BRUSSELS — Cash-strapped Europeans are struggling to keep their homes cool as the continent’s summers get hotter, a major new survey has found.  More than 38 percent of the 27,000 respondents to a continent-wide poll published Wednesday said they couldn’t afford to keep their house cool enough in the summer. The problem was unevenly split down income lines: Only 9 percent of affluent Europeans said they struggled with overheating homes, while 66 percent of people experiencing financial difficulties reported being unable to afford adequate cooling. The survey, conducted by the European Environment Agency and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, comes as the European Commission drafts a plan for boosting the bloc’s resilience to climate impacts such as heat and extreme weather. The proposal is expected toward the end of the year.  Reacting to the findings, German Green MEP Jutta Paulus called for a “binding EU law on adaptation to natural disasters” that “could set clear rules, assess risks, and make strategies binding.” She added: “Only in this way can we ensure safe living conditions, a stable economy, and a natural environment that protects us.” The report underscores how global warming disproportionately affects those who have fewer resources to prepare.  Around half of respondents said they had installed shading or insulation in their homes, and nearly a third said they had invested in air-conditioning or ventilation. But while nearly 40 percent of well-off households invested in AC or fans, just over 20 percent of cash-strapped Europeans did the same. Accordingly, a larger share of low-income Europeans reported feeling too hot in their home at least once over the last five years. The divide is particularly stark between renters, which make up around a third of the EU’s population, and homeowners: Nearly half of renters said they were unable to afford to keep their home cool, compared to 29 percent of homeowners. As a result, some 60 percent of tenants said they had felt too hot at home at least once over the past five years, versus just over 40 percent of owners. Beyond heat, the survey looked at flooding, wildfires, water scarcity, wind damage and increasing insect bites. In total, 80 percent of respondents said they had been affected by at least one of these impacts over the past five years. But heat waves, which are made more frequent, longer and hotter by climate change, emerged as the top concern, with nearly half of respondents saying they had felt too hot in their home and 60 percent saying they had felt too hot outside. Income and property ownership aren’t the only dividing lines, however.  Europeans in poor health — many of whom may be homebound — are also more likely to be at risk from extreme heat, the polling found. More than half of people describing themselves as being in poor health reported being unable to afford to keep their homes cool, compared to just over a quarter of those who declared themselves to be in good health. Plus, Southern Europeans are far more vulnerable than those in northern Europe. While just 8 percent of respondents across Europe said they had been affected by wildfires, for example, that figure rose to 41 percent in Greece.  Anxiety over climate impacts is also far higher in southern countries: There, twice as many respondents worry about worsening heat, fires and floods compared to Northern Europeans.  Respondents in Central and Eastern Europe also reported high exposure to climate impacts. The highest share of households unable to keep their homes cool in the summer — 46 percent, compared to 37 percent in southern and western Europe and 30 percent in northern countries — was found in this region.  In general, the survey found Europeans to remain under-equipped to deal with extreme weather emergencies. Just 13.5 percent of respondents said they have an emergency kit at home, for example, and less than half have home insurance covering extreme weather.

