BRUSSELS — The European Union should loosen its “rigid” adherence to climate neutrality and allow itself to miss its 2050 net-zero goal by up to 10 percent, Germany’s minister for energy and economy told a major oil and gas conference in the United States. Speaking at the annual CERAWeek conference in Texas late Monday, Katherina Reiche called the EU’s goal to slash its planet-warming pollution to net zero by mid-century into question. Europe, for a long time, “had left a corridor, there wasn’t a net-zero … it was, for Europe, a goal [to reduce emissions] between 85 and 95 percent,” she claimed, likely referring to a non-binding European Commission roadmap from 2011. “There is a flexibility we have to get back, accept not 100 percent solutions but allowing different solutions and technologies and accept that there might be a gap of maybe a 5 or 10 percent by 2050,” she added. “If you have strict and rigid goals, you bind yourself, it ends up that you lose industries that you need … and we can’t afford that we lose our energy-intensive industries in Europe and in Germany.” Reiche’s comments mark a rare departure from the EU consensus. The bloc set itself a net-zero by 2050 goal in 2019, with only Poland not formally committing to the new milestone. Last year, EU governments agreed on an intermediate target to slash the bloc’s emissions by up to 90 percent by 2040. Germany has set itself even stricter goals, aiming to become climate neutral by 2045. Throughout her remarks at CERAWeek, Reiche stressed that economic growth must come before green targets. “At the end of the day, it is good to have a goal of sustainability — but if sustainability crashes your economy, you have to readjust,” she said. “And that’s what we’re doing right now.” In Germany, Reiche has in recent months unveiled plans to build out gas power plants, scrap the previous government’s gas boiler phaseout, remove subsidies for rooftop solar panels, and deprioritize the connection of renewables from the country’s power grid. She also told the Texas audience that Germany should drill for fossil fuels in the North Sea, saying: “We have a gas field in the North Sea, which we don’t want to explore. I think we can’t stick to this attitude. We have to also go into our own reserves.” And she insisted: “I am not speaking against sustainability, and not against a climate target. But if a climate target ignores other things you have to think of, especially affordability and abundance … you have to change course.” Mike Lee contributed to this report from Texas.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

One year after the European Commission launched the Clean Industrial Deal to tackle mounting competitiveness challenges for EU industry, Neste ― the world’s leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel ― is calling for urgent action to deliver on the Commission’s promise of turning “decarbonization into a driver of growth for European industries.” POLITICO Studio spoke to Jenni Männistö, vice president, strategy, M&A and business development at Finland-based Neste, about the company’s investments in the EU, how renewable fuels can be scaled and what they offer the continent’s economic future.  POLITICO Studio: How does the scale-up of renewable fuels strengthen the EU’s competitiveness, and why should the EU prioritize this? Jenni Männistö: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen provided a clear diagnosis when she began her second term in 2024: the world is in a race to develop the technologies that will shape the global economy for decades to come as we move toward climate neutrality. This global race is still on today, and Europe must seize the economic opportunities that clean tech provides amid increasing pressure on traditional fossil markets. One in five European oil refineries has closed since 2009. Going backward and falling economically behind in the global race is not an option. The EU is seeing its competitiveness challenged in some clean tech sectors, but there are also areas where it is a leader, such as biofuels. Our story shows what is possible: Neste has grown from a regional Finnish oil refinery into the global leader in renewable fuels. Forward-looking EU and global policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have helped accelerate innovation and growth. PS: Neste is investing €2.5 billion in expanding its Rotterdam refinery to make it the world’s largest biofuels production facility. What’s needed for more investments of this scale when many businesses are delaying projects or even shutting down sites in the EU? JM: The expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is a major investment. EU refinery and chemical sectors have lacked projects of this scale in recent years. Instead, we have seen new projects cancelled or delayed, all while traditional crude oil refineries close. This is a very concerning trend. To turn the situation around and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and energy security, we need long-term certainty and a strong business case for early movers. And EU businesses should, of course, compete on a level playing field with imports. via Neste PS: Long-term certainty is a common request from businesses, but what’s specifically needed? JM: The first ingredient is long-term certainty about Europe’s commitment to climate neutrality and emissions reduction. The EU’s 2040 climate targets set a clear direction, and their adoption means we can now focus on the policies that get us there. The second ingredient