BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

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.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s most energy-intensive industries are worried the European Union’s carbon border tax will go too soft on heavily polluting goods imported from China, Brazil and the United States — undermining the whole purpose of the measure. From the start of next year, Brussels will charge a fee on goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum and fertilizer imported from countries with weaker emissions standards than the EU’s. The point of the law, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, is to make sure dirtier imports don’t have an unfair advantage over EU-made products, which are charged around €80 for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. One of the main conundrums for the EU is how to calculate the carbon footprint of imports when the producers don’t give precise emissions data. According to draft EU laws obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission is considering using default formulas that EU companies say are far too generous. Two documents in particular have raised eyebrows. One contains draft benchmarks to assess the carbon footprint of imported CBAM goods, while the second — an Excel sheet seen by POLITICO — shows default CO2 emissions values for the production of these products in foreign countries. These documents are still subject to change. National experts from EU countries discussed the controversial texts last Wednesday during a closed-door meeting, and asked the Commission to rework them before they can be adopted. That’s expected to happen over the next few weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the talks. Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. For example, some steel products from China, Brazil and the United States have much lower assumed emissions than equivalent products made in the EU, according to the tables. Ola Hansén, public affairs director of the green steel manufacturer Stegra, said he had been “surprised” by the draft default values that have been circulating, because they suggest that CO2 emissions for some steel production routes in the EU were higher than in China, which seemed “odd.” “Our recommendation would be [to] adjust the values, but go ahead with the [CBAM] framework and then improve it over time,” he said. Antoine Hoxha, director general of industry association Fertilizers Europe, also said he found the proposed default values “quite low” for certain elements, like urea, used to manufacture fertilizers. “The result is not exactly what we would have thought,” he said, adding there is “room for improvement.” But he also noted that the Commission is trying “to do a good job but they are extremely overwhelmed … It’s a lot of work in a very short period of time.” Multiple industry representatives told POLITICO that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries, which risks undermining the efficiency of the CBAM. | Photo by VCG via Getty Images While a weak CBAM would be bad for many emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in the EU, it’s likely to please sectors relying on cheap imports of CBAM goods — such as European farmers that import fertilizer — as well as EU trade partners that have complained the measure is a barrier to global free trade. The European Commission declined to comment. DEFAULT VERSUS REAL EMISSIONS Getting this data right is crucial to ensure the mechanism works and encourages companies to lower their emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee. “Inconsistencies in the figures of default values and benchmarks would dilute the incentive for cleaner production processes and allow high-emission imports to enter the EU market with insufficient carbon costs,” said one CBAM industry representative, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks. “This could result in a CBAM that is not only significantly less effective but most likely counterproductive.” The default values for CO2 emissions are like a stick. When the legislation was designed, they were expected to be set quite high to “punish importers that are not providing real emission data,” and encourage companies to report their actual emissions to pay a lower CBAM fee, said Leon de Graaf, acting president of the Business for CBAM Coalition. But if these default values are too low then importers no longer have any incentive to provide their real emissions data. They risk making the CBAM less effective because it allows imported goods to appear cleaner than they really are, he said. The Commission is under pressure to adopt these EU acts quickly as they’re needed to set the last technical details for the implementation of the CBAM, which applies from Jan. 1. However, de Graaf warned against rushing that process. On the one hand, importers “needed clarity yesterday” because they are currently agreeing import deals for next year and at the moment “cannot calculate what their CBAM cost will be,” he said. But European importers are worried too, because once adopted the default emission values will apply for the next two years, the draft documents suggest. The CBAM regulation states that the default values “shall be revised periodically.” “It means that if they are wrong now … they will hurt certain EU producers for at least two years,” de Graaf said.

