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.

TERNEUZEN, the Netherlands — Europe’s huge chemicals sector is campaigning to weaken the European Union’s most important climate policy — and Brussels is listening. At a meeting in Antwerp on Wednesday, industry chiefs will attempt to persuade European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and national leaders to water down the Emissions Trading System (ETS), a cap-and-trade strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They come with a well-rehearsed pitch: Their sector, one of the biggest in Europe, is in crisis.  Factories are being squeezed by a perfect storm of high energy prices, intense competition from China, weak demand from downstream industries — and the world’s most expensive carbon pricing scheme. Virtually no other jurisdiction in the world faces carbon costs as high as the EU, they argue: If current plans to strengthen the scheme go ahead, Europe’s chemicals industry could be dead within a decade. “Our competitors abroad don’t face comparable ETS regimes,” Markus Steilemann, CEO of German chemicals producer Covestro, told POLITICO, calling for “an urgent reform of the EU ETS to align climate ambition with competitive reality.” For environmental advocates, however, touching the ETS is akin to sacrilege. The 20-year-old scheme — which puts strict limits on the amount of planet-warming gases industry can emit, and covers nearly half of the bloc’s emission — is the bedrock of EU climate policy, forcing industry to find cleaner energy sources. Industries currently pay around €80 for every ton of carbon they emit, and by 2039 will no longer be allowed to emit any carbon at all.  But the ETS legislation is up for review this year, and momentum is growing for it to be significantly weakened. Several member countries and political groups — including von der Leyen’s own center-right European People’s Party — have signaled they want to see reforms. “Becoming greener cannot be our goal; it means becoming poorer,” Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker said on Tuesday, adding he would push for exemptions to the ETS to “ensure that domestic industry remains competitive and that our companies do not relocate.” If the ETS is substantially weakened, it would be the biggest green policy yet to fall victim to the green backlash that has defined the first 14 months of von der Leyen’s second term. ALARMED? YOU SHOULD BE EU chemicals industry body CEFIC — one of the richest lobby groups in Brussels, according to the Corporate Europe Observatory — has long warned that doomsday is near for Europe’s chemicals sector. It has released report after report outlining the loss of market share to China, the closure of plants and plummeting investment. It has even sponsored an advertising campaign in Brussels metro stations that booms out in bold letters: “Alarmed? You should be. Europe is losing production sites, quality jobs and independence.” It ends with a plea to “save our industry.” Industries currently pay around €80 for every ton of carbon they emit. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images That warning is echoed by industry chiefs. Markus Kamieth, CEO of BASF, Europe’s largest chemicals company, told reporters late last year that Europe “has the theoretical potential” to compete with the U.S. and China. “But [in] real life, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot way too often.” The chemicals lobby has come under fire for its outsized influence in Brussels. “CEFIC already maintains almost unparalleled access to EU decision-makers, registering the third-highest number of lobby meetings with the European Commission of all lobby organisations in the EU,” said Raphaël Kergueno, a senior policy officer at NGO Transparency International. Still, the sector has plenty of facts to back up its apocalyptic warnings. Since 2023 more than 20 major chemical sites have shut across Europe, costing some 30,000 jobs, according to trade union IndustriALL, which warns that a further 200,000 jobs in the sector could be lost over the next five years.  Chemical investments in Europe collapsed by more than 80 percent in 2025 from the year before, according to a recent report from CEFIC, while capacity closures continue to outpace new projects — turning Europe into a place to shut plants, not build them. Analysts say China’s rapid expansion into chemicals production is adding pressure. “European producers are especially hit, largely due to high energy costs and a reliance on uncompetitive liquid feedstocks, with the least competitive assets continuing to post negative margins,” said Andrew Neale, global head of chemicals at S&P Global Energy. As a result, he said, “longer-term investment in decarbonization and circularity have been deprioritized.” Dow’s recent investment decisions illustrate this well. The American chemical giant plans to close three plants in Europe and cut 800 jobs, citing the need to exit “higher-cost, energy-intensive assets” as the continent’s competitiveness erodes.  “It’s very clear that Europe currently suffers from a lack of competitiveness,” Julia Schlenz, president of Dow Europe, told POLITICO, warning that carbon costs and regulation are moving faster than the infrastructure needed to decarbonize. As the bad news keeps coming, the sector has increasingly called for the ETS to be weakened. In July last year CEFIC published its demands, including the issuance of free carbon allowances, a longer timeline for phasing out emissions, and the inclusion of carbon removal credits. BASF’s Kamieth, who is also president of CEFIC, repeated those calls this week in an interview with the Financial Times, calling the ETS in its current form “obsolete.” Member countries and the European Parliament have already agreed to consider these proposed changes in the upcoming review of the ETS. Germany’s environment minister, Carsten Schneider, said at an energy summit in January that it was “not the case that what has been set until 2039 can never be revised,” adding that it is possible “to allow further free allocations and to permit certificates beyond 2039 as well.” Some business groups and member countries have gone further, with Italy’s primary industry body Confindustria as well as the Czech and Slovak governments calling for the ETS to be temporarily suspended altogether. “In a deeply changed geopolitical context, the ETS, in its current configuration, has revealed all of its limitations,” Confindustria President Emanuele Orsini said in a statement Tuesday. “The ETS is an unbalanced system that fails to deliver the decarbonisation benefits it claims to pursue, while in practice undermining the competitiveness of European industry.” The European Commission sees the electrification of industry as not just a climate imperative but an energy security one. | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images Defenders of the ETS insist this is the wrong approach. They argue that the emphasis should be on more rapid decarbonization, which for the chemicals sector hinges on electrifying its industrial processes. But that, too, costs money. ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING The chimneys of Terneuzen chemical plant have been billowing out carbon-laden smoke for more than 60 years, as the Dutch factory sucks in an endless stream of natural gas and pumps out plastic products. But in June last year the industrial buzz subsided as Dow, the plant’s operator, shut down one of its three main “steam-cracker” units because it was too expensive to run — in what has become a common story across Europe’s chemicals sector. Steam-cracking is the crux of the chemicals industry’s reliance on energy. It turns oil or gas into the basic building blocks of plastics and chemicals by heating them to almost 1,000 degrees Celsius. The process uses vast amounts of energy because the furnaces are kept at these temperatures 24 hours a day, seven days a week, making it one of the most energy-intensive processes in Europe.  Electrifying steam-crackers would require huge amounts of clean electricity — which the industry insists is simply not yet available. “One thing we know is if we are going to switch to electric cracking, eventually, when the technology is there, is that we need significant amounts of renewable electricity delivered here,” says Dennis Kredler, Dow’s director for EU affairs in Brussels. Terneuzen is not an outlier. Across Europe’s chemical clusters, decarbonization targets are racing ahead of the power grids meant to support them. “If you can’t get renewable electricity off the grid, we said, okay, we need to do it ourselves and find these leading providers to secure wind and solar energy for our sites in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and so on,” LyondellBasell CEO Peter Vanacker told POLITICO. “But we need support from Brussels.” The European Commission sees the electrification of industry as not just a climate imperative but an energy security one. In an interview with POLITICO in December, EU energy chief Dan Jorgensen said the shift would be good for the bloc. “There is not one European country that will not benefit from Europe being more independent on the energy side,” he said. German Greens MEP Jutta Paulus agrees, arguing that Europe’s competitiveness will ultimately depend less on looser rules than on faster access to renewable power and new markets for low-carbon chemicals. “Every chemical industry on this planet will have to transition away from fossil fuels — that’s very clear,” she said. Some right-of-center MEPs also broadly agree. Peter Liese, from the European People’s Party, said the chemicals industry is the reason why the ETS debate is so difficult. “Chemical companies talk about their costs due to the ETS. However, they do not talk about how they intend to decarbonize. The purpose of the ETS is not to torment companies, but to encourage them to decarbonize.” Peter Liese, from the European People’s Party, said the chemicals industry is the reason why the ETS debate is so difficult. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images However, others in the EPP take a less sympathetic approach, and the group’s overall position has yet to be clarified. Rob Ingram, head of the plastics division at British chemicals giant INEOS, insists the sector is dedicated to decarbonizing — just not as fast as current laws demand. “I’m convinced that all the peers in the industry absolutely know that we need to decarbonize and develop a second economy and want to do that,” Ingram told POLITICO. “The question is, how do we get there?”  He argues that if the EU over-regulates high-emitting sectors, those sectors will just go offshore to countries with weaker or no carbon controls.  “De-industrialization of Europe is actually worse for the planet,” he says. LEAKING CARBON It was this risk — known as “carbon leakage” — that prompted the EU initially to grant free ETS allowances to industries most at risk of moving offshore. But Brussels has now attempted to address that by charging a carbon tax on imports, and is phasing out free allowances.  