Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die europäische Sicherheitslage steht heute im Mittelpunkt. Mark Rutte, der NATO-Generalsekretär, kommt nach Berlin und trifft den Kanzler. Für Friedrich Merz ist dieses Gespräch zentral, denn es hängt die Frage über allem, wie sich Europa verteidigen soll, wenn Washington sich weiter zurückzieht. Gordon Repinski ordnet ein, welche Erwartungen an das Treffen geknüpft sind und welche Rolle eingefrorene russische Vermögen für die Ukraine dabei spielen Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht Franziska Brantner, Co-Vorsitzende der Grünen, über die Verteidigungsfähigkeit Europas. Sie erklärt, warum die Europäer Sicherheitsgarantien für die Ukraine vorbereiten müssen und weshalb eine kleinere Gruppe schneller vorangehen sollte. Im Anschluss berichtet Marion Soletty von POLITICO in Frankreich zu den Gesprächen zwischen Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius und seiner neuen französischen Amtskollegin Catherine Vautrin. Das FCAS-Projekt, ein gemeinsamer Kampfjet, steckt fest. Es geht um industrielle Führungsansprüche zwischen Dassault und Airbus und um die Frage, ob noch in diesem Jahr eine Einigung möglich ist. Am Ende ein Blick in die SPD, wo Generalsekretär Tim Klüssendorf mit einer wirtschaftsfreundlichen Rede überrascht und bei Arbeitgebern Zustimmung findet. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

President Donald Trump sees Hungary’s Viktor Orban as something of a kindred spirit, a model for the sweeping reforms of his own second term. That’s exactly why Europeans are nervous ahead of the president’s first face-to-face meeting with Orban at the White House, weeks after the U.S. finally imposed sanctions on two Russian oil companies. Orban is coming to the White House Friday squarely focused on obtaining an exemption on the sanctions. People inside and outside the administration haven’t ruled out the idea Trump might grant one, pointing to Hungary’s close relationship with both Russia and Trump as factors in Orban’s favor. An exemption for Hungary would amount to a major carveout of Trump’s sanctions regime against Russia, not to mention his criticism of the European nations still purchasing Russian oil. It would also be a symbolic setback for Ukrainian and European leaders who have spent months using a unified voice to prod the president to increase pressure on Moscow. “We’re fairly used to these efforts to undermine European unity, and we know [Trump] likes to deal with leaders one-on-one,” predicted an EU official granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. If Trump grants the exemption, “it may be more of a symbolic setback in terms of the message it sends to Putin and the rest of the world about the lack of resolve to really punish Russia. In reality, it will be harder to achieve.” After dangling the threat for months, Trump last month finallyimposed additional sanctions on two Russian oil companies when the Kremlin made clear that it still isn’t ready to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. The president, who has criticized European countries for continuing to import Russian oil and gas, hopes that increased economic pressure will eventually push Moscow into peace talks. Orban has called Trump’s sanctions on Russia a “mistake,” arguing that the country is not ready to abruptly stop its reliance on Moscow’s oil due to economic circumstances. “Hungary is very dependent on Russian oil and gas,” he said last month. “And without them, energy prices will skyrocket, causing shortages in our supplies.” Trump could be inclined to grant a carve-out for Orban, given his affinity for the populist leader who has seized control of numerous state agencies and tested the resilience of Hungarian democracy. People in and close to the Trump administration also point to Hungary’s willingness to engage with Russia — making it something of a pariah within NATO and the European Union — and its interest in defending “Western values” as factors in Orban’s favor. Administration officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, have voiced appreciation for Hungary’s support of Trump’s policies and Orban’s efforts to be a mediator between Ukraine and Russia. Hungarian leaders have propped up Trump unequivocally, and former Trump officials have made clear that Hungary stands to be rewarded for their long-term support, with one prize being a potential peace summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest. “Holding a summit in Budapest, which would be a prestige event for the Hungarians, and cast them in the role of peacemakers, it would be a benefit for them, and thus ideally incentivize other countries within Europe to tack closer to the administration’s line,” said Andrew Peek, Trump’s former senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council. Specifically, Hungary has stood out against other European countries for its tough positions on immigration. Trump and Orban’s relationship remained close during Trump’s years in the political wilderness. “When the president was out of office, the Hungarians and Orban talked about some of the injustices he was facing,” which “resonates rightfully with people in the White House,” Peek said. Once back in office, Trump has waged a fast and furious assault on the federal bureaucracy and made brazen moves expanding the government’s reach into civil society through pressure campaigns against the media, universities and the private sector. His actions mirror Orban’s in his country more than a decade earlier. And yet, Orban is making only his first visit to the White House some 10 months into the president’s term — after a number of other European leaders have been there multiple times. “This ideological affinity hasn’t been all that beneficial to the Hungarians. They haven’t gotten much from this White House,” said Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. “There’s an oxymoron in that, yes, it’s an ideology they share, but the ideology is one of national selfishness, so even if you’re aligned in the approach, the ideology says you’re on your own.” A White House official, granted anonymity to preview the meeting, said there would likely be several “deliverables” announced during the meeting — deals on expanded trade, defense partnerships or possibly sociocultural endeavors. And while exempting Hungary from new sanctions on Russian oil would be exceedingly complex in practice, requiring new instructions from the Treasury Department and the willingness of financial institutions in Europe to accept them, Trump could still announce a change in policy without warning once he and Orban are seated face to face beside the Oval Office fireplace. The administration’s love of Hungary has been on display at the highest levels of the State Department. Speaking at a Hungary Embassy event last month, Landau commended Hungary for continuing to have a “relationship” with Russia despite its “history” fighting communism under the Soviet Union. MAGA world beyond the West Wing has also celebrated Hungary as a model for the future of conservatism. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a 2022 interview that “modern Hungary is not just a model for conservative statecraft, but the model,” while media personalities like Tucker Carlson have traveled to Budapest to cheer on the government’s focus on keeping Hungary “Christian” by keeping out migrants and enacting pro-natalist policies. Orban has not extended the same welcome to Ukraine as other countries in Europe. He has been outspoken on vetoing any prospect of Ukraine ever joining the EU – a project that would need unanimous consent by all EU member states. He’s said Ukraine should be in a “strategic partnership” with the EU, but not a member. Landau also spoke about Hungary’s “values” alignment with the U.S. and the role that plays in their relationship. “I just want to thank Hungary again for its strong stewardship of Western values of our European heritage at a time when that is under attack, frankly … by forces within Europe, no less, not even to mention the sources outside of Europe,” Landau said at the embassy event commemorating Hungary’s national day.

It’s been a decade since the U.S. and Europe pushed the world to embrace a historic agreement to stop the planet’s runaway warming. The deal among nearly 200 nations offered a potential “turning point for the world,” then-U.S. President Barack Obama said. Eventually, almost every country on Earth signed the 2015 Paris Agreement, a pact whose success would rest on peer pressure, rising ambition and the economics of a clean energy revolution. But 10 years later, the actions needed to fulfill those hopes are falling short. The United States has quit the deal — twice. President Donald Trump is throttling green energy projects at home and finding allies to help him undermine climate initiatives abroad, while inking trade deals that commit countries to buying more U.S. fossil fuels. Europe remains on track to meet its climate commitments, but its resolve is wavering, as price-weary voters and the rise of far-right parties raise doubts about how quickly the bloc can deliver its pledge to turn away from fossil fuels. Paris has helped ingrain climate change awareness in popular culture and policy, led countries and companies to pledge to cut their carbon pollution to zero and helped steer a wave of investments into clean energy. Scientists say it appears to have lessened the odds of the most catastrophic levels of warming. On the downside, oil and gas production hasn’t yet peaked, and climate pollution and temperatures are still rising — with the latter just tenths of a degree from the tipping point agreed in Paris. But the costs of green energy have fallen so much that, in most parts of the world, it’s the cheapest form of power and is being installed at rates unthinkable 10 years ago. World leaders and diplomats who are in Brazil starting this week for the United Nations’ annual climate talks will face a test to stand up for Paris in the face of Trump’s opposition while highlighting that its goals are both necessary and beneficial. The summit in the Amazonian port city of Belém was supposed to be the place where rich and poor countries would celebrate their progress and commit themselves to ever-sharper cuts in greenhouse gas pollution. Instead, U.S. contempt for global climate efforts and a muddled message from Europe are adding headwinds to a moment that is far more turbulent than the one in which the Paris Agreement was adopted. Some climate veterans are still optimists — to a point. “I think that the basic architecture is resistant to Trump’s destruction,” said John Podesta, chair of the board of the liberal Center for American Progress, who coordinated climate policy under Obama and former President Joe Biden. But that resistance could wilt if the U.S. stays outside the agreement, depriving the climate movement of American leadership and support, he said. “If all that’s gone, and it’s gone for a long time, I don’t know whether the structure holds together,” Podesta added. Other climate diplomats say the cooperative spirit of 2015 would be hard to recreate now, which is why acting on Paris is so essential. “If we had to renegotiate Paris today, we’d never get the agreement that we had 10 years ago,” said Rachel Kyte, the United Kingdom’s special climate representative. “But we can also look to these extraordinary data points, which show that the direction of travel is very clear,” she said, referring to growth of clean energy. “And most people who protect where their money is going to be are interested in that direction of travel.” THE PARIS PARADOX One thing that hasn’t faded is the business case for clean energy. If anything, the economic drivers behind the investments that Paris helped unleash have surpassed even what the Paris deal’s authors anticipated. But the political will to keep countries driving forward has stalled in some places as the United States — the world’s largest economy, sole military superpower and historically biggest climate polluter — attacks its very foundation. Trump’s attempts to undermine the agreement, summed up by the 2017 White House slogan “Pittsburgh, not Paris,” has affected European ambitions as well, French climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana told reporters late last month. “I have never seen such aggressivity against national climate policy all over because of the U.S.,” said Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Agreement. “So we are really confronted with an ideological battle, a cultural battle, where climate is in that package the U.S. government wants to defeat.” The White House said Trump is focused on developing U.S. oil and engaging with world leaders on energy issues, rather than what it dubs the “green new scam.” The U.S. will not send high-level representatives to COP30. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda,” said Taylor Rogers, a spokesperson. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” Trump is not the only challenge facing Paris, of course. Even under Obama, the U.S. insisted that the Paris climate pollution targets had to be nonbinding, avoiding the need for a Senate ratification vote that would most likely fail. But unlike previous climate pacts that the U.S. had declined to join, all countries — including, most notably, China — would have to submit a pollution-cutting plan. The accord left it up to the governments themselves to carry out their own pledges and to push laggards to do better. An unusual confluence of political winds helped drive the bargaining. Obama, who was staking part of his legacy on getting a global climate agreement, had spent the year leading up to Paris negotiating a separate deal with China in which both countries committed to cutting their world-leading pollution. France, the host of the Paris talks, was also determined to strike a worldwide pact. In the year that followed, more than 160 countries submitted their initial plans to tackle climate change domestically and began working to finish the rules that would undergird the agreement. “The Paris Agreement isn’t a machine that churns out ambition. It basically reflects back to us the level of ambition that we have agreed to … and suggests what else is needed to get back on track,” said Kaveh Guilanpour, vice president for international strategies at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a negotiator for the United Kingdom during the Paris talks. “Whether countries do that or not, it’s essentially then a matter for them.” Catherine McKenna, Canada’s former environment minister and a lead negotiator of the Paris Agreement’s carbon crediting mechanism, called the deal an “incredible feat” — but not a self-executing one. “The problem is now it’s really up to countries as well as cities, regions, companies and financial institutions to act,” she said. “It’s not a treaty thing anymore — it’s now, ‘Do the work.’” WHEN GREEN TURNS GRAY Signs of discord are not hard to find around the globe. China is tightening its grip on clean energy manufacturing and exports, ensuring more countries have access to low-cost renewables, but creating tensions in places that also want to benefit from jobs and revenue from making those goods and fear depending too much on one country. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, a former United Nations climate envoy, eliminated his country’s consumer carbon tax and is planning to tap more natural gas to toughen economic defenses against the United States. The European Union spent the past five years developing a vast web of green regulations and sectoral measures, and the bloc estimates that it’s roughly on track to meet those goals. But many of the EU’s 27 governments — under pressure from the rising far right, high energy prices, the decline of traditional industry and Russia’s war against Ukraine — are now demanding that the EU reevaluate many of those policies. Still, views within the bloc diverge sharply, with some pushing for small tweaks and others for rolling back large swaths of legislation. “Europe must remain a continent of consistency,” French President Emmanuel Macron said after a meeting of EU leaders in October. “It must step up on competitiveness, but it must not give up on its [climate] goals.” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, in contrast, said after the same meeting that he felt vindicated about his country’s long-standing opposition to the EU’s green agenda: “In most European capitals, people today think differently about these exaggerated European climate ambitions.” Worldwide, most countries have not submitted their latest carbon-cutting plans to the United Nations. While the plans that governments have announced mostly expand on their previous ones, they still make only modest reductions against what is needed to limit Earth’s warming since the preindustrial era to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Exceeding that threshold, scientists say, would lead to more lives lost and physical and economic damage that would be ever harder to recover from with each tenth of a degree of additional warming. The U.N.’s latest report showing the gap between countries’ new pledges and the Paris targets found that the world is on track for between 2.3 and 2.5 degrees of warming, a marginal difference from plans submitted in 2020 that is largely canceled out when the U.S. pledge is omitted. Policies in place now are pointing toward 2.8 degrees of warming. “We need unprecedented cuts to greenhouse gas emissions now in an ever-compressing timeframe and amid a challenging geopolitical context,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme. But doing so also makes sense, she added. “This where the market is showing that these kind of investments in smart, clean and green is actually driving jobs and opportunities. This is where the future lies.” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message Tuesday that overshooting the 1.5-degrees target of Paris was now inevitable in the coming years imploring leaders to rapidly roll out renewables and stop expanding oil, gas and coal to ensure that overshoot was short-lived. “We’re in a huge mess,” said Bill Hare, a longtime climate scientist who founded the policy institute Climate Analytics. Greenhouse gas pollution hasn’t fallen, and action has flat lined even as climate-related disasters have increased. “I think what’s upcoming is a major test for the Paris Agreement, probably the major test. Can this agreement move forward under the weight of all of these challenges?” Hare asked. “If it can’t do that, governments are going to be asking about the benefits of it, frankly.” That doesn’t mean all is lost. In 2015, the world was headed for around 4 degrees Celsius of warming, an amount that researchers say would have been devastating for much of the planet. Today, that projection is roughly a degree Celsius lower. “I think a lot of us in Paris were very dubious at the time that we would ever limit warming to 1.5,” said Elliot Diringer, a former climate official who led the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ international program during the Paris talks. “The question is whether we are better off by virtue of the Paris Agreement,” he said. “I think the answer is yes. Are we where we need to be? Absolutely not.” GREEN TECHNOLOGY DEFYING EXPECTATIONS In addition, the adoption of clean energy technology has moved even faster than projected — sparking what one climate veteran has called a shift in global climate politics. “We are no longer in a world in which only climate politics has a leading role and a substantial role, but increasingly, climate economics,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015. “Yes, politics is important; no longer as important as it was 10 years ago.” Annual solar deployment globally is 15 times greater than the International Energy Agency predicted in 2015, according to a recent analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a U.K. nonprofit. Renewables now account for more than 90 percent of new power capacity added globally every year, BloombergNEF reported. China is deploying record amounts of renewables and lowering costs for countries such as Brazil and Pakistan, which has seen solar installations skyrocket. Even in the United States, where Trump repealed many of Biden’s