LONDON — It was June 2019, and the president of the United States was taking tea with the future British king.  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half.   Trump could barely get a word in edgeways. Charles did “most of the talking,” the president told a TV interviewer the day after they met.   One topic dominated. “He is …” Trump said, hesitating momentarily, “… he is really into climate change.”  Without global action on the climate, Charles wrote back in 2010, the world is on “the brink of potential disaster.” At the London royal residence Clarence House during Trump’s first U.K. state visit, face-to-face with its most powerful inhabitant, Charles decided to speak on behalf of the planet.  It was tea with a side of climate catastrophe.   Six years on, the stage is set for Charles — now king — to try to sway the president again. A second term Trump — bolder, brasher, and no less destructive to global efforts to tackle climate change — is heading back to the U.K. for an unprecedented second state visit and to another meeting with the king. They meet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday.  In the years between the two visits — with extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding increasingly attributed to a changing climate — Charles’ convictions have only strengthened, say those who know him well.  “His views have not changed and will not change. If anything I think he feels it, probably, more strongly than ever,” said the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend and biographer of the king. “It seems self-evident to me, therefore, that he would regard President Trump’s attitude towards climate change and the environment as potentially calamitous.”   But stakes are higher for the king in 2025 than in 2019. The meeting represents an extraordinary influencing opportunity for a monarch who has spent his life deploying “soft power” in the service of cherished environmental causes. But now he is head of state, any overtly political conversation about climate change risks stress-testing the U.K.’s constitutional settlement between government and monarch.  Charles has a duty, says constitutional expert Craig Prescott, to “support the [elected] government of the day in what they want to achieve in foreign relations.”  And “in a broad sense,” he added, “that means ‘getting on the good side of Trump.’”  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half. | Pool Photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images Labour’s focus on an ambitious green transition, though, gives the king some leeway to speak in favor of international climate action.  Both Dimbleby and Ian Skelly, a former speechwriter for Charles who co-wrote his 2010 book Harmony, expect him to do exactly that.  “I would be astonished if in this meeting, as at the last meeting , he does not raise the issue of climate change and biodiversity in any chance he has to speak privately to Trump,” said Dimbleby.   The king will be “diplomatic,” Dimbleby added, and would heed his “constitutional duty,” avoiding “saying anything that will allow Trump to think there is a bus ticket between him and the British government. … But he won’t avoid the issue. He cares about it too much.”  “He knows exactly where the limits are,” said Skelly. “He’s not going to start banging the table or anything. … He will outline his concerns in general terms, I have no doubt about that — and perhaps warn the most powerful person in the world about the dangers of doing nothing.”  Buckingham Palace and Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether the king would raise climate with Trump, or whether this has been discussed in preparations for the state visit.  HAVE YOU READ MY BOOK, MR. PRESIDENT?  In the time since that tea at Clarence House, the President has shown no sign that Charles’ entreaties on the part of the planet had any impact. (And they didn’t have much effect at the time, by one insider’s account. Trump complained the conversation “had been terrible,” wrote former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham in her memoir.  “‘Nothing but climate change,’ he groused, rolling his eyes.”)  The U.S. has once again withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. Trump’s Department of Energy has rejected established climate science. America’s fossil fuel firms and investors — some of whom helped Trump get elected — have been invited to “Drill, baby, drill.”  With America out of the fight, the world’s chances of avoiding the direst consequences of climate change have taken a serious blow.  Charles, on the other hand, has only grown more convinced that climate change, unchecked, will cause “inevitable catastrophes,” as he put it in Harmony, his cri-de-coeur on saving the planet.  Dimbleby predicted that, this time around, one subtle way allowing the king to make his point would be to gift Trump a copy of that book — a treatise on environmentalism, traditional wisdom and sustainability that diagnoses “a spiritual void” in modern societies, a void which has “opened the way for what many people see as an excessive personal focus.”  “I’m sure [the king] won’t let [Trump] out of his sight before giving him a copy,” said Dimbleby. Chinese Premier (and Trump’s main geopolitical rival) Xi Jinping already has a copy, said Skelly.  But the meeting comes at a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer — boxed in politically by the need to keep the U.S. on side for the sake of trade, Ukraine and European security — has avoided openly criticizing the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science or its embrace of fossil fuels.  His government will not want the king to say or do anything that upsets transatlantic relations. Even when the president, sitting next to Starmer, trashed wind energy ­— the main pillar of U.K. decarbonization plans — on a July visit to his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, the prime minister mustered no defense beyond quietly insisting the U.K. was pursuing a “mix” of energy sources.  If Trump starts railing against windmills again in his chat to the king, he might get a (slightly) more robust response, predicted Skelly. “The response to that will be: ‘What else are we going to do without destroying the Earth?’ That’s the question he’ll come back with, I’d imagine.”  HOW TO TALK TO TRUMP ABOUT CLIMATE  Some who have worked with Trump think that, because of the unique place Britain and the royals occupy in his worldview, Charles stands a better chance than most in getting the president to listen.  “President Trump isn’t going to become an environmentalist over a cup of tea with the king. But I think he’ll definitely hear him out — in a way that maybe he wouldn’t with other folks,” said Michael Martins, founder of the firm Overton Advisory, who was a political and economic specialist at the U.S. embassy in London during the last state visit.  “He likes the pageantry. He likes the optics of it. … Engaging with a king, Trump will feel he’s on the same footing. He will give him more of a hearing than if it was, I don’t know … Ed Miliband.”  Trump has even declared his “love” for Charles.  