LONDON — Britain’s global diplomatic footprint could be significantly scaled back as it tries to work out which embassies and buildings to sell off from a sprawling £2.5 billion overseas estate. U.K. budget documents released this week show the Foreign Office is “rationalising” its collection of some 6,500 properties to find “assets to release” — while hundreds of its buildings have fallen into serious disrepair. This will include selling off buildings such as embassies and diplomatic accommodation which are deemed no longer necessary as part of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office’s “FCDO2030” overhaul of its work, staffing and footprint in the U.K. and beyond. The budget makes specific mention of finding savings in “high-cost locations such as New York” — which could include a £12 million luxury apartment in the city bought for diplomats in 2019 to help negotiate trade deals with the United States following Brexit. The Foreign Office at the time said it secured the “best deal possible” for the seven-bedroom flat, which occupies the whole 38th floor of 50 United Nations Plaza and has a library, six bathrooms and a powder room. Earlier this year U.K. spending watchdogs the National Audit Office (NAO) and parliament’s own Public Accounts Committee (PAC) raised significant concerns over the state of Britain’s creaking overseas diplomatic estate. Around 933 of its properties (around 15 percent of the total) have been assessed as not being sound or operationally safe. FCDO estimates that it would cost £450 million to clear its maintenance backlog. PAC noted that after selling off large assets, such as its embassy compounds in Bangkok and Tokyo, FCDO “has no remaining large assets that are viable to sell.” It is the latest in a series of cutbacks to Britain’s soft power clout. The government has already come under fire for slashing its international aid budget, which also helps fund the BBC World Service. Olivia O’Sullivan, director of the UK in the World program at the Chatham House think tank, said it was “unsurprising” that the government is looking at its overseas estate to meet the “significant cutbacks” at the FCDO. “The government needs to balance the need for cost-savings with the benefits of having some high-impact spaces it can use for hosting and projecting power and presence,” she added. The Foreign Office is meanwhile undergoing major restructuring. Union officials this week told parliament’s International Development Select Committee that the FCDO is in the process of offering redundancy to its U.K.-based staff — which could result in up to 30 percent cuts to its headcount. Overseas, the department is also reviewing the size and location of its global footprint which encompasses over 250 posts in over 150 countries worldwide. The government was contacted for comment.

ATHENS — Athens and Kyiv signed an agreement on Sunday for Ukraine to import liquified natural gas to help meet the country’s winter energy needs, as Greece becomes the first EU country to actively participate in the U.S. plan to replace “every last molecule of Russian gas” with American LNG. The plan calls for U.S. LNG deliveries routed through Greece from next month to March 2026 via the vertical gas corridor, a newly activated pipeline system for natural gas that includes pipelines, LNG terminals and storage facilities. The project — actively lobbied by the U.S. — is intended to provide energy to Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, with Greece being the entry point for U.S. gas going up to Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and farther north to Ukraine and Moldova. “Ukraine gains direct access to diversified and reliable energy sources, while Greece becomes a hub for supplying Central and Eastern Europe with American liquefied natural gas,” Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said, emphasizing Greece’s growing role as an energy hub. The agreement will “cover nearly €2 billion needed for gas imports to compensate for the losses in Ukrainian production caused by Russian strikes,” Zelenskyy said in a statement Sunday. The deal was signed during a visit by Zelenskyy to Athens, attended by Mitsotakis, Greek Energy Minister Stavros Papastavrou and U.S. Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle. The agreement signed on Sunday formalized a declaration of intent between Greece’s gas company DEPA Commercial and Ukraine’s Naftogaz. Greece aims to showcase its importance as an entry point for American LNG, bolstering Europe’s independence from Russian gas. Athens last week signed a 20-year deal to import 700 million cubic meters of U.S. LNG a year starting in 2030, aiming to boost U.S. LNG shipments from Greece to its northern European neighbors. “What we see for the future of Greece and the United States is Greece being an energy hub and showing this energy dominance that both of our countries can experience and work together cooperatively to achieve tremendous outcomes,” Ambassador Guilfoyle said in an interview with Antenna TV on Thursday. The deal was signed during a visit by Zelenskyy to Athens, attended by Mitsotakis, Greek Energy Minister Stavros Papastavrou and U.S. Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle. | Clive Brunskill/Getty Images “Cooperation within the framework of the ‘vertical corridor’ may prove to be more decisive for peace and prosperity in the region than NATO,” Energy Minister Papastavrou told a conference in Athens on Tuesday. In addition to the U.S. LNG deal, Greece has opened its waters to gas exploration for the first time in more than four decades, with American help, under an agreement signed with ExxonMobil, the U.S.’s biggest oil company, along with Greece’s Energean and HelleniQ Energy. “This is understood and portrayed to be significantly adding to Greece’s value added as a commercial partner and geopolitical ally,” said Harry Tzimitras, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo Cyprus Centre. But he also noted criticisms of Greece’s energy push, including environmental consequences, financial challenges and geopolitical risks. “These span the whole gamut of the project’s aspects: Greece would have to double its storage capacity … requiring extensive construction of depots and LNG facilities with serious potential environmental footprint,” Tzimitras said. “U.S. LNG is currently very expensive, straining energy budgets; the likelihood of  geopolitical antagonisms is heightened; and the whole project is identified as going against the efforts to achieve environmental targets, contributing to the delay in transitioning to renewable energy sources,” he said.

