BRUSSELS — Europeans should eat less meat and farms must be taxed for their planet-warming pollution if the bloc is to reach its climate goals, the EU’s scientific advisers argue in a set of far-reaching recommendations that are unlikely to get a warm welcome from farmers.  In a 350-page report published Wednesday, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change also calls on the EU to scrap farm subsidies for climate-damaging practices, arguing sweeping measures are necessary to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming. To aid farmers, they propose scaling up financial support to help them transition toward greener alternatives as well as aid to cope with increasing droughts and climate disasters.  Yet environmental policies that so much as touch on agriculture have become politically toxic in recent years, with Brussels and EU capitals reluctant to address farm emissions in the face of large-scale tractor protests and intense lobbying campaigns.  Still, sticking with business as usual isn’t an option, said the board’s chair Ottmar Edenhofer.  “In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 within the EU, the sector has to contribute to emissions reduction,” he said.  “And if we do this in a smart way during the transition process, in a gradual way, pricing the emissions but also using the revenues to support the transition … I think this is a beneficial pathway for the whole sector and for the whole of society.”  While politically sensitive, the board’s recommendations are not revolutionary.  Plenty of scientists and even the World Bank have in recent years urged governments to ensure their citizens eat less meat and to cut environmentally harmful subsidies in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from food, which account for about a third of all planet-warming pollution.  And Denmark is on track to become the first country to tax agricultural pollution after Copenhagen and farmers’ associations agreed in 2024 to impose a carbon price on livestock emissions from 2030.  Yet the board’s reports carry weight. The independent consortium of scientists is tasked by EU law with providing guidance on climate policy; past recommendations have proven influential, with the board’s 2023 advice on setting a 2040 emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent playing a major role in leading the EU to enshrine this goal in law last week.  The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. | Quentin Top / Hans Lucas / AFP via Getty Images The recommendations on agriculture also come just as the EU drafts new policies that could incorporate some of the board’s advice — from the bloc’s next long-term budget and an upcoming revision of the EU farm subsidy program, to a slate of new green legislation designed to meet the new 2040 target, and a plan to increase resilience to climate disasters. CAPPING CAP PAYMENTS The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), a behemoth that absorbs around a third of the EU’s budget, is a key target of the report. The current framework contains provisions around climate and biodiversity, but has failed to sufficiently slash greenhouse gas emissions. The entire food system, from farming to consumption to waste management, produces 31 percent of the bloc’s emissions. More than half of that occurs during food production — think super-polluting methane released by cows as well as fertilizer use, tractor fuel and more.  The CAP, the scientists warn, still incentivizes climate-harming practices through its vast subsidy system. The EU should therefore gradually phase out payments that are tied to livestock production, a type of income support for farmers that consumes 5 percent of the current CAP budget, they say.  In fact, they add, the EU should reconsider the entire idea of subsidies based on farmland size, worth 39 percent of the CAP budget or more than €100 billion, as they “incentivize agricultural production over other land use” such as forestry, and thus drive up emissions. On top of reforming the CAP, the EU should introduce a carbon pricing mechanism covering agriculture, building on the Emissions Trading System architecture that has successfully halved industry and power plant pollution, the scientists say.  But they argue that agricultural carbon pricing should consist of three separate systems — one each for energy-related farm emissions, non-CO2 pollution such as methane, and agricultural emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land.  The EU also needs to address consumer demand to tackle food emissions, the board says. In particular, Europeans eat too much red meat, driving up methane pollution.  The scientists recommend the EU set up national guidelines for climate-friendly diets and set mandatory standards for marketing and sustainability labeling of food to push consumers toward greener choices.  CLIMATE-PROOFING FARMS To sweeten the deal for farmers, the board suggests that with the money saved from a reformed CAP and generated through carbon pricing, the EU should support them in the transition toward climate-friendly practices and in adapting to a warmer world.  Whether the promise of funding would be enough to placate farming lobbies that have launched massive tractor protests across Europe at any hint of additional burdens for farmers is uncertain. Political appetite for green legislation has also declined in both Brussels and capitals amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies.  As part of its Green Deal, the European Commission in 2020 launched a Farm to Fork Strategy designed to make the bloc’s food system more environmentally friendly. The plan, however, was effectively abandoned following a backlash from lobby groups and conservative politicians.  Political appetite for green legislation has also declined amid a shift toward industry- and security-focused policies. | Marijan Murat/picture alliance via Getty Images Only last week, EU institutions struck a deal to ban vegetarian products from using certain meat-related terms.  But Edenhofer believes that there is political space to enact the board’s recommendations, pointing to Denmark’s tripartite deal establishing a carbon tax — an agreement between the government, farmers and environmental groups — as a hopeful example.  “We acknowledge that this is very complicated, but … we need a regulatory system which incentivizes emission reductions in the agri-food system,” Edenhofer insisted.