The royal admiration comes from Trump’s mother. Scottish-born Mary Anne Trump “loved the Queen,” Trump said in July. The ratings-obsessed president appears to consider the late monarch the ultimate TV star. “Whenever the queen was on television, [my mother] wanted to watch,” he said during July’s Turnberry visit.    The king could benefit from an emotional link to First Lady Melania Trump, too. She was present at the 2019 meeting and sat next to Charles at the state banquet that year. In her 2024 memoir, Melania says they “engaged in an interesting conversation about his deep-rooted commitment to environmental conservation.”  She and Trump “exchange letters with King Charles to this day,” Melania wrote. TAKING TEA AT THE END OF THE WORLD  The king will have plenty of chances to make his case.   A state visit provides “quite a lot of time to talk” for monarch and president, said one former senior British government official, granted anonymity to discuss the royals and their relationship with government.  There will be a state banquet plus at least one private meeting in between, they said. Charles may also be able to sneak some choice phrases into any speech he gives at the banquet. Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. | John Keeble/Getty Images The king receives regular briefing papers from the Foreign Office. As the meeting looms, the same person suggested, he may be preparing thoughts on how to combine a lifetime’s campaigning and reading with those briefings, to shape the opportunity to lobby a president.  “He will be reading his foreign policy material with even more interest than normal. He will probably be thinking about whether there is any way in which he can pitch his arguments to Trump that will shift him — a little bit — toward putting his shoulder to the climate change wheel,” the former senior official said.    “He won’t say: ‘You, America, should be doing stuff.’ He will say, ‘Internationally I think it is important we make progress on this and we need to be more ambitious.’ Or he might express concern about some of the impacts of climate change on global weather and all these extreme weather events.”  However he approaches it, 2019 showed how tough it is to move the dial.  After that conversation, Trump told broadcaster Piers Morgan that he thought Charles’ views were “great” and that he had “totally listened to him.” But then he demonstrated that — on the crucial points of how fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change are affecting the planet — he totally hadn’t.    “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster,” Trump said. “And I agree,” he added, before promptly pivoting to an apparent non-sequitur about the U.S. having “crystal clean” water. It was a typically Trumpian obfuscation. Asked about the king’s views during the Turnberry visit, Trump said: “Every time I met with him, he talked about the environment, how important it is. I’m all for it. I think that’s great.”  In nearly the same breath, he ranted about wind energy being “a disaster.”  GOOD LUCK, CHARLIE  “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see [Trump] change his views on climate change, because they’re not informed by his understanding of the science or consequences, but rather by naked politics,” said leading U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann in emailed remarks.   And Trump will come to the meeting prepared, said Martins, the former U.S. Embassy official. “Trump will receive the full briefing on the king’s views on environment. He won’t be going into that blind. He’ll know exactly what the king has said over his career and what his views are on it and how it affects American interests. I don’t anticipate him being surprised by anything the king says.”   He added: “Bashing net zero and President Biden … gets [Trump] political wins.”    To Charles’ long-standing domestic critics, it all highlights the pointlessness of his position.  Donald Trump has even declared his “love” for King Charles III. | Pool Photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images “He is bound by these constitutional expectations that he does nothing that will upset the apple cart [in U.K./U.S. relations],” said Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy. “If he was elected, he’d have a lot more freedom to say what he actually wants.”  “Soft power is a highly questionable concept,” added Smith. It’s only useful, he argued, when backed by something Charles lacks and Trump has by the bucket-load: “Hard power.”  And time may be running out for Charles to deploy even soft power in the climate fight.   Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. If British voters pick Reform at the next election, Charles’ potential advocacy would be restrained by a government opposed to action on climate change.  So how far will Charles go to seize his moment?  He wrote in Harmony: “If we continue to be deluded by the increasingly irresponsible clamour of sceptical voices that doubt man-made climate change, it will soon be too late to reverse the chaos we have helped to unleash.” He feared “failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself” if he did not speak up.   Skelly, the former speechwriter who co-wrote the book, predicted that Charles would walk a fine diplomatic line — but was “not someone to sit on his hands or to remain silent.”   “He was warning about these things 30 years ago and nobody was listening. … He feels increasingly frustrated that time is running out.   “I’d love to be a fly on the wall — because it will be a fascinating conversation.”

OPTICS SHORTAGE OF SAND: EUROPE’S IMPACT ON CAPE VERDE’S TURTLE CRISIS Plastic pollution, mass tourism, climate change and poaching all put pressure on a fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems. Text and photos by LUIGI AVANTAGGIATO in Boa Vista, Cape Verde Above, Emilio Garcia Landim, a 29-year-old ranger of Fundação Tartaruga, spots a sea turtle on the beach of Lacacão on Cape Verde’s Boa Vista island. Next, tracks left by a turtle looking for a nesting site along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. Plastic reaches the island carried by ocean currents, disturbing the nesting of reptiles that die of dehydration and disorientation looking for a clean place to lay their eggs. Bottom, the carcass of a turtle that died of dehydration, along Varandinha beach. Every summer, thousands of sea turtles climb the beaches of Boa Vista, Cape Verde, for a millennia-old ritual: nesting. Today, however, this process is threatened by several factors, putting one of the world’s largest Caretta caretta turtle colonies at risk. Poaching, pollution, mass tourism and climate change are all putting pressure on this fragile ecosystem, revealing how local challenges often stem from global problems — with a heavy shadow cast by Europe. The most significant threat to these turtles is plastic pollution. And here, the fisheries agreements Cape Verde has with the EU — allowing European industrial fleets, especially Spanish and Portuguese, to operate in its waters — have a significant impact on marine life. Nesting beaches are suffocated by tons of waste carried by currents, mostly originating from fishing activities and dumping along the European and African coasts. The accumulation not only chemically contaminates nests but also creates physical barriers that prevent female turtles from finding safe spots