The center-right European People’s Party is eyeing “better implementation” of the Lisbon Treaty to better prepare the EU for what it sees as historic shifts in the global balance of power involving the U.S., China and Russia, EPP leader Manfred Weber said on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference on the second day of an EPP Leaders Retreat in Zagreb, Weber highlighted the possibility of broadening the use of qualified majority voting in EU decision-making and developing a practical plan for military response if a member state is attacked. Currently EU leaders can use qualified majority voting on most legislative proposals, from energy and climate issues to research and innovation. But common foreign and security policy, EU finances and membership issues, among other areas, need a unified majority. This means that on issues such as sanctions against Russia, one country can block agreement, as happened last summer when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico vetoed a package of EU measures against Moscow — a veto that was eventually lifted. Such power in one country’s hands is something that the EPP would like to change.  As for military solidarity, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty obliges countries to provide “aid and assistance by all the means in their power” if an EU country is attacked. For Weber, the formulation under European law is stronger than NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment. However, he stressed that the EU still lacks a clear operational plan for how the clause would work in practice. Article 42.7 was previously used when France requested that other EU countries make additional contributions to the fight against terrorism, following the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.  Such ideas were presented as the party with a biggest grouping in the European Parliament — and therefore the power to shape EU political priorities — presented its strategic focus for 2026, with competitiveness as its main priority.  Keeping the pulse on what matters in 2026  The EPP wants to unleash the bloc’s competitiveness through further cutting red tape, “completing” the EU single market, diversifying supply chains, protecting economic independence and security and promoting innovation including in AI, chips and biotech, among other actions, according to its list 2026 priorities unveiled on Saturday. On defense, the EPP is pushing for a “360-degree” security approach to safeguard Europe against growing geopolitical threats, “addressing state and non-state threats from all directions,” according to the document. The EPP is calling for enhanced European defense capabilities, including a stronger defense market, joint procurement of military equipment, and new strategic initiatives to boost readiness. The party also stressed the need for better protection against cyberattacks and hybrid threats, and robust measures to counter disinformation campaigns targeting EU institutions and societies. On migration and border security, the EPP backs tougher asylum admissibility rules, faster returns, and strengthened external borders, including reinforced Frontex operations and improved digital systems like the Entry/Exit System.  The party also urged a Demographic Strategy for Europe amid the continent’s shrinking and aging population. The text, initiated by Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), member of the EPP, wants to see demographic considerations integrated into EU economic governance, cohesion funds, and policymaking, while boosting family support, intergenerational solidarity, labor participation, skills development, mobility and managed immigration.  Demographic change is “the most important issue, which is not really intensively discussed in the public discourse,” Weber said. “That’s why we want to highlight this, we want to underline the importance.” 

The monster storm that’s threatening to dump snow across much of the U.S. could be a test of the Trump administration’s willingness to help states after natural disasters. With heavy snow, sleet and freezing rain forecast to begin falling Friday and continuing into Monday over a massive swath of the country, from the Rockies to the Atlantic, governors from dozens of states could be forced to navigate shifting policies under President Donald Trump, who has set efforts in motion to reduce the flow of disaster aid to states. As governors declare emergencies ahead of the storm, some are wondering whether the White House will reject their requests for federal funding to help pay for cleanup and repairs if predictions for over a foot of snow in some areas prove accurate. “They’re preparing for the worst,” said a former senior Federal Emergency Management Agency official who was granted anonymity to describe discussions with state officials. “They’re preparing for no grants, no money.” On Capitol Hill, lawmakers expressed concern Tuesday about Trump denying disaster aid for snowstorms in a report accompanying a proposed Department of Homeland Security spending plan for fiscal 2026. The report by House and Senate appropriators from both parties said the spending package “reaffirms Congress’ intent … that snowstorms shall be eligible for Federal relief.” A spokesperson for Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat, said in a statement that the willingness of Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “to turn even the weather into a partisan issue and play politics with people’s lives may make an already bad situation somehow even worse.” Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an email, “Any notion that snowstorms don’t qualify as a disaster defies logic — and is unnecessarily cruel.