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

As trilogue negotiations on the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR) reach their decisive phase, Europe stands at a crossroads, not just for the future of sustainable mobility, but also for the future of its industrial base and competitiveness. The debate over whether recycled plastic content in new vehicles should be 15, 20 or 25 percent is crucial as a key driver for circularity investment in Europe’s plastics and automotive value chains for the next decade and beyond. The ELVR is more than a recycled content target. It is also an important test of whether and how Europe can align its circularity and competitiveness ambitions. Circularity and competitiveness should be complementary  Europe’s plastics industry is at a cliff edge. High energy and feedstock costs, complex regulation and investment flight are eroding production capacity in Europe at an alarming rate. Industrial assets are closing and relocating. Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of European plastics manufacturing. Plastics are and will remain an essential material that underpins key European industries, including automotive, construction, healthcare, renewables and defense. Without a competitive domestic sector, Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Without urgent action to safeguard plastics manufacturing in Europe, we will continue to undermine our industrial resilience, strategic autonomy and green transition through deindustrialization. The ELVR can help turn the tide and become a cornerstone of the EU’s circular economy and a driver of industrial competitiveness. It can become a flagship regulation containing ambitious recycled content targets that can accelerate reindustrialization in line with the objectives of the Green Industrial Deal. > Policymakers must recognize the strategic importance of > European plastics manufacturing. Without a competitive domestic sector, > Europe’s net-zero pathway becomes slower, costlier and more import-dependent. Enabling circular technologies  The automotive sector recognizes that its ability to decarbonize depends on access to innovative, circular materials made in Europe. The European Commission’s original proposal to drive this increased circularity to 25 percent recycled plastic content in new vehicles within six years, with a quarter of that coming from end-of-life vehicles, is ambitious but achievable with the available technologies and right incentives. To meet these targets, Europe must recognize the essential role of chemical recycling. Mechanical recycling alone cannot deliver the quality, scale and performance required for automotive applications. Without chemical recycling, the EU risks setting targets that look good on paper but fail in practice. However, to scale up chemical recycling we must unlock billions in investment and integrate circular feedstocks into complex value chains. This requires legal clarity, and the explicit recognition that chemical recycling, alongside mechanical and bio-based routes, are eligible pathways to meet recycled content targets. These are not technical details; they will determine whether Europe builds a competitive and scalable circular plastics industry or increasingly depends on imported materials. A broader competitiveness and circularity framework is essential  While a well-designed ELVR is crucial, it cannot succeed in isolation. Europe also needs a wider industrial policy framework that restores the competitiveness of our plastics value chain and creates the conditions for increased investment in circular technologies, and recycling and sorting infrastructure. We need to tackle Europe’s high energy and feedstock costs, which are eroding our competitiveness. The EU must add polymers to the EU Emissions Trading System compensation list and reinvest revenues in circular infrastructure to reduce energy intensity and boost recycling. Europe’s recyclers and manufacturers are competing with materials produced under weaker environmental and social standards abroad. Harmonized customs controls and mandatory third-party certification for imports are essential to prevent carbon leakage and ensure a level playing field with imports, preventing unfair competition. > To accelerate circular plastics production Europe needs a true single market > for circular materials. That means removing internal market barriers, streamlining approvals for new technologies such as chemical recycling, and providing predictable incentives that reward investment in recycled and circular feedstocks. Today, fragmented national rules add unnecessary cost, complexity and delay, especially for the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of Europe’s recycling network. These issues must be addressed. Establishing a Chemicals and Plastics Trade Observatory to monitor trade flows in real time is essential. This will help ensure a level playing field, enabling EU industry and officials to respond promptly with trade defense measures when necessary. We need policies that enable transformation rather than outsource it, and these must be implemented as a matter of urgency if we are to scale up recycling and circular innovations and investments.  A defining moment for Europe’s competitiveness and circular economy > Circularity and competitiveness should not be in conflict; together, they will > allow us to keep plastics manufacturing in Europe, and safeguard the jobs, > know-how, innovation hubs and materials essential for the EU’s climate > neutrality transition and strategic autonomy. The ELVR is not just another piece of environmental legislation. It is a test of Europe’s ability to turn its green vision into industrial reality. It means that the trilogue negotiators now face a defining choice: design a regulation that simply manages waste or one that unleashes Europe’s industrial renewal. These decisions will shape Europe’s place in the global economy and can provide a positive template for reconciling our climate and competitiveness ambitions. These decisions will echo far beyond the automotive sector. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Plastics Europe AISBL * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on the EU End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (ELVR), circular plastics, chemical recycling, and industrial competitiveness in Europe. More information here.