tax breaks and other incentives, BloombergNEF predicts that power companies will continue to deploy green sources, in large part because they’re often the fastest source of new electricity. Costs for wind and batteries and falling, too. Electric vehicle sales are soaring in many countries, thanks in large part to the huge number of inexpensive vehicles being pumped out by China’s BYD, the world’s largest EV-maker. Worldwide clean energy investments are now twice as much as fossil fuels spending, according to the International Energy Agency. “Today, you can actually talk about deploying clean energy technologies just because of their cost competitiveness and ability to lower energy system costs,” said Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis at the research institution Energy Innovation. “You don’t actually even have to say ‘climate’ for a lot of them, and that just wasn’t true 10 years ago.” The economic trends of the past decade have been striking, said Todd Stern, the U.S. climate envoy who negotiated the Paris Agreement. “Paris is something that was seen all over the world, seen by other countries, seen in boardrooms, as the first time in more than 20 years when you finally got heads of government saying, ‘Yes, let’s do this,’” he said. “And that’s not the only reason why there was tremendous technological development, but it sure didn’t hurt.” Still, limits exist to how far businesses can take the clean energy transition on their own. “You need government intervention of some kind, whether that’s a stick or a carrot, to push the economy towards a low-carbon trajectory,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of policy at the International Chamber of Commerce. “If governments press the brakes on climate action or seriously start to soft pedal, then it does have a limiting effect.” Brazil, the host of COP30, says it wants to demonstrate that multilateralism still works and is relevant to peoples’ lives and capable of addressing the climate impacts communities around the world are facing. But the goal of this year’s talks might be even more straightforward, said Guilanpour, the former negotiator. “If we come out of COP30 demonstrating that the Paris Agreement is alive and functioning,” he said, “I think in the current context, that is pretty newsworthy of itself.” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zi-Ann Lum in Ottawa, Karl Mathiesen in London and Zia Weise in Brussels contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — For six years, the European Union’s efforts to fight climate change have been on an upward swing. That came to an end on Wednesday morning in messy, exhausted scenes.  After a marathon meeting that ran through Tuesday night and eventually ended a little after 9 a.m. the next morning, a majority of the bloc’s 27 governments agreed on new targets to cut pollution — but only by weakening existing laws and slowing domestic efforts designed to cut down on that very same pollution.  The compromise was met with relief by many countries and European Commission officials, who had feared an embarrassing collapse that would have hamstrung the EU on the eve of the COP30 U.N. climate talks in Brazil starting Thursday. But it also underscored a swing in political momentum. After half a decade of green victories on climate policy, a much more skeptical group of countries and parties now has the upper hand. In an interview just after the talks ended, the Commission’s climate chief Wopke Hoekstra hailed the EU’s continuing “leadership role” on climate issues. But the commissioner was candid about the political and economic realities — high energy costs, the rise of right-wing populists and declining industrial confidence — that had strengthened critics of the green agenda. The EU was “staying the course” on fighting climate change, he told POLITICO, but added “it would be foolish to use the recipe of the past. We’re facing massive change, so we need to adapt to that change.” Ministers also agreed on a target for 2035 — a requirement under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement that was due to be delivered earlier this year in advance of the COP30 talks. The ministers were unable to agree to a single number, instead promising a nonbinding cut between 66.25 and 72.5 percent. The final deal on the binding 2040 goal came up short of the 90 percent cut in domestic pollution below 1990 levels, which Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had made the key green pledge in her reelection campaign.  Instead, ministers on Wednesday agreed an 85 percent cut in domestic emissions by 2040. Governments intend to achieve the remaining 5 percentage points by paying other countries to reduce pollution on the bloc’s behalf, a system of purchases known as carbon credits.  The deal also opened the door to outsourcing additional efforts as part of a wide-ranging revision clause that will see the Commission tasked with considering amending the target every five years depending on factors such as energy prices or economic troubles. “Embarrassing and short sighted,” was the assessment of Diederik Samsom, the former top-ranking Commission official who was a primary architect of the European Green Deal policy package during von der Leyen’s first mandate — though he said it was unlikely the carbon credits would be used as they would cost just as much as cutting emissions at home, but without the added benefits of investment and innovation. “The Green Deal still holds, since its rationale is largely economic … but the lack of political courage amongst European ministers is worrying,” said Samsom, who also served as Hoekstra’s chief of staff for a few months. These major gifts to countries like France, which had pushed for the credit system, were still not enough to strike a deal on Wednesday. Italy, supported by Poland and Romania, led a blocking minority that refused to budge until they were granted key concessions on existing climate laws.  To win them over, ministers also agreed to delay by one year the rollout of the EU’s carbon pricing system for heating and fuel emissions, known as ETS2. And they asked to extend the use of biofuels and other low-carbon fuels in transport in the future, which could weaken the agreed 2035 ban on new combustion-engine cars.  Watering down existing tools for cutting emissions in order to land a deal on a future target created a challenge all of its own, said Simone Tagliapietra, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. “The target is very ambitious, and we need all tools to deliver on it. Dilemma is how to get there.” Those tweaks came on top of concessions already granted in technical talks over the past few weeks, which include permitting heavy industry to pollute more and revising the target downward if the EU’s forests absorb less carbon dioxide than expected.  “Instead of climate protection, the ministers end up with political self-deception,” said Michael Bloss, a Greens MEP from Germany. Poland was one of the key holdouts and ultimately refused to vote in favor of the target even though it was granted a delay in the ETS2, which Secretary of State for Climate Krzysztof Bolesta said “was one of our main demands.” Poland was accused of holding hostage the 2035 climate target, which needed unanimous support, over the delay on ETS2, said three diplomats involved in the negotiations. A Polish official said any discussions on the 2035 goal and the postponement of the ETS2 were part of a “package deal” sought by several countries. These officials were granted anonymity to disclose the details of the talks. But even with that concession, the target was still the lowest level of ambition. “We were forced to accept the lower end of the range to prevent certain countries from blocking this agreement,” said Monique Barbut, the French environment minister.  But that shouldn’t be interpreted as a sign the EU is no longer a global climate leader, according to Barbut. “We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of,” she said. Hoekstra framed the deal as a new phase of pragmatic climate policymaking that incorporated the views of traditionally resistant countries, rather than sidelining them. He argued the past approach had failed to protect the bloc from industrial decline and dependence on countries such as China.  “In the past, we have been gambling with our independence and our competitiveness in a way that, frankly speaking, we should not have,” Hoekstra said.

Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy on energy transition, electricity market design, and industrial competitiveness in the EU. More information here The European Union is entering a decisive decade for its energy transformation. With the international race for clean technologies accelerating, geopolitical tensions reshaping markets and competition from other major global economies intensifying, how the EU approaches the transition will determine its economic future. If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and global influence.  > If managed strategically, the EU can drive competitiveness, growth and > resilience. If mismanaged, Europe risks losing its industrial base, jobs and > global influence. This message resonated strongly during PKEE Energy Day 2025, held in Brussels on October 14, which brought together more than 350 European policymakers, industry leaders and experts under the theme “Secure, competitive and clean: is Europe delivering on its energy promise?”. One conclusion was clear: the energy transition must serve the economy, not the other way around.  Laurent Louis Photography for PKEE The power sector: the backbone of Europe’s industrial future  The future of European competitiveness will be shaped by its power sector. Without a successful transformation of electricity generation and distribution, other sectors — from steel and chemicals to mobility and digital — will fail to decarbonize. This point was emphasized by Konrad Wojnarowski, Poland’s deputy minister of energy, who described electricity as “vital to development and competitiveness.”  “Transforming Poland’s energy sector is a major technological and financial challenge — but we are on the right track,” he said. “Success depends on maintaining the right pace of change and providing strong support for innovation.” Wojnarowski also underlined that only close cooperation between governments, industry and academia can create the conditions for a secure, competitive and sustainable energy future.  Flexibility: the strategic enabler  The shift to a renewables-based system requires more than capacity additions — it demands a fundamental redesign of how electricity is produced, managed and consumed. Dariusz Marzec, president of the Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) and CEO of PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, called flexibility “the Holy Grail of the power sector.”  Speaking at the event, Marzec also stated “It’s not about generating electricity continuously, regardless of demand. It’s about generating it when it’s needed and making the price attractive. Our mission, as part of the European economy, is to strengthen competitiveness and ensure energy security for all consumers – not just to pursue climate goals for their own sake. Without a responsible approach to the transition, many industries could relocate outside Europe.”  The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental ambition with economic reality. Europe cannot afford to treat decarbonization as an isolated goal — it must integrate it into a broader industrial strategy.  > The message is clear: the clean energy shift must balance environmental > ambition with economic reality. The next decade will define success  While Europe’s climate neutrality target for 2050 remains a cornerstone of EU policy, the next five to ten years will determine whether the continent remains globally competitive. Grzegorz Lot, CEO of TAURON Polska Energia and vice-president of PKEE, warned that technology is advancing too quickly for policymakers to rely solely on long-term milestones.  “Technology is evolving too fast to think of the transition only in terms of 2050. Our strategy is to act now — over the next year, five years, or decade,” Lot said. He pointed to the expected sharp decline in coal consumption over the next three years and called for immediate investment in proven technologies, particularly onshore wind.  Lot also raised concerns about structural barriers. “Today, around 30 percent of the price of electricity is made up of taxes. If we want affordable energy and a competitive economy, this must change,” he argued.  Consumers and regulation: the overlooked pillars  A successful energy transition cannot rely solely on investment and infrastructure. It also depends on regulatory stability and consumer participation. “Maintaining competitiveness requires not only investment in green technologies but also a stable regulatory environment and active consumer engagement,” Lot said.  He highlighted the potential of dynamic tariffs, which incentivize demand-side flexibility. “Customers who adjust their consumption to market conditions can pay below the regulated price level. If we want cheap energy, we must learn to follow nature — consuming and storing electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows.”  Strategic investments for resilience  The energy transition is more than a climate necessity. It is a strategic requirement for Europe’s security and economic autonomy. Marek Lelątko, vice-president of Enea, stressed that customer- and market-oriented investment is essential. “We are investing in renewables, modern gas-fired units and energy storage because they allow us to ensure supply stability, affordable prices and greater energy security,” he said.  