EUROPE’S VANISHING CARS ARE JEOPARDIZING ITS RAW MATERIALS SECURITY Used cars are a treasure trove of metals essential in energy technology, but the EU is letting them vanish without a trace. By MARIANNE GROS in Brussels Illustration by Natália Delgado/ POLITICO EU decision-makers don’t have to look far to find cheap critical raw materials: Just 5 kilometers away from the EU quarter, car dealers up and down Heyvaert Street are scooping them up and shipping them to Africa. Dealerships in this industrial precinct in southwest Brussels send European used vehicles — many too polluting to be allowed on the continent’s roads — to African countries like Senegal, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, where the market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving. That one street intimately connects the capital of the EU — where some 10 million new cars hit the roads each year — to a global supply chain of used vehicles that sustains road transport in developing markets. One day these cars will end up in junkyards far away, and with them tons of valuable metals that the EU could recycle and reuse to run its economy. But Europe’s age-old habit of exporting unwanted goods is coming back to bite it as the bloc looks to recycle its way out of its reliance on raw materials imported from China.  The EU is scrambling to secure new sources of critical metals and minerals necessary for clean energy and military technology — a task of increasing urgency as geopolitical tensions disrupt traditional supply chains. For a small continent like Europe that is poor in natural resources but rich in consumer goods, old cars are a promising source of these materials. The vehicles are full of metals such as copper, platinum and steel that are essential in a long list of critical industries such as clean energy and military technology. And they’ll become even more valuable as early generations of electric vehicles — full of battery metals like lithium, cobalt and nickel — reach the end of their lifespans. But the EU isn’t close to taking advantage of this prospect. Along with those that are legally exported, between 3 million and 4 million end-of-life cars disappear without a trace from the EU each year. That’s a third of all cars that get deregistered. Some go missing because of a gap in the paper trail. Others get exported through obscure trade routes. Many are dismantled illegally, with the more valuable parts sold online or in non-compliant dealerships — while the rest are dumped, creating a pollution risk. “We see big and currently unused potential in recycling, reuse and also substitution” of critical raw materials, said Keit Pentus-Rosimannus, a member of the European Court of Auditors who last month co-authored a report on the EU’s difficulties in securing a supply of critical raw materials.  But that recycling and reuse can only happen if the waste products, e.g. cars, make it to recycling hubs in the first place.  The market for Europe’s unwanted automobiles is thriving in cities like Lagos in Nigeria. | Olympia De Maismont/AFP via Getty Images “The illegal dismantling and export of [end-of-life vehicles] is mainly motivated by profits from the sale of spare parts and metals,” the German Environment Agency wrote in a study on the topic back in 2020. Unauthorized dismantlers are “neglecting proper depollution, to avoid additional costs,” the study explained.  In a separate paper published in 2022, the agency estimated that 20 percent of all German vehicles that “go missing” — over 72,000 cars — are exported illegally.  According to Interpol data, nearly 3.6 million vehicles and vehicle parts from Europe — not just EU countries — were registered in the Stolen Motor Vehicles database as of Dec. 31, 2025. EUROPE’S MISSED OPPORTUNITY  The EU has made materials recycling a strategic pillar of its mission to reduce reliance on imports from China in an increasingly hostile geopolitical environment. Europe’s economy runs on importing critical raw materials, such as nickel, copper and lithium, as well as rare earths and so-called platinum group metals like palladium or platinum. It needs them to build car engines, weapons and products that contribute to the bloc’s green tech transition, including batteries, chips and solar panels.   While the metals are mined all over the world, China overwhelmingly dominates the processing and refining of these critical raw materials.  To address this, the European Commission says it wants to launch new mining projects, sign deals with other countries to diversify its supply, and promote recycling projects.  With the introduction of the Critical Raw Materials Act in 2024, EU governments are required to adopt national circularity measures to boost the recovery of critical raw materials and simplify permitting processes for recycling and recovery projects. The law says that 25 percent of the EU’s annual strategic raw material consumption should come from domestic recycling by 2030. Last December, the Commission announced additional measures as part of a new plan called RESourceEU.  But many argue that progress is too slow. “Most EU targets that are in place do not incentivize the recycling of specific individual materials. High processing costs, limited availability of materials, technical and regulatory issues also make the use of the recycling sector less competitive,” the Court of Auditors’ Pentus-Rosimannus said. Others say the EU is doing little to reduce consumption in the first place. Policymakers need to be “addressing [materials] consumption aspects to accelerate this process in addition to everything else that is being done on the recycling part” said the European Environment Agency’s head of the clean and circular economy group, Daniel Montalvo. EU policies should tackle “how we can change this upstream part of the material cycle so that we use products more intensively and for longer,” he added. RECYCLERS NEED HELP  End-of-life vehicles should all end up in one of Europe’s 13,000 authorized treatment facilities like the one in Menen, Belgium, which straddles the country’s border with France and is run by recycling company Galloo.   