Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top climate envoy is picking a fight with China weeks before a high-stakes United Nations summit on global warming, already undercut by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Some diplomats and observers were left wondering what Wopke Hoekstra hoped to achieve when he attacked Beijing last month for what he described as a “clearly disappointing” climate plan — especially after the EU had failed to present its own strategy. The move raised fears of a rift between China and Europe heading into the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit, where the two blocs will be dominant forces after U.S. President Donald Trump declared in January that Washington would no longer participate in the process and formally exit the Paris Agreement. But the Dutchman was unbowed. China’s promise to cut its climate pollution by between 7 and 10 percent by 2035 deserved straight talk, he said in an interview with POLITICO. “As much as I’m in the domain of diplomacy, there’s no point in suggesting that this is somewhere in the ballpark of almost being good enough.” Every country needs to take responsibility for their planet-cooking pollution, he said, adding that he would keep seeking dialogue with China. “We’ll continue to work with them, but this is a missed opportunity, in my view, of doing what is needed and doing what also is related to a responsible actor of this importance and this size.” The EU, racked by its own internal disagreement, has yet to submit a formal target, as it is required to do under the Paris Agreement. Instead, it has released a “statement of intent,” indicating that it will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.3 percent and 72.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Hoekstra’s criticism sparked an extraordinary riposte from China’s foreign ministry, which complained to Reuters about the EU’s “double standards and selective blindness” and warned “such rhetoric disrupts global solidarity in addressing climate change and undermines the atmosphere of cooperation.”  On Monday, Hoekstra, the European commissioner responsible for climate, will sit across from Chinese negotiators for the first time since the spat broke out. The talks in Brazil are the final preparatory meeting before COP30 kicks off in the Amazon city of Belém in November.   With the White House seeking every way possible to promote fossil fuels and downplay the surging global investment in clean energy, much of the rest of the world is looking to China and the EU to step in and send an alternative and unified message about the shift away from coal, oil and gas. Asked who would win in a war of words between China and the EU, Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, replied flatly: “Trump.” Hoekstra’s response to China’s climate goal stood out among European and U.N. officials, even many climate advocacy groups, who largely swerved conflict and accepted Beijing had a track record of underpromising and overdelivering on its pledges.  “Criticism of others can only be credible if we lead by example, and Hoekstra’s remarks come across more as an attempt to deflect from Europe’s own shortcomings than as a coherent climate strategy,” said European Green lawmaker Michael Bloss.  “Right now, we talk a big game but have nothing to show for it,” Bloss told POLITICO, referring to the EU missing the deadline to submit its 2035 climate plan. “That’s not how you motivate the rest of the world to act,” he added, warning that “without close EU-China cooperation, the COP30 process is in danger.”  But “Commissioner Hoekstra’s statement was walking a very fine line,” tempered Sébastien Treyer, executive director of the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, or IDDRI, a think tank. “It would have been unthinkable for the European commissioner for climate action to simply welcome China’s [climate plan] from a diplomatic point of view,” he added.  What this leads to, however, is “a statement that creates a rather harsh atmosphere of mutual criticism, rather than a positive learning dynamic” ahead of COP30, Treyer noted.  PUNCHING HARD  Hoekstra’s approach has some support in Europe’s capitals, where pointing to China’s continued coal expansion is a common excuse for doing less at home. French officials, for example, have been adamant about the need for China to step up its efforts in the global fight against climate change.  China’s 2035 climate target was “absolutely disappointing … they can do a lot better,” said a French government official, who, like others in this article was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters. They vowed to keep “push[ing] China to fully embrace its role as a climate leader, which it should logically assume” ahead of COP30, because it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, one of the top historical emitters, and has the “economic and financial means” to have a “real climate leadership policy.” Others questioned whether Hoekstra’s strategy is the right one, especially after his boss European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had just endured the embarrassment of turning up to a U.N. summit in New York without a formal plan from the EU. The rift on climate policy between the two powers is coming at a moment when trade tensions could be exacerbated as the EU looks to ramp up its trade defense measures against China.  “Hoekstra is a liability,” said a senior climate diplomat from a European country, who disagrees with his aggressive approach toward China. “He always looks and sounds as if he’s just walked off the 18th green and wants a glass of wine with his Caesar salad. I don’t know anyone who thinks he has the requisite gravitas.” Hoekstra brushed off the criticism toward his approach, telling an event in Brussels earlier this month, that “we tend to overestimate our ability to, at scale, influence [China’s] decision-making.”  “I’m not convinced at all that if we had tabled something earlier that it would have moved the needle,” he said. But added that, when China is responsible for about 30 percent of global emissions, “if then the response is a 7 to 10 [percent reduction of emissions], it’s really hard, even if you want to make as much of a diplomatic effort as possible, to do as if that is enough.”  A Commission official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Hoekstra’s team was in discussions with the Chinese over a bilateral meeting ahead of COP30. But that won’t happen in Brazil on Monday because Beijing was not sending a representative of Hoekstra’s ministerial rank, the official said. Canada, China and the EU will lead a ministerial climate summit in Toronto, Ontario at the end of the month, presenting a chance for a meeting. The climate commissioner’s relationship with China contrasts with that of Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, his direct overseer in the Commission structure. Ribera, a veteran climate diplomat, recently held a meeting with the former Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua in Brussels — an unusual bending of protocol. In July, after Hoekstra signaled the EU would not sign a joint statement with China unless it showed greater “ambition,” Ribera brokered a deal in which China made no such concession.   Speaking to POLITICO, Ribera emphasized the need for COP30 to project unity against the fossil fuel revisionism of the Trump administration. “In the COP, in Belém this year, we need to come up providing a clear message on the multilateral system being prepared to work together and being supported by all parties — almost all parties,” she told POLITICO. She was not responding directly to Hoekstra’s war of words with the Chinese.   Steffen Menzel, program leader at the climate think tank E3G, said Hoekstra and Ribera were representing “different voices, different tones in Brussels and across the EU.” He saw no problem with Hoekstra’s tougher language.  “It’s the right way to go for the EU to be very clear with the Chinese engagement or climate action when it is insufficient, and that doesn’t rule out cooperation,” he said. “The EU can and needs to be there with their own strong position.”  Nicolas Camut contributed to this report. 

Brussels and Beijing got 99 problems — but an upcoming high-level summit ain’t gonna solve a single one. When EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa travel to China in two weeks, they will have several concerns in their travel bags — from market access to China’s chokehold over strategic raw materials. America’s lurch into protectionism under President Donald Trump is disturbing trade flows, meanwhile, making it harder to resolve those thorny issues. Von der Leyen reeled off a litany of political and economic complaints on Tuesday — from China’s state-subsidized overproduction to price gouging, “systematic” discrimination against foreign companies, export restrictions and more — setting the tone for a contentious summit.  “China has an entirely different system,” she said in an address to European lawmakers. The country has “unique instruments at its disposal to play outside the rules,” allowing it “to flood global markets with subsidized overcapacity — not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.” And the pain points are multiplying: The latest is a move by Beijing to restrict government purchases of EU medical devices, in retaliation for a similar ban on Chinese medical equipment imposed by Brussels last month. Those come on top of a lingering dispute over the EU’s imposition of duties on Chinese-made electric vehicles last year and retaliatory duties slapped by Beijing on European liquor. Despite the milestone it’s supposed to celebrate — the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic ties — the summit is shaping up to be more symbolic than substantive. With both sides entangled in trade spats, expectations are at a new low. Officials are bracing for a summit that’s going to be more about saving face than achieving concrete results. While Brussels and Beijing usually alternate as summit hosts, Chinese President Xi Jinping snubbed EU leaders earlier this year by declining an invitation to come to Brussels. The summit — originally planned to run for two days — will now only take place on July 24 in Beijing. It’s still unlikely that Xi will attend the