Grzegorz Kinelski, CEO of Enea and vice-president of PKEE, added: “We must stay on the fast track we are already on. Investments in renewables, storage and CCGT [combined cycle gas turbine] units will not only enhance energy security but also support economic growth and help keep energy prices affordable for Polish consumers.”  The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and defense. As Dariusz Marzec puts it: “The energy transition is not a choice — it is a necessity. But its success will determine more than whether we meet climate targets. It will decide whether Europe remains competitive, prosperous and economically independent in a rapidly changing world.”  > The power sector must now be recognized as a strategic enabler of Europe’s > industrial future — on par with semiconductors, critical raw materials and > defense. Measurable progress, but more is needed  Progress is visible. The power sector accounts for around 30 percent of EU emissions but has already delivered 75 percent of all Emissions Trading System reductions. By 2025, 72 percent of Europe’s electricity will come from low-carbon sources, while fossil fuels will fall to a historic low of 28 percent. And in Poland, in June, renewable energy generation overtook coal for the first time in history.  Still, ambition alone is not enough. In his closing remarks, Marcin Laskowski, vice-president of PKEE and executive vice-president for regulatory affairs at PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna, stressed the link between the power sector and Europe’s broader economic transformation. “The EU’s economic transformation will only succeed if the energy transition succeeds — safely, sustainably and with attractive investment conditions,” he said. “It is the power sector that must deliver solutions to decarbonize industries such as steel, chemicals and food production.”  A collective European project  The event in Brussels — with the participation of many high-level speakers, including Mechthild Wörsdörfer, deputy director general of DG ENER; Tsvetelina Penkova, member of the European Parliament and vice-chair of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy; Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, member of the European Parliament; Catherine MacGregor; CEO of ENGIE and vice-president of Eurelectric; and Claude Turmes, former minister of energy of Luxembourg — highlighted a common understanding: the energy transition is not an isolated environmental policy, it is a strategic industrial project. Its success will depend on coordinated action across EU institutions, national governments and industry, as well as predictable regulation and financing.  Europe’s ability to remain competitive, resilient and prosperous will hinge on whether its power sector is treated not as a cost to be managed, but as a foundation to be strengthened. The next decade is a window of opportunity — and the choices made today will shape Europe’s economic landscape for decades to come. 

Inflation in the eurozone edged down in October as higher prices for food and industrial goods were offset by another drop in energy costs. According to preliminary data from Eurostat on Friday, annual inflation slowed to 2.1 percent, in line with consensus estimates, from 2.2 percent in September. The slowdown comes despite Germany and Spain reporting higher-than-expected consumer price increases on Thursday. Energy prices fell by 0.2 percent on the month and 1.0 percent on the year, against a backdrop of continued increases in oil supply. However, unprocessed food prices continued to rise, albeit at a slower rate of 0.7 percent on the month. That left them up 3.2 percent on the year in October, down from a peak of 5.5 percent in August. Despite a modest increase of only 0.1 percent in prices in October, services price inflation hit its highest level in over six months at 3.4 percent. The metric is closely watched by the European Central Bank (ECB) because of its close link to wage growth, which accelerated to around 4 percent in the second quarter. Persistent services inflation can eventually feed through the rest of the economy, and could drive prices higher across the basket of goods being measured. However, ECB President Christine Lagarde repeated on Thursday that she expects wage growth to slow again in the coming months. The ECB held its key interest rate unchanged at 2 percent on Thursday, with the Bank emphasizing that inflation was in a “good place” and that it would continue with its wait-and- see approach. While the latest inflation reading is only a touch above the Bank’s 2-percent target, the persistence of inflation in the services sector will likely make the ECB reluctant to lower interest rates any further for the foreseeable future.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said Thursday that last week’s inferno at a Hungarian oil refinery could have been caused by an “external attack,” adding an investigation was still ongoing.  A blaze broke out last Monday night at the Danube Refinery in Százhalombatta, south of the capital Budapest. The refinery, operated by Hungarian energy company MOL, is the country’s largest and primarily processes crude oil from Russia.  “The investigation is in full swing,” Orbán wrote on social media. “We do not yet know whether it was an accident, a malfunction, or an external attack.”  His public musing about possible sabotage contradicts MOL, which last week said there was no evidence of an attack.   “The Polish foreign minister advised the Ukrainians to blow up the Druzhba oil pipeline,” Orbán added. “Let’s hope it’s not that kind of case.”  He was apparently referring to Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski’s remarks on social media last week that he hoped Kyiv “finally succeeds in knocking out” the strategically important pipeline, which feeds Russian oil into Hungary.  Budapest has come under criticism from Ukraine and its allies for continuing to import Russian oil throughout Moscow’s war, even as the rest of the EU has largely weaned off the Kremlin’s energy.  The Hungarian leader has argued that Budapest has no choice but to rely on Russia for cheap oil and gas due to its landlocked geography, insisting prices would explode for consumers otherwise and even vowing to circumvent U.S. sanctions on Russian oil companies. That’s despite neighboring Croatia’s insistence that it could meet Budapest’s energy needs with its own pipeline. Orbán added Thursday he had instructed his government to inform MOL that it shouldn’t raise energy prices for consumers in response to the fire at the refinery.  

