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.

BRUSSELS — For years, the extreme right was content pooh-poohing the European Union’s climate efforts from the back benches. No longer.  On Tuesday, the far-right Patriots for Europe group in the European Parliament seized control of talks over the bloc’s next emissions-cutting milestone, a surprise move that shocked centrist MEPs.  The Patriots — the political home of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz, Matteo Salvini’s League and other far-right forces — have called on the EU to “abandon” the European Green Deal, the legislative framework guiding the continent toward climate neutrality by 2050.  Now they will be in charge of drafting the Parliament’s position on the EU’s 2040 interim climate target — and defending that stance in upcoming negotiations with EU capitals. They will also control the Parliament’s timeline, prompting concerns of deliberate delays as the group explicitly stated its resistance to the law.  The Patriots are “resolutely opposed” to the Commission’s recent proposal to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions by up to 90 percent by 2040, the group’s chairman, Jordan Bardella, told reporters at a press conference Tuesday.  “Therefore, we indicated our readiness to work on this report, and we would like to assert our vision,” he said in response to a question from POLITICO. “We are not in favor of declining growth levels. We’re not in favor of abandoning our industrial base and leaving them in the lurch. We are absolutely aware of the very negative and damaging effect of the left and the ecologists, and we want to counter this.”  The reversal comes at a delicate time for Europe’s green agenda, which has faced intense pushback not only from the far right but also from the EPP, the political family of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.  | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA The Patriots’ assertive stance marks a significant shift from the Parliament’s previous term, when far-right MEPs largely restricted themselves to jeering from the sidelines and filing futile amendments to EU climate laws. The group’s ideological allies cheered the news as an unprecedented opportunity to constrain the bloc’s green ambitions.  The reversal comes at a delicate time for Europe’s green agenda, which has faced intense pushback not only from the far right but also from the center-right European People’s Party, the political family of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.  The Patriots’ move has backed conservatives into a corner. The EPP has been reluctant to endorse the 2040 target, and was prepared to reject a motion initiated by the Greens to fast-track parliamentary talks on the goal.  Now, however, that motion represents the best shot centrist forces have to curb the far right’s influence.   That’s leaving the EPP with a fateful choice: Either throw its weight behind a fast-tracked target alongside the Greens, Socialists and Democrats, and other centrists — or side with the far right and risk dealing a death blow to von der Leyen’s fragile majority.  FAR RIGHT, NOT SO FAR AWAY The Patriots’ maneuver displays their growing influence in Brussels.  On Tuesday morning, the Parliament’s political groups met to decide who would name the lead MEP, or rapporteur, for the 2040 climate target. That lawmaker gets to draft the Parliament’s stance — although other lawmakers can amend it — and to defend this position in talks with EU governments, as well as to decide on the timeline of discussions.  These leadership roles are handed out through auctions, with each group given points based on their size that they can spend throughout the term. The Patriots simply outbid the other groups.  Centrist and left-leaning MEPs were aghast. The Patriots, they feared, would use this position to delay and sabotage the 2040 target. But they also blamed the EPP — which holds the most points — for failing to outbid the far right.  “They really messed up,” said Lena Schilling, who leads the 2040 target negotiations for the Greens. “There was a bidding process among the coordinators, and the EPP had the chance to go higher than the Patriots did.”  Peter Liese, the EPP’s environmental spokesperson who took part in Tuesday’s meeting, rejected the allegation, saying that other groups had stayed in the bidding process longer than him and could therefore have outbid the Patriots.  Yet the Patriots were only able to bid competitively because the Parliament’s political balance has shifted sharply to the right after last year’s election. The group, founded last year, is the assembly’s third-largest faction, with 85 MEPs, and puts opposition to the Green Deal at the center of its political platform.  On Tuesday, the Patriots’ leadership celebrated the group’s first anniversary while griping about the EU’s climate ambitions.  “It was exactly one year ago, exactly this day, that patriot forces from across the continent joined to form the Patriots for Europe group and became the third-largest group,” said Vice Chair Kinga Gál, speaking alongside Bardella.  “This was,” she added, “a clear refusal [of] the Commission’s disastrous policies in the previous term, including the failed migration pact [and] the harmful policies of the Green Deal.”  Unlike in the previous term, the far right can now form a majority with other right-wing MEPs and the center-right EPP. In recent weeks, this majority established a controversial committee investigating the funding of NGOs — which Bardella described as “beneficiaries of the Green Deal” on Tuesday — and demanded the Commission scrap an anti-greenwashing law.  In contrast, the predecessor of the Patriots, known as Identity and Democracy, had just over 70 MEPs at its peak and few other lawmakers to count on. ID mostly contributed to Green Deal lawmaking by filing copy-paste amendments — never adopted — asking the Commission to withdraw its proposals.  Neither Bardella nor Gál gave details on what the Patriots intend to do with their leadership role. A spokesperson for the Patriots did not respond when asked if the group intends to delay the legislative process. LAST-DITCH EFFORT There’s nothing mainstream groups can now do to strip the Patriots of their leading role on the 2040 climate target. But they can try to restrict the far right’s ability to delay the process.  The Commission is hoping for a lightning-fast passage of the 2040 goal given that the legislation provides the foundation for the bloc’s 2035 climate plan, which is required under the Paris climate accord and is due in September. Countries want to find an agreement by the middle of that month.  The Parliament’s input isn’t required for the 2035 plan, but to pass the 2040 law, governments and MEPs each need to finalize their positions and then strike a deal between the institutions.  To ensure the Parliament is also ready to start interinstitutional talks in the fall, the Greens this week put forward a motion to accelerate the parliamentary process. The EPP, whose membership is divided over whether to support the Commission’s 90 percent target, was poised to reject the motion.  But now, the Greens’ motion has emerged as the only restraint on the Patriots’ influence.  “They can delay and delay and delay the process, and probably act to block the process to keep the 2040 target in the air for months and months and months. That’s the power of a rapporteur,” said Pascal Canfin, the environmental spokesperson for the centrist Renew Europe group.  Under the accelerated procedure, however, the rapporteur doesn’t get to draft a report — speeding up the process and limiting the Patriots’ sway. “It means that we take back control of this file,” Canfin said.  To make it more politically palatable for the EPP to back the fast-tracking procedure, the Greens withdrew their motion on Tuesday so that they could resubmit it alongside the Socialists and Renew, representing more of the political spectrum.  CENTER-RIGHT DILEMMA The Patriots, the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations and the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists are urging the EPP to join them instead.  “There’s a clear majority to at least water down the climate law to address competitiveness and [the] cost of living crisis — if the EPP stands by its own rhetoric. It is time to stop the deindustrialization of Europe,” said Beatrice Timgren, a member of the ECR-affiliated Sweden Democrats.  The far-right Alternative for Germany, affiliated with the Sovereignists, said it would back the Patriots if the group could change the law, not merely delay it: “Europe is shifting, and more parties are starting to realize that ideology must not come before economic survival.” For the EPP, such offers present a dilemma. Large parts of the group are skeptical of the 90 percent target and wish to see it weakened, despite the Commission’s already having given countries more leeway to meet the target than ever before.  But voting against the fast-tracking procedure would be seen by the centrist and left-wing groups as yet another betrayal.  The coalition that secured von der Leyen’s reelection last year — the EPP, the Socialists and Renew — is already fragile. Last month, after the Commission briefly appeared to side with the EPP and the far right in killing an anti-greenwashing law, the other two groups threatened to withdraw their support.  The growing distrust blew up in Monday’s debate over an ECR-led motion of no-confidence in von der Leyen. “Wasn’t it you who joined forces with the radicals to dismantle the Green Deal [and] launch a witch-hunt against environmental NGOs?” Socialist leader Iratxe García Pérez asked her EPP counterpart Manfred Weber.  The confidence vote will be held on Thursday, while the vote to fast-track the climate goal is expected on Wednesday. The EPP was still holding talks over whether to support the motion as of Tuesday evening, and a spokesperson for the group did not respond to a request for comment. Depending on whether the motion passes, the Patriots holding the pen on 2040 “could be very detrimental or marginal,” Canfin said.  “It’s a moment of truth for the EPP,” he added. “Is the EPP ready to kill the 2040 target, teaming up with [the] Patriots? Or is [the] EPP ready to get committed to the 2040 target?”  

