Every day across Europe, millions of citizens wear, sleep on, eat off or rely on rental textiles provided by industrial laundries. From hospital linens and reusable surgical gowns to industrial workwear, hotel bedding, restaurant textiles and hygiene products, textile services operate quietly but indispensably at the heart of Europe’s economy. In many countries, more than 90 percent of hospitals and hotels would be forced to close within days without a continuous supply of hygienically cleaned textiles, while pharmaceutical and food production facilities would halt operations within 24 hours. Behind this essential service stands a highly organi z ed European industry that combines operational excellence with a circular, service-based business model — washing and keeping textiles in use for longer, reducing waste and lowering environmental impact while safeguarding public health. By relying on reuse, repair and professional maintenance, the system significantly reduces the need for virgin raw materials sourced from outside Europe. At the same time, these locally anchored service models create skilled jobs, generate tax revenues in the communities where companies operate and drive continuous innovation in circular solutions — supporting new business opportunities and industrial development across the European Union . > In this time of on going and challenging geo-political change, it will become > crucial to fully recogni z e the strategic value of circular, service-based > business models, which strengthen competitiveness and resilience while > delivering on Europe’s sustainability objectives. > > Hartmut Engler, CEO of CWS Workwear As several important legislative files move forward in Brussels, it is time to reflect on what textile services need to continue to implement sustainable solutions. Public procurement rules are a great vector to promote and encourage circular business models while delivering on the strategic autonomy ambition of the EU. Public authorities across the EU spend over € 2.6 trillion annually on purchasing services, works and supplies, accounting for around 15 percent of the EU ’s GDP. However, too much of this investment is directed toward linear services and disposable goods, slowing down progress toward Europe’s environmental and industrial objectives. With the revision of the EU public procurement rules, it should be recogni z ed that the EU’s circular economy and environmental aims are greatly advanced by the textile rental industry. Specifically, g reen p ublic p rocurement should become mandatory across all EU m ember s tates and should also encourage alternatives to direct purchase such as leasing models or product-as-a-service business models. Public procurement should not be driven solely by value-for-money considerations, but by a holistic lifecycle approach that reflects long-term environmental and social performance. Introducing mandatory lifecycle costing as an award criterion would ensure that sustainability is measured over the full duration of a contract, not just at the point of purchase. > Longevity of product should be the first priority of the upcoming Circular > Economy Act. The most sustainable product is ultimately the one that is kept > in use the longest, putting durability and repairability at the centre of > environmental benefits. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association European Textile Services Association (ETSA) members already deliver sustainable business models with product-as-a-service models implementing repair, reuse and extended use. Such business models should be empowered and further supported in legislation, hand in hand with recycling. Extending a product’s useful life delivers far greater climate and resource benefits than breaking products down for recycling after short use cycles. It preserves the embedded energy, water and raw materials already invested. However, prioriti z ing longevity does not mean neglecting end-of-life solutions. At the same time, ETSA members are joining forces to invest in a joint recycling pilot project, translating circular ambition into practical industrial solutions. They are developing innovative processes to transform end-of-life textiles into recycled fib er s suitable for insulation materials, industrial wipers and other high-value applications — with the long-term vision of advancing closed-loop systems in which recycled fib er s can increasingly serve as raw materials for new textile production. Recycling requires stable markets and long-term policy certainty, and the sector is actively investing in building both. By developing concrete use cases for recycled content, these initiatives help strengthen European recycling value chains while further reducing dependency on third-country suppliers. > Europe does not need to invent circular solutions from scratch. They already > exist. The priority now is to put in place policies that support circular, > service-based business models. These models are built on durability and > extending product lifespans to get more value from the resources we already > use. > > Elena Lai, s ecretary g eneral of the European Textile Services Association Textile services are not an emerging concept but a proven, scalable European solution — reducing consumption, anchoring jobs locally, safeguarding public health and lowering emissions. By recogni z ing and supporting service-based reuse models in forthcoming legislation, the EU can accelerate its sustainability ambitions while strengthening competitiveness and strategic autonomy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * The ultimate controlling entity is ETSA – European Textiles Service Association * This political advertisement advocates for the recognition and support of circular, service-based business models within forthcoming EU legislation; by addressing the Circular Economy Act, the revision of EU Public Procurement rules, Green Public Procurement requirements and lifecycle costing criteria, it seeks to influence policymakers and the public debate on EU sustainability, industrial policy and procurement frameworks, bringing it within the scope of the TTPA. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will adopt the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) on Wednesday, finally backing the landmark measure that would define a European preference in green public procurement after several delays. Haggling over the planned regulation went right down to the wire, with a meeting of cabinet chiefs that began on Monday spilling into Tuesday, the day before Ursula von der Leyen’s College of Commissioners will now sign off on an agreed text. According to one Commission official, another 44 changes were made to the draft at the meeting that ran into overtime. Paula Pinho, the Commission’s chief spokesperson, confirmed at Tuesday’s regular midday briefing that “commissioners are expected to adopt a proposal for an Industrial Accelerator Act.” The landmark measure would define a “Made in EU” preference in green public procurement — while pushing back a decision for six months on whether friendly third countries can be included in its scope. This means that, even after Wednesday’s announcement, countries like the U.K. or Switzerland will still need to lobby to get inside the tent. The IAA would also set restrictions on inward investment for dominant players in strategic green industries. These would mainly have China in mind, and cover batteries and energy storage, electric vehicles and components, solar photovoltaic, and the extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO last week. An earlier version of the proposal, which is being overseen by Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, was panned last month by as many as nine departments of the EU executive. By the end of last week that was down to three, including the Commission’s powerful trade department, according to one person familiar with the discussion. They were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door talks. Germany also led a rearguard action by 10 EU countries — which styled themselves as the Friends of Industry — who support less industry regulation and more open trade, with Economy Minister Katherina Reiche saying it would create “a regulatory wasteland that nobody can understand anymore.” With so many changes being made at the last minute, including dropping entire industries like tech from the purview of the legislation, critics say the bill is nowhere near ready for prime time and is at risk of being heavily revised when it goes for review by the Council of the EU, which represents the bloc’s 27 member countries, and European lawmakers. Additional reporting by Gerardo Fortuna.

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

ALDEN BIESEN, Belgium — The European Union should open up more to its trade partners in public procurement and curb Chinese investment in sectors like green tech, according to a new draft of a landmark industry act obtained by POLITICO on Thursday. Free-trade partners like the United Kingdom and Japan will breathe a sigh of relief as the draft Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA) foresees a definition of “Made in EU” that includes “trusted partners.” Brussels wants to throw up a higher barrier to investment from China by imposing a cap on foreign direct investment by countries that dominate a given global industry. The leak of the bill came as EU leaders held a retreat at a Belgian castle to wargame ways to reverse the bloc’s industrial decline in the face of China’s export dominance and America’s tech supremacy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is trying to find a balance between France’s protectionist instincts and calls for more openness led by Germany, Italy and the EU’s Nordic contingent. Leaders played down differences as they gathered at the Alden Biesen estate, with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni saying her views on industrial strategy converged with those of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and brushing off suggestions the duo were trying to isolate French President Emmanuel Macron. “It is not something that we do against someone else, by excluding someone else,” she told reporters. Leaders reached a form of consensus on areas including the concept of a European preference, where there was openness to examining what it may mean and where it may be needed, according to a person briefed on the talks. The meeting kicked off an intense month of politicking on restoring EU competitiveness and its single market project, with the IAA due out on Feb. 25 and leaders to reconvene for a full-blown summit on March 19-20. The draft drew a swift and strong rebuke from Chinese business. “The latest version of the Industrial Accelerator Act is likely to undermine the investment confidence of leading Chinese companies,” the Chinese Chamber of Commerce to the EU said. “Beyond the political signaling, many of the proposed measures raise serious practical concerns, including the feasibility of mandatory local partnership requirements, which in many cases may simply not be commercially or technologically viable.” A big question mark over the industry push, which is being led by Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné, is whether it can be sufficiently decisive to turn the economic tide. “Whatever new FDI rules will be enacted will be ineffective,” said Yanmei Xie, a senior associate fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. Each EU member country has a different agenda and building a united front against Chinese dominance is a near impossibility. “Whoever is the lowest denominator becomes the de facto gatekeeper.” TRUSTED PARTNERS The latest draft of the IAA, which runs to 96 pages, broadens the definition of a European preference as it would apply to public procurement and other taxpayer-funded programs in energy-intensive industries, net-zero technologies and the automotive sector. In so doing it should allay fears among friendly trading nations of a “Fortress Europe” scenario.  