SÃO PAULO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t even at the United Nations climate talks yet — but he’s already getting bombarded with meeting requests. Newsom kicked off his trip to Brazil 1,800 miles south of the Amazonian city of Belém that’s hosting this year’s international gathering, talking to Brazilian and American financiers at an investors’ summit in São Paulo. His first question from the Brazilian press on Monday, fresh off last week’s redistricting victory: whether he would run for president (“Nothing else matters but 2026 and taking back the House of Representatives,” he said). Newsom couldn’t walk halfway down a hallway without fielding a meeting request from CEOs and NGOs — or a selfie request. One Brazilian picture-taker had him repeat the Portuguese word for “Let’s go”: “Vamos.” His remarks to investors at the Milken Global Investors’ Symposium sounded more like a campaign rally than a business speech. “We have seen this complete reversal of so much of the progress that the Biden administration made,” he said. “What Trump is doing is unprecedented in American history … This should not be through the lens or prism of red, in American vernacular, versus blue.” Then he held an hour-long roundtable meeting with representatives from major investment funds, philanthropies, development banks and energy leaders, who he said pushed him to bolster economic ties in existing voluntary agreements with Brazilian governments. Newsom told POLITICO he and his team were getting a “disproportionate number of calls” to meet on the sidelines of the talks, where the U.S. government’s delegation numbers zero (“not even a note taker,” Newsom said.) “We’re at peak influence because of the flatness of the surrounding terrain with the Trump administration and all the anxiety,” Newsom said in an interview in São Paulo. Newsom is playing a well-rehearsed role for California, which has staked out a leading role in international climate diplomacy for decades under both Democratic and Republican governors, including during Trump’s first term. The Trump administration’s dismantling of climate policies to favor oil and gas interests only give California more space to fill, said former Gov. Jerry Brown, who got a hero’s welcome himself at the United Nations climate talks in 2017, the first year of Trump 1.0. “Trump, he’s saying one thing,” Brown said in an interview. “Newsom is saying something else, very important.” The impact, he said, will be determined in Belém. “That’s why it’s exciting. There’s not an answer yet.” That gives Newsom an opening — and a risk. Where Brown led a coalition of states eager to demonstrate continued commitment on climate in Trump’s first term, Newsom will arrive in Belém, near the mouth of the Amazon River, at a time when U.S. politics are tilting rightward and even Democrats are pulling back on embracing climate policies. And there’s little Newsom’s team, which includes ex-State Department climate negotiators, can actually do in the closed-door talks reserved for countries. But the governor’s goal is to influence from just outside the door. “We’re in every room, because California has been the inspiration for a lot of these jurisdictions,” he told POLITICO. Newsom’s heading next to Belém, where he’s scheduled to meet with other subnational leaders and renew environmental pacts with other countries and states — starting on Tuesday with the environment ministers from Germany and the German state of Baden-Württemburg, which Brown first partnered with to promote the soft power of subnational governments during Trump’s first term. Newsom said he would also meet with representatives from Chile. He’s also expected to give plenary remarks at the UN. After that, he’ll head deeper into the Amazon rainforest to meet with Indigenous communities on conservation — one of the goals of the Brazilian organizers of the climate talks. Newsom said he saw the visit to the Amazon as a spiritual opportunity. “It connects us to our creator,” he said. “It connects us to thousands and thousands of generations.”

Dear Commissioner Kadis, We write on behalf of hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens, as well as scientists, small-scale fishers and civil society organisations, with one demand: End bottom trawling in Europe’s marine protected areas (MPAs). This year has seen unprecedented momentum and mobilisation toward that goal. The EU Ocean Pact consultation was flooded with submissions calling for a ban on bottom trawling. Over 250, 000 citizens signed petitions. Legal complaints have been filed. Courts ruled for conservation. Scientific studies continued to reinforce the ecological and social benefits of removing destructive gear. And member states are moving ahead on marine protection — with Sweden and Greece banning bottom trawling in their MPAs, and Denmark beginning the same across 19 percent of its waters. In your recent remarks at the PECH Committee, you said: “I will repeat my position regarding banning bottom trawling in MPAs. I am not in favor of one size fits all. What I am saying is that in MPAs we can have management plans, as foreseen in the relevant legislation. The management plans can identify which activities are compatible with what we want to protect. If bottom trawling is compatible, it can continue. If not, it should be stopped. I could not imagine a Natura 2000 area, where the seabed is of high value and vulnerable, having a management plan that would allow bottom trawling.” Your own remarks acknowledged that bottom trawling should not occur in Natura 2000 sites that protect valuable and vulnerable seabeds. Yet this is the case today, and has been the case for the last three decades. Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for the status quo to continue. This case by case approach that you describe is not protection; it risks prolonging decades of inaction by sidestepping the precautionary and preventative principle enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, indulging member state inertia instead of ensuring coordinated EU leadership. It is a dangerous step backward from the EU international commitment to halt marine biodiversity loss, and undermines the EU’s own legal framework including the Habitats Directive. As a biologist, you know that destructive fishing methods such as bottom trawling by definition damage habitats, species, and ecosystems — and that these impacts are incompatible with the conservation objectives of MPAs. The scientific consensus is clear: bottom trawling and protection cannot coexist. > Your insistence that “one size does not fit all” leaves the door wide open for > the status quo to continue. Protect Our Catch The Habitats Directive does indeed provide for individual assessments in relation to the impacts of an activity in a protected area — but the crucial point is that such assessments must be carried out before any activity with likely significant effects can be authorised. Consistent with the precautionary principle, the starting position is therefore that bottom trawling in Natura 2000 MPAs is unlawful — unless an individual assessment can prove that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects. If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they begin. Citizens, fishers, and scientists will see yet another series of paper park policies that undermine trust in EU leadership. So we ask: Commissioner, whose voices will the Commission prioritise? The 73 percent of EU citizens who support a ban? The 76 percent of the EU fleet who are small-scale fishers, providing more jobs with less impact? Or the industrial lobby, whose case by