The question isn’t whether globalization will continue, but who will lead it and on what terms, says BMW’s Frank Niederländer. With geopolitical tensions and uncertainty in the world market on the rise, the EU has an opportunity to shape the global trade agenda — if it gets out of its own way. “Europe had the ambition to lead with the Green Deal, setting the pace for the global economy,” says Niederländer, BMW Group Vice President, Government Affairs Europe. “But while we focused on regulation, others moved ahead prioritizing speed, investment and outcomes.” > We need to envision growth as an imperative again. > > Frank Niederländer, BMW Group vice president, government affairs Europe Europe’s auto industry has a sterling reputation globally for manufacturing high-quality vehicles, and the EU has a goal of zero emissions for all cars by 2035. But China’s drive for innovation has helped it lead the world market for electric cars. Only one of the world’s top 15 battery electric vehicles is made in the EU. “The share of EVs sold still depends heavily on national regulatory conditions. This fragmentation in the single market remains one of the greatest challenges to the uptake of electric vehicles. Political alignment, investment scale and the ability to react with speed is essential,” says Niederländer. POLITICO Studio sat down with Niederländer to discuss what shifts need to happen to create a climate-neutral, competitive Europe. POLITICO Studio: What is BMW’s outlook on international trade in this era of geopolitical tension? Frank Niederländer: The global trading system is shifting — and it has real consequences. It shapes investment flows, supply chains and the rules of competition in real time. Other regions are acting with intent ― investing heavily to secure their industrial bases through billions in subsidies, raw material lockdowns and strategic alliances that give them an edge. Access to energy, technology and key inputs is now, very openly, used as leverage. The risk for Europe isn’t deglobalization, it’s marginalization. It’s falling behind while others move with more speed and focus. Europe must remain open with a trade policy that reinforces our competitiveness, secures our supply chains and reflects our values, while recognizing and managing strategic dependencies. PS: Amid the United States’ increasingly isolationist trade policies, is there a new opportunity for Europe? FN: There could be, if the EU stops playing defense and starts thinking strategically about where it wants to lead. Europe has a chance to position itself as a stable, credible anchor for open and fair trade. For that, we need cohesion within the EU, and alignment of environmental, economic and trade policy. More free trade agreements with core partners (such as Mercosur) are essential today after a long period of insufficient EU engagement. Europe has what it takes to lead: a strong Single Market, technological leadership and a solid rule-of-law tradition. What’s missing is the will to shape the global trading system, not just manage its consequences. We should focus on areas where the need for collaboration is highest, such as climate-neutral industry, resilient supply chains and high-value innovation. The EU must be capable of swiftly recalibrating its priorities to keep pace with the evolving geopolitical environment, or it may find itself sidelined. We need to envisage growth as an imperative again. PS: What emerging technologies could define Europe’s competitive edge? How is BMW helping to accelerate them? FN: Europe’s edge will be defined by the convergence of climate ambition and industrial competitiveness. The winning technologies will be those that deliver both. At BMW, this is already shaping how we build, invest and compete globally. We have long embedded circularity into the core of our strategy ― in the design phase, material sourcing and end-of-life recycling. We are also investing heavily in battery cell innovation and scaling European production capacity while continuing to advance a broad range of powertrain technologies ― from electric drivetrains to highly efficient combustion engines running on renewable fuels. In fact, all diesel BMW vehicles produced in Germany are now delivered with HVO100, a renewable fuel that reduces life cycle CO2 emissions by up to 90 percent. Europe has the talent and industrial base to lead. The challenge now is to translate that potential into scale — with policy that recognizes and accelerates technological leadership. We need agile policy frameworks, public-private partnerships and an ecosystem that fosters innovation, rather than policies that dictate technologies. > Europe has the talent and industrial base to lead. The challenge now is to > translate that potential into scale — with policy that recognizes and > accelerates technological leadership. PS: How can Europe turn decarbonization into a long-term competitive advantage? What role does BMW play in that transformation? FN: Decarbonization can give Europe an economic edge if we scale up cost-effective, low-carbon technologies. While Europe led with ever tighter regulation, other regions ― notably the U.S. and China ― have advanced by mobilizing massive investments, securing critical resources and rapidly scaling technologies. Still, Europe has what it takes to lead this transition through choice and innovation, not restrictions.  