Europe’s chemical industry has reached a breaking point. The warning lights are no longer blinking — they are blazing. Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out before our eyes. Consider the energy situation: this year European gas prices have stood at 2.9 times higher than in the United States. What began as a temporary shock is now a structural disadvantage. High energy costs are becoming Europe’s new normal, with no sign of relief. This is not sustainable for an energy-intensive sector that competes globally every day. Without effective infrastructure and targeted energy-cost relief — including direct support, tax credits and compensation for indirect costs from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) — we are effectively asking European companies and their workers to compete with their hands tied behind their backs. > Unless Europe changes course immediately, we risk watching an entire > industrial backbone, with the countless jobs it supports, slowly hollow out > before our eyes. The impact is already visible. This year, EU27 chemical production fell by a further 2.5 percent, and the sector is now operating 9.5 percent below pre-crisis capacity. These are not just numbers, they are factories scaling down, investments postponed and skilled workers leaving sites. This is what industrial decline looks like in real time. We are losing track of the number of closures and job losses across Europe, and this is accelerating at an alarming pace. And the world is not standing still. In the first eight months of 2025, EU27 chemicals exports dropped by €3.5 billion, while imports rose by €3.2 billion. The volume trends mirror this: exports are down, imports are up. Our trade surplus shrank to €25 billion, losing €6.6 billion in just one year. Meanwhile, global distortions are intensifying. Imports, especially from China, continue to increase, and new tariff policies from the United States are likely to divert even more products toward Europe, while making EU exports less competitive. Yet again, in 2025, most EU trade defense cases involved chemical products. In this challenging environment, EU trade policy needs to step up: we need fast, decisive action against unfair practices to protect European production against international trade distortions. And we need more free trade agreements to access growth market and secure input materials. “Open but not naïve” must become more than a slogan. It must shape policy. > Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in > the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported > products meet those same standards. Europe is also struggling to enforce its own rules at the borders and online. Our producers comply with the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world. Yet resource-constrained authorities cannot ensure that imported products meet those same standards. This weak enforcement undermines competitiveness and safety, while allowing products that would fail EU scrutiny to enter the single market unchecked. If Europe wants global leadership on climate, biodiversity and international chemicals management, credibility starts at home. Regulatory uncertainty adds to the pressure. The Chemical Industry Action Plan recognizes what industry has long stressed: clarity, coherence and predictability are essential for investment. Clear, harmonized rules are not a luxury — they are prerequisites for maintaining any industrial presence in Europe. This is where REACH must be seen for what it is: the world’s most comprehensive piece of legislation governing chemicals. Yet the real issues lie in implementation. We therefore call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text. Industry is facing too many headwinds already. Simplification can be achieved without weakening standards, but this requires a clear political choice. We call on European policymakers to restore the investment and profitability of our industry for Europe. Only then will the transition to climate neutrality, circularity, and safe and sustainable chemicals be possible, while keeping our industrial base in Europe. > Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular > future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. In this context, the ETS must urgently evolve. With enabling conditions still missing, like a market for low-carbon products, energy and carbon infrastructures, access to cost-competitive low-carbon energy sources, ETS costs risk incentivizing closures rather than investment in decarbonization. This may reduce emissions inside the EU, but it does not decarbonize European consumption because production shifts abroad. This is what is known as carbon leakage, and this is not how EU climate policy intends to reach climate neutrality. The system needs urgent repair to avoid serious consequences for Europe’s industrial fabric and strategic autonomy, with no climate benefit. These shortcomings must be addressed well before 2030, including a way to neutralize ETS costs while industry works toward decarbonization. Our industry is an enabler of the transition to a climate-neutral and circular future, but we need support for technologies that will define that future. Europe must ensure that chemical recycling, carbon capture and utilization, and bio-based feedstocks are not only invented here, but also fully scaled here. Complex permitting, fragmented rules and insufficient funding are slowing us down while other regions race ahead. Decarbonization cannot be built on imported technology — it must be built on a strong EU industrial presence. Critically, we must stimulate markets for sustainable products that come with an unavoidable ‘green premium’. If Europe wants low-carbon and circular materials, then fiscal, financial and regulatory policy recipes must support their uptake — with minimum recycled or bio-based content, new value chain mobilizing schemes and the right dose of ‘European preference’. If we create these markets but fail to ensure that European producers capture a fair share, we will simply create new opportunities for imports rather than European jobs. > If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and > beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. The Critical Chemicals Alliance offers a path forward. Its primary goal will be to tackle key issues facing the chemical sector, such as risks of closures and trade challenges, and to support modernization and investments in critical productions. It will ultimately enable the chemical industry to remain resilient in the face of geopolitical threats, reinforcing Europe’s strategic autonomy. But let us be honest: time is no longer on our side. Europe’s chemical industry is the foundation of countless supply chains — from clean energy to semiconductors, from health to mobility. If we allow this foundation to erode, every other strategic ambition becomes more fragile. If you weren’t already alarmed — you should be. This is a wake-up call. Not for tomorrow, for now. Energy support, enforceable rules, smart regulation, strategic trade policies and demand-driven sustainability are not optional. They are the conditions for survival. If Europe wants a strong, innovative resilient chemical industry in 2030 and beyond, the decisions must be made today. The window is closing fast. