ZAGREB — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Friday poured cold water on a suggestion by Manfred Weber, leader of the center-right European People’s Party, that a joint European army could play a role in postwar peacekeeping in Ukraine. Weber has made a number of striking proposals in recent weeks to project greater EU power on the international stage. In addition to soldiers operating under a “European flag” in Ukraine, he has called for one overall European leader — merging the jobs of European Council president and European Commission president. Speaking at an informal EPP summit in Zagreb, Croatia, Merz welcomed Weber’s attempts to revamp the EU but said these ideas did not represent immediate solutions to Europe’s problems.  “We must focus on the tasks at hand right now,” Merz replied, when asked about Weber’s initiatives. The chancellor added he had no problem with “us repeatedly asking institutional questions” on making Europe more powerful and united, and stressed that “these are questions that need to be discussed again and again.” However, Merz showed little appetite for getting bogged down in the sweeping European reforms that Weber’s proposals could require. “Achieving treaty changes in this European Union of 27 is a rather difficult task,’ the chancellor said. “I advocate that we first and foremost concentrate on the tasks that are now on the table.” He said those were improving defense capabilities and the continent’s flagging industrial competitiveness. While Merz was cool on Weber’s proposals about a European army, his government has still to decide on its commitment to German peacekeepers in Ukraine. While Berlin is not as forward as Britain and France in raising the possibility of providing peacekeepers, Merz has insisted: “We are not ruling anything out in principle.“ Germany also stresses it is already acting as a regional security guarantor on the Russian border, with nearly 5,000 troops posted to Lithuania, and through air policing missions across Eastern Europe. When asked about Merz’s skepticism about his proposals, Weber said: “We are in dialogue. We are in discussion.”

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Keir Starmer escaped from all his domestic troubles by jetting off to China, so Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy was left to fend off questions from disgruntled MPs both in front of (and behind) him. Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch carried on rotating which frontbencher batted for the Conservatives, handing that dubious honor to Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith. Given his brief, er, business rates dominated. Hold my beer: Griffith led on the government’s U-turn watering down business rate costs for pubs, asking Lammy to confirm that more than 90 percent of “retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing.” The deputy PM, you may not be surprised to read, swerved that interrogation and said it is “always a pleasure to hear from the co-author of the mini-budget” — Liz Truss’ economic proposals, which led to her swift departure from No 10. Drink: The PM may be out of the country, but it wouldn’t be PMQs without a mention of Britain’s shortest serving prime minister — the person Labour thinks is still the Tories’ biggest electoral liability nearly three-and-a-half years after she left office. Last orders: The shadow business secretary bigged up his experience, unsurprisingly, in business, contrasting that with Lammy’s 25 years “manufacturing grievance.” Nonetheless, Griffith claimed the help is “too little, too late” with striking visual imagery, arguing “our high streets are bleeding out and the chancellor’s handing out a box of sticking plasters.” Out of the till: Lammy may have had little notice that Griffith was stepping into the blue hot seat, but his aides did their homework. The deputy PM ripped into Griffith opposing the minimum wage. Best of enemies: Griffith had plenty of barbs up his sleeve too, labeling his opposite number “left behind Lammy” for not getting a cushty trip to Beijing. But the already depleted Tory benches were even quieter than usual, making it harder for the PMQs novice’s lines to land. That said: He managed a good line about “Andy from Manchester having his dreams crushed by Labour,” a reference to the Greater Manchester mayor getting blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election over fears he might challenge Starmer for the top job (though, of course, Labour would deny that). “It is our party that is getting stronger,” Griffith cried unironically to shrieks of laughter from the government benches. Indeed, the polls beg to differ. Crossing the line: As usual with these exchanges, the substance of support (or lack thereof) for businesses was lost after about question two. Lammy concluded his responses by highlighting that Badenoch praised the art of queuing during her appearance on the long-running BBC “Desert Island Discs” radio program. It was too easy for Lammy to argue Tory MPs took her at her word after three defections just this month. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Rugby MP John Slinger continued meeting his ultra-loyalist stereotype by commending Labour’s record on the NHS and slipping in criticism of Reform’s health policies. Lammy couldn’t have been happier, joyously reiterating the point made by every Labour politician that the NHS is only safe under them. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Lammy 8/10. Griffith 6/10. It was unsurprising for the Tories to lead on a U-turn, given there were many to choose from. However, despite business rates being Griffith’s area of expertise, he did not make his point land. Good lines from both sides meant the session became a battle of which voices could shout the loudest. Given the government’s parliamentary majority, there could only be one winner.

