PARIS — How do you celebrate a major anniversary of the world’s most significant climate treaty while deprioritizing the fight against climate change?   That’s the quandary in Paris heading into Friday, when the landmark Paris Agreement turns 10.   With budgets strapped and the fight against climate change losing political momentum, the only major celebration planned by the French government consists of a reception inside the Ministry of Ecological Transition hosted by the minister, Monique Barbut, according to the invitation card seen by POLITICO.  Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu won’t be there, and it’s unclear if President Emmanuel Macron will attend.  Lecornu will be talking about health care in the region of Eure, where he’s from. Macron’s plans for Friday are not yet public, but the day before he’ll address the “consequences of misinformation on climate change” as part of a nationwide tour to speak with French citizens about technology and misinformation.  According to two ministerial advisers, the Elysée Palace had initially planned to organize an event, details of which were not released, but it was canceled at the last minute. When contacted about the plans, the Elysée did not respond.  Even if Macron ends up attending the ministerial event, the muted nature of the celebration is both a symptom of the political backlash against Europe’s green push and a metaphor for the Paris Agreement’s increasingly imperiled legacy — sometimes at the hands of France itself, which had been supposed to act as guarantor of the accord.  “France wants to be the guardian of the Paris Agreement, [but] it also needs to implement it,” said Lorelei Limousin, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace. “That means really putting the resources in place, particularly financial resources, to move away from fossil fuels, both in France and internationally.”  PARIS AGREEMENT’S BIRTHDAY PLANNER  Before being appointed to government, Barbut was Macron’s special climate envoy and had been tasked with organizing the treaty’s celebration. She told POLITICO in June that she hoped to use the annual Paris Peace Forum to celebrate the anniversary, then bring together hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists in late November and welcome them at the Elysée.   Those events, which have already come and gone, were supposed to be followed by a grand finale on Friday.   According to one of the ministerial advisers previously cited, the moratorium on government communications spending introduced in October by the prime minister threw a wrench in those plans.   “We’d like to do something more festive, but the problem is that we have no money,” the adviser said.   Environmentalists say the muted plans point to a government that remains mired in crisis and shows little interest in prioritizing climate change. Lecornu is laser-focused on getting a budget passed before the end of the year, whereas Macron’s packed agenda sees him hopscotching across the globe to tackle geopolitical crises and touring France to talk about his push to regulate social media.  Anne Bringault, program director at the Climate Action Network, accused the government of trying to minimize the anniversary of the treaty “on the sly” because there “is no political support” for a celebration. Some hope the government will use the occasion to present an update of its climate roadmap, the national low-carbon strategy, which is more than two years overdue.  They also still hope that Lecornu will change his plans and show up to mark the occasion. Apart from his trip to his fiefdom in the Eure, the prime minister’s schedule shows no appointments. His office told POLITICO that Lecornu has no plans to change his schedule for the time being.  As for Macron, it’s still unclear what he’ll be doing on Friday. This story is adapted from an article published by POLITICO in French.

BRUSSELS — The EU will begin to ban all Russian gas imports to the bloc early next year after lawmakers, officials and diplomatic negotiators struck a last-minute deal over a key piece of legislation set to reshape Europe’s energy sector. Put forward over the summer, the bill is designed to kill off the EU’s lingering Russian energy dependency at a critical juncture in the Ukraine war, with Russia advancing steadily and Kyiv fast running out of cash. While Europe’s imports of Russian gas have fallen sharply since 2022, the country still accounts for around 19 percent of its total intake. The EU is already set to sanction Russian gas imports, but those measures are temporary and subject to renewal every six months. The new legislation is designed to make that rupture permanent and put member countries that still operate contracts with Russia on a surer footing in the event of legal action. “We were paying to Russia €12 billion per month at the beginning of the war for fossil fuels. Now we’re down to €1.5 billion per month … We aim to bring it down to zero,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters on Wednesday. “This is a good day for Europe and for our independence from Russian fossil fuels — this is how we make Europe resilient.” “We wanted to show that Europe will never go back to Russian fossil fuels again — and the only ones who lost today are Russia and Mr Putin,” Green MEP Ville Niinistö, one of the Parliament’s two lead negotiators on the file, told POLITICO. The law will enter into force on Jan. 1 next year and then apply to different kinds of gas in phases. Spot market purchases of gas will be banned almost immediately, while existing short- and long-term contracts will be banned in 2026 and 2027. A prohibition on pipeline gas will come into effect in September 2027, owing to concerns from landlocked countries reliant on Russian gas, such as Slovakia and Hungary. Finalized in barely six months, the law was the subject of fierce disagreements in recent weeks as the European Parliament’s more ambitious stance irked member countries concerned about the legal risks and technical difficulties of the ban. But