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, in a statement, called the Democratic criticisms “fear-mongering” that “ignores reality.” “Under the President’s leadership, FEMA, and the entire Administration, has proactively mobilized significant resources to support states in the path of this storm, ensuring a rapid and well-coordinated response,” Jackson said. “President Trump responds to each request for federal assistance with great care and consideration to ensure American tax dollars are used appropriately to supplement, not substitute, state obligations to respond to disasters — he will do the same for any requests received.” The administration has pre-positioned supplies, equipment and personnel in hubs across the country, according to an administration official, granted anonymity to share details of the logistics. It has staged 250,000 meals, 400,000 liters of water, 30 generators and 12 shuttle drivers in Louisiana, with shuttle drivers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Georgia to move supplies as needed. It has also embedded 20 FEMA staff in State Emergency Operations Centers and deployed three incident management teams, with additional teams, including search and rescue, on standby to assist with storm response at governors’ requests. The agency is also helping with monitoring the storm and coordinating with federal partners to support impacted areas. The administration raised alarms last year when then-FEMA acting Administrator Cameron Hamilton suggested cutting off disaster aid for snowstorms in an internal memo. No action has been taken on the memo’s proposals. It came as Trump denied numerous gubernatorial requests for disaster aid, even though FEMA had confirmed that the damage exceeded the agency’s cost threshold for aid. The administration has given no explanation for the denials, creating uncertainty among state emergency managers. FEMA makes recommendations about disaster requests to the president, who has exclusive authority to approve disaster aid under federal law. In Maryland, Trump denied a request in July by Gov. Wes Moore (D) for disaster aid to help rural, Republican communities recover from extensive flood damage that FEMA found caused damage that was millions of dollars above the agency’s cost threshold. “Now they want to arbitrarily deny disaster assistance to communities hit by snowstorms regardless of the severity of the event,” Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D) said in a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News on Thursday. “As communities across the country prepare for this weekend’s snowstorm, this blanket policy is all the more alarming.” In one highly controversial decision last year, Trump approved some disaster aid for Michigan after a devastating ice storm in March damaged infrastructure including power lines in the northern part of the state. But at the same time, Trump denied a request by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for $90 million to help two rural electric utilities repair their equipment. The utilities raised rates to cover the costs. Federal disaster law lists snowstorms among the events that qualify for disaster aid, along with extreme winds, wildfires, floods and others. But the law does not require any allocation of disaster aid. Since 2016, presidents have approved 18 disasters following snowstorms, costing FEMA $272 million altogether, according to Hamilton’s memo. Both numbers are a small fraction of the hundreds of approved disasters and tens of billions of dollars that have been spent. Craig Fugate, who ran FEMA during the Obama administration, said states often cut their funding for snowstorm-related programs after experiencing no snow for several years. Then they turn to FEMA to fill budget holes when storms hit. “When budgets are lean and you’re not having a lot of snow, you cut those snow removal operations and when you get caught short you say, ‘Oh, well, the federal taxpayer will bail us out,’” Fugate said in an interview Thursday. “We tried to set the thresholds to say, unless this is an extraordinary event, it should not be supplanting state and local responsibility to fund snow removal and treatment operations on their highways on the back of the federal taxpayers.” FEMA’s daily report Thursday showed that the agency was monitoring the storm at its regional offices across the country and at its Washington headquarters. The agency has nearly 4,200 employees available to be deployed to disaster areas, the report said. A year ago, FEMA had 2,400 disaster employees available. The number is higher this year because the Trump administration has been reassigning workers from state field offices to its Washington headquarters.

Mark Ward is retired from the U.S. Foreign Service and worked for USAID for over 30 years. As news reports on the recent cyclone in Sri Lanka began pouring in, something caught my attention — something was missing from the reporting. Cyclone Ditwah has killed hundreds, destroying rice fields and rail lines over vast parts of the island, and the Sri Lankan government is still desperately trying to line up international aid. Closely following the coverage, I thought back to when I was one of the first in the U.S. government to receive alerts about natural disasters — no matter the hour. When I was head of the Asia Bureau for the U.S. Agency for International Development and later, head of its Disaster Assistance Office. I thought back to the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami that hit the day after Christmas in 2004, which Cyclone Ditwah is being compared to. At the time, the U.S. summoned all its assets, both military and civilian, to help four countries that had asked for assistance. The USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, raced to Indonesia and sat in the mist off the earthquake’s epicenter in Aceh. The disaster had rendered the airports on land unusable, and the “Gray Angel” — as survivors came to call this huge ship — provided a desperately needed deck for helicopters to load life-saving supplies and deliver them to villages otherwise cut off. Both USAID and the humanitarian organizations it funded were working on that deck. Civilians who knew what was needed were directing the military operation, and Top Guns, with their F-16s parked at the other end, were loading bags of rice and clean drinking water onto helicopters, asking me how they could join USAID. They said they were never so proud to be American. I thought back to 2006, when I received a Service to America Medal — they’re called SAMMIEs — for helping lead this