case arguments risk echoing in your speeches? > If case by case remains the Commission’s position, it not only contradicts its > own objective set out in the Marine Action Plan, but also risks the > credibility of the Ocean Pact and forthcoming act collapsing before they > begin. Furthermore, a case by case approach for the 5, 000 EU MPAs creates disproportionate and unnecessary administrative burden, whereas a just and consequent transition to a full end to bottom trawling in all MPAs under the Habitats Directive would be in line with the EU’s simplification agenda. It would not only contribute to the necessary clarity, simplicity and level playing field, but also replenish fishing grounds through spill-over effects that benefit fisheries. This year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice laid bare the hypocrisy of bottom trawling in so-called protected areas. The Ocean Pact offered a chance to correct course, but ultimately delivered only aspirational goals and an endorsement of the continuation of the status quo. We urge you to: Commit now to including legally binding targets in the Ocean Act that would phase out destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in MPAs, ensuring healthy seas and a secure future for Europe’s low-impact fishers and the communities they sustain. As a scientist, you are aware of the evidence. As a Commissioner, you must act on it. This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal communities. The time for ambiguity has passed. The question is no longer whether to act case by case, but whether the Commission will demonstrate leadership by standing with citizens and fishers — rather than leaving space for industrial interests to dominate. > This is not just about biodiversity, nature protection and climate resilience; > it is about fairness, food security, and the survival of Europe’s coastal > communities. History will judge your leadership not on how carefully you calibrated the rhetoric, but by whether you delivered real protection for Europe’s seas and the people who depend on them. Sincerely, Protect Our Catch Protect Our Catch is a new European campaign supported by leading ocean advocates Seas At Risk, Oceana, BLOOM, Blue Marine Foundation, DMA, Empesca’t, Environmental Justice Foundation, Only One and Tara Ocean Foundation, in collaboration with fishers, that joins hundreds of thousands of citizen activists is calling on European leaders to ban destructive fishing such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas.

LONDON — It was June 2019, and the president of the United States was taking tea with the future British king.  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half.   Trump could barely get a word in edgeways. Charles did “most of the talking,” the president told a TV interviewer the day after they met.   One topic dominated. “He is …” Trump said, hesitating momentarily, “… he is really into climate change.”  Without global action on the climate, Charles wrote back in 2010, the world is on “the brink of potential disaster.” At the London royal residence Clarence House during Trump’s first U.K. state visit, face-to-face with its most powerful inhabitant, Charles decided to speak on behalf of the planet.  It was tea with a side of climate catastrophe.   Six years on, the stage is set for Charles — now king — to try to sway the president again. A second term Trump — bolder, brasher, and no less destructive to global efforts to tackle climate change — is heading back to the U.K. for an unprecedented second state visit and to another meeting with the king. They meet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday.  In the years between the two visits — with extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding increasingly attributed to a changing climate — Charles’ convictions have only strengthened, say those who know him well.  “His views have not changed and will not change. If anything I think he feels it, probably, more strongly than ever,” said the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend and biographer of the king. “It seems self-evident to me, therefore, that he would regard President Trump’s attitude towards climate change and the environment as potentially calamitous.”   But stakes are higher for the king in 2025 than in 2019. The meeting represents an extraordinary influencing opportunity for a monarch who has spent his life deploying “soft power” in the service of cherished environmental causes. But now he is head of state, any overtly political conversation about climate change risks stress-testing the U.K.’s constitutional settlement between government and monarch.  Charles has a duty, says constitutional expert Craig Prescott, to “support the [elected] government of the day in what they want to achieve in foreign relations.”  And “in a broad sense,” he added, “that means ‘getting on the good side of Trump.’”  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half. | Pool Photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images Labour’s focus on an ambitious green transition, though, gives the king some leeway to speak in favor of international climate action.  Both Dimbleby and Ian Skelly, a former speechwriter for Charles who co-wrote his 2010 book Harmony, expect him to do exactly that.  “I would be astonished if in this meeting, as at the last meeting , he does not raise the issue of climate change and biodiversity in any chance he has to speak privately to Trump,” said Dimbleby.   The king will be “diplomatic,” Dimbleby added, and would heed his “constitutional duty,” avoiding “saying anything that will allow Trump to think there is a bus ticket between him and the British government. … But he won’t avoid the issue. He cares about it too much.”  “He knows exactly where the limits are,” said Skelly. “He’s not going to start banging the table or anything. … He will outline his concerns in general terms, I have no doubt about that — and perhaps warn the most powerful person in the world about the dangers of doing nothing.”  Buckingham Palace and Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether the king would raise climate with Trump, or whether this has been discussed in preparations for the state visit.  HAVE YOU READ MY BOOK, MR. PRESIDENT?  In the time since that tea at Clarence House, the President has shown no sign that Charles’ entreaties on the part of the planet had any impact. (And they didn’t have much effect at the time, by one insider’s account. Trump complained the conversation “had been terrible,” wrote former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham in her memoir.  “‘Nothing but climate change,’ he groused, rolling his eyes.”)  The U.S. has once again withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. Trump’s Department of Energy has rejected established climate science. America’s fossil fuel firms and investors — some of whom helped Trump get elected — have been invited to “Drill, baby, drill.”  With America out of the fight, the world’s chances of avoiding the direst consequences of climate change have taken a serious blow.  Charles, on the other hand, has only grown more convinced that climate change, unchecked, will cause “inevitable catastrophes,” as he put it in Harmony, his cri-de-coeur on saving the planet.  Dimbleby predicted that, this time around, one subtle way allowing the king to make his point would be to gift Trump a copy of that book — a treatise on environmentalism, traditional wisdom and sustainability that diagnoses “a spiritual void” in modern societies, a void which has “opened the way for what many people see as an excessive personal focus.”  “I’m sure [the king] won’t let [Trump] out of his sight before giving him a copy,” said Dimbleby. Chinese Premier (and Trump’s main geopolitical rival) Xi Jinping already has a copy, said Skelly.  But the meeting comes at a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer — boxed in politically by the need to keep the U.S. on side for the sake of trade, Ukraine and European security — has avoided openly criticizing the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science or its embrace of fossil fuels.  His government will not want the king to say or do anything that upsets transatlantic relations. Even when the president, sitting next to Starmer, trashed wind energy ­— the main pillar of U.K. decarbonization plans — on a July visit to his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, the prime minister mustered no defense beyond quietly insisting the U.K. was pursuing a “mix” of energy sources.  If Trump starts railing against windmills again in his chat to the king, he might get a (slightly) more robust response, predicted Skelly. “The response to that will be: ‘What else are we going to do without destroying the Earth?’ That’s the question he’ll come back with, I’d imagine.”  HOW TO TALK TO TRUMP ABOUT CLIMATE  Some who have worked with Trump think that, because of the unique place Britain and the royals occupy in his worldview, Charles stands a better chance than most in getting the president to listen.  “President Trump isn’t going to become an environmentalist over a cup of tea with the king. But I think he’ll definitely hear him out — in a way that maybe he wouldn’t with other folks,” said Michael Martins, founder of the firm Overton Advisory, who was a political and economic specialist at the U.S. embassy in London during the last state visit.  “He likes the pageantry. He likes the optics of it. … Engaging with a king, Trump will feel he’s on the same footing. He will give him more of a hearing than if it was, I don’t know … Ed Miliband.”  Trump has even declared his “love” for Charles.  The royal admiration comes from Trump’s mother. Scottish-born Mary Anne Trump “loved the Queen,” Trump said in July. The ratings-obsessed president appears to consider the late monarch the ultimate TV star. “Whenever the queen was on television, [my mother] wanted to watch,” he said during July’s Turnberry visit.    The king could benefit from an emotional link to First Lady Melania Trump, too. She was present at the 2019 meeting and sat next to Charles at the state banquet that year. In her 2024 memoir, Melania says they “engaged in an interesting conversation about his deep-rooted commitment to environmental conservation.”  She and Trump “exchange letters with King Charles to this day,” Melania wrote. TAKING TEA AT THE END OF THE WORLD  The king will have plenty of chances to make his case.   A state visit provides “quite a lot of time to talk” for monarch and president, said one former senior British government official, granted anonymity to discuss the royals and their relationship with government.  There will be a state banquet plus at least one private meeting in between, they said. Charles may also be able to sneak some choice phrases into any speech he gives at the banquet. Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. | John Keeble/Getty Images The king receives regular briefing papers from the Foreign Office. As the meeting looms, the same person suggested, he may be preparing thoughts on how to combine a lifetime’s campaigning and reading with those briefings, to shape the opportunity to lobby a president.  “He will be reading his foreign policy material with even more interest than normal. He will probably be thinking about whether there is any way in which he can pitch his arguments to Trump that will shift him — a little bit — toward putting his shoulder to the climate change wheel,” the former senior official said.    “He won’t say: ‘You, America, should be doing stuff.’ He will say, ‘Internationally I think it is important we make progress on this and we need to be more ambitious.’ Or he might express concern about some of the impacts of climate change on global weather and all these extreme weather events.”  However he approaches it, 2019 showed how tough it is to move the dial.  After that conversation, Trump told broadcaster Piers Morgan that he thought Charles’ views were “great” and that he had “totally listened to him.” But then he demonstrated that — on the crucial points of how fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change are affecting the planet — he totally hadn’t.    “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster,” Trump said. “And I agree,” he added, before promptly pivoting to an apparent non-sequitur about the U.S. having “crystal clean” water. It was a typically Trumpian obfuscation. Asked about the king’s views during the Turnberry visit, Trump said: “Every time I met with him, he talked about the environment, how important it is. I’m all for it. I think that’s great.”  In nearly the same breath, he ranted about wind energy being “a disaster.”  GOOD LUCK, CHARLIE  “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see [Trump] change his views on climate change, because they’re not informed by his understanding of the science or consequences, but rather by naked politics,” said leading U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann in emailed remarks.   And Trump will come to the meeting prepared, said Martins, the former U.S. Embassy official. “Trump will receive the full briefing on the king’s views on environment. He won’t be going into that blind. He’ll know exactly what the king has said over his career and what his views are on it and how it affects American interests. I don’t anticipate him being surprised by anything the king says.”   He added: “Bashing net zero and President Biden … gets [Trump] political wins.”    To Charles’ long-standing domestic critics, it all highlights the pointlessness of his position.  Donald Trump has even declared his “love” for King Charles III. | Pool Photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images “He is bound by these constitutional expectations that he does nothing that will upset the apple cart [in U.K./U.S. relations],” said Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy. “If he was elected, he’d have a lot more freedom to say what he actually wants.”  “Soft power is a highly questionable concept,” added Smith. It’s only useful, he argued, when backed by something Charles lacks and Trump has by the bucket-load: “Hard power.”  And time may be running out for Charles to deploy even soft power in the climate fight.   Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. If British voters pick Reform at the next election, Charles’ potential advocacy would be restrained by a government opposed to action on climate change.  So how far will Charles go to seize his moment?  He wrote in Harmony: “If we continue to be deluded by the increasingly irresponsible clamour of sceptical voices that doubt man-made climate change, it will soon be too late to reverse the chaos we have helped to unleash.” He feared “failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself” if he did not speak up.   Skelly, the former speechwriter who co-wrote the book, predicted that Charles would walk a fine diplomatic line — but was “not someone to sit on his hands or to remain silent.”   “He was warning about these things 30 years ago and nobody was listening. … He feels increasingly frustrated that time is running out.   “I’d love to be a fly on the wall — because it will be a fascinating conversation.”