to lay their eggs. A numbered stick marks a turtle nest mapped by volunteers from the NGO Cabo Verde Natura 2000 along the plastic-infested beach of Porto Ferreira. The Cape Verde archipelago is the third-largest turtle reserve in the world, after Oman and Florida. The island of Boa Vista hosts two-thirds of Cape Verde’s turtles. “It’s like looking for a home in a minefield,” explained Franziska Haas, a German biologist and volunteer with Fundação Tartaruga, one of the most active local NGOs. “Often, we have to help them find a safe spot. Some get lost, wander for hours until morning and risk dying of dehydration.” Fundação Tartaruga currently monitors over 30 kilometers of coastline with teams of rangers and international volunteers, many with scientific training. Their work is crucial for identifying nests, protecting eggs, combating poaching and documenting the growing damage caused by pollution. There’s plenty more coastline to cover, of course, but their resources are limited. First, seven-year-old conservation dog Karetta and her handler João José Mendes de Oliveira, a 21 year-old ranger, patrol Santa Monica beach. Next, the remains of a turtle killed for its meat along Varandinha beach. Above, view of the Morro de Areia nature reserve. It covers an area of 25.85 square kilometers, with a 300-meter-wide marine protection zone. Below, ranger coordinator Adilson Monteiro, 28, shows a photograph of a turtle killed by a poacher on Varandinha beach. “Fishermen kill turtles while they are sleeping, during egg-laying. They pierce their necks with a fishing hook called incroque and cut off the rest of their bodies with a knife,” Monteiro said.  Next, a temporary tent used by volunteers of the NGO Bios Cape Verde for turtle monitoring along the beach of Varandinha. Then, there’s overtourism. In the last two decades, Cape Verde has become an increasingly popular tourist destination for Europeans. The islands of Sal and Boa Vista, in particular, have seen massive investment from European real estate groups, resulting in the construction of hotels, resorts and residential complexes along turtle-nesting beaches. But it’s not just the land that’s dangerous, threats to these turtles loom in the water as well. Industrial trawl nets accidentally catch tens of thousands of turtles every year, both in the archipelago and during their migration in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean to feed. And while European regulations mandate the use of exclusion devices, which allow turtles to escape nets, they’re only mandatory for certain fleets and areas, and enforcement is often inconsistent. Top, Cleidir Lopes, a 22-year-old tour guide, washes his horse Morena at Chaves beach. Cleidir is a member of Guardiões do Mar (guardians of the sea), a community of people from Boa Vista who report the presence of animals in difficulty in the water, such as turtles and cetaceans. Next, artificial nests of the association Cabo Verde Natura 2000 Cape Verde along the beach of Porto Ferreira. Below, Helmer Davy, a 22-year-old ranger, sleeps in his tent at the Fundação Tartaruga Lacacão camp in Curral Velho after covering his night shift.  There’s also he impact of climate change to contend with. In many cases, excessive heat causes embryo mortality. Meanwhile, the sex of turtle embryos depends on the temperature of the sand where they lay their eggs, with higher temperatures favoring females. And this growing imbalance could jeopardize long-term reproduction. In the face of all these threats, the volunteers’ night work has become essential; their observations are silent, meticulous, and almost ritualistic. Their teams consist of three or four volunteers and an environmental ranger, and their patrols are organized to the rhythm of a metronome, keeping the time dedicated to each female turtle to a minimum. Some of the volunteers help dig deeper holes, some inject microchips for the census, some note the nest’s GPS coordinates, and some come back to evaluate the turtles’ age, size, health and the presence of wounds. Volunteers Franziska Haas, a 22-year-old German biologist; Simone Ambrosini, a 21-year-old Swiss biologist; Nele Ruhnau, a 23-year-old German medical engineer; and ranger Emilio Garcia Landim inject a so-called Passive Integrated Transponder into the front fin of a turtle on Lacacão beach. They are also seen measuring the length of a shell to assess the age and health of a turtle, help dig holes and move eggs laid in a shallow hole to a hatchery. During breeding season, which lasts from June to October, each female can nest up to three times, digging a flask-shaped hole on the beach, each containing about 100 eggs. The laying lasts on average two hours. The eggs are incubated by the high temperatures of the sand for about 50 days. Still, despite all this work, poaching persists on the island too. Despite commitment from Cape Verde’s government, which criminalized the consumption of turtle meat and eggs in 2018, females are caught at night, killed while laying eggs and sold on the black market where meat can fetch up to €20 per kilo. “Turtles are hunted illegally for their meat and eggs, which are sold by word of mouth,” confirmed Fundação Tartaruga’s Executive Director Euclides Resende. But “in 2024, we documented just six killings on the beaches we monitor, compared to thousands just a few years ago.” The group’s surveillance work is effective, having adopted an innovative approach that uses conservation dogs and thermal technology in 2019. “This allows us to expand the surveillance range and collect evidence for potential legal action,” explained project coordinator Adilson Monteiro. Top, moonlight illuminates an hatchery along the beach of Lacacão. Many of the nesting beaches do not have the most favorable conditions for nest incubation such as the low slope of the beach profile, plastic and the presence of tourists. As a compensatory measure many of the nests are relocated to a controlled incubation area, which ensures the hatching of the young turtles and increases their chances of reaching the sea successfully. Next, a team of rangers and a conservation dog from the same NGO patrol an area at Santa Monica beach. The targeted selection of nesting beaches by a trained team of rangers equipped with night vision devices and conservation dogs has led to a massive reduction in poaching on the coasts of Boa Vista since its introduction in 2018. Below, Denis Quintino, a 31-year-old fisherman, returns to the port of Sal Rei after a night of fishing. But it’s exceedingly difficult to eradicate an activity so deeply rooted in the culture of a place: The meat and eggs of Caretta caretta have always been consumed on the islands. And in inland villages like João Galego, Cabedo do Tarafes and Fundo das Figueira, “Ba pa bela” (catching a turtle) is a true rite of passage. “For my family, hunting turtles was normal. My grandfather did it, my father did it, and I learned from my older brother. Every family in João Galego has always eaten turtles; it’s part of our tradition,” said tour guide Zenildo F. It is this difficult coexistence of tradition and environmental conservation, along with the need for further pollution and fisheries regulations, that makes the survival of Cape Verde’s sea turtles a truly global test case.

