Dora Meredith is the director of ODI Europe. John Clarke is a former senior trade negotiator for the European Commission and former head of the EU Delegation to the WTO and the U.N. He is a fellow at Maastricht University and the Royal Asiatic Society, and a trade adviser for FIPRA public affairs. The EU rarely gets second chances in geopolitics. Yet last week, the European Parliament chose to throw one away. By voting to refer the long-awaited trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc to the Court of Justice of the EU for a legal opinion — a process that may take up two years — lawmakers dealt a serious blow to Europe’s credibility at a moment when speed and reliability matter more than ever. After more than two decades of negotiations, this deal was meant to signal that Europe could still act decisively in a world of intensifying geopolitical competition. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argued this month, it was the ultimate test of Europe’s continued relevance on the world stage. Oblivious to this, the Parliament’s decision reinforces the perception that the bloc is unable to follow through, even when an agreement is finally within reach. It is, by any reasonable measure, a strategic own goal. The consequences of this go well beyond trade. Mercosur governments spent years negotiating this free trade agreement (FTA) in good faith, navigating Europe’s hesitation, shifting demands and inconsistent political signals. Understandably, they are now interpreting the referral to the court as a political move. For partners already hedging their bets in an increasingly contested global landscape, it reinforces doubts over whether Europe can be relied on. Meanwhile, for Europe, the true damage is to a deeper truth it all too often obscures: That its real power comes from the ability to make such agreements and then implement them seriously, consistently and at scale. The EU–Mercosur agreement isn’t just another trade deal. It was designed as a framework for long-term economic, political and strategic partnership with a region where Europe’s influence has been steadily eroding. It offers comprehensive market access in goods and services, clearer investment rules, access to critical materials, structured political dialogue and a cooperation-based approach to managing disputes. Taken together, it is meant to anchor Europe more firmly in South America at a time when others, most notably China, have moved faster and with fewer constraints. And while that level of ambition hasn’t disappeared with the Parliament’s vote, it has been put at serious risk. Over the years, much of the criticism surrounding the Mercosur deal has focused on sustainability. Indeed, if eventually passed, this will be the litmus test for whether the EU can translate its values into influence. And to that end, the deal makes a wide set of previously voluntary commitments legally binding, including the implementation of the Paris climate targets and adherence to international conventions on labor rights, human rights, biodiversity and environmental protection. However, it does so through dialogue-based enforcement rather than automatic withdrawal in the face of noncompliance — an approach that reflects the political realities in both Brussels and the Mercosur countries. This has disappointed those calling for tougher regulation, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: Europe’s leverage over sustainability outcomes doesn’t come from pretending it can coerce partners into compliance but from sustained engagement and cooperation. That was a red line for Mercosur governments, and without it there would be no agreement at all. The deal’s novel “rebalancing mechanism” sits within this logic, as it allows Mercosur countries to suspend concessions if future unforeseen EU regulations effectively negate promised market access. Critics fear this provision could be used to challenge future EU sustainability measures, but Mercosur countries see it as a safeguard against possible unilateral EU action, as exemplified by the Deforestation Regulation. Moreover, in practice, such mechanisms are rarely used. Plus, its inclusion was the price of securing an additional sustainability protocol. Most crucially, though, none of this will resolve itself through legal delay. On the contrary, postponement weakens Europe’s ability to shape outcomes on the ground. Research from Brazil’s leading climate institutes shows that ambitious international engagement strengthens domestic pro‑environment coalitions by increasing transparency, resources and political leverage. Absence, by contrast, creates space for actors with far lower standards. South American and EU leaders join hands following the signing of the now-delayed Mercosur agreement, Jan. 17, 2026., Paraguay. | Daniel Duarte/AFP via Getty Images The same logic applies to the deal’s economic dimension. The Commission rightly highlights the headline figures: Billions of euros in tariff savings, expanded market access, secure access to critical minerals and growing trade. According to a recent study by the European Centre for International Political Economy, each month of delay represents €3 