“Laws that exist only on paper achieve nothing.” This is not a slogan. It reflects the reality described by small-scale fishers and points to a wide gap between European Union commitments and delivery on the water. More than a decade after the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU is once again debating whether to rewrite this policy, even though the CFP’s framework is fit for purpose and delivers sustainable fisheries — when properly applied. What continues to fail is its implementation. The clearest example is the legal commitment to end overfishing by 2020, a deadline still unmet. > If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing > the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Nowhere is this gap more visible than in the Mediterranean, and particularly in Cyprus and Greece, where stocks are further weakened by the accelerating effects of the climate crisis and the spread of invasive species. The Mediterranean remains the most overfished sea in the world, and small-scale fishers feel these consequences directly. Yet, Cypriot fishers are not asking for weaker rules or a new policy. They are asking for effective enforcement of existing legislation, and support from national authorities. Without these, the future of fisheries as a profession is at stake. If Europe delays action until after another lengthy reform, it risks losing the next generation of fishers and hollowing out coastal economies. Photo by A.S.S. The experience of Cypriot and Greek fishers mirrors a broader European issue. Before reopening the CFP, Europe should take stock of the real gap, which lies not in the law itself, but in its uneven implementation and enforcement. Calls for reform are driven by familiar pressures: environmental safeguards are increasingly framed as obstacles to economic viability and fleet renewal. Reform is presented as a way to modernize vessels and cut red tape. But this framing overlooks lessons from the past. Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public money and livelihoods. For small-scale fishers in the Mediterranean, these impacts are not theoretical. They are experienced daily, through declining catches, rising costs and increasing uncertainty. The Common Fisheries Policy delivers when implemented Evidence shows that where the CFP has been implemented, it delivers. According to European Commission assessments, the share of stocks subject to overfishing in the North-East Atlantic fell from around 40 percent in 2013 to just over 22 percent by 2025. In the Mediterranean, the figure dropped from 70 percent to 51 percent over the same period. These improvements are closely linked to the application of science-based catch limits, effort restrictions and capacity controls under the CFP. > Europe has been here before. Excess capacity and weak controls pushed fish > stocks to the brink of collapse, forcing painful corrections that cost public > money and livelihoods. Economic and social data tell the same story. EU fishing fleets have become more efficient and more profitable over the past decade. Vessels now generate higher average incomes, with wages per full-time fisher rising by more than a quarter since 2013. In its 2023 policy communication, the Commission concluded that the CFP remains an adequate legal framework, with the real gap lying in its application and enforcement. Those involved in the 2013 reform understand why this matters. The revised policy marked a clear shift away from overcapacity and short-term decision-making toward a science-based approach. The European Commission’s own assessments show that this approach delivered results where it was applied. Parts of the EU fleet became more profitable, labor productivity improved and several fish stocks recovered. The CFP remains the EU’s strongest tool for reversing decline at sea. Implementation results in progress; reform leads to instability and uncertainty Strengthening the CPF’s implementation would deliver tangible benefits, including greater stability for fishers and coastal communities, avoiding years of legislative uncertainty, and allowing faster progress toward sustainability objectives. Firm and consistent implementation can enhance economic resilience while restoring ocean health, without the delays and risks that come with reopening the legislation. Given the time and resources required, another round of institutional reform is neither efficient nor necessary. Priority should instead be given to effectively delivering the agreed CFP commitments. Photo by A.S.S. Cypriot Presidency of the Council: a moment for delivery This debate unfolds as Cyprus assumes the EU Council Presidency, at a moment when choices made in Brussels carry immediate consequences at sea. Holding the Presidency brings responsibility as well as opportunity. It offers a chance to help frame the discussion toward making existing rules work in practice, while addressing current implementation challenges. This is where the credibility of the CFP will be tested. > Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. Reopening the CFP now may send the wrong signal. It may suggest that missed deadlines carry no consequence and that agreed-upon rules are optional. For fishers, it would prolong uncertainty at a time when stability is already fragile. For Europe, it would undermine trust in its ability to deliver. The EU was not conceived to generate endless processes or delay action through repeated legislative cycles. Its purpose is to deliver common solutions to shared problems, and to support people and communities where national action falls short. The last reform of the CFP was built on a simple principle: healthy fish stocks are the foundation of viable fisheries. Sustainability and livelihoods move together, or not at all. This principle is already reflected in Europe’s agreed framework. The task now is to act on it. Fisheries are a clear test of that promise. The law is already in place. The tools already exist. What Europe needs now is the political resolve to deliver on the commitments it has already made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is OCEANA * The ultimate controlling entity is OCEANA More information here.

