LONDON — When a job for life beckons, principles have a way of disappearing. Keir Starmer has given 25 close allies an early Christmas present, appointing them to Britain’s unelected House of Lords. They’ll don some ermine, bag a grand title, claim £371 a day just for showing up and swan around the Palace of Westminster for the rest of their lives — or at least until their 80th birthday. The PM’s former Director of Communications Matthew Doyle, Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ ex-Chief of Staff Katie Martin and Iceland Foods Founder Richard Walker are among the lucky Labour-supporting individuals given a spot in Britain’s unelected legislating chamber — all without having to make their case to British voters. The opposition Tories and Lib Dems (no strangers to filling the upper chamber when they were in power) got a paltry three and five spots respectively, while the insurgent Reform UK and Greens missed out completely. Pushing back at the criticism, which comes as Labour vows a host of changes to the upper chamber, a party official said: “⁠The Tories stuffed the House of Lords, creating a serious imbalance that has allowed them to frustrate our plans to make working families better off. “This needs to be corrected to deliver on our mandate from the British people. We will continue to progress our program of reform, which includes removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords.” POLITICO runs through five times the party laid into the red benches. 2020: BRING THE HOUSE DOWN Starmer was unapologetically radical during the Labour leadership contest to replace Jeremy Corbyn. He made 10 striking pledges as he courted the party’s left-wing membership. One included a promise to “devolve power, wealth and opportunity” by introducing a federal system which would “abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber.” 2022: KEIR THE FIXER The Labour leader still backed Lords abolition for a chunk of his time in opposition — though he knew existing Labour peers might have a view or two about that. Starmer charmed his unelected legislators in November 2022 by praising the “vital role” they played, but insisted he was focused on “restoring trust in politics” after ex-PM Boris Johnson rewarded “lackeys and donors” with peerages. Sound familiar?  “We need to show how we will do things differently. Reforming our second chamber has to be a part of that,” the Labour leader said. 2022: STRONG CONSTITUTION The following month, Labour’s plans got a hard launch. In a dazzling (well, for Starmer) press conference, he promised the “biggest ever transfer of power from Westminster to the British people.” Strong stuff. Starmer got party bigwig and ex-PM Gordon Brown to pen a report backing constitutional change — including the abolition of the House of Lords. Starmer said an unelected chamber was “indefensible” and an elected house would be created “with a strong mission.” A timeframe was not forthcoming. 2023: SLOW AND STEADY Angela Smith has led Labour in the Lords since 2015, but still recognizes reform is needed. The shadow Lords leader insisted Labour wouldn’t flood the chamber with its own people if in power. Angela Smith has led Labour in the Lords since 2015, but still recognizes reform is needed. | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images  “No. Ain’t gonna happen,” she told the House magazine just months before the general election. “The idea that Keir Starmer is on day one going to have a list of 100 people to put here is cloud cuckoo.”  She said it wasn’t all about winning votes: “I don’t want this to be a numbers game, like ‘yah boo, we’ve got more than you, we’re gonna win, we’re gonna smash this through’. That’s not what the House of Lords does.” She may feel differently now the government suffers defeats on its legislation under her watch. 2024: WRITTEN IN SAND Labour’s election-winning manifesto retreated from the halcyon rebel days of opposition, but it was still punchy. “Reform is long overdue and essential,” it argued, claiming “too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy.” The manifesto also promised a minimum participation requirement, mandatory retirement age and strengthened processes for removing disgraced members. “We will reform the appointments process to ensure the quality of new appointments and will seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second chamber,” it said. No. 10 insisted Thursday it will progress with House of Lords reform — though … declined to give a timeline.