BELÉM, Brazil — United Nations climate summits have for years ended with bold promises to stave off global warming. But those commitments often fade when nations go home. Three years ago, in a resort city on the Red Sea, delegates from nearly 200 countries approved what they hailed as a historic fund to help poorer nations pay for climate damages — but it’s at risk of running dry. A year later, negotiations a few miles from Dubai’s gleaming waterfront achieved the first-ever worldwide pledge to turn away from fossil fuels — but production of oil and natural gas is still rising, a trend championed by the new administration in Washington. That legacy is casting a shadow over this year’s conference near the mouth of the Amazon River, which the host, Brazil, has dubbed a summit of truth. Days after the gathering started last week, nations were still sorting out what to do with contentious issues that have typically held up the annual negotiations. As the talks opened, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said the world must “fight” efforts to deny the reality of climate change — decades after scientists concluded that people are making the Earth hotter. That led one official to offer a grim assessment of global efforts to tackle climate change, 10 years after an earlier summit produced the sweeping Paris Agreement. “We have miserably failed to accomplish the objective of this convention, which is the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, Panama’s climate envoy and lead negotiator, during an interview at the conference site in Belém, Brazil. “Additional promises mean nothing if you didn’t achieve or fulfill your previous promises,” he added. It hasn’t helped that the U.S. is skipping the summit for the first time, or that President Donald Trump dismisses climate change as a hoax and urged the world to abandon efforts to fix it. But Trump isn’t the only reason for stalled action. Economic uncertainty, infighting and political backsliding have stymied green measures in both North America and Europe. In other parts of the world, countries are embracing the economic opportunities that the green transition offers. Many officials in Belém point to signs that progress is underway, including the rapid growth of renewables and electric vehicles and a broader understanding of both the world’s challenges and the means to address them. “Now we talk about solar panels, electric cars, regenerative agriculture, stopping deforestation, as if we have always talked about those things,” said Ana Toni, the summit’s executive director. “Just in one decade, the topic changed totally. But we still need to speed up the process.” Still, analysts say it’s become inevitable that the world’s warming will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius since the dawn of the industrial era, breaching the target at the heart of the Paris Agreement. With that in mind, countries are huddling at this month’s summit, known as COP30, with the hope of finding greater alignment on how to slow rising temperatures. But how credible would any promises reached in Brazil be? Here are five pledges achieved at past climate summits — and where they stand now: MOVING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS The historic 2023 agreement to “transition away” from fossil fuels, made at the COP28 talks in Dubai, was the first time that nearly 200 countries agreed to wind down their use of oil, natural gas and coal. Though nonbinding, that commitment was even more striking because the talks were overseen by the chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company. Just two years later, fossil fuel consumption is on the rise, despite rapid growth of wind and solar, and many of the world’s largest oil and gas producers plan to drill even more. The United States — the world’s biggest economy, top oil and gas producer and second-largest climate polluter — is pursuing a fossil fuel renaissance while forsaking plans to shift toward renewables. The president of the Dubai summit, Sultan al-Jaber, said at a recent energy conference that while wind and solar would expand, so too would oil and gas, in part to meet soaring demand for data centers. Liquefied natural gas would grow 65 percent by 2050, and oil will continue to be used as a feedstock for plastic, he said. “The exponential growth of AI is also creating a power surge that no one anticipated 18 months ago,” he said in a press release from the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., where he remains managing director and group CEO. The developed world is continuing to move in the wrong direction on fossil fuels, climate activists say. “We know that the world’s richest countries are continuing to invest in oil and gas development,” said Bill Hare, a climate scientist who founded Climate Analytics, a policy group. “This simply should not be happening.” The Paris-based International Energy Agency said last week that oil and gas demand could grow for decades to come. That statement marked a reversal from the group’s previous forecast that oil use would peak in 2030 as clean energy takes hold. Trump’s policies are one reason for the pivot. Still, renewables such as wind and solar power are soaring in many countries, leading analysts to believe that nations will continue to shift away from fossil fuels. How quickly that will happen is unknown. “The transition is underway but not yet at the pace or scale required,” said a U.N. report on global climate action released last week. It pointed to large gaps in efforts to reduce fossil fuel subsidies and abate methane pollution. Lula opened this year’s climate conference by calling for a “road map” to cut fossil fuels globally. It has earned support from countries such as Colombia, Germany, Kenya and the United Kingdom. But it’s not part of the official agenda at these talks, and many poorer countries say what they really need is funding and support to make the shift. TRIPLE RENEWABLE ENERGY, DOUBLE ENERGY EFFICIENCY This call also emerged from the 2023 summit, and was considered a tangible measure of countries’ progress toward achieving the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets. Countries are on track to meet the pledge to triple their renewable energy capacity by 2030, thanks largely to a record surge in solar power, according to energy think tank Ember. It estimates that the world is set to add around 793 gigawatts of new renewable capacity in 2025, up from 717 gigawatts in 2024, driven mainly by China. “If this pace continues, annual additions now only need to grow by around 12 percent a year from 2026 to 2030 to reach tripling, compared with 21 percent originally needed,” said Dave Jones, Ember’s chief analyst. “But governments will need to strengthen commitments to lock this in.” The pledge to double the world’s energy efficiency by 2030, by contrast, is a long way behind. While efficiency improvements would need to grow by 4 percent a year to reach that target, they hit only 1 percent in 2024. ‘LOSS AND DAMAGE’ FUND When the landmark fund for victims of climate disasters was established at the 2022 talks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, it offered promise that billions of dollars would someday flow to nations slammed by hurricanes, droughts or rising seas. Three years later, it has less than $800 million — only a little more than it had in 2023. Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados, excoriated leaders this month for not providing more. Her rebuke came little more than a week after Hurricane Melissa, one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever seen in the Atlantic, swept across the Caribbean. “All of us should hold our heads down in shame, because having established this fund a few years ago in Sharm El-Sheikh, its capital base is still under $800 million while Jamaica reels from damage in excess of $7 billion, not to mention Cuba or the Bahamas,” she said. Last week, the fund announced it was allocating $250 million for financial requests to help less-wealthy nations grapple with “damage from slow onset and extreme climate-induced events.” The fund’s executive director, Ibrahima Cheikh Diong, said the call for contributions was significant but also a reminder that the fund needs much more money. Richard Muyungi, chair for the African Group of Negotiators and Tanzania’s climate envoy, said he expects additional funds will come from this summit, though not the billions needed. “There is a chance that the fund will run out of money by next year, year after next, before it even is given a chance to replenish itself,” said Michai Robertson, a senior finance adviser for the Alliance of Small Island States. GLOBAL METHANE PLEDGE Backed by the U.S. and European Union, this pledge to cut global methane emissions 30 percent by 2030 was launched four years ago at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, sparking a wave of talk about the benefits of cutting methane, a greenhouse gas with a relatively short shelf life but much greater warming potential than carbon dioxide. “The Global Methane Pledge has been instrumental in catalyzing attention to the issue of methane, because it has moved from a niche issue to one of the critical elements of the climate planning discussions,” said Giulia Ferrini, head of the U.N. Environment Program’s International Methane Emissions Observatory. “All the tools are there,” she added. “It’s just a question of political will.” Methane emissions from the oil and gas sector remain stubbornly high, despite the economic benefits of bringing them down, according to the IEA. The group’s latest methane tracker shows that energy-based methane pollution was around 120 million tons in 2024, roughly the same as a year earlier. Despite more than 150 nations joining the Global Methane Pledge, few countries or companies have devised plans to meet their commitments, “and even fewer have demonstrated verifiable emissions reductions,” the IEA said. The European Union’s methane regulation requires all oil and gas operators to measure, report and verify their emissions, including importers. And countries and companies are becoming more diligent about complying with an international satellite program that notifies companies and countries of methane leaks so they can repair them. Responses went from just 1 percent of alerts last year to 12 percent so far in 2025. More work is needed to achieve the 2030 goal, the U.N. says. Meanwhile, U.S. officials have pressured the EU to rethink its methane curbs. Barbados and several other countries are calling for a binding methane pact similar to the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 agreement that’s widely credited with saving the ozone layer by phasing out the use of harmful pollutants. That’s something Paris Agreement architect Laurence Tubiana hopes could happen. “I’m just in favor of tackling this very seriously, because the pledge doesn’t work [well] enough,” she said. CLIMATE FINANCE In 2009, wealthy countries agreed to provide $100 billion annually until 2025 to help poorer nations deal with rising temperatures. At last year’s climate talks in Azerbaijan, they upped the ante to $300 billion per year by 2035. But those countries delivered the $100 billion two years late, and many nations viewed the new $300 billion commitment with disappointment. India, which expressed particular ire about last year’s outcome, is pushing for new discussions in Brazil to get that money flowing. “Finance really is at the core of everything that we do,” Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s climate envoy, told POLITICO’s E&E News. But he also recognizes that governments alone are not the answer. “We cannot say finance must only come from the public sector.” Last year’s pledge included a call for companies and multilateral development banks to contribute a sum exceeding $1 trillion by 2035, but much of that would be juiced by donor nations — and more countries would need to contribute. That is more important now, said Jake Werksman, the EU’s lead negotiator. “As you know, one of the larger contributors to this process, the U.S., has essentially shut down all development flows from the U.S. budget, and no other party, including the EU, can make up for that gap,” he said during a press conference. Zack Colman and Zia Weise contributed to this report from Belém, Brazil.