KYIV — Without electricity for 12 hours a day, the fridge is no longer any use. But it’s a stable minus 10 degrees Celsius on the balcony, so I store my food there. Outside today you’ll find chicken soup, my favorite vegetable salad and even my birthday cake — all staying fresh in the biting chill. This is the latest terror the Russians have inflicted on our capital — during the cruelest winter since their all-out invasion began in February 2022. They have smashed our energy grids and central heating networks with relentless drone attacks; the frost then does the rest, caking power cables and heating pipes in thick ice that prevents repairs.  At times the temperature drops to minus 20 C and the frost permeates my apartment, its crystals covering the windows and invading the walls. Russia’s latest attack disrupted heating for 5,600 residential buildings in Kyiv, including mine.  My daily routine now includes interspersing work with a lot of walking up and down from the 14th floor of my apartment block, carrying liters of water, most importantly to my grandmother. Granny turned 80 last year. Her apartment at least has a gas stove, meaning we can pour boiling water into rubber hot water bottles and tie them to her body. “Why can’t anyone do anything to make Putin stop?” she cries, complaining that the cold gnaws into every bone of her body. The Kremlin’s attempt to freeze us to death has been declared a national emergency, and millions of Ukrainians have certainly had it harder than I. Many have been forced to move out and stay in other cities, while others practically live in malls or emergency tents where they can work and charge their phones and laptops.  FEELING FORGOTTEN Kyiv is crying out for help, but our plight rarely makes the headlines these days. All the attention now seems focused on a potential U.S. invasion of Greenland. Our president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, complains he now has to fight tooth-and-nail to secure deliveries of air-defense missiles from allies in Europe and America.  “In these times when so many lives are being lost … you still have to fight for all these missiles for various air defenses. You beg for them, squeeze them out by force,” he said.   His outrage that Ukraine’s allies are losing interest has struck a bitter chord this winter. The West’s reluctance to give us security guarantees makes us feel the Kremlin’s crimes are being normalized. Watching Greenland only makes us more afraid. Many Ukrainians no longer believe international law can do anything to rein in the world’s superpowers. Might is right, once again. We are living through what happens when an unchecked superpower is allowed to kill at will. Russia’s goal is to break our defiance, mentally and physically. Weapons designed to sink warships are being turned against our power plants, government buildings and apartments.  KEEP GOING When you’re forced to shiver in the dark for so long, deprived of sleep by nightly missile barrages, you can quickly slide into despair.   “What can I do to cheer you up, Mom?” I asked via a late-night WhatsApp message. “Do something with Putin,” she replied sarcastically, adding she can handle everything else. That means getting up and working every day, no matter how cold or miserable she feels. Veronika Melkozerova/POLITICO Whenever workers manage to restore the grid after yet another attack, the light brings with it a brief moment of elation, then a huge to-do list. We charge our gadgets, fill bottles and buckets with water, cook our food — and then put it out on our balconies.  What’s inspiring is the genuine sense that people will carry on and keep the country running — even though there’s no end in sight to this sub-zero terror. Just do your job, pay your rent, pay your taxes, keep the country afloat. That’s the mission.  So much of the city functions regardless. I can get my granny an emergency dental surgery appointment the same day. Recently, when I went for my evening Pilates — ’cause what else you gonna do in the dark and cold — I saw a woman defiantly getting a manicure in her coat and hat, from a manicurist who wore a flashlight strapped to her head. Bundled-up couriers still deliver food, but the deal is they won’t climb beyond the fifth floor, so those of us up on the 14th have to go down to meet them. Personally, I have access to any kind of food — from our iconic borscht to sushi. I can charge my gadgets and find warmth and shelter at a mall down the street. The eternally humming generators, many of them gifts from Ukrainian businesses and European allies, rekindle memories of a European unity that now seems faded.  