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

The White House is exuding confidence heading into Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing that the justices will uphold President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers. But just in case, aides have a plan B. Aides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president’s global tariff regime if the court rules that he exceeded his authority. They’re ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue, according to six current and former White House officials and others familiar with the administration’s thinking, some of whom were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. “They’re aware there are a number of different statutes they can use to recoup the tariff authority,” said Everett Eissenstat, former deputy director of the White House’s National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s a lot of tools there that they could go to to make up that tariff revenue.” The contingency planning underscores how much is at stake for Trump, who has used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law designed for national emergencies, to impose tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — the foundation of his second-term economic agenda. The justices will weigh whether the law gives the president broad power to impose economic restrictions — or whether Trump has stretched it beyond what Congress intended. If the court curtails that power, it could upend not only the White House’s “America First” trade strategy but also the global negotiations Trump has leveraged it to shape. “This is all about foreign policy. This isn’t 1789 where you can clearly delineate between trade policy, economic policy, national security policy and defense policy. These things are all completely interconnected,” said Alex Gray, who served as National Security Council chief of staff and deputy assistant to the president during the first Trump administration. “To diminish the tools he has to do that is really dangerous.” Behind the scenes, trade and legal advisers have modeled what a partial loss might look like — where the court upholds the use of the 1977 law in some circumstances but not others — and what other legal means might be available to achieve similar ends. However, those alternatives are slower, narrower and, in some cases, similarly vulnerable to legal challenge, leaving even White House allies to acknowledge the administration’s tariff strategy is on shakier ground than it is willing to publicly concede. Even a partial loss at the Supreme Court would make it much harder for the president to use tariffs as an all-purpose tool for extracting concessions on a number of issues, from muscling foreign companies to make investments in the U.S. to pressuring countries into reaching peace agreements. “There’s no other legal authority that will work as quickly or give the president the flexibility he wanted,” said one supporter of Trump’s tariff policies, who was part of a group that filed an amicus brief in support of his tariffs. “They seem very confident that they’re going to win. I don’t see why they’re confident at all. Two different courts that have ruled extremely harshly on this.” Still, White House aides are telegraphing confidence, convinced the justices won’t strip Trump of his favorite negotiating tool, and certain that even if they do, he has plenty of backup plans. “Frankly, there’s a little bit of bravado, like, they’re not going to knock these down,” one person close to the White House said. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the administration sees it as “a pretty clear case.” “We’re using a law that Congress passed, in which they gave the executive branch the authority to use tariffs to address national emergencies,” the official said. Aides concede that other tariff authorities are not a “one-for-one replacement” for the emergency law, though they confirmed they are pursuing them. In fact, the White House has already laid some of the policy groundwork under those authorities, such as the 1970s-vintage Section 301, which the U.S. used against China in Trump’s first term, or the Cold War-era Section 232, which allows tariffs on national-security grounds. The administration has launched more than a dozen 232 investigations into whether the import of goods like lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals from other countries impairs national security. Since January, Trump has used that authority to impose new tariffs on copper, aluminum, steel and autos. It has also opened a 301 investigation into Brazil’s trade practices, including digital services, ethanol tariffs and intellectual property protection. It’s a model officials say could be replicated against other countries if the court curtails IEEPA — and could be used to pressure countries into reaffirming the trade deals that they’ve already negotiated with the United States, or to accept the rates that Trump has unilaterally assigned them. But those tools come with challenges: Section 301 investigations can take months to complete, slowing Trump’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally or tie them to unrelated goals like ending the war between Russia and Ukraine or stem the flow of fentanyl across the U.S. border. Section 232 offers broad discretion to impose tariffs on national-security grounds, but because the levies are sector-based, they are typically applied across a product category, limiting Trump’s ability to pressure individual countries. And imposing new duties on global industries like semiconductors or pharmaceuticals, as Trump has threatened, could upend recent agreements the administration has reached with trading partners, especially China, which negotiated a trade truce last week. “This detente may have weakened the president’s resolve to go forward with the 232s. We’re worse off than we were,” a second person close to the administration said. The U.S. has already promised to delay fees on Chinese vessels arriving at U.S. ports following the conclusion of a Section 301 investigation on China’s shipbuilding practices as a result of the Thursday meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The U.S. also agreed to delay an investigation into China’s adherence to its trade deal from Trump’s first term. Section 122, meanwhile, allows only short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent and for no more than 150 days unless Congress acts to extend them — a narrow clause meant to address trade deficit emergencies. The authority could potentially serve as a bridge between an adverse court ruling and new duties Trump wants to put in place using other authorities. Then there’s Section 338 — a rarely used provision that’s been on the books for nearly a century. In theory, it could let Trump swiftly impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any country, if he can explain how they are engaging in “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” actions that hurt U.S. commerce. Section 338 does not require a formal investigation before a president can impose tariffs, but would likely face similar legal challenges. Major trading partners are betting that Trump will find a way to reimpose tariffs, somehow. Two European diplomats, granted anonymity to discuss trade strategy, said the countries believe that the Supreme Court won’t strike down the global tariffs and, if it does, it won’t do much to shift the dynamic. “Our working assumption is that the court rulings won’t change anything,” a European official said, adding that they are still hoping the law is overturned. Some are convinced the only way to address the tariffs permanently is for the president to appeal to Congress, arguing that only lawmakers can decide how much unilateral power any White House should permanently wield over global commerce. That would be an uphill battle. At least four Republicans are openly opposed to the global tariffs — bucking Trump in a series of symbolic votes last week. And it’s unclear whether there’s appetite for a vote on Trump’s tariffs in the House, which has been shielded from weighing in on the tariffs until the end of January, after Republican leadership blocked votes on Trump’s national emergencies. “At the end of the day, all this comes back to Congress,” Eissenstat said. “Maybe Congress will step up its role post hearing, post ruling. We’ll see.”