The scope of Made in EU should include content originating from the EU and the European Economic Area, which spans Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The draft also leaves the door open to “trusted partners” whose manufacturing “should be deemed equivalent to Union origin content.” Earlier on Thursday, Séjourné dismissed the notion that the Made in EU push would exclude trade partners. His cabinet said there was broad support, both politically and in industry for the work of the Commission, although “opinions diverge on the conditions and modalities of its implementation.” A broader Made in EU concept will be welcome in the U.K. after the country’s finance minister, Rachel Reeves, said on Wednesday that Britain needed to be part of the Made in EU club. “I actually support the idea of some sort of ‘Made in Europe’ or ‘Made in countries that share each other’s values,’” she told an event. Japan, a major auto exporter, will also welcome the shift. The country “very much meets the definition of a Trusted Partner of the EU,” Patrick Keating, Honda Europe’s head of government affairs, told POLITICO.  GETTING TOUGHER The EU executive doubled down on its efforts to curb foreign direct investments from China in its latest draft.  Should the current form hold, the IAA would limit investments by companies based in countries that control more than 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity across four sectors: batteries, electric vehicles, solar technologies, and the processing and recycling of critical raw materials. “The sectors indicated — those in which Beijing is a leader — as well as the reference to the 40 percent manufacturing capacity, highlight how the increasingly clear target of these measures are Chinese foreign direct investments,”said Luca Picotti, a lawyer at Italy’s Osservatorio Golden Power. The Commission’s proposal, which effectively mirrors Beijing’s 1980s forced joint venture policy, remains in the new draft. Chinese automakers that could be forced to give up some of their technology to their European competitors are pushing back on that strategy. BYD CEO Stella Li has called the model “outdated.” “It’s not efficient: We take decisions in a second, a joint venture takes months. It’s a model of the past,” she told Italian daily Corriere della Sera at the Davos World Economic Forum last month. Governments would also be compelled under the IAA to buy more climate-friendly materials, though the scope of the requirement remains elusive in the latest draft of the upcoming industry booster. The act also proposes introducing voluntary green steel labels.  The scale of the Commission’s intervention remains unclear in the draft, which is missing a section devoted to specific materials as well as a set of annexes, though hints are sprinkled throughout the document. “Public procurement is a powerful lever,” von der Leyen told industry representatives at an event in Antwerp on Wednesday, noting it amounts to 15 percent of EU GDP. “This is massive financial firepower controlled by European governments. But too often, we see that our public buyers have to take the subsidized foreign products instead of the high-quality European alternatives. That is homegrown value that we are leaving on the table.”  Aude van den Hove reported from Alden Biesen, Francesca Micheletti, Jordyn Dahl and Sebastian Starcevic from Brussels, and Zia Weise from Antwerp.

The Trump administration wants to work with traditional allies to secure new supplies of critical minerals. But months of aggression toward allies, culminating with since-aborted threats to seize Greenland, have left many cool to the overtures. While the State Department has drawn a lengthy list of participating countries for its first Critical Minerals Ministerial scheduled for Wednesday, a number of those attending are hesitant to commit to partnering with the U.S. in creating a supply chain that bypasses China’s current chokehold on those materials, according to five Washington-based diplomats of countries invited to or attending the event. State Department cables obtained by POLITICO also show wariness among some countries about signing onto a framework agreement pledging joint cooperation in sourcing and processing critical minerals. Representatives from more than 50 countries are expected to attend the meeting, according to the State Department — all gathered to discuss the creation of tech supply chains that can rival Beijing’s. But the meeting comes just two weeks since President Donald Trump took to the stage at Davos to call on fellow NATO member Denmark to allow a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and that isn’t sitting well. “We all need access to critical minerals, but the furor over Greenland is going to be the elephant in the room,” said a European diplomat. In the immediate run-up to the event there’s “not a great deal of interest from the European side,” the person added. The individual and others were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic relationships. Their concerns underscore how international dismay at the Trump administration’s foreign policy and trade actions may kneecap its other global priorities. The Trump administration had had some success over the past two months rallying countries to support U.S. efforts to create secure supply chains for critical minerals, including a major multilateral agreement called the Pax Silica Declaration. Now those gains could be at risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants foreign countries to partner with the U.S. in creating a supply chain for the 60 minerals (including rare earths) that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “vital to the U.S. economy and national security that face potential risks from disrupted supply chains.” They include antimony, used to produce munitions; samarium, which goes into aircraft engines; and germanium, which is essential to fiber-optics. The administration also launched a $12 billion joint public-private sector “strategic critical minerals stockpile” for U.S. manufacturers, a White House official said Monday. Trump has backed away from his threats of possibly deploying the U.S. military to seize Greenland from Denmark. But at Davos he demanded “immediate negotiations” with Copenhagen to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty to the U.S. That makes some EU officials leery of administration initiatives that require cooperation and trust. “We are all very wary,” said a second European diplomat. Rubio’s critical minerals framework “will not be an easy sell until there is final clarity on Greenland.” Trump compounded the