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.

LONDON — The British government has less than a month to save 160 jobs at a major bioethanol producer, its bosses are warning, as the industry reels from the U.K.-U.S. trade deal signed by Donald Trump and Keir Starmer. Vivergo Fuels Managing Director Ben Hackett said his company is at risk of closure and that if the government can’t provide financial support in time, redundancies will begin imminently. “The consultation process legally has to run for a minimum of 45 days and that day is Aug. 17, so the first redundancies could take place the week of Aug. 18,” Hackett said. “The clock is ticking, the government’s very much aware of our timelines and is now working with us on that negotiation.” As part of the U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal, struck between the Trump administration and Starmer’s U.K. government, the U.K. granted Washington a new tariff-free quota of up to 1.4 billion liters of ethanol, which is used in farming and as a fuel source. Hackett said this is worth “the entire” U.K. bioethanol market. Previously, U.S. ethanol imported into the U.K. faced tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent. “Those tariffs are in place, not because we’re worse at making ethanol than the U.S. — they use genetically modified corn, antibiotics, they have lower energy costs and they have tax subsidies from the government,” explained Hackett. “The tariffs were just to say we wanted a level playing field.” Britain’s chemical industry, including multinational INEOS, the Chemical Business Association and px Group, are already urging the government to intervene, warning that the closure of Vivergo Fuel would not only put jobs at risk, but also billions in investment — as well as the country’s long-term energy security. Last month, Vivergo signed a £1.25 billion memorandum of understanding with Meld Energy to supply feedstock for a new sustainable aviation fuel plant at Saltend, Hull. Separately, it’s planning a £250 million hydrogen production facility on the same site. “If we disappear, that goes because there’s no-one to take the green hydrogen and there’s no raw material to turn into aviation [fuel],” warned Hackett. “You’re putting at risk a billion pound investment into the Saltend site,” he said. “Hull is not the most economically advantaged part of the U.K. That billion pounds of investment would have added thousands more jobs. By taking away that bioethanol industry, you lose all future growth.” Hackett says the British government has been “relatively slow to come to the table.” It has now appointed an adviser to hear the business case and recommend whether Vivergo should receive state financial support. “Unless we get sufficient concrete assurances from the government, then I will go ahead and close the business,” said Hackett. The warning comes as a string of chemicals and bioeconomy producers shutter operations, including INEOS’s refinery at Grangemouth and SABIC’s Olefins 6 cracker on Teesside. The Ensus bioethanol plant at Wilton is also at risk of closure. A British government spokesperson said: “We recognise this is a concerning time for workers and their families which is why we entered into negotiations with the company on potential financial support last month.” They added: “We will continue to take proactive steps to address the long-standing challenges the company faces and remain committed to working closely with them throughout this period to present a plan for a way forward that protects supply chains, jobs and livelihoods.”

CAN DENMARK SELL GREEN AGRICULTURE TO A SKEPTICAL EU? As Copenhagen takes the helm of the Council, its bold climate credentials face the hard grind of EU politics — and a bloc more interested in competitiveness than carbon cuts. By LUCIA MACKENZIE and BARTOSZ BRZEZŃSKI Photo-Illustration Matthieu Bourel for POLITICO This article is part of the Danish Presidency of the EU special report. Denmark’s incoming EU presidency is set to coincide with a bruising debate over the future of farming in Europe, and Copenhagen wants climate at the center of it. Fresh off a historic domestic deal to tax agricultural emissions, Danish officials are touting their country’s “high ambitions” for green policy. Minister for Green Transition Jeppe Bruus said Denmark hopes to infuse its six-month presidency with lessons from home, where collaboration with farmers and a sweeping Green Tripartite Agreement last year marked a rare political consensus on climate and agriculture. But as Denmark prepares to steer the Council of the EU from July, it finds itself pitching a climate-forward message to a bloc moving in the opposite direction. After more than a year of farmer unrest, a rightward shift in the European Parliament, and pullback from Ursula von der Leyen’s first-term Green Deal, the stage is set for a presidency marked more by firefighting than forward motion. “Look, we can actually solve a lot of those crises that we are in — the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, the focus on creating jobs and growth — and deliver on food security … in a sustainable way,” Bruus told POLITICO in an interview. “We see this as a task that combines what we’re good at.” That pitch may resonate with green-minded stakeholders, but Denmark’s room for maneuver is limited. DOMESTIC SUCCESS, EUROPEAN CONSTRAINTS Last year, Denmark became the first country in the world to legislate a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture — something even climate-progressive nations like New Zealand couldn’t manage. Under the so-called Green Tripartite Agreement, livestock emissions will be taxed starting in 2030, with revenue earmarked for green initiatives and farmer support. The deal was driven by necessity as much as ambition. Agriculture accounts for nearly 29 percent of Denmark’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and around 80 percent of its methane and nitrous oxide emissions — largely from livestock and fertilizer use.  