OPTICS SHORTAGE OF SAND: EUROPE’S IMPACT ON CAPE VERDE’S TURTLE CRISIS Plastic pollution, mass tourism, climate change and poaching all put pressure on a fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems. Text and photos by LUIGI AVANTAGGIATO in Boa Vista, Cape Verde Above, Emilio Garcia Landim, a 29-year-old ranger of Fundação Tartaruga, spots a sea turtle on the beach of Lacacão on Cape Verde’s Boa Vista island. Next, tracks left by a turtle looking for a nesting site along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. Plastic reaches the island carried by ocean currents, disturbing the nesting of reptiles that die of dehydration and disorientation looking for a clean place to lay their eggs. Bottom, the carcass of a turtle that died of dehydration, along Varandinha beach. Every summer, thousands of sea turtles climb the beaches of Boa Vista, Cape Verde, for a millennia-old ritual: nesting. Today, however, this process is threatened by several factors, putting one of the world’s largest Caretta caretta turtle colonies at risk. Poaching, pollution, mass tourism and climate change are all putting pressure on this fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems — with a heavy shadow cast by Europe. The most significant threat to these turtles is plastic pollution. And here, the fisheries agreements Cape Verde has with the EU — allowing European industrial fleets, especially Spanish and Portuguese, to operate in its waters — have a significant impact on marine life. Nesting beaches are suffocated by tons of waste carried by currents, mostly originating from fishing activities and dumping along the European and African coasts. The accumulation not only chemically contaminates nests but also creates physical barriers that prevent female turtles from finding safe spots to lay their eggs. A numbered stick marks a turtle nest mapped by volunteers from the NGO Cabo Verde Natura 2000 along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. The Cape Verde archipelago is the third-largest turtle reserve in the world, after Oman and Florida. The island of Boa Vista hosts two-thirds of Cape Verde’s turtles. “It’s like looking for a home in a minefield,” explained Franziska Haas, a German biologist and volunteer with Fundação Tartaruga, one of the most active local NGOs. “Often, we have to help them find a safe spot. Some get lost, wander for hours until morning and risk dying of dehydration.” Fundação Tartaruga currently monitors over 30 kilometers of coastline with teams of rangers and international volunteers, many with scientific training. Their work is crucial for identifying nests, protecting eggs, combating poaching and documenting the growing damage caused by pollution. There’s plenty more coastline to cover, of course, but their resources are limited. First, seven-year-old conservation dog Karetta and her handler João José Mendes de Oliveira, a 21 year-old ranger, patrol Santa Monica beach. Next, the remains of a turtle killed for its meat along Varandinha beach. Above, view of the Morro de Areia nature reserve. It covers an area of 25.85 square kilometers, with a 300-meter-wide marine protection zone. Below, ranger coordinator Adilson Monteiro, 28, shows a photograph of a turtle killed by a poacher on Varandinha beach. “Fishermen kill turtles while they are sleeping, during egg-laying. They pierce their necks with a fishing hook called incroque and cut off the rest of their bodies with a knife,” Monteiro said.  Next, a temporary tent used by volunteers of the NGO Bios Cape Verde for turtle monitoring along the beach of Varandinha. Then, there’s overtourism. In the last two decades, Cape Verde has become an increasingly popular tourist destination for Europeans. The islands of Sal and Boa Vista, in particular, have seen massive investment from European real estate groups, resulting in the construction of hotels, resorts and residential complexes along turtle-nesting beaches. But it’s not just the land that’s dangerous, threats to these turtles loom in the water as well. Industrial trawl nets accidentally catch tens of thousands of turtles every year, both in the archipelago and during their migration in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to feed. And while European regulations mandate the use of exclusion devices, which allow turtles to escape nets, they’re only mandatory for certain fleets and areas, and enforcement is often inconsistent. Top, Cleidir Lopes, a 22-year-old tour guide, washes his horse Morena at Chaves beach. Cleidir is a member of Guardiões do Mar (guardians of the sea), a community of people from Boa Vista who report the presence of animals in difficulty in the water, such as turtles and cetaceans. Next, artificial nests of the association Cabo Verde Natura 2000 Cape Verde along the beach of Porto Ferreira. Below, Helmer Davy, a 22-year-old ranger, sleeps in his tent at the Fundação Tartaruga Lacacão camp in Curral Velho after covering his night shift.  There’s also he impact of climate change to contend with. In many cases, excessive heat causes embryo mortality. Meanwhile, the sex of turtle embryos depends on the temperature of the sand where they lay their eggs, with higher temperatures favoring females. And this growing imbalance could jeopardize long-term reproduction. In the face of all these threats, the volunteers’ night work has become essential; their observations are silent, meticulous, and almost ritualistic. Their teams consist of three or four volunteers and an environmental ranger, and their patrols are organized to the rhythm of a metronome, keeping the time dedicated to each female turtle to a minimum. Some of the volunteers help dig deeper holes, some inject microchips for the census, some note the nest’s GPS coordinates, and some come back to evaluate the turtles’ age, size, health and the presence of wounds. Volunteers Franziska Haas, a 22-year-old German biologist; Simone Ambrosini, a 21-year-old Swiss biologist; Nele Ruhnau, a 23-year-old German medical engineer; and ranger Emilio Garcia Landim inject a so-called Passive Integrated Transponder into the front fin of a turtle on Lacacão beach. They are also seen measuring the length of a shell to assess the age and health of a turtle, help dig holes and move eggs laid in a shallow hole to a hatchery. During breeding season, which lasts from June to October, each female can nest up to three times, digging a flask-shaped hole on the beach, each containing about 100 eggs. The laying lasts on average two hours. The eggs are incubated by the high temperatures of the sand for about 50 days. Still, despite all this work, poaching persists on the island too. Despite commitment from Cape Verde’s government, which criminalized the consumption of turtle meat and eggs in 2018, females are caught at night, killed while laying