billion in foregone exports. But these numbers matter less than what lies beneath them: Europe will be gaining all this while offering limited concessions in sensitive agricultural sectors; and Mercosur countries will be gaining access to the world’s largest single market — but only if they can meet demanding regulatory and environmental standards that could strain domestic capacity. Again, the real power lies in the deal’s implementation. If managed well, such pressures can drive investment, modernize standards and reduce dependence on raw commodity exports as Latin American think tanks have argued. This transition is precisely what the EU’s €1.8 billion Global Gateway investment package was designed to support. And delaying the agreement delays that as well. The Parliament’s decision isn’t just a procedural setback — it damages Europe’s greatest strength at a time when hesitation carries real cost. It also creates an immediate institutional dilemma for the Commission. Despite the judicial stay, the Commission is legally free to apply the agreement provisionally, but this is a difficult call: Apply it and enter a firestorm of criticism about avoiding democratic controls that will backfire the day the Parliament finally gets to vote on the agreement; or accept a two-year delay and postpone the deal’s economic benefits possibly indefinitely — Mercosur countries aren’t going to hold out forever. If it is going to recover, over the coming months Europe has to do everything possible to demonstrate both to its Mercosur partners and the wider world that this delay doesn’t amount to disengagement. This means sustained political dialogue, credible commitments on investment and cooperation — including the rollout of the Global Gateway — as well as a clear plan for the deal’s implementation the moment this legal process concludes. Two years is an eternity in today’s geopolitical climate. If Europe allows this moment to pass without course correction, others won’t wait. The deal might be imperfect, but irrelevance is far worse a fate. Europe must be much bolder in communicating that reality — to the world and, perhaps more urgently, to its own public.

Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

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.

Dear Commissioner Kadis, We write on behalf of hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens, as well as scientists, small-scale fishers and civil society organisations, with one demand: End bottom trawling in Europe’s marine protected areas (MPAs). This year has seen unprecedented momentum and mobilisation toward that goal. The EU Ocean Pact consultation was flooded with submissions calling for a ban on bottom trawling. Over 250, 000 citizens signed petitions. Legal complaints have been filed. Courts ruled for conservation. Scientific studies continued to reinforce the ecological and social benefits of removing destructive gear. And member states are moving ahead on marine protection — with Sweden and Greece banning bottom trawling in their MPAs, and Denmark beginning the same across 19 percent of its waters. In your recent remarks at the PECH Committee, you said: “I will repeat my position regarding banning bottom trawling in MPAs. I am not in favor of one size fits all. What I am saying is that in MPAs we can have management plans, as foreseen in the relevant legislation. The management plans can identify which activities are compatible with what we want to protect. If bottom trawling is compatible, it can continue. If not, it should be stopped. I could not imagine a Natura 2000 area, where the seabed is of high value and vulnerable, having a management plan that would allow bottom trawling.” Your own remarks acknowledged that bottom trawling should not occur in Natura 2000 sites that protect valuable and vulnerable seabeds. Yet this is the case today, and has been the case for the last three decades. Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for the status quo to continue. This case by case approach that you describe is not protection; it risks prolonging decades of inaction by sidestepping the precautionary and preventative principle enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, indulging member state inertia instead of ensuring coordinated EU leadership. It is a dangerous step backward from the EU international commitment to halt marine biodiversity loss, and undermines the EU’s own legal framework including the Habitats Directive. As a biologist, you know that destructive fishing methods such as bottom trawling by definition damage habitats, species, and ecosystems — and that these impacts are incompatible with the conservation objectives of MPAs. The scientific consensus is clear: bottom trawling and protection cannot coexist. > Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for > the status quo to continue. Protect Our Catch The Habitats Directive does indeed provide for individual assessments in relation to the impacts of an activity in a protected area — but the crucial point is that such assessments must be carried out before any activity with likely significant effects can be authorised. Consistent with the precautionary principle, the