Chemicals, though, don’t fall under the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, giving extra force to their call for continued free allowances. And they have evidence that the fear of leakage is being realized: While Europe debates how to keep its chemical plants alive, BASF is pressing ahead with its largest investment ever, a €10 billion fully integrated chemicals mega-plant — in China.  Tatiana Santos, head of chemicals policy at the European Environmental Bureau, says the EU’s response should not be to deregulate, arguing the EU’s selling point is precisely its higher environmental standards. “At the end of the day, we cannot compete with China or the U.S. in lower standards.” But that argument doesn’t persuade Peter Huntsman, CEO of chemicals producer Huntsman. “When is it time to step back and ask, are we accomplishing anything?” he asked, dismissing the argument that if you give the ETS time to work its magic, it will eventually force industry to find affordable, competitive, low-carbon means of production. “The chemical industry does not have 10 years left,” he said. Zia Weise and Francesca Micheletti contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — For once, Europe’s heavy industry is lobbying to save a climate law.  Manufacturers are worried the European Commission is undermining the bloc’s new carbon tariff regime, a key pillar of EU climate policy, with a plan to give itself discretionary powers to suspend parts of the new measure. They warn the move is throwing investment plans into disarray and threatening much-needed decarbonization projects. The EU executive wants to grant itself the power to exempt goods from the just-launched carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which requires importers of certain products to pay for planet-warming pollution emitted during the production process.  This levy is designed to protect European manufacturers — which are obliged by EU law to pay for each ton of CO2 they emit — from being out-competed by cheaper, dirtier imports. Importers of Chinese steel, for example, now pay the difference between Beijing’s carbon price and the bloc’s, ensuring it bears the same pollution costs as made-in-EU steel.  The prospect of having that protection yanked away by the Commission has spooked European manufacturers — particularly after a dozen EU governments immediately started campaigning to apply the exemption to fertilizers in an effort to protect farmers from higher import costs.  CBAM “is linked to investment, but it’s also linked to survival, actually, of some members,” said Antoine Hoxha, director of industry association Fertilizers Europe. “We can compete with anyone on a level playing field. But we need that level playing field.”  Fertilizer producers aren’t the only ones worried. Most major industry bodies representing CBAM-covered sectors in Brussels — which, aside from fertilizers, include steel, iron, aluminum, cement, hydrogen and electricity — told POLITICO they and their members had concerns about the Commission’s plans.  They warn that the new exemption clause, besides opening EU companies to unfair competition, risks undermining CBAM’s other goal of encouraging the bloc’s trading partners to switch to cleaner production methods, as it creates uncertainty over the level of EU demand for low-carbon imports.  “We see this as some kind of sword of Damocles. If it remains like this, it’s going to send a really discouraging signal to European and international investors, and that will seriously slow down industrial decarbonization,” said Laurent Donceel, industrial policy director at Hydrogen Europe. “We would urge lawmakers to reconsider this, because we feel it undermines the entirety of CBAM.”   Lawmakers in the European Parliament, worried about a domino effect if the Commission gives in to demands to exempt fertilizers, appear to be listening. In an environment committee meeting last week, MEPs from the far left to the center right criticized the EU executive’s proposed clause.  The changes still need the approval of MEPs and EU governments before they can come into effect, and “it is unlikely there is a majority to do so in the Parliament,” said Pascal Canfin, a French MEP and environmental coordinator of the centrist Renew group. “Precisely because it would trigger other requests and empty [out] the CBAM.”  VAGUE WORDING The Commission proposed the suspension clause, known as Article 27a, in mid-December as part of a host of other changes to CBAM. The clause initially flew under the radar before governments seized on it to demand the exemption of fertilizers in early January.  The new article gives the EU executive the power to remove goods from the mechanism in the event of “severe harm to the Union internal market due to serious and unforeseen circumstances related to the impact on the prices of goods.” The exemption remains in effect “until those serious and unforeseeable circumstances have passed.”  Industry representatives warn that this wording is so exceedingly vague — setting no time limit or trigger threshold — that it leaves CBAM vulnerable to political pressure campaigns.  Case in point: Fertilizers. A group of 12 governments has argued that CBAM has pushed up costs for farmers, and should trigger a suspension. But analysts and manufacturers dispute the idea that the new levy is to blame for high fertilizer costs, while also noting that increasing import prices due to CBAM are anything but unforeseen.  