Running a recycling center is expensive and illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs. | Sebastian Kahnert/picture alliance via Getty Images “We can dismantle 17 cars at once here. Usually, we treat 10 to 15 thousand cars a year, but this year we’re around 3 or 4 thousand on this site,” said Emmanuel Katrakis, the company’s director of public and regulatory affairs. Galloo set up Valorauto, a joint venture with French-Italian automaker Stellantis, in 2023. Valorauto runs a vehicle take-back and recycling service through 300 authorized treatment facilities in Western Europe. The low turnover in Europe’s car fleet — a result of stagnating sales since the Covid pandemic due to Europe’s weaker economy — means fewer cars end up in recycling centers. Once the vehicles reach what can only be described as a cemetery for cars, the vehicles get scrubbed of polluting substances and taken apart. Most of the plastic, rubber, glass and iron can be recycled. Crucially, the more precious resources in their engines, catalytic converters and electrical systems can be collected. Two thirds of vehicles that reach end-of-life status end up in this system.  But running a recycling center is expensive. Illegal dismantlers create unfair competition because they avoid regulatory and compliance costs, which drives the price down, while also diverting some of the end-of-life-vehicle flow — and therefore revenue — away from authorized centers.  “We’re tired of having bad actors in our sectors who are willing to work with a completely illegal market,” Katrakis said.  Cars also get dropped off with missing parts.”We’re going to buy their car for €150, maybe €200, but they know they can sell their catalytic converter separately for €60. They do the math,” he added.  For Valorauto’s general manager, Thomas Delgado, online marketplaces should be held responsible for enabling the car dismantling grey market, saying they don’t monitor the sellers properly. “There are several marketplaces that should do their part to help [us] fight this system” he said, by preventing individual sellers from selling a car part unless they can prove they are registered as an authorized treatment facility.   Then there are Europe’s faulty registration systems. A lot of these cars go missing because they are sold second-hand in another country but are never deregistered in their country of origin. “Today we have national computer systems that are supposed to track things, but they’re totally overwhelmed,” Delgado said.  There are also gaps between the car registries and the database of insured vehicles. Responsibility for monitoring these systems is often shared by several national ministries.  National governments have tried to address the issue by creating incentives for car owners to drop their vehicles off at authorized centers. In Denmark, for example, owners can get a “scrapping premium” when their vehicle is dropped off at an approved dealer.  A new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images At the EU level, a new regulation on end-of-life vehicles aims to address the issue with “clearer rules on the distinction between a used vehicle and an end-of-life vehicle” and “a strict framework for transfers of ownership,” but some of the technical aspects of the law are still being discussed. The law also aims to clarify when a car is legally considered waste.  The automotive sector is glad to see the EU will “implement an EU-wide registration/deregistration system and regulate the export of ELVs outside the EU, preventing valuable raw materials from leaving the European market,” according to ACEA, the sector’s main lobby.  GETTING A SECOND LIFE  Over 800,000 used vehicles are exported from the EU each year, mainly to African countries, according to EU data. The revised end-of-life vehicle regulation states that only roadworthy cars can be exported from the EU.   Just because a car isn’t allowed on the streets of a European city doesn’t mean it should be dismantled immediately, however.   “It’s important to make the distinction because they are not necessarily at the end of life everywhere,” said Pierre Hajjar, chief executive officer of Socar Shipping Agencies, a vehicle shipping company on Brussels’ Heyvaert St. Last December local police raided the street, seizing 45 vehicles and forcing several dealerships to close for not complying with national rules on cash payments or for not having the right environmental permits.   With the revised end-of-life-vehicle regulation, the EU wants to increase traceability so “only high-quality, technically fit European vehicles will be exported.” But for African markets, Hajjar says that’s already the case.  “For Africa, everything goes by boat, everything is extremely traceable,” he said, because port authorities and maritime shipping companies have high thresholds for the kind of vehicles that can be exported. “Whereas in Eastern countries it’s road transport … there isn’t really any traceability, they cross the borders quite easily,” he added.  

BRUSSELS — Last week, the very foundations of the European Union’s climate efforts started creaking under pressure. For months, European capitals have attacked the bloc’s environmental policies, arguing onerous green rules were strangling their economies. But the EU’s single biggest weapon for slowing global warming remained off-limits. That taboo was broken last week at two back-to-back summits focused on curing the continent’s economic malaise, as leaders argued high carbon prices under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) were a worrying symptom that needed to be remedied. It was a diagnosis that struck at the heart of EU green legislation. A large chunk of the bloc’s heavy industry has long complained about the ETS, a 20-year-old policy obliging them to pay for the planet-warming emissions of their factories. At a get-together in Antwerp on Wednesday, they mounted their biggest attack yet, calling on EU leaders to bring down the price of pollution.  “Increasing carbon costs drive value chains out of Europe,” Markus Kamieth, the CEO of German chemicals giant BASF, told the audience in Antwerp, warning the damage was already happening. While some of Europe’s top politicians rushed to the defense of the ETS, many jumped at the chance to bash the system. Notably, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz positioned himself in favor of far-reaching reforms, though he backtracked somewhat later.  At an EU leaders’ summit in the Belgian castle of Alden-Biesen on Thursday, several countries went on to describe the bloc’s carbon price as a problem, three diplomats said.  The attacks spooked the market: The carbon price plunged from €81 on Monday to below €72 on Friday.  The escalating attacks on the ETS mark a perilous moment for Europe’s Green Deal, which is being hollowed out and defanged as part of a sweeping deregulation drive. So far, policymakers have tinkered with green legislation that sets reporting rules for companies or sub-targets for specific sectors such as cars — but not the load-bearing pillars.  This year, however, these pillars are up for review. The European Commission will propose revisions to underlying green governance rules, national emissions targets and carbon absorption goals after the summer, and by July has to reassess the ETS.  