LIVERPOOL, England — The U.K. Labour government has been “validated entirely” on its decision to engage with U.S. President Donald Trump’s “assertive” America First agenda, Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds has said. Speaking at the POLITICO Pub at the Labour conference on Monday, Reynolds said the government had the “best terms of trade” with the U.S. of any comparable country and had seen “tens of thousands of jobs” because of its trade agreement with the U.S. administration. His comments come after he was moved from his previous role as business and trade secretary, where he dealt frequently with the Trump administration. Reynolds also chastised the country’s opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, who have called for the U.K. to distance itself from the Trump administration, saying: “You can say that if you’re the opposition, but that’s not serious. “The defense of our country, our economy, thousands of jobs depend on that relationship.” His comments come two weeks after Donald Trump’s state visit to Britain, which saw the two countries sign a tech pact that will see more than £150 billion of inward investment to the U.K. The two countries also signed a trade agreement in May that was partially implemented in June. Reynolds discussed some of the difficulties in engaging with the Trump administration, saying “there’s not always an alignment” between the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office and the country’s Commerce Department. He added that the decision to go ahead with automotive and aerospace tariffs was “so important” to the country in securing a deal, adding that while the U.K. had to concede on beef and ethanol liberalization, the former was “reciprocal” and granted the U.K. “tremendous” market access in the U.S. However, he did address the lack of agreement on lowering U.S. steel tariffs from their current rate of 25 percent, saying: “The offer was essentially not sufficient to justify moving away from having a 25 percent tariff.” He also said the U.S. was “making [its] own products more expensive on global markets” by charging a tariff on U.K. steel. Reynolds concluded his remarks on the U.K.-U.S. relationship by saying that neither country had secured everything it wanted, and that it was the “right thing to do” for the U.K. to continue to work with its ally.

LONDON — The U.K. government has ruled out stepping in to save two of the country’s key bioethanol producers, Vivergo Fuels and Ensus, from closure — after signing a trade deal allowing U.S. ethanol to flood the British market. The government decided not to provide direct financial support, leaving 160 workers at Vivergo’s Saltend-based plant facing redundancy, with layoffs set to begin on Monday. Ensus’ plant in Redcar is also at risk of closure. In a statement, a government spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the companies since June to understand the financial challenges they have faced over the past decade, and have taken the difficult decision not to offer direct funding as it would not provide value for the taxpayer or solve the long-term problems the industry faces.” Vivergo’s future was thrown into doubt after the U.K.-U.S. trade deal, announced in May, opened the door to 1.4 billion liters of tariff-free American ethanol — almost equivalent to the size of the entire domestic market. The decision has wider implications for other industries and investment into Britain. Vivergo had been lined up to supply feedstock for a £1.25 billion sustainable aviation fuel facility backed by Meld Energy — a project now on hold. Over 12,000 U.K. wheat farmers supply Vivergo’s plant, which also produces high-protein animal feed. Meanwhile, Ensus, one of the U.K.’s only other bioethanol producers, supplies around 30 percent of the country’s commercial carbon dioxide — needed for soft drinks and medical use. “We recognize this is a difficult time for the workers and their families and we will work with trade unions, local partners and the companies to support them through this process,” said the government spokesperson. “We also continue to work up proposals that ensure the resilience of our CO2 supply in the long-term in consultation with the sector.” The decision will also prove unpopular with voters in Hull, with the Saltend chemical park just a 10-minute drive away. Reform UK’s Luke Campbell, who recently swept into office as Hull an East Yorkshire mayor with nearly 50,000 votes, told POLITICO: “Labour’s decision not to provide support, and not to change the clause in their U.S.-U.K. Trade deal is incredibly disappointing. It means job losses and closures for hard working people.”