LEIDEN, the Netherlands — Waking up bleary eyed this Thursday morning and wondering who won the Dutch election? Well, it’s a stunner.  Here’s our brief explainer on the progressive liberal party that surged in recent weeks to match Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) on the back of a charismatic young leader.  START FROM THE BEGINNING, PLEASE, WHO WON THE DUTCH ELECTION? The liberal-progressive D66 party — short for Democrats 66; founded in 1966, natch — is on track to win 26 seats in the Netherlands’ 150-strong parliament, according to a preliminary forecast. That puts them equal with the hotly tipped Wilders and his PVV, which just two years ago scored a huge election win, and ahead of other mainstream conservative, socialist and liberal parties. OK, D66 THEN, WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR? D66 is a pro-European party that tends to draw in urbanite, high-income voters.  While the party’s pitch in its early days was to have prime ministers and mayors directly elected, in 2025 it focused its campaign on solutions to the Netherlands’ housing crisis, notably with a plan to build new cities. It also picked a hopeful slogan: “It is possible,” evoking former U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” optimism. The party campaigned on pledges to focus on “affordable, green energy from our own soil” to keep energy prices down, while securing the “healthiest generation ever” by prioritizing the prevention of illness. It also wants greener residential areas and an emphasis on better education. D66 beefed up its stance on migration, advocating for a system that would have people lodge asylum applications outside Europe, with leader Rob Jetten warily noting the collapse of two successive Dutch governments over asylum policy. The party also pushed to reclaim the red-white-and-blue tricolor flag as something for mainstream Dutch voters to be proud of after angry farmers turned it upside down in protests and Wilders clutched it for populist-nationalist reasons.  At D66’s election night party in Leiden, their leader told reporters the flags are a way to wave goodbye to recent years “where it sometimes seemed like our country can’t be proud anymore. We’re an amazing country and we can make it even better,” he said. SO WHO IS THE LEADER AND WHAT’S HIS DEAL? Once dubbed “Robot Jetten” because of the clunky manner he answered questions, Jetten is now in pole position to become the future prime minister of the Netherlands. Despite the unfavorable early nickname, the 38-year-old — who is openly gay — has since become a charming and media-savvy poster-boy for D66’s positive and progressive-liberal platform. “I’ve become a lot grayer and a lot more experienced,” Jetten joked on election night.  He was in line to head the party back in 2018, but stepped aside in favor of veteran diplomat Sigrid Kaag; a move that won him plaudits among party members.  Jetten took the baton from Kaag in 2023 after her hopes of becoming the Netherlands’ first female prime minister were dashed in the previous election. IS JETTEN REALLY GOING TO BE THE NEXT DUTCH PRIME MINISTER? If the final results confirm the election night projections, he’s certainly in prime position.  But the real work starts next.  Jetten will have to form a coalition and, to get the numbers for a majority, may need to carry out the unenviable task of convincing the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and left-wing GreenLeft-Labor to team up after bitterly campaigning against one another.  The challenge isn’t lost on Jetten. With around 26 seats, D66 is “a small large party, when compared with Dutch history,” he said on election night. “So we’ll have to cooperate with many parties.” Jetten is also well aware of the challenge that has doomed recent Dutch governments. Migration was once more in the spotlight in the run-up to the election “and it is my ambition that in four years’ time, this will no longer need to be an issue,” Jetten told reporters on election night. BACK TO THE PARTY, HAVE THEY BEEN IN GOVERNMENT BEFORE? Many times, including most recently in the third and fourth governments helmed by longtime liberal leader Mark Rutte. Jetten himself was a climate and energy minister in Rutte’s fourth and final government, in which D66 was the second-largest party.  Before that, D66 has joined coalitions on and off since the early 1970s. HAVE I HEARD OF ANY OF THE PARTY BIGWIGS? You likely have: Diplomat and former Foreign Affairs and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag led D66 from 2020 until 2023, before returning to the United Nations as the organization’s senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator for Gaza.  The EU’s Special Representative for Human Rights Kajsa Ollongren previously filled roles as defense and internal affairs minister for the party.  And then there are the party’s former European lawmakers: Both Marietje Schaake and Sophie in ‘t Veld — who left D66 in 2023 — are well-known names in the Brussels bubble. WHAT’S THEIR POSITION IN BRUSSELS? D66, which is part of the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, takes a decidedly more pro-EU stance than we’re used to hearing in the Netherlands, from supporting the implementation of a European migration pact to advocating for the creation of European armed forces.  But despite its pro-European stance, D66 has never filled a major EU post — like, for example, a Dutch commissioner — with most party heavyweights focused on domestic politics instead.  Max Griera contributed to this report.

