BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has appointed Chrystia Freeland, a former deputy prime minister of Canada, as his new adviser on Ukraine’s economic development, according to a presidential decree published Monday. “Chrystia is highly skilled in these matters and has extensive experience in attracting investment and implementing economic transformations,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X. Freeland will be working on a freelance basis. “Right now, Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal resilience — both for the sake of Ukraine’s recovery if diplomacy delivers results as swiftly as possible, and to reinforce our defense if, because of delays by our partners, it takes longer to bring this war to an end,” Zelenskyy added. Freeland, 57, served as deputy PM of Canada under former leader Justin Trudeau. More recently, she resigned from her post as transport and internal trade minister in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Cabinet in September to become Canada’s special envoy on the reconstruction of Ukraine. Freeland has Ukrainian roots through her mother, Halyna Chomiak, and is a prominent pro-Ukraine advocate. Freeland has not commented publicly on the announcement. When contacted, POLITICO received an out-of-office reply, saying she would be back at work later today. Freeland’s appointment is the latest step in Zelenskyy’s reboot of his office. The president recently appointed former military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov as his new chief of staff, and former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister and long-term ambassador to the U.N. Sergiy Kyslytsya has been appointed deputy head of the president’s office. The Ukrainian leader explained the reboot was needed to strengthen the country’s negotiating stance and resilience in the face of what’s coming. “Our country has two paths. The first path is peaceful, diplomatic, and it is a priority for us today. We want to end the war. At some point, if Russia blocks it and the partners do not force Russia to stop the war, there will be another path — to defend ourselves. And at this point, fresh forces will be needed. I will go through a parallel reboot of all structures. Just in case,” Zelenskyy told reporters during a press briefing on Saturday.

International high-speed rail service Eurostar, which connects Brussels and London, canceled all services Tuesday because of technical problems in the Channel Tunnel. “Due to a problem with the overhead power supply and a subsequent failed Le Shuttle train the Channel Tunnel is currently closed. Unfortunately, this means we have no choice but to suspend all services today until further notice,” the company said in a service update on its website. Le Shuttle, the rail service that transports vehicles and passengers through the Channel Tunnel, is experiencing delays of up to three-and-a-half hours, according to an update on its website. Eurostar also urged passengers not to travel to stations, which include Brussels-Midi, Gare du Nord in Paris and St Pancras in London. British media reported there were traffic jams in front of the tunnel terminal in Folkestone, England and stations crowded with stranded passengers in London and Paris. Eurostar denied reports about stranded train passengers in the tunnel. “It is a broken shuttle (LeShuttle) that has now been moved out of the tunnel,” a spokesperson told POLITICO. The Channel Tunnel links Great Britain with mainland Europe. Under normal conditions, the journey from London St Pancras to Brussels-Midi takes about two hours.