Last week “looks like a pretty well-orchestrated campaign against the ETS by parts of the European industry community, in an attempt to lower the bar for the upcoming ETS review,” said Marcus Ferdinand, chief analytics officer at carbon market analysis firm Veyt.  The European Commission will propose revisions of green governance rules, national emissions targets and carbon absorption goals after the summer. | Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images Even if some, like Merz, have rowed back on their comments, “the damage is done,” Ferdinand said. “The market lost around €10 over a very short period of time. This is clearly a sign of eroding confidence in the system’s long-term stability.” BACKLASH INCREASES WITH PRICE A weakened ETS has far-reaching consequences for the EU’s economy and climate ambitions.  The system regulates around half the EU’s emissions, and has been enormously successful: Since its introduction in 2005, pollution in the sectors covered — factories, power plants, aviation and shipping — has dropped by half. (In contrast, emissions not covered by the ETS have fallen around 20 percent.) “It says, basically, if you want to pollute, you pay. If you don’t want to pay, innovate. And this is what happened,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in response to the ETS criticism after Thursday’s summit in Alden-Biesen.  The ETS requires companies to hold a permit for each ton of CO2 they emit. They can buy and trade them on the market, while the number of permits gradually falls over time, slashing total possible emissions. This mechanism, besides shifting the costs of dealing with climate damage from society to those who cause it, encourages investments in clean manufacturing.  Recent reforms have pushed up the permit price from around €10 in the 2010s to around €80 now.  The system is beloved even by conservative critics of green regulation, as unlike other climate policies, the ETS is a market-based instrument and fully technology-neutral — it doesn’t tell companies how to reduce emissions.  The rising price, however, is producing a backlash.  Higher prices strengthen the incentive for companies to slash emissions, and thus turn expensive clean technologies, such as carbon capture, into sound investments. But they also add to companies’ operating costs — albeit marginally, as Europe’s high energy prices, driven by imported fossil fuel costs, present a far greater problem.  “If we have high energy prices, giving up the principles on ETS is really like peeing in the pants: Gives short-term relief — but long term punishing ourselves,” said centrist Swedish MEP Emma Wiesner. “Keeping our oil and gas dependency is really the most effective way to keep industry trapped in high prices and large vulnerabilities.”  Still, with the EU’s carbon price the highest in the world, a growing number of companies and countries argue the ETS puts the bloc’s industry at a competitive disadvantage.  EUCO GOES AFTER ETS At Wednesday’s Antwerp industry meeting, CEOs called on the EU to bring down “carbon costs,” and while von der Leyen leaped to the defense of the ETS, the system’s critics gained an unexpected ally in German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.  Friedrich Merz suggested the Emissions Trading System should be revised and that certain elements should be postponed. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA Merz, whose country has been a steadfast supporter of carbon pricing, suggested the ETS should be revised and that certain elements should be postponed. He then rowed back on his comments on Thursday in Alden-Biesen, describing the ETS as the “right tool” even though it needs to be “readjusted again and again” to ensure it continues to work.   Asked for clarification, the chancellery’s press office said Merz had merely wanted to “start a debate.” In that, at least, he succeeded: Following his comments, the leaders of Austria and the Czech Republic launched renewed attacks on the carbon price. Poland also drafted a missive demanding measures to weaken the ETS.  Leaders then debated the future of carbon pricing in Alden-Biesen. Changes to the ETS were “very much pushed by certain countries,” said one diplomat. “At €80, for some it is a real nightmare.” Another diplomat said: “Many leaders start to see the downsides of the system.” (Both were granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks.) European Council President António Costa said leaders were split on the issue. “It’s true that there are some leaders who don’t like the ETS, but there are several leaders who … took the floor to defend the system.”  French President Emmanuel Macron, who on Wednesday had also described high carbon prices as problematic, said after Thursday’s summit that the EU must “maintain a carbon market” but tackle rising costs. Due to market “speculation,” he claimed, “the ETS, which should be around €30 to €40, is now over €80.”  While Von der Leyen didn’t commit to specific reforms, she noted that the ETS reserve can be used to moderate the price, which she said was among the “topics where we will look into when we will have the review” before the summer.  PRICE CRASH CONSEQUENCES The market-based ETS is also a unique climate policy tool in that it can be weakened by rhetoric alone — as last week’s price crash demonstrated.  Asked to what extent the political commentary was to blame for the slide in the price, Veyt’s Ferdinand said: “Oh, 100 percent.”  The price moves were wild enough to disconcert carbon traders, who begged politicians to stop meddling. “The EU ETS must remain protected from ad hoc political interventions that risk undermining investor confidence and weakening Europe’s decarbonization pathway,” said Dirk Forrister, CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association.  The slide also affected companies that have invested in decarbonization and planned their business strategies around the carbon price. The stocks of cement maker Heidelberg Materials and Danish wind energy company Ørsted were among those losing value last week.  “This is what I find so dangerous with this current debate,” said Ferdinand. “What the system has achieved over the past years is, it’s giving quite a clear signal to all industrial sectors that decarbonization is a requirement.”  For companies that acted early to reduce their emissions, “those statements are just extremely painful,” he added. “You basically burn years of capital investments.”  Giorgio Leali, Zoya Sheftalovich and Gabriel Gavin contributed to this report from Alden-Biesen, Belgium. Josh Groeneveld contributed to this report from Berlin.