In February 2022, as Russia marched on Kyiv, Oleksandr Dmitriev realized he knew how to stop Moscow’s men: Blow a hole in the dam that strangled the Irpin River northeast of the capital and restore the long-lost boggy floodplain. A defense consultant who organized offroad races in the area before the war, Dmitriev was familiar with the terrain. He knew exactly what reflooding the river basin — a vast expanse of bogs and marshes that was drained in Soviet times — would do to Russia’s war machinery.  “It turns into an impassable turd, as the jeep guys say,” he said. He told the commander in charge of Kyiv’s defense as much, and was given the go-ahead to blow up the dam.  Dmitriev’s idea worked. “In principle, it stopped the Russian attack from the north,” he said. The images of Moscow’s tanks mired in mud went around the world.  Three years later, this act of desperation is inspiring countries along NATO’s eastern flank to look into restoring their own bogs — fusing two European priorities that increasingly compete for attention and funding: defense and climate.  That’s because the idea isn’t only to prepare for a potential Russian attack. The European Union’s efforts to fight global warming rely in part on nature’s help, and peat-rich bogs capture planet-warming carbon dioxide just as well as they sink enemy tanks.  Yet half of the EU’s bogs are being sapped of their water to create land suitable for planting crops. The desiccated peatlands in turn release greenhouse gases and allow heavy vehicles to cross with ease.  Some European governments are now wondering if reviving ailing bogs can solve several problems at once. Finland and Poland told POLITICO they were actively exploring bog restoration as a multi-purpose measure to defend their borders and fight climate change.  Poland’s massive 10 billion złoty (€2.3 billion) Eastern Shield border fortification project, launched last year, “provides for environmental protection, including by … peatland formation and forestation of border areas,” the country’s defense ministry said in a statement.  “It’s a win-win situation that achieves many targets at the same time,” said Tarja Haaranen, director general for nature at Finland’s environment ministry.  BOGS! WHAT ARE THEY GOOD FOR?  In their pristine state, bogs are carpeted with delicate mosses that can’t fully decompose in their waterlogged habitats and slowly turn into soft, carbon-rich soil known as peat.  This is what makes them Earth’s most effective repositories of CO2. Although they cover only 3 percent of the planet, they lock away a third of the world’s carbon — twice the amount stored in forests.  Yet when drained, bogs start releasing the carbon they stored for hundreds or thousands of years, fueling global warming.  Some 12 percent of peatlands worldwide are degraded, producing 4 percent of planet-warming pollution. (To compare, global aviation is responsible for around 2.5 percent.) In Europe, where bogs were long regarded as unproductive terrain to be converted into farmland, the picture is especially dramatic: Half of the EU’s peatlands are degraded, mostly due to drainage for agricultural purposes. As a result, EU countries reported 124 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution from drained peatlands in 2022, close to the annual emissions of the Netherlands. Some scientists say even this is an underestimate.  Various peatland restoration projects are now underway, with bog repair having gained momentum under the EU’s new Nature Restoration Law, which requires countries to revive 30 percent of degraded peatlands by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050.  The bloc’s 27 governments now have until September 2026 to draft plans on how they intend to meet these targets.  On NATO’s eastern flank, restoring bogs would be a relatively cheap and straightforward measure to achieve EU nature targets and defense goals all at once, scientists argue.  “It’s definitely doable,” said Aveliina Helm, professor of restoration ecology at the University of Tartu, who until recently advised Estonia’s government on its EU nature repair strategy. “We are right now in the development of our national restoration plan, as many EU countries are,” she added, “and as part of that I see great potential to join those two objectives.”  NATO’S BOG BELT  As it happens, most of the EU’s peatlands are concentrated on NATO’s border with Russia and Kremlin-allied Belarus — stretching from the Finnish Arctic through the Baltic states, past Lithuania’s hard-to-defend Suwałki Gap and into eastern Poland.  When waterlogged, this terrain represents a dangerous trap for military trucks and tanks. In a tragic example earlier this year, four U.S. soldiers stationed in Lithuania died when they drove their 63-ton M88 Hercules armored vehicle into a bog.  And when armies can’t cross soggy open land, they are forced into areas that are more easily defended, as Russia found out when Dmitriev and his soldiers blew up the dam north of Kyiv in February 2022.  A destroyed Russian tank sits in a field on April 28, 2022 in Moshchun, Ukraine. | Taras Podolian/Gazeta.ua/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images “The Russians there in armored personnel carriers got stuck at the entrance, then they were killed with a Javelin [anti-tank missile], then when the Russians tried to build pontoons … ours shot them with artillery,” Dmitriev recounted.  Bog-based defense isn’t a new idea. Waterlogged terrain has stopped troops throughout European history — from Germanic tribes inflicting defeat on Roman legions by trapping them beside a bog in 9 AD, to Finland’s borderlands ensnaring the Soviets in the 1940s. The treacherous marshes north of Kyiv posed a formidable challenge to armies in both world wars.  Strategically rewetting drained peatlands to prepare for an enemy attack, however, would be a novelty. But it’s an idea that’s starting to catch on — among environmentalists, defense strategists and politicians.  Pauli Aalto-Setälä, a lawmaker with Finland’s governing National Coalition Party, last year filed a parliamentary motion calling on the Finnish government to restore peatlands to secure its borders and fight climate change.  “In Finland, we have used our nature from a defense angle in history,” said Aalto-Setälä, who holds the rank of major and trained as a tank officer during his national service. “I realized that at the eastern border especially, there are a lot of excellent areas to restore — for the climate, but also to make it as difficult to go through as possible.”  The Finnish defense and environment ministries will now start talks in the fall on whether to launch a bog-repair pilot project, according to Haaranen, who will lead the working group. “I’m personally very excited about this.” POLAND’S PEATY POLITICS Discussions on defensive nature restoration are advancing fastest in Poland — even though Warsaw is usually reluctant to scale up climate action.  Climate activists and scientists started campaigning for nature-based defense a few years ago when they realized that Poland’s politicians were far more likely to spend financial and political capital on environmental efforts when they were linked to national security.  “Once you talk about security, everyone listens right now in Poland,” said Wiktoria Jędroszkowiak, a Polish activist who helped initiate the country’s Fridays for Future climate protests. “And our peatlands and ancient forests, they are the places that are going to be very important for our defense once the war gets to Poland as well.”  