Two months after swimming across the breakwaters to Ceuta, Spain, Mohamed learned that his asylum claim was denied. In late July, at his home in Tangier, Mohamed didn’t hesitate when he received a social media alert that the border crossing between Morocco and the Spanish enclave had opened. He hopped in a friend’s car, drove four hours to the border, and jumped into the sea. “I swam for three or four hours, I was so cold,” he said. “I’ve never been so scared in my life. You can’t even imagine.” He carried nothing but his phone and 14 euros.  I first connected with Mohamed through a friend in academia, and over the last few weeks, I’ve been speaking to him while he’s lived in a Ceuta shelter along the border. The facility has ten showers and four phone charging ports for over a thousand migrants. Mohamed was initially optimistic while waiting for his pending asylum application, but that’s changed now that his case has been denied. “I’m so sad, I have no mood,” he told me over WhatsApp. “All of our claims, they’re getting denied.” Mohamed (not his real name) is one of the estimated 80,000 people who crossed from Morocco into Ceuta over 48 hours last summer—the largest recorded migrant crossing which took place at one of only two land borders between Africa and the European Union. The other is the Spanish enclave Melilla and both locations have experienced migrant crossings. Over two days in May 2021, 8,000 people entered Ceuta, and in June 2022, 2,000 people attempted to cross the Melilla border fence. But the sheer number of people who made the crossing in July eclipses previous attempts by an order of magnitude. Like Mohamed, many migrants this summer waded into the sea and swam around the breakwaters of Tarajel Beach and Benzú into Ceuta. An estimated 141 people died, some by drowning and some were crushed as they attempted to climb around the border fence. “It was a disaster,” said Francesca Fusaro, a volunteer for No Name Kitchen, a humanitarian NGO that provides aid to migrants crossing borders. Within a matter of days, over 70,000 people voluntarily returned to Morocco, but thousands still remain in Ceuta hoping to be granted asylum. More are being rejected every day. Photo Mohamed shared with me on WhatsApp of migrants protesting for their asylum cases to be heard in Ceuta after crossing the border. Photo taken sometime in September 2026.Courtesy Photo When news of the mass crossing first broke, headlines describing the events went viral: “Taxi drivers called it an invasion; NGOs described it as a humanitarian crisis; local politicians faced with handling the situation labeled it a national emergency,” Carmen Morán Breña wrote in El País. Meanwhile, far-right Russian and Israeli networks fueled right-wing social media narratives online, calling the crossing an “assault” and pushing Islamophobic and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Media attention may have focused on the geopolitics behind the crossing, but another reality was in the background: climate change.  That is not to say that the effects of climate change caused tens of thousands of people to risk their lives by attempting to swim to Ceuta. Economic forces were much more urgent motivators for Mohamed to leave his home. “I am suffering in Morocco,” he told me. “There are no job opportunities. I have a degree in British literature. I speak English, German, and French. I work as a painter.”  But after another summer of extreme temperatures and wildfires in the northern and southeastern provinces in Morocco, severe flash flooding and landslides in rural communities throughout the High Atlas Mountains, and the culmination of a seven-year drought after a winter of heavy rainfall across the country, climate change also may be an underlying factor in creating the economic crisis forcing so many to leave their homes. As Lauren Herzer Risi pointed out in her piece for New Security Beat, “60,000 [plus] people don’t just cross a border when a guard points to an open door.” I spoke to several experts focused on the intersection of climate change, migration, and border security. They explained the nuanced interaction between the warming world and migration. “Every story of human movement now is a climate story, whether we like it or not,” said Petra Molnar, a lawyer and researcher who has spent years documenting what she calls “border necrotechnics”—the lethal blend of law, racism, and technology at borders. “Pretty much every case of forced or ‘voluntary’ migration has a climate element built into it.” > “Every story of human movement now is a climate story, whether we like it or > not. Pretty much every case of forced or ‘voluntary’ migration has a climate > element built into it.” Whether within or across borders, “no one calls themselves a climate migrant,” said Amali Tower, the co-founder of the organization Climate Refugees. Legally, there’s no such category because international law does not consider climate displacement to be grounds for refugee status. Add to this the fact that data on international climate displacement is lacking; it’s easier to measure displacement after a distinct disaster, such as a hurricane, rather