BRUSSELS — Lawmakers in the European Parliament on Thursday agreed to exempt more companies from green reporting rules after the center-right, right-wing and far-right groups allied to pass the EU’s first omnibus simplification package. The outcome illustrates the EPP’s willingness to abandon its traditional centrist allies and press ahead with the support of far-right groups to pass its deregulation agenda, setting a precedent for future lawmaking in Parliament for the rest of the mandate. The far-right Patriots and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups and some liberals voted in favor of the center-right European People’s Party’s proposed changes to the European Commission’s first omnibus simplification bill, which were also proposed by right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists. The changes would raise the threshold of corporate sustainability disclosure and due diligence rules so that even fewer companies will have to report on the environmental footprint. 382 MEPs voted in favor, 249 against and 13 abstained. The Parliament also voted to scrap mandatory climate transition plans for companies under EU due diligence rules, to force them to align their business models with the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives of the Paris Agreement. It comes after months of intense negotiations in which the EPP, the center-left Socialists and Democrats and the centrist Renew group failed to reach a deal among themselves on how far to roll back the reporting rules. The sustainability omnibus bills reviews EU laws on environmental disclosure and supply chain transparency rules to reduce administrative burden for companies in a bid to boost their competitiveness. The Parliament will now enter in negotiations with the Council of the EU and the Commission to finalize a common position on the file.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

AI is intensifying the strategic rivalry between the European Union and the United States, reshaping models of industrial policy and regulatory sovereignty. Amid a flurry of investment announcements, the exposure of security vulnerabilities and the contest over global standards, one critical factor remains largely in the shadows — seldom acknowledged, scarcely quantified and rarely debated: its environmental footprint. The environmental blind spot of a strategic technology The silence surrounding the impact of AI is surprising. A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts for less than 1 percent of the global conversation.1 Worse still, among the 100 most influential AI personalities,2 ecological concerns are only eighth on the list of subjects they discuss most, far behind technological and economic issues. > A study carried out by Sopra Steria and Opsci.ai analyzing over 3 million > posts about AI on social media reveals that its environmental impact accounts > for less than 1 percent of the global conversation AI relies on energy-intensive infrastructure that consumes resources and water, the footprint of which remains largely underestimated, poorly measured and therefore little considered in industrial and political trade-offs. This misalignment can also be explained by the trajectory of the sector itself: driven by the rise of AI, the digital sector is one of the few areas whose environmental impact is continuing to grow, contrary to the climate objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. While American players are already crushing the AI market, technological dependence must not be compounded by a setback on Europe’s carbon trajectory. This omission undermines the credibility of any European industrial strategy built on AI. To serve as genuine drivers of transformation, the leading AI companies must bring full transparency to their environmental trajectory — one they are progressively shaping for Europe. © Sopra Steria Measuring for action: The need for transparency and rigor We must not rush to condemn AI, but we must insist on setting the conditions for its long-term sustainability. This means measuring its impact objectively and transparently, equipping stakeholders with the tools for informed debate, and guiding decision-makers in their technological choices. Recent research indicates that the environmental footprint of a given model can vary significantly depending on where it is assessed, the energy mix of the countries hosting the data centers,3 the duration of the training, the architecture employed and the extent to which low-carbon energy sources are used. Breaking through the methodological vagueness means providing developers, purchasers and decision-makers with common frames of reference, impact simulators, libraries of low-carbon models and low-carbon computing infrastructures. Numerous levers for action and choice exist, provided we have the necessary data and tools. This requirement is not a regulatory whim but a strategic steering tool. Sustainability must be given as much weight as performance or security in industrial and economic trade-offs, because it determines the very viability of Europe’s strategic autonomy. At a time when free international trade faces headwinds, and as the second phase of the AI Act — in force since August 2025 — continues to overlook environmental sustainability, transparency on environmental impact must become a prerequisite for access to European markets, financing and large-scale deployment. Making sustainability a central pillar of European competitiveness Europe has an opportunity to seize. It has a robust standards base that is a powerful lever for