competitiveness and higher economic growth. AI will deliver to those who best prepare themselves. We must act now with the urgency and consistency that the moment demands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author biography: Marc Vancoppenolle is leading the geopolitical and government relations EU and Europe function at Nokia. He and his team are working with institutions and stakeholders in Europe to create a favorable political and regulatory environment fostering broadband investments and cross sectoral digitalization at large. Vancoppenolle has over 30 years of experience in the telecommunication industry. He joined Alcatel in 1991, and then Alcatel-Lucent, where he took various international and worldwide technical, commercial, marketing, communication and government affairs leadership roles. Vancoppenolle is a Belgian and French national. He holds a Master of Science, with a specialization in telecommunication, from the University of Leuven complemented with marketing studies from the University of Antwerp. He is a member of the DIGITALEUROPE Executive Board, Associate to Nokia’s CEO at the ERT (European Round Table for Industry), and advisor to FITCE Belgium (Forum for ICT & Media professionals). He has been vice-chair of the BUSINESSEUROPE Digital Economy Taskforce as well as a member of the board of IICB (Innovation & Incubation Center Brussels).

TikTok has closed a $14 billion deal establishing a U.S. subsidiary of the platform to avoid a ban, the company said Thursday. The new owners will include the U.S. private equity firm Silver Lake, Abu Dhabi-based artificial intelligence company MGX and Oracle, a tech giant co-founded by Larry Ellison, an ally of President Donald Trump. They will each hold a 15 percent stake in the U.S. joint venture. The deal allows TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance, to maintain a nearly 20 percent stake. The Dell Family Office, investment firm of Chair and CEO of Dell Technologies Michael Dell, is also an investor. Congress passed a law in April 2024 requiring the sale of TikTok to a U.S. buyer before Jan. 19, 2025, or banning it, citing national security concerns about the app’s ties to China. But Trump delayed the ban from taking effect five times last year while a deal was negotiated to divest the app to American owners. Trump signed an executive order in September approving the deal and giving the parties until Friday to formalize the terms. The deal matches an internal memo distributed by TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew last month, who said the agreement would be finalized by Thursday. The U.S. version will operate as an independent entity, governed by a seven-member board including TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Oracle Executive Vice President Kenneth Glueck, Timothy Dattels, senior adviser of TPG Global; Mark Dooley, managing director at Susquehanna International Group; Silver Lake Co-CEO Egon Durban, DXC Technology CEO Raul Fernandez; and David Scott, chief strategy and safety officer at MGX. Adam Presser, head of operations and trust and safety at TikTok, will now serve as CEO of the joint venture. Trump praised the deal in a Truth Social post Thursday evening. “I am so happy to have helped in saving TikTok! It will now be owned by a group of Great American Patriots and Investors, the Biggest in the World, and will be an important Voice,” Trump wrote. Trump said in September that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to the deal, but Chinese officials provided an ambiguous narrative, signaling that any deal would be a drawn out process. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country “respects the wishes of enterprises” and welcomes them to reach “solutions that comply with Chinese laws and regulations and balance interests.” The president thanked Xi in his Truth Social post “for working with us and, ultimately, approving the Deal.” “He could have gone the other way, but didn’t, and is appreciated for his decision,” Trump wrote. Trump previously described the deal as a “qualified divestiture,” meaning the sale would fully sever ByteDance’s control over the platform and therefore make TikTok legal under the U.S. law. China hawks on Capitol Hill have championed this issue over national security concerns and fears that the Chinese-controlled app subjects users to government surveillance and content manipulation. While they’ve vowed to scrutinize the potential deal to ensure it adheres to the law, they seemed prepared to accept Trump’s claim the deal would resolve concerns over national security and control. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the U.S. owners would have control over the app’s algorithm, which is at the heart of the platform’s success. “The U.S. company will have control over how the algorithm pushes content to users and that was a very important part of it,” Vance said during the September executive order signing in the Oval Office. “We thought it was necessary for the national security level element of the law.” According to the company release, the U.S. version will retrain and update the platform’s algorithm based on U.S. user data. Oracle will control the algorithm within its U.S. cloud environment. “President Trump got played by Xi Jinping. He got terrible advice from his staff on these negotiations. This isn’t the Art of the Deal, it’s the art of the steal. Xi Jinping can’t believe his luck,” Michael Sobolik, senior fellow at the right-leaning Hudson Institute and an expert on U.S.-China policy, told POLITICO.