Businesses from Wall Street to main street are struggling to comply with President Donald Trump’s byzantine tariff regime, driving up costs and counteracting, for some, the benefits of the corporate tax cuts Republicans passed earlier this year. Trump has ripped up the U.S. tariff code over the past year, replacing a decades-old system that imposed the same tariffs on imports from all but a few countries with a vastly more complicated system of many different tariff rates depending on the origin of imported goods. To give an example, an industrial product that faced a mostly uniform 5 percent tariff rate in the past could now be taxed at 15 percent if it comes from the EU or Japan, 20 percent from Norway and many African countries, 24 to 25 percent from countries in Southeast Asia and upwards of 50 percent from India, Brazil or China. “This has been an exhausting year, I’d say, for most CEOs in the country,” said Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry group whose 1,300 member companies include major brands like Amazon, Walmart and AMD, as well as many small businesses and startups. “The level of executive time that’s been put in this has been enormous. So instead of focusing on innovation, they’re focusing on how they deal with the tariffs.” Upping the pressure, the Justice Department has announced that it intends to make the prosecution of customs fraud one of its top priorities. The proliferation of trade regulations and threat of intensified enforcement has driven many companies to beef up their staff and spend what could add up to tens of millions of dollars to ensure they are not running afoul of Trump’s requirements. The time and expense involved, combined with the tens of billions of dollars in higher tariffs that companies are paying each month to import goods, amount to a massive burden that is weighing down industries traditionally reliant on imported products. And it’s denting, for some, the impact of the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts that companies will receive over the next decade via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act championed by the White House. “Every CEO survey says this is their biggest issue,” said Shapiro. A recent survey by KPMG, a professional services firm, found 89 percent of CEOs said they expect tariffs to significantly impact their business’ performance and operations over the next three years, with 86 percent saying they expect to respond by increasing prices for their goods and services as needed. Maytee Pereira, managing director for customs and international trade at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, another professional services firm, has seen a similar trend. “Many of our clients have been spending easily 30 to 60 percent of their time having tariff conversations across the organization,” Pereira said. That’s forced CEOs to get involved in import-sourcing decisions to an unprecedented degree and intensified competition for personnel trained in customs matters. “There’s a real dearth of trade professionals,” Pereira said. “There isn’t a day that I don’t speak to a client who has lost people from their trade teams, because there is this renewed need for individuals with those resources, with those skill sets.” But the impact goes far beyond a strain on personnel into reducing the amount of money that companies are willing to spend on purchasing new capital equipment or making other investments to boost their long-term growth. “People are saying they can’t put money into R&D,” said one industry official, who was granted anonymity because of the risk of antagonizing the Trump administration. “They can’t put money into siting new factories in the United States. They don’t have the certainty they need to make decisions.” A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. However, the administration has previously defended tariffs as key to boosting domestic manufacturing, along with their overall economic agenda of tax cuts and reduced regulation. They’ve also touted commitments from companies and other countries for massive new investments in the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, although they’ve acknowledged it will take time for the benefits to reach workers and consumers. “Look, I would have loved to be able to snap my fingers, have these facilities going. It takes time,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview this week on Fox News. “I think 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.” For some companies, however, any benefit they’ve received from Trump’s push to lower taxes and reduce regulations has been substantially eroded by the new burden of complying with his complicated tariff system, said a second industry official, who was also granted anonymity for the same reason. “It is incredibly complex,” that second industry official said. “And it keeps changing, too.” Matthew Aleshire, director of the Milken Institute’s Geo-Economics Initiative, said he did not know of any studies yet that estimate the overall cost, both in time and money, for American businesses to comply with Trump’s new trade regulations. But it appears substantial. “I think for some firms and investors, it may be on par with the challenges experienced in the early days of Covid. For others, maybe a little less so. And for others, it may be even more complex. But it’s absolutely eating up or taking a lot of time and bandwidth,” Aleshire said. The nonpartisan think tank’s new report, “Unintended Consequences: Trade and Supply Chain Leaders Respond to Recent Turmoil,” is the first in a new series exploring how companies are navigating the evolving trade landscape, he said. One of the main findings is that it has become very difficult for companies to make decisions, “given the high degree of uncertainty” around tariff policy, Aleshire said. Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs — imposed on most countries under a 1977 emergency powers act that is now being challenged in court — start at a baseline level of 10 percent that applies to roughly 100 trading partners. He’s set higher rates, ranging from 15 to 41 percent, on nearly 100 others, including the 27-member European Union. Those duties stack on top of the longstanding U.S. “most-favored nation” tariffs. Two notable exceptions are the EU and Japan, which received special treatment in their deals with Trump. Companies also could get hit with a 40 percent penalty tariff if the Trump administration determines an item from a high-tariffed country has been illegally shipped through a third country — or assembled there — to obtain a lower tariff rate. However, businesses are still waiting for more details on how that so-called transshipment provision, which the Trump administration outlined in a summer executive order, will work. The president also has hit China, Canada and Mexico with a separate set of tariffs under the 1977 emergency law to pressure those countries to do more to stop shipments of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from entering the United States. Imports from Canada and Mexico are exempt from the fentanyl duties, however, if they comply with the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade pact Trump brokered in his first term. That has spared most goods the U.S. imports from its North American neighbors, but also has forced many more companies to spend time filling out paperwork to document their compliance. Trump’s increasingly baroque tariff regime also includes the “national security” duties he has imposed on steel, aluminum, autos, auto parts, copper, lumber, furniture and heavy trucks under a separate trade law. But the administration has provided a partial exemption for the 25 percent tariffs he has imposed on autos and auto parts, and has struck deals with the EU, Japan and South Korea reducing the tariff on their autos to 