Take the supply chain. The largest levers for reducing CO2 emissions lie upstream from manufacturers. We prioritize renewable electricity, secondary materials and low-carbon production processes, and we actively invest in and source from suppliers that meet those standards. That creates real momentum on the demand side to accelerate the transition. This approach plays to Europe’s industrial strengths: advanced engineering capabilities, integrated supply chains and the ability to deliver premium solutions across multiple technologies. Let companies compete to deliver the best climate solutions — that’s how we’ll maintain global leadership. PS: How does life cycle assessment (LCA) affect BMW’s strategies? FN: At BMW, our strategic focus is clear ― achieving business success while reducing our climate footprint. To do that, we must look at the full life cycle of our products ― from raw material extraction to manufacturing, use and end-of-life recycling. This is essential if we want climate policy to reflect real impact. Tailpipe emissions cannot be the only measure of a vehicle’s environmental impact. We need to assess CO2 emissions across the entire value chain. This means designing with carbon footprint in mind from the start, and we’re already applying this approach with the Neue Klasse, a new, fully electric BMW model generation, where we are embedding circularity and carbon reduction every stage of development. The EU’s move toward LCA is welcome — but it needs consistency, transparency and practical application across sectors. Done right, LCA will reward innovation where it matters most: in cutting total emissions. PS: How is BMW future-proofing its global supply chain? FN: Europe’s future competitiveness will hinge on whether we treat supply chains as a strategic asset, not a logistical challenge. That’s especially true in areas such as the battery value chain, where industrial success depends on both resilience and global cooperation. This will require massive investments — just look at the figures in the Draghi report. This isn’t about reducing complexity. It’s about managing it. Engagement with partners such as China must be realistic and rules-based, because decoupling is neither feasible nor desirable. Europe cannot operate as an island. At BMW, our global production footprint is built upon a strong European foundation. We localize to serve markets more efficiently and to strengthen resilience, and our international presence amplifies Europe’s role as a hub for innovation, engineering excellence and high-value manufacturing. > Climate neutrality must be engineered — deliberately, collaboratively, and at > scale. PS: What can the EU do to ensure that companies like BMW remain globally competitive while leading the green transition? FN: Europe has the chance to define climate neutrality in a way that keeps Europe competitive and keeps jobs here. Stronger cooperation between governments and industry is key. The Strategic Dialogue launched by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was an important step to this and must continue. The future will be shaped by many choices — smart regulation, strong industrial alliances and a shared commitment to progress that is measurable, not ideological. PS: What future does BMW imagine for a climate-neutral world? FN: A climate-neutral Europe is not just a moral responsibility — it’s a competitive imperative. It means rethinking how we power industries, design products and create value chains. The future will be built not on a single breakthrough but by thousands of decisions across technology, regulation and investment. Climate neutrality must be engineered — deliberately, collaboratively and at scale.   At BMW Group, we are engineering that future with purpose. Our 2030 climate targets are fully aligned with the Paris Agreement, which means reducing our CO2 emissions by 40 million tons by 2030 as compared to 2019. Europe has the potential to lead this transformation. But leadership requires the courage to move beyond outdated regulations, respond decisively to shifting geopolitical realities and streamline the path forward. This is the moment to lead with conviction.