LONDON — Westminster discourse was blessed with a host of new words and phrases during a tumultuous 2025 — and some of them even made sense. Keir Starmer got to fight with tech bro Elon Musk, schmooze Donald Trump, endure frustration from his MPs over Labour’s dreadful polling, reshuffle his government, and preside over a stagnant economy — all while working out a “vision” some 18 months into office. As 2026 screams into view, POLITICO has looked back over the year and picked out all the weird phrases we’d rather forget. 1. Coalition of the willing: The body of nations that sprang up to support Ukraine as U.S. backing looked dicey. Defined by their “vital,” “urgent” and “pivotal” meetings, but often challenged by an unwilling dude across the pond. 2. Smorgasbord: Sweden’s given us IKEA, ABBA — and now the best way to explain an unsatisfying mix of tax rises. Thanks, chancellor! 3. AI Opportunities Action Plan: Never has a government announcement contained so many nouns. 4. AI MP: Why bother with constituency casework when ChatGPT’s around? Labour MP Mark Sewards bagged some help from LLMs … with mixed results. 5. “Beautiful accent”: Trump’s verdict on Starmer’s voice as the unlikely bromance blossomed. 6. Rent license: Everyone pretended to know about housing law as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faced scrutiny for not having one of these when renting out the family home. 7. Rod fishing license: One for the real hardcore license fans. Then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy faced questions for fishing with U.S. Vice President JD Vance without the right paperwork. In a totally unconnected event, he was reshuffled to the justice department shortly after. 8. Board of Peace: Tony Blair was on the list of people to preside over a post-war Gaza … until he very much wasn’t. 9. Golden economic rule: The Conservatives’ shiny and instantly forgettable plan to restore credibility in managing the public finances. Perhaps the No. 1 rule should have been keeping Liz Truss out of No. 10?   10. Lawyer brain: Starmer was frequently accused of acting like a lawyer, not a leader. At least he had a fixed term back when he was chief prosecutor. 11. Liberation Day: Trump’s big old chart slapped global tariffs on allies and sent Whitehall into a tailspin … before a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) retreat on some of them. 12. The Andrew formerly known as Prince: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had to settle for a hyphenated surname after outrage about his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 13. Raise the colors: Politicians spent the summer showing how much they loved flags as Brits — including organized far-right groups — plastered the Union Jack on every lamppost and roundabout in sight. 14. Lucy Listens: Lucy Powell decided the best way to recover from getting sacked from government was to run for Labour deputy leader, win, and hear endlessly from irate Labour members. 15. Joe Marler: Health Secretary Wes Streeting compared himself to a rugby player from the Celebrity Traitors after he was accused of plotting to oust Starmer. Hanging out in a Scottish castle could be quite cushy if the running-for-PM thing doesn’t work out. 16. Driving the DLR: Starmer’s premiership was compared to steering the, er, driverless part of Transport for London. 17. Double Contributions Convention: National insurance became exciting for a brief second amid a row about the India trade deal. Let’s never make that mistake again. 18. Disruptors: What Starmer wants from his ministers. Alas, they slightly misinterpreted the memo and enjoyed disrupting his leadership instead of the Whitehall status quo. 19. Build Baby Build: Housing Secretary Steve Reed not only mimicked Trump’s words but also donned a red baseball cap. The merch was a treat at Labour conference, but it was all a bit cringe.  20. Trigger Me Timbers: Leaks from this imaginatively-named Labour WhatsApp group saw two MPs suspended for vile language. Remember, assume everything in a group is public.  21. Humphrey: Obviously the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in the classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  21. Humphrey: Obviously, the best-named AI tool ever, the government’s own tech overlord paid tribute to that most conniving of civil servants in classic BBC sitcom “Yes, Minister.”  | David Zorrakino/Europa Press via Getty Images 22. Right to Try: A phrase describing a new guarantee for people entering work — and which might double up as a stirring campaign slogan for the PM. 23. Patriotic renewal: Get those flags out again as No. 10 presses the jargon button to describe what this whole government thing is about. 