15 percent. In contrast, Trump has taken a hard line against exemptions from his 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and recently expanded the duties to cover more than 400 “derivative” products, such as chemicals, plastics and furniture, that contain some amount of steel and aluminum or are shipped in steel and aluminum containers. And the administration is not stopping there, putting out a request in September for further items it can add to the steel and aluminum tariffs. “This is requiring companies that do not even produce steel and aluminum products to keep track of and report what might be in the products that they’re importing, and it’s just gotten incredibly complicated,” one of the industry officials granted anonymity said. That’s because companies need to precisely document the amount of steel or aluminum used in a product to qualify for a tariff rate below 50 percent. “Any wrong step, like any incorrect information, or even delay in providing the information, risks the 50 percent tariff value on the entire product, not just on the metal. So the consequence is really high if you don’t get it right,” the industry official said. The administration has also signaled plans to similarly expand tariffs for other products, such as copper. And the still unknown outcomes of ongoing trade investigations that could lead to additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, polysilicon, unmanned aircraft systems, wind turbines, medical products and robotics and industrial machinery continue to make it difficult for many companies to plan for the future. Small business owners say they feel particularly overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the various tariff rules and rates. “We are no longer investing into product innovation, we’re not investing into new hires, we’re not investing into growth. We’re just spending our money trying to stay afloat through this,” said Cassie Abel, founder and CEO of Wild Rye, an Idaho company which sells outdoor clothing for women, during a virtual press conference with a coalition of other small business owners critical of the tariffs. Company employees have also “spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours counter-sourcing product, pausing production, restarting production, rushing production, running price analysis, cost analysis, shipping analysis,” Abel said. “I spent zero minutes on tariffs before this administration.” In one sign of the duress small businesses are facing, they have led the charge in the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose both the reciprocal and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Crutchfield Corp., a family-owned electronics retailer based in Charlottesville, Virginia, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the litigants in the case, in which the owners detailed its difficulties in coping with Trump’s erratic tariff actions. “If tariffs can be imposed, increased, decreased, suspended or altered … through the changing whim of a single person, then Crutchfield cannot plan for the short term, let alone the long run,” the company wrote in its brief, asking “the Court to quell the chaos.”

BELÉM, Brazil — Gavin Newsom can’t get out of a meeting or a talk at the international climate talks here without being swarmed by reporters and diplomats eager for a quote, a handshake, a photo. On a tour Tuesday of a cultural center with Gov. Helder Barbalho, the leader of the Brazilian state hosting the talks, a passerby recognized them both. “There’s the governor,” he exclaimed. “And there’s the California governor.” Later in the day, as Newsom rode up an escalator packed with reporters and international officials on his way to deliver a speech, a bystander shouted: “The escalator’s not broken for you!” — a dig at President Donald Trump, who once had an escalator malfunction on him at the United Nations. Newsom grinned wide: “Oh, I like that.” The adulation was gold for a governor with presidential aspirations as he steps into a power vacuum. The Trump administration is trying to dismantle climate policies both at home and abroad, and other likely Democratic presidential contenders are absent from the United Nations climate talks. Seeing a chance to plant his green flag on an international stage, Newsom is embracing the role of climate champion as his own party backs away at home and the politics of the issue shift rightward. It’s a role fitting Newsom’s instincts: anti-Trump, pro-environment and pro-technology, and with a political antenna for the upside of picking fights, finding opportunity in defiance. “We’re at peak influence because of the flatness of the surrounding terrain with the Trump administration and all the anxiety,” he told POLITICO from the sidelines of a green investor conference in Brazil on Monday. Newsom’s profile has never been higher. Just days before traveling to Brazil, he celebrated a decisive win in his redistricting campaign to boost Democrats in the midterms. He is polling at or near the top of presidential primary shortlists, and is amassing an army of small-dollar donors across the states. The governor couldn’t walk down the hallway at the conference without getting swarmed, undeniably the star of the talks on their second formal day. At one point, security officials had to physically shove away one man repeatedly. Conference attendees yelled out “Keep up the social media!” and “Go Gavin!” (and the occasional “Who is that?”). The first question by the Brazilian press: Are you running for president? And from business people: Are you coming back? Yet in touching down here — and in emphasizing his climate advocacy more broadly — Newsom is assuming a significant risk to his post-gubernatorial ambitions. The rest of the world may wish America were more like California, but the country itself — even Democrats who will decide the 2028 primary — are far more skeptical. What looks like courage abroad can read as out-of-touch back home, in a country where voters, including Democrats, routinely rank any number of issues, including the economy, health care, and cost-of-living, as more pressing than global warming. THE STAGE IS SET Other blue states were already backing away from Newsom’s gas-powered vehicle phase-out even before Congress and Trump ended it this summer, and another possible Democratic contender for president, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, may pull his state out of a regional emissions trading market as part of a budget deal, a move seen as tempering attacks from the right on climate. Even in California, where a new Carnegie Endowment for International Peace poll finds that Californians increasingly want their state government to play a bigger role on the international stage, trade trumped climate change as voters’ top priority for international talks for the first time this year. “There’s not a poll or a pundit that suggests that Democrats should be talking about this,” Newsom acknowledged in an interview. “I’m not naive to that either, but I think it’s the way we talk about it that’s the bigger issue, and I think all of us, including myself, need to improve on that and that’s what I aim to do.” In his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden prevailed not after embracing — but rather, distancing himself from — the “Green New Deal,” which Newsom acknowledged this month had become a “pejorative” on the right. Four years later, Trump pilloried Kamala Harris in the general election for her past positions on climate change. Newsom is already facing relentless attacks from the right on energy: two years ago, in what was seen at the time as a shadow presidential debate, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was skewering Newsom for his phase-out of gas-powered vehicles: “He is walking his people into a big-time disaster,” DeSantis said. And that was