Critically, everything comes back to the resilience of the people. Amid all the despair, you see your fellow Ukrainians — people labeled as weak, or bad managers — pressing on with their duties and chores at temperatures where hypothermia and frostbite are a real danger. That’s not to say cracks aren’t showing. The central and local governments have been passing the buck over who failed to prepare Kyiv for this apocalypse. Some streets are covered with ice, with municipal services having to fight frost and the consequences of Russian bombing at the same time. But there’s a real solidarity, a sense that all of us have to dig in — just like our army, our air defenses, our energy workers and rescue services. I find it impossible not to love our nation as it endures endless murderous onslaughts from a superpower. No matter how hard the Russians try to make our lives unbearable, we’re going to make it.

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

Venture capitalist Finn Murphy believes world leaders could soon resort to deflecting sunlight into space if the Earth gets unbearably hot. That’s why he’s invested more than $1 million in Stardust Solutions, a leading solar geoengineering firm that’s developing a system to reduce warming by enveloping the globe in reflective particles. Murphy isn’t rooting for climate catastrophe. But with global temperatures soaring and the political will to limit climate change waning, Stardust “can be worth tens of billions of dollars,” he said. “It would be definitely better if we lost all our money and this wasn’t necessary,” said Murphy, the 33-year-old founder of Nebular, a New York investment fund named for a vast cloud of space dust and gas. Murphy is among a new wave of investors who are putting millions of dollars into emerging companies that aim to limit the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth — while also potentially destabilizing weather patterns, food supplies and global politics. He has a degree in mathematics and mechanical engineering and views global warming not just as a human and political tragedy, but as a technical challenge with profitable solutions. Solar geoengineering investors are generally young, pragmatic and imaginative — and willing to lean into the adventurous side of venture capitalism. They often shrug off the concerns of scientists who argue it’s inherently risky to fund the development of potentially dangerous technologies through wealthy investors who could only profit if the planet-cooling systems are deployed. “If the technology works and the outcomes are positive without really catastrophic downstream impacts, these are trillion-dollar market opportunities,” said Evan Caron, a co-founder of the energy-focused venture firm Montauk Capital. “So it’s a no-brainer for an investor to take a shot at some of these.” More than 50 financial firms, wealthy individuals and government agencies have collectively provided more than $115.8 million to nine startups whose technology could be used to limit sunlight, according to interviews with VCs, tech company founders and analysts, as well as private investment data analyzed by POLITICO’s E&E News. That pool of funders includes Silicon Valley’s Sequoia Capital, one of the world’s largest venture capital firms, and four other investment groups that have more than $1 billion of assets under management. Of the total amount invested in the geoengineering sector, $75 million went to Stardust, or nearly 65 percent. The U.S.-Israeli startup is developing reflective particles and the means to spray and monitor them in the stratosphere, some 11 miles above the planet’s surface. At least three other climate-intervention companies have also raked in at least $5 million. The cash infusion is a bet on planet-cooling technologies that many political leaders, investors and environmentalists still consider taboo. In addition to having unknown side effects, solar geoengineering could expose the planet to what scientists call “termination shock,” a scenario in which global temperatures soar if the cooling technologies fail or are suddenly abandoned. Still, the funding surge for geoengineering companies pales in comparison to the billions of dollars being put toward artificial intelligence. OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, has raised $62.5 billion in 2025 alone, according to investment data compiled by PitchBook. The investment pool for solar geoengineering startups is relatively shallow in part because governments haven’t determined how they would regulate