PARIS — How do you celebrate a major anniversary of the world’s most significant climate treaty while deprioritizing the fight against climate change?   That’s the quandary in Paris heading into Friday, when the landmark Paris Agreement turns 10.   With budgets strapped and the fight against climate change losing political momentum, the only major celebration planned by the French government consists of a reception inside the Ministry of Ecological Transition hosted by the minister, Monique Barbut, according to the invitation card seen by POLITICO.  Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu won’t be there, and it’s unclear if President Emmanuel Macron will attend.  Lecornu will be talking about health care in the region of Eure, where he’s from. Macron’s plans for Friday are not yet public, but the day before he’ll address the “consequences of misinformation on climate change” as part of a nationwide tour to speak with French citizens about technology and misinformation.  According to two ministerial advisers, the Elysée Palace had initially planned to organize an event, details of which were not released, but it was canceled at the last minute. When contacted about the plans, the Elysée did not respond.  Even if Macron ends up attending the ministerial event, the muted nature of the celebration is both a symptom of the political backlash against Europe’s green push and a metaphor for the Paris Agreement’s increasingly imperiled legacy — sometimes at the hands of France itself, which had been supposed to act as guarantor of the accord.  “France wants to be the guardian of the Paris Agreement, [but] it also needs to implement it,” said Lorelei Limousin, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace. “That means really putting the resources in place, particularly financial resources, to move away from fossil fuels, both in France and internationally.”  PARIS AGREEMENT’S BIRTHDAY PLANNER  Before being appointed to government, Barbut was Macron’s special climate envoy and had been tasked with organizing the treaty’s celebration. She told POLITICO in June that she hoped to use the annual Paris Peace Forum to celebrate the anniversary, then bring together hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists in late November and welcome them at the Elysée.   Those events, which have already come and gone, were supposed to be followed by a grand finale on Friday.   According to one of the ministerial advisers previously cited, the moratorium on government communications spending introduced in October by the prime minister threw a wrench in those plans.   “We’d like to do something more festive, but the problem is that we have no money,” the adviser said.   Environmentalists say the muted plans point to a government that remains mired in crisis and shows little interest in prioritizing climate change. Lecornu is laser-focused on getting a budget passed before the end of the year, whereas Macron’s packed agenda sees him hopscotching across the globe to tackle geopolitical crises and touring France to talk about his push to regulate social media.  Anne Bringault, program director at the Climate Action Network, accused the government of trying to minimize the anniversary of the treaty “on the sly” because there “is no political support” for a celebration. Some hope the government will use the occasion to present an update of its climate roadmap, the national low-carbon strategy, which is more than two years overdue.  They also still hope that Lecornu will change his plans and show up to mark the occasion. Apart from his trip to his fiefdom in the Eure, the prime minister’s schedule shows no appointments. His office told POLITICO that Lecornu has no plans to change his schedule for the time being.  As for Macron, it’s still unclear what he’ll be doing on Friday. This story is adapted from an article published by POLITICO in French.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission said it will “make sure” it receives money owed by Elon Musk’s X after the company was fined €120 million for failing to meet transparency rules. The Commission on Friday said X has breached transparency and deceptive design obligations under the EU’s platforms regulation, the Digital Services Act, and issued the €120 million penalty. The decision set off a cascade of accusations of censorship from U.S. officials, Musk and his supporters, with some suggesting the company should refuse to pay the fine. “X will have to pay that fine. The €120 million will have to be paid. We will make sure that we get this money,” Commission Spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters during a daily press briefing, when asked how the EU can ensure that X pays the penalty. He noted X still has the opportunity to challenge the decision in court. “There are procedural steps to take into account, and any decision taken by the Commission can be challenged in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union,” he said. Speaking to POLITICO after the briefing, Regnier called for patience: “Let’s not jump the gun. We have just taken a decision and issued a fine to X. The company now has to pay the fine and [has] 90 days to get back to us.” X has repeatedly gone to court to challenge regulatory decisions it disagrees with. The company has not yet said whether it will appeal Friday’s decision. X has yet to issue an official company response, with its Global Government Affairs account, which voices the company’s views on regulatory matters, reposting U.S. officials’ views. Musk on Saturday threatened action against both the EU and unnamed individuals. “The ‘EU’ imposed this crazy fine not just on [X], but also on me personally, which is even more insane!” he wrote on X. “Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but also to the individuals who took this action against me.” The company hasn’t replied to POLITICO’s repeated requests for comment. Regnier also justified the Commission’s continued use of X as a platform for corporate communications, despite the severity of anti-EU comments posted by Musk over the weekend and the platform’s decision to suspend the Commission’s account for paid advertising. The EU executive uses 15 social media platforms and hasn’t made a decision to suspend its use of X, Regnier said. All these platforms are ways to “get in touch to citizens, stakeholders, to do some outreach work, to precisely speak about what we are doing in the EU,” he said. Statements comparing the EU to Nazi Germany are “part of the freedom of speech that we very much praise in the EU,” which “allows even for the craziest statements that you can imagine,” Chief Spokesperson Paula Pinho said. The Commission stopped “using paid advertising or any paid services for X” in 2023 and its regular account remains open, Regnier said. The Commission did not respond to questions as to whether it has heard from U.S. officials directly on the matter since the fine was announced. Regnier said the EU executive remains in touch with the company and that X was informed ahead of the announcement.