damage to relations with NATO countries on Jan. 22 when he accused member country troops that deployed to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 of having shirked combat duty. “The White House really messed up with Greenland and Davos,” a third European diplomat said. “They may have underestimated how much that would have an impact.” The Trump administration needs the critical minerals deals to go through. The U.S. has been scrambling to find alternative supply lines for a group of minerals called rare earths since Beijing temporarily cut the U.S. off from its supply last year. China — which has a near-monopoly on rare earths — relented in the trade truce that Trump brokered with China’s leader Xi Jinping in South Korea in October. The administration is betting that foreign government officials that attend Wednesday’s event also want alternative sources to those materials. “The United States and the countries attending recognize that reliable supply chains are indispensable to our mutual economic and national security and that we must work together to address these issues in this vital sector,” the State Department statement said in a statement. The administration has been expressing confidence that it will secure critical minerals partnerships with the countries attending the ministerial, despite their concerns over Trump’s bellicose policy. “There is a commonality here around countering China,” Ruth Perry, the State Department’s acting principal deputy assistant secretary for ocean, fisheries and polar affairs, said at an industry event on offshore critical minerals in Washington last week. “Many of these countries understand the urgency.” Speaking at a White House event Monday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that 11 nations would sign on to a critical minerals framework with the United States this week and another 20 are considering doing so. Greenland has rich deposits of rare earths and other minerals. But Denmark isn’t sending any representatives to the ministerial, according to the person familiar with the event’s planning. Trump said last month that a framework agreement he struck with NATO over Greenland’s future included U.S. access to the island’s minerals. Greenland’s harsh climate and lack of infrastructure in its interior makes the extraction of those materials highly challenging. Concern about the longer term economic and geostrategic risks of turning away from Washington in favor of closer ties with Beijing — despite the Trump administration’s unpredictability — may work in Rubio’s favor on Wednesday. “We still want to work on issues where our viewpoints align,” an Asian diplomat said. “Critical minerals, energy and defense are some areas where there is hope for positive movement.” State Department cables obtained by POLITICO show the administration is leaning on ministerial participants to sign on to a nonbinding framework agreement to ensure U.S. access to critical minerals. The framework establishes standards for government and private investment in areas including mining, processing and recycling, along with price guarantees to protect producers from competitors’ unfair trade policies. The basic template of the agreement being shared with other countries mirrors language in frameworks sealed with Australia and Japan and memorandums of understanding inked with Thailand and Malaysia last year. Enthusiasm for the framework varies. The Philippine and Polish governments have both agreed to the framework text, according to cables from Manila on Jan. 22 and Warsaw on Jan. 26. Romania is interested but “proposed edits to the draft MOU framework,” a cable dated Jan. 16 said. As of Jan. 22 India was noncommittal, telling U.S. diplomats that New Delhi “could be interested in exploring a memorandum of understanding in the future.” European Union members Finland and Germany both expressed reluctance to sign on without clarity on how the framework aligns with wider EU trade policies. A cable dated Jan. 15 said Finland “prefers to observe progress in the EU-U.S. discussions before engaging in substantive bilateral critical mineral framework negotiations.” Berlin also has concerns that the initiative may reap “potential retaliation from China,” according to a cable dated Jan. 16. Trump’s threats over the past two weeks to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada for cutting a trade deal with China and 25 percent tariffs on South Korea for allegedly slow-walking legislative approval of its U.S. trade agreement are also denting enthusiasm for the U.S. critical minerals initiative. Those levies “have introduced some uncertainty, which naturally leads countries to proceed pragmatically and keep their options open,” a second Asian diplomat said. There are also doubts whether Trump will give the initiative the long-term backing it will require for success. “There’s a sense that this could end up being a TACO too,” a Latin American diplomat said, using shorthand for Trump’s tendency to make big threats or announcements that ultimately fizzle. Analysts, too, argue it’s unlikely the administration will be able to secure any deals amid the fallout from Davos and Trump’s tariff barrages. “We’re very skeptical on the interest and aptitude and trust in trade counterparties right now,” said John Miller, an energy analyst at TD Cowen who tracks critical minerals. “A lot of trading partners are very much in a wait-and-see perspective at this point saying, ‘Where’s Trump really going to go with this?’” And more unpredictability or hostility by the Trump administration toward longtime allies could push them to pursue critical mineral sourcing arrangements that exclude Washington. “The alternative is that these other countries will go the Mark Carney route of the middle powers, cooperating among themselves quietly, not necessarily going out there and saying, ‘Hey, we’re cutting out the U.S.,’ but that these things just start to crop up,” said Jonathan Czin, a former China analyst at the CIA now at the Brookings Institution. “Which will make it more challenging and allow Beijing to play divide and conquer over the long term.” Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

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.

