BEIJING — Keir Starmer wants to take the U.K. deeper into the European Union single market — if Brussels will let him. Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, the British prime minister said he wanted to “go further” in aligning with the European market where it is “in our national interest.” In May last year Starmer effectively agreed to take the U.K. back into Brussels’ orbit in two sectors: agriculture and electricity. Those agreements, which are currently being finalized, will see the U.K. follow relevant EU regulations — in exchange for more seamless market access. Seemingly buoyed by a positive reception and a smaller than anticipated Brexiteer backlash, Starmer is now doubling down. “I think the relationship with the EU and every summit should be iterative. We should be seeking to go further,” the prime minister told reporters. “And I think there are other areas in the single market where we should look to see whether we can’t make more progress. That will depend on our discussions and what we think is in our national interest. “But what I’m indicating here is — I do think we can go further.” The comments are a significant rhetorical shift for the Labour leader, whose 2024 election manifesto promised that “there will be no return to the single market” — as well as the customs union or free movement. While the Labour government has softened on the single market in office, it has arguably hardened on the customs union. Starmer told reporters that “the place to look is the single market, rather than the customs union,” arguing that joining the latter would require unpicking trade deals struck under Britain’s newly independent trade policy. GOING SWISS? While EU officials say they are always open to concrete U.K. proposals, rejoining the single market sector-by-sector might not be entirely straightforward. Brussels agreed to British access for agriculture and electricity in part because of pressure from European industry, which will arguably benefit from the new arrangements as much as the British side. But the dynamic is different in other sectors, where some European firms have been able to thrive at the expense of their locked-out British competitors. There will also be debates in Brussels about where the bloc should draw the line in granting single market access to a country that does not accept the free movement of people — a requirement other states like Norway and Switzerland must respect. Officials are also wary that the EU-U.K. relationship may come to resemble the worst aspects of the Swiss one, a complicated mess of agreements which is subject to endless renegotiation and widely disliked in Brussels. CHEMICAL ATTRACTION The prime minister would not elaborate on which sectors the U.K. should seek agreements with the EU on, stating only that “we’re negotiating with the EU as we go into the next summit.” British officials say that for now they are focused on negotiating the agreements promised at last May’s meeting. One senior business representative in Brussels, granted anonymity because their role does not authorize them to speak publicly, said alignment in sectors including chemicals, cosmetics, and medical devices could be advantageous to businesses on both sides of the English Channel. As well as the agreements on electricity and agriculture, the U.K. and EU last May agreed a security agreement to cooperate more closely on defense, and to link their emissions trading systems to exempt each other from their respective carbon border taxes. They also agreed to establish a youth mobility scheme, which will see young people get visas to live abroad for a limited period. Starmer reiterated the U.K.’s position that “there has got to be a cap” on the number of people who can take advantage of the scheme and “there has got to be a duration agreed.” “And it will be a visa-led scheme. All of our schemes are similar to that. We are negotiating,” he added. Dan Bloom reported from Beijing. Jon Stone reported from Brussels.