the technology — something Stardust is lobbying to change. As a result, the emerging sector is seen as too speculative for most venture capital firms, according to Kim Zou, the CEO of Sightline Climate, a market intelligence firm. VCs mostly work on behalf of wealthy individuals, as well as pension funds, university endowments and other institutional investors. “It’s still quite a niche set of investors that are even thinking about or looking at the geoengineering space,” Zou said. “The climate tech and energy tech investors we speak to still don’t really see there being an investable opportunity there, primarily because there’s no commercial market for it today.” AEROSOLS IN THE STRATOSPHERE Stardust and its investors are banking on signing contracts with one or more governments that could deploy its solar geoengineering system as soon as the end of the decade. Those investors include Lowercarbon Capital, a climate-focused firm co-founded by billionaire VC Chris Sacca, and Exor, the holding company of an Italian industrial dynasty and perhaps the most mainstream investment group to back a sunlight reflection startup. Even Stardust’s supporters acknowledge that the company is far from a sure bet. “It’s unique in that there is not currently demand for this solution,” said Murphy, whose firm is also supporting out-there startups seeking to build robots and data centers in space. “You have to go and create the product in order to potentially facilitate the demand.” Lowercarbon partner Ryan Orbuch said the firm would see a return on its Stardust investment only “in the context of an actual customer who can actually back many years of stable, safe deployment.” Exor, another Stardust investor, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other startups are trying to develop commercial markets for solar geoengineering. Make Sunsets, a company funded by billionaire VC Tim Draper, releases sulfate-filled weather balloons that pop when they reach the stratosphere. It sells cooling credits to individuals and corporations based on the theory that the sulfates can reliably reduce warming. There are questions, however, about the science and economics underpinning the credit system of Make Sunsets, according to the investment bank Jeffries. “A cooling credit market is unlikely to be viable,” the bank said in a May 2024 note to clients. That’s because the temperature reductions produced by sulfate aerosols vary by altitude, location and season, the note explained. And the warming impacts of carbon dioxide emissions last decades — much longer than any cooling that would be created from a balloon’s worth of sulfate. Make Sunsets didn’t respond to a request for comment. The company has previously attracted the attention of regulators in the U.S. and Mexico, who have claimed it began operating without the necessary government approvals. Draper Associates says on its website that it’s “shaping a future where the impossible becomes everyday reality.” The firm has previously backed successful consumer tech firms like Tesla, Skype and Hotmail. “It is getting hotter in the Summer everywhere,” Tim Draper said in an email. “We should be encouraging every solution. I love this team, and the science works.” THE NEXT FRONTIER One startup is pursuing space-based solar geoengineering. EarthGuard is attempting to build a series of large sunlight deflectors that would be positioned between the sun and the planet, some 932,000 miles from the Earth. The company did not respond to emailed questions. Other space companies are considering geoengineering as a side project. That includes Gama, a French startup that’s designing massive solar sails that could be used for deep space travel or as a planetary sunshade, and Ethos Space, a Los Angeles company with plans to industrialize the moon. Both companies are part of an informal research network established by the Planetary Sunshade Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the development of a trillion-dollar parasol for the globe. The network mainly brings together collaborators on the sidelines of space industry conferences, according to Gama CEO Andrew Nutter. “We’re willing to contribute something if we realize it’s genuinely necessary and it’s a better solution than other solutions” to the climate challenge, Nutter said of the space shade concept. “But our business model does not depend on it. If you have dollar signs hanging next to something, that can bias your decisions on what’s best for the planet.” Nutter said Gama has raised about $5 million since he co-founded the company in 2020. Its