After years of campaigning, the issue has now reached government level in Warsaw, with discussions underway between scientists and Poland’s defense and environment ministries.  Wiktor Kotowski, an ecologist and member of the Polish government’s advisory council for nature conservation, said initial talks with the defense ministry have been promising.  “There were a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions but in general we found there are only synergies,” he said. Damaged Russian vehicle marked V by Russian troops and then re-marked UA by Ukrainians bogged down in the mud on April 8, 2022 in Moshchun, Ukraine. | Serhii Mykhalchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images “What the ministry of defense wants is to get back as many wetlands as possible along the eastern border,” Kotowski added. “And that is what is required from the point of view of nature restoration and climate as well.”  Cezary Tomczyk, a state secretary at Poland’s defense ministry, agreed. “Our objectives align,” he said. “For us, nature is an ally, and we want to use it.”  JUST … DON’T DRAIN THE SWAMP  Governments in the Baltics have shown little interest so far. Only Lithuania’s environment ministry said that defense-linked wetland restoration “is currently under discussion,” declining to offer further details.  Estonia’s defense ministry and Latvia’s armed forces said that new Baltic Defence Line plans to fortify the three countries’ borders would make use of natural obstacles including bogs, but did not involve peatland restoration.  Yet scientists see plenty of potential, given that peatlands cover 10 percent of the Baltics. And in many cases, the work would be straightforward, said Helm, the Estonian ecologist.  “We have a lot of wetlands that are drained but still there. If we now restore the water regime — we close the ditches that constantly drain them and make them emit carbon — then they are relatively easy to return to a more natural state,” she said.  Healthy peatlands serve as havens for wildlife: Frogs, snails, dragonflies and specialized plant species thrive in the austere conditions of bogs, while rare birds stop by to nest. They also act as barriers to droughts and wildfires, boosting Europe’s resilience to climate change.  The return of this flora and fauna takes time. But ending drainage not only puts a fast stop to pollution — it also instantly renders the terrain impassable. As long as the land isn’t completely drained, “it’s one or two years and you have the wetland full of water,” said Kotowski, the Polish ecologist. “Restoration is a difficult process from an ecological point of view, but for water retention, for stopping emissions and for difficulty to cross — so for defensive purposes — it’s pretty straightforward and fast.”  And at a time when Europe’s focus has shifted to security, with defense budgets surging and in some cases diverting money from the green transition, environmentalists hope that military involvement could unlock unprecedented funding and speed up nature restoration.  “At the moment, it takes five years to obtain approval for peatland rewetting, and sometimes it can take 10 years,” said Franziska Tanneberger, director of Germany’s Greifswald Mire Centre, a leading European peatlands research institute. “When it comes to military activities, there is a certain prioritization. You can’t wait 10 years if we need it for defense.”  THE TRACTOR FACTOR  But that doesn’t mean there’s no resistance to the idea.  A Russian tank seized inside of the woodland is examined by Ukrainian soldiers in Irpin, Ukraine on April 01, 2022. | Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images In Estonia, the environment ministry halted one peatland restoration effort earlier this year amid fierce opposition from locals who worried that rewetting would lead to flooding and forest destruction. Scientists described such concerns as unfounded.  The biggest threat to peatlands is agriculture — an awkward reality for EU governments desperate to avoid drawing the ire of farmers.  In both Finland and Poland, any initial defensive restoration projects are likely to focus on state-owned land, sidestepping this conflict for now. But scientists argue that if countries are serious about large-scale bog repair, they have to talk to farmers. “This will not work without involving agricultural lands,” said Kotowski, the Polish ecologist. A whopping 85 percent of the country’s peatlands are degraded, in most cases because they have been drained to plant crops where water once pooled.  “What we badly need is a program for farmers, to compensate them for rewetting these drained peatlands — and not only compensate, to let them earn money from it,” he added.   There are plants that can be harvested from restored peatlands, such as reeds for use in construction or packaging. Yet for now, the market for such crops in Europe is too small to incentivize farmers to switch.  The bogs-for-defense argument also doesn’t work for all countries. In Germany, where more than 90 percent of peatlands are drained, the Bundeswehr sounded reluctant when asked about the idea.  “The rewetting of wetlands can be both advantageous and disadvantageous for [NATO’s] own operations,” depending on the individual country, a spokesperson for the Bundeswehr’s infrastructure and environment office said.  NATO troops would need to move through Germany in the event of a Russian attack in the east, and bogs restrict military movements. Still, “the idea of increasing the obstacle value of terrain by causing flooding and swamping … has been used in warfare for a very long time and is still a viable option today,” the spokesperson said.  BOGGING DOWN PUTIN Scientists are quick to acknowledge that a bogs-for-security approach can’t solve everything.  “Of course we still need traditional defense. This isn’t meant to replace that,” said Tanneberger, who also advises a company that recently drew up a detailed proposal for defense-linked peatland restoration.  Bogs can’t stop drones or shoot down missiles, and war isn’t good for nature — or conservation efforts.  Soldiers of the “Bratstvo” (Brotherhood) battalion under the command of the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine sit on the muzzle of a captured Russian tank stuck in a field on April 2, 2022 in Nova Basan Village, Chernihiv Oblast, Ukraine. | Andrii Kotliarchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images And in Ukraine, the flooding of the Irpin basin was economically and ecologically destructive.  Among outside observers, there was initial excitement about the prospect of a new natural paradise. But villagers in the region lost their lands and homes, and the influx of water had a negative effect on local species that had no time to adapt to the sudden change.  “Yes, it stopped the invasion of Kyiv, and this was badly needed, so no criticism here. But it did result in environmental damage,” said Helm, the Estonian ecologist.  Unlike Ukraine, EU governments have the chance to restore peatlands with care, taking into account the needs of nature, farmers and armies.  “Perhaps it’s better to think ahead instead of being forced to act in a hurry,” she said. “We have this opportunity. Ukraine didn’t.”  Zia Weise reported from Brussels, Wojciech Kość from Warsaw and Veronika Melkozerova from Kyiv. 