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  * The ultimate controlling entity is CEFIC- The European Chemical Industry Council  More information here.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is dialing reform, but not everyone is picking up. Following years of talks, Brussels is almost ready to drop a long-awaited telecommunication blueprint designed to upgrade networks and support the industry. The Digital Networks Act, expected to land Dec. 16, will overhaul the current rulebook to make it easier for operators to roll out 5G and fiber, and boost investment in Europe’s digital infrastructure. But it’s likely to upset players from national governments to tech firms in the process. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits — and take European networks to the next level. “Never has connectivity been so important to the life of people” but “at the same time, our industry has trouble in many regions to achieve a decent return on capital,” said Vivek Badrinath, the boss of global mobile association GSMA. But not everyone is buying the crisis pitch — here are the battle lines ahead of the proposal. BIG TELCOS VS. BIG TECH Years of lobbying by Europe’s top telcos to have data-hungry platforms such as TikTok, Netflix and Google’s YouTube help foot the bill for network expansion seem to have paid off. The Commission is now weighing how to tackle “challenges in the cooperation” between tech and telecom players in its reforms. One of the options on the table is turning into a political minefield: Empowering regulators to settle potential disputes between the two groups over how they handle traffic. Opponents of regulatory intervention fear that it will give operators a way to pressure content providers for payments, akin to the unpopular proposal known as “fair share” that was floated under the last Commission. At worst, they say, it could even upend the internet as we know it by undermining net neutrality — the principle that service providers need to treat all traffic equally, without throttling or censoring. “This would have immediate and far-reaching consequences, harming European consumers, businesses, digital rights and the sustainability of the creative and cultural sectors, ultimately risking a fragmented Internet and single market,” a broad coalition, ranging from civil society and media organizations to audiovisual players, wrote earlier this month. The continent’s biggest telecom companies have long argued that stifling rules and a fragmented single market make it hard for them to scale and earn sustainable profits. | Andy Rain/EPA Regulators themselves say they don’t see any market failure, or need for a legislative fix. “It’s increasingly hard for me to think that the Commission is approaching this in good faith because they cannot ignore the chaotic impact that something like this would have,” said Benoît Felten, an expert at Plum Consulting who authored a study on the topic commissioned by Big Tech lobby CCIA. Tech companies will fight tooth and nail against any move to hold them to the same obligations that telecom operators have to follow. “The same service, same rules principle should be a no-brainer,” said Alessandro Gropelli, the boss of telecom trade association Connect Europe. “You cannot have competitiveness if one party is playing the game with their hand tied behind their back and the other party is playing the same game with both hands.” INCUMBENTS VS. CHALLENGERS Brussels’ deregulatory mood is further deepening rifts between Europe’s top telecom providers and their challengers, who have long praised the existing rulebook that they say enables them to take on legacy players. “The Commission wants to deregulate dogmatically” in order “to boost the largest operators in Europe,” said Luc Hindryckx, the director general of the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, a trade body. “One way to do it is to weaken the competition to allow a few incumbents to make it through and pave the way for consolidation, because if the competitors are on the verge of bankruptcy, they will ask to be merged.” Telecom challengers are up in arms against the direction of travel, which could see the Commission dial down the regulatory pressure on Europe’s legacy telcos to open their ducts and fiber lines to competitors. The EU executive wants to move away from heavy, upfront rules and closer scrutiny of dominant players to prevent abuse, instead relying on standard law enforcement. It argues the current system worked to boost competition but has outlived its purpose. It is “alarming that the European Commission is now proposing to relax regulation on former fixed monopolies,” a coalition of nine network operators wrote in a letter this month. Signatories — including France’s Iliad and the U.K.’s Vodafone — called out the proposed “backwards step” and warned against the risk of “re-monopolisation.” This shift, the opponents say, could unravel years of progress by undermining market predictability, deterring investment and pushing up wholesale prices — costs that would inevitably be passed on to consumers. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said. | Robert Ghement/EPA “In Germany, it seems that people never run a red light. One could say that people no longer run red lights and then change the law that says running a red light is a major offense. What do you think is going to happen?” Hindryckx quipped. The legacy players don’t agree. “The current ex-ante system leads to low investments and harms roll-out of innovative networks,” said Gropelli from Connect Europe. “Reform is a must, or we’ll remain global laggards in roll-out of critical networks.” CAPITALS VS. BRUSSELS National governments also aren’t cheering the reforms, with EU capitals bristling at the idea of Brussels muscling in on territory they consider their own. That’s the case for the allocation of spectrum — the finite and very much in-demand resource powering wireless communications, which is auctioned at a national level for billions of euros. “5G has been a disaster because the real 5G is hardly here,” the Commission’s top digital civil servant Roberto Viola said in September. “We have been sleeping and lost fifteen years in discussing … who should assign the frequencies,” he said. Still, the topic is largely off the table for national governments. “Spectrum harmonization is not the favorite topic of member countries,” Katalin Molnár, the ambassador for Hungary, said last year as the country chaired talks among EU governments on the issue. The current cooperation between countries “works well,” the 27 EU nations said in a joint position, emphasizing that spectrum management is a “key public policy tool” that falls under a “sustained significance of member states’ national competencies in that regard.” This will be a major red line for the Council of the EU, where capitals will eventually hammer out their position on the reforms. The industry, however, says reforms are essential for the economic benefits that the EU is craving. “The wind has never been as strong in the sails of the ship that goes towards a more efficient telecom market today,” GSMA’s Badrinath said. “Is that enough to get the right outcome? Well, that’s what we want to believe.”