starting position is therefore that bottom trawling in Natura 2000 MPAs is unlawful — unless an individual assessment can prove that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects. If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they begin. Citizens, fishers, and scientists will see yet another series of paper park policies that undermine trust in EU leadership. So we ask: Commissioner, whose voices will the Commission prioritise? The 73 percent of EU citizens who support a ban? The 76 percent of the EU fleet who are small-scale fishers, providing more jobs with less impact? Or the industrial lobby, whose case by case arguments risk echoing in your speeches? > If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its > own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the > credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they > begin. Furthermore, a case by case approach for the 5, 000 EU MPAs creates disproportionate and unnecessary administrative burden, whereas a just and consequent transition to a full end to bottom trawling in all MPAs under the Habitats Directive would be in line with the EU’s simplification agenda. It would not only contribute to the necessary clarity, simplicity and level playing field, but also replenish fishing grounds through spill-over effects that benefit fisheries. This year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice laid bare the hypocrisy of bottom trawling in so-called protected areas. The Ocean Pact offered a chance to correct course, but ultimately delivered only aspirational goals and an endorsement of the continuation of the status quo. We urge you to: Commit now to including legally binding targets in the Ocean Act that would phase out destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in MPAs, ensuring healthy seas and a secure future for Europe’s low-impact fishers and the communities they sustain. As a scientist, you are aware of the evidence. As a Commissioner, you must act on it. This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal communities. The time for ambiguity has passed. The question is no longer whether to act case by case, but whether the Commission will demonstrate leadership by standing with citizens and fishers — rather than leaving space for industrial interests to dominate. > This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; > it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal > communities. History will judge your leadership not on how carefully you calibrated the rhetoric, but by whether you delivered real protection for Europe’s seas and the people who depend on them. Sincerely, Protect Our Catch Protect Our Catch is a new European campaign supported by leading ocean advocates Seas At Risk, Oceana, BLOOM, Blue Marine Foundation, DMA, Empesca’t, Environmental Justice Foundation, Only One and Tara Ocean Foundation, in collaboration with fishers, that joins hundreds of thousands of citizen activists is calling on European leaders to ban destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

[1] https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net/ [2] Satellite sea surface temperature measurements began in 1982; ocean heat content estimates are derived from in situ observations that started in 1960. [3] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/world/europe/spain-beach-blue-dragon-sea-slugs.html#:~:text=The%20arrival%20of%20the%20tiny,what%20they’re%20dealing%20with. [5] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [6] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/

Europe’s trees are having a nightmare 2025. As the European Union reels from its worst wildfire season on record, two different EU laws aimed at protecting forests this week fell victim to the anti-red tape wave sweeping Brussels. On Tuesday, Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall announced that the European Commission planned to delay the implementation of its flagship anti-deforestation law. Then, just hours later, lawmakers voted to reject a separate law designed to monitor forests’ health and resilience to climate change. “Between Forest Monitoring and the one-year delay of the [EU Deforestation Regulation], this is a dark day for European forests,” said Socialists and Democrats Member of the European Parliament Eric Sargiacomo. Forest ecosystems are home to over half of the world’s terrestrial species and, as natural absorbers of carbon dioxide, they play a crucial role in combating climate change. Protecting them has therefore been a central pillar of the EU’s environmental policy. But as the EU’s priorities shift toward industrial competitiveness and defense, support for forest protections has waned. Announcing the proposed delay of the anti-deforestation rules, Roswall cited issues with the IT system handling businesses’ due diligence statements as the rationale. But the move falls in step with a long-standing demand from the center-right European People’s Party, the bloc’s biggest political group and one of the loudest agitators for slashing EU regulations. The law — which requires companies to police their supply chains to make sure any commodities they use, such