TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

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?”

France’s constitutional court on Thursday rejected the reintroduction of a controversial insecticide in a significant blow to the government and major farming lobbies that had supported its return. The court’s judges ruled that allowing the use of acetamiprid, an insecticide currently banned in France, would violate the “Charter of the Environment,” a French constitutional text. Acetamiprid’s proposed reintroduction was part of a new French law aiming to make life easier for farmers by allowing the use of some pesticides as well as by cutting red tape and easing permit approval for new breeding and water storage facilities. The judges stressed that neonicotinoids — a class of insecticide that includes acetamiprid and that works by obstructing the nervous systems of insects — can be allowed in exceptional situations but only for a limited time and for well-defined crops. These conditions were not respected in the text of the law, the judges found. The law, which was dubbed “Loi Duplomb” after the conservative senator who introduced it, was a response to the massive farmer protests of 2024. It had already been approved in the parliament. The law is backed by the government and by major farming lobbies but is strongly opposed by left-wing parties, which have flagged its negative impact on biodiversity. More than 2 million French citizens signed a petition launched last month by a 23-year-old student to repeal the law, putting additional pressure on the government. The law polarized French public opinion between the country’s powerful farming lobbies and its more ecologically minded citizens worried about the harm done by pesticides to pollinators and human health. Its opponents urged French President Emmanuel Macron not to sign the law into effect. Macron’s office said Thursday that the president had “taken note” of the ruling and will enact the Duplomb law “as soon as possible” in its modified version per the constitutional court’s ruling. Acetamiprid, in other words, will remain banned. Left-wing opposition figures celebrated the news, with the agriculture ministry expected to comment on the decision later Thursday evening. Farming lobby FNSEA, however, slammed the ruling. “This decision marks the pure and simple abandonment of certain sectors of French agriculture, at a time when our dependence on imports is increasing to the detriment of our social and environmental requirements,” FNSEA President Arnaud Rousseau wrote in a social media post.

PARIS — Even from his seaside holiday retreat at the Fort de Brégançon, President Emmanuel Macron will be closely watching a key court ruling on a controversial pesticide on Thursday. The question of whether French farmers will be allowed to protect their crops with a chemical called acetamiprid is far from being an obscure technical matter. In fact, it lays bare a major fault line in French politics between the powerful agricultural sector and more ecologically minded citizens worried about pesticides harming pollinators and human health. Macron’s challenge is that he is being squeezed politically between green-minded voters — often concentrated in metropolitan areas — and influential farmers from rural heartlands, while his liberal centrists falter and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally eyes the presidency in 2027. France’s top constitutional court is set to decide Thursday whether a bill that includes the reauthorization of acetamiprid — under scrutiny for its effects on the nervous systems of both bees and humans — is constitutionally sound. This is a routine review for every piece of legislation, but it is drawing unusual attention in this case after an online petition calling for the law’s repeal went viral. As of Tuesday, more than 2 million French citizens had signed a petition launched by a 23-year-old student in Bordeaux, Eléonore Pattery, calling for the “immediate repeal” of the so-called Loi Duplomb, named after the conservative senator who introduced the legislation. The petition, hosted on a government portal, can spur parliamentary debate but doesn’t bind lawmakers to act. The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images The debate around acetamiprid has put France — and Macron — in a bind. In 2018, the European Union banned three neonicotinoids, a group of insecticides that includes acetamiprid, over the threat they pose to pollinators such as bees. It did not, however, ban acetamiprid itself, which is considered less toxic to bees and breaks down faster in soil. Paris, seeking environmental leadership of the EU, went further than its neighbors and banned acetamiprid anyway. Then the political calculus changed. Like many other countries in Europe, France has faced surging dissent from farmers across the country. They decry what they see as excessive taxation and regulation, and argue that bans like the one on acetamiprid left them at a competitive disadvantage. With a European election looming last year, the French government sought to appear sympathetic to the farmers’ cause. “The goal of reducing pesticide use should not leave our farmers helpless and without solutions. In the end, no one would benefit — not the environment, not health and not agriculture,” then-Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, now head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said at the time. Farmers from the Coordination Rurale offload manure outside the Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV) ecology party headquarters as they protest in reaction to opposition to the Duplomb law. | Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images The Loi Duplomb reflects that shift toward siding with farmers’ demands. The bill aims to ease their burden not only by reintroducing acetamiprid but also by loosening rules on the construction and expansion of large livestock buildings. It is backed by the government and by major French farming lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, who played an important role in shaping the legislation. During the protests, farmers were widely expected to receive public support — they are often viewed as crucial to France’s core interests and one of the last holdouts of rural life in an urbanized country. POPULAR BACKLASH This time, however, public opinion appears to have shifted. The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. Signatories must log in through a secure government platform used for taxes or health services, ensuring each person signs only once. A poll released last month by French polling institute Cluster17 showed 61 percent of respondents opposed the bill — 41 percent strongly. Just 33 percent said they were either “somewhat in favor” or “strongly in favor.” The science behind acetamiprid’s toxicity is contested. In 2024, the European Food Safety Authority proposed drastically lowering recommended daily intake doses, citing “major uncertainties” about the substance’s effect on the nervous system’s development — while stopping short of calling for a ban. France’s National Order of Physicians has come out against the Loi Duplomb, writing in a statement that “doubt is not reasonable when it comes to substances that may expose the population to major risks: neurodevelopmental disorders, pediatric cancers, chronic diseases.” The historic success of the petition against the Loi Duplomb was fueled by high-profile opposition from celebrities, movie stars and influencers. | Jerome Gilles/NurPhoto via Getty Images Some lab and animal studies suggest acetamiprid may cause DNA damage or act as a hormone disruptor — both potential cancer pathways — but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded it’s “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Macron has delayed responding to the viral petition until after the Constitutional Council issues its ruling. Two constitutional challenges were filed against the law — one citing environmental rights, the other criticizing the fast-tracked process used to bypass a debate in the National Assembly. If the court green-lights the Loi Duplomb, Macron will be left with few options. Because the petition passed the 500,000-signature threshold, it may trigger a parliamentary debate — though there’s no obligation to hold a new vote, since the law has already passed. Macron could also choose not to enact the bill — an extremely rare move that could open him up to accusations of defying the legislature’s authority. Whatever happens, the controversy is likely to continue dogging the French president. Even within his own ranks, divisions are clear: During the final vote last month, 26 of the 176 MPs in the three-party coalition backing Macron voted against the bill, while 15 abstained.