despite fears that talks would be prolonged and even spill over into the new year, negotiators reached a compromise on key aspects of the law at the last minute. Now both sides can claim victory. Lawmakers, for instance, repeatedly pushed for an earlier timeline and ultimately ensured that none of the bans would enter into force later than 2027. The Parliament also secured commitments from national capitals to impose one of three penalties on companies that breach the rule: a lump sum penalty of €40 million, 3.5 percent of a company’s annual turnover, or 300 percent of the value of the offending transaction. Where the Council included its demands, the Parliament was able to water them down. For instance, lawmakers convinced member countries to tighten a controversial clause allowing countries facing energy crises to lift the ban — suspensions will only last four weeks at a time and will need to be reviewed by Parliament and the Commission. The Parliament also backed down from a push for a parallel ban on Russian crude imports in the same file after the Commission promised a separate bill early next year, as first reported by POLITICO. The Council did push through its controversial list of “safe” countries from which the EU can still import gas without rigorous vetting. Lawmakers complained that the list includes Qatar, Algeria and Nigeria, but have now accepted it, so long as countries can be excised from the list if they offend. MEPs gushed that they got far more than they expected and weren’t trampled by seasoned diplomats, as some had feared. “We have strengthened the European Commission’s initial proposal by introducing a pathway towards a ban on oil and its products, ending long-term contracts sooner than originally proposed, and secured harmonized EU penalties for non-compliance,” European People’s Party MEP Inese Vaidere, who also led the file, told POLITICO. “We achieved more than my realistic landing scenario — earlier phase-outs, tougher penalties, and closing the loopholes that let Russian gas sneak in,” said Niinistö. “This was about proving European unity — Parliament, Council and Commission on the same side — and showing citizens that we can cut Russia’s revenues faster and more decisively than ever proposed before.”

Donald Trump’s drive to secure peace in Ukraine must not let Vladimir Putin off the hook for war crimes committed by Russian forces, a top EU official has warned, effectively setting a new red line for a deal.  In an interview with POLITICO, Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, said negotiators must ensure the push for a ceasefire does not result in Russia escaping prosecution.  His comments reflect concerns widely held in European capitals that the original American blueprint for a deal included the promise of a “full amnesty for actions committed during the war,” alongside plans to reintegrate Russia into the world economy. The Trump team’s push to rehabilitate the Kremlin chief comes despite international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians in Bucha, Mariupol and elsewhere.  “I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine,” McGrath said. “They must be held accountable for those crimes and that will be the approach of the European Union in all of these discussions. “Were we to do so, to allow for impunity for those crimes, we would be sowing the seeds of the next round of aggression and the next invasion,” he added. “And I believe that that would be a historic mistake of huge proportions.” Protesters in London, June 2025. There has been international condemnation of Russia for alleged crimes including the abduction of 20,000 Ukrainian children and attacks targeting civilians. | Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Ukrainian authorities say they have opened investigations into more than 178,000 alleged Russian crimes since the start of the war. Last month, a United Nations commission found Russian authorities had committed crimes against humanity in targeting Ukrainian residents through drone attacks, and the war crimes of forcible transfer and deportation of civilians.  “We cannot give up on the rights of the victims of Russian aggression and Russian crimes,” McGrath said. “Millions of lives have been taken or destroyed, and people forcibly removed, and we have ample evidence.”  The EU and others have worked to set up a new special tribunal for the crime of aggression with the aim of bringing Russian leaders to justice for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022. In March 2023, judges at the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin, naming him “allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population [children]” from Ukraine. But Trump and his team have so far shown little interest in prosecuting Putin. In fact, the U.S. president has consistently described his Russian counterpart in positive terms, often talking about how he is able to have a “good conversation” with Putin. Trump has expressed the hope of building new economic and energy partnerships with Russia, and the pair have even discussed organizing ice hockey matches in Russia and the U.S. once the war is over.   The draft 28-point peace plan that Trump’s team circulated last week continues in a similar vein.  It states that “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy” and invited to rejoin the G8 after being expelled in 2014 following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. “The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities,” the document said. The U.S. peace plan proposes to lift sanctions against Russia in stages, though European leaders have pushed back to emphasize that the removal of EU sanctions will be for them to decide. Not everyone in Europe wants to maintain the squeeze on Moscow, however. Hungary has repeatedly stalled new sanctions, especially on oil and gas, for which it relies on Russia. Senior politicians in Germany, too, have floated the idea of lifting sanctions on the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia. 