as palm oil, beef or coffee, have not contributed to deforestation — was adopted in 2023 and already delayed by a year in 2024 following calls by businesses saying they needed more time to comply. This week’s announcement is seen as the latest in a long string of actions by the Commission since late last year to weaken or delay environmental rules passed under the European Green Deal, part of a grand push to boost the global competitiveness of European industry. In a second blow to Europe’s trees, later that Tuesday MEPs voted against proposed EU forest monitoring rules, following motions to reject the law presented by the center-right EPP, the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Patriots for Europe group. It spells a complicated way forward for the law, which sets out rules for collecting data on the health of Europe’s forests, with the goal of improving management and protecting them from climate change. “Without the detailed, specific evidence on Europe’s forests this law would provide, it will be immeasurably harder to support forest owners to adapt to the climate crisis and secure a sustainable wood supply for industry,” said Kelsey Perlman, a campaigner at the forest NGO Fern. “Poorer information will inevitably lead to unhealthier forests,” she added. EPP CLAIMS VICTORY Both developments are being claimed as wins by the EPP, which sees the laws as antithetical to the EU’s ongoing simplification drive. The EPP has “protected foresters from unnecessary paperwork by rejecting the Monitoring Framework for Resilient European Forests,” the group said in a press statement, having voted with right-wing and far-right groups to reject the law. That rejection still has to go to a plenary vote, but the outcome is likely to be the same. As for the EU’s deforestation rules, the Commission’s push to delay shows that “our consistent criticism has finally been taken seriously,” said EPP MEP Alexander Bernhuber. | Armin Weigel/Picture Alliance via Getty Images “Ursula von der Leyen declared 25 percent less bureaucracy,” said MEP Stefan Köhler, referring to a promise from the Commission president — who also hails from the EPP — to create a “more favorable” business environment through an “unprecedented simplification effort.” “The Commission should therefore recall 100 percent of [the forest monitoring law],” Köhler added. As for the EU’s deforestation rules, the Commission’s push to delay shows that “our consistent criticism has finally been taken seriously,” said EPP MEP Alexander Bernhuber. But a delay isn’t enough, he added, calling for “substantial changes” to be delivered in the “coming weeks.” That’s got fire alarm bells ringing on the left flank of the Parliament. “European forests are burning, and the EPP, allied with the far right, prefers to play the arsonist by blocking all European legislation aimed at sustainable forest management,” said Sargiacomo, the Socialist MEP. “Once again EPP proved that they prioritize populist gains instead of taking responsibility,” said Swedish centrist lawmaker Emma Wiesner of the forest monitoring vote, who led work on the file. TURN IT OFF AND ON AGAIN The Commission, for its part, on Tuesday stressed the importance of the EU’s anti-deforestation push and cited an issue with the IT system that deals with the submission of businesses’ due diligence statements as the rationale for postponing. It wouldn’t be able to handle all the notifications coming from economic operators, said a Commission official. “This is a first of a kind legislation in terms of the scope and the sophistication of the provisions in the EUDR,” said the official. “As always, when you have no blueprint, you have a great number of uncertainties in the design of the implementation mechanisms, and this is particularly true when it comes to IT systems.” Business groups have long complained about the impracticality of the EU’s system for proving they’re compliant. But Green groups and MEPs are having none of it. “This would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic,” said ClientEarth lawyer Michael Rice in a press statement. “The Commission is making a fool of itself by using its own inadequate IT system as an excuse to delay the world’s most important forest law for a second time in 12 months.” The Commission also had to bat away accusations of caving to pressure from upset trade partners like the United States and major palm oil exporter Indonesia. In a joint statement issued by the EU and the U.S. last month, formalizing their tariff truce, the EU made a vague promise to address U.S. concerns regarding the EU’s deforestation law. Tuesday’s announcement also came one day after the EU finalized a new trade agreement with major palm oil exporter Indonesia — whose foreign affairs ministry said last week it was hoping for new flexibility in the law. “Receiving this news on the same day that we learn of the signing of a free-trade agreement with Indonesia favoring palm oil is more than disturbing,” said Green MEP Marie Toussaint. “After bowing her head to Donald Trump, is Ursula von der Leyen ready to sacrifice the European model to every foreign whim?” Louise Guillot contributed to this report.