With a legally binding goal to cut national emissions by 70 percent by 2030, the government concluded that without action on farming, the math wouldn’t add up. The Green Tripartite Agreement aimed to correct course by combining a phased-in tax with funding to support biodiversity, peatland restoration and farmer adaptation — all while keeping the sector economically viable. This was not imposed from above. The deal was brokered through Denmark’s traditional tripartite model, bringing together government, farmers, industry and environmental groups. As Bruus himself noted, it followed carbon taxes on Danish industry and relied on a broader societal consensus about climate responsibility. Bruus said the government had deliberately avoided designing the tax “in opposition to the farming community,” and emphasized that every krone raised would be reinvested back into the sector. The EU, however, doesn’t really do social partnership. It does “trilogues” — opaque three-way negotiations between the Parliament, Council and the European Commission, often shielded from the kind of inclusive dialogue Copenhagen embraced at home. And while Denmark’s domestic conditions allowed for a relatively smooth political landing, the same cannot be said of Brussels. The backlash to green rules — both organized and opportunistic — has pulled the center of gravity toward deregulation and “competitiveness,” a favorite watchword in the Commission’s post-2024 narrative reset. GREEN MANDATE, SHRINKING MOMENTUM The timing couldn’t be more sensitive. The Danish presidency will take place during early discussions on the EU’s next medium-term budget running from 2028 to 2034, with implications for farm spending and the future Common Agricultural Policy. It will also likely inherit hot files from previous presidencies, including rules on new genomic techniques and animal transport — issues guaranteed to stir both emotional and political backlash. The political headwinds are gale force.  Last year’s farmer protests prompted von der Leyen to launch a “strategic dialogue” with the agriculture sector — one that while heavy on green promises, has so far yielded a legislative shift emphasizing income security and global competitiveness. Meanwhile, the EU looks set to loosen more green requirements on farmers, as governments across the spectrum embrace softer rules to ease pressure on farmers and public administrations alike. Even Denmark’s climate credibility isn’t immune to scrutiny. Critics of the Green Tripartite Agreement argue the agricultural carbon tax is too modest to drive systemic change — it starts at just 120 kroner (€16) per metric ton in 2030, rising to 300 kroner by 2035, less than half the industrial rate.  Others point to its heavy reliance on voluntary measures and unproven technologies like biochar — the production of black carbon from biomass — and methane inhibitors . Still others argue that it risks punishing farmers who have set about reducing their emissions through other means. “It’s a start, not a solution,” said one senior EU diplomat familiar with the file. “Denmark has credibility on green agriculture, but selling that model to 26 other countries will be a much harder job.” NOT SO UNITED FRONT Denmark finds itself politically isolated on green agricultural policy, according to Alan Matthews, professor emeritus of European agricultural policy at Trinity College Dublin. While it has taken the lead in tackling farming emissions, most other governments are reluctant to follow. Ireland, another heavy agricultural emitter, is scrambling to meet its climate targets without tanking its dairy and meat industries. Germany now has a conservative-led government with little appetite for green experimentation. Even at home, right-wing parties have questioned the climate tax, with farmers warning of job losses and production leakage . Denmark could find an ally in the Commission — but not necessarily where it matters most, Matthews said. “Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen and DG AGRI are not prioritizing a climate or green agenda, and the buzzwords now for agricultural policy are competitiveness and resilience, meaning adapting to climate change impacts,” he said, referring to the agricultural wing of the Commission that’s in charge of the CAP budget. By contrast, Matthews noted, the Commission’s climate wing, DG CLIMA, “is aware that agriculture will need to contribute much more if the EU’s ambitious 90 percent reduction target by 2040 is to be achieved, and is open to investigating new policy instruments. But DG CLIMA is not central to the future CAP negotiations, so its ambitions do not carry much weight.” The Danish presidency is unlikely to radically reshape EU agriculture policy, but it may help inject long-term thinking into a space dominated by short-term panic. The upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy — expected in late 2025 — could offer an opening for the Danes to lead on a less politically toxic agenda, linking sustainability with industrial opportunity. Bruus has stressed that farmers won’t go green without a business case. At home, the Green Land Fund and other fiscal measures have sweetened the pill of new taxes. But at the EU level, any equivalent offer would require a major shift in the bloc’s budget logic — and a willingness to match rhetoric with revenue. That’s a tough sell, especially amid competing demands on the EU’s purse strings and an upcoming debate over who gets what in the post-2027 CAP. If Denmark is to make a mark, it may be less about securing bold new legislation and more about keeping the flame of the green transition alive at a time when many would rather extinguish it.