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

LONDON — The wait is finally over. After weeks of briefings, speculation, and U-turns, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out her final tax and spending plans for the year ahead. As expected, there is plenty for policy wonks to chew over. To make your lives easier, we’ve digested the headline budget announcements on energy, financial services, tech, and trade, and dug deep into the documents for things you might have missed.  ENERGY  The government really wants to bring down bills: Rachel Reeves promised it would be a cost-of-living budget, and surprised no one with a big pledge on families’ sky-high energy bills. She unveiled reforms which, the Treasury claims, will cut bills by £150 a year — by scrapping one green scheme currently paid for through bills (the Energy Company Obligation) and moving most of another into general taxation (the Renewables Obligation). The problem is, the changes will kick in next year at the same time bills are set to rise anyway. So will voters actually notice? The North Sea hasn’t escaped its taxes: Fossil fuel lobbyists were desperate to see a cut in the so-called Windfall Tax, which, oil and gas firms say, limits investment and jobs in the North Sea. But Rachel Reeves ultimately decided to keep the tax in place until 2030 (even if North Sea firms did get a sop through rules announced today, which will allow them to explore for new oil and gas in areas linked to existing, licensed sites.) Fossil fuel lobbyists, Offshore Energies UK, were very unimpressed. “The government was warned of the dangers of inaction. They must now own the consequences and reconsider,” it said. FINANCIAL SERVICES Pension tax changes won’t arrive for some time: The widely expected cut in tax breaks for pension salary sacrifice is set to go ahead, but it will be implemented far later than thought. The thresholds for exemption from national insurance taxes on salary sacrifice contributions will be lowered from £60,000 to £2,000 in April 2029, likely to improve forecasts for deficit cuts in the later years of the OBR’s forecasts. The OBR has a markets warning: The U.K.’s fiscal watchdog warned that the price-to-earnings ratio among U.S. equities is reminiscent of the dotcom bubble and post-pandemic rally in 2021, which were both followed by significant market crashes. The OBR estimated a global stock market collapse could cause a £121 billion hike in U.K. government debt by 2030 and slash U.K. growth by 0.6 percent in 2027-28. Even if the U.K. managed to stay isolated from the equity collapse, the OBR reckons the government would still incur £61 billion in Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities. Banks back British investments: British banks and investment houses have signed an agreement with the Treasury to create “invest in Britain” hubs to boost retail investment in U.K. stocks, a plan revealed by POLITICO last week. Reeves also finally tabled a cut to the tax-free cash ISA allowance: £12,000 from spring 2027 (the amount and timings also revealed by POLITICO last week), down from £20,000, with £8,000 slated for investments only. Over-65s will keep the full tax-free subscription amount. Also hidden in the documents was an upcoming consultation to replace the lifetime ISA with a “new, simpler ISA product to support first-time buyers to buy a home.” No bank tax: Banks managed to dodge a hike in their taxes this time, despite calls from the IPPR for a windfall-style tax that could have raised £8 billion. The suggestions (which also came from inside the Labour Party) were met with an intense lobbying effort from the banks, both publicly and privately. By the eve of the budget, City figures told POLITICO they were confident taxes wouldn’t be raised, citing the high rate of tax they already pay and Reeves’ commitment to pushing for growth through the financial services industry. TECH ‘Start, scale, stay’ is the new mantra:  Startup founders and investors were in panic mode ahead of the budget over rumored plans for an “exit tax” on wealthy individuals moving abroad, but instead were handed several wins on Wednesday, with Reeves saying her aim was to “make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay.” She announced an increase in limits for the Enterprise Manage Scheme, which incentivizes granting employees share options, and an increase to Venture Capital Trust (VCT) and Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) thresholds to facilitate investment in growing startups. A further call for evidence will also consider “how our tax system can better back entrepreneurs,” Reeves announced. The government will also consider banning non-compete clauses — another long-standing request from startups. Big Tech will still have to cough up: A long-standing commitment to review a Digital Services Tax on tech giants was quietly published alongside the budget, confirming it will remain in place despite pressure from the Trump administration. The government will ‘Buy British’ on AI: Most of the government’s AI announcements came ahead of the budget — including plans for two new “AI Growth Zones” in Wales, an expansion of publicly owned compute infrastructure — meaning the only new announcements on the day were a relatively minor “digital adoption package” and a commitment to overhaul procurement processes to benefit innovative tech firms. But the real point of interest on AI came in the OBR’s productivity forecasts, which said that despite the furor over AI, the technology’s impacts on productivity would be smaller than previous waves of technology, providing just a 0.2 percentage point boost by 2030. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings. | Andrea Domeniconi/Getty Images OBR delivers a blow to digital ID: The OBR threw up another curveball, estimating the cost of the government’s digital ID scheme at a whopping £1.8 billion over the next three years and calling out the government for making “no explicit provision” for the expense. The government insists digital ID will ultimately lead to cost savings — but “no specific savings have yet been identified,” the OBR added. TRADE  Shein and Temu face new fees: In a move targeted at online retailers like Shein and Temu, the government launched a consultation on scrapping the de minimis customs loophole, which exempts shipments worth less than £135 from import duties. These changes will take effect from March 2029 “at the latest,” according to a consultation document. Businesses are being consulted on how the tariff should be applied, what data to collect, whether to apply an additional administration fee, as well as potential changes to VAT collection. Reeves said the plans would “support a level-playing field in retail” by stopping online firms from “undercutting our High Street businesses.”  Northern Irish traders get extra support: Also confirmed in the budget is £16.6 million over three years to create a “one-stop shop” support service to help firms in Northern Ireland navigate post-Brexit trading rules. The government said the funding would “unlock opportunities” for trading across the U.K. internal market and encourage Northern Ireland to take advantage of access to EU markets.  There’s a big question mark over drug spending: Conspicuously absent was any mention of NHS drug spending, despite U.K. proposals to raise the cost-effectiveness threshold for new drugs by 25 percent as part of trade negotiations with the U.S., suggesting a deal has not yet been finalized. The lack of funding was noted as a potential risk to health spending in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was leaked ahead of the budget. 