LONDON — It was June 2019, and the president of the United States was taking tea with the future British king.  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half.   Trump could barely get a word in edgeways. Charles did “most of the talking,” the president told a TV interviewer the day after they met.   One topic dominated. “He is …” Trump said, hesitating momentarily, “… he is really into climate change.”  Without global action on the climate, Charles wrote back in 2010, the world is on “the brink of potential disaster.” At the London royal residence Clarence House during Trump’s first U.K. state visit, face-to-face with its most powerful inhabitant, Charles decided to speak on behalf of the planet.  It was tea with a side of climate catastrophe.   Six years on, the stage is set for Charles — now king — to try to sway the president again. A second term Trump — bolder, brasher, and no less destructive to global efforts to tackle climate change — is heading back to the U.K. for an unprecedented second state visit and to another meeting with the king. They meet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday.  In the years between the two visits — with extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding increasingly attributed to a changing climate — Charles’ convictions have only strengthened, say those who know him well.  “His views have not changed and will not change. If anything I think he feels it, probably, more strongly than ever,” said the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend and biographer of the king. “It seems self-evident to me, therefore, that he would regard President Trump’s attitude towards climate change and the environment as potentially calamitous.”   But stakes are higher for the king in 2025 than in 2019. The meeting represents an extraordinary influencing opportunity for a monarch who has spent his life deploying “soft power” in the service of cherished environmental causes. But now he is head of state, any overtly political conversation about climate change risks stress-testing the U.K.’s constitutional settlement between government and monarch.  Charles has a duty, says constitutional expert Craig Prescott, to “support the [elected] government of the day in what they want to achieve in foreign relations.”  And “in a broad sense,” he added, “that means ‘getting on the good side of Trump.’”  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half. | Pool Photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images Labour’s focus on an ambitious green transition, though, gives the king some leeway to speak in favor of international climate action.  Both Dimbleby and Ian Skelly, a former speechwriter for Charles who co-wrote his 2010 book Harmony, expect him to do exactly that.  “I would be astonished if in this meeting, as at the last meeting , he does not raise the issue of climate change and biodiversity in any chance he has to speak privately to Trump,” said Dimbleby.   The king will be “diplomatic,” Dimbleby added, and would heed his “constitutional duty,” avoiding “saying anything that will allow Trump to think there is a bus ticket between him and the British government. … But he won’t avoid the issue. He cares about it too much.”  “He knows exactly where the limits are,” said Skelly. “He’s not going to start banging the table or anything. … He will outline his concerns in general terms, I have no doubt about that — and perhaps warn the most powerful person in the world about the dangers of doing nothing.”  Buckingham Palace and Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether the king would raise climate with Trump, or whether this has been discussed in preparations for the state visit.  HAVE YOU READ MY BOOK, MR. PRESIDENT?  In the time since that tea at Clarence House, the President has shown no sign that Charles’ entreaties on the part of the planet had any impact. (And they didn’t have much effect at the time, by one insider’s account. Trump complained the conversation “had been terrible,” wrote former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham in her memoir.  “‘Nothing but climate change,’ he groused, rolling his eyes.”)  The U.S. has once again withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. Trump’s Department of Energy has rejected established climate science. America’s fossil fuel firms and investors — some of whom helped Trump get elected — have been invited to “Drill, baby, drill.”  With America out of the fight, the world’s chances of avoiding the direst consequences of climate change have taken a serious blow.  Charles, on the other hand, has only grown more convinced that climate change, unchecked, will cause “inevitable catastrophes,” as he put it in Harmony, his cri-de-coeur on saving the planet.  Dimbleby predicted that, this time around, one subtle way allowing the king to make his point would be to gift Trump a copy of that book — a treatise on environmentalism, traditional wisdom and sustainability that diagnoses “a spiritual void” in modern societies, a void which has “opened the way for what many people see as an excessive personal focus.”  “I’m sure [the king] won’t let [Trump] out of his sight before giving him a copy,” said Dimbleby. Chinese Premier (and Trump’s main geopolitical rival) Xi Jinping already has a copy, said Skelly.  But the meeting comes at a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer — boxed in politically by the need to keep the U.S. on side for the sake of trade, Ukraine and European security — has avoided openly criticizing the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science or its embrace of fossil fuels.  His government will not want the king to say or do anything that upsets transatlantic relations. Even when the president, sitting next to Starmer, trashed wind energy ­— the main pillar of U.K. decarbonization plans — on a July visit to his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, the prime minister mustered no defense beyond quietly insisting the U.K. was pursuing a “mix” of energy sources.  If Trump starts railing against windmills again in his chat to the king, he might get a (slightly) more robust response, predicted Skelly. “The response to that will be: ‘What else are we going to do without destroying the Earth?’ That’s the question he’ll come back with, I’d imagine.”  HOW TO TALK TO TRUMP ABOUT CLIMATE  Some who have worked with Trump think that, because of the unique place Britain and the royals occupy in his worldview, Charles stands a better chance than most in getting the president to listen.  “President Trump isn’t going to become an environmentalist over a cup of tea with the king. But I think he’ll definitely hear him out — in a way that maybe he wouldn’t with other folks,” said Michael Martins, founder of the firm Overton Advisory, who was a political and economic specialist at the U.S. embassy in London during the last state visit.  “He likes the pageantry. He likes the optics of it. … Engaging with a king, Trump will feel he’s on the same footing. He will give him more of a hearing than if it was, I don’t know … Ed Miliband.”  Trump has even declared his “love” for Charles.  The royal admiration comes from Trump’s mother. Scottish-born Mary Anne Trump “loved the Queen,” Trump said in July. The ratings-obsessed president appears to consider the late monarch the ultimate TV star. “Whenever the queen was on television, [my mother] wanted to watch,” he said during July’s Turnberry visit.    The king could benefit from an emotional link to First Lady Melania Trump, too. She was present at the 2019 meeting and sat next to Charles at the state banquet that year. In her 2024 memoir, Melania says they “engaged in an interesting conversation about his deep-rooted commitment to environmental conservation.”  She and Trump “exchange letters with King Charles to this day,” Melania wrote. TAKING TEA AT THE END OF THE WORLD  The king will have plenty of chances to make his case.   A state visit provides “quite a lot of time to talk” for monarch and president, said one former senior British government official, granted anonymity to discuss the royals and their relationship with government.  There will be a state banquet plus at least one private meeting in between, they said. Charles may also be able to sneak some choice phrases into any speech he gives at the banquet. Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. | John Keeble/Getty Images The king receives regular briefing papers from the Foreign Office. As the meeting looms, the same person suggested, he may be preparing thoughts on how to combine a lifetime’s campaigning and reading with those briefings, to shape the opportunity to lobby a president.  “He will be reading his foreign policy material with even more interest than normal. He will probably be thinking about whether there is any way in which he can pitch his arguments to Trump that will shift him — a little bit — toward putting his shoulder to the climate change wheel,” the former senior official said.    “He won’t say: ‘You, America, should be doing stuff.’ He will say, ‘Internationally I think it is important we make progress on this and we need to be more ambitious.’ Or he might express concern about some of the impacts of climate change on global weather and all these extreme weather events.”  However he approaches it, 2019 showed how tough it is to move the dial.  After that conversation, Trump told broadcaster Piers Morgan that he thought Charles’ views were “great” and that he had “totally listened to him.” But then he demonstrated that — on the crucial points of how fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change are affecting the planet — he totally hadn’t.    “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster,” Trump said. “And I agree,” he added, before promptly pivoting to an apparent non-sequitur about the U.S. having “crystal clean” water. It was a typically Trumpian obfuscation. Asked about the king’s views during the Turnberry visit, Trump said: “Every time I met with him, he talked about the environment, how important it is. I’m all for it. I think that’s great.”  