24. Thatcher Fest: The celebrations marking the centenary of the Iron Lady’s birth knew no bounds. 25. One in, one out: Britain and France struck a treaty for small boat crossings — until one returned migrant recrossed the English Channel to Blighty.   26. Zacktavist: A new generation of Greens got behind “eco-populist” leader Zack Polanksi — and could treat themselves to a mug with his face on for £7 a pop. 27. Yantar: Russia made its meddling against Britain known by deploying a spy ship into territorial waters … although it failed to remain incognito.   28. Two up, two down: Chancellor Rachel Reeves mooted increasing income tax by 2p and cutting national insurance by 2p … before (probably) realizing it would mark the end of her time in the Treasury. 29. Island of strangers: The PM channeled Reform with a speech on migration featuring this phrase. It was compared to former Tory MP Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech … and Starmer later retracted the whole thing. 30. Bob Vylan: A previously obscure rap duo was thrust into the spotlight after calling for “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defence Forces] at Glastonbury. The BBC came under fire, because of course it did. 31. Persistent knobheadery: That’s one way for a Labour source to justify suspending the whip from four MPs. 32. Sexist boys’ club: Setting up a political party is harder than it looks. Who’d have thought it? Ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s tough words for her fellow independent MPs as the flailing Your Party launched meant some of them left anyway. All’s fair in love and war.   33. F**king suck it up: Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tough decisions in these colorful terms. Running a council is pretty tricky. Reform’s Kent County Council Leader Linden Kemkaran told her fellow councilors they’d have to cope with tricky decisions in these colorful terms. | Gareth Fuller/PA Images via Getty Images 34. Three Pads Rayner: Angela Rayner’s tenure as deputy PM and, erm, housing secretary came to an abrupt end after she failed to pay the correct amount of property tax — but not before earning this moniker. 35. Further and faster: How did the government react to its local elections shellacking? By vowing to carry on in exactly the same way, albeit more intensely. 36. Phase Two: Starmer’s much-hyped fall reset of his government was followed by one calamity after another. Not too late for Phase Three! 37. Danish model: Ministers decided migration could be solved by copying Copenhagen. Anything for a trip to the continent.   38. The Liz Truss Show: Britain’s shortest-serving former prime minister used extra time on her hands to woo MAGAland with yet another political podcast. Cannot be unseen.   39. I rise to speak: MPs deploying this phrase gave an instant red flag that they may, just may, have used AI to help write their speeches.  40. Judge Plus: Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s assurance that her assisted dying bill still had plenty of legal safeguards, despite a High Court judge getting dropped from the process.   41. Pride in Place: After Boris Johnson’s “leveling up” (RIP), Labour tries a similar approach in all but name. 42. Waste Files: Elon Musk inspired a host of U.K. DOGE copycats keen to slash complex government budgets from their armchairs. 43. Project Chainsaw: No, Starmer isn’t suddenly a Javier Milei fan, but his government wanted to reshape the state — with some bandying about this subtle, civil service-spooking nickname. 44. Global headwinds: The ultimate euphemism for how the orange-colored elephant in the room changed everything.   45. Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention: Want Britain closer to the EU? Choose a trade agreement guaranteed to send even the most ardent Europhile to sleep. President Trump’s trade wars caused global headwinds throughout the year. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images 46. Headphone dodgers: A nuisance to everyone, the Lib Dems went full throttle by pledging to fine the public transport irritants £1,000. It’s a wonder the party isn’t leading the polls. 47. StormShroud drones: All wars create an opportunity for futuristic tech that hopefully does what it says on the tin. 48. Return hubs: Ministers insist migration definitely isn’t getting outsourced to other countries by mooting third-party “processing” … something Albania won’t even take part in. See also: Deport Now, Appeal Later.  