before Republicans began combing Newsom’s social media posts for material to weaponize in future ads. Even Newsom’s predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, who made climate change his signature issue, acknowledged “climate is not the big issue in South Carolina or in Maine or in Iowa.” “Climate is important,” Brown said in an interview. “But it’s not like immigration, it’s not like homelessness, it’s not like taxes, it’s not like inflation, not like the price of a house.” Still, Brown cast climate as an existential issue. “It’s way beyond presidential politics. It is about our survival and your well being for the rest of your life,” he said. “I think he’s doing it because he thinks it’s profoundly important, and certainly politics is not divorced entirely from reality.” Newsom’s inner circle senses a political upside, too. His first-ever visit to the climate talks comes not just from his own or California’s ambitions, but from the vacuum left by Trump. “The more that Trump recedes, like a tide going out, the more coral is exposed. And that’s where Newsom can really flourish,” said Jason Elliott, a former deputy chief of staff and an adviser since Newsom’s early days in elected office. Newsom is “going against the grain,” he continued. “It’s easier to be some of these purple or red state governors in other places in the United States that just wash their hands of EVs the minute that the going gets tough. But that’s just not Newsom.” On climate, Newsom’s attempts to stand alone sit well within the California tradition. Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger — the Democrat and the Republican who preceded him — both made international climate diplomacy central to their legacies. “We have been at this for decades and decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations,” Newsom said. “That’s an important message at this time as well, because we’re so unreliable as a nation, and we’re destroying alliances and relationships.” Also in Brazil for part of the talks were Govs. Tony Evers of Wisconsin and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, both Democrats, and mayors of several major U.S. cities, like Kate Gallego of Phoenix. But their pitch didn’t land with quite the same heft as California’s, a state filled with billion-dollar tech companies that, as Newsom frequently boasts, recently overtook Japan as the world’s fourth-largest economy. He attributed his environmental streak to his family, citing his father, William Newsom, a judge and longtime conservationist. As mayor of San Francisco, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation composting mandate and plastic bag ban. As lieutenant governor to Brown, Newsom called himself “a solution in search of a problem” because Brown had embraced climate so prominently. But Brown said Newsom has made the issue his own. “I think Newsom comes to this naturally,” he said. Newsom pulls from a wide range of influences; prolific texting buddies include former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who ran for president largely on a climate platform, and former Secretary of State John Kerry. He frequently cites the example of President Ronald Reagan, the Republican — and former California governor — who embraced an environmental agenda. “I talk to everybody,” Newsom said. He spoke in almost spiritual terms about his upcoming trip deeper into the Amazon, where he’s scheduled to meet with community stewards and walk through the forest. “When we were all opening up those first books, learning geography, one of the first places we all learn about is the Amazon,” he said. “It’s so iconic, so evocative, so it informs so much of what inspires us as children to care about the Earth and Mother Nature. It connects us to our creator.” THE MID-TRANSITION HURT As governor, Newsom hasn’t had the luxury his predecessors enjoyed of setting ambitious emissions targets, but instead is working in a period beset by natural disasters and tensions with both the left and moderate wings of his party. His aides have dubbed it the remarkably un-sexy “mid-transition”: The deadlines to show results are here, they’re out of reach — and in the interim, voters are mad about energy prices. As a result, he’s pushed to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and directed billions toward wildfire prevention and clean-energy manufacturing — but also reversed past positions against nuclear and Big Oil, including extending the life of California’s last nuclear power plant, pausing a profit cap on refineries and expanding oil drilling in Kern County. Inside the administration, those moves are seen as not a tempering of environmental ambition but a pragmatic recalibration. “We’re transitioning to the other side, and there’s a lot of white water in that. And that’s reality. You’ve got to deal with cards that are dealt,” Newsom said in an interview in São Paulo. But it also exposes him to criticism from both the left and moderate wings of his own party. Newsom’s 2023 speech excoriating oil companies to the United Nations in New York City was one of his proudest moments of his career. This year, he faced banners attacking him: “If you can’t take on Big Oil, can you take on Trump?” At the same time, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, has seized on high gas prices in his campaign to succeed Newsom as governor in 2026 — and is partly blaming past governors’ climate policies. Adding to the crunch are the record-setting wildfires that have beset Newsom’s tenure as governor. They’ve not only devastated communities from Paradise in Northern California to Altadena in Los Angeles County but buoyed both electricity prices as utilities spend billions on fire-proofing their grid and property insurance prices as insurers flee the state. It’s this duality that informs Newsom’s approach. “We’ve got to address costs or we’ll lose the debate,” Newsom said. “This is the hard part.” A business moderate known to hand out personal phones programmed with his number to tech CEOs, Newsom is now pitching his climate fight as one focused on economic competitiveness and jobs. Lauren Sanchez, the chair of the state’s powerful air and climate agency, the California Air Resources Board, called the state’s international leadership the governor’s “north star” on climate change. “He is in the business of ensuring that California is relevant in the future economy,” she said. In Brazil, Newsom made the time to stop by a global investors summit in São Paulo, where he held an hour-long roundtable with green bankers, philanthropists and energy execs. They told him they wanted his climate pacts with Brazilian governments to do more on economic ties. So, Newsom said, he started drafting a new agreement there and then, throwing a paper napkin on the table in reference to the cocktail napkin deal that formed Southwest. “Let’s get this done before I leave,” Newsom said he told his Brazilian counterparts. “We move quickly.” If the moment reflected California’s swagger, it also laid bare its limitations. The Constitution limits states from contributing money to international funds, like the tropical rainforest preservation fund that is the Brazilians’ signature proposal at the talks. And even at home, Trump is still making Newsom’s balancing act hard: Newsom floated backfilling the Trump administration’s removal of electric vehicle incentives with state rebates, then backtracked, conceding the state doesn’t have enough funds. And on Tuesday, reports came out that the Trump administration was planning to offer offshore oil and gas leases for the first time in decades off the coast of California — putting Newsom on the defensive. Newsom called those plans “dead on arrival.” “I also think it remarkable that he didn’t promote it in his backyard at Mar-a-Lago; he didn’t promote it off the coast of Florida,” Newsom added.