ANTWERP, Belgium — Ursula von der Leyen has come to the defense of the European Union’s embattled carbon market, hitting back at complaints that the bloc’s flagship climate policy is threatening factories and jobs. But the European Commission president immediately faced a counter-push from the leaders of Germany and France, who suggested that high carbon prices were a problem, and further industry demands to bring down carbon costs. On Wednesday, at a gathering in Antwerp, industry CEOs issued a fresh set of demands for European policymakers to ease regulation. Such calls tend to find a sympathetic ear in Brussels, with von der Leyen overseeing a massive deregulation drive and other policy changes in response to industry criticism.  But when manufacturers and leaders piled pressure on the Commission to take an axe to its bedrock climate policy — the Emissions Trading System, a carbon market that regulates around half the bloc’s planet-warming pollution — von der Leyen pushed back.  “I know there’s a lot of discussion,” she told an audience of CEOs, industry reps and the leaders of Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany at Antwerp’s historic stock exchange building.  But she insisted: “The Emissions Trading System, the ETS, brings clear benefits. Since it was introduced in 2005, the emissions dropped by 39 percent, while the economy in sectors covered by ETS has grown by 71 percent. So this shows that decarbonization and competitiveness can go hand in hand.” In a further pushback against the idea that scrapping green policies will help EU industry, von der Leyen pointed out that only slashing fossil fuel use will alleviate high energy prices, which most manufacturers cite as their core problem.  “Gas prices drive the energy prices up. Renewables and nuclear drive the price down,” she said. “The next few years are crucial because the International Energy Agency tells us that gas prices … will stay down in the next three to four years. So we should use this time to invest in low-carbon energy systems that will protect us when fossil fuel prices go up again.”  Yet a few hours later, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz took to the same stage in Antwerp to suggest that the ETS needs to be rethought. “This system is implemented to reduce CO2 emissions, and at the same time to enable the companies to come to CO2-free production lines. So if this is not achievable, and if this is not the right instrument, we should be very open to revising it, or at least to postpone it,” he said to loud applause from industry representatives. “We should avoid everything that is jeopardizing the competitiveness of our industry. I’m fully in line with all those who are saying we have to do more on climate change,” he added, but if policies come “at the cost of our industries, at the cost of the [jobs] in our industry, this is unacceptable. And that’s the reason why I’m in line with everyone who says if this is not the right instrument, we have to talk about that and we have to change it if it doesn’t work.” And while in a separate session, French President Emmanuel Macron warned against “killing” the ETS, he insisted: “Europe cannot define ambitious climate objectives while allowing its industrial base to disappear. High energy prices, combined with carbon costs, are accelerating deindustrialization and not decarbonization.” ETS UNDER ATTACK The ETS requires heavy industry, power plants, airlines and shipping companies to pay a price — currently around €80 — for every ton of CO2 they emit, a fee meant to incentivize investments in clean manufacturing, energy and transport projects. A declining portion of permits are currently handed out to companies for free to support them.  And while in a separate session, French President Emmanuel Macron warned against “killing” the ETS, he insisted: “Europe cannot define ambitious climate objectives while allowing its industrial base to disappear.” | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images The carbon price has been rising gradually as the number of pollution permits available for purchase — and thus the emissions of the sectors covered by the ETS — reduces every year. While a growing number of countries are introducing similar carbon markets, the EU’s price is the highest in the world, with most other national systems trailing far behind.  In the run-up to the Antwerp event, the Austrian and Czech leaders as well as the CEO of Germany’s BASF chemicals giant and the Italian business lobby Confindustria had demanded measures to dampen the ETS price, arguing the fee puts EU industry at a competitive disadvantage.  Wednesday’s industry declaration ended with a call to “bring energy and carbon costs down” even as summit moderator Ilham Kadri insisted that “this is not an EU ETS event.” Many companies also want to slow or pause the phaseout of free permits, which critics warn would undermine the system’s decarbonization incentive, and some companies have even called for an end to the ETS.  The Commission, however, won’t hear of it — for now, at least: The ETS legislation is up for review before July this year.  “I’m more than happy to have conversations about how we can make [the ETS] better, but I think we do need to continue with it,” Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told a panel of industry representatives in Antwerp on Wednesday. He added a jab at industry’s green laggards: “Some companies have invested heavily” in the clean transition while “others have enjoyed the free [permits] but done little with it.”  POINTING THE FINGER AT MEMBER STATES The one ETS reform von der Leyen and Hoekstra promised was ensuring that more of the carbon pricing revenues — the majority of which go into the 27 governments’ pockets, with the remainder financing EU-level funds — are redistributed to industry. “On the European level, 100 percent of these revenues were reinvested in industrial innovation,” von der Leyen said. “But member states invest less than 5 percent of the ETS revenues in industrial decarbonization. So I believe it is high time … that member states step up and match our level of support… This will therefore be a core focus also of the upcoming reform of our Emission Trading System this summer.”  The Commission president promised to raise the matter with EU leaders when they meet in a Belgian chateau on Thursday to discuss the bloc’s economic competitiveness.  “I’m more than happy to have conversations about how we can make [the ETS] better, but I think we do need to continue with it,” Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told a panel of industry representatives in Antwerp on Wednesday. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images Her comments also fit into a broader attempt to shift the burden to fix Europe’s competitiveness away from the Commission and onto governments. Von der Leyen criticized countries for excessive bureaucracy at the national level both in her Antwerp speech and an earlier address to the European Parliament on Wednesday.  In a similar vein, she called on governments to tackle energy taxation. “While energy costs are going down, national taxes on energy are going up. And the taxes that industry pays on electricity are 15 times higher than taxes on gas. This is just wrong,” she said.  Green groups welcomed Hoekstra and von der Leyen’s defense of the ETS, but fretted about the increasingly vocal attacks on the policy from industry and EU leaders. “This is a week for big thinking — from Antwerp to the leaders’ retreat — and it’s understandable that in that atmosphere participants may feel that no idea is off the table,” said Manon Dufour, Brussels director of climate-focused think tank E3G. “But we should be clear: Scrapping or weakening the EU ETS is a terrible idea and a serious mistake.”

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

BRUSSELS — United States lawmakers have urged European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resist Trump administration pressure to water down pollution rules for the oil and gas sector. In a letter, shared with POLITICO, 24 members of the House and Senate said ceding to demands from the U.S. Department of Energy to exempt American oil and gas from a regulation aimed at clamping down on methane pollution “would be a misguided approach.” The signatories were all Democrats and were led by Congressman Scott Peters and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The EU has so far resisted pressure to change the EU Methane Regulation, which came into effect last year. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas often released through leaks and flaring during the extraction, refining and transport of petrochemicals. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, EU shipments of U.S. oil and gas have shot up. Natural gas imports in particular are up fourfold. During President Joe Biden’s term in office the EU and U.S. agreed with industry to clamp down on waste and pollution. Last year, the Trump Administration began rolling back domestic regulation of methane. While last year the U.S. wrote to EU countries demanding they delay requirements for American companies to report their emissions data until 2035 and offer “regulatory equivalence,” meaning U.S. producers would automatically comply with the methane rules. “These dramatic, politicized swings in domestic methane regulations are not only detrimental to climate and energy security objectives, but run counter to American industry’s own stated goals for methane management,” the letter from U.S. lawmakers read. “So long as the current delays and revisions stand, no credible case can be made that U.S. federal regulations meet the EU’s requirements for regulatory equivalency.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright has called the EU rules “regulatory overreach.” The U.S. Department of Energy did not reply to a request to comment for this article. European Commission Spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen acknowledged receipt of the letter and said: “We stand by the EU Methane Regulation and its ambition, as agreed by the European Parliament and the Member States.” The EU has already agreed to tweak some aspects of the regulation’s reporting requirements in response to feedback from U.S. companies. “We are designing a pragmatic and simple implementation, taking security of supply aspects into account, confident it will work and industry has engaged,” said Itkonen. “We are engaging positively with the US on this, and remain absolutely committed to continue supporting companies and third countries  with implementation.”