49. Far-right bandwagon: Starmer’s row with Musk reached a crescendo with the PM’s phrase lobbed at some proponents of an inquiry into grooming gangs operating in the U.K. 50. Impossible trilemma: Ahead of the budget, a top think tank warned that Reeves faced the unenviable task of meeting fiscal targets while sticking to spending promises and not raising taxes. No pressure. 51. Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister: Darren Jones’ prefect vibes were rewarded with a brand spanking new gig in the pre-shuffle right at the start of Phase Two. 52. Growth people feel in their pockets: One No. 10 press officer may have collected their P45 after publishing *that* press release. 53. Mainstream: This totally normal, nothing-to-see-here, soft-left Labour group definitely isn’t a vehicle for Andy Burnham’s return to Westminster.   54. Plastic patriots/plastic progressives: The synthetic material really got a kicking from Labour, who deployed the terms to slam Reform and the Greens respectively. Let’s hope voters have reusable bags. 55. Quint: Five lucky people (Starmer, Reeves, Lammy, Jones and Pat McFadden) who apparently decide how government operates. Great job, guys! 56. Hard bastard: The PM’s best effort to show he was “tough enough,” Ed Miliband-style. We all know how that ended.    57. Global Progress Action Summit: Progressives met in a desperate attempt to figure out how to avoid a trouncing from populists. More updates as we get them. 58. Contribution: Reeves’ framing of higher taxes, carefully sidestepping the fact that taxes aren’t optional. 59. Maintenance department: Deffo-not-future Labour leadership contender Wes Streeting’s description of how the party presents itself publicly. Stirring stuff. 60. Terminator: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood earned an Arnie-inspired new nickname as she tried to show Labour is really, really tough on migration, honest. 61. Reverse Midas Touch: Anything the PM touches, including ID cards, is hit by this tragic affliction, according to his critics. 62. V levels: The natural successor to A and T level educational qualifications. Just a matter of time before there’s one for each letter of the alphabet. 63. Culturally coherent: Tory rising star Katie Lam’s justification for deporting legal migrants got her into some hot water. 64. 24/7 circus of sh*t: One former Tory aide’s pithy description of the Home Office. Who are the clowns? 65. Six seven: Nobody over the age of 11 understands this meme — yet the PM unleashed havoc in a classroom by joining in. 66. Civilizational erasure: America’s dystopian portrayal of what Europe is facing probably won’t feature in many tourist brochures. 67. Turning renewal into reality: Starmer’s ambition for next year in his final Cabinet meeting of 2025. Bookmark that one.

Europe’s night trains were hailed as a pillar of the EU’s green-mobility future, but the promised renaissance has stalled — leaving a handful of cash-strapped startups trying to keep the dream alive. The national rail giants best placed to invest see night services as money losers, while the newcomers hungry to run them can’t finance the expensive, highly specialized equipment. “The demand is there,” said Chris Engelsman, co‑founder of startup operator European Sleeper. “People like night trains. They think they’re better for the environment or more efficient — that’s not the issue. The problem is the limitations and bureaucracy of the railway system.” It’s a stalemate that has frozen the revival. “Those that could act don’t want to — and those that want to don’t have the means,” said railway expert Jon Worth. “Try booking a night train months ahead. You can’t. Demand is through the roof. But customer demand doesn’t drive railway behavior.” What does drive it are balance sheets — and most night services lose money. By definition, sleeper trains can run only once per night per trainset, need extra staff on board, and require rolling stock that is highly specific and very expensive. “A coach costs around €2 million, that’s pretty expensive,” said Thibault Constant, founder of French startup Nox Mobility. “Investors look at the history of night trains and say: ‘No way this can be profitable.’” European Sleeper, a Belgian-Dutch company, currently runs with carriages “basically saved from the scrap heap,” Worth noted. “You can’t scale up night trains without building more night trains,” he added. “But no one is making those orders.” Constant described the same chicken‑and‑egg problem. “There is no proof that night trains can be commercially successful right now, so investors don’t believe in the product. We have to show them that we can do better than existing operators — which is a challenge, but there is a way to do so.” Even Austrian state railway operator ÖBB — Europe’s most committed night‑train operator — acknowledged the