competitiveness and responsible innovation, provided that it is supported by targeted investment, shared standards and an industrial strategy aligned with our climate objectives. But Europe can rely on something even more decisive: its people. We have world-class researchers, visionary entrepreneurs, and thriving companies that embody the best of technological and industrial excellence. The recent strategic partnership between ASML, a key supplier to the world’s semiconductor industry, and Mistral, an AI start-up, illustrates Europe’s capacity to connect its industrial and digital strengths to shape a sovereign and sustainable future4. It would be dangerous to suggest that Europe’s technological strength could be built on deferred ecology. What is tolerated as a gray area today will be a competitive handicap tomorrow. Customers, investors and citizens will increasingly demand transparency. The emergence of responsible AI does not mean making it perfect, but making it readable, controllable and adjustable. In a technological landscape dominated by two superpowers that have hitherto favored efficiency and technological competitiveness to the detriment of ethical safeguards, Europe can chart a singular course. It has the means to assert itself by defending responsible AI, at the service of the common good and in line with its fundamental values: the rule of law, individual freedom, social justice and respect for the environment. This orientation is not a brake on innovation, but on the contrary a lever for differentiation, capable of inspiring confidence in a digital ecosystem that is often perceived as opaque or threatening. By betting on ethical, explainable and sustainable AI, Europe would not be giving up global competition, but it would be redefining the rules of the game. More than ever, it must give priority to clarity, stringency and rigor. Only then will AI cease to be a technological equation to be solved and become a genuine project at the service of our society, consistent with our democratic and ecological imperatives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AI & environment: breaking through the information fog – Sopra Steria 2. “The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024”, Time Magazine 3. ADEME – Arcep study on the environmental footprint of digital technology in 2020, 2030 and 2025 4. https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-asml-invests-in-french-mistral-in-huge-european-ai-team-up/

LONDON — Not every disaffected Tory is welcome in Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.  Wannabe defectors face interviews, background checks and social media sweeps before being allowed to cross the floor.  Reform Lincolnshire Mayor Andrea Jenkyns told POLITICO that she went through “two interview processes” and had her entire online footprint vetted before she defected to the party in November 2024.  “They’ve got to be aligned to our values: family, community, country — and the belief that Reform is the way forward, with Nigel at the helm,” she added. The question of who gets in — and which backbencher might go next — has animated Westminster since Danny Kruger’s announcement last month that he was jumping ship from the Conservatives, making him the first sitting Tory MP to defect to Farage’s camp. WHO MAKES THE CUT – AND WHO DOESN’T  The line isn’t always clear. Reform MP Lee Anderson has already publicly ruled out Boris Johnson — who he labeled as “too nice” and wanting “to please everybody.” At the same time, “none of the One Nations who ruined the Conservatives” would be allowed in, said Jenkyns.  However, critics within Westminster accuse Farage of prioritizing headlines by selecting recognizable figures over consistency in his vetting strategy.  “There is intellectual inconsistency in the people that Reform are taking,” said one Conservative party adviser, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. This person pointed to Nadine Dorries — architect of the Online Safety Bill — and Jake Berry, a net-zero enthusiast, who were welcomed into the party in September and July, respectively, despite Reform’s history of opposing both. Reform Lincolnshire Mayor Andrea Jenkyns told POLITICO that she went through “two interview processes” and had her entire online footprint vetted before she defected to the party in November 2024.  | Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images “These guys are really just helping to get Nigel back into the headlines,” they said. “But ultimately, it’s Nigel that calls the shots and Nigel who will decide the policy.” A Reform special adviser dismissed Conservative party members as “super irrelevant,” adding that they “couldn’t care less what they think.” THE QUIET BEFORE THE SWITCH  On the Tory benches, defections are not a surprise.  So far, 16 former Tories have made the leap, with ex-Cabinet minister David Jones among the most prominent.  “I’d been a member of the party for over 50 years,” Jones told POLITICO. “It’s not a minor thing — it’s a very big deal to leave a party that you’ve been associated with for the whole of your adult life.” A Reform special adviser dismissed Conservative party members as “super irrelevant,” adding that they “couldn’t care less what they think.” | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images “I couldn’t really do much more than write to the party chair, Richard Fuller,” he said. “I told him in October I will not be renewing in January. He had three months’ notice, and I didn’t get a reply to my email.” Jones said he realized he had spent “around half of the last parliament opposing” his own government. He pointed to the Windsor Framework and the Rwanda Bill as particular pain points.  