BRUSSELS — European politicians expressed cautious praise as Brussels slapped a €120 million fine on Elon Musk’s X on Friday, despite American fury over the decision.  The reaction from national diplomats and lawmakers illustrated broad support as the EU finally crossed a Rubicon and issued its first fine under the EU’s rule book to rein in social media platforms, more than two years after it started its enforcement effort.  The divide between the reaction from European capitals and U.S. Vice President JD Vance — who slammed the move before it was announced — sets up a clash that is set to persist as Brussels turns its attention to more enforcement decisions under the Digital Services Act (DSA), and will likely spill into ongoing transatlantic trade talks. Friday’s decision “sends an important signal that the Commission is determined to enforce the DSA,” said Karsten Wildberger, Germany’s digital minister, during a meeting of EU ministers in Brussels. Polish Digital Minister Dariusz Standerski applauded it as a sign of “strong leadership.” After French President Emmanuel Macron last week expressed outspoken criticism of the EU for slow-walking the conclusions, his digital minister, Anne Le Hénanff, said Friday: “France fully supports this decision … which sends a clear message to all platforms.” She later described it as a “magnificent announcement.” Washington meanwhile was quick out of the gate to slam the move from Brussels, with Vance chiming in half a day before the fine was announced to describe it as a penalty “for not engaging in censorship.” He repeated the U.S. mantra of the past year that the EU’s DSA amounts to censorship and restricted speech. “Once again, Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company,” said Brendan Carr, the chair of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in reaction to the decision. “Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.” “The only substantial meaningful fines that have been imposed so far have been against American companies,” Andrew Puzder, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, told Bloomberg Television. “So at some point, if you’re an American company, you’ve gotta sit back and say, look, am I being targeted here?” Asked for a response, the White House directed POLITICO to Vance’s earlier post. Much of the praise in Europe focused on the assessment that the EU didn’t bow to U.S. pressure, neither on the actual fine nor the enforcement steps — even if the move was seen as long overdue. “The Commission held the line,” said Felix Kartte, currently a special adviser to the European Commission.   “It’s important that the EU does not cave to pressure,” said Marietje Schaake, a former MEP and former Commission adviser.  “I am very pleased to see that the Commission is taking serious steps against the intolerable practices we encounter from some of the major tech platforms. Let’s have more of that!” said Danish digital minister Caroline Stage Olsen.  Several European Parliament lawmakers joined the praise but warned this is only the beginning, noting this is the first of several outstanding probes under the DSA, including others against X. Friday’s decision only concerned X’s transparency obligations; X still faces open probes over the spread of illegal content and information manipulation.  In total, 10 investigations into large platforms including Amazon, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are still up in the air. “This is an important start, but not a breakthrough,” said German Greens lawmaker Alexandra Geese. “As long as the Commission fails to rule on the algorithms, the central level of manipulation remains untouched.”   French liberal lawmaker Sandro Gozi urged that “this long overdue decision must mark a step change,” while Danish Social Democrat Christel Schaldemose said she wanted “far greater transparency” on how the Commission enforces the DSA.  Speaking to reporters Friday, Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen stressed repeatedly that this is only part of the investigation into X. Acknowledging the criticisms that the EU has been slow to reach this point, she promised that the next decisions would come quicker.   Other observers criticized the size of the X penalty. A fine of €120 million is seen as relatively modest compared to the €2.95 billion fine that Google got for antitrust issues under the bloc’s sister digital law, the Digital Markets Act.   “120m is no deterrent to X,” said Cori Crider, executive director at the Future of Technology Institute. “Musk will moan in public — in private, he will be doing cartwheels.”   “Yes, the fine may seem small,” acknowledged Kartte. The DSA law says fines will take into account “the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement” and cannot exceed 6 percent of a company’s annual global turnover.  Commission officials refused to give a clear answer on how they came to the €120 million figure when pressed. A senior official repeatedly said the fine is “proportionate” to the infringement. But how it was calculated can’t be “drilled down to a simple economic formula,” they said. The official said the Commission has found three entities behind X; X Holdings Companies, xAI and Elon Musk “at the top.”   The fine is “for a breach committed by X” but “addressed to the entire corporate structure,” Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters.   Based on estimates of company values, that means the upper threshold could have reached as high as €5.9 billion.