U.S. response to one of the greatest natural disasters in history. I thought back to when we led. That’s when I realized what was missing from the news reports about the cyclone in Sri Lanka: There was nothing about America’s response — because there wasn’t one. The U.S. response to the 2004 disaster was extraordinary. Thanks to generous support from Congress, USAID’s efforts were unprecedented. And when I saw U.S. humanitarian organizations directing the helicopters on that deck, our military taking orders from them, I was awed by what we could accomplish when working together. But those dedicated, brave humanitarian workers — both Indonesian and American — are now out of work because our foreign aid program was cut by more than 80 percent earlier this year. Cyclone Ditwah has killed hundreds, destroying rice fields and rail lines over vast parts of the island, and the Sri Lankan government is still desperately trying to line up international aid. | R.Satish Babu/Getty Images In 2004, then-President George W. Bush saw the strategic importance of providing as much help as we could to a region critical to U.S. foreign policy. He directed USAID to pull out all the stops. He asked his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton to shelve their political differences and collaborate to help raise awareness and private funds. I then traveled with the two former presidents to Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, and their message was clear: The U.S. doesn’t let politics stand in the way when disasters strike. Help is bipartisan. Help is American. We took them to visit USAID projects near the country’s devastated east coast, where our American and Sri Lankan staff proudly showed them how we were helping orphaned children in a beautiful camp under the palm trees. My team cheered when they saw Bush proudly wearing a USAID hat and as Clinton reminded everyone that the aid we provided was from the American people. Those children were in good hands, thanks to the expertise and compassion USAID brought. That team is out of work now. Ultimately, I stopped reminiscing and read more about Sri Lanka’s cyclone. The damage to farms and infrastructure is greater than what we saw two decades ago. But the U.S. is doing nothing. That’s what’s been missing from the articles. We were always there before. You could count on it. No matter who was in the Oval Office, no matter which party held the majority in Congress, you could count on America. Not anymore. Now, our foreign policy seems to be purely transactional. It asks, what’s in it for us? That’s bad luck for Sri Lanka — it doesn’t have any natural resources we need, like oil or critical minerals. Garments and tea aren’t strategic enough. But wait — if the Sri Lankan government needs our help, maybe it could create a new peace prize and offer it to our president. Maybe then we would lead again.

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

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Seven years ago, Sweden made global headlines with “In Case of Crisis or War” — a crisis preparedness leaflet sent to all households in the country. Unsurprisingly, preparedness leaflets have become a trend across Europe since then. But now, Sweden is ahead of the game once more, this time with a preparedness leaflet specifically for businesses. Informing companies about threats that could harm them, and how they can prepare, makes perfect sense. And in today’s geopolitical reality, it’s becoming indispensable. I remember when “In Case of Crisis or War” was first published in 2018: The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, or MSB, sent the leaflet out by post to every single home. The use of snail mail wasn’t accidental — in a crisis, there could be devastating cyberattacks that would prevent people from accessing information online. The leaflet — an updated version of the Cold War-era “In Case of War” — contained information about all manner of possible harm, along with information about how to best prepare and protect oneself. Then, there was the key statement: “If Sweden is attacked, we will never surrender. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.” Over the top, suggested some outside observers derisively. Why cause panic among people? But, oh, what folly! Preparedness leaflets have been used elsewhere too. I came to appreciate preparedness education during my years as a resident of San Francisco — a city prone to earthquakes. On buses, at bus stops and online, residents like me were constantly reminded that an earthquake could strike at any moment and we were told how to prepare, what to do while the earthquake was happening, how to find loved ones afterward and how to fend for ourselves for up to three days after a tremor. The city’s then-Mayor Gavin Newsom had made disaster preparedness a key part of his program and to this day, I know exactly what items to always have at home in case of a crisis: Water, blankets, flashlights, canned food and a hand-cranked radio. And those items are the same, whether the crisis is an earthquake, a cyberattack or a military assault. Other earthquake-prone cities and regions disseminate similar preparedness advice — as do a fast-growing number of countries, now facing threats from hostile states. Poland, as it happens, published its new leaflet just a few days before Russia’s drones entered its airspace. But these preparedness instructions have generally focused on citizens and households; businesses have to come up with their own preparedness plans against whatever Russia or other hostile states and their proxies think up — and against extreme weather events too. That’s a lot of hostile activity. In the past couple years alone, undersea cables have been damaged under mysterious circumstances; a Polish shopping mall and a Lithuanian Ikea store have been subject to arson attacks; drones have been circling above weapons-manufacturing facilities; and a defense-manufacturing CEO has been the target of an assassination plot; just to name a few incidents. San Francisco’s then-Mayor Gavin Newsom had made disaster preparedness a key part of his program. | Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images