Farmers “are caught in between high energy prices that lead to high fertilizer prices on one side, and on the other side agriculture commodities prices have gone down, so they are in a squeeze and they need a real solution,” said Hoxha from Fertilizers Europe. “But it’s not this.” After a meeting with agriculture ministers in January, the Commission also clarified that any exemption under Article 27a would apply retroactively — causing “shock” among industry, Hoxha said. Exempting goods from CBAM also weakens the EU’s carbon market, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which obliges companies to buy permits to cover their pollution.  Before the levy came into effect, the bloc shielded its manufacturers from cheaper foreign competition by granting them a certain amount of ETS permits for free — a practice that has been criticized for undermining the case for decarbonization. With CBAM launched, those pollution subsidies will be phased out.  But the Commission confirmed to POLITICO that if a product is exempted from CBAM, the affected companies would continue receiving free pollution permits: “The … reduction of the free allocations for the relevant period would not apply,” a Commission spokesperson said.  CROSS-INDUSTRY CONCERN The proposed clause has sent shockwaves through industry beyond the fertilizer sector.  “Such emergency procedures create legal uncertainty with regards to a cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy,” steel producer association Eurofer said in a statement, noting that increasing import prices are an intentional feature of the system, not an unforeseen bug. Cement Europe is “concerned that Article 27a would introduce major legal uncertainty into CBAM. An open‑ended exemption for ‘unforeseen circumstances,’ potentially even applied retroactively, risks undermining the predictability industry needs,” the association’s public affairs director Cliona Cunningham said.   At Eurelectric, which represents Europe’s electricity industry, “some of our members have expressed concern about the way Article 27a has been introduced,” the association said in a statement, also stressing the need for predictability.  “If there is a perception that CBAM obligations can be lifted for political or undefined unforeseen reasons, this may weaken incentives to invest in local decarbonisation and low-carbon production both within the EU and beyond,” Eurelectric warned.  Hydrogen Europe’s Donceel said that for producers of fertilizer, including hydrogen-derived ammonia, “this is becoming a huge issue … even before it gets adopted or comes into force — already, the possibility of an exemption is wrecking the business case for a lot of our members and a lot of key companies in these sectors. So this Article 27a definitively came as a shock.”  Only some metals producers supported the Commission’s proposal.  Given that CBAM is a new and complex policy, a suspension clause “is just realistic and good policymaking,” European Metals director James Watson said in a statement. “No regulatory system is flawless from the outset; an emergency brake, activated in certain conditions, is a matter of common sense.” His association represents producers of metals other than iron and steel. European Aluminium, which considers CBAM insufficient to protect their sector from unfair competition, wants to see Article 27a more clearly defined. But in general, “we see it basically as an emergency clause that our sector always wanted,” said Emanuele Manigrassi, the association’s climate director.  MIFFED CLIMATE CHAMPIONS In response to questions, a Commission spokesperson sought to reassure industry that CBAM “is not being cancelled for any of the sectors in scope” and that it was committed to providing “regulatory certainty for companies to move forward with their investments, especially for projects aiming to produce low-carbon products and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”  Yet the proposal has especially rankled companies that see themselves as frontrunners in decarbonizing their industries, taking on the risk of early upfront investments. “You need to have a strong and predictable framework on carbon pricing, especially to back up industry frontrunners,” said Joren Verschaeve, who manages the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete. “The risk with a provision as proposed like Article 27a is that you inject uncertainty in this whole market … I think this is the last thing we need right now.”  The carbon border tax is also meant to encourage other countries’ industries to switch to cleaner production, as low-carbon imports are subject to lower CBAM fees.  But for companies already planning to ramp up climate-friendly manufacturing outside the EU in response to CBAM, the Commission’s move has also raised questions about whether there will be sufficient demand for their low-carbon imports to warrant the investment.  Norwegian fertilizer giant Yara International recently warned it would have to rethink a multi-billion low-carbon project if the mechanism was suspended. “It’s a huge concern to us, and the uncertainty grows every day. We want to reduce our emissions, but we will not do it purely out of goodwill. We need a clear business case, and CBAM is a key enabler here,” said Tiffanie Stephani, vice president for government relations at Yara.  “Any suspension would undermine the very companies that are taking concrete steps to decarbonize,” she added. 