A pair of documents laying out the Trump administration’s global security strategy have been delayed for weeks due in part to changes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted on concerning China, according to three people familiar with the discussions on the strategies. The documents — the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy — were initially expected to be released earlier this fall. Both are now almost done and will likely be released this month, one of the people said. The second person confirmed the imminent release of the National Security Strategy, and the third confirmed that the National Defense Strategy was coming very soon. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The strategies went through multiple rounds of revisions after Bessent wanted more work done on the language used to discuss China, given sensitivity over ongoing trade negotiations with Beijing and the elevation of the Western Hemisphere as a higher priority than it had been in previous administrations, the people said. The National Security Strategy has been used by successive administrations to outline their overall strategic priorities from the economic sphere to dealing with allies and adversaries and military posture. The drafting goes through a series of readthroughs and comment periods from Cabinet officials in an attempt to capture the breadth of an administrations’ vision and ensure the entire administration is marching in the same direction on the president’s top issues. The administration has been involved in sensitive trade talks with Beijing for months over tariffs and a variety of trade issues, but the Pentagon has maintained its position that China remains the top military rival to the United States. The extent of the changes after Bessent’s requests remains unclear, but two of the people said that Bessent wanted to soften some of the language concerning Chinese activities while declining to provide more details. Any changes to one document would require similar changes to the other, as they must be in sync to express a unified front. It is common for the Treasury secretary and other Cabinet officials to weigh in during the drafting and debate process of crafting a new strategy, as most administrations will only release one National Security Strategy per term. In a statement, the Treasury Department said that Bessent “is 100 percent aligned with President Trump, as is everyone else in this administration, as to how to best manage the relationship with China.” The White House referred to the Treasury Department. Trump administration officials have alternately decried the threat from China and looked for ways to improve relations with Beijing. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver a speech on Friday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on Pentagon efforts to build weapons more quickly to meet the China challenge. At the same time, Hegseth is working with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Dong Jun, to set up a U.S.-China military communication system aimed to prevent disagreements or misunderstandings from spiraling into unintended conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Bessent told the New ‍York Times Dealbook summit on Wednesday that China was on schedule to meet the pledges it made under a ‌U.S.-China trade agreement, including purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by February 2026. “China is on track to ‍keep every ⁠part of the deal,” ⁠he said. Those moves by administration officials are set against the massive Chinese military buildup in the Indo-Pacific region and tensions over Beijing’s belligerent attitude toward the Philippines, where Beijing and Manila have been facing off over claims of land masses and reefs in the South China Sea. The U.S. has been supplying the Philippines with more sophisticated weaponry in recent years in part to ward off the Chinese threat. China has also consistently flown fighter planes and bombers and sailed warships close to Taiwan’s shores despite the Taiwan Relations Act, an American law that pledges the U.S. to keep close ties with the independent island. The National Security Strategy, which is put out by every administration, hasn’t been updated since 2022 under the Biden administration. That document highlighted three core themes: strategic competition with China and Russia; renewed investment and focus on domestic industrial policy; and the recognition that climate change is a central challenge that touches all aspects of national security. The strategy is expected to place more emphasis on the Western Hemisphere than previous strategies, which focused on the Middle East, counterterrorism, China and Russia. The new strategy will include those topics but also focus on topics such as migration, drug cartels and relations with Latin America — all under the umbrella of protecting the U.S. homeland. That new National Defense Strategy similarly places more emphasis on protecting the U.S. homeland and the Western Hemisphere, as POLITICO first reported, a choice that has caused some concern among military commanders. Both documents are expected to be followed by the “global posture review,” a look at how U.S. military assets are positioned across the globe, and which is being eagerly anticipated by allies from Germany to South Korea, both of which are home to tens of thousands of U.S. troops who might be moved elsewhere.