investors include Possible Ventures, a German VC firm that’s also financing a nuclear fusion startup and says on its website that the firm is “relentlessly optimistic — choosing to focus on the possibilities rather than obsess over the risks.” Possible Ventures did not respond to a request for comment. Sequoia-backed Reflect Orbital is another space startup that’s exploring solar geoengineering as a potential moneymaker. The company based near Los Angeles is developing a network of satellite mirrors that would direct sunlight down to the Earth at night for lighting industrial sites or, eventually, producing solar energy. Its space mirrors, if oriented differently, could also be used for limiting the amount of sun rays that reach the planet. “It’s not so much a technological limitation as much as what has the highest, best impact. It’s more of a business decision,” said Ally Stone, Reflect Orbital’s chief strategy officer. “It’s a matter of looking at each satellite as an opportunity and whether, when it’s over a specific geography, that makes more sense to reflect sunlight towards or away from the Earth.” Reflect Orbital has raised nearly $28.7 million from investors including Lux Capital, a firm that touts its efforts to “turn sci-fi into sci-fact” and has invested in the autonomous defense systems companies Anduril and Saildrone.” Sequoia and Lux didn’t respond to requests for comment. The startup hopes to send its first satellite into space next summer, according to Stone. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose aerospace company already has an estimated fleet of more than 8,800 internet satellites in orbit, has also suggested using the circling network to limit sunlight. “A large solar-powered AI satellite constellation would be able to prevent global warming by making tiny adjustments in how much solar energy reached Earth,” Musk wrote on X last month. Neither he nor SpaceX responded to an emailed request for comment. DON’T CALL IT GEOENGINEERING Other sunlight-reflecting startups are entering the market — even if they’d rather not be seen as solar geoengineering companies. Arctic Reflections is a two-year-old company that wants to reduce global warming by increasing Arctic sea ice, which doesn’t absorb as much heat as open water. The Dutch startup hasn’t yet pursued outside investors. “We see this not necessarily as geo-engineering, but rather as climate adaptation,” CEO Fonger Ypma said in an email. “Just like in reforestation projects, people help nature in growing trees, our idea is that we would help nature in growing ice.” The main funder of Arctic Reflections is the British government’s independent Advanced Research and Invention Agency. In May, ARIA awarded $4.41 million to the company — more than four times what it had raised to that point. Another startup backed by ARIA is Voltitude, which is developing micro balloons to monitor geoengineering from the stratosphere. The U.K.-based company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Altogether, the British agency is supporting 22 geoengineering projects, only a handful of which involve startups. “ARIA is only funding fundamental research through this programme, and has not taken an equity stake in any geoengineering companies,” said Mark Symes, a program director at the agency. It also requires that all research it supports “must be published, including those that rule out approaches by showing they are unsafe or unworkable.” Sunscreen is a new startup that is trying to limit sunlight in localized areas. It was founded earlier this year by Stanford University graduate student Solomon Kim. “We are pioneering the use of targeted, precision interventions to mitigate the destructive impacts of heatwave on critical United States infrastructure,” Kim said in an email. But he was emphatic that “we are not geoengineering” since the cooling impacts it’s pursuing are not large scale. Kim declined to say how much had been raised by Sunscreen and from what sources. As climate change and its impacts continue to worsen, Zou of Sightline Climate expects more investors to consider solar geoengineering startups, including deep-pocketed firms and corporations interested in the technology. Without their help, the startups might not be able to develop their planet-cooling systems. “People are feeling like, well wait a second, our backs are kind of starting to get against the wall. Time is ticking, we’re not really making a ton of progress” on decarbonization, she said. “So I do think there’s a lot more questions getting asked right now in the climate tech and venture community around understanding it,” Zou said of solar geoengineering. “Some of these companies and startups and venture deals are also starting to bring more light into the space.” Karl Mathiesen contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — Current plans to tackle global warming will only save 3 percent of Europe’s Alpine glaciers from disappearing this century, with most melting away within the next two decades, a new study has found.  