LONDON — Ministers must act now to address an “emerging risk to gas supply security,” the government’s official independent energy advisers have warned.  The government must make plans to avert a threat to future gas supplies, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) said.  While the advisers say the conditions creating a gas supply crisis are unlikely, any shortage would have a severe impact on the country. In its first annual assessment of Britain’s gas security, expected to be released later today but seen by POLITICO, the NESO said diminishing reserves of gas in the North Sea and competition for imports are creating new energy security risks, even as the country’s decarbonization push reduces overall demand for the fossil fuel.  Britain is projected to have sufficient gas supplies for normal weather scenarios by winter 2030/31, but in the event of severe cold weather and an outage affecting key infrastructure, supply would fall well short of demand, NESO projects.   The scenario in the report involves what the NESO calls the “unlikely event” of a one-in-20-year cold spell lasting 11 days alongside the loss of vital infrastructure.   If this were to occur, the consequences of a shortfall in gas supply could be dire.   It could trigger emergency measures including cutting off gas from factories, power stations, and — in extreme scenarios — homes as well. It could take weeks or months to return the country to normal.   The vast majority of homes still use gas boilers for heating.   VULNERABILITY Informed by the NESO’s findings, ministers have published a consultation setting out a range of options for shoring up gas security.  It comes amid growing concern in Whitehall about the U.K.’s vulnerability to gas supply disruptions. Russia is actively mapping key offshore infrastructure like gas pipelines and ministers have warned it has the capability to “damage or destroy infrastructure in deepwater,” in the event that tensions over Ukraine spill over into a wider European conflict.  While Britain has long enjoyed a secure flow of domestically-produced gas from the North Sea — which still supplies more than a third of the fuel — NESO’s report says gas fields are experiencing “rapid decline.” The amount available to meet demand in Britain falls to “12 to 13 percent winter-on-winter until 2035,” it says.  That will leave the U.K. ever more dependent on imports, via pipeline from Norway and increasingly via ship-borne liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. — and Britain will be competing with other countries for the supply of both.  The report projects that during peak demand periods in the 2030s, the Britain’s import dependency will be as high as 90 percent or more.  Overall, gas demand will be lower in the 2030s because of the shift to renewable electricity and electric heating, but demand will remain relatively high on very cold days, and when there is little wind to power offshore turbines, requiring gas power stations to be deployed, the report says.  “This presents emerging risks that we will need to understand to ensure reliable supplies are maintained for consumers,” it adds.  Reducing demand for gas by decarbonizing will be key, the report says, and risks are higher in scenarios where the country slows down its shift away from gas.   But decarbonization alone will not be enough to ensure the U.K. would meet the so-called “N-1 test” — a sufficient supply of gas even if the “single largest piece” of gas infrastructure fails — during a prolonged cold spell in winter 2030/31. In that scenario, “peak day demand” is projected to reach 461 million cubic meters (mcm), but supply would fall to 385 mcm, resulting in a supply deficit of 76 mcm, a shortfall of around 16 percent of what is needed to power the country on that day.  That means ministers should start considering alternative options now, including the construction of new infrastructure like storage facilities, liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals, or new onshore pipelines to ensure more gas can get from LNG import sites to the rest of the country. The government consultation will look at these and other options.   The critical piece of gas infrastructure considered under the N-1 test is not identified for security reasons, but is likely to be a major import pipeline from Norway or an LNG terminal. The report says that even “smaller losses … elsewhere in the gas supply system” could threaten gas security in extreme cold weather.  GAS SECURITY ‘PARAMOUNT’  The findings will likely be seized on by the oil and gas industry to argue for a more liberal licensing and tax regime in the North Sea, on a day when the government announced its backing for more fossil fuel production in areas already licensed for exploration.  But such measures are unlikely to be a silver bullet. The report says: “Exploration of new fields is unlikely to deliver material new capacity within the required period.”  Deborah Petterson, NESO’s director of resilience and emergency management, said that gas supply would be “sufficient to meet demand under normal weather conditions.”  “We have, however, identified an emerging risk to gas supply security where decarbonization is slowest or in the unlikely event of the loss of the single largest piece of gas infrastructure on the system.  “By conducting this analysis, we are able to identify emerging risks early and, crucially, in time for mitigations to be put in place,” she added.  A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said ministers were “working with industry to ensure the gas system is fit for the future, including maintaining security of supply — which is paramount.”   “Gas will continue to play a key role in our energy system as we transition to clean, more secure, homegrown energy,” they added. “This report sets out clearly that decarbonization is the best route to energy security — helping us reduce demand for gas while getting us off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel markets.”  Glenn Bryn-Jacobsen, director of energy resilience and systems at gas network operator National Gas Transmission, said in the short-term, Britain’s gas supply outlook was “robust” but that “looking ahead, we recognise the potential longer-term challenges.” “Gas remains a critical component of Britain’s energy security — keeping homes warm, powering industry, and supporting electricity generation during periods of peak demand and low renewable output,” he added. “In considering potential solutions, it is essential to look at both the gas supply landscape and the investment required in network infrastructure,” he said. 