In nearly the same breath, he ranted about wind energy being “a disaster.”  GOOD LUCK, CHARLIE  “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see [Trump] change his views on climate change, because they’re not informed by his understanding of the science or consequences, but rather by naked politics,” said leading U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann in emailed remarks.   And Trump will come to the meeting prepared, said Martins, the former U.S. Embassy official. “Trump will receive the full briefing on the king’s views on environment. He won’t be going into that blind. He’ll know exactly what the king has said over his career and what his views are on it and how it affects American interests. I don’t anticipate him being surprised by anything the king says.”   He added: “Bashing net zero and President Biden … gets [Trump] political wins.”    To Charles’ long-standing domestic critics, it all highlights the pointlessness of his position.  Donald Trump has even declared his “love” for King Charles III. | Pool Photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images “He is bound by these constitutional expectations that he does nothing that will upset the apple cart [in U.K./U.S. relations],” said Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy. “If he was elected, he’d have a lot more freedom to say what he actually wants.”  “Soft power is a highly questionable concept,” added Smith. It’s only useful, he argued, when backed by something Charles lacks and Trump has by the bucket-load: “Hard power.”  And time may be running out for Charles to deploy even soft power in the climate fight.   Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. If British voters pick Reform at the next election, Charles’ potential advocacy would be restrained by a government opposed to action on climate change.  So how far will Charles go to seize his moment?  He wrote in Harmony: “If we continue to be deluded by the increasingly irresponsible clamour of sceptical voices that doubt man-made climate change, it will soon be too late to reverse the chaos we have helped to unleash.” He feared “failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself” if he did not speak up.   Skelly, the former speechwriter who co-wrote the book, predicted that Charles would walk a fine diplomatic line — but was “not someone to sit on his hands or to remain silent.”   “He was warning about these things 30 years ago and nobody was listening. … He feels increasingly frustrated that time is running out.   “I’d love to be a fly on the wall — because it will be a fascinating conversation.”

France’s constitutional court on Thursday rejected the reintroduction of a controversial insecticide in a significant blow to the government and major farming lobbies that had supported its return. The court’s judges ruled that allowing the use of acetamiprid, an insecticide currently banned in France, would violate the “Charter of the Environment,” a French constitutional text. Acetamiprid’s proposed reintroduction was part of a new French law aiming to make life easier for farmers by allowing the use of some pesticides as well as by cutting red tape and easing permit approval for new breeding and water storage facilities. The judges stressed that neonicotinoids — a class of insecticide that includes acetamiprid and that works by obstructing the nervous systems of insects — can be allowed in exceptional situations but only for a limited time and for well-defined crops. These conditions were not respected in the text of the law, the judges found. The law, which was dubbed “Loi Duplomb” after the conservative senator who introduced it, was a response to the massive farmer protests of 2024. It had already been approved in the parliament. The law is backed by the government and by major farming lobbies but is strongly opposed by left-wing parties, which have flagged its negative impact on biodiversity. More than 2 million French citizens signed a petition launched last month by a 23-year-old student to repeal the law, putting additional pressure on the government. The law polarized French public opinion between the country’s powerful farming lobbies and its more ecologically minded citizens worried about the harm done by pesticides to pollinators and human health. Its opponents urged French President Emmanuel Macron not to sign the law into effect. Macron’s office said Thursday that the president had “taken note” of the ruling and will enact the Duplomb law “as soon as possible” in its modified version per the constitutional court’s ruling. Acetamiprid, in other words, will remain banned. Left-wing opposition figures celebrated the news, with the agriculture ministry expected to comment on the decision later Thursday evening. Farming lobby FNSEA, however, slammed the ruling. “This decision marks the pure and simple abandonment of certain sectors of French agriculture, at a time when our dependence on imports is increasing to the detriment of our social and environmental requirements,” FNSEA President Arnaud Rousseau wrote in a social media post.