The ice fields of Central Europe are vanishing faster than anywhere else on Earth,according to research led by Switzerland’s ETH Zurich. Overall, the scientists found that 79 percent of the world’s glaciers will not survive this century unless countries step up efforts to curb climate change.  “The Alps as we know them nowadays will completely change by the end of the century,” Lander Van Tricht, the study’s lead author, told POLITICO. “The landscape will be completely different. Many ski resorts will not have access to glaciers anymore … the ones we keep are so high and so steep that they are not accessible anymore. So the economy will be confronted with these changes,” he said. “And even the small glaciers provide water downstream” for vegetation and villages, he added. “This will also change.” Their study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to calculate the number of glaciers remaining by the year 2100 under different warming scenarios. Previous studies have focused on size or ice mass, the factors determining future sea-level rise and water scarcity, as glaciers hold 70 percent of the world’s freshwater.  The researchers hope their findings, including a database showing the projected survival rate of each of the world’s 211,000 glaciers, will help assess climate impacts on local economies and ecosystems.  “Even the smallest glacier in a remote valley in the Alps, even if it’s not important for sea-level rise or water resources, can have a huge importance for tourism, for example,” said Van Tricht. “Every individual glacier can matter.”  The researchers found that 97 percent of Central European glaciers will go extinct this century if global warming hits 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — the temperature rise expected under governments’ current climate policies.  That means only 110 of the region’s roughly 3,200 glaciers would survive to see the next century. Those are located in the Alps, as the region’s other mountain range, the Iberian Peninsula’s Pyrenees, is set to lose its remaining 15 glaciers by the mid-2030s.  If the world manages to limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C, in line with the Paris Agreement, the Alps would lose 87 percent or 92 percent of glaciers, respectively. At warming of 4C, a level the world was heading toward before the 2015 climate accord was signed, 99 percent of Alpine glaciers would disappear this century, with just 20 surviving the year 2100.  In all scenarios, however, the majority of Central European glaciers melt away in the coming two decades. The scientists write that for this region, “peak extinction” — the year when most glaciers are expected to disappear — is “projected to occur soon after 2025.”  Glaciers located in high latitudes — such as in Iceland and Russian Arctic — or holding vast amounts of ice have the best survival chances, Van Tricht said.  Alpine glaciers “are in general very small” and “very sensitive” to climatic changes like warmer springs, he said. The biggest ice fields, such as the Rhône glacier, will survive 2.7C of warming but not 4C, he added.  The second-worst affected region is Western Canada and the United States, home to the Rocky Mountains, where 96 percent of the nearly 18,000 glaciers are expected to disappear this century under 2.7C of warming.  Overall, the study projects a dramatic disappearance of glaciers around the globe: At 2.7C of warming, 79 percent of glaciers worldwide would go extinct by the end of the century, rising to 91 percent at 4C. The melt-off is expected to continue after 2100, the researchers add. Drastic cuts in planet-warming emissions could save tens of thousands of individual glaciers, however, with the extinction rate slowing to 55 percent at 1.5C and 63 percent at 2C.  The rate of disappearance shocked even the scientists, Van Tricht said. Around mid-century, when glacier loss reaches its peak, “we lose at a global scale 2,000 to 4,000 glaciers a year,” depending on the level of warming. “Which means that if you look at the Alps today, all the glaciers we have there, you lose that number in just one single year at the global scale.” 