SALTEND, England — Jordan Spamer and Stacey Monkman live five minutes from the Vivergo Fuels bioethanol plant in Saltend, an estuary town on Yorkshire’s Humber river. For the past four years, they’ve worked in the firm’s logistics team — tucked away, as they put it, in “a little cabin” on site, “just getting really excited about trucks.” Normally, the team sees up to 140 lorries a day moving wheat and fuel in and out of the site. But last Friday, the final wheat delivery came and went. Vivergo’s plant is now at risk of closure due to the U.K.-U.S. trade deal, which allows 1.4 billion liters of tariff-free American ethanol into the British market. It’s a volume Vivergo’s managing director Ben Hackett says is equivalent to the entire U.K. bioethanol market. Unless ministers intervene, 160 staff at Vivergo — one of only two major bioethanol producers in the U.K. — will lose their jobs from Aug. 18. Thousands more in farming and haulage will also feel the impact. The general sentiment towards government at Vivergo has been described by its people director Kirsty Hussey as  “disappointment, in the sense that [the industry] was overlooked, it wasn’t understood.” Workers who’d been offered “good salaries” and “the opportunities to learn and grow” are now “concerned about their ability to feed their families,” said Hussey.  RED WALL CRACKS The Saltend chemical park is a 10-minute drive from Hull, a once Labour stronghold undergoing political upheaval. The area has seen rising support for Reform UK, with Luke Campbell, an Olympic boxing gold medalist, sweeping into office as mayor with nearly 50,000 votes in May. His face is now on a mural at his city-center gym, established in 2021, and a gold-painted postbox and phone kiosk celebrates his 2012 victory.  Unless ministers intervene, 160 staff at Vivergo will lose their jobs from Aug. 18. | Caroline Hug/POLITICO Campbell said that rather than advocating for a bailout, he “would change the clause in Labour’s U.S.-U.K. trade deal, which allows cheap bioethanol fuel to flood into Britain.” The Vivergo site “doesn’t need government subsidy; it’s a profitable business that supports thousands of jobs in the region,” he added.  He described what is happening in Hull as “a political revolution, as people reject the decline of the last 30 years caused by establishment politicians.”  MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES HIT Britain’s bioethanol industry is tied to multiple other industries in the region. It buys wheat from more than 12,000 British farmers, which is carried by lorries, and used to produce fuel for vehicles and high-protein animal feed.  “This place can take a million tonnes of U.K. wheat each year,” said Jamie Burrows, National Farmers’ Union Crops Board Chair and a farmer in Norfolk. “If you take that demand away, [wheat would] probably be between 15 and 20 pounds a tonne less,” he added. Farmers in the region — still furious about Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ changes to inheritance tax and national insurance — would be forced to export more, facing weaker prices on the European market.  Haulage firms are also affected. Mike Green, who runs Aghaul Limited in North Lincolnshire, said business is already slowing.  “This facility would take grain all year round,” he said. “The plant can process about 1.1 million tonnes a year, and we get heavily involved in that movement, so the impact of that closure is going to be quite widespread. I’m going to have to start potentially looking to diversify the business, there might be possible redundancies.”  Vivergo’s closure would be the latest in a line of potential industry shutdowns within driving distance of the plant. Forty-five minutes away just on the other side of the river, Lindsey Oil Refinery near Immingham has halted production, threatening 420 jobs. Roughly an hour in the other direction, British Steel in Scunthorpe narrowly avoided collapse in April after emergency government intervention.  “This is a fantastic facility supporting a huge portion of U.K. agriculture,” said Green. “There’s a lot of downbeat people. I [have] a tear in my eye that it’s another part of the job that’s going and could go forever.” Mike Green owner of Aghawl Agriculteral Haualge Contractors who will no longer be working for Vivergo. | | Les Gibbon/Hull News Green said he didn’t vote in the most recent elections and describes the area in the region as having a “distrust in politics at the moment, particularly with the Labour government.”  WHAT COMES NEXT?  Vivergo Managing Director Ben Hackett said the company is still in discussions with the government, which has appointed Teneo as a strategic adviser on the case. The firm has requested temporary financial support to offset the impact of the U.S. trade deal and an improved regulatory framework that supports the domestic bioethanol industry.  Hackett describes the situation as “at a T-Junction.” “You go one way, and it’s redundancies, it’s decline, it’s stagnation,” he said. “You go the other way and it’s growth, it’s investment, it’s jobs, it’s prosperity.”  