OPTICS SERBIANS PUSHED OUT AS CHINA TAKES OVER A MINING EMPIRE Beijing’s investment is transforming the landscape in Bor — and the lives of the people who call it home. Text and photos by MATTEO TREVISAN in Bor, Serbia Ixeca, a farmer, observes a landslide in his orchard in Slatina, which he believes was caused by irregular operations at the underground mine owned by China’s state-owned group Zijin Mining. In northeastern Serbia, the town of Bor rose around some of Europe’s most significant copper and gold deposits. From the 1940s, the region quickly drew workers from all over Yugoslavia. Majdanpek, located just 70 kilometers away, expanded around another massive reserve, estimated at more than 600 million tons of ore. For decades, these mining centers sustained Yugoslav heavy industry, but today that legacy is increasingly fragile. Since 2018, the mining complex has been taken over by Chinese state-owned group Zijin Mining, which has invested €2.3 billion to increase production. The expansion goes far beyond industry — it is transforming the land and the lives of its inhabitants. Whole families are watching their homes, properties, and memories disappear as settlements are engulfed by the mine. The Serbian government has failed to provide meaningful alternatives for resettlement. Advertisement The environmental toll is profound: forests and rivers are being destroyed, wildlife is under threat, and residents endure some of the most polluted air in Europe. Meanwhile, a growing Chinese workforce — now numbering in the thousands — remains largely segregated in closed camps, seldom mixing with locals, leaving behind a vast yet intangible presence. Bor and Majdanpek illustrate a broader pattern. In 2022, Chinese investment in Serbia equaled the combined input of all 27 EU countries for the first time, raising questions about sovereignty and neocolonial influence. The debate grew sharper after the collapse of a Chinese-renovated railway station in Novi Sad that killed 16 people in 2024, sparking waves of protest. As Zijin Mining continues to expand its footprint, the region and its people are left suspended in a battle between economic profit and the slow erosion of collective memory — the disappearing homes, traditions and history of threatened communities. Feeling the change: Once a small village, the Serbian town of Bor experienced dramatic growth last century following the discovery of large gold and copper deposits. Above, Željko, who has worked at the mine for more than a decade, says that safety regulations have worsened and accidents have increased since China’s state-owned Zijin Mining bought the complex. Željko lost 40 percent of mobility in his right arm following a workplace accident in 2023. Also in the photos above, the Zivkovic family inside their home in Slatina, near Bor. The family’s main source of income is agriculture. In recent years, their land has been expropriated due to the expansion of Zijin Mining’s operations. The son now works as a driver for the mine, like many others in the area who can’t find other employment. CHAPTER 1 THE CHINESE New audience: A Chinese cook in a Chinese restaurant in Bor. The text on her apron could be translated as “I make money by the shovelful.” Next, large screens outside the Zijin Mining headquarters in Bor display videos promoting the company’s activities in the region. The company has brought in thousands of workers from China, housing them in camps within the mining area and preventing them from integrating with the local population. “This is colonization,” says Ixeca, whose family has lived off farming for generations. Now, the expansion of mining activity threatens their livelihood. Some of their lands have already been expropriated and they are suing Zijin Mining. Neighbors? The Chinese and Serbian flags inside a Chinese restaurant in Bor. The contract between Serbia and Zijin Mining remains classified, raising concerns over its legality. The Chinese presence in the area is overwhelming but often invisible. Only Zijin Mining managers and senior staff are allowed to leave the company’s camps, unlike regular workers from China. Leaving a mark: Top, one of the buildings used as offices by Zijin Mining in Bor. Serbia stands out as a focal point of the Chinese footprint not only in the Western Balkans but also across Central and Eastern Europe. Beijing has emerged as the largest individual investor in Serbia. Health risks: Above, an X-ray of the lungs of a woman from Krivelj, a village near Bor, who died of lung cancer at a young age. Her family blames pollution from mining activities. The effects of intensive extraction and smelting are felt across the region. Air quality is a major concern: A report from January 2024 revealed frequent spikes in sulfur dioxide levels around Bor, contributing to both acute and chronic respiratory issues, as well as acid rain. The study also found fine particulate matter containing heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, nickel and arsenic. No systematic assessment of public health has been carried out since Zijin took over operations. Hard at work: Next, a view of the copper and gold mine in Majdanpek. Bor and Majdanpek hold one of the largest copper reserves in the world and one of the biggest gold deposits in Europe. In 2023, Serbia exported approximately 1.06 million tons of copper ores and concentrates, worth $1.46 billion. The main buyer was China. Advertisement CHAPTER 2 THE SERBIANS Perspective: “It’s become like we’re sleeping on gold but dying of cancer,” says 73-year-old Joleht, seen inside her home in Slatina, right. Neighbors say that their homes are slowly collapsing due to the underground copper and gold mining operations. They face cracks and water infiltrations throughout the walls. Anger: People protest against the central government and widespread corruption march through the streets of Majdanpek in February 2025. Dead river: Bottom, the Borska Reka River, notoriously known as one of the most polluted waterways in Europe. It is the main tributary of the Veliki Timok River. Sediment analysis has shown high concentrations of copper, arsenic, and nickel, exceeding remediation thresholds, particularly near mining areas. As a result, the Borska Reka is considered a “dead river,” devoid of aquatic life, with severe environmental impacts