Europe’s security does not depend solely on our physical borders and their defense. It rests on something far less visible, and far more sensitive: the digital networks that keep our societies, economies and democracies functioning every second of the day. > Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a > halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. A recent study by Copenhagen Economics confirms that telecom operators have become the first line of defense in Europe’s security architecture. Their networks power essential services ranging from emergency communications and cross-border healthcare to energy systems, financial markets, transport and, increasingly, Europe’s defense capabilities. Without resilient networks, the daily workings of Europe would grind to a halt, and so too would any attempt to build meaningful defense readiness. This reality forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: Europe cannot build credible defense capabilities on top of an economically strained, structurally fragmented telecom sector. Yet this is precisely the risk today. A threat landscape outpacing Europe’s defenses The challenges facing Europe are evolving faster than our political and regulatory systems can respond. In 2023 alone, ENISA recorded 188 major incidents, causing 1.7 billion lost user-hours, the equivalent of taking entire cities offline. While operators have strengthened their systems and outage times fell by more than half in 2024 compared with the previous year, despite a growing number of incidents, the direction of travel remains clear: cyberattacks are more sophisticated, supply chains more vulnerable and climate-related physical disruptions more frequent. Hybrid threats increasingly target civilian digital infrastructure as a way to weaken states. Telecom networks, once considered as technical utilities, have become a strategic asset essential to Europe’s stability. > Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, > pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO > interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of > sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Our allies recognize this. NATO recently encouraged members to spend up to 1.5 percent of their GDP on protecting critical infrastructure. Secretary General Mark Rutte also urged investment in cyber defense, AI, and cloud technologies, highlighting the military benefits of cloud scalability and edge computing – all of which rely on high-quality, resilient networks. This is a clear political signal that telecom security is not merely an operational matter but a geopolitical priority. The link between telecoms and defense is deeper than many realize. As also explained in the recent Arel report, Much More than a Network, modern defense capabilities rely largely on civilian telecom networks. Strong fiber backbones, advanced 5G and future 6G systems, resilient cloud and edge computing, satellite connectivity, and data centers form the nervous system of military logistics, intelligence and surveillance. Europe cannot deploy cross-border defense capabilities without resilient, pan-European digital infrastructure. Nor can it guarantee NATO interoperability with 27 national markets, divergent rules and dozens of sub-scale operators unable to invest at continental scale. Fragmentation has become one of Europe’s greatest strategic vulnerabilities. The reform Europe needs: An investment boost for digital networks At the same time, Europe expects networks to become more resilient, more redundant, less dependent on foreign technology and more capable of supporting defense-grade applications. Security and resilience are not side tasks for telecom operators, they are baked into everything they do. From procurement and infrastructure design to daily operations, operators treat these efforts as core principles shaping how networks are built, run and protected. Therefore, as the Copenhagen Economics study shows, the level of protection Europe now requires will demand substantial additional capital. > It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to > emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. This is the right ambition, but the economic model underpinning the sector does not match these expectations. Due to fragmentation and over-regulation, Europe’s telecom market invests less per capita than global peers, generates roughly half the return on capital of operators in the United States and faces rising costs linked to expanding security obligations. It is unrealistic to expect world-class, defense-ready infrastructure to emerge from a model that has become structurally unsustainable. A shift in policy priorities is therefore essential. Europe must place investment in security and resilience at the center of its political agenda. Policy must allow this reality to be reflected in merger assessments, reduce overlapping security rules and provide public