A British government spokesperson said: “We recognise this is a concerning time for workers and their families which is why we entered into negotiations with the company on potential financial support last month.” They added: “We will continue to take proactive steps to address the long-standing challenges the company faces and remain committed to working closely with them throughout this period to present a plan for a way forward that protects supply chains, jobs and livelihoods.” ‘I WATCHED IT GET BUILT’ The company was also expecting a £1.25 billion investment from Meld Energy, to supply feedstock for a new sustainable aviation fuel plant at Saltend, which is now on hold until the government makes the decision.  Dean Brown, who supervises plant operations at Vivergo, has worked there for 15 years, having joined when he was 25 years old as a technician.  “Before coming to Vivergo, I watched it get built,” he said. “I actually pestered the production manager for a good year as they were building the plant, to let me know when this job’s coming up.  I want to be part of this, I want to be part of the greener energy and bioethanol future.” L to R: Jon Kerridge (in charge of maintenance), Ben Hackett (Managing Director) and Paul Rhoades (IT manager) Vivergo Fuels, Saltend Chemicals Park, Hull. | Les Gibbon/Hull News He described the job as “life changing” for him and his family, including his two teenage daughters. He pointed to his computer screen, showing a picture of his daughters catching a giant fish in a Thai river. He said that would have never happened without the job.  Production manager Nick Smalley commutes an hour and a half to work every day “because he loves it so much.”  “I’m a father, I’m a son, a husband, I have a family that depend on me,” he said. “For me to think about losing my job, it’s really hard to swallow.”   Smalley said the government made an “off the cuff decision” with the U.S. — speaking personally, he finds it “hard to trust politicians, given recent events.”  “But we have to trust people and hope they understand our plight, and the benefit we bring to the U.K. economy,” he said. “We’re here to fight to the bitter end — everybody here will do whatever it takes to make this business successful.”

LONDON — The British government has less than a month to save 160 jobs at a major bioethanol producer, its bosses are warning, as the industry reels from the U.K.-U.S. trade deal signed by Donald Trump and Keir Starmer. Vivergo Fuels Managing Director Ben Hackett said his company is at risk of closure and that if the government can’t provide financial support in time, redundancies will begin imminently. “The consultation process legally has to run for a minimum of 45 days and that day is Aug. 17, so the first redundancies could take place the week of Aug. 18,” Hackett said. “The clock is ticking, the government’s very much aware of our timelines and is now working with us on that negotiation.” As part of the U.K.-U.S. Economic Prosperity Deal, struck between the Trump administration and Starmer’s U.K. government, the U.K. granted Washington a new tariff-free quota of up to 1.4 billion liters of ethanol, which is used in farming and as a fuel source. Hackett said this is worth “the entire” U.K. bioethanol market. Previously, U.S. ethanol imported into the U.K. faced tariffs ranging from 10 to 50 percent. “Those tariffs are in place, not because we’re worse at making ethanol than the U.S. — they use genetically modified corn, antibiotics, they have lower energy costs and they have tax subsidies from the government,” explained Hackett. “The tariffs were just to say we wanted a level playing field.” Britain’s chemical industry, including multinational INEOS, the Chemical Business Association and px Group, are already urging the government to intervene, warning that the closure of Vivergo Fuel would not only put jobs at risk, but also billions in investment — as well as the country’s long-term energy security. Last month, Vivergo signed a £1.25 billion memorandum of understanding with Meld Energy to supply feedstock for a new sustainable aviation fuel plant at Saltend, Hull. Separately, it’s planning a £250 million hydrogen production facility on the same site. “If we disappear, that goes because there’s no-one to take the green hydrogen and there’s no raw material to turn into aviation [fuel],” warned Hackett. “You’re putting at risk a billion pound investment into the Saltend site,” he said. “Hull is not the most economically advantaged part of the U.K. That billion pounds of investment would have added thousands more jobs. By taking away that bioethanol industry, you lose all future growth.” Hackett says the British government has been “relatively slow to come to the table.” It has now appointed an adviser to hear the business case and recommend whether Vivergo should receive state financial support. “Unless we get sufficient concrete assurances from the government, then I will go ahead and close the business,” said Hackett. The warning comes as a string of chemicals and bioeconomy producers shutter operations, including INEOS’s refinery at Grangemouth and SABIC’s Olefins 6 cracker on Teesside. The Ensus bioethanol plant at Wilton is also at risk of closure. A British government spokesperson said: “We recognise this is a concerning time for workers and their families which is why we entered into negotiations with the company on potential financial support last month.” They added: “We will continue to take proactive steps to address the long-standing challenges the company faces and remain committed to working closely with them throughout this period to present a plan for a way forward that protects supply chains, jobs and livelihoods.”