crunch. “Long delivery times for new vehicles, high personnel costs, and increased night construction sites are major challenges,” an ÖBB spokesperson said. “Night trains are a good addition to daytime rail services … and there is sufficient demand for night trains, and there is a need for more night trains. [But] the costs of operation are limiting the service offering,” they added. German railway operator Deutsche Bahn sounded the same alarm. Even if someone finds the money for new trains, actually running them is another battle. | Alex Halada/Getty Images “Under current political conditions, operating night trains poses a major economic challenge,” said Marco Kampp, DB’s head of international long‑distance transport. “Passenger trains must no longer be disadvantaged compared to air travel and cars — the niche market of night trains is particularly affected by this.” And even if someone finds the money for new trains, actually running them is another battle. Engelsman described constant operational hurdles, including last‑minute messages from rail network managers that effectively say “sorry, your train can’t run for a month,” and a general reluctance from incumbents to help newcomers. Cross‑border bureaucracy makes things worse. “Timetabling is still national,” Engelsman said. When European Sleeper tried to plan its new Brussels–Milan service, it had to negotiate with each country separately. Belgium would first assign a border time that made the whole route commercially useless; then the process had to start again from scratch. “You can’t optimize the whole stretch — you’re stuck adjusting country by country. It’s very inefficient,” he said. Over time, he added, relationships with individual staff in these organizations improve — “they like trains, they like our projects” — but the structures they work within remain slow and rigid. “It’s not the individuals. It’s the bureaucracy.” According to Worth, the promised renaissance of night trains never materialized because it wasn’t grounded in rolling stock, financing or real coordination. “There was lots of hope, but not much planning,” he said. Even the flagship Paris–Vienna route run with ÖBB fell apart once French government subsidies vanished. “[French rail operator] SNCF didn’t want to run it. The moment the subsidy disappeared, they walked away,” he said. START-UP TIME Despite all this, a new wave of operators is still trying. Startups such as European Sleeper are expanding cautiously. Nox Mobility is experimenting with leased coaches to lower capital costs and redesign how a sleeper service works — from ticketing and pricing to onboard offerings. “We’re essentially rethinking the whole ecosystem,” Constant said. For European Sleeper, Worth noted, the key question is whether it can squeeze a break‑even operation out of its patched‑together, aging trains long enough to build the financial footing needed to buy new ones. For Nox, the equation is even starker: “How does Nox get the money?” Worth said. “That’s the most important question by quite some distance.” On paper, there is a list of potential routes and projects that could form the backbone of a real revival — if the money and the trains materialize. Worth pointed to plans in Central Europe as the most realistic starting point. “If they start by focusing in Central Europe, not France and Spain but Germany and its neighbors, then they have a real chance of success,” he said. Beyond that, the picture is hazier. A proposed overnight service by the Swiss Federal Railways from Basel to Malmö will not go ahead as planned after Swiss lawmakers scrapped the funding needed to support it. There are “odds and ends,” as Worth put it: some carriage renovations in Slovakia and Poland that may or may not turn into viable services. Rail Baltica, the new north-south line through the Baltics, is supposed to host night trains to Tallinn when it opens around 2030, but, Worth noted, “no one knows where those trains are going to come from,” and he was skeptical it will happen as advertised. Constant said “it will get easier” as more private players enter the market and infrastructure managers adapt. Worth said new projects “will happen” — but only in minimal form until someone funds large‑scale carriage production. Thijmen van Reijsen, an urban mobility researcher at Radbout University, summed it up: “There’s demand. People want night trains. But for now, the problems are structural — rolling stock, funding, cooperation, infrastructure.” Even ÖBB admitted to the limits: “Night trains are a niche market and will remain so.” All of these dysfunctions can be explained, Worth concluded, “but the question is: who’s going to step up and fix it?”