Global leaders will soon gather in Sevilla, Spain, for a historic UN Financing for Development Conference — which will set the agenda for how the global economic system will serve development in the coming years. This is the first ever to take place on European soil and the stakes could not be higher. There are 3.3 billion people who live in countries that spend more on debt interest payments than they do on health or education. This is more than seven times the population of Europe. This money could instead be spent on essential climate investments and basic public services. Many of the same countries are also being hit by the slashing of aid budgets by rich countries, with devastating impacts on initiatives that support health and education, safeguard democracy and defend human rights. However, the European position for the conference does not seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation and the extent of reforms that are necessary to fix the problems. Europe seems intent on holding on to a dysfunctional status quo instead of supporting the much-needed reform that countries from the global south are asking for. It wasn’t always like this. Europe helped launch the global financing for development agenda in 2002 with the Monterrey Consensus, a bold agreement that promised action on unsustainable debt, increased development aid and fairer taxation. Now, 23 years later, European governments are poised to abandon many of these commitments, despite an even bigger debt crisis raging in the global south. Instead of backing an intergovernmental UN process toward a debt convention, which is supported among others by the Alliance of Small Island Developing States, the African Union and the European Parliament’s Development Committee, European governments are pushing for a watered-down “annual dialogue” involving mostly creditors and a select few borrowing countries. This will be little more than a talking shop that favors the undemocratic, creditor-dominated status quo. They must reverse this stance and back genuine reform. > This will be little more than a talking shop that favors the undemocratic, > creditor-dominated status quo. They must reverse this stance and back genuine > reform. Aid is another urgent issue that has to be addressed. Most European governments have repeatedly stated their decades-old commitment to devote 0.7 percent of GNI to overseas development assistance. But the numbers tell a different story. Aid from rich countries dropped by 7.1 percent in 2024, with the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden all announcing cuts this year. The state of global aid is deteriorating rapidly, even though global crises demand more, not less, support. > The state of global aid is deteriorating rapidly, even though global crises > demand more, not less, support. Global south countries and civil society around the world have called for a UN-led process to build consensus on a shared understanding of official development assistance (ODA) parameters, and to develop a new framework that ensures equity, effectiveness and accountability. Yet European governments seem ready to support an OECD-led reflection process. This is not what is needed. The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, with its exclusive membership, won’t be able to deliver. A similar process set up more than a decade ago did not result in any improvements in the way aid is governed. Meanwhile, the EU continues to promote its Global Gateway investment initiative, despite widespread concern that it prioritizes European business interests over genuine poverty reduction and sustainable development in partner countries. The EU could also build up some goodwill in the negotiations by endorsing the terms of reference — the mandate — of the ongoing UN tax convention negotiations. Spearheaded by the Africa Group, the UN General Assembly decided to negotiate a new convention by 2027. International tax cooperation is a cornerstone of the current effort to shore up finance for development and climate. It remains the most sustainable source of funding for public services such as healthcare, education and environmental protection. However, the current global tax system is littered with loopholes and undermined by tax havens. It also disproportionately benefits the home countries of investors and corporations. As a result, multinational corporations and wealthy individuals can reap financial rewards from developing countries without paying much — if any — tax, neither in these countries nor globally. And when wealthy individuals and corporations use tax havens to dodge their fair share of tax, governments often shift the burden on to the poorest through higher taxes on consumers and workers. These regressive tax systems exacerbate inequalities. > And when wealthy individuals and corporations use tax havens to dodge their > fair share of tax, governments often shift the burden on to the poorest > through higher taxes on consumers and workers. Like aid, this system has been largely designed through the OECD, where countries from the global south lack an equal footing. Endorsing the mandate for the UN Tax Convention would signal Europe’s commitment to a more inclusive, just and sustainable global tax framework. Before any attempts to close the Financing for Development outcome document, which will set the agenda for the coming years, European governments should show political will to help build a global economic system that is more just and capable of addressing the urgent challenges of our time. More than 200 civil society organizations and individuals have signed a letter urging European leaders to commit to this transformative agenda. The path it chooses will not only define Europe’s global credibility, but shape the lives of billions around the world This article is supported by ActionAid, Act Church of Sweden, Caritas Europa, CAN Europe Christian Aid, Oil Change International.  