It’s no wonder geopolitical threats are causing alarm to the private sector. Global insurance broker Willis Towers Watson’s 2025 Political Risk Survey, which focuses on multinationals, found that the political risk losses in 2023 — the most recent year for which data is available — were at their highest level since the survey began. Companies are particularly concerned about economic retaliation, state-linked cyberattacks and state-linked attacks on infrastructure in the area of gray-zone aggression. Yes, businesses around Europe receive warnings and updates from their governments, and large businesses have crisis managers and run crisis management exercises for their staff. But there was no national preparedness guide for businesses — until now. MSB’s preparedness leaflet directed at Sweden’s companies is breaking new ground. It will feature the same kind of easy-to-implement advice as “In Case of Crisis or War,” and it will be just as useful for family-run shops as it is for multinationals, helping companies to keep operating matters far beyond the businesses themselves. By targeting the private sector, hostile states can quickly bring countries to a grinding and discombobulating halt. That must not happen — and preventing should involve both governments and the companies themselves. Naturally, a leaflet is only the beginning. As I’ve written before, governments would do well to conduct tabletop preparedness exercises with businesses — Sweden and the Czech Republic are ahead on this — and simulation exercises would be even better. But a leaflet is a fabulous cost-effective start. It’s also powerful deterrence-signaling to prospective attackers. And in issuing its leaflet, Sweden is signaling that targeting the country’s businesses won’t be as effective as would-be attackers would wish. (The leaflet, by the way, will be blue. The leaflet for private citizens was yellow. Get it? The colors, too, are a powerful message.)

The Trump administration won’t tap emergency funds to pay for federal food benefits, imperiling benefits starting Nov. 1 for nearly 42 million Americans who rely on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO. USDA said in the memo that it won’t tap a contingency fund or other nutrition programs to cover the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is set to run out of federal funds at the end of the month. The contingency fund for SNAP currently holds roughly $5 billion, which would not cover the full $9 billion the administration would need to fund November benefits. Even if the administration did partially tap those funds, it would take weeks to dole out the money on a pro rata basis — meaning most low-income Americans would miss their November food benefits anyway. In order to make the deadline, the Trump administration would have needed to start preparing for partial payments weeks ago, which it has not done. Congressional Democrats and anti-hunger groups have urged the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits flowing into November, some even arguing that the federal government is legally required to tap other funds to pay for the program. But senior officials have told POLITICO that using those other funds wouldn’t leave money for future emergencies and other major food aid programs. Administration officials expect Democratic governors and anti-hunger groups to sue over the decision not to tap the contingency fund for SNAP, according to two people granted anonymity to describe private views. The White House is blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding due to their repeated votes against a House-passed stopgap funding bill. The Trump administration stepped in to shore up funding for key farm programs this week after also identifying Pentagon funds to pay active-duty troops earlier in the month. USDA said in the memo, which was first reported by Axios, that it cannot tap the contingency fund because it is reserved for emergencies such as natural disasters. The department also argues that using money from other nutrition programs would hurt other beneficiaries, such as mothers and babies as well as schoolchildren who are eligible for free lunches. “This Administration will not allow Democrats to jeopardize funding for school meals and infant formula in order to prolong their shutdown,” USDA wrote in the memo. The top Democrats on the House Agriculture and Appropriations committees — Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, respectively — lambasted the determination Friday, saying “Congress already provided billions of dollars to fund SNAP in November.” “It is the Trump administration that is taking food assistance away from 42 million Americans next month — including hungry seniors, veterans, and families with children,” they said in a statement. “This is perhaps the most cruel and unlawful offense the Trump administration has perpetrated yet — freezing funding already enacted into law to feed hungry Americans while he shovels tens of billions of dollars out the door to Argentina and into his ballroom.” Congress could pass a standalone bill to fund SNAP for November, but that would have to get through the Senate early next week and the House would likely need to return to approve it. Johnson said this week if the Senate passes a standalone SNAP patch, the House would “address” it. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would lean toward using the emergency funds to help keep some food benefits flowing. “I think the President and GOP should do what we can to alleviate harm done by the Democrats,” he said in a text message. Bacon also said he would support having the House return to approve a standalone bill should the Senate pass one next week: “I figure the Speaker would want to.” Some states, including Virginia and Hawaii, have started to tap their own emergency funds to offer some food benefits in the absence of SNAP. But it’s not clear how long that aid can last given states’ limited budgets and typical reliance on federal help to pay for anti-hunger programs. USDA, furthermore, said states cannot expect to be reimbursed if they cover the cost of keeping benefits flowing.