A fair, fast and competitive transition begins with what already works and then rapidly scales it up.  Across the EU commercial road transport sector, the diversity of operations is met with a diversity of solutions. Urban taxis are switching to electric en masse. Many regional coaches run on advanced biofuels, with electrification emerging in smaller applications such as school services, as European e-coach technologies are still maturing and only now beginning to enter the market. Trucks electrify rapidly where operationally and financially possible, while others, including long-haul and other hard-to-electrify segments, operate at scale on HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane, cutting emissions immediately and reliably. These are real choices made every day by operators facing different missions, distances, terrains and energy realities, showing that decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones.  Building on this diversity, many operators are already modernizing their fleets and cutting emissions through electrification. When they can control charging, routing and energy supply, electric vehicles often deliver a positive total cost of ownership (TCO), strong reliability and operational benefits. These early adopters prove that electrification works where the enabling conditions are in place, and that its potential can expand dramatically with the right support. > Decarbonization is not a single pathway but a spectrum of viable ones chosen > daily by operators facing real-world conditions. But scaling electrification faces structural bottlenecks. Grid capacity is constrained across the EU, and upgrades routinely take years. As most heavy-duty vehicle charging will occur at depots, operators cannot simply move around to look for grid opportunities. They are bound to the location of their facilities.  The recently published grid package tries, albeit timidly, to address some of these challenges, but it neither resolves the core capacity deficiencies nor fixes the fundamental conditions that determine a positive TCO: the predictability of electricity prices, the stability of delivered power, and the resulting charging time. A truck expected to recharge in one hour at a high-power station may wait far longer if available grid power drops. Without reliable timelines, predictable costs and sufficient depot capacity, most transport operators cannot make long-term investment decisions. And the grid is only part of the enabling conditions needed: depot charging infrastructure itself requires significant additional investment, on top of vehicles that already cost several hundreds of thousands of euros more than their diesel equivalents.  This is why the EU needs two things at once: strong enablers for electrification and hydrogen; and predictability on what the EU actually recognizes as clean. Operators using renewable fuels, from biomethane to advanced biofuels and HVO, delivering up to 90 percent CO2 reduction, are cutting emissions today. Yet current CO2 frameworks, for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, fail to recognize fleets running on these fuels as part of the EU’s decarbonization solution for road transport, even when they deliver immediate, measurable climate benefits. This lack of clarity limits investment and slows additional emission reductions that could happen today. > Policies that punish before enabling will not accelerate the transition; a > successful shift must empower operators, not constrain them. The revision of both CO2 standards, for cars and vans, and for heavy-duty vehicles, will therefore be pivotal. They must support electrification and hydrogen where they fit the mission, while also recognizing the contribution of renewable and low-carbon fuels across the fleet. Regulations that exclude proven clean options will not accelerate the transition. They will restrict it.  With this in mind, the question is: why would the EU consider imposing purchasing mandates on operators or excessively high emission-reduction targets on member states that would, in practice, force quotas on buyers? Such measures would punish before enabling, removing choice from those who know their operations best. A successful transition must empower operators, not constrain them.  The EU’s transport sector is committed and already delivering. With the right enablers, a technology-neutral framework, and clarity on what counts as clean, the EU can turn today’s early successes into a scalable, fair and competitive decarbonization pathway.  We now look with great interest to the upcoming Automotive Package, hoping to see pragmatic solutions to these pressing questions, solutions that EU transport operators, as the buyers and daily users of all these technologies, are keenly expecting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is IRU – International Road Transport Union  * The ultimate controlling entity is IRU – International Road Transport Union  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The EU has struck a political agreement to overhaul the bloc’s foreign direct investment screening rules, the Council of the EU announced on Thursday, in a move to prevent strategic technology and critical infrastructure from falling into the hands of hostile powers. The updated rules — the first major plank of European Commission President’s Ursula von der Leyen’s economic security strategy — would require all EU countries to systematically monitor investments and further harmonize the way those are screened within the bloc. The agreement comes just over a week after Brussels unveiled a new economic security package. Under the new rules, EU countries would be required to screen investments in dual-use items and military equipment; technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and semiconductors; raw materials; energy, transport and digital infrastructure; and election infrastructure, such as voting systems and databases. As previously reported by POLITICO, foreign entities investing into specific financial services must also be subject to screening by EU capitals. “We achieved a balanced and proportionate framework, focused on the most sensitive technologies and infrastructures, respectful of national prerogatives and efficient for authorities and businesses alike,” said Morten Bødskov, Denmark’s minister for industry, business and financial affairs. It took three round of political talks between the three institutions to seal the update, which was a key priority for the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU. One contentious question was which technologies and sectors should be subject to mandatory screening. Another was how capitals and the European Commission should coordinate — and who gets the final say — when a deal raises red flags. Despite a request from the European Parliament, the Commission will not get the authority to arbitrate disputes between EU countries on specific investment cases. Screening decisions will remain firmly in the purview of national governments. “We’re making progress. The result of our negotiations clearly strengthens the EU’s security while also making life easier for investors by harmonising the Member States’ screening mechanism,” said the lead lawmaker on the file, French S&D Raphaël Glucksmann. “Yet more remains to be done to ensure that investments bring real added value to the EU, so that our market does not become a playground for foreign companies exploiting our dependence on their technology. The Commission has committed to take an initiative; it must now act quickly,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. This story has been updated.