LONDON — Reform UK voters are significantly more skeptical about continued British support for Ukraine than their counterparts in the country’s other main parties, new research shared with POLITICO shows. A third (33 percent) of Reform UK voters think Britain should cut its contributions to Ukraine’s war effort if President Donald Trump reduces U.S. support, the Opinium survey — designed by foreign policy analyst Sophia Gaston for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank — found. That figure stands at 19 percent for Conservative voters and just 15 percent for Labour voters. The researchers polled 2,050 adults between Jan. 8 and 10, with the figures weighted to ensure they are representative. The findings come as the right-wing Reform challenges Keir Starmer’s incumbent Labour government in the polls and amid a live debate about deepening British involvement in Ukraine. Trump is pushing ahead with peace talks with Russia after years of conflict and has heavily signaled reduced American involvement in European security. The research shows that Reform voters’ views on foreign policy are nuanced. “Reform voters are concerned about China, supportive of higher defence spending, and believe in the efficacy of the AUKUS security pact,” it notes. “Reform voters …  are more impatient about bringing the conflict to an end,” Sophia Gaston said. | Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images “They are, however, reticent for the U.K. to play a larger role in world affairs, and outliers in their skepticism towards funding for Ukraine,” it adds. Thirty-nine percent of Reform voters questioned said they would support maintaining British contributions to Ukraine at their current levels if the America pulls back. That is on a par with the other main parties. Some 41 percent of Conservatives back keeping current support levels in such a situation — while 39 percent of Labour voters say the same. However, on upping British contributions for Ukraine in the absence of the U.S., Reform voters appear more wary than their counterparts in the other main parties. Just 13 percent said they would back increased U.K. help for Ukraine’s fight if Trump cuts it. For Tory voters, that figure is higher, at 25 percent. For Labour voters it stands at 30 percent. “Reform voters …  are more impatient about bringing the conflict to an end,” Gaston said. “They tend to be less enthusiastic advocates for the ‘as long as it takes’ rhetoric favored by both the established parties.” TICE: TRUMP CAN BANG HEADS TOGETHER Since February 2022, there has been a near unanimous agreement in Westminster for standing behind Kyiv. Under both the Tories and Labour, £12.8 billion has been given to Ukraine’s war effort. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged £3 billion per year for “as long as it takes,” and this week broke cover to pledge British boots on the ground as part of a post-war peacekeeping force. Reform UK Leader Farage, the longstanding Brexit campaigner who entered parliament last July with four colleagues, has challenged that consensus. He has argued the war needs “concessions on both sides,” dismissed the idea of Ukraine winning the conflict as “for the birds” and questioned Britain’s decision to allow Ukraine to fire its long-range missiles inside Russia.  Reform’s Deputy Leader Richard Tice told POLITICO: “We have to stop the senseless killing and Trump is best placed to do that by banging heads together.” | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images While Labour strategists believe they can paint Farage as unpatriotic, he argued last week that Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO — putting him at odds with his longstanding ally in the White House, Donald Trump. Reform’s Deputy Leader Richard Tice told POLITICO: “We have to stop the senseless killing and Trump is best placed to do that by banging heads together.”  Starmer’s insistence the U.K. is “ready and willing” to deploy British peacekeepers hasn’t gone down well among’s Reform’s top brass. “We can’t even protect our own borders, and Starmer is aiming to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine,” tweeted MP Rupert Lowe Monday. “They’ve always been very good at mopping up support from people who are dissatisfied, distrusting and disapproving,” said Deltapoll director Joe Twyman, a public opinion researcher, of Reform.