LONDON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade negotiators are pushing for the U.K. to adopt American standards in a move that would derail Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, two people familiar with the talks have told POLITICO. The U.S. is also pushing hard for the recognition of American accreditation bodies in the U.K., three other people with knowledge of the demands confirmed. The joint moves would have knock-on effects for safety-critical sectors like food, forensics, manufacturing and NHS testing, experts fear. “It’s this invisible infrastructure that no one really knows about but which keeps everyone safe — and that’s now under threat,” a person briefed on the talks told POLITICO. They, like others cited in this piece, were granted anonymity to speak freely. American negotiators have turned up the heat in trade talks with the recent suspension of the Technology Prosperity Deal, amid frustration over the pace of wider negotiations. U.K. negotiating asks on steel and Scotch whisky tariffs have also gone unanswered. Trump threatened a fresh wedge in the relationship over the weekend, vowing to impose tariffs on Britain and other European allies pushing back at his desire for the United States to own Greenland. The standards push comes as the Trump administration hollows out American watchdogs, with sweeping cuts to the Food and Drug Administration and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. While food standards remain a red line for the U.K. government, some figures familiar with the talks fear the U.K. could cave in on other U.S. demands. “My concern is that these red lines that have been red lines from the outset and for years are under increasing threat of being breached,” the person cited above said.   British negotiators have so far refused to back down, but U.S. negotiators “keep circling back” on these issues, another person who was briefed on the talks by both governments said. Peter Holmes, an expert on standards from the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, warned that accepting U.S. demands could lead to a “race to the bottom” with the U.K. regarded as a “wild west market” internationally. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “Our historic agreement with the U.S. has already delivered for the pharma, aerospace and auto sectors, while our deal with the EU will see the removal of trade barriers including SPS, saving hundreds of millions on U.K. exports.” “We have and always will be clear that we will uphold our high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, and negotiations will continue with both the EU and U.S. on strengthening our trading relationship,” the spokesperson added. The U.K. says it will uphold its high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals. | Geography Photos/Universal Images Group via Getty Images A spokesperson for the United States Trade Representative said the claims came from “anonymous and irrelevant sources” with “no insight into the trade discussions between the U.S. and U.K.”  The spokesperson did not contest any specific aspects of this report. They added that the two nations had successfully implemented “numerous aspects of the U.S.-U.K. EPD,” including “mutually expanding access of U.S. and U.K. beef in each other’s markets.”  “The U.S. and U.K. continue to work together constructively on finalizing remaining aspects of the EPD, including the U.K. commitment to ‘improve market access for agricultural products’ from the United States,” the spokesperson said. IMPACT ON BREXIT RESET TALKS Giving in to the U.S. demands would upset Britain’s ability to trade more closely with the EU as part of ongoing Brexit “reset” negotiations with the bloc that include alignment on food standards and carbon emissions in manufacturing. The U.K. government has “very clear red lines around all of this because they are going to do certain things with the EU,” the second person quoted above explained. “You would have thought these matters had already been well ventilated and resolved,” the person added, explaining that in talks the U.S. side “keep saying ‘why can’t you do more food standards? Why aren’t you coming closer on our side of it? Are you really sure what you’re doing with the EU is the right thing to do?’” Negotiations with the U.S. are “pretty much [in] stasis at the moment,” the same person continued. As London’s Brexit reset talks with the EU progress this year, “the possibility to have the kinds of changes that the U.S. is putting forward become much diminished when those agreements with the EU start to get over the line.” RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITATION BODIES Multiple people briefed on the trade talks claim the U.S. proposals go beyond the terms of the original U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal agreed last May between U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  In addition to headline commitments to cut tariffs on cars, steel and pharmaceuticals, the wide-ranging deal included a promise to address “non-tariff barriers,” including a pledge to treat conformity assessment bodies — such as testing labs and certification groups from the other nation — in a way that is “no less favorable” than the treatment of its own.  This is an increasingly common commitment in U.K. trade deals and typically means that accreditation bodies would have the power to accredit a whole range of certification and testing providers from the other country. However, U.S. negotiators are now pushing for the recognition of disparate American accreditation bodies, which would give them the authority to approve certification, testing and verification organizations in the U.K., three people briefed on the talks confirmed. Accepting this demand would mean that the U.K.’s national accreditation body, UKAS, would no longer meet the basic requirements of membership in the European Co-operation for Accreditation, under which national accreditation bodies recognize each other’s accreditations.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the EU. | Leon Neal/Getty Images This would put the proposed U.K.-EU agrifood deal and plans to link U.K. and EU Emissions Trading Schemes “at massive risk,” should those deals require the EU to recognize U.K. emissions verification bodies and food control laboratories, the first person cited above explained. An industry figure familiar with the ETS linkage talks said an acceptance of the changes would amount to a “watering down” of the entire carbon pricing system, adding that “every single company falling under UK ETS” would be “absolutely furious.” It could also jeopardize any future alignment with the EU in other areas such as manufactured goods, a second industry figure briefed on the negotiations said.  