German MEP Carola Rackete, who became famous for a public spat over migration with Italy’s far-right chief Matteo Salvini, announced her resignation from the European Parliament on Wednesday. “My candidacy and mandate have always aimed to contribute to the renewal of the German Left party — a process that is progressing successfully,” Rackete said in a statement. Rackete, a German conservation ecologist, social and climate activist, was elected to the Parliament with The Left group in the 2024 European election.   She shot to prominence in 2019 as captain of the rescue vessel Sea-Watch 3, when she defied Italy’s closed port policy by docking in Lampedusa with 53 saved migrants. Rackete was arrested shortly after the landing but later cleared by an Italian judge, who ruled she acted out of necessity and did not commit any criminal offense. Following the Lampedusa incident, Salvini — who was serving as Italy’s interior minister at the time — publicly criticized Rackete, calling her a “German criminal,” a “rich and spoiled communist” and an “accomplice of human traffickers,” in a series of Facebook posts and public comments. In 2019, Rackete sued Salvini for defamation. But a Milan court ruled in 2023 it could not proceed with the case against Salvini, reportedly for procedural reasons. Rackete was named as one of the POLITICO 28 Class of 2020 “Dreamers,” highlighting her defiance of Italy’s anti-immigration policies. During her year in Parliament, Rackete served on the committees for environment, monetary affairs, and agriculture, where she focused on climate justice and advocated for those most affected by inaction on global warming. Her seat is expected to be filled by Martin Günther, a fellow candidate from The Left in Germany who ran unsuccessfully alongside Rackete in the 2024 election. “I will continue Carola’s fight for climate justice using the resources of the mandate. As an economist, the economic aspects of this struggle are especially important to me. A more social and ecological EU will only be possible if we reclaim it from the super-rich and their lobbyists,” Günther said in a statement.

BRUSSELS — French President Emmanuel Macron says a new law may be required to allow more wild wolves to be shot in France, taking advantage of looser EU protections of the predators. “We’re not going to let the wolf develop and go into [areas] where it competes with our activities,” Macron said during a trip to Aveyron on Thursday, referring to wolf attacks on farmers’ livestock. “And so that means that we must, as we say modestly, cull more of them.” He said that people “who invent rules and who don’t live with their animals in places where there are bears or wolves should go and spend two nights there.” Reports of wolf attacks on livestock in France have risen over the past decade and a half, with more than 10,000 reported annual deaths in recent years. European lawmakers in May greenlit a proposal amending the European Union Habitats Directive, moving the wolf from the list of “strictly protected” to “protected” species. That makes it easier for farmers in the EU to shoot wolves that threaten their herds. The directive will enter into force on July 14, giving countries until January 2027 to implement the change in national law. The highly-political push was led by the conservative European People’s Party as part of a campaign to endear themselves to farmers ahead of last year’s European elections. It became a personal project of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pet pony Dolly was killed by a wolf in 2022. Green groups say relaxing protection rules is the wrong response. Macron “is engaging in a rare level of populism by asserting completely false things,” Jean-David Abel, head of the biodiversity network at France Nature Environnement, told Franceinfo on Friday.

Turkey has claimed half of the Aegean Sea falls under its area of marine influence, escalating a territorial spat with Greece over where to put ocean conservation zones. The move comes after Greece said it would create marine parks in waters Turkey considers its own. On Monday, Turkey submitted to UNESCO a so-called maritime spatial plan, an official document which sets the marine areas where activities including fishing, tourism and renewable energy projects can take place. It also underpins the creation of marine protection zones. Even though the spatial plan does not define the country’s exclusive economic zone, the map prepared by Ankara University reflects several of Turkey’s long-standing territorial claims, many of which conflict with those of neighboring Greece. Greek officials complained the map effectively splits the Aegean Sea in half, claiming the maritime zones of numerous Greek islands into Turkey’s proposed maritime jurisdiction. “Ankara’s map is not based on any provision of international law and produces no legal effect,” Deputy Foreign Minister Tasos Chatzivasileiou told Greek radio on Tuesday. “It reflects the long-standing Turkish positions but has no legal force. Greece will move [to respond] at all levels.” The move comes a week after the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced that legal procedures for the creation of Greece’s first two marine parks, a contentious issue with neighboring Turkey, will begin this month. Speaking at the United Nations ocean summit in Nice, Mitsotakis said the two marine parks will be established in the Ionian Sea and in the Southern Cyclades region of the Aegean Sea as a first step. The move comes a week after the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced that legal procedures for the creation of Greece’s first two marine parks. | Dumitru Doru/EPA Greece faced a fierce reaction from Turkey last year when it initially announced plans to set aside some of the waters between the two countries for ecological sustainability. Ankara is contesting the sovereignty of some of the maritime territory involved. The exact location of the maps has not been made available yet, but, according to Greek officials, the Southern Cyclades park will not involve contested areas. Turkish concerns are more likely to focus on the Dodecanese islands and nearby islets, which were part of earlier proposals but are left out of the Greek government’s current planning. Turkey asserts that the Greek islands are not entitled to full maritime zones beyond 6 nautical miles. Greece upholds the position that this is against international maritime law. In the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey’s map extends to the boundaries outlined in a Turkish-Libyan maritime memorandum signed in 2020, an agreement that Athens rejects as illegal and invalid. It also highlights some areas licensed to the Turkish Petroleum Corporation for exploration activities. In April, Greece completed its national Maritime Spatial Plan and published the official map, outlining its maritime zones in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, after years of delays that drew rebuke from the European Commission. Ankara rejected the Greek plan, arguing that it infringes on Turkey’s claimed maritime jurisdiction in both regions, and criticized what it described as Greece’s unilateral approach.