LJUBLJANA — It’s a story known around the world: A village girl from a communist country rises to become the first foreign-born United States first lady in more than a century. But according to locals, much of Melania Trump’s early life — particularly her background and the history of the small Austrian-influenced Slavic country split between Central Europe and the Balkans — has been heavily exoticized for American audiences. “The mischaracterization and misinterpretation of our people certainly angers those of us in Slovenia,” Srečko Ocvirk, the mayor of her hometown of Sevnica, told POLITICO. “The quality of life and level of development of our country was not represented in a factual manner,” he continued. Ocvirk remembers how, a decade ago, film crews and reporters from around the world descended on his picturesque hamlet, nestled between lush forests and mountains along the Sava River, eager to uncover juicy stories about the childhood of the woman once known as Melanija Knavs. When their search yielded little to go on, they defaulted to the familiar rags-to-riches narrative often attributed to individuals — especially women — originating from Eastern Europe. In her recently published autobiography, Melania challenges this narrative, echoing many of the sentiments often expressed by Slovenes when discussing her portrayal. While Slovenia was part of the socialist federation of Yugoslavia, it was far from resembling the Soviet Union in terms of general quality of life, individual rights and its relationship to the West. ‘REAL LIFE IN SLOVENIA’ Slovenia stood out for its industrial and cultural development during and before the 20th century. Melania’s hometown was home to renowned textile manufacturers like Lisca and Kopitarna shoemakers, tracing its roots back to the early days of 19th century industrialization. Melania’s hometown, Sevnica. | Jack Taylor/Getty Images With Donald Trump being inaugurated on Monday for another term, the initial shock value of having an American first lady who speaks accented English seems to have somewhat worn off the second time around. “The reporting has become much more balanced, and in a way, journalists and media companies seem to have finally caught up with real life in Slovenia,” Ocvirk said. Despite their ire, inhabitants of “Sevnica are happy for” the U.S. first lady, he said. “We perceive [Melania’s return to the White House] with satisfaction and pride, above all, those citizens who know the Knavs family and are their friends,” he concluded. Slovenian film director Jurij Gruden also felt the “Melania effect” when he decided to make the first documentary-length production on the first lady. He admits that he wasn’t particularly interested in her life until his foreign colleagues pointed out that this was a once-in-a-lifetime moment for his home country — one worth documenting. “While making this documentary, I also got to experience what it means to be part of the Trump ecosystem in terms of the attention, but also at times the immediate and automatic condemnation it draws, even when you’re just doing a documentary,” he said. The reactions of colleagues and others was harsh when he told them what he was working on. “The polarization is insanely strong and it immediately affects you when you cover her or the Trumps in general,” explained Gruden. “It’s difficult to have a rational conversation, no matter what side of the political spectrum you belong to,” he said. ‘AN ATYPICAL SLOVENIAN’ Both Gruden and Ocvirk stressed that their interest in or support of Melania Trump was not a political endorsement of the policies of her husband. Do Slovenes resent Melania for anything? Perhaps for being very un-Slovene in her limited relationship with the country. “The reactions to Melania are still somewhat mixed. Some in Slovenia don’t like her because she seems to show barely any interest in [the] country itself, not having visited for many years,” explained Gruden. “This makes her an atypical Slovenian.” This is despite the fact that both Melania and her son, Barron, speak Slovenian and hold European Union citizenship. Notably, she is also the first American first lady to be an EU citizen. The current president of Slovenia, Nataša Pirc Musar, was Melania’s lawyer before she entered politics. Ultimately, the simplistic coverage of her background could boil down to the classic American disinterest in the complexities — and contradictions — of the old continent. “I’m thrilled she’s back. It might not be easy for people in the U.S., but for those of us watching from the sidelines, it’s going to be entertaining to follow,” Gruden concluded with a laugh.

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN — Just by turning up at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Keir Starmer is sending a signal. The U.K. prime minister wants to show that — whatever else is going on in the world — his new government cares about the global fight against climate change.  That fight, Starmer said last year, is “probably the single biggest issue” facing the world. But is anyone listening? The leaders of the U.S, China, France, Germany, Japan and India have all skipped this week’s get-together in Azerbaijan.  As a result, Starmer suddenly finds himself top billing. And that’s right where the U.K.’s Labour government wants to be; Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who will lead negotiations at COP, has recently vowed to fill a “vacuum in leadership” on climate change.  The world has changed substantially in the last week with the reelection in the U.S. of Donald Trump — a man who last week called climate change a “hoax” and who is expected to push climate action further and further down the international agenda. TWO PRIORITIES With fellow climate-conscious European leaders including Emmanuel Macron of France and Germany’s Olaf Scholz facing political instability at home, and a very different president in the White House, Starmer may find any role as a global climate leader a lonely one. “I’m not going to comment on his views,” the prime minister told reporters aboard his plane to Baku, when reminded of Trump’s words. “I am very clear in mine,” he continued, “which is that the climate challenge is something that we have got to rise to — and that’s why I’ve repeatedly said we’ve got to show leadership.” Starmer’s pitch to Trump and other opponents of climate action is simple. If global warming is left to rip, it will devastate two things Trump’s voters – and disenchanted populations across the West including the U.K. — care about: economic growth and security, including border security.  These, Starmer said en route to Baku, are “the two key priorities for me in all of the engagements with our partners.” And he eyed the possibility that a Trumpist U.S. withdrawal from the green growth agenda might even help the U.K. get ahead. “There’s a race on now to be the global leader on this,” he said. “I want us to be in the race and I want us to win the race.” NEW TARGET INCOMING With Trump returning to the White House, senior U.K. figures from previous COP summits are ratcheting the pressure on Starmer to step up and provide leadership on the global climate agenda. “If the new Trump administration decides to walk away from the Paris Agreement for a second time and retreats from climate leadership, I hope other nations will step forward to try to fill some of the breach, including the new U.K. government,” said Alok Sharma, who served as president of COP26 when the U.K. played host three years ago. On Tuesday, Starmer is expected to unveil an ambitious new emissions cutting target — an attempt to raise the bar for other countries setting their 2035 goals ahead of the next COP, due next year in Brazil. The deadline for those targets is February. But, alongside the Brazilians, the U.K. has got in early, in the hope other countries will then raise their own ambitions.  Last month the U.K. government’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, recommended an ambitious target of an 81 percent emissions cut on 1990 levels. All eyes will be on Starmer to see if he sticks to that number. The remainder of the Azerbaijan summit will focus on a thornier issue for wealthy nations such as the U.K. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY The main aim of the conference is to agree on a new goal for climate finance — the money which flows from developed countries to poorer nations to help them transition away from fossil fuels. Developing countries have called for publicly-funded contributions from wealthy governments to reach $1 trillion annually. Even before Trump’s victory, that sort of figure clashed with straitened finances and demands on Starmer to fix the public sector at home. Flying into the summit, he confirmed that the U.K. would honor a longstanding commitment to spend £11.6 billion on climate finance from 2021/22 to 2025/26 — a pledge that had been wobbling. But he went no further when asked if he backed the $1 trillion aspiration. “I’m not making any commitment for the U.K. at this COP at all on that front,” Starmer said, adding that it was now “high time” for the private sector “to start paying their fair share.” It is not a surprising message in Baku, where all rich countries are dragging their feet over funding commitments. But it will do little to reassure campaigners hoping for that promised U.K. leadership. “The U.K.’s legacy as a major polluter has placed a burden squarely on the shoulders of those that have contributed the least to the climate crisis,” said Taahra Ghazi, co-chief executive of the ActionAid UK charity. “It’s time to pay the price.”