eggs and sold on the black market where meat can fetch up to €20 per kilo. “Turtles are hunted illegally for their meat and eggs, which are sold by word of mouth,” confirmed Fundação Tartaruga’s Executive Director Euclides Resende. But “in 2024, we documented just six killings on the beaches we monitor, compared to thousands just a few years ago.” The group’s surveillance work is effective, having adopted an innovative approach that uses conservation dogs and thermal technology in 2019. “This allows us to expand the surveillance range and collect evidence for potential legal action,” explained project coordinator Adilson Monteiro. Top, moonlight illuminates an hatchery along the beach of Lacacão. Many of the nesting beaches do not have the most favorable conditions for nest incubation such as the low slope of the beach profile, plastic and the presence of tourists. As a compensatory measure many of the nests are relocated to a controlled incubation area, which ensures the hatching of the young turtles and increases their chances of reaching the sea successfully. Next, a team of rangers and a conservation dog from the same NGO patrol an area at Santa Monica beach. The targeted selection of nesting beaches by a trained team of rangers equipped with night vision devices and conservation dogs has led to a massive reduction in poaching on the coasts of Boa Vista since its introduction in 2018. Below, Denis Quintino, a 31-year-old fisherman, returns to the port of Sal Rei after a night of fishing. But it’s exceedingly difficult to eradicate an activity so deeply rooted in the culture of a place: The meat and eggs of Caretta caretta have always been consumed on the islands. And in inland villages like João Galego, Cabedo do Tarafes and Fundo das Figueira, “Ba pa bela” (catching a turtle) is a true rite of passage. “For my family, hunting turtles was normal. My grandfather did it, my father did it, and I learned from my older brother. Every family in João Galego has always eaten turtles; it’s part of our tradition,” said tour guide Zenildo F. It is this difficult coexistence of tradition and environmental conservation, along with the need for further pollution and fisheries regulations, that makes the survival of Cape Verde’s sea turtles a truly global test case.

In February 2022, as Russia marched on Kyiv, Oleksandr Dmitriev realized he knew how to stop Moscow’s men: Blow a hole in the dam that strangled the Irpin River northeast of the capital and restore the long-lost boggy floodplain. A defense consultant who organized offroad races in the area before the war, Dmitriev was familiar with the terrain. He knew exactly what reflooding the river basin — a vast expanse of bogs and marshes that was drained in Soviet times — would do to Russia’s war machinery.  “It turns into an impassable turd, as the jeep guys say,” he said. He told the commander in charge of Kyiv’s defense as much, and was given the go-ahead to blow up the dam.  Dmitriev’s idea worked. “In principle, it stopped the Russian attack from the north,” he said. The images of Moscow’s tanks mired in mud went around the world.  Three years later, this act of desperation is inspiring countries along NATO’s eastern flank to look into restoring their own bogs — fusing two European priorities that increasingly compete for attention and funding: defense and climate.  That’s because the idea isn’t only to prepare for a potential Russian attack. The European Union’s efforts to fight global warming rely in part on nature’s help, and peat-rich bogs capture planet-warming carbon dioxide just as well as they sink enemy tanks.  Yet half of the EU’s bogs are being sapped of their water to create land suitable for planting crops. The desiccated peatlands in turn release greenhouse gases and allow heavy vehicles to cross with ease.  Some European governments are now wondering if reviving ailing bogs can solve several problems at once. Finland and Poland told POLITICO they were actively exploring bog restoration as a multi-purpose measure to defend their borders and fight climate change.  Poland’s massive 10 billion złoty (€2.3 billion) Eastern Shield border fortification project, launched last year, “provides for environmental protection, including by … peatland formation and forestation of border areas,” the country’s defense ministry said in a statement.  “It’s a win-win situation that achieves many targets at the same time,” said Tarja Haaranen, director general for nature at Finland’s environment ministry.  BOGS! WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR?  In their pristine state, bogs are carpeted with delicate mosses that can’t fully decompose in their waterlogged habitats and slowly turn into soft, carbon-rich soil known as peat.  This is what makes them Earth’s most effective repositories of CO2. Although they cover only 3 percent of the planet, they lock away a third of the world’s carbon — twice the amount stored in forests.  Yet when drained, bogs start releasing the carbon they stored for hundreds or thousands of years, fueling global warming.  Some 12 percent of peatlands worldwide are degraded, producing 4 percent of planet-warming pollution. (To compare, global aviation is responsible for around 2.5 percent.) In Europe, where bogs were long regarded as unproductive terrain to be converted into farmland, the picture is especially dramatic: Half of the EU’s peatlands are degraded, mostly due to drainage for agricultural purposes. As a result, EU countries reported 124 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution from drained peatlands in 2022, close to the annual emissions of the Netherlands. Some scientists say even this is an underestimate.  Various peatland restoration projects are now underway, with bog repair having gained momentum under the EU’s new Nature Restoration Law, which requires countries to revive 30 percent of degraded peatlands by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050.  The bloc’s 27 governments now have until September 2026 to draft plans on how they intend to meet these targets.  On NATO’s eastern flank, restoring bogs would be a relatively cheap and straightforward measure to achieve EU nature targets and defense goals all at once, scientists argue.  “It’s definitely doable,” said Aveliina Helm, professor of restoration ecology at the University of Tartu, who until recently advised Estonia’s government on its EU nature repair strategy. “We are right now in the development of our national restoration plan, as many EU countries are,” she added, “and as part of that I see great potential to join those two objectives.”  NATO’S BOG BELT  As it happens, most of the EU’s peatlands are concentrated on NATO’s border with Russia and Kremlin-allied Belarus — stretching from the Finnish Arctic through the Baltic states, past Lithuania’s hard-to-defend Suwałki Gap and into eastern Poland.  