LONDON — Keir Starmer’s gone all-in on digital identification for Brits. But while many MPs in the prime minister’s governing Labour Party back the idea in theory, there are plenty despairing at a botched communications strategy which they believe has set the wide-ranging policy up for a fall. Under Starmer’s plans, digital ID will be required for right-to-work checks by 2029. Ministers insist the ID — a second attempt to land ID cards for Brits after a botched first go under Tony Blair — won’t track people’s location, spending habits or online activity.  Yet Labour MPs feel a more sellable emphasis on improving people’s experience of public services has gotten lost. Instead, Starmer’s government — with populist right-winger Nigel Farage breathing down its neck — has attempted to link the plan to a migration crackdown. “It’s a no-brainer,” said Labour MP Allison Gardner, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for digital identity. “It absolutely will make people’s lives easier, more secure [and] give them more control over their data. We need to explain it better to people, so that they understand that this is for them, and it’s not being done to them.” HARD SELL  A consultation on the plans will be launched by the end of 2025, before legislation next year. The government’s huge majority means it’s highly likely to become law — but there’s a potentially bumpy road ahead. Two decades after Blair’s New Labour first proposed plastic identity cards, Starmer wants to finish the job, pitching a plan to make digital ID mandatory for right-to-work checks as a way to deter irregular migration. Yet the sweeping change, announced on the eve of Labour conference, didn’t get a mention in Starmer’s setpiece speech — and notably didn’t appear in the party’s election manifesto. “The announcement hasn’t been handled well,” admitted a pro-digital ID Labour MP granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Our argument for it keeps changing but none of it is full-throated enough.” The messaging has shifted since the initial push, too. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” That was only after a drop in poll ratings for the idea. A petition against it has meanwhile racked up close to three million signatures. The shapeshifting rhetoric — painting digital ID first as a necessary inconvenience before calling it vital for state efficiency — caused some heads to spin. Technology Secretary Liz Kendall later stressed giving “people power and control over their lives,” saying the public is too often “at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should.” | Andy Rain/EPA “The government communication … has not learned from the mistakes made when digital ID was proposed 20 years ago,” said a second Labour MP, who thought the focus on immigration meant ministers weren’t “talking about the benefits it brings ordinary British citizens.”  Red flags have also been also waved over compulsory right-to-work checks, given only the very wealthiest Brits never need to work — making it de facto mandatory. “There’s been a kneejerk reaction, particularly to the word mandatory, which I think British people have naturally reacted against,” admitted Gardner, who argues voters should have a choice about using the scheme. “It’s a little bit of a bandwagon people have latched on to, to actually derail the entire concept.”  Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration”  but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” Analysis by the New Britain Project think tank, shared with POLITICO, shows that Google searches for digital ID were elevated for around three weeks after the announcement compared to the typical one day spike for most policies. Interest dwarfed other decisions too, with peak search traffic for digital ID 20 to 50 times higher than any other flagship policy terms in the last year. Nigel Farage, eager to paint himself as a champion of civil liberties, has warned digital ID won’t stop “illegal immigration” but will “be used to control and penalise the rest of us.” | Neil Hall/EPA Longstanding Labour MP Fabian Hamilton highlights the dilemma of digital ID: “Nobody likes compulsion, and it will only work if everybody has to have it.” Despite Kendall expressing optimism about a digital key unlocking “better, more joined-up and effective public services,” Hamilton argues that prioritizing migration in the messaging is too simplistic. “I’m sorry to say that the legal migration is tilting the head at a certain part of the electorate that are very concerned about illegal migration and the tabloids,” he argues. NO SILVER BULLET  Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. Right-to-work checks already exist in the U.K., with employees required to show documentation like a letter with their national insurance number. “It may be helpful, but obviously it won’t affect fundamental factors [driving people to the U.K.] of family links or English language,” warns former Home Office Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam. He believes the most challenging part of the scheme will be “establishing the status of many people beyond doubt” given some residents may not have formal ID. “There are millions of people whose status it may bring into question,” Rutnam says. “Their status may not be what they have understood it to be.” Whether digital ID works on its own terms — reducing irregular migration — is also hotly contested. | Tolga Akmen/EPA That’s sparked fears among some in Westminster of another Windrush scandal. That debacle saw some people who emigrated to Britain as part of a post-Second World War rebuilding effort later denied rights and, in the most extreme cases, deported under a scattershot Home Office clampdown.  “We need to be very, very careful,” warns former U.K. Border Force Director-General Tony Smith. Smith says digital ID is “not a panacea,” and warns illegal working is likely to remain because unscrupulous employers won’t suddenly become law-abiding. TECH TROUBLES The British government’s ability to handle such a vast amount of sensitive data securely is also far from certain. Kendall has stressed that the data behind digital ID won’t be centralized and says individuals will be able to see who has accessed their information. That’s not enough for skeptics.  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. “The track record’s not been great,” Smith warns. “You are trying to turn round a huge tanker in the ocean here, and I do worry that we haven’t perhaps got the necessary gear.”  Rutnam agrees digital ID will be a “very demanding administrative exercise” that politicians need to understand is “complex and inherently risky.”  A catastrophic Ministry of Defence breach, which leaked details of Afghans applying to resettle in Britain after the Taliban’s return to power, shows the danger of sensitive details reaching the wrong hands. | Andy Rain/EPA Perhaps more damning for digital ID’s support among the Labour faithful is anxiety about future governments using the information malevolently. “Faith in our institutions of government and of the state is at an all-time low,” says Hamilton, citing a “bizarre situation” where some Brits lump digital ID in with Covid-19 vaccines as a government conspiracy. One Labour MP vehemently opposed to digital ID says ministers are so far failing to consider “what happens when we’re gone” and warns any safeguards “can be unpicked” by subsequent administrations. Starmer has spoken about digital ID as a positive alternative to rifling through drawers looking for “three bills when you want to get your kids into school or apply for this or apply for that.” “F*ck you,” the anonymous Labour MP above said in response. “I can’t believe that. Is that the best you’ve got for giving away fundamental rights?” Still, Gardner is pleading for colleagues not to block this modern innovation: “We are at risk of throwing a very, very good baby out with the bathwater if we resist this and just keep ourselves in the dark ages.” Emilio Casalicchio and Dan Bloom contributed to this report.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday said the United States is in talks with China about how to de-escalate a trade war that reignited last week after Beijing announced plans to impose export controls on rare earth magnets used in a variety of high-tech products. “There has been substantial communications over the weekend,” Bessent said in an interview on Fox Business, adding that more “staff level” talks are expected this week in Washington when Chinese officials are in town for the annual fall meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Bessent also said he expects President Donald Trump will still meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea in late October, just before that country hosts the annual meeting of leaders from the 21 economies in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Trump threatened last week to impose 100 percent tariffs on Chinese goods beginning Nov.1 and cancel the meeting with Xi after China announced the rare earth export restrictions. That caused financial markets to sell off Friday in the face of renewed concern about an escalating trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Bessent said he expected to hold talks in Asia with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, before the Trump-Xi meeting in South Korea. While sending the message the overall U.S.-China relationship is in “good” shape and Trump’s “100 percent tariff does not have to happen,” Bessent insisted Beijing must back off its plan to restrict rare earth magnets. He also suggested a “lower level official” may have made the Chinese decision to restrict exports, rather than Xi himself. “This is China versus the world. They have pointed a bazooka at the supply chains and the industrial base of the entire free world, and we’re not going to have it,” Bessent said. “A group of bureaucrats in China cannot tell us and our allies how to run our supply system.” The U.S. also expects to get substantial support for its stance from Europe, India and democracies in Asia, Bessent said. “I believe that China is open to discussion on this. And if they’re not, we have substantial levers on our own … side that we can pull,” he added. In the midst of tensions earlier this year, the United States imposed 12 countermeasures on China that were “highly” effective, ranging from natural resources used in plastic production to jet engines and parts, Bessent said. The Treasury chief also hinted at the possible expulsion of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese students now in the United States and other possible actions in areas of software, minerals and financial services if China does not back down. “We have plenty of straight, brute-force countermeasures that we can pull,” Bessent said.