The U.K. government has indicated a willingness to go even further in its relationship with the EU, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying he wanted the U.K. to seek “even closer alignment” with the single market.  Beyond plans outlined in the Common Understanding last May, “there are other areas where we should consider if it’s in our interests to … align with the single market,” he told the BBC in a recent interview. “Now that needs to be considered on an issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis, but we’ve already done it with food and agriculture, and that will be implemented this year.” ‘RACE TO THE BOTTOM’ The U.S. operates a decentralized standards system in which accreditation is carried out by a competitive network of organizations, most of which are commercial. This is in direct contrast to the U.K.’s current model of accreditation, whereby a single, non-profit accreditation body, UKAS, oversees certification and product testing in the public interest. The UK Trade Policy Observatory’s Peter Holmes warned that adopting the U.S. system could lead to a “race to the bottom”, with UKAS pitted against American accreditation bodies. “They might have to cut corners and give up their legally-required public service obligations,” he said.  Accepting U.S. accreditation bodies would make the U.K. a “wild west market where you can’t trust anything that’s on sale in the U.K.,” he added. The U.K. government has repeatedly rejected the possibility of changes to British standards, including the possibility of accepting American chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef.  “We will not compromise on food standards,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said in an interview with CNBC this month. “That is the beginning and end of everything I have to say on that subject. Food standards are really important. There is no compromise for us to strike there.”

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

President Donald Trump is withdrawing the United States from the world’s overarching treaty on climate change in a move that escalates his attempts to reverse years of global negotiations toward addressing rising temperatures. The announcement to sever ties with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change came as Trump quit dozens of international organizations that the White House says no longer serve U.S. interests by promoting radical climate policies and other issues. It was outlined in a memo by the White House. Trump has called on other countries to abandon their carbon-cutting measures, and the move appears to be his latest attempt to destabilize global climate cooperation. The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of rising climate pollution. It has universal participation. The U.S. was the first industrialized nation to join the treaty following its ratification under former President George H.W. Bush — and it will be the only nation ever to leave it. The move also marks Trump’s intensifying efforts to topple climate efforts compared to his first term, when he decided against quitting the treaty. “Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength,” stated a White House fact sheet. The move comes as Trump tears down U.S. climate policies amid the hottest decade ever recorded and threatens other nations for pursuing measures to address global warming, which Trump has called a hoax and a “con job.” The U.S. did not send a delegation to Brazil for the climate talks, known as COP30, late last year. Instead, Trump officials have been working to strike fossil fuels deals with other nations. Trump captured Venezuela’s strongman president, Nicolás Maduro, in an assault using U.S. commandos on Saturday and said he would control the country’s vast oil resources. The plan to leave the UNFCCC stems from Trump’s order last February requiring Secretary of State Marco Rubio to identify treaties and international organizations that “are contrary to the interests of the United States” and recommend withdrawing from them. Trump has also pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, the landmark 2015 pact that’s underpinned by the UNFCCC. “This is a shortsighted, embarrassing, and foolish decision,” Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under former President Barack Obama, said in a statement. “As the only country in the world not a part of the UNFCCC treaty, the Trump administration is throwing away decades of U.S. climate change leadership and global collaboration.”

LONDON — The government is preparing a bill that will give overarching powers to allow the U.K. to align with the EU over a wide suite of areas to give legal shape to their “reset” deal with the bloc. One U.K. official said a bill is due to be introduced to parliament this spring or summer, establishing a legal framework for U.K.-EU alignment. These potential areas include food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about the plans. The bill would create a new framework for the U.K. government and devolved administrations to adopt new EU laws when they are passed in Brussels. It raises the prospect that new EU laws in agreed areas will effectively transfer to the U.K. statute book automatically, with Britain retaining the power to veto them in specific cases. U.K. officials stress that the exact form the powers will take has not yet been decided. The U.K. is currently negotiating a Brexit “reset” agreement with the bloc, including an agrifood deal, plans to link its emissions trading system with the EU’s and reintegrating electricity markets. Britain is still seeking carve-outs as part of these deals, the official said, making it too early to say exactly where alignment will happen and what it will look like. News of the scope of the bill comes after EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said in August last year that parliament would “rightly have a say” on alignment with new EU rules in a speech delivered to The Spectator. He has insisted that the U.K. will still “have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made.” The U.K. government has been approached for comment.