NEW DELHI — The European Union and India locked arms against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive and China’s flood of cheaper goods to conclude talks on a landmark trade pact on Tuesday.  Under the deal, India will lower tariffs on European cars and wine, while the EU signaled it would assist Indian companies with decarbonization and negotiate duty-free quotas for Indian steel.  “Two giants who choose partnership, in a true win-win fashion. A strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global challenges,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, standing next to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The announcement rounded off a year of intensive negotiations in which the EU sought to lock down a trade deal with the world’s most populous nation. Von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa were guests of honor at India’s exuberant Republic Day celebrations on Monday. Ties between India and the U.S. reached a low point last August, when Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from the South Asian nation over its purchases of Russian oil.  “Both know that they need each other like never before and in this fractured world where trusted partnerships are very, very hard to come by,” said Garima Mohan, who leads the German Marshall Fund’s work on India. Under the deal, India will gradually slash tariffs on European cars, reducing tariffs from 110 to 10 percent on 250,000 cars every year.  A range of agricultural goods will also see their tariffs drop, coming as a reassurance for the European Parliament and the EU’s farmers who have been heavily protesting in recent months over fears that they would be undercut by cheap farm produce.  Tariffs on wine will be reduced from to 20 and 30 percent from 150 percent now, depending on value. European olive oil will also enter duty free into India, instead of facing a 45 percent tariff. STEEL DEAL The stickiest issues related to steel and the EU’s carbon border tax: New Delhi, a major steel exporter, wanted to make sure that its metals wouldn’t be impacted by an upcoming 50 percent EU tariff on steel, and the carbon levy that has just entered force. In response to those concerns, the EU plans to give India a significant share of the 18.3 million metric tons of steel allowed to enter the bloc duty free — Brussels will negotiate this with its partners as is required by global trade rules.  “There will of course be a difference in how you treat this negotiation on application of steel measures between FTA and non-FTA partners. Therefore I think it was strategic from both sides that we have the agreement now and that India will be treated as an FTA partner,” EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told POLITICO.  On the carbon border tax, a new levy on carbon emissions that has irked countries such as the United States and Brazil, Brussels will “help Indian operators to have a smooth introduction of CBAM with all the technical assistance and all the additional advice we can provide,” Šefčovič added, stressing that the Commission would treat all its partners equally.  For India, the deal represents an opportunity to boost its exports of pharmaceuticals, textiles and chemicals.  This story has been updated.

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

A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  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.

The European Commission has proposed giving itself legally-enshrined power to plan the expansion of European electricity grids, as it scrambles to update an ageing network to meet the soaring demands of the clean energy transition. The proposed changes to the Trans-European Networks for Energy, or TEN-E, regulation, would give the Commission power to conduct “central scenario” planning to assess what upgrades are needed to the grid — a marked change from the current decentralized system of grid planning. The Commission would conduct this planning every four years. Where no projects are planned, the Commission would have power to intervene. The proposal was part of the European Grids Package, a sweeping set of changes to EU energy laws released Wednesday. Electrification of everything from transport and heating to industrial processes is essential as Europe moves away from planet-warming fossil fuels. But that puts huge strain on networks, and the Commission estimates electricity demand will double by 2040. An efficient, pan-European electricity grid is essential to meeting this demand. “The European Grids Package is more than just a policy,” said Teresa Ribera, the EU’s decarbonization chief, in a statement Tuesday. “It’s our commitment for an inclusive future, where every part of Europe reaps the benefits of the energy revolution: cheaper clean energy, reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels, secure supply and protection against price shocks.” Along with centralized planning, the Grids Package proposes speeding up permitting of grids and other energy projects to get the infrastructure faster, including relaxing environmental planning rules for grids. Currently planning and building new grid infrastructure takes around 10 years. It would do this by amending four laws: the TEN-E regulation, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Markets Directive, and the Gas Market Directive. The package also proposes “cost-sharing” funding models to ensure those countries that benefit from projects contribute to its financing, and speeding up a number of key energy interconnection projects across Europe.

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.