[1] https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net/ [2] Satellite sea surface temperature measurements began in 1982; ocean heat content estimates are derived from in situ observations that started in 1960. [3] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/world/europe/spain-beach-blue-dragon-sea-slugs.html#:~:text=The%20arrival%20of%20the%20tiny,what%20they’re%20dealing%20with. [5] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/ [6] https://marine.copernicus.eu/osr9-summary/flipbook/

The Grenfell Tower tragedy stands as a devastating reminder of what can happen when fire safety is not prioritized in construction, whether renovation or new build. The Netflix documentary, Grenfell: Uncovered, alongside the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, highlights how decisions made throughout the renovation process — including the use of combustible façade insulation and cladding — resulted in catastrophic human consequences, with 72 people dying in the tower blaze.   At its core, the Grenfell tragedy is the result of systemic neglect — neglect that encompassed regulation, industry practice, and enforcement at local and national levels. De-regulation, poor oversight, misleading industry practice, ignored safety warnings and cost-cutting all played a role. Sadly, Grenfell is not an isolated incident. Similar tragedies have occurred across Europe, most recently in Valencia.   The EU’s EPBD presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape Europe’s built environment. It is extremely positive that the renovation wave will improve millions of buildings by 2050, targeting the worst-performing ones first and ultimately leading to a fully decarbonized building stock by 2050. And while transformational goals such as these are welcome, it’s imperative that EPBD implementation puts fire safety on equal footing alongside energy efficiency.   There is an urgent need for policymakers and industry leaders to take decisive action.  Fire safety should be non-negotiable  With the EU about to transform its built environment to provide a sustainable future, we have to get it right.   A well-insulated, energy-efficient building can reduce heating needs by up to 70 percent. It can also improve occupant comfort, reduce noise and improve a building’s aesthetic if a new façade is installed. As the Netflix documentary demonstrates, these benefits mean little if achieved at the expense of safety.   The good news lies in what we already know — and it’s not complicated. Non-combustible insulation and cladding reduce the fire risk, while combustible counterparts don’t. Why? Because non-combustible materials like stone wool insulation don’t burn. And because it can withstand temperatures up to 1,000 C, stone wool insulation can help stop a fire from spreading. Another important factor is that non-combustible stone wool does not produce significant amounts of toxic smoke or gases when exposed to fire.  > The good news lies in what we already know — and it’s not complicated. > Non-combustible insulation and cladding reduce the fire risk, while > combustible counterparts don’t.   One shouldn’t underestimate the risk of toxic smoke and gases in a fire. Grenfell Tower was wrapped in combustible plastic foam insulation and plastic-filled cladding panels. According to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, all 72 people who died in the fire were overcome by toxic gases. The same toxic smoke and gases are responsible for many of the firefighters who attended at Grenfell developing serious long-term health disorders.    Fire safety matters greatly as EU member states embark on a massive energy efficiency building renovation wave. Policies governing the use of combustible façade materials vary widely among member states. There is no central register to tell us where combustible facades remain in place, leaving a knowledge gap about the extent of combustible facades use in the current building stock. But we do know, from market data, that significant volumes of combustible products continue to make up a large portion of the EU market despite available alternatives, and that puts lives at risk.  via DEUTSCHE ROCKWOOL Learning the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire  The public inquiry that followed the Grenfell Tower fire said in its final report that the “safety of people in the built environment depends principally on a combination of three primary elements, good design, the choice of suitable materials and sound methods of construction…”.   It also said that a “fresh approach needs to be taken to reviewing and revising the Building Regulations and statutory guidance that is driven primarily by considerations of safety.” It is critical for EU member states to learn from the report’s findings as they implement the EPBD.    > “Safety of people in the built environment depends principally on a > combination of three primary elements, good design, the choice of suitable > materials and sound methods of construction”  — Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 > report . ROCKWOOL has long argued for strict regulations mandating the use of non-combustible façade materials in high-rise and high-risk buildings. As legislation among member states continues to vary greatly, the EU should be advising member states to adopt stronger fire safety standards that ban the use of combustible materials on high-rise and high-risk buildings like schools, hospitals and care facilities that have vulnerable occupants and take longer to evacuate.   What it means to get it right  We have an opportunity to create a new generation of energy efficient, acoustically comfortable, aesthetically pleasing and fire-safe buildings — our homes, workplaces, schools, care facilities, and so much more. It’s essential that renovation should mean energy efficiency and fire safety together, not one or the other.   Across the EU, we must learn the tragic lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The formula is straightforward. For high-rise and high-risk buildings, member states should simply require the use of non-combustible façade insulation and cladding.   When so many good alternatives are readily available, why take the risk to do otherwise? 