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

LONDON — Britain’s steel industry is having a tough time. Thanks to the EU, it’s about to get even tougher. As 2025 comes to a close, a combination of new tariffs from Washington and Brussels has left the sector teetering on the edge. And now it’s going to be smacked by Brussels’ new carbon import taxes. The maelstrom could leave the industry “irreversibly and profoundly harmed,” according to its representative body. The EU’s catchily-named Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) goes live from the start of 2026. It will charge importers for the carbon price of their goods and introduce reams of new paperwork. In the long run, British businesses will be exempt from the levy, thanks to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s EU reset. In May, Brussels and London agreed to link their carbon emissions trading systems, bringing the U.K. into the exclusive club of “third countries” that won’t have to pay. But those negotiations will take time, and until they are complete British steelmakers will face higher costs selling into the EU — by far their biggest overseas market. On Wednesday the two capitals issued a joint statement pledging to complete talks by sometime in 2026, in time for an as-yet-to-be-scheduled summit. For U.K. steel, it’ll feel like a long wait. “The EU CBAM creates barriers to U.K. steel exports to Europe and piles additional costs and admin onto our steelmakers at a time when global trade is increasingly turbulent,” Frank Aaskov, UK Steel’s director for energy and climate change policy, told POLITICO. The ripple effects of the EU’s new policy are also expected to lead to steel from abroad being diverted to the less protectionist U.K., providing further competition on the domestic market for beleaguered producers. “Our U.K. steel industry is largely unprotected as the EU CBAM risks redirecting steel flows away from Europe and into open markets like ours,” Aaskov added. He argued this was arguably “worse” than the CBAM charges themselves. The industry body is urging the U.K. government to get a move on linking its carbon market with the EU to secure an exemption. It also wants ministers to develop the U.K.’s own version of CBAM, something promised for 2027. Aaskov called for “urgent” steel import quota measures to stop the influx of diverted foreign products, without which “the U.K. steel industry is likely to be irreversibly and profoundly harmed.” BRIDGING THE GAP British exporters across carbon-intensive industries, including steel along with heavy manufacturing like concrete and chemicals, were hoping for a “bridging” deal that would shield U.K. businesses from CBAM levies while ETS linkage was being negotiated. None materialized. Instead, the EU agreed a blanket exemption for electricity imports from neighboring countries and a slate of other category exemptions, such as for small and medium-sized businesses. It’s an approach the U.K. — with its highly interlinked, cross-channel electricity market — will do well out of at the macro level. But it leaves steel exposed, at least temporarily. Despite Starmer supposedly securing a widely-trumpeted exception back in May, those tariffs still remain in place. | Pool Photo by Alastair Grant via Getty Images “We’re not exempting anyone,” European Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra told a press conference Wednesday.  “But the moment we will be fully linking those [carbon markets], it is likely that there will be an exemption.” Hoekstra added that “the price that [the U.K.] will be paying is actually minimal” and that that was “just one of the realities of how the system works.” While the scheme technically starts from Jan. 1, declarations of the carbon embedded in imports — and the associated fees — won’t be due until September 2027. Adam Berman, director of policy and advocacy at trade body Energy UK, told a briefing of journalists ahead of the announcement: “I understand the position of the European Commission, which is that they will inevitably be concerned that any exemption that they might offer on an ad hoc basis to a country like the U.K. would then lead to countries like China and India — which are the main targets of the CBAM — turning around and saying: ‘Why don’t you give us equal treatment?’” One EU official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO: “The companies, or the sectors that are actually concerned when it comes to the U.K., are very limited. So there will be an impact, but it will be very, very limited. And it will be also limited in time, because once the ETS agreement is in place it won’t be a question anymore.” A U.K. government official said: “ETS linkage will remove CBAM. In the interim, we’ve always told businesses they need to prepare for January.” The carbon levy is just the latest challenge for the industry, which