There’s a butterfly-shaped hole in Brussels’ plans for a new European budget structure. The European Commission presented its controversial proposal to pool a number of existing funding programs into a single “Competitiveness Fund” last Wednesday, as part of a broader €1.816 trillion multiannual budget proposal that has angered EU countries and civil society groups alike.  Under the new plan, biodiversity goals have no earmarked funding at all — and will have to compete with the EU’s other environmental aims, including climate change, water security, the circular economy and pollution. Some warn that unless clearly allocated, money will inevitably flow to industrial projects that fit with the Commission’s competitiveness agenda, leaving unprofitable but no-less-urgent environmental programs unfunded. “[There’s a] real danger that biodiversity will be sidelined in favour of industrial priorities that may be presented as green investments,” said Ester Asin, director of the WWF European Policy Office. The EU is already facing an estimated €37 billion annual biodiversity funding gap, according to the Commission. In the proposed new budget structure, Europe’s existing €5.45 billion environmental funding program, known as LIFE, would merge with other funds dedicated to digitalization and defense into a €409 billion competitiveness cash pot. Money previously earmarked specifically for biodiversity has also now been merged with a catch-all “environment and climate” target.   The overall amount dedicated to funding green priorities will increase, the Commission argues, because 35 percent of the total budget — roughly €700 billion — will be dedicated to reaching the goals of the EU Green Deal. Around 43 percent of the Competitiveness Fund will go toward climate and environmental objectives, the Commission said Wednesday, to contribute to this overarching target.  “I think that this budget actually looks at it in a comprehensive way,” Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told POLITICO. “We have a lot of [environmental] legislations that are really good, but now we also need to give the results, and this budget is actually addressing exactly this.” “I think that this budget actually looks at it in a comprehensive way,” Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told POLITICO. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA But not everyone is buying into the idea. “This is a devastating blow for Europe’s nature and its citizens,” said Birdlife Europe’s Anouk Puymartin in a statement, warning that biodiversity is “losing its place in the EU budget with no dedicated funding or clear prioritisation.” EMBEDDING SUSTAINABILITY With the new budget structure, the Commission wants environmental protection to be seen as a horizontal issue rather than a standalone financing priority.  The structure will “ensure that horizontal priorities are applied in a consistent way across the EU budget, including for climate and biodiversity, the ‘do no significant harm’ principle, social policies and gender equality,” it writes in the budget document. The “do no significant harm” principle dictates that EU policies and funds must not have a negative impact on the EU’s six environmental objectives, which include protecting and restoring nature. “What matters now is how sustainability is embedded into the governance and structure of the EU budget,” said Cornelius Müller, policy officer for the Sustainable Banking Coalition, a green finance lobby. “The EU needs to hardwire these principles into all financial instruments.” But some argue that conserving a nature-focused chunk of the financing is essential. WWF’s Asin is calling for “robust and transparent tracking methodologies” — without which the 35 percent target risks “becoming little more than a PR exercise.” In the current budget structure — on top of the 30 percent climate spending target — 7.5 percent of annual spending was to be allocated to biodiversity objectives in 2024, ramping up to 10 percent in 2026 and 2027. Under the new proposal, no target for biodiversity is stipulated. There is also no ring-fenced cash specifically allocated to water resilience, one of Brussels’s core concerns according to its 2024-2029 priorities. Some of Europe’s most water-stressed member countries, such as Spain and Portugal, had been asking that more money be dedicated to water resilience and risk management.