is long-term regulatory certainty. We have a clear framework in place for SAF, for which the ReFuelEU Regulation sets targets until 2050. These targets must remain in place. > We are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF > beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under > the Emission Trading System.” However, other areas are lacking: the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive currently has no transport sector target after 2030. Moreover, the EU Effort Sharing Regulation, which notably includes the national decarbonization objectives for the road sector, provides no visibility beyond 2030. That is a major issue, because biofuels producers cannot make major business and investment decisions based only on one customer segment — aviation — or a short-term regulatory outlook. PS: Why is it important that the EU supports early movers who invest in solutions to reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions?   JM: We were pleased with the direction of the Clean Industrial Deal and the EU’s Competitiveness Compass at the start of 2025; it clarified that there needs to be a business case for “clean production” with “lead markets and policies to reward early movers.” These commitments would address some of the big challenges for early movers that we see at Neste. We have invested heavily in expanding SAF production capabilities, but demand is failing to pick up as expected. Once the €2.5 billion expansion of our Rotterdam refinery is completed in 2027, Neste’s SAF production capacity alone could be sufficient to meet the EU’s current 2 percent SAF mandate. Today, we are a year on from the launch of the EU’s flagship competitiveness plans at the start of 2025, but we still need new policies that translate commitments to early movers into action. That is disappointing, and 2026 must be the year when the Commission acts to turn Europe’s early SAF lead into a long-term competitive advantage. That is why we are calling for new, strong enabling conditions for airlines to uplift SAF beyond the EU minimum SAF targets, for instance by increasing support under the Emission Trading System. PS: A level playing field is a vital factor; what makes it so crucial? JM: Although Europe currently leads in the scale-up of renewable fuels, other countries and regions are supporting their domestic companies to expand production capacity. This raises major level-playing-field concerns, similar to those we have seen in many other sectors. The EU must align its trade and industrial policies, especially for newly scaling markets. For instance, the EU’s SAF target is just 2 percent until 2030, and other countries and regions are only starting to roll out their own requirements for SAF use. This creates a risk that global SAF volumes end up flowing into the EU. > Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain > geopolitical environment.” In 2025, the European Commission introduced new protective measures on biodiesel imports. In Neste’s view, there should be immediate measures to protect Europe’s biofuels industry as a whole, including SAF production, from unfair competition. The current approach falls short and endangers EU players’ competitiveness, as well as their ability to continue to invest in production capacity and future-proof innovation. PS: There’s a push to revisit and simplify some of the rules agreed during the last Commission, such as the carbon dioxide standards. How do you view this? What’s the balance between renewable fuels and electrification? JM: The approach of the Clean Industrial Deal is the right one — climate action and competitiveness must go hand in hand to deliver a growth strategy for Europe. That is why it is good that we revisit some of the EU rules with these twin objectives in mind. Neste is leading the way with its investment in the Netherlands; we believe that the EU industry can still lead in renewable fuels if we are bold. We need to ask how we can implement policies that cut greenhouse gas emissions and build on Europe’s competitive strengths. With this in mind, it is a step in the right direction to recognize the role of renewable fuels in the legislation on CO2 standards, but their actual and immediate greenhouse gas contribution needs to be better reflected. Electrification plays a role, especially in light-duty vehicles and urban transport, but it is not a silver bullet for the transport sector as a whole. Once EU rules enable a range of low greenhouse gas emission options, users can choose the solutions that best fit their operational needs. PS: There’s also the issue of EU autonomy and energy in an increasingly volatile world. What’s the role of renewable fuels in that context? JM: Renewable fuels can strengthen Europe’s energy security in today’s uncertain geopolitical environment. A key priority is diversifying supply; expanding European-produced renewable fuels can reduce our reliance on volatile global markets. In 2023, which is the most recent data available, the EU’s import dependency for oil was nearly 95 percent, underscoring the need to de-risk and diversify. The aim is not to be an island ― EU companies will need global supply chains and partners. Scaling up renewable fuels brings opportunities for new partnerships, such as the pledge by several major countries at COP30 to boost biofuels significantly by 2035. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Neste * The advertisement is linked to is linked to the ReFuelEU and the Clean Industrial Deal. More information here.