support where the public interest exceeds commercial considerations. This is not state aid; it is strategic social responsibility. Completing the single market for telecommunications is central to this agenda. A fragmented market cannot produce the secure, interoperable, large-scale solutions required for modern defense. The Digital Networks Act must simplify and harmonize rules across the EU, supported by a streamlined governance that distinguishes between domestic matters and cross-border strategic issues. Spectrum policy must also move beyond national silos, allowing Europe to avoid conflicts with NATO over key bands and enabling coherent next-generation deployments. Telecom policy nowadays is also defense policy. When we measure investment gaps in digital network deployment, we still tend to measure simple access to 5G and fiber. However, we should start considering that — if security, resilience and defense-readiness are to be taken into account — the investment gap is much higher that the €200 billion already estimated by the European Commission. Europe’s strategic choice The momentum for stronger European defense is real — but momentum fades if it is not seized. If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to support advanced defense applications. In that scenario, Europe’s democratic resilience would erode in parallel with its economic competitiveness, leaving the continent more exposed to geopolitical pressure and technological dependency. > If Europe fails to modernize and secure its telecom infrastructure now, it > risks entering the next decade with a weakened industrial base, chronic > underinvestment, dependence on non-EU technologies and networks unable to > support advanced defense applications. Europe still has time to change course and put telecoms at the center of its agenda — not as a technical afterthought, but as a core pillar of its defense strategy. The time for incremental steps has passed. Europe must choose to build the network foundations of its security now or accept that its strategic ambitions will remain permanently out of reach. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Connect Europe AISBL * The ultimate controlling entity is Connect Europe AISBL * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU digital, telecom and industrial policy, including initiatives such as the Digital Networks Act, Digital Omnibus, and connectivity, cybersecurity, and defence frameworks aimed at strengthening Europe’s digital competitiveness. More information here.

A large part of Airbus’s global fleet was grounded after the European airplane maker discovered a technical malfunction linked to solar radiation in its A320 family of aircraft. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency announced on Friday evening that it was temporarily pausing flights on certain Airbus planes after a JetBlue flight from Florida to Mexico had to make an emergency landing after a sudden loss of altitude. Media reports indicate that some 15 people were hospitalized after the incident. Airbus said in a statement late Friday that it had identified an issue with its workhorse A320 planes. “Intense solar radiation may corrupt data critical to the functioning of flight controls,” it said, adding that it had “identified a significant number” of affected aircraft. A number of airlines around Europe announced that they were affected, including Lufthansa, Swiss and Austrian Airlines. Brussels Airlines said that none of its flights was impacted. Sara Ricci, communications chief for Airbus’s commercial aircraft division, said that some 6,000 aircraft were affected, but that for 85 percent of the impacted aircraft, it would be a “quick fix” to the planes’ software. “The vast majority will be back in the sky very soon,” Ricci said.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

The European Space Agency’s members approved a record €22.1 billion three-year budget and widened its mandate to include security and defense — a big change for an organization that had been dedicated “exclusively” to the peaceful use of space. “ESA’s intergovernmental framework provides the credentials and tools for developing space technologies and systems … for security and defence,” read the resolution adopted this week by the organization’s 23 members, according to a slide shared with reporters Thursday The ESA called the move a “historic change.” The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of space assets, both for intelligence gathering and secure communications. Europe is also looking to cut its reliance on U.S. companies, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX. In one example of the shift, the ESA’s new dual-use Earth observation project dubbed the European Resilience from Space, could have both civilian and military applications. Poland played a leading role in pushing for the ESA to be more involved in defense, the agency’s Director General  Josef Aschbacher told reporters. Warsaw and the organization are currently discussing setting up a new ESA centre in Poland that would focus on security. The budget includes €3.4 billion for Earth observation, €2.1 billion for secure communications and €900 million to develop European rocket launchers. That’s a significant increase compared to the previous budget of nearly €17 billion. “This is amazing,” Aschbacher said of the larger budget. Germany is the lead contributor, at about €5 billion, with France and Italy following at more than €3 billion each.