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.

BRUSSELS — In the midst of a geopolitical storm, Brussels is racing to put together a new plan by the end of this year to diversify European supply of so-called critical raw materials — such as lithium and copper — away from China.  The thing is: We’ve been here before. So far, the European Commission has provided few details on its new plan, beyond that it would touch upon joint purchasing, stockpiling, recycling of resources and new partnerships. It already addressed those measures two years ago in its first initiative on the issue, the Critical Raw Materials Act.  Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has been forced to act by Beijing’s expansion and tightening of export controls on rare earths and other critical minerals this month, as trade tensions with Washington escalated. Europe was caught in the crossfire — China accounts for 99 percent of the EU’s supply of the 17 rare earths, and 98 percent of its rare earth permanent magnets. The new “RESourceEU” plan is expected to follow a similar model to the REPowerEU plan, under which the Commission in 2022 proposed investing €225 billion to diversify energy supply routes after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.  That has European industry daring to hope that Brussels will do more than just recycle an old initiative and address the main obstacles to diversifying the bloc’s supply chains of minerals it needs for everything from renewable energy to defense applications. The biggest of them all? A lack of cash to back new mining, processing and manufacturing initiatives, both within and outside the EU. “It’s all still very much in its infancy,” said Florian Anderhuber, deputy director general of lobby group Euromines. “We hope that there will be a bigger push that goes beyond the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act,” he added. “It doesn’t help anyone if this is just a label for things that are already in the pipeline.” CODEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP The EU should not count on any trade reprieve that may result from U.S. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Thursday. After all, Beijing has shown time and again that it has no reservations about weaponizing economic dependencies. The key question is whether, this time around, pressure will remain high enough for the EU to mobilize brainpower and assets at the kind of scale it did when it sought to break the bloc’s decades-old reliance on Russian oil and gas. “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. “We learned this lesson painfully with energy; we will not repeat it with critical materials. So it is time to speed up and take the action that is needed.” “Europe cannot do things the same way anymore,” von der Leyen said as she announced the initiative last weekend. | Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images In the here and now, the EU wants to persuade a visiting Chinese delegation at talks in Brussels on Friday to speed up export approvals for its top raw materials importers. In parallel, energy and environment ministers from the G7 group of industrialized nations are slated to wargame how to de-risk their mineral supply chains in Toronto, Canada, on Thursday and Friday. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY When the Commission unveiled its first grand plan to break over-reliance on China in 2023 — the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) — industry leaders and analysts mostly lamented one thing: a lack of funding on the table.  “Money has been a real bottleneck for Europe’s raw materials agenda,” said Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Mining, processing, recycling, and stockpiling all need serious financing.” If the EU fails to free up more resources, experts warn that it is bound to fall short of the goal set in the CRMA, of extracting at least 10 percent of its annual consumption of select minerals by the end of the decade, with no more than 65 percent of some raw materials coming from a single country. It’s a steep target — especially for rare earths, where Beijing has over decades built up a de facto monopoly. While the EU executive has selected strategic projects both within and outside the EU that should benefit from faster permitting than their usual lead times of 10 to 15 years to production, those efforts are yet to bear fruit. “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report, calling for a “permanent European Minerals Investment Network.”  “To finance such projects, the next EU budget must provide substantial, dedicated [Critical Raw Material] funding, and financial institutions must deploy innovative de-risking and financing tools,” the European Initiative for Energy Security argues in a new report. | Aris Oikonomou/AFP via Getty Images The REPowerEU plan — a package of documents, including legal acts, recommendations, guidelines and strategies — was mostly financed by loans left over from the bloc’s pandemic recovery program. Similarly, RESourceEU must become “resource strategy backed by real funding,” said Hildegard Bentele, a member of the European Parliament who’s been working on critical minerals for years.  “This requires a European Raw Materials Fund, modelled on successful instruments in several Member States, to support strategic projects across the entire value chain, from extraction to recycling,” the German Christian Democrat said. THAT’LL COST YOU It’s about more than just throwing money at the problem: The Commission’s haste in rolling out its plan is raising doubts that it will meet the needs of a highly complex market — along with concerns that environmental safeguards will be neglected. “As long as European industries can buy cheaper materials from China, other producers do not stand a chance,” warned Gehrke.  