Donald Trump never stops talking about immigration, trade and the economy. Those policy areas have animated all three of the former president’s campaigns for the White House, and he often finds ways to morph other topics into border security, tariffs, taxes and inflation when he’s riffing on the campaign trail. And for years — amid an influx of migrants and the rising price of everyday goods — Trump has had fodder to throw at the Biden administration. Trump has at times leaned further into his positions on these issues during his latest campaign — not just promising to seal the border with Mexico, but now saying he will conduct the largest deportation in American history. And while Trump’s pick for vice president, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), had repeatedly said he didn’t like Trump before joining the ticket, he is now, in some ways, a complement to Trump: a young populist conservative from humbler beginnings, far from the coastal elite. Vance also echoes a lot of Trump’s foreign policy views and  immigration restrictions. Here’s a crash course on where the Trump-Vance ticket stands on key issues, how their positions may play with voters and whether they are becoming the target of Democratic attacks. ABORTION Donald Trump: “As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother — the same position taken by Ronald Reagan.” JD Vance: “The question to me really is about the baby. We want women to have opportunities, we want women to have choices, but above all, we want women and young boys in the womb to have the right to life.” Trump has long said he believes abortion restrictions should be decided by the states while noting that he supports exceptions for rape and incest. But after he followed through on his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices  who would help overturn Roe v. Wade, a position that won him support among religious conservatives, the issue has gotten only more complicated for him. The GOP saw backlash in the midterms among a key group of voters — white women with college degrees — linked to the fall of Roe. Trump has been working to not risk losing that bloc in November while also keeping his base happy, many of whom are clamoring for more restrictions. The Trump campaign has, at times, avoided the issue and doesn’t list it in his Agenda 47. Trump hasn’t said whether he would use executive power to curb patient access to the procedure, such as barring delivery of abortion pills by mail. And he’s largely dodged questions about vetoing a national abortion ban, saying Congress would never pass such a measure and put him in the position to make that decision. Like nearly all modern vice presidential nominees, Vance has aligned his views with the top of the ticket on the campaign trail. But the Ohio senator has said he’s as “pro life as anyone” and once supported a nationwide ban. On in vitro fertilization, Trump has become a vocal supporter. He has not only said he supports access to IVF nationwide, but touted himself as a “leader” on the fertility treatment — pledging free IVF for all Americans, whether paid for by health insurance plans or the federal government. But Democrats see Trump’s positions on reproductive health helping them in November, making abortion and IVF among their most consistent attack lines, from ads to forcing votes in the Senate. Democrats have also hailed Harris as a more powerful messenger on abortion than Biden, who often struggled to say the word. IMMIGRATION Trump: “As soon as I take the oath of office, we will begin the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” Vance: “What happens when you have massive amounts of illegal immigration? It actually starts to create ethnic conflict. It creates higher crime rates.” Immigration is one of the cornerstone issues of Trump’s candidacy and appeal, dating back to when he first announced his original run for president in 2015. His promises to seal the border and carry out “the largest deportation in American history” top the priorities on his Agenda 47. He’s promising to both slash the levels of immigration and reduce the number of undocumented immigrants overall, saying he would “send them all back to their countries where they belong.” Trump’s first administration — which emphasized building a wall along the southern border, restricting immigration from several Muslim-majority countries and making generalizations between immigrants and crime — may also offer clues to his policies in a potential second term.  His administration tried to end DACA, a program to protect undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as children. He pushed “zero tolerance” policies that separated children from their parents at the border in a bid to deter migrants from coming to the U.S. Yet, more recently, he has supported giving green cards to foreign-born graduates of American universities. Trump will often pivot to immigration when asked about other policy issues, saying his deportation program would solve shortfalls in Medicaid funding, for example, though undocumented immigrants are not covered by most states’ Medicaid programs. He said the “migrant invasion” is causing “immense inflationary pressure” across the economy. Vance has also taken a hard-line approach to immigration policy. He has continued to push rumors that immigrants are stealing and eating their neighbors’ pets in his state, despite no verifiable evidence to support the claims. He also has a record of mounting new government efforts to push out people who entered the country illegally, supporting legislation that would pull federal aid from schools that hire undocumented immigrants. Some voters may respond to Trump’s tougher approach. Americans have shifted significantly on immigration in recent years, according to Gallup, with the majority of people — no matter their party affiliation — wanting the level of immigration reduced. But there isn’t a clear consensus on all of Trump’s policies: some polling suggests his push to end DACA and use of child separation policies were unpopular. Some Democrats have used Trump’s claims — and his administration’s earlier practices, such as separating children from their parents at the border — to appeal to swing voters. Harris has called his proposals extreme, suggesting detention camps and massive raids would be needed to carry out his plan. But Harris is also promising to be tough on illegal border crossings and distancing herself from the Biden administration’s record on the issue. INFLATION, TARIFFS AND THE ECONOMY Trump: “If you don’t make your product here, then you will have to pay a tariff, a very substantial tariff, when you send your product into the United States.” Vance: “I certainly think we should be much more aggressive in applying tariffs on a whole host of industries.” Trump has highlighted inflation as a key reason for voters to put him back in the White House, saying he would lower prices on everyday goods, boost the economy and increase U.S.