gathering, which will be chaired by Premier Li Qiang, China’s second-ranked leader. Xi might yet meet bilaterally with von der Leyen and Costa, but that is TBC. “Not only doesn’t he [Xi] show up in Brussels, he doesn’t even attend in Beijing … it’s so embarrassing, I would not take it over my dead body, I swear,” said Alicia García-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at French investment bank Natixis and a senior fellow at Bruegel, a think tank. “As a European I would say: Do not go, do not accept this shit.” MOOD SHIFT What’s more, the EU and the U.S. are scrambling to seal a provisional trade deal ahead of Trump’s (newly postponed) deadline to reimpose sweeping tariffs on Aug. 1. Should that happen before the EU-China summit, it’s bound to spell further trouble for the meeting. “If the EU and the U.S. are going to seal a similar deal to [the deal the U.S. sealed with the U.K.], other trading partners will be put at a disadvantage and China will retaliate,” said a person from the Chinese business sector who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. In an attempt to find common ground with Trump, von der Leyen has hardened her tone toward Beijing, accusing China at a G7 summit in Canada last month of “weaponizing” its leading position in producing and refining critical raw materials.  Unsurprisingly, those comments didn’t land well. Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hit back at von der Leyen’s remarks on raw materials. Beijing “fully considered the reasonable needs and concerns of various countries, and reviewed export license applications in accordance with laws and regulations,” Guo said. Von der Leyen’s remarks were “quite hawkish and unsettling,” said the person from the Chinese business sector quoted above. “If [von der Leyen] was trying to charm Trump, she may have done so at the cost of credibility — reminding China that the EU can talk cooperation with China one day and posture like a Cold Warrior the next,” they added. In short: The mood is sour — at a time when neither side, and especially the EU, can afford it. In a sign of its concerns over trade imbalances with China, Brussels launched a tool in April to monitor the diversion of trade flows toward the bloc after Trump imposed tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods (later lowered to 30 percent). While it’s too early to identify a clear trend, Chinese exports to Europe are sharply up in sectors including chemicals, textiles and machinery. HUGE UNCERTAINTY When the summit was announced — days before Trump’s inauguration in January — the EU struck an amicable tone, broadcasting its willingness to rekindle its relationship with China amid uneasy transatlantic relations. Nearly six months on, however, there has been scant progress toward resolving bilateral disputes. And the Chinese commerce ministry has warned “any country” against sealing trade deals with the U.S. that “undermine Chinese interests.” “The situation is not good. The European Union has 70 percent of its exports to the United States aimed at new tariffs. We are facing trade diversion because of some of the actions being taken, and there’s a huge uncertainty in the trade world,” Maria Martin-Prat De Abreu, a senior official at the Commission’s trade department who is in charge of the EU’s China policy, told an event last month. On top of rifts over electric vehicles, medical devices, spirits and pork, China has imposed — as part of its retaliation against Washington — additional controls on exports of rare earths. Those are inevitably hitting EU countries as well. Although EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič has managed to negotiate faster permitting procedures for European companies, industry continues to sound the alarm over threats to supply chains for the manufacture of everything from smartphones to car engines. China provides almost 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths. In a reflection of the frosty relations between Brussels and Beijing, the two sides don’t plan to issue a joint statement summing up their mutual commitments, departing from the usual practice in international diplomacy. The EU and China are instead looking at publishing a mere press release, two EU officials said, just like they did in 2023. “There’s a huge amount of work that needs to be done between now and the summit,” said Martin-Prat De Abreu, adding that Brussels and Beijing were focusing on both “general, structural issues” and more specific issues such as market access for agricultural goods and cosmetics. “It is very difficult,” she added. What’s more, the usual high-level trade dialogue that typically precedes the summit won’t be held due to the lack of progress on trade issues, according to a person from the Chinese business sector and a European official. And Brussels is refusing to sign a joint declaration on climate action unless China pledges greater efforts to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the Financial Times. “It’s not that we shut the door,” a third EU official said. “It’s more that we never opened it. We’re sending a signal to both China and the United States.” This story has been updated.