For Jenkyns — who now calls Reform her “natural home” — the decision to defect came down to what she described as the Conservatives’ reckless spending, failed migration policies, and “the way they treated Boris, who was a friend.” Many defectors believe the Conservatives have morphed into “a blue-rinsed version of the Liberal Democrats,” said Jones. That theme, he added, often comes up in private conversations with MPs still considering whether to jump. REFORM VOTERS WELCOME THEM ALL Following the announcement of Kruger’s defection, Labour argued that “every Conservative who defects to Reform ties Nigel Farage more closely to their record of failure.” However, polling suggests that Reform voters aren’t worried. According to More in Common, 58 percent believe the party should accept former Conservatives. Just under a third disagree. “It’s very unlikely to be a problem, because the vast majority of Reform voters have come themselves from the Conservatives,” says Jane Green, director at Nuffield Politics Research Centre. Though Tory defectors might not be too controversial to the party, Green said that there will be a line for Reform. “They need to demonstrate that they have responsible policy makers with some experience of governing to reassure voters,” she said. “So in my mind, the line should be competent, trustworthy, and history of delivery in government. What they want to avoid is obviously anybody who can’t bring credibility.”  Kruger managed to grab headlines for Farage last month. With the Tory conference around the corner, many in Westminster are watching for the next defection — and wondering whether Farage has another move up his sleeve to steal the party’s thunder.  

BRUSSELS — Political groups in the European Parliament failed to reach a common position on a simplification bill Tuesday, exposing fault lines in Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s centrist coalition. Lawmakers had geared up for an all-nighter to reach a deal on how far to roll back several EU green laws as part of the first “omnibus” simplification package. But the meeting ended after less than four hours as relations between the Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists broke down. The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) threatened to side with right-wing groups to pass massive cuts to the rules, unless its traditional coalition partners — the centrist Renew group and the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) — agreed to an alternative with fewer cuts. While Renew seemed willing to accept the second option with some caveats, S&D refused. The omnibus bill aims to reduce reporting obligations for companies under the bloc’s sustainability disclosure and supply chain transparency rules. Cutting red tape for businesses has become a top priority for von der Leyen in her second mandate, as the EU strives to boost competitiveness and aid flaccid economies. “My goal has always been to simplify and cut cost for business. I have presented two packages that deliver on that,” said the EPP’s Jörgen Warborn, who leads negotiations on this file. The first option — which exempts even more companies from having to report on their environmental footprint — has the backing of right-wing and far-right groups. “I do not exclude any majority as long as we cut costs for businesses and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness,” Warborn added. The so-called von der Leyen majority includes the three moderate groups and the Greens that backed her for a second term, after last year’s European election results saw the balance of power in the Parliament tilt to the right. The EPP has since flirted on some issues with forming an alternative majority with conservative and far-right parties. THREATS AND THEATER The S&D’s Lara Wolters said that during the meeting, there was “not a single decent conversation. Only threats and theater.” But “these are serious matters. So let’s not waste more time, and start real negotiations,” she added. Pascal Canfin, who leads Renew’s work around the omnibus, said: “The far-right-leaning ‘option one’ is totally unacceptable.” This sustainability omnibus bill is the first major piece of legislation the three parties need to agree on, and the breakdown could set a precedent for future contentious bills. There was tension in the room. One Parliament official — granted anonymity to speak freely about the closed-door meeting — said it was clearly “badly prepared” and that negotiations were “a waste of time.” The lawmakers needed a break just 10 minutes after the meeting had started, the official said. At the heart of the dispute is a push from the EPP to scrap the so-called civil liability regime, which leaves companies across the EU legally liable for possible environmental or human rights violations in their supply chains. The European Commission proposed to scrap this possibility for lawsuits in the omnibus; a position EU governments agree with. However, the S&D — backed by the Greens — want to keep this safeguard to hold companies accountable for their supply chains. “We have been nothing but constructive in the negations, while EPP has constantly been flirting with the far right and threatening with an alternative majority,” said the Greens’ Kira Marie Pieter Hansen. The EPP, Renew and S&D said they remained open to further negotiations, which are expected to continue. EU lawmakers in the legal affairs committee are expected to vote on a final text on Oct. 13.