PARIS — A petition launched by a 23-year-old student to repeal a new French law on farming has garnered more than 549,000 signatures and could therefore be debated in the French parliament — a first in France’s recent history. The French parliament earlier this month adopted a law, dubbed “Loi Duplomb” after the name of one of its proponents, which its supporters say would make life easier for farmers by cutting red tape, but also by temporarily allowing the use of acetamiprid, an insecticide that has been banned in France since 2018. The text is backed by the government and also by major farmer lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, while one left-wing farmers union as well as green and left-wing parties oppose it. The petition launched by Eleonore Pattery — an unknown university student from Bordeaux with a focus on environmental rules — calls for repealing the text, arguing that it is “a scientific, ethical, environmental and health aberration.” On Saturday the number of signatures passed the threshold of 500,000. Beyond that threshold, the heads of parliamentary groups or parliamentary committees can propose to organize a parliamentary debate on it. The president of the National Assembly economic affairs committee, Aurélie Trouvé, from the left-wing France Unbowed party, said she will make that proposal in the fall. “It is the first time it happens in the history of the National Assembly,” a jubilant Trouvé told POLITICO over the phone on Saturday. But, for the debate to happen, the proposal has to first get the nod of the National Assembly’s Conference of Presidents, an organ which gathers key lawmakers including the leaders of permanent parliamentary committees like Trouvé. The Conference of Presidents will meet again on Sept. 12. “I hope that we will be able to have this debate,” Trouvé said, warning that ignoring the petition would be a “democratic denial.” While the text can’t be repealed during the parliamentary debate, the success of the petition is a blow for the government and for farmers’ lobbies that have defended the measure on a symbolical level. France’s Constitutional Council is also looking into the text and could censor part of it if the council considers them to be contrary to the constitution.

LONDON — Brexit reset talks took a step forward on Wednesday as the European Commission outlined its negotiating plans on agri-food standards and carbon emissions trading. The Commission published draft proposals for its negotiating position in the two policy areas — which are among a handful set for discussions. The plans will now be scrutinized by EU governments. The publication of the proposals represents the first movement in talks since the May 19 summit, where Keir Starmer pledged to “reset” Britain’s relationship with the EU and set out a slate of negotiating objectives. Under the Commission’s proposals for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, the U.K. would apply “at all times the full body of” relevant EU rules on “sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules applicable” to agri-food products. It would also cover “the regulations of live animals and pesticides, the rules on organic production and labelling of organic products, as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products.” While London would have no “right to participate in the Union’s decision-making” of those rules, the EU would “consult the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making” so it could give its input. The U.K. would have to apply new EU rules within a set deadline or face legal action under the agreement. The British government would also make a financial contribution towards “the functioning of the relevant Union agencies, systems and databases to which the United Kingdom would gain appropriate access” through the proposed agreement. EMISSIONS TRADING The Commission’s proposed plan for linking the EU and U.K. emissions trading systems would also “ensure the dynamic alignment of the United Kingdom with the relevant European Union rules to avoid risks of carbon leakage and competitive distortions.” The plan says that the sectors covered by linked emissions trading should include “electricity generation, industrial heat generation (excluding the individual heating of houses), industry, domestic and international maritime transport and domestic and international aviation.” It would also create a procedure to “further expand the list of sectors” in the future. The agreement would “require that the cap and reduction pathway of the United Kingdom are at least as ambitious as the cap and reduction pathway followed by the Union” but also “not constrain” the EU and U.K. from “pursuing higher environmental ambition, consistent with their international obligations.” Under the Commission’s proposal, the U.K. would get a mutual exemption from the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). In some policy areas, the European Commission must obtain legal mandates from EU member states before it starts negotiating on their behalf. Further mandates are expected in other areas covered by the U.K.-EU reset, for example on electricity trading. Some policy areas do not require mandates, either because they are an EU competence or because one already exists. For example, negotiations about the U.K. joining the Erasmus exchange program are likely to be covered by a provision in the existing trade agreement allowing U.K. participation in EU programs.