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.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on energy transition, electricity market design, and industrial competitiveness in the EU. More information here The European Union is entering a decisive decade for its energy transformation. With the international race for clean technologies accelerating, geopolitical tensions reshaping markets and competition from other major global economies intensifying, how the EU approaches the transition will determine its economic future. If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and global influence.  > If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and > resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and > global influence. This message resonated strongly during PKEE Energy Day 2025, held in Brussels on October 14, which brought together more than 350 European policymakers, industry leaders and experts under the theme “Secure, competitive and clean: is Europe delivering on its energy promise?”. One conclusion was clear: the energy transition must serve the economy, not the other way around.  Laurent Louis Photography for PKEE The power sector: the backbone of Europe’s industrial future  The future of European competitiveness will be shaped by its power sector. Without a successful transformation of electricity generation and distribution, other sectors — from steel and chemicals to mobility and digital — will fail to decarbonize. This point was emphasized by Konrad Wojnarowski, Poland’s deputy minister of energy, who described electricity as “vital to development and competitiveness.”  “Transforming Poland’s energy sector is a major technological and financial challenge — but we are on the right track,” he said. “Success depends on maintaining the right pace of change and providing strong support for innovation.” Wojnarowski also underlined that only close cooperation between governments, industry and academia can create the conditions for a secure, competitive and sustainable energy future.  Flexibility: the strategic enabler  The shift to a renewables-based system requires more than capacity additions — it demands a fundamental redesign of how electricity is produced, managed and consumed. Dariusz Marzec, president of the Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) and CEO of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, called flexibility “the Holy Grail of the power sector.”  Speaking at the event, Marzec also stated “It’s not about generating electricity continuously, regardless of demand. It’s about generating it when it’s needed and making the price attractive. Our mission, as part of the European economy, is to strengthen competitiveness and ensure energy security for all consumers – not just to pursue climate goals for their own sake. Without a responsible approach to the transition, many industries could relocate outside Europe.”  The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental ambition with economic reality. Europe cannot afford to treat decarbonization as an isolated goal — it must integrate it into a broader industrial strategy.  > The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental > ambition with economic reality. The next decade will define success  While Europe’s climate neutrality target for 2050 remains a cornerstone of EU policy, the next five to ten years will determine whether the continent remains globally competitive. Grzegorz Lot, CEO of TAURON Polska Energia and vice-president of PKEE, warned that technology is advancing too quickly for policymakers to rely solely on long-term milestones.  “Technology is evolving too fast to think of the transition only in terms of 2050. Our strategy is to act now — over the next year, five years, or decade,” Lot said. He pointed to the expected sharp decline in coal consumption over the next three years and called for immediate investment in proven technologies, particularly onshore wind.  Lot also raised concerns about structural barriers. “Today, around 30 percent of the price of electricity is made up of taxes. If we want affordable energy and a competitive economy, this must change,” he argued.  Consumers and regulation: the overlooked pillars  A successful energy transition cannot rely solely on investment and infrastructure. It also depends on regulatory stability and consumer participation. “Maintaining competitiveness requires not only investment in green technologies but also a stable regulatory environment and active consumer engagement,” Lot said.  He highlighted the potential of dynamic tariffs, which incentivize demand-side flexibility. “Customers who adjust their consumption to market conditions can pay below the regulated price level. If we want cheap energy, we must learn to follow nature — consuming and storing electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows.”  Strategic investments for resilience  The energy transition is more than a climate necessity. It is a strategic requirement for Europe’s security and economic autonomy. Marek Lelątko, vice-president of Enea, stressed that customer- and market-oriented investment is essential. “We are investing in renewables, modern gas-fired units and energy storage because they allow us to ensure supply stability, affordable prices and greater energy security,” he said.  Grzegorz Kinelski, CEO of Enea and vice-president of PKEE, added: “We must stay on the fast track we are already on. Investments in renewables, storage and CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] units will not only enhance energy security but also support economic growth and help keep energy prices affordable for Polish consumers.”  The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and defense. As Dariusz Marzec puts it: “The energy transition is not a choice — it is a necessity. But its success will determine more than whether we meet climate targets. It will decide whether Europe remains competitive, prosperous and economically independent in a rapidly changing world.”  > The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s > industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and > defense. Measurable progress, but more is needed  Progress is visible. The power sector accounts for around 30 percent of EU emissions but has already delivered 75 percent of all Emissions Trading System reductions. By 2025, 72 percent of Europe’s electricity will come from low-carbon sources, while fossil fuels will fall to a historic low of 28 percent. And in Poland, in June, renewable energy generation overtook coal for the first time in history.  Still, ambition alone is not enough. In his closing remarks, Marcin Laskowski, vice-president of PKEE and executive vice-president for regulatory affairs at PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, stressed the link between the power sector and Europe’s broader economic transformation. “The EU’s economic transformation will only succeed if the energy transition succeeds — safely, sustainably and with attractive investment conditions,” he said. “It is the power sector that must deliver solutions to decarbonize industries such as steel, chemicals and food production.”  A collective European project  The event in Brussels — with the participation of many high-level speakers, including Mechthild Wörsdörfer, deputy director general of DG ENER; Tsvetelina Penkova, member of the European Parliament and vice-chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy; Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, member of the European Parliament; Catherine MacGregor; CEO of ENGIE and vice-president of Eurelectric; and Claude Turmes, former minister of energy of Luxembourg — highlighted a common understanding: the energy transition is not an isolated environmental policy, it is a strategic industrial project. Its success will depend on coordinated action across EU institutions, national governments and industry, as well as predictable regulation and financing.  Europe’s ability to remain competitive, resilient and prosperous will hinge on whether its power sector is treated not as a cost to be managed, but as a foundation to be strengthened. The next decade is a window of opportunity — and the choices made today will shape Europe’s economic landscape for decades to come. 