than the slow onset of rising temperatures or sea levels. Today, North Africa and the Middle East are warming faster than the rest of the world, and Morocco’s agricultural sector—the cornerstone of the country’s economy—is particularly vulnerable to climate impacts like soil degradation and depleted groundwater. Many Moroccan farmers have had to adjust their lives in response to extreme weather events, planting different crops, or eating different food, or reducing livestock holdings. A January 2026 Afrobarometer survey showed that almost a fifth of all those surveyed considered moving to a new place due to climate impacts. A 2021 World Bank report found that by 2050 in Morocco, 1.9 million climate migrants would be moving internally in the country. “The relationship between environmental change, climate hazards, and aspirations to move is incredibly complex,” said Karolina Sobczak-Szelc, a migration researcher who studied climate displacement in Morocco. In Syria, for example, the decade-long civil war and subsequent refugee crisis was the result of systemic political and sectarian repression. But, just before the civil war broke out in 2011, the country experienced the worst multiyear drought in nearly a millennium, decimating Syria’s economy and livestock. Climate change is what Peter Schwartzstein, an environmental journalist and Stimson Center fellow, calls the “mood music” behind events like Ceuta, not mass migration’s main driver, but a constant presence. “It puts a proverbial thumb on the scales that amplifies the pressure exerted by a whole bundle of other things,” he said. “This is the bitter reality of climate-induced crises.” Coupled with stressors like rising housing costs, growing wealth inequality, and youth disenfranchisement laid bare during Morocco’s 2025 GenZ212 uprising, “the difference between the bright lights of Casablanca and some of these really, really quite deprived areas is stark in the extreme,” said Schwartzstein. Before even reaching another country’s border, climate migration typically starts with internal movement within a country. “They move from village to small town, from small town to bigger city,” said Sobczak-Szelc. “Only later, when the city doesn’t fulfill their changed expectations, do they think about moving further.” Mohamed followed a similar trajectory. He was originally from Fez, a city in central Morocco with high rates of income inequality and poor public infrastructure in comparison to its coastal neighbor. When he was unemployed and in his twenties he moved north to Tangier—only to find similar circumstances. “It’s reductive of international law and policy to expect people to fit into one neat lane,” Tower says. “People have always moved, and they’ve moved for no one singular reason.” After the mass crossing, Morocco’s Association for Human Rights issued a statement saying that it “[reflected] the profound despair among young people fueled by the lack of prospects, endemic corruption, the rise of authoritarianism, the absence of social justice, and the lack of employment opportunities and decent conditions.”   Todd Miller, a journalist for The Border Chronicle in Tucson, Arizona, has covered the intersection of border militarization, surveillance, and climate change. In his 2021 Global Climate Wall report, Miller wrote that wealthy countries would rather spend on average over 2.3 times more to arm their borders than on efforts to mitigate climate change, using the so-called threat of “mass migration” to justify increased surveillance. “Attention isn’t going towards helping people adapt to climate change or move them into better situations,” Amali Tower, from Climate Refugees, says. “Instead, we’re putting all our money and effort into how to keep people out.”  In some ways, the regional response to July’s mass crossing illustrates their points. Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni called for Spain to be suspended from the EU’s visa-free region known as the Schengen Area, writing on X that the mass crossing demonstrated “that uncontrolled illegal immigration poses a real threat to the security of Europe’s borders.” Finland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, and Austria supported Meloni’s call. And, in late September, the European Commission floated plans for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, to lead a rapid-response team that could deploy within 24 hours in a crisis. The Chief of Frontex said its agency could deploy satellites, aircraft, and observers on the ground “to improve our situational awareness.” For the first three weeks after Mohamed arrived in Ceuta, he slept in a forest on the edge of the city with limited food and water. For several nights, Spanish military guards patrolled the forest for migrants. “Some friends near us, the military found them and started beating them, they smashed their phones,” Mohamed said. “Those first few nights, I was very scared.” As Ceuta has faded away from public attention, No Name Kitchen has continued to report similar stories of law enforcement violence against migrants waiting to have their asylum cases processed in Ceuta.  