LONDON — U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was on the world stage last week demanding high-polluting fossil fuels are phased out of global energy systems.  “This is an issue that cannot be ignored,” he told the COP climate summit in Brazil.  Yet this week could see his own government water down commitments to phase out fossil fuels. Insiders say a drawn-out fight over the future of drilling in the U.K.’s Scottish oil and gas heartlands is finally reaching its conclusion.  It is a row which has split the governing Labour Party, pitted Miliband against the all-powerful Treasury, and will, some of Labour’s own MPs fear, undermine the government’s climate credentials and expose the party to even more political pain.  “If a progressive government with a big majority, in the country that started the Industrial Revolution, can’t hold firm on new fossil fuel drilling,” worried one Labour MP, “how can we expect developing countries to do what’s needed to tackle climate change?”  The MP, along with other officials and experts in this piece, was granted anonymity to give a frank view on sensitive political planning.  The decisions follow months of full-throated lobbying by fossil fuel companies, who argue tough action against high-polluting oil and gas firms will hit jobs and derail the wider economy — but also by green campaigners, desperate to hold Labour to its promises to make the U.K. a global climate leader.  And there is a growing risk for ministers that, as the government searches for a compromise to satisfy the party and balance fiscal demands with net-zero ambitions, it will land on a solution which pleases no one at all.  LICENSES, TAXES, ELECTIONS Two government figures and three figures from industry told POLITICO they expect minsters to announce a decision on North Sea licenses on Wednesday, to coincide with the Budget.  Labour swept to power last year on a promise to ban new oil and gas exploration licenses in the declining basin, as well as maintaining taxes on high polluters in the North Sea.  But there is likely to be a “pragmatic” shift on North Sea policy, one of the government figures said. Officials are looking at allowing oil and exploration on existing fields (so-called “tiebacks”) and potentially loosening rules on investment relief, they said.  Fossil fuel lobbyists argue that, without this sort of help, thousands of jobs and billions in investment are at risk.  “There is a sense that the industry are not crying wolf this time,” the same government figure said.  The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy. | Pool photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images They added that ministers will likely be making decisions with Scottish elections in May firmly in mind — conscious that the future of the oil and gas sector is a priority for many Scottish voters already worried about the decline of the North Sea economy, embodied in the closure of Grangemouth refinery.  Approving tiebacks would allow Miliband to say he has stuck to his election pledge while still expanding opportunities for oil and gas producers.  The Treasury is also due to decide the future of the Windfall Tax on oil and gas companies before the end of the year — a levy on profits hated by the industry but used to fund Miliband’s rush to move the U.K. to a cleaner energy system.   The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy.  Lobby group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) claims the country could enjoy a £40 billion economic boost if the Windfall Tax was ditched as soon as next year.   A fourth industry figure said a decision on whether to approve drilling on the controversial Rosebank gas field — which already holds a license — could also come this week, although the field’s developers think it is more likely in the new year. Officials from Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero summoned OEUK for a meeting Friday in Whitehall, according to two of the industry figures. ‘POLITICALLY STUPID’  The idea of softening fossil fuel policy is alarming some on Labour’s backbenches.  Referencing the pledge not to allow new drilling licenses, Barry Gardiner, an environment minister under Tony Blair and now a member of parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee, said: “It is a commitment that I am sure the chancellor will wish to honor, given that yet another broken promise or U-turn would be as politically stupid as it would be environmentally illiterate.”  The pledge, he said, had “sat happily with the U.K’s commitment at the last COP to phase out fossil fuels.” Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis said any watering-down would be a “mistake.”   “It would signal that the government is more focused on reassuring fossil-fuel interests than giving the public a credible plan for energy security and climate stability. Voters aren’t blind to that,” he said.  But their views are not shared across the party.  Mary Glindon, a Labour MP in the former industrial city of Newcastle, hosted OEUK in parliament earlier this month.  “The truth is that our once proud North Sea energy industry is shedding about one thousand jobs a month. … Without renewed investment, I fear for our communities and the prosperity of our young people,” she told an audience of MPs, lobbyists and business leaders.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” | Pool Photo by Henry Nicholls via Getty Images Policy in the North Sea must show workers “that we are on their side,” Scottish Labour MP Torcuil Crichton told POLITICO earlier this year.   Gary Smith, general secretary of GMB Union — traditionally a champion of Labour which represents thousands of oil and gas workers — told the same OEUK event: “This is a crucial moment in terms of the Budget, and if the government gets this wrong on the future that the North Sea, it will be a strategic, long-term disaster for this country.”   