In Toronto, G7 ministers will launch a new Critical Minerals Production Alliance (CMPA), a Canadian-led initiative that seeks to secure “transparent, democratic, and environmentally responsible critical minerals,” and also to counter market manipulation of supply chains, said a senior Canadian government official.  This would suggest creating so-called standards-based markets that are ring-fenced to protect critical minerals produced responsibly, to agreed environmental and social standards. A price floor would be set within that market, while minerals produced elsewhere — at lower prices but also lower standards — would face a tariff.  Beyond the immediate funding issues, ramping up mining in the EU and its neighbourhood also comes at a high societal cost. With local resistance to new mines, usually linked to environmental and social concerns, being one of the key obstacles to new projects, investors are often hesitant to pour money into a project that risks being derailed shortly after. “The EU is choosing geopolitical expediency over human rights and ecological integrity, sacrificing frontline communities for a strategy that is neither sustainable nor just, instead of building a durable and values-based autonomy that invests in systemic circularity and rights-based partnerships,” said Diego Marin, a senior policy officer for raw materials and resource justice at the European Environmental Bureau, an NGO.  Jakob Weizman and Camille Gijs contributed reporting from Brussels. Zi-Ann Lum contributed reporting from Toronto, Canada.

LIVERPOOL, England — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Tuesday that he will “fight with every breath” he has to win back voters lured by the “snake oil” of the left and right — and laid out an appeal promising renewal to benefit the working class. His speech on the penultimate day of Labour’s party conference in Liverpool was littered with references to Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK is leading in polls, but Starmer aimed at the extremes on both sides, including those within his own party calling for a wealth tax. The prime minister said that he wanted “no more lectures” from “self-appointed” working-class champions, arguing that growth — and taking long difficult decisions that will “not be cost free” or “comfortable” for Labour members or MPs — is the solution for what ails Britain today. He said that Britain had failed to rebuild following the global financial crisis more than a decade ago, and had stuck with failed policies on globalization, mass immigration, and declining industry and training, creating a country where voters are now seduced by a “tempting path” of so-called easy answers. But to those who have nothing positive to say about the U.K.’s future, Starmer offered a kaleidoscope of positive images. “We will fight you with everything we have because you are the enemy of national renewal,” he said, picking out audience members who have delivered for their communities through recycling school uniforms or scrubbing graffiti from “all the way from the South Downs to the Shetland Islands,” before asking, over and over: “Is that broken, Britain?” MOVING ON FROM LABOUR’S PAST In a speech littered with stories of meeting voters including shipbuilders on the River Clyde in Scotland, childcare workers in Nuneaton and a woman worried about immigration in Oldham, Starmer attempted to align his personal story “from a working-class background to this” with the experience of voters across the U.K. “I owe everything to this country and its values,” he said. Nigel Farage, in a live-streamed statement on X following Keir Starmer’s speech, responded that the prime minister and the party’s conference had “descended into the gutter.” | Leon Neal/Getty Images He went on to recount that his father did not feel respected because he worked with his hands as a working class toolmaker, and that when Starmer went to university he felt put on a pedestal — but then went on to proclaim that Tony Blair’s target to send 50 percent of children to university is no longer “right for our times,” and pledged to replace it with a target of two-thirds for universities and apprenticeships. On immigration, he said his party had become a “party that patronized working people” for having concerns about immigration. He added that there was a clear line between British values of patriotism and free speech separating the “thuggery” of those inciting racist violence. FARAGE CLAIMS ‘ABUSE’ Farage, in a live-streamed statement on X following Starmer’s speech, responded that the prime minister and the party’s conference had “descended into the gutter.” He claimed Starmer’s attack on Reform policies as “racist” suggested that the prime minister thought anyone who supports Reform was also a racist. “I don’t normally worry about abuse being thrown at me,” Farage said, claiming that “this language will incite and encourage the radical left — I’m thinking of Antifa” and “directly threatens the safety of our elected officials and our campaigners.” He invoked the recent killing of Charlie Kirk in the U.S. as evidence of the potential for political violence, and added that he now thinks Starmer is “unfit to be prime minister.”

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?”