When waterlogged, this terrain represents a dangerous trap for military trucks and tanks. In a tragic example earlier this year, four U.S. soldiers stationed in Lithuania died when they drove their 63-ton M88 Hercules armored vehicle into a bog.  And when armies can’t cross soggy open land, they are forced into areas that are more easily defended, as Russia found out when Dmitriev and his soldiers blew up the dam north of Kyiv in February 2022.  A destroyed Russian tank sits in a field on April 28, 2022 in Moshchun, Ukraine. | Taras Podolian/Gazeta.ua/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images “The Russians there in armored personnel carriers got stuck at the entrance, then they were killed with a Javelin [anti-tank missile], then when the Russians tried to build pontoons … ours shot them with artillery,” Dmitriev recounted.  Bog-based defense isn’t a new idea. Waterlogged terrain has stopped troops throughout European history — from Germanic tribes inflicting defeat on Roman legions by trapping them beside a bog in 9 AD, to Finland’s borderlands ensnaring the Soviets in the 1940s. The treacherous marshes north of Kyiv posed a formidable challenge to armies in both world wars.  Strategically rewetting drained peatlands to prepare for an enemy attack, however, would be a novelty. But it’s an idea that’s starting to catch on — among environmentalists, defense strategists and politicians.  Pauli Aalto-Setälä, a lawmaker with Finland’s governing National Coalition Party, last year filed a parliamentary motion calling on the Finnish government to restore peatlands to secure its borders and fight climate change.  “In Finland, we have used our nature from a defense angle in history,” said Aalto-Setälä, who holds the rank of major and trained as a tank officer during his national service. “I realized that at the eastern border especially, there are a lot of excellent areas to restore — for the climate, but also to make it as difficult to go through as possible.”  The Finnish defense and environment ministries will now start talks in the fall on whether to launch a bog-repair pilot project, according to Haaranen, who will lead the working group. “I’m personally very excited about this.” POLAND’S PEATY POLITICS Discussions on defensive nature restoration are advancing fastest in Poland — even though Warsaw is usually reluctant to scale up climate action.  Climate activists and scientists started campaigning for nature-based defense a few years ago when they realized that Poland’s politicians were far more likely to spend financial and political capital on environmental efforts when they were linked to national security.  “Once you talk about security, everyone listens right now in Poland,” said Wiktoria Jędroszkowiak, a Polish activist who helped initiate the country’s Fridays for Future climate protests. “And our peatlands and ancient forests, they are the places that are going to be very important for our defense once the war gets to Poland as well.”  After years of campaigning, the issue has now reached government level in Warsaw, with discussions underway between scientists and Poland’s defense and environment ministries.  Wiktor Kotowski, an ecologist and member of the Polish government’s advisory council for nature conservation, said initial talks with the defense ministry have been promising.  “There were a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions but in general we found there are only synergies,” he said. Damaged Russian vehicle marked V by Russian troops and then re-marked UA by Ukrainians bogged down in the mud on April 8, 2022 in Moshchun, Ukraine. | Serhii Mykhalchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images “What the ministry of defense wants is to get back as many wetlands as possible along the eastern border,” Kotowski added. “And that is what is required from the point of view of nature restoration and climate as well.”  Cezary Tomczyk, a state secretary at Poland’s defense ministry, agreed. “Our objectives align,” he said. “For us, nature is an ally, and we want to use it.”  JUST … DON’T DRAIN THE SWAMP  Governments in the Baltics have shown little interest so far. Only Lithuania’s environment ministry said that defense-linked wetland restoration “is currently under discussion,” declining to offer further details.  Estonia’s defense ministry and Latvia’s armed forces said that new Baltic Defence Line plans to fortify the three countries’ borders would make use of natural obstacles including bogs, but did not involve peatland restoration.  Yet scientists see plenty of potential, given that peatlands cover 10 percent of the Baltics. And in many cases, the work would be straightforward, said Helm, the Estonian ecologist.  “We have a lot of wetlands that are drained but still there. If we now restore the water regime — we close the ditches that constantly drain them and make them emit carbon — then they are relatively easy to return to a more natural state,” she said.  Healthy peatlands serve as havens for wildlife: Frogs, snails, dragonflies and specialized plant species thrive in the austere conditions of bogs, while rare birds stop by to nest. They also act as barriers to droughts and wildfires, boosting Europe’s resilience to climate change.  The return of this flora and fauna takes time. But ending drainage not only puts a fast stop to pollution — it also instantly renders the terrain impassable. As long as the land isn’t completely drained, “it’s one or two years and you have the wetland full of water,” said Kotowski, the Polish ecologist. “Restoration is a difficult process from an ecological point of view, but for water retention, for stopping emissions and for difficulty to cross — so for defensive purposes — it’s pretty straightforward and fast.”  And at a time when Europe’s focus has shifted to security, with defense budgets surging and in some cases diverting money from the green transition, environmentalists hope that military involvement could unlock unprecedented funding and speed up nature restoration.  “At the moment, it takes five years to obtain approval for peatland rewetting, and sometimes it can take 10 years,” said Franziska Tanneberger, director of Germany’s Greifswald Mire Centre, a leading European peatlands research institute. “When it comes to military activities, there is a certain prioritization. You can’t wait 10 years if we need it for defense.”  THE TRACTOR FACTOR  But that doesn’t mean there’s no resistance to the idea.  A Russian tank seized inside of the woodland is examined by Ukrainian soldiers in Irpin, Ukraine on April 01, 2022. | Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images In Estonia, the environment ministry halted one peatland restoration effort earlier this year amid fierce opposition from locals who worried that rewetting would lead to flooding and forest destruction. Scientists described such concerns as unfounded.  