BRUSSELS — France wants to delay agreement on the European Union’s next climate target, President Emmanuel Macron said after Thursday’s EU leaders’ summit.  The European Commission will unveil a contentious proposal to reduce the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2040 next week.  The EU executive has long planned to derive the bloc’s 2035 climate goal from this legislative target. That goal is non-binding but is required from all countries under the Paris Agreement before this year’s United Nations summit in Belém, Brazil. As the U.N. has set a September deadline for the 2035 objective, the Commission expects governments to reach swift agreement on the 2040 target. But now some governments are rebelling.  POLITICO reported on Wednesday that France is siding with the EU’s traditional climate laggards Poland and Hungary in demanding the EU decouple the two targets.  The reporting was met at the time with fierce denials from French government officials. But after Thursday’s European Council concluded in Brussels, Macron confirmed that he wants to deal with the 2035 target separately, and take more time to discuss 2040.  “What’s asked of us for Belém are the national trajectories for 2035. We will do that,” he said at a press conference in response to a question from POLITICO. “Now, there is a desire to have targets for 2040. … I am in favor of having these targets.”  But he insisted: “The 2040 targets can’t be a technical debate held over a few weeks. It has to be a democratic discussion among the 27” EU governments.  Decoupling the targets risks resulting in a lower-than-expected 2035 goal, casting doubts on the bloc’s global climate leadership role at a time when many look to the EU to fill the vacuum left by the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.  After Thursday’s European Council concluded in Brussels, Macron confirmed that he wants to deal with the 2035 target separately, and take more time to discuss 2040.  | Christophe Petit Tesson/EFE via EPA Macron doesn’t think it’s worth rushing the discussion, however.  “It’s great if we have [the 2040 target] for Belém, but that’s not what’s expected of us for Belém. It’s the 2035 [target], not the European targets for 2040. So let’s not overstretch ourselves,” he said.  “So let’s stop shooting ourselves in the foot,” he added. “If we have it for Belém, super. If it’s going to take longer, let’s take more time to get it right.”  HEATED DEBATE Macron also said that the 2040 target has to be “compatible with our competitiveness,” and insisted that renewables and nuclear power should be treated the same under the bloc’s future climate plans. Countries need additional leeway to meet the goal, too, while more investment is also needed, he argued. Only with these aspects included in the Commission’s 2040 “package” could he support the target, he suggested. Many governments have sent long lists of demands for agreeing to a 2040 target, and the Commission is already expected to grant countries significant flexibility to meet the goal, in order to win over a majority of countries.  EU leaders discussed the target over dinner Thursday night, a debate that Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever described as “heated.”  Macron’s push was backed by Polish President Donald Tusk. Hungary has previously expressed support for decoupling the two targets.  In contrast, Denmark — which takes over the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU next week — wants to stick with the Commission’s timeline and deliver both targets in September. AMBITIONS IN DOUBT The Commission wants to set the 2035 target halfway between the EU’s existing 2030 goal and the new 2040 milestone, which works out at a reduction of 72.5 percent below 1990 emissions levels. Without the 2040 target, there is no clear path forward. A linear trajectory between 2030 and the bloc’s climate neutrality deadline in 2050 — the option backed by Poland — would result in a lower 2035 goal of around 66 percent.  France often casts itself as the protector of the Paris Agreement, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, and the French push for delay was met with an outcry from climate advocates and the countries most vulnerable to the effects of global warming.  Tina Stege, climate envoy of the Marshall Islands, said at the U.N. oceans summit in Nice earlier this month that Pacific island leaders had spoken with Macron and “told him that the greatest risk to Pacific security is the climate crisis.”  “We urged him to guide the EU to an ambitious [2035 target]. If France is now backing away from that ambition, that would be a major reversal and we would be extremely concerned about what it means for their commitment to Pacific security,” she added.  “Emmanuel Macron — in Paris, international climate action was born,” said Austrian MEP Lena Schilling, a former Fridays for Future activist. “Don’t be the one to kill it.”