A DESNZ spokesperson said: “We will implement our manifesto position in full to not issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields. “Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in line with our climate and legal obligations, with the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and first of a kind carbon capture and storage clusters.” PRESSURE ALL AROUND Even if the government is willing to upset its greenest backbenchers, it still won’t be enough to win round the biggest backers of oil and gas.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” Robin Allan, chairman of the lobby group BRINDEX, also argues potential changes to the industry’s fiscal and licensing regimes would do little to revive the industry.  “The tweaking and tinkering of existing policies will not make the North Sea an investable basin,” he said. To restore business confidence, he argued, “wholesale reform is needed.”  There is nervousness inside Labour that attempts to navigate these pressures will leave the government, already struggling with voters, even more vulnerable.  The Green Party, helmed by media-savvy new leader Zack Polanski, is rising in the polls.   Labour would be “wriggling out” of their climate commitments if they pushed ahead with tiebacks and Windfall Tax reforms, argued Green MP and the party’s Westminster leader Ellie Chowns. It would be “politically mad to allow new drilling licences when the Greens are surging in the polls,” argued the same Labour MP quoted at the top of this article.  “The growing support for the [Green Party] shows that people want honesty, consistency and a transition [to net zero] that protects workers and communities rather than corporate profits,” said Clive Lewis.  And the pressure would not just come from the left.   Nigel Farage’s poll-topping Reform UK has promised to let oil and gas companies drill the North Sea basin until it is dry.  The Conservatives, too, are staking out a much stronger line backing fossil fuels.  “Anything short of an overturn of the [Windfall Tax] and … a complete overturn of the [licensing] ban is going to fall far short of what the industry needs at this time,” said Tory Shadow Energy Minister Andrew Bowie.  Think tanks close to Miliband’s own left flank of politics are getting restless.   Softening the regime in the North Sea might appear to have political dividends by heading off the Tories and Reform, said Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, but Labour should resist it. “I think it would be a terrible, terrible decision,” he said. 

LONDON — European officials congratulated themselves on Monday after talks in Geneva suggested Donald Trump will listen to their concerns about forcing a bad peace deal on Ukraine.  “While work remains to be done, there is now a solid basis for moving forward,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she hailed “good progress” resulting from “a strong European presence” at the talks. It was certainly “progress” for top advisers from the EU and the U.K. to be invited to join Sunday’s meeting in Switzerland after they were cut out of America’s original 28-point plan, which they feared was so biased it would embolden Russia to launch further attacks.  But the celebration was short-lived.  On Monday evening, Russia rejected the updated text of the deal, which had been redrafted with input from Ukraine and its allies during the lengthy talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  The risk for Ukraine now is that Vladimir Putin will drag the American president back to his starting position: A 28-point ceasefire agreement that triggered a meltdown among officials in Brussels because it would force Kyiv to give up swathes of land to Moscow, abandon hope of ever joining NATO, and cut the size of its army to 600,000 troops from nearly 1 million.   If that happens, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will face a miserable choice: Either take the offer cooked up by Trump and Putin, or gamble his country’s future in the hope of one day getting enough help from his European friends.  These are the same friends who, after nearly four years of war, won’t send him their troops, or the weapons he wants, or even raid Russia’s frozen assets from their banks to help him buy supplies of his own.  UNWILLING TO FIGHT For some U.S. Republicans, Europeans who object to Trump’s deal and the compromises it will require are deluding themselves. “What is the alternative?” Greg Swenson, chairman of Republicans Overseas in the U.K., asked POLITICO. “You can talk a good game, you can attend all these diplomatic meetings and you can send all your best people to Geneva, but the only way to beat Putin is to fight — and none of them are willing to do that,” Swenson said. “So it’s all talk. It all sounds great when you talk about democracy and defending Ukraine, but they’re just not willing to do it.” European politicians and officials would disagree, pointing to the huge sums of money and weapons their governments have sent to Kyiv since the war started nearly four years ago, as well as to the economic challenge of cutting back on Russian trade, especially imported fossil fuels. Since the U.S. pulled back on its support, Europe has conspicuously moved to fill the gap. But in truth, Trump’s original proposal panicked officials and diplomats in Brussels and beyond because they knew Zelenskyy could not rely on Europe to do enough to help Ukraine on its own.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said as she hailed “good progress” resulting from “a strong European presence” at the talks. | Nicolas Economou/Getty Images A month ago, EU leaders turned up for a summit in Brussels bullishly predicting they would secure a landmark agreement on using €140 billion in frozen Russian assets as a “reparations loan” to put Kyiv on a secure financial footing for at least the next two years. But in a major diplomatic and political blunder, the plan has fallen apart amid unexpected objections from Belgium.  