European lawmakers on Thursday backed downgrading the wolf’s conservation status, delivering a political trophy to the Commission president and a loaded rifle to Europe’s farmers. The proposal amends the European Union Habitats Directive, moving the wolf from the list of “strictly protected” to “protected” species, making it easier for farmers in the EU to shoot wolves that threaten their herds. It’s a win for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, answering a long-standing demand of conservative lawmakers and fulfilling a campaign promise made during the EU elections last year by her center-right European People’s Party (EPP). Von der Leyen’s own pony, Dolly, was also famously killed by a wolf back in 2022. It “horribly distressed” her “whole family,” she said in a statement after the attack. The draft rules — which passed with 371 votes in favor, 162 votes against and 37 abstentions — now only need formal approval by the Council of the EU to enter into force. They would lower the threshold for national authorities to grant derogations to kill animals deemed to pose a threat. It’s “good news for rural areas and livestock farmers,” said EPP lawmaker and group spokesperson for the environment Peter Liese in a post on X. ‘SAD DAY FOR BIODIVERSITY’ While hunters and farmers celebrated, environmental groups described a dark day for biodiversity with far-reaching impacts. Wolf populations are recovering thanks to their strict protection status, rankling farmers who want to protect their livestock. Secretary general of the European Landowners’ Organization, Jurgen Tack, described Thursday’s vote as “clear recognition that conservation policy must evolve alongside ecological realities.” But the species is still in an unfavorable conservation status in six out of the seven EU biogeographical regions where it is present, according to the latest assessment, covering the period 2013-2018. Conservationists consider the wolf a “keystone species” because of its role as a predator in the food chain and how can alter the behavior of its prey to allow other parts of the ecosystem to thrive.  “Wolves are vital to healthy ecosystems, but today’s vote treats them as a political problem, not an ecological asset,” said Ilaria Di Silvestre from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Amendments submitted by the Greens and the Left called on the Parliament to reject the bill, arguing it sets a “dangerous precedent for decision making on conservation issues.” As expected, they didn’t muster the necessary support. CAUGHT IN THE CROSSHAIRS For now, the wolf is the only strictly protected species in legislators’ crosshairs, but that could change. Europe’s brown bear is another strictly protected species whose status is coming under increasing scrutiny, in particular from the Slovakian government. Some governments, including Austria, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia and Romania, have suggested downgrading other protected species such as bears, lynxes, seals and cormorants. In a press conference Wednesday, Liese said that while “we need to look at other species” that should face the same treatment as the wolf, like the cormorant, “that is for later, after a careful analysis.” The directive will enter into force 20 days after being published in the EU Official Journal. EU countries will then have 18 months to comply.

BRUSSELS — The Netherlands is rolling back its nitrogen reduction targets, setting the stage for a showdown with its own judges and Brussels over one of Europe’s most contentious environmental issues. The Dutch government on Friday confirmed it will push back its deadline to halve nitrogen emissions from 2030 to 2035, defying a recent court order and putting its green commitments at risk. The move, spearheaded by Agriculture Minister Femke Wiersma of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), is meant to give farmers more time to adapt, but could instead entrench a years-long standoff over how to cut pollution from intensive livestock farming. The decision comes despite a Dutch court ruling in January that ordered the government to meet its existing 2030 deadline to protect sensitive nature areas from nitrogen pollution, most of it from manure, with fertilizer use also contributing. Brussels may also weigh in, as the delay risks breaching the EU’s Habitats Directive, which obliges member states to prevent the deterioration of protected ecosystems and to restore them “within a short period.” The Netherlands has long been ground zero for Europe’s nitrogen crisis, with its high-density farming blamed for dumping excessive nitrogen into Natura 2000 conservation areas. The country ranks among the worst in the EU for nitrogen pollution per hectare, at around four times the European average — far more than its landscapes and protected habitats can absorb. Successive governments have struggled to square environmental obligations with farmer pushback, a conflict that helped topple the last coalition and fueled the rise of Wiersma’s BBB, which became the largest party in the Dutch Senate in 2023 and joined the national coalition government last year. FIVE MORE YEARS The new plan includes a €2.2 billion “starter package” to encourage farmers near vulnerable nature sites to downsize, relocate or invest in cleaner technologies. The package covers voluntary buyouts for livestock farmers, including €750 million for those who choose to shut down and €627 million for dairy producers who scale back. Another €100 million is set aside for nature restoration. The government is also preparing to overhaul how nitrogen is regulated. Up until now, Dutch policy has been based on how much nitrogen pollution settles in protected areas — the so-called critical deposition value (KDW). Wiersma’s plan signals a move away from that system toward setting emission limits directly at the source, on individual farms and factories. How those caps will be calculated remains unclear. “This plan offers perspective for farmers and space for innovation while we keep working toward nature recovery,” Wiersma told reporters ahead of the adoption. Environmental groups, legal experts and the Dutch state attorney had already warned in recent days that the plan could fail to meet judicial requirements, after details of the proposal began circulating in the Dutch press on Wednesday and Thursday. COURT RULING LOOMS In January, a Dutch court sided with Greenpeace in a case challenging the government’s slow progress on nitrogen reduction. The ruling ordered the state to cut pollution fast enough to bring at least half of all nitrogen-sensitive conservation areas below harmful thresholds by 2030. The judge cited the Netherlands’ obligations under the Habitats Directive, which prioritizes the health of protected ecosystems over economic flexibility. The government has appealed the decision but must comply with the ruling while that process is ongoing. By unilaterally shifting the target to 2035, Wiersma’s plan risks being seen as non-compliant with both the Dutch court and EU law, potentially exposing The Hague to further lawsuits and financial penalties. Environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Mobilization for the Environment (MOB), have already signaled they will take the government back to court if the delay goes ahead. Greenpeace called the adopted plan “an insult to the rule of law,” accusing it of lacking binding measures for agriculture, proper calculations or sufficient funding. BRUSSELS WATCHING The European Commission has so far held back from saying whether the Dutch delay is compatible with EU law, though officials in the environment department have repeatedly stressed that the Habitats Directive leaves little room to put off required action. “The Netherlands must put in place and implement effective measures to reduce nitrates and nitrogen pollution in order to meet the EU requirements on nature and water quality,” Commission spokesperson Maciej Berestecki told POLITICO. “It is up to the Dutch authorities to decide on effective measures to ensure compliance and reach agreed targets.” Commission lawyers are expected to review the Dutch plan following the government’s adoption of the package on Friday. Any failure to comply with EU law could eventually trigger infringement proceedings from Brussels.  The delay hands Wiersma’s BBB a political win with its rural base, at least for now, but risks locking the Netherlands into another round of courtroom battles at home and in Brussels. This story has been updated to include reaction from Greenpeace and the European Commission.