that extend to the Danube via the Timok. The Batut Institute of Public Health published a study showing an increased mortality risk for both men and women in Bor across all age groups. Local NGO Ne damo Jadar was founded to demand that the Majdanpek mine comply with environmental regulations and to advocate for solutions for residents whose homes are threatened by the mine’s expansion. Over the years, several incidents of violence have occurred between the NGO’s members and the private guards patrolling the mine. Hunter: Miodrag, a farmer from the village of Slatina, hunts near the land now occupied by Zijin Mining. His family relied heavily on agriculture, but their property has now been reduced to just a few hectares. Miodrag is currently suing the Chinese company, claiming the land was unfairly expropriated. “One day, we’ll have a mine under our house.” He also says that hunting has become impossible due to constant noise and explosions: “I can feel my house shake.” Family business: Father, son, and grandfather from the Jovic family in the yard of their home in Slatina. Some of their farming lands have been expropriated. “It’s over, there’s nothing else to be done,” says Ivica Jovic. “At this point, I accept they’ll take my land, but at least give me another place and let me continue farming.” Jovic has received cease-and-desist letters from Zijin Mining, after allegedly verbally confronting Chinese workers operating on what was once his land. Expansion: One of the many facilities owned by Zijin Mining, near the village of Slatina, just outside of Bor. The city, born thanks to the mine, and the nearby villages are now at risk of disappearing due to its expansion. Advertisement CHAPTER 3 THE FUTURE Staying put: Jasna Bacilovic, with her daughter Katarina Tomić, inside their home in the village of Krivelj. The village is slowly disappearing due to the expansion of the mine, but both Jasna and her entire family are committed to preserving their home, which has belonged to them since the 1800s, and to defending the village. “I don’t want to live anywhere else. This is home. I remember when I was a child, I used to play with my friends on a hill not far from here, but now that hill doesn’t exist anymore. My children may never even see this village because it might disappear forever,” says Tomić. Krivelj used to have up to 22 kafane —family-run taverns and restaurants. Today, only one remains and the village is slowly disappearing. “The village sounds are disappearing. I no longer hear shutters opening, the radio coming from my uncle’s house, or my neighbors talking. I open the window and hear nothing,” says Bacilovic. The departed: The bus stop in Majdanpek covered with death notices of local residents. Today, the municipality of Bor is one of the wealthiest in Serbia, despite local salaries remaining low, as in the rest of the country. The mine has expanded to the point of becoming one with the town. There are plans to relocate the entire community to Metovnica, an undeveloped area with only a few scattered farms, but nothing has been confirmed yet. Keeping watch: Bottom, a resident of Majdanpek looks toward the mine owned by the Chinese company Zijin Mining. An activist who has been fighting for years against pollution and the uncontrolled expansion of the mine, he has received both verbal and physical threats for his social engagement. Last train: A glimpse inside the train station of Bor, now abandoned after a fire that some locals believe was intentional. They suspect Zijin is interested in acquiring the railway land and expanding its operations in the area. Past lives: Below, the black and white photos show houses abandoned due to the expansion of the mine. Many families have sold their homes to Zijin Mining, as the company continues to buy land. The expansion of its activities threatens to wipe out entire villages. Next chapter: “This is not the end of the world, but from here you can see it,” says Aladin Zekypy, pictured with his two children, aged 10 and 7, inside their home, which stands just a few dozen meters from the open-pit mine in Bor. He dreams of one day being able to afford a healthier place for his family.

BRUSSELS — Europe is on track to pay at least €440 billion to deal with the pollution and health impacts from toxic PFAS chemicals by the middle of the century, according to a study released Thursday by the European Commission. The cost could soar to nearly €2 trillion under more ambitious clean-up goals, the analysis warns, describing the roughly half-trillion-euro estimate as a baseline for addressing PFAS pollution across the European Economic Area. PFAS or “forever chemicals” — man-made chemicals used in a wide variety of industrial processes and consumer products — have been linked to a range of health problems, including cancer and fertility problems. The EU is preparing to propose a ban on their use later this year, with exemptions for “critical sectors” — a position likely to draw pushback from industry and some political groups. But even a full ban would leave Europe with costs of €330 billion by 2050, the report warned. “Providing clarity on PFAS with bans for consumer uses is a top priority for both citizens and businesses,” said EU environment chief Jessika Roswall. “That is why this is an absolute priority for me to work on this and engage with all relevant stakeholders. Consumers are concerned, and rightly so. This study underlines the urgency to act.” The study, carried out by consultancies WSP, Ricardo, and Trinomics, shows that how Europe acts matters just as much as whether it acts. In one scenario, where emissions continue, and authorities rely largely on wastewater treatment to meet strict environmental standards, the total bill would soar to around €1.7 trillion by 2050, driven mainly by clean-up costs. If the EU bans forever chemicals, the health costs would fall from about €39.5 billion a year in 2024 to roughly €0.5 billion by 2040, under a full phase-out scenario. “The Commission’s study exposes the staggering costs of PFAS pollution. Every day of inaction inflates the bill,” said Noémie Jégou, policy officer for Chemicals at the European Environmental Bureau. “The EU must turn off the tap now through an ambitious EU restriction of PFAS present in consumer products and used in industrial processes.”