-based manufacturing. His Agenda 47 includes pledges to “end inflation” and turn the country into “a manufacturing superpower.” Cutting federal spending and regulations, as well as increasing energy production and reducing immigration, are key elements of Trump’s plan to tackle inflation and spur economic growth. He has vowed to enact a 20 percent tariff on most imports — and even more for goods coming from China. But there are concerns that some of those tariffs would ultimately raise prices for consumers and hinder economic growth. Some economists are suggesting they could cause a recession. A tariff on oil imports, for instance, could mean hikes in gas prices, market analysts say. Trump has wrongly asserted that tariffs would be paid largely by foreign governments, not U.S. consumers and businesses. Vance is mostly in line with Trump on increasing tariffs, especially on goods coming from China, saying they’re needed to protect American industry. He’s said such policies would protect American workers who have seen their jobs outsourced — a claim that may resonate with voters in key swing states, such as Pennsylvania. Democrats have worked to highlight the burden voters might bear should Trump get the chance to enact his proposals. Harris has said Trump’s plan would only increase everyday costs for Americans. But the Biden administration’s hike in tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, for instance, and its decision to keep tariffs established during Trump’s first term, have made it difficult to broadly criticize the tactic. Voters are highly motivated by economic issues, and Republicans have looked to pin the increases in the cost of living on Biden and Harris. But voters remain split both on Trump’s specific trade policies and which candidate would ultimately be better for the country’s economic outlook. Harris appears to be gaining ground among professional-class voters while Trump appears to be making progress with the working-class electorate. ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Trump: “We will drill, baby, drill.” Vance: “Even if there was a climate crisis, I don’t know how the way to solve it is to buy more Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles.” Trump has pledged to make America the dominant global energy producer and scrap government action to stop climate change. He said he would again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and do away with  EV mandates, a continuation of the work directed under his first term rolling back more than 100 climate-focused rules. Some environmental policy experts believe Trump will be more effective in rolling back policies at the Environmental Protection Agency. Unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest pot of money directed at addressing climate change in U.S. history, would be clawed back under a Trump plan. The former president has been a strong ally of the fossil fuel industry, promising to allow oil and natural gas companies to “drill baby drill” — a phrase that’s also in the official 2024 GOP platform — by streamlining permitting and cutting regulations. Growing domestic output will lower energy costs and build America’s energy sector, he said. Attacking Harris for her earlier opposition to fracking has also become go-to campaign trail fodder from Trump and his allies in the fossil fuel-rich swing states like Pennsylvania.  Though Trump has said he believes  humans are, to some extent, causing climate change, he has also called global warming a hoax. (The vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is the main driver of the phenomenon, and warn that increasingly dire consequences will continue if current emissions trends continue.) During his 2024 campaign, Trump has said he isn’t concerned about sea-level rise, which experts say could affect the homes and public infrastructure used by tens of millions of Americans. Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla who has called global warming “a major risk,” may have Trump’s ear on the issue, but the two don’t appear to agree. Still, some policymakers see the possibility that the men find common ground on the government’s role on climate change. Vance further fortifies Trump’s reputation with the fossil fuel industry, given the vice presidential nominee’s support of fracking, criticism of renewable energy and skepticism of climate science. Though Democrats haven’t shown tremendous interest in engaging key voters on the issue of climate change, Harris tried to find a way into the issue: highlighting the rising cost of homeowners’ insurance in places that are experiencing extreme weather or flooding more often than they previously have. Some analyses have suggested that climate change is a concern with enough importance for voters to swing elections — a trend that may grow over time, with younger voters often caring more about the issue than their older counterparts. UKRAINE AND ISRAEL Trump: “I’ll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended. If I’m President-elect, I’ll get it done before even becoming president.” Vance: “Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide.” Trump has cast himself as a deal-maker who would end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars in military support and other aid.  