LONDON — The U.K. has imposed new sanctions on senior commanders of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) amid escalating atrocities in Sudan. The move aims at key figures accused of mass killings, sexual violence and targeted attacks on civilians in El Fasher, including Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF’s deputy leader and brother of commander Mohamed “Hemedti” Dagalo. Three other senior RSF officers will also now face asset freezes and travel bans to the U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said the sanctions sent a message that atrocities “cannot and will not go unpunished.” While the U.K. has targeted other RSF figures before, the paramilitary group’s recent sharing of footage of their own alleged crimes has made it easier to establish the basis for sanctions. The penalties announced Friday coincide with a fresh £21 million aid package intended to provide food, clean water, healthcare and protection for tens of thousands caught in what the U.K. government has termed the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The administration in London has been under pressure from lawmakers to do more to stop the bloodshed. The U.K.’s action follows the U.S. decision this week to sanction a network it says is recruiting former Colombian soldiers to fight in Sudan’s civil war, while the European Union has also targeted RSF leadership for alleged crimes in Darfur. Sudan has been locked in a civil war for two and a half years, with the Sudanese Armed Forces pitted against the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group, which international institutions have accused the United Arab Emirates of backing. Since becoming foreign secretary, Cooper has sought to place particular emphasis on the conflict in Sudan and has discussed it with her U.S. counterpart Marco Rubio on several occasions. Donald Trump signaled a new interest in ending the violence in Sudan after meeting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in November, but it’s not yet clear if that will be sustained.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has proposed rolling back several EU environmental laws including industrial emissions reporting requirements, confirming previous reporting by POLITICO. It’s the latest in a series of proposed deregulation plans — known as omnibus bills — as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen tries to make good on a promise to EU leaders to dramatically reduce administrative burden for companies.   The bill’s aim is to make it easier for businesses to comply with EU laws on waste management, emissions, and resource use, with the Commission stressing the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which make up 99 percent of all EU businesses. The Commission insisted the rollbacks would not have a negative impact on the environment. “We all agree that we need to protect our environmental standards, but we also at the same time need to do it more efficiently,” said Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall during a press conference on Wednesday.  “This is a complex exercise,” said Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a press conference on Wednesday. “It is not easy for anyone to try to identify how we can respond to this demand to simplify while responding to this other demand to keep these [environmental] standards high.”  Like previous omnibus packages, the environmental omnibus was released without an impact assessment. The Commission found that “without considering other alternative options, an impact assessment is not deemed necessary.” This comes right after the Ombudswoman found the Commission at fault for “maladministration” for the first omnibus.   The Commission claims “the proposed amendments will not affect environmental standards” — a claim that’s already under attack from environmental groups.   MORE REPORTING CUTS  The Commission wants to exempt livestock and aquaculture operators from reporting on water, energy and materials use under the industrial emissions reporting legislation.  EU countries, competent authorities and operators would also be given more time to comply with some of the new or revised provisions in the updated Industrial Emissions Directive while being given further “clarity on when these provisions apply.”  The Commission is also proposing “significant simplification” for environmental management systems (EMS) — which lay out goals and performance measures related to environmental impacts of an industrial site — under the industrial and livestock rearing emissions directive.  These would be completed by industrial plants at the level of a company and not at the level of every installation, as it currently stands.   There would also be fewer compliance obligations under EU waste laws.   The Commission wants to remove the Substances of Concern in Products (SCIP) database, for example, claiming that it “has not been effective in informing recyclers about the presence of hazardous substances in products and has imposed substantial administrative costs.”  Producers selling goods in another EU country will also not have to appoint an authorized representative in both countries to comply with extended producer responsibility (EPR). The Commission calls it a “stepping stone to more profound simplification,” also reducing reporting requirements to just once per year.  The Commission will not be changing the Nature Restoration Regulation — which has been a key question in discussions between EU commissioners — but it will intensify its support to EU countries and regional authorities in preparing their draft National Restoration Plans.  The Commission will stress-test the Birds and Habitats Directives in 2026 “taking into account climate change, food security, and other developments and present a series of guidelines to facilitate implementation,” it said.  CRITIQUES ROLL IN   Some industry groups, like the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have welcomed the changes, calling it a “a common-sense fix.” German center-right MEP Pieter Liese also welcomed the omnibus package, saying, “[W]e need to streamline environmental laws precisely because we want to preserve them. Bureaucracy and paperwork are not environmental protection.” But environmental groups opposed the rollbacks.  “The Von der Leyen Commission is dismantling decades of hard-won nature protections, putting air, water, and public health at risk in the name of competitiveness,” WWF said in a statement. The estimated savings “come with no impact assessment and focus only on reduced compliance costs, ignoring the far larger price of pollution, ecosystem decline, and climate-related disasters,” it added.   The Industrial Emissions Directive, which entered into force last year and is already being transposed by member countries, was “already much weaker than what the European Commission had originally proposed” during the last revision, pointed out ClientEarth lawyer Selin Esen.  “The Birds and Habitats Directives are the backbone of nature protection in Europe,” said BirdLife Europe’s Sofie Ruysschaert. “Undermining them now would not only wipe out decades of hard-won progress but also push the EU toward a future where ecosystems and the communities that rely on them are left dangerously exposed.”