CLIMATEWIRE | A once-outlandish idea for reversing global warming took a major step toward reality Friday when Israeli-U.S. startup Stardust Solutions announced the largest-ever fundraising round for any company that aims to cool the Earth by spraying particles into the atmosphere. Its plan to limit the sun’s heat raised $60 million from a broad coalition of investors that included Silicon Valley luminaries and the Agnelli family, an Italian industrial dynasty. The disclosure, critics said, raises questions about involvement of venture capital firms in driving forward a largely untested, thinly researched and mostly unregulated technology that could disrupt global weather patterns and trigger geopolitical conflict. The investors were “putting their trust in the concept of, we need a safe and responsible and controlled option for sunlight reflection, which for me is [a] very important step forward in the evolution of this field,” Stardust CEO Yanai Yedvab said during an interview this week in POLITICO’s London office. He and co-founder Amyad Spector, who also flew in for the interview, are both nuclear physicists who formerly worked for the Israeli government. The startup’s fundraising haul was led by Lowercarbon Capital, a Wyoming-based climate technology-focused firm co-founded by billionaire investor Chris Sacca. It was also backed by the Agnellis’ firm Exor, a Dutch holding company that is the largest shareholder of Chrysler parent company Stellantis, luxury sports car manufacturer Ferrari and Italy’s Juventus Football Club. Ten other firms — hailing from San Francisco to Berlin — and one individual, former Facebook executive Matt Cohler, also joined Stardust’s fundraising round, its second since being founded two years ago. The firm has now raised a total of $75 million. It is registered in the U.S. state of Delaware and headquartered outside Tel Aviv but is not affiliated with the state of Israel. The surge of investor enthusiasm for Stardust comes amid stalled political efforts in Washington and other capitals to reduce the use of oil, gas and coal — the main drivers of climate change. Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to climb to new heights, worsening wildfires, floods, droughts and other natural disasters that some U.S. policymakers have baselessly blamed on solar geoengineering. The new influx of cash is four times the size of the startup’s initial fundraising round and, Yedvab argued, represents a major vote of confidence in Stardust and its strategy to land government contracts for deploying its technology at a global scale. It also shows that a growing pool of investors are willing to bet on solar geoengineering — a technology that some scientists still consider too dangerous to even study. Even advocates of researching solar geoengineering question the wisdom of pursuing it via a for-profit company like Stardust. “They have convinced Silicon Valley [venture capitalists] to give them a lot of money, and I would say that they shouldn’t have,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School and author of the book “Geoengineering: The Gamble.” “I don’t think it is a reasonable path to suggest that there’s going to be somebody — the U.S. government, another government, whoever — who buys Stardust, buys the [intellectual property] for a billion bucks [and] makes the VC investors gazillions. I don’t think that is, at all, reasonable.” Lowercarbon Capital did not respond to emailed questions. Stardust claims to have created a particle that would reflect sunlight in the same way debris from volcanic eruptions can temporarily cool the planet. The company says its powder is inert, wouldn’t accumulate in humans or ecosystems, and can’t harm the ozone layer or create acid rain like the sulfur-rich particles from volcanoes. It plans to seek government contracts to manufacture, disperse and monitor the particles in the stratosphere. The company is in the process of securing patents and preparing academic papers on its integrated solar geoengineering system. The startup would use the money it has raised to begin “controlled outdoor experiments” as soon as April, Yedvab told POLITICO. Those tests would release the company’s reflective particles inside a modified plane flying about 11 miles (18 kilometers) above sea level. The idea, Yedvab explained, is that “instead of displacing the particles out to the stratosphere and start following them, to do the other way around — to suck