LONDON — The British government hit back Wednesday after Donald Trump launched his latest broadside at London Mayor Sadiq Khan. The U.S. president told POLITICO in an interview Monday that Khan was “a horrible mayor” who had made the British capital city a  “different place” to what it once was. Trump added of Khan: “He’s an incompetent mayor, but he’s a horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor. I think he’s done a terrible job. London’s a different place. I love London. I love London. And I hate to see it happen.” Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, a member of the U.K. cabinet, pushed backed at those remarks Wednesday, and heaped praise on her fellow Labour politician. “I strongly disagree with those comments,” she told Sky News. “I think Sadiq is doing a really good job and has been at the forefront of providing affordable housing [and] improvements to transport.” Nandy said Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had offered a model for the U.K. government to follow nationally. “He’s been one of the people who has set up multi-agency approaches to help young people with knife crime, gang violence that we’re learning from in government,” she said. “So I strongly disagree.” Asked explicitly if Trump’s comments were wrong, Nandy replied: “Yes he is.” In his wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, the U.S. president also claimed Khan — who has won three consecutive terms as mayor of London and has no power to determine national migration policy — had been elected “because so many people have come in. They vote for him now.” Pushed on why Prime Minister Keir Starmer hadn’t explicitly defended Khan from Trump’s attack, Nandy said she knows “the prime minister would disagree with those comments.” She added: “I’m sure that if you asked the prime minister if he was sitting in this studio today, he would say what I’ve said, which is that Sadiq is doing an incredibly good job for London. We’re proud of our mayors.” Khan told POLITICO Tuesday the U.S. president was “obsessed” with him and claimed Americans were “flocking” to live in London, because its liberal values are the “antithesis” of Trump’s. It’s not the first beef between the two politicians.  Trump once called Khan a “stone cold loser” and “very dumb” — after Khan compared Trump to “the fascists of the 20th century.” In 2018, Khan allowed anti-Trump activists to fly a blimp over parliament showing Trump as a crying baby in a diaper during his first state visit.

BRUSSELS — Postponing the start of the EU’s new carbon levy for building and road transport emissions by one year to 2028 is going to cost European governments lots of money, according to a top Danish official. Denmark, for instance, is estimated to lose half a billion euros in future revenues from the delay of the new carbon market (known as ETS2), said Christian Stenberg, deputy permanent secretary of state at the Danish climate ministry, at POLITICO’s Sustainable Future Summit. “The delay will mean that we will lack that tool for one year,” he told a panel discussion. “It will cost us quite a bit of revenue that we could have gotten,” he added. “About €0.5 billion.” “For the Danish economy [it] is not little.” To bring more skeptical EU countries on board, like Poland, Italy and Romania, and reach a deal on the EU’s new climate target for 2040, environment ministers pushed the European Commission to agree to postpone the new carbon pricing mechanism by one year. Stenberg explained that, as the talks over the 2040 climate target stretched overnight, he “had to go back to my finance ministry in the middle of the night and say the compromise will cost us this in revenue.” But the ETS2, which has raised concerns in a majority of EU governments that it will increase energy bills, is “the most cost effective way of reaching our targets within transportation and buildings,” Stenberg argued. “And cost effectiveness, at the end of the day, is to the benefit of the economy.” Chiara Martinelli, director of the NGO Climate Action Network Europe, also said on the panel that the delay of the new carbon market is “problematic,” and called on the EU to ensure that social measures to support people in the green transition come with the ETS2.