NO BREAKTHROUGH ON ASSETS Talks are now intensifying among officials in the European Commission and EU governments, especially the Belgians, but there has as yet been no breakthrough, according to multiple officials granted anonymity, like others, to speak candidly about sensitive matters.  Some diplomats hope that the pressure from Trump will force Belgium and those other EU countries with reservations on the frozen assets plan to get on board. One idea that hasn’t been ruled out is to make use of some of the assets alongside joint EU bonds or potentially direct financial contributions from EU governments, officials said.  But some EU diplomats fear the whole idea of a reparations loan to Ukraine using the frozen assets will crumble if the final peace blueprint contains a reference to using those same funds.  The initial blueprint suggested using the assets in an investment drive in Ukraine, with half the proceeds going to the U.S., a concept Europeans rejected as “scandalous.” Yet once sanctions on Russia are eventually lifted, Euroclear — the Belgium-based financial depository holding the immobilized assets — could end up having to wire the money back to Moscow.  This could leave EU taxpayers on the hook to repay the cash, a scenario that is likely to weigh heavily on EU governments as they consider whether to support the loan idea in the weeks ahead.  Then there’s the question of keeping the peace. Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led efforts to assemble support for an international peacekeeping force from volunteer countries who would form a “coalition of the willing.” A year earlier, Macron even floated the idea of “boots on the ground” before the conflict is over.  He no longer talks like that.  In a sign of how difficult any conversation on sending troops to Ukraine would be in France, an impassioned call last week from France’s new top general, Fabien Mandon, for mayors to prepare citizens for a possible war with Russia sparked an uproar, and drew condemnation from major political parties. Mandon had warned that if France “is not prepared to accept losing its children, to suffer economically because priorities will be given to defense production, then we are at risk.” Macron tried to tamp down the controversy and said Mandon’s words had been taken out of context. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led efforts to assemble support for an international peacekeeping force. | Leon Neal/Getty Images In Germany, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin was “already making a special contribution to the eastern flank” by stationing a combat-ready brigade in Lithuania. “The entire Baltic region is a key area on which the Bundeswehr will focus. I think that this is also sufficient and far-reaching support for Ukraine.” The Ukrainians would have wanted a deeper commitment on their soil, but Western Europeans are wary of incurring high casualties by sending soldiers to the front lines. “At least Trump is honest about it,” Swenson said. “We could beat Russia. We would beat them, I would think, quickly, assuming there was no nuclear weapons.” “We would beat Russia, but a lot of people would die.” Esther Webber, Gabriel Gavin and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

BELÉM, Brazil — The European Union came into this year’s COP30 summit hoping to exorcise some of its climate demons. It did, to a degree — then found new ones.  After a year of infighting that ended in a last-minute deal on new pollution-cutting targets just before the annual U.N. conference began, the EU sought to make the case for greater global efforts to fight climate change.  But in Belém, the Amazonian host city of COP30, the 27-country bloc was confronted with a stark geopolitical reality. In the absence of the United States, which at past conferences worked with the Europeans to push for more climate action, the EU struggled to fight against the combined weight of China, India, Saudi Arabia and other rising economic powers.  “We’re living through complicated geopolitical times. So there is intrinsic value, no matter how difficult, to seek to come together,” EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra told reporters after the bloc decided not to oppose the final conference agreement.  “We’re not going to hide the fact we would have preferred to have more,” he said. “And yet the world is what it is, the conference is what it is, and we do think this on balance is a step in the right direction.”  The end result was not what the EU had fought for — though the bloc eked out a handful of concessions after threatening to veto the deal on Friday.  To appease the EU, as well as a small group of other holdouts such as the United Kingdom and Colombia, the Brazilian presidency of COP30 tweaked its draft deal to affirm a previous agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels and offered to start a discussion on how to achieve that deal over the next year.  A European walkout was on the cards until just after dawn on the final morning. “It was on the edge for us at times during the night — and for the EU — because we just thought actually we’ve got to be able to look people in the eye,” said U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. Developed countries also won changes to a proposal to triple financing for poorer countries to prepare for climate disasters, which will now be provided later than developing nations wanted and draw funds from sources beyond rich countries’ budgets.  Still, the Europeans had wanted to leave Brazil with a much larger signal, laying out a clear path away from fossil fuels.  