sells 78 percent of its exported steel to the EU — totalling 1.9 million tons in 2024. Back in March, it was slapped with 25 percent tariffs by Donald Trump’s protectionist U.S. administration. Despite Starmer supposedly securing a widely-trumpeted exception back in May, those tariffs still remain in place. Then in October, British steelmakers learned they would be in the firing line from Brussels, too. The EU plans, which were in part a blanket response to Trump’s tariffs, as well as Chinese dumping, will cut its steel import quotas in half. The industry said it was “the biggest crisis the U.K. steel industry has ever faced.” In an interview with POLITICO on Monday, the EU’s trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said the U.K. and EU were “close allies” and “definitely on the first list of the countries with whom to start to talk” about the coming tariffs. Where those talks might lead, he didn’t say. Additional reporting from Brussels by Camille Gijs and Antonia Zimmerman

LONDON — British students will once again be able to take part in the EU’s Erasmus+ exchange scheme from January 2027 — following a six-year hiatus due to Brexit. U.K. ministers say they have secured a 30 percent discount on payments to re-enter the program that strikes “a fair balance between our contribution and the benefits” it offers. The move is one of the first tangible changes out of Keir Starmer’s EU “reset,” which is designed to smooth the harder edges off Boris Johnson’s Brexit settlement while staying outside the bloc’s orbit. In an announcement on Wednesday Brussels and London also confirmed they were formally beginning negotiations on U.K. re-entry into the EU’s internal market for electricity. Both sides hope the move, which was called for by industry in both sides of the Channel, will cut energy bills while also making it easier to invest in North Sea green energy projects — which have been plagued by Brexit complications. They also pledged to finish ongoing talks on linking the U.K. and EU carbon trading systems, as well as a new food and drink (SPS) deal, by the time they meet for an EU-U.K. summit in 2026. The planned meeting, which will take place in Brussels, does not yet have a date but is expected around the same time as this year’s May gathering in London. The announcements give more forward momentum to the “reset,” which faltered earlier this month after failing to reach an agreement on British membership of an EU defense industry financing program, SAFE. The two sides could not agree on the appropriate level of U.K. financial contribution. The pledge to finalize carbon trading (ETS) linkage next year is significant because it will help British businesses avoid a new EU carbon border tax — CBAM — which starts from Jan. 1 2026. While the tax, which charges firms for the greenhouse gas emissions in their products, begins on Jan. 1, payments are not due until 2027, by which time the U.K. is expected to be exempt. But it is not yet clear whether British firms will have to make back payments on previous imports once the deal is secured, and there is no sign of any deal to bridge the gap. WIDENING HORIZONS EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds, who negotiated the agreement, said the move was “a huge win for our young people” and would break down barriers and widen horizons so that “everyone, from every background, has the opportunity to study and train abroad.” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola welcomes British Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations Nick Thomas-Symonds. | Ronald Wittek/EPA “This is about more than just travel: it’s about future skills, academic success, and giving the next generation access to the best possible opportunities,” he said. “Today’s agreements prove that our new partnership with the EU is working. We have focused on the public’s priorities and secured a deal that puts opportunity first.” The expected cost of the U.K.’s membership of the Erasmus+ program in 2027 will be £570 million. Skills Minister Jacqui Smith said Erasmus+ membership is “about breaking down barriers to opportunity, giving learners the chance to build skills, confidence and international experience that employers value.” Liberal Democrat Universities Spokesperson Ian Sollom also welcomed U.K. re-entry into the exchange scheme but said it should be a “first step” in a closer relationship with the EU. “This is a moment of real opportunity and a clear step towards repairing the disastrous Conservative Brexit deal,” he said. “However while this is a welcome breakthrough, it must be viewed as a crucial first step on a clear roadmap to a closer relationship with Europe. Starting with negotiating a bespoke UK-EU customs union, and committing to a youth mobility scheme for benefit of the next generation.”

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.