GENEVA — When yet another round of global plastic treaty talks fell apart in Switzerland last month, many negotiators and civil society groups were plunged into despair. “We’ve just wasted money, wasted time,” said Heni Unwin, a Māori marine scientist with the Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance, just after talks to halt the environmental crisis collapsed. “We are the ones who get impacted with all of the trash left by all of the world [that] turns up on our shores.” But through the gloom of yet another failed summit, some saw a glimmer of hope emanating from an unlikely source: China. In its closing speech, the Asian superpower and world’s biggest plastic producer subtly changed its language on tackling the plastic crisis, admitting the problem has to do with the entire life cycle of plastic and thus raising hopes of a breakthrough at a next round of talks. It comes as Beijing moves to fill a vacuum left by the United States’ withdrawal from global engagement under President Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda. “They don’t go back when they make shifts like this,” said Dennis Clare, a legal adviser for Micronesia with nearly 20 years of experience in U.N. environment treaty negotiations, referring to China. He added that the country “has a lot of gravity, so things start to blow the way they flow.” The stakes are high. The plastics industry currently accounts for 3.4 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions — that’s more than aviation — and plastic production is on track to almost triple by 2060. Plastic waste is flowing into the world’s oceans at a rate of around 10 million metric tons per year, and increasing. In its efforts to tackle the problem, the United Nations has now hosted six rounds of talks since 2022. The European Union has been among those pushing for an ambitious treaty that puts limits on plastic production — while oil-producing countries, which see plastic as among the remaining growing markets for fossil fuels, have bitterly opposed any such measures. THE CHINESE WILD CARD Countries in the self-named High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution — which backs a “comprehensive” approach addressing the full lifecycle of plastic — have long targeted China as a powerful potential ally. They face strong resistance from major oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran — and, most recently, the U.S. under the Trump administration’s “drill, baby, drill” ethos (oil is the main raw material from which plastic is made). While China is the world’s top consumer and producer of plastic, the country has also ushered in several restrictions on the production, sale and consumption of single-use plastics in a bid to stem a national pollution crisis. This has made it more aligned with high-ambition countries than some other major plastic producers. The Asian superpower and world’s biggest plastic producer subtly changed its language on tackling the plastic crisis. | Adek Berry/Getty Images Observers also see the country looking to expand its global influence via the U.N. — especially in the wake of the U.S. retreat from multilateralism. “We should firmly safeguard the status and authority of the U.N., and ensure its irreplaceable, key role in global governance,” President Xi Jinping said in a speech at a meeting of Asian leaders near Beijing on Sept. 1, attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “My sense is that, of course, they’re also seeing that space opening, generally around environment,” said David Azoulay of the Center for International Environmental Law. “And the U.S. retreating creates a vacuum that China will probably want to fill in their own way.” That could work out well for high-ambition countries. China is an “important partner for the EU” in the talks, European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall told POLITICO during the Geneva negotiations. “Our strategy since Busan has always been to break China away from Saudi [Arabia] and the U.S.,” said one negotiator from a country within the High Ambition Coalition, granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. With China on board, they added, the assumption is that other major players including Russia and India, as well as Southeast Asian countries, will “become more comfortable” with a comprehensive plastic treaty. Several delegates and observers noted more openness from China on several measures in Geneva, including those aimed at phasing out problematic plastic products — culminating in a public statement that many see as a seemingly subtle yet seismic shift. “Plastic pollution is far more complex than we expected,” said Chinese representative Haijun Chen at the closing plenary session. “It runs through the entire chain of production, consumption and recycling and waste management, as well as relates to the transition of development models of over 190 U.N. countries.” China’s assertion that plastic pollution stems from the full lifecycle of plastic — and is not solely a waste management issue, as claimed by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran — reflects a “break” from other, more reluctant plastic-producing countries, said the high-ambition negotiator. It follows a compromise made among some key delegations “hours before that plenary statement.” “The question for us now is how to protect that understanding that was made that last night into a new meeting,” they added. ISOLATE AND ATTACK The broad contours of a compromise could include moving away from attempting to enforce a percentage reduction on plastic production — a red line for several countries, including China — and instead looking at other measures tackling the full plastic lifecycle, like global restrictions on certain kinds of “problematic” products. That’s the gist of a draft treaty text released on the final day of plastic treaty talks last month — which garnered support from many high-ambition countries, but was knocked down by oil and plastic producers. Some countries are “trying to block us from working on that text right now,” complained Danish Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke in a closing press conference. That could work out well for high-ambition countries. China is an “important partner for the EU” in the talks, European Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall said. | Dursun Aydemir/Getty Images Countries are insisting on “unrealistic elements,” countered Iran’s Massoud Rezvanian Rahaghi at the closing plenary, and employing “unfair and restricting tactics to exclude a large number of parties in very undemocratic ways.” The hope, the anonymous high-ambition negotiator said, is that China’s shifting position will help to “isolate” the ringleaders of the oil producers’ group — namely the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. “Hopefully you will see some of the countries in their group also isolate or move away from them. Like Egypt potentially, maybe others in North Africa,” they added. IF ALL ELSE FAILS But the talks cannot continue indefinitely. The patience of smaller, poorer countries — increasingly resentful of having to pile resources into fruitless talks — is wearing thin, and financial support for the talks coming from countries that have been supporting the negotiations has a limit. While China’s shift and some elements of the most recent draft text encouraged some governments, there’s no guarantee the talks won’t collapse again. At least one country that has been financially supporting the negotiations is looking into how the treaty talks have been run, checking for evidence of a “mismanaged process,” said the high-ambition negotiator, though they were not able to name the country. That could result in requests for changes to the process in hopes of moving forward more efficiently at a next round of meetings, the date for which has not yet been set. Should the deadlock continue, though, there’s also the possibility of taking the process outside the current framework, explained Clare, the Micronesia adviser. That could entail countries adding a specific plastic treaty protocol to other existing and adjacent agreements, like the Basel Convention — designed to control the movements of hazardous waste between nations — or the Rotterdam Convention, another global treaty aimed at managing hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade. “The value of the process is that we all know where countries stand, so it wouldn’t take long to consummate an agreement among those who have similar positions,” said Clare. “The question would be, to what extent does that agreement have the scope to turn the tables on this problem?”