But they failed to build an alliance strong enough to counter the Saudi-led opposition — an effort hampered by geopolitical headwinds as well as internal divisions that had followed the EU from Brussels all the way to Belém.  LINGERING DIVISIONS  Divisions over climate change that had dogged the EU throughout the year did affect the bloc’s negotiations. Until Friday morning, hours before the conference was scheduled to end, the EU was forced to take a back seat each time countries from across the globe came together to urge greater ambition.  A European walkout was on the cards until just after dawn on the final morning. “It was on the edge for us at times during the night — and for the EU,” confirmed U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. | Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images On Tuesday, the EU was absent from an 82-country call spearheaded by Colombia to draw up a “roadmap” to deliver on the earlier agreement to transition away from fossil fuels.  Many of the bloc’s governments individually backed the move, but two diplomats said Italy and Poland could not support the agreement at the time, leaving the EU as a whole unable to throw its weight behind the call. The bloc eventually proposed its own version.  Similarly, the EU was not among the signatories on Thursday when a coalition of 29 countries sent a letter to the Brazilian COP30 presidency to complain that a draft proposal in the works did not contain a reference to the roadmap or other efforts.  The majority of the bloc’s governments backed the missive, but 10 EU countries — including Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia — did not. The split broadly reflected the divisions that had plagued the EU’s climate politics for much of this year.  The bloc spent the past few months trying to agree on a pair of new targets to reduce emissions, a fractious process that met with resistance from countries concerned about the impact of green efforts on their domestic industries.  The 27 governments eventually struck a deal on the eve of COP30, setting new goals that were softer than initially envisaged but nevertheless rank among the world’s most ambitious.  Yet by that point, it was far too late for the EU to leverage its targets and pressure other big emitters, such as China, into stepping up their efforts. (Beijing’s envoy suggested in an interview with POLITICO that if the bloc wanted to be a climate leader, the EU needed to sort out its internal divisions.)  “They used to be more active, more vocal. It feels like their pendulum swing at home is having an impact,” one Latin American negotiator said. “They keep their positions, no backtracking, but it doesn’t feel as strong anymore. Like the passion is gone.”  ISOLATED IN BELÉM Yet when all countries were presented with the Brazilian presidency’s draft deal on Friday morning, the EU decided to take a stand.  Three European diplomats said the entire bloc was united in fury at the text — with everyone from the most climate-ambitious nations such as Denmark to laggards such as Poland fuming about weak language on cutting emissions and crossed red lines on finance.  All ministers were asked to get on the phone to their capitals to request permission to veto a deal if necessary, four diplomats said. Hoekstra told a gathering convened by the Brazilians: “Under no circumstances are we going to accept this.”  COP30 President Andre Correa do Lago. To appease the EU, the U.K., Colombia and others, the Brazilian presidency of COP30 tweaked its draft deal on fossil fuels. | Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images “We stayed united until the end, despite the fact that of course we all had differences in our assessment of the overall situation here,” said Monique Barbut, France’s ecological transition minister.  The strength of the EU delegation’s message, however, was somewhat undercut by their own leader: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Speaking around the same time at the G20 in South Africa, von der Leyen asserted: “We are not fighting fossil fuels, we are fighting the emissions from fossil fuels.” “She’s a star in undermining her own negotiators during COP,” one EU diplomat complained.  But the EU also faced a new geopolitical reality in Belém.  German Climate Minister Carsten Schneider on Saturday spoke of a “new world order” that the EU would need to get used to. “Something has changed, and that has become very apparent here.”  Throughout the two weeks, European diplomats complained bitterly about the tactics employed by Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers, which fiercely opposed any call to tackle fossil fuels.  Riyadh and its allies, they said, were emboldened by Washington’s absence and constantly took the floor in meetings to derail the talks. Notes from a closed-door meeting shared with POLITICO also show that Saudi Arabia sought to bash the bloc for imposing carbon tariffs.  “We faced a very strong petro-industry… which organised a blocking majority here against any progress,” Schneider said.  The bloc was frustrated about what they saw as Brazil pandering to its BRICS allies — China, India, South Africa and other emerging economies — in walking right over the EU’s red lines on providing climate aid and pushing the bloc into uncomfortable discussions on trade measures.  But they also left feeling abandoned by traditional allies, such as small island states, that they had counted on to back their push for more climate action. In the end, the Europeans and a handful of Latin American countries stood alone.  “We need to do some real thinking about what the EU’s role in these global talks is,” one senior European negotiator said. “We underestimated the BRICS and overestimated our strength a little bit — and we definitely overestimated the unity of those we consider our allies.”