BRUSSELS — Powerful political allies helped automakers force the EU to water down climate laws for cars — and now the aviation sector is borrowing those tactics. Their big target is getting the EU to dilute its mandate forcing airlines to use increasing amounts of cleaner jet fuels, alternatives to kerosene that are also much more expensive and harder to source. Aviation is emerging as the next crucial stress test for the EU’s climate agenda, as key leaders push to do whatever it takes to help struggling European businesses. With industry and allied governments pressing for relief from costly green rules, the fight will show how far Brussels is willing to go — and what it is willing to give up — in pursuit of its climate goals. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” French energy giant TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month. Carmakers provide a model on how to get the EU to backtrack. The bloc mandated that no CO2-emitting cars could be sold from 2035, essentially killing the combustion engine and replacing it with batteries (possibly with a minor role for hydrogen). But many carmakers — allied with countries like Germany, Italy and automaking nations in Central Europe — pushed back, arguing that the 2035 mandate would destroy the car sector just as it is battling U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, sluggish demand and a rising threat from Chinese competitors. “I will make a bet today that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuels] regulation in Europe,” Patrick Pouyanné said. | Ludovic Marin/ AFP via Getty Images In the end, the European Commission gave way and watered down the 2035 mandate, which will now only aim to cut CO2 emissions by 90 percent. AVIATION DEMANDS The aviation sector has a similar list of issues with the EU. It is taking aim at a host of other climate policies, such as including aviation in the bloc’s cap-and-trade Emissions Trading System and intervening on non-CO2 impacts of airplanes like contrails — the ice clouds produced by airplanes that have an effect on global warming. Brussels introduced several regulations over the last 15 years to address the growing climate impact of air transport, which accounts for about 3 percent of global CO2 emissions. Those policies include the obligation to use sustainable aviation fuels, to put a price on carbon emissions and to take action on non-CO2 emissions. Each of these green initiatives is now under attack. The ReFuelEU regulation requires all airlines to use SAF for at least 2 percent of their fuel mix starting this year. That mandate rises to 6 percent from 2030, 20 percent from 2035 and 70 percent by 2050. “Today, all airline companies are fighting even the 6 percent … which is easy to reach to be honest,” Pouyanné said, but then warned, “20 percent five years after makes zero sense.” He is echoed by CEOs like Ryanair’s combative Michael O’Leary, who called the SAF mandate “nonsense.” “It is all gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do,” O’Leary said last year. “We have just about met our 2 percent mandate. There is no possibility of meeting 6 percent by 2030; 10 percent, not a hope in hell. We’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.” Brussels-based airline lobbies are not calling for the SAF mandate to be killed, rather they are demanding a book-and-claim system. Under such a scheme, airlines could claim carbon credits for a certain amount of SAF, even if they don’t use it in their own aircraft. They would buy it at an airport where it’s available and then let other airlines use it. That would make it easier for airlines to meet the SAF mandate even if the fuel is not easily available. However, so far the Commission is opposed. LOBBYING BATTLE The car coalition only worked because industry allied with countries, and there are signs of that happening with aviation. The sector’s lobbying effort to slash the EU carbon pricing could find an ally in the new Italo-German team-up to promote competitiveness. The German government last year announced a plan to cut national aviation taxes — with the call made during the COP30 global climate conference, something that angered the German Greens. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend the Italy-Germany Intergovernmental Summit at Villa Doria Pamphilj. | Vincenzo Nuzzolese/LightRocket via Getty Images Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Friday that she and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wanted to start “a decisive change of pace … in terms of the competitiveness of our businesses.” “A certain ideological vision of the green transition has ended up bringing our industries to their knees, creating new dangerous strategic dependencies for Europe without, however, having any real impact on the global protection of the environment and nature,” she added. Her far-right coalition ally, Italian Transport Minister Matteo Salvini, has called the ETS and taxes on maritime transport and air transport “economic suicide” that “must be dismantled piece by piece.” COMMISSION SAYS NO As with the 2035 policy for cars, the European Commission is strongly defending its policy against those attacks. Apostolos Tzitzikostas, the transport commissioner, stressed the EU’s “firm commitment” to stick with aviation decarbonization policies. “Investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets. It is as simple as that,” the commissioner said in November when announcing the bloc’s new plans to boost investment into sustainable aviation and maritime fuels. Climate campaigners fought hard against the car sector’s efforts to gut 2035, and now they’re gearing up for another battle over aviation targets. “The airlines’ whining comes as no surprise — yet it is disappointing to see airlines come after such a fundamental piece of EU legislation,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. She was incensed about efforts to dodge the high prices set by the EU’s ETS in favor of the U.N.’s cheaper CORSIA emissions reduction scheme. Airline lobbyA4E said its members paid €2.3 billion for ETS permits last year. “By 2030, [the ETS cost] should rise up to €5 billion because the free allowances are phased out,” said Monika Rybakowska, the lobby’s policy director.  A recent study by the think tank InfluenceMap found that airlines are working to increase their impact on policymakers by aligning their positions on ETS. T&E also took aim at a recent position paper by A4E that asked the EU to postpone measures to curb non-CO2 pollution — such as nitrogen oxides and soot particles that, along with water vapor, contribute to contrails. The A4E paper said that “the scientific foundation for regulating non-CO2 effects remains insufficient” and “introducing financial liability risks misdirecting resources.” This is “an outdated excuse,” responded T&E, noting that the climate impact of contrails has been known for over 20 years.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.