air from the stratosphere and to conduct in situ experiments, without dispersing essentially.” He said the company could have raised more money but only sought the funding it believes is necessary for the initial stratospheric testing. Stardust only took cash from investors who are aligned with the company’s cautious approach, he added. The fundraising round wasn’t conducted “from a point of view of, let’s get as much money as we can, but rather to say, this is what we need” to advance the technology, Yedvab said. Stardust’s new investors include the U.S. firms Future Ventures, Never Lift Ventures, Starlight Ventures, Nebular and Lauder Partners, as well as the British groups Attestor, Kindred Capital and Orion Global Advisors. Future Positive Capital of Paris and Berlin’s Earth.now also joined the fundraising round. Corbin Hiar reported from Washington. Karl Mathiesen reported from London.

BRUSSELS — Climate change is already costing Europe dearly. This summer’s droughts, heat waves and floods will cost the European Union an estimated €43 billion this year, knocking nearly half a percentage point off the region’s economic output, according to a study published Monday.  The same study estimated that the cumulative damage to the European economy will reach about €126 billion by 2029. “These estimates are likely conservative,” said the authors of the study, Sehrish Usman of the University of Mannheim, and Miles Parker and Mathilde Vallat, economists at the European Central Bank. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent as greenhouse gases warm the world. In 2024, natural disasters, including catastrophic flooding in Spain, destroyed assets worth $31 billion in Europe, according to the insurance company MunichRe. “Climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and all of this is contributing to the rising economic cost for the European regions,” Usman said at an event in Brussels on Monday. The study included physical damage to buildings and infrastructure as well as impact on worker productivity and efficiency, and spillover effects on other parts of the economy. It did not include damage from wildfires that burned more than 1 million hectares in Europe this year. “These events are not just temporary shocks,” said Usman. “They manifest their impacts over time.” Floods can disrupt supply chains. Droughts can cripple agricultural yields. “Initially, this is just a heat wave,” she said. “But it affects your efficiency, it reduces your labor productivity.” Droughts were the most damaging, causing an estimated €29.4 billion of loss to the EU this summer. Heat waves and floods caused damages of €6.8 billion and €6.5 billion, respectively. Southern Europe, a region particularly vulnerable to climate change, was hit hardest. Cyprus, Greece, Malta and Bulgaria suffered losses of more than 1 percent of their economic output. “Denmark, Sweden, Germany show relatively lower damages but the frequency and magnitude of these events, especially floods, are also increasing across these regions,” the researchers wrote. The findings come just after climate scientists reported that global warming made a heat wave in July in Norway, Sweden and Finland 2 degrees Celsius hotter than it would have otherwise been. Scientists have also calculated that wildfires in Spain and Portugal were made 40 times more likely by climate change.

The EU has offered to provide help to France, which is battling a wildfire that was described by French Prime Minister François Bayrou as “a disaster of unprecedented scale.” “Europe stands with France as the worst wildfires in its recent history rage in Aude. My thoughts are with the brave firefighters as they battle the blaze,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote on X. “We are ready to mobilise rescEU resources to support efforts to bring the fires under control,” she added, referencing an EU program to provide disaster response resources. A wildfire in the southern region of Aude has burned more than 16,000 hectares of land — an area larger than Paris — leaving one person dead, 13 injured, and three reported missing. More than 2,000 firefighters are deployed in the area to tackle the blaze, which started Tuesday near the village of La Ribaute. French Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau called it the fire has destroyed “the most hectares since 1949.” Prime Minister François Bayrou called the situation “a disaster of unprecedented scale.”