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will provide a financial band-aid next year to Baltic nations suffering collateral economic damage from EU sanctions against Russia. The region is being hit particularly hard because of falls in tourism and investment, along with the collapse of cross-border trade. Regions Commissioner Raffaele Fitto is leading the plan, which aims to kickstart the economies of Finland and its Baltic neighbors, according to diplomats and Commission officials who were granted anonymity to speak freely. The intended recipients are also heading to Brussels with a lengthy wish list, hoping Fitto’s plan will reignite their economies. Their concerns will take center stage during a summit of leaders from Eastern European countries in Helsinki on Dec. 16. “We want to have special attention to our region — the eastern flank, including Lithuania — because we see the negative impact coming from the geopolitical situation,” Lithuania’s Europe minister, Sigitas Mitkus, said in an interview with POLITICO earlier this month. “Sometimes it’s difficult to convince [investors] that … we have all the facilities in place.” But skeptics warn that any immediate financial support Fitto can provide will be meager, given the scale of the challenge and with the bloc’s seven-year budget running low. The EU has agreed 19 sanction packages against Moscow in a bid to cripple the Russian war economy, which has bankrolled the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. In doing so, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all taken a hit. While the threat of a Kremlin invasion has deterred tourists and investors, the sanctions have choked off cross-border trade with Russia, and everything has been made worse by skyrocketing inflation after the pandemic. Dwindling housing prices have also made it more difficult for businesses to provide collateral to secure loans from banks. “People who had cross-border connections with some economic consequences have lost them,” Jürgen Ligi, Estonia’s finance minister, told POLITICO. A native of Tartu on Estonia’s eastern flank, Ligi has witnessed these problems first-hand as he owns a house only four kilometers from the Russian border. “Estonia’s economy has suffered the most from the war [which caused] problems with investments and jobs,” Ligi added. According to the Commission’s latest forecast, Estonia is expected to grow by only 0.6 percent in 2025 — well below the EU average — even though economic activity is expected to pick up in 2026 and 2027. The EU has agreed 19 sanction packages against Moscow in a bid to cripple the Russian war economy, which has bankrolled the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. | Sefa Karacan/Getty Images In another sign of financial strain, Finland breached the Commission’s spending rules in 2025 due to excessive spending and an economic slowdown caused by the war. “We will be acknowledging the difficult economic situation Finland is facing, including the geopolitical and the closure of the Russian border,” EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, said on Tuesday. SCRAPING THE BARREL But Fitto’s options could be limited until the bloc’s new seven-year budget, known as the multi-annual financial framework (MFF), is in place by 2028. “My sense is that the communication won’t come with fresh money but with ideas that can be pursued in the next MFF,” said an EU diplomat who was granted anonymity to discuss upcoming legislation. Mindful of dwindling resources in the EU’s current cash pot, Lithuania’s Mitkus is demanding that Baltic firms get preferential access to the EU’s new funding programs from 2028 — something that is currently lacking in the Commission’s budget proposal from July. Officials from the frontline states are exploring other options. These include Brussels loosening state aid rules so they can subsidize struggling firms, and getting the European Investment Bank to provide guarantees to companies that want to invest in the region. While the upcoming strategy will draw attention to these problems, officials privately admit that it’s unlikely to mobilize enough cash to solve them immediately. “It will build the narrative that in the next MFF you can do something for [pressing issues for Eastern regions such as] drones production,” said the EU diplomat quoted above. But until 2028, “I don’t expect any new money.”