The biggest threat to peatlands is agriculture — an awkward reality for EU governments desperate to avoid drawing the ire of farmers.  In both Finland and Poland, any initial defensive restoration projects are likely to focus on state-owned land, sidestepping this conflict for now. But scientists argue that if countries are serious about large-scale bog repair, they have to talk to farmers. “This will not work without involving agricultural lands,” said Kotowski, the Polish ecologist. A whopping 85 percent of the country’s peatlands are degraded, in most cases because they have been drained to plant crops where water once pooled.  “What we badly need is a program for farmers, to compensate them for rewetting these drained peatlands — and not only compensate, to let them earn money from it,” he added.   There are plants that can be harvested from restored peatlands, such as reeds for use in construction or packaging. Yet for now, the market for such crops in Europe is too small to incentivize farmers to switch.  The bogs-for-defense argument also doesn’t work for all countries. In Germany, where more than 90 percent of peatlands are drained, the Bundeswehr sounded reluctant when asked about the idea.  “The rewetting of wetlands can be both advantageous and disadvantageous for [NATO’s] own operations,” depending on the individual country, a spokesperson for the Bundeswehr’s infrastructure and environment office said.  NATO troops would need to move through Germany in the event of a Russian attack in the east, and bogs restrict military movements. Still, “the idea of increasing the obstacle value of terrain by causing flooding and swamping … has been used in warfare for a very long time and is still a viable option today,” the spokesperson said.  BOGGING DOWN PUTIN Scientists are quick to acknowledge that a bogs-for-security approach can’t solve everything.  “Of course we still need traditional defense. This isn’t meant to replace that,” said Tanneberger, who also advises a company that recently drew up a detailed proposal for defense-linked peatland restoration.  Bogs can’t stop drones or shoot down missiles, and war isn’t good for nature — or conservation efforts.  Soldiers of the “Bratstvo” (Brotherhood) battalion under the command of the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine sit on the muzzle of a captured Russian tank stuck in a field on April 2, 2022 in Nova Basan Village, Chernihiv Oblast, Ukraine. | Andrii Kotliarchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images And in Ukraine, the flooding of the Irpin basin was economically and ecologically destructive.  Among outside observers, there was initial excitement about the prospect of a new natural paradise. But villagers in the region lost their lands and homes, and the influx of water had a negative effect on local species that had no time to adapt to the sudden change.  “Yes, it stopped the invasion of Kyiv, and this was badly needed, so no criticism here. But it did result in environmental damage,” said Helm, the Estonian ecologist.  Unlike Ukraine, EU governments have the chance to restore peatlands with care, taking into account the needs of nature, farmers and armies.  “Perhaps it’s better to think ahead instead of being forced to act in a hurry,” she said. “We have this opportunity. Ukraine didn’t.”  Zia Weise reported from Brussels, Wojciech Kość from Warsaw and Veronika Melkozerova from Kyiv. 

As cost overruns on a refurbishment of its Great Depression-era headquarters threaten to cost the Federal Reserve chairman his job, central bankers in Germany are facing a real estate nightmare of their own. Eight years ago, the Deutsche Bundesbank unveiled an ambitious overhaul of its iconic campus in Frankfurt. But runaway inflation in construction costs and the remote working revolution — both heavily influenced by the pandemic — have made a mockery of its ambitions, leaving it footing the bill for billions of euros, and reputational costs that could prove even more serious in the long run.  A report from Germany’s Federal Audit Office, obtained by Platow Brief, reveals that the Bundesbank’s troubles eclipse even those of the Fed: The original €3.59 billion estimate (never published by the central bank) had ballooned to €4.6 billion by 2022. That’s double the cost of the Fed’s two-building project, which has landed Jerome Powell in hot water with U.S. President and real estate mogul Donald Trump: Its cost has risen from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion. The Federal Audit Office “broadly” confirmed Platow’s reporting to POLITICO. In response, President Joachim Nagel has massively downsized the original plans drawn up by his predecessor, Jens Weidmann. Spinning the reworking as a shift toward modernization and a response to new work realities, Nagel scrapped four new office buildings last year, after updating assessments of the bank’s actual need for office space. Traditionally, the Bundesbank has given everyone above a certain level their own office, resisting a decades-long trend toward more open-plan designs. But with the advance of hot-desking, and with staff having become accustomed to the benefits of remote working during the pandemic, the bank now thinks it can manage with only 2,500 individual workplaces, rather than the 5,000 it originally planned. In a statement following the release of Platow’s article, the Bundesbank said the audit office’s latest report “confirmed that it was the right decision to make a significant turnaround in the project. ” In response, President Joachim Nagel has massively downsized the original plans drawn up by his predecessor. | Sascha Steinbach/EPA But according to Platow’s account, the Bundesbank dragged its feet on necessary changes for years, and only overhauled the project after a scathing critique from the auditors. The watchdog also blasted the Bundesbank for splashing out on oversized sports and restaurant facilities and guest apartments. An underground tunnel — much like the Fed’s controversial passageway between its main building and the adjacent 1951 Constitution Avenue building — was also deemed wasteful. Things got even more complicated in 2022, when the Bundesbank’s main building — a 1970s brutalist hulk of concrete and glass — received special conservation status. That made the project technically much harder and consequently more expensive, another problem in common with the Fed. BUILDING PRESSURES It’s not the first time a public building project has blown past its planned budget, and the eurosystem has had, at best, mixed experiences with project management. The European Central Bank — across town from the Bundesbank — ended up spending €1.4 billion for its glass towers by 2014, rather than the initially earmarked €850 million.   