Photo shared with me via WhatsApp by Mohamed of migrants sleeping in the forest in Ceuta in August 2026.Courtesy photo And for the people most affected by climate change, leaving is not a choice, even when faced with violence from law enforcement and the security state. “There’s a desperation that leads to migrants wanting to leave, so, they’ll take any avenue available to them, even if it’s short-lived,” Tower said. “They do so when circumstances become untenable, when everything they’ve tried has been exhausted, and it’s now beyond their means of coping.”  Fatima Zahra Znioi, a researcher at Warsaw’s Centre of Migration Research who moved to Poland from Morocco several years ago, compares the situation for many Moroccans to being trapped inside a burning house. “There are two ways of dying,” she said, “you can just burn to death, or jump out the window.” Znioi misses her home in Agadir, but understands why so many others have tried to leave. “I believe these people were completely desperate. You have to be to throw yourself into the sea.”  In my last video call with Mohamed, climate change never came up. Instead, Mohamed tells me he’s “fed up,” and even though he still has the right to appeal his asylum denial, he’s getting ready to return to Tangier. Then I ask about his plans for the future. “This isn’t the first time I’ve crossed into Ceuta,” he says. “I’ll just try again.” 

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The US Securities and Exchange Commission issued an unusual warning this week to the country’s largest asset managers and a climate-focused investor group over their roles in a 2021 campaign that replaced board directors at ExxonMobil. The commission published a letter saying it had concluded a probe into the entities, and while it found no evidence of violations, it expressed “serious concerns” about their actions. Investor advocates and some former SEC staff say the letter clearly aims to suppress shareholder advocacy on climate change and pressure large asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, each of which were named in the letter, to steer clear of the topic entirely. It is only the latest move by the SEC this year to limit investors’ ability to address climate risks and engage with corporate boards more broadly. The Trump administration and Republican officials across the country have spent years clamping down on efforts to press corporations for climate action.  In 2022, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives opened an antitrust investigation into some of the same groups, accusing them of acting like a “cartel.” More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general also launched probes. Oil industry campaign contributions have gone overwhelmingly to Republican candidates. Mika Morse, who was a policy counsel on climate risk to former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, said many investors and asset managers view climate change as a significant risk to their portfolios and feel a fiduciary duty to engage with companies on the topic, but may now hesitate to continue that work. > “This is just part of this pressure campaign to ensure that the financial > system doesn’t take climate into account.”  “Investors are feeling really inhibited because of this fear that they will become the target of investigations,” Morse said. “And this type of harassment is really effective, unfortunately.” SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock, who began that position in May, was an attorney at Exxon during the investors’ campaign, according to his LinkedIn profile. An SEC spokesperson said the investigation began last year and that Woodcock recused himself. The investigation probed the communications of some of the country’s largest asset managers and pension funds—including BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, and the New York State Common Retirement Fund—with a group called Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative that pushes for climate action by large corporate emitters. The report traced what it called a campaign by Climate Action 100+ beginning in 2019 to change Exxon’s board because of the company’s inaction on global warming. The California and New York pension funds were active in the climate group, and BlackRock and State Street joined the initiative in 2020. By 2021, a small activist investor firm called Engine No. 1 had launched a campaign to replace some of Exxon’s directors. That campaign focused on what the firm said was the company’s poor financial performance—Exxon had been removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average the previous year as its stock price lagged—rather than inaction on climate change. But the SEC letter said Engine No. 1 had communicated with some Climate Action 100+ members and with Ceres, a sustainable business advocacy group that helps coordinate the climate investor organization. That year, the campaign succeeded in appointing three new members to Exxon’s board, in large part by convincing large asset managers like BlackRock to vote yes.  