He has said that other countries respect him as a strong leader, suggesting that advantage will grant him the ability to stop the conflicts even before he were to take office. He has declined to offer details of how he would make a deal, saying it would undermine his leverage. In his campaign, he hasn’t strongly sided with Ukraine — even twice refusing to say, during his debate with Harris, whether he wanted that country to win its war with Russia. A second Trump term could mean more willingness from the U.S. to cut a deal with Russia instead of taking a hard-line approach to stopping its expansion into Europe. He has pointed to Russia’s nuclear arsenal when explaining why he wasn’t as vocal in supporting Ukraine as Biden or Harris. Trump has also suggested that Europe pay more in supporting Ukraine, saying they would benefit far more than the U.S. would. Vance has shared Trump’s view. A longtime skeptic of supporting Ukraine, Vance has previously said that he doesn’t care what happens to the country and wrote an essay for The New York Times explaining his views about why Ukraine can’t win. Trump has also said the war between Israel and Hamas would be “settled — and fast” should he become president. The former president has said he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “get over with” the war quickly — though he also targeted some of his policy proposals at cease-fire protesters, saying he would deport “pro-Hamas radicals” and make college campuses “safe and patriotic again.” Vance has pushed for aid to Israel in the Senate, though leading an effort to decouple its funding from similar support for Ukraine. He said he believes the U.S. should not try to manage how Israel wages its war on Hamas. Though Harris and other Democrats have criticized Trump’s respect for dictators around the world, his foreign policy proposals don’t seem to be a major target for them in the campaign as Democrats remain divided on Israel’s conduct in its war with Hamas. TAXES Trump: “I will turn it around, get SALT back, lower your Taxes, and so much more.” Vance: “American workers should keep more of their own money.” Trump has proposed huge tax cuts on the campaign trail, saying he will slash taxes for workers and businesses: overtime pay, Social Security benefits, tips, domestic manufacturing and more. During summer campaign speeches, Trump suggested eliminating some of those taxes so he can help the “hardest working citizens in our country.” In addition to pledging to make the tax cuts from his first term, which are set to expire at the end of 2025, permanent, Trump is pushing for others, such as eliminating the cap on the federal deductions taxpayers can claim from state and local taxes they’ve paid (a cap enacted during his administration). The new tax proposals are estimated to cost trillions of dollars, on top of the $4.6 trillion that would come from renewing the earlier cuts — figures that have left some Republicans worried about how Congress would pay for the proposals. Some Republican lawmakers have acknowledged that some of Trump’s tax promises made on the campaign trail cannot be realized. Vance has taken a very different approach to taxes than Trump, stopping short of promising to not raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He’s also called for significant tax hikes on universities in particular, raising the tax on the earnings in their endowments from 1.4 percent to 35 percent. Though Democrats have long criticized Republicans for cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans who are not paying their “fair share,” other issues have taken priority this cycle, such as abortion rights and inflation. EDUCATION Trump: “As the saying goes, personnel is policy and at the end of the day if we have pink-haired communists teaching our kids we have a major problem.” Vance: “We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” Trump has made the pursuit of a more “patriotic” education system a focus in his 2024 platform: He’s pledging to cut funding from schools found to be teaching critical race theory, “radical gender ideology” or other political, racial or sexual content his administration deems inappropriate. It’s a push that echoes the 1776 Commission, a conservative project he established near the end of his first term as a counter to the 1619 Project, which provided a detailed exploration of American slavery. During this campaign, Trump has also said he would deport people on college campuses who are “pro-Hamas radicals” and keep transgender women out of sports that align with their gender identity. But the GOP’s platform goes beyond gender and race issues. It’s promising to create more affordable alternatives to four-year universities, support universal school choice, end teacher tenure, create new discipline standards and emphasize states’ roles in classroom policy by closing the federal Education Department. Trump has promised civil rights investigations into schools that engage in any race-based decision-making as many Republicans have looked to build on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that gutted affirmative action programs in college admissions. Vance has also put attention on higher education, saying in his Senate campaign that conservatives should “attack the universities in this country.” He has supported legislation that would increase restrictions on universities contracting with or accepting donations from foreign entities. Much of education policy is decided at the state and local level, but Trump and his advisers see an opportunity in Americans’ relatively high dissatisfaction with the current education system. Still, voters’ views on Trump’s specific proposals are mixed. A significant majority of Americans, for example, support teaching the impacts of slavery on the U.S., and banning books is broadly unpopular. But his view that transgender students should have to play sports based on their sex assigned at birth is popular — and gained support in recent years. Other than mocking Republicans for banning books during the DNC and other events, Democrats have largely played defense on gender identity and race issues in schools. Even so, some have tried to win voters on these fronts, saying most Americans don’t want the federal government dictating what is taught in classrooms or who can compete in a sporting event.