Governments are falling far short of the promises they made to cut plant-warming pollution under the Paris climate agreement 10 years ago, the United Nations said in a report Tuesday. Only a minority of countries have so far updated their commitments to tackling what the countries signing the pact called in 2015 “the urgent threat of climate change.” And the plans they submitted to date would cut global greenhouse gas pollution only modestly compared with levels they had pledged half a decade ago. The lapse comes as President Donald Trump’s administration has pressured nations against measures to curb the use of fossil fuels, whose greenhouse gas emissions are increasing the dangers of a warming planet — and as rising energy prices have prompted European leaders to recommit to using energy sources such as natural gas. Only 64 nations out of 195 parties to the Paris Agreement submitted updated domestic plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required under the 2015 pact, the U.N. noted in its report of those commitments. And one of the most aggressive pledges submitted by any nation is effectively dead: then-President Joe Biden’s pledge last year that the United States — the world’s No. 2 climate polluter behind China — will slash its greenhouse gas output by at least 61 percent from 2005 levels by 2035. Trump has disowned that goal and instead recommitted the country to producing and exporting more fossil fuels, while pressuring allies to buy more U.S. oil and natural gas. Most G20 countries have not formally filed their plans with the U.N. Apart from the United States, only Australia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, Russia and the U.K. have done so. And based on those that have been submitted, the U.N. report hinted at the disappointing targets for emissions cuts. “It is not possible to draw wide-ranging global-level conclusions or inferences from this limited data set,” the report said. Governments are expected to submit their plans at the COP30 U.N. climate talks next month in Brazil. Commitments were originally due in February, but the process was delayed after the reelection of Trump, who in his first administration had removed the United States from the Paris agreement and who did so again in January. “This climate change, it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion,” Trump said during his U.N. General Assembly speech in September. “All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success.” The national climate policies that countries have submitted so far would push global greenhouse gas emissions 6 percent lower in 2035 than the levels than nations’ previous plans, submitted five years ago, had called for reaching by 2030, the U.N. assessment showed. But even that incomplete accounting may be optimistic, since it includes Biden’s pledge that Trump has rejected. Taken together, the policies that 64 nations floated would ensure their emissions peak before 2030 “with strong emissions reductions thereafter until 2035,” the report said. The plans projected those nations’ combined emissions would fall 17 percent compared with 2019 levels in 2035. In totality, however, those marks mean countries are far behind the Paris goal of keeping temperatures “well below” 2 degrees Celsius of warming since the preindustrial era, a target that scientists have called essential for lessening global catastrophe. The Paris pacts’ stronger alternative goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius is in even greater peril. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found hitting the 2-degree mark requires global emissions to plummet 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2035. It would require a 60-percent drop to remain below 1.5 degrees, the U.N. report noted. “Parties are bending their combined emission curve further downwards, but still not quickly enough,” the report said of the plans. The forthcoming submissions will likely improve the bleak forecast the U.N. outlined in its report, which covered plans from nations comprising 30 percent of global greenhouse emissions. The analysis did not factor in China and Turkey, major polluters that have disclosed their overall targets but have not officially filed their plans. It also did not include the European Union, which is still negotiating its emissions strategy. Many analysts view as underwhelming China’s overall goal of lowering emissions up to 10 percent from their peak by 2035, given the country has overtaken the United States as the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. Meanwhile, the EU’s 27 countries have struggled to agree on new climate targets as they weigh economic the strain placed on their heavy industries. In lieu of a new climate target, the EU sent the U.N. a “statement of intent” saying it would reduce emissions by up to 72.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the limited pool of updated plans. An ongoing but incomplete U.N. analysis of plans that nations announced during the General Assembly in September but have not yet finalized could reflect a 10-percent global emissions decline by 2035, Stiell said in a statement. “Countries are making progress, and laying out clear stepping stones towards net-zero emissions,” he said. “We also know that change is not linear and that some countries have a history of overdelivering.”