BRUSSELS — Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis insisted Thursday before an EU leaders’ summit that the bloc must play a bigger role in finding tens of billions of euros for countries to pay for increased military spending. Mitsotakis said he would use the meeting in Brussels to call for the bloc to go further at an “inflection point where we realize we need to take more ownership over European defense” and support EU-wide borrowing for common projects. Russia’s war on Ukraine, which has included recent violations of EU airspace by hostile drones and Russian fighter jets in recent months, has focused minds on collective security. “My argument is very simple — if defense is the ultimate European public good, we need European structures and European funding to develop our defense capabilities,” Mitsotakis said in an interview with POLITICO. “There is an elephant in the room. We don’t openly talk about it, but could we envision a scenario where we have a joint European borrowing facility that is targeted to support European defense projects?” he added. “I would most certainly support that, provided there are projects that clearly qualify as European public good … let’s use European money to do things that we may not be able to do at the national level,” Mitsotakis said. While the European Commission has brought forward a series of plans to loosen fiscal rules and allow capitals to borrow more to fund a large-scale rearmament program, countries have remained deadlocked on the idea of sharing the debt to unlock additional funds. A series of cross-border projects have been identified, including anti-drone measures, but it remains largely up to national governments to make the investments. “I think the challenge is, can we have additional funding and can this additional funding be attached to conditionalities that push us in the direction of a stronger preparation,” Mitsotakis said, “which would be joint procurement, be the development of new technologies, especially drones and AI, and I think the Commission and European institutions have a clear role to play.” According to a draft joint statement prepared by ambassadors from all 27 EU countries ahead of Thursday’s summit, the bloc will agree to “increasingly gear defense investment towards joint development, production, and procurement.” Fiscally conservative countries such as the Netherlands have traditionally opposed new joint debt mechanisms to bolster spending capacity in other nations. In the interview, Mitsotakis also delivered a warning on environmental priorities, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen faces a rebellion from countries that fear green policies and climate neutrality targets are harming their economies. “I’ve been very, very clear — the green transition cannot be an end in itself,” said Mitsotakis. “Otherwise, we may realize at some point we are running in the wrong race. It needs to be balanced with competitiveness and it needs to foster, or at least not to hinder, social cohesion.” “I hate to put a figure on it but the last 10, 15 or 20 percent of the green transition is, right now, frighteningly expensive and we don’t even have the technologies to actually drive that figure through,” he added.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die Lage ist ernst wie selten zuvor: Bei einer öffentlichen Anhörung im Bundestag warnen die Chefs von BND und Verfassungsschutz vor einer neuen, konkreten Bedrohung durch Russland. Es geht um hybride Angriffe, mysteriöse Drohnenflüge und die Gefahr einer „heißen Konfrontation“. Rixa Fürsen und Rasmus Buchsteiner analysieren die alarmierenden Einschätzungen der Geheimdienste. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Konstantin von Notz. Der Grünen-Fraktionsvize und Geheimdienst-Kontrolleur fordert als Konsequenz einen monatlichen, öffentlichen Bericht über die hybriden Angriffe auf Deutschland, um das Problembewusstsein in der Bevölkerung zu schärfen. Außerdem: Während die Koalition über Sicherheit diskutiert, wird an anderer Stelle gespart. Joana Lehner berichtet exklusiv, wie massive Etatkürzungen beim Umweltbundesamt ganze Abteilungen lahmlegen könnten. Ein kostenloses Probeabo unseres Newsletters ‘PRO Energie & Klima am Morgen’ gibt es hier. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