Meanwhile, the Dutch central bank did manage to stick to its €320 million refurbishment budget, in stark contrast to developments in The Hague, where a similar project for the Binnenhof Parliament buildings ended up coming in at more than four times the initial estimate. And the Central Bank of Ireland’s new HQ also cost a relatively modest €323 million — although it got its hands on the property for a knockdown price because its original owner, Anglo-Irish Bank, collapsed in 2009, taking the entire Irish economy with it. Building projects and monetary policy are of course two entirely unrelated disciplines, but poor management of the former inevitably invites accusations of incompetence in the latter. Powell and the Fed, in particular, have found out how vulnerable they are to politicians who envy their power over economic policy. President Donald Trump has latched onto the Fed’s runaway renovation tab as a new pretext to oust Powell, having been told by the Supreme Court that he cannot fire him over his refusal to cut interest rates. In a single social media post this week, Trump showed how easy it is to conflate the two, urging Powell to cut interest rates “NOW” and threatening him with a “major lawsuit” because of alleged poor management of the building project. The stakes are almost unimaginably high. For decades, both academic research and real-world experience have shown that central bank independence is unrivalled in keeping inflation down and building the foundation for sustained growth. However, that doctrine has come under fire after the worst global bout of inflation in 40 years, which has only subsided gradually. To make things worse, the Bundesbank project has gone sour just as it has booked a series of massive losses thanks to years of zero interest rates and bond purchases by the ECB. When the Bundesbank moved into temporary offices at the start of this decade, journalists joked it wouldn’t be the ECB’s bond-buying spree that cost it its independence — as Weidmann had long warned — but the renovation project. Germany’s current political realities make a Powell-style public assault on Nagel unthinkable — for now. But the country’s trust in its institutions is fraying, and Nagel himself has warned that undermining the Fed could reverberate far beyond the U.S. The venerable Otmar Issing, formerly chief economist of both the Bundesbank and the ECB, warned last month that independence “is a historical exception and could be reversed by a change in the political climate.” Recognizing its explosive potential, Nagel assumed direct responsibility for the project relatively quickly after taking office in 2022 and is now conducting a feasibility study of the entire project in line with the Federal Audit Office’s recommendation. But it’s far too early to tell whether that will ultimately protect him and his institution: The building process is scheduled to run another 10 years.

German MEP Carola Rackete, who became famous for a public spat over migration with Italy’s far-right chief Matteo Salvini, announced her resignation from the European Parliament on Wednesday. “My candidacy and mandate have always aimed to contribute to the renewal of the German Left party — a process that is progressing successfully,” Rackete said in a statement. Rackete, a German conservation ecologist, social and climate activist, was elected to the Parliament with The Left group in the 2024 European election.   She shot to prominence in 2019 as captain of the rescue vessel Sea-Watch 3, when she defied Italy’s closed port policy by docking in Lampedusa with 53 saved migrants. Rackete was arrested shortly after the landing but later cleared by an Italian judge, who ruled she acted out of necessity and did not commit any criminal offense. Following the Lampedusa incident, Salvini — who was serving as Italy’s interior minister at the time — publicly criticized Rackete, calling her a “German criminal,” a “rich and spoiled communist” and an “accomplice of human traffickers,” in a series of Facebook posts and public comments. In 2019, Rackete sued Salvini for defamation. But a Milan court ruled in 2023 it could not proceed with the case against Salvini, reportedly for procedural reasons. Rackete was named as one of the POLITICO 28 Class of 2020 “Dreamers,” highlighting her defiance of Italy’s anti-immigration policies. During her year in Parliament, Rackete served on the committees for environment, monetary affairs, and agriculture, where she focused on climate justice and advocated for those most affected by inaction on global warming. Her seat is expected to be filled by Martin Günther, a fellow candidate from The Left in Germany who ran unsuccessfully alongside Rackete in the 2024 election. “I will continue Carola’s fight for climate justice using the resources of the mandate. As an economist, the economic aspects of this struggle are especially important to me. A more social and ecological EU will only be possible if we reclaim it from the super-rich and their lobbyists,” Günther said in a statement.

BRUSSELS — French President Emmanuel Macron says a new law may be required to allow more wild wolves to be shot in France, taking advantage of looser EU protections of the predators. “We’re not going to let the wolf develop and go into [areas] where it competes with our activities,” Macron said during a trip to Aveyron on Thursday, referring to wolf attacks on farmers’ livestock. “And so that means that we must, as we say modestly, cull more of them.” He said that people “who invent rules and who don’t live with their animals in places where there are bears or wolves should go and spend two nights there.” Reports of wolf attacks on livestock in France have risen over the past decade and a half, with more than 10,000 reported annual deaths in recent years. European lawmakers in May greenlit a proposal amending the European Union Habitats Directive, moving the wolf from the list of “strictly protected” to “protected” species. That makes it easier for farmers in the EU to shoot wolves that threaten their herds. The directive will enter into force on July 14, giving countries until January 2027 to implement the change in national law. The highly-political push was led by the conservative European People’s Party as part of a campaign to endear themselves to farmers ahead of last year’s European elections. It became a personal project of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pet pony Dolly was killed by a wolf in 2022. Green groups say relaxing protection rules is the wrong response. Macron “is engaging in a rare level of populism by asserting completely false things,” Jean-David Abel, head of the biodiversity network at France Nature Environnement, told Franceinfo on Friday.