BERLIN — Germany’s Greens believed they were only just getting started, but they may have already reached a dead end. After becoming a key part of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government with their best election result ever in 2021, the Greens believed they would cement their place as an established party with the bonafides to govern while making the fight against climate change mainstream. But now the party is set to return to its long-standing position in the opposition after a disappointing fourth-place finish in Germany’s national election, far behind Friedrich Merz’s victorious conservatives. That leaves the Greens — who emerged from environmental and peace protest movements of the 1970s and early 1980s — with nowhere to go but back to their activist roots. “We will make life difficult for the conservatives,” said Katharina Dröge, the co-leader of the Greens parliamentary group, after the vote. “If you really intend to dismantle climate protection in this country, there will be parliamentary resistance against it.” The problem for the Greens is they may have already done everything they can to influence the next government’s climate policies. Incoming Chancellor Merz needed the Greens to pass a historic package of constitutional reforms through parliament earlier this month that will unleash hundreds of billions of euros in new borrowing for defense and infrastructure — and the Greens used that unexpected leverage to great effect, pushing the conservative leader to commit €100 billion to fight climate change in order to reach a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. But with Merz likely to close a deal with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) to form the next coalition government in the coming weeks, that’s likely the last direct say Germany’s Greens, once the great hope of European environmentalists, will have in forming national policy for years. At the same time, there are many ways things can go wrong from the perspective of those who want to see the German government do more to fight climate change. “It’s good that there’s clarity on climate funding, but there’s no guarantee that the money will actually flow into meaningful climate protection measures,” said Vicki Duscha, a climate policy expert at the Fraunhofer Society, Europe’s largest applied research institution. The Greens are now being forced to confront their relative powerlessness while locked in an impassioned internal debate about which course to follow in their quest to win back power. SPLIT PERSONALITY The Greens have long been split between two factions: the realos, or realists, the more moderate and pragmatic wing of the party, and the fundis, the fundamentalists, who are less willing to compromise on their core beliefs. The divide in many ways remains intact as the Greens seek a new identity in opposition, with some in the party seeing a centrist approach as more likely to bring them back to power, and others arguing they need to double down on their core ideals. The problem for the Greens is they may have already done everything they can to influence the next government’s climate policies. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images Whichever way they go, they are bound to pay a price. While in power the Greens endured fierce attacks from right-wing politicians, who depicted them as willing to destroy Germany’s economy for their ideology. The Greens’ push to replace gas boilers with more environmentally friendly heat pumps came under particular attack. At the same time, climate activists sharply criticized the Greens for making compromises that party leaders viewed as a necessary response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine — and the energy crunch that followed. When Greens politicians advocated one compromise deal on coal in 2022, activists in movements like Fridays for Future, once seen as a natural ally of the Greens, became some of their loudest critics. “The climate crisis makes no compromises,” Linda Kastrup, a Fridays for Future activist, said at the time. But given their new place in the opposition, the only way to maneuever politically may be back to the left — to the fundi side of things. Sven-Christian Kindler, a former Greens lawmaker who did not run for reelection in the February vote, sees the Greens’ missteps as rooted in what he sees as the party’s shift to the center in recent years. When Greens politicians advocated one compromise deal on coal in 2022, activists in movements like Fridays for Future, once seen as a natural ally of the Greens, became some of their loudest critics. | Omer Messinger/Getty Images “Some of us assumed that by being pragmatic, we could fill the political void left by [former Chancellor] Angela Merkel,” Kindler told POLITICO. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, that shift to the center became more pronounced, many inside the party believe. Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck’s move to keep coal plants running longer than promised was one key shift. But the Greens also abandoned their pacifist roots, with Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock forcefully pushing for arms deliveries to Kyiv. “All that combined cost us votes — despite what we did right in government,” Kindler said. For many inside the party, the solution is clear. “My suggestion: Become greener again,” said Felix Banaszak, one of the Greens’ national leaders, in a recent interview. “This includes talking more about ecology again, i.e. climate, environmental and nature conservation, and justifying climate protection on its own merits — instead of just as a lever for economic growth,” he went on. “Now is the time to prevent ecological regression.”

The European Commission has unveiled its long-awaited draft law downgrading the protection status of wolves, which would make it easier for farmers in the European Union to shoot animals that menace their livestock. The bill, which answers a long-standing demand of conservative lawmakers, proposes to amend the EU Habitats Directive, moving the wolf from the list of “strictly protected” to “protected” species. That would lower the threshold for national authorities to grant derogations to kill animals deemed to pose a threat. It’s the culmination of a long campaign in which Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose pet pony Dolly was killed by a wolf in 2022, played a leading role. “The concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger especially for livestock,” von der Leyen said in a statement on Friday. “To manage critical wolf concentrations more actively, local authorities have long been asking for more flexibility,” she said, adding today’s proposal “will help [them] find more targeted solutions to protect both, biodiversity and our rural livelihoods.” With this proposal von der Leyen also fulfils one of the campaign promises made during the EU elections last year by her political family — the center-right European People’s Party, which proclaims itself the “farmer’s party.” The draft legislation will now be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, representing the 27 national governments, before it officially becomes law. The Commission added that EU countries will still have the possibility to maintain a higher level of wolf’s protection, if they consider it necessary under their national law. Yet, some governments, notably Austria, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia and Romania, as well as few conservative MEPs have suggested downgrading other protected species such as bears, lynxes, seals and cormorants.