It was a huge blow to Exxon and came at a low point for the oil industry. Profits had plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some analysts were predicting peak oil consumption had passed. Major investors lined up behind the notion that climate risks were systemic, and President Joe Biden had won election the prior year after pledging to shift away from fossil fuels. In the following years, the oil industry and its allies in public office and think tanks pushed back forcefully, filing lawsuits, launching investigations, and pushing legislation that targeted opponents in the financial sector, academia and elsewhere.  The Trump administration has incorporated this effort as public policy through the Department of Justice, SEC, and other agencies, siding with the oil industry in numerous lawsuits, for example. The SEC investigation examined whether the asset managers and other members of the climate organization coordinated their votes, which could have triggered onerous reporting requirements under SEC rules meant to give public insight into campaigns by activist investors to influence companies.  > “Climate Action 100+ supports investors as they assess and address the > financial risks that climate poses to the companies they invest in.” Firms like BlackRock are exempt from these reporting requirements even though they hold large stakes in many companies because they are considered passive investors. The SEC letter raised the question of whether the firms should have been required to report more extensively in the case of the Exxon campaign. Experts in securities law say the difference is significant and that a finding of violation could have had serious implications. Ultimately, the commission did not find evidence to support any of these claims but still issued a public report. Jim Moloney, director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, said the “report reminds asset managers and investors of their responsibilities with respect to shareholder engagement, especially in the context of organized efforts that follow a playbook similar to that of Climate Action 100+.” Shareholder advocates have criticized the SEC report, arguing that it sought to intimidate investors. “What we’ve seen in the ongoing investigations and attacks on climate groups is simply an opinion that shareholders should not be considering climate,” said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel of As You Sow, a nonprofit shareholder advocacy group that is part of the Climate Action 100+. “This is just part of this pressure campaign to ensure that the financial system doesn’t take climate into account.”  Andrew Behar, As You Sow’s chief executive, said the campaign to remake Exxon’s board was an attempt to reverse the company’s declining financial performance, and it worked. He pointed to a sustained increase in Exxon’s value that coincided with the addition of new board members. Overall, Behar said, the campaign showed how capitalism is meant to work. Michael Boudett, general counsel at Ceres, said in a statement, “Climate Action 100+ has always operated within US securities law. It supports investors as they assess and address the financial risks that climate poses to the companies they invest in. It is up to every participating Climate Action 100+ investor to make their own decisions, including how they vote their shares.”  He added, “Understanding material risks, including financial risks from climate change, is central to that duty.” Many shareholder advocates have criticized the SEC more broadly under the Trump administration. It is generally supposed to have five commissioners with at least two from each party, but there are currently only two total, and President Donald Trump has not appointed any Democratic commissioners. Last week, the commission issued a rule saying it can reach a quorum with only one commissioner. BlackRock and State Street declined to comment, with a BlackRock spokesperson pointing to the SEC report’s declaration that the investigation “did not develop evidence that BlackRock or State Street agreed to vote proxies in certain manners or shared their proxy voting intentions with investors or others associated with” the Climate Action 100+. Exxon did not respond to a request for comment. As conservatives have targeted BlackRock, its positions have shifted. The asset manager left the Climate Action 100+ in 2024. Behar said that a few years ago, BlackRock voted in favor of nearly half the proposals his organization supported, which cover numerous social and environmental topics. Last year BlackRock backed hardly any. Morse said the SEC has identified all the ways investors try to press companies to manage climate risk and is working to shut down each path, from limiting their ability to file shareholder resolutions to making it harder for investors to meet with companies. “The total picture is pretty stunning,” Morse said.  After the commission proposed rescinding a rule on climate-related disclosures, Morse said she heard from many investors and people at corporations that they disagreed with the proposal but declined to submit comments because they feared retribution.  While she understood their position, she said, “This is such a low point for our democracy, that companies and