BRUSSELS — European governments will not vote on the bloc’s next climate milestone next Thursday, six diplomats told POLITICO. The decision on the European Union’s new emissions-cutting target for 2040 will now be delayed for at least several weeks, casting doubt on whether the bloc can present its related climate plan for 2035 to the United Nations by the end of September.  EU environment ministers were scheduled to agree on the 2035 and 2040 targets at a meeting on Sept. 18 in Brussels. But Denmark, the country chairing the talks, has now canceled the vote, according to the diplomats, who were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks.  The decision comes after France and Germany joined Poland and Italy in demanding that the vote be postponed until national leaders can have a say on the target, creating a blocking minority. A ministerial discussion will still be held on Thursday to prepare for a debate at leaders’ level. No decision has yet been made on when this discussion would take place. The earliest informal leaders’ meeting is scheduled for Oct. 1 and the next formal summit for Oct. 23.  In total, 11 of 27 countries asked for a delay during a preparatory meeting on Friday, three diplomats said, listing the Czech Republic, Malta, Austria, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Latvia besides Italy, France, Germany and Poland.  “It has always been our ambition … to get agreement on an EU target for 2040 as quickly as possible. I have never hidden the fact that it is a difficult task that is politically complicated,” Danish Climate Minister Lars Aagaard said after the meeting.  “I can see that among a sufficient number of member states there is a desire for the heads of government to discuss the matter before those member states are ready to conclude negotiations on the 2040 climate target,” he added.  Some countries, such as Germany, clarified that they want only a discussion but no decision at leaders’ level, with a vote among ministers held at a later date. A leaders’ agreement requires unanimity, raising the threat of a single country vetoing the target. The European Commission has proposed reducing the EU’s emissions by 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, but many countries have asked for extra leeway to meet the target. Some governments want to weaken the goal significantly. The delay also raises questions about the EU’s plan to reduce emissions through 2035, a target required under the Paris Agreement reached a decade ago. Ministers were expected to vote on both goals next week, as the bloc intended to derive the 2035 target from the 2040 legislation. As of Friday, there was no clarity on whether the bloc would decide on the U.N.-mandated target next week.  The U.N. has set a late September deadline for the 2035 plans, and the Brazilian presidency of this year’s COP30 climate summit has called on all Paris Agreement signatories to present their targets at a Sept. 24 meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.  Three diplomats said that Denmark told countries they would call a meeting on Tuesday to determine what to do about the 2035 target, telling governments they had three options.  The first, and most drastic choice mentioned by Denmark is to also cancel the vote on the 2035 target scheduled for Thursday — which would mean the EU showing up to the General Assembly “with nothing,” depriving the bloc of the chance to influence the efforts of other major polluters, one of the diplomats said. The second is to postpone only the decision on the 2040 target and agree on the 2035 plan next Thursday, though this would likely result in a weaker-than-expected goal under the Paris Agreement — 66 percent instead of 72.5 percent.  Alternatively, the EU could “bring a statement of intent” to New York with a “temporary” 2035 goal “taking into account adopted and proposed targets,” the diplomat said.  This target would “most likely be expressed as range” and “could be updated once there is agreement on the 2040 target,” the diplomat added.  The Danish negotiating team said that the aim of the Sept. 18 meeting is now “to stabilize the text,” adding that Copenhagen wants countries to reach agreement on both targets “before the end of the year.”  This article has been updated.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Zum Start der IAA in München steht Friedrich Merz als „Autokanzler“ unter massivem Druck. Eingekeilt zwischen Chinas E-Autos, Trumps Zöllen und dem Druck von Markus Söder muss der Kanzler die deutsche Schlüsselindustrie durch die Krise führen. Gordon Repinski analysiert die schwierige Mission. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Hildegard Müller. Die VDA-Präsidentin spricht von einer „Standortkrise“ und erklärt, wo sie dringend notwendige Änderungen sieht und wieso sie die Debatte über das Verbrenner-Verbot 2035 nicht als die dringlichste sieht. Außerdem: ein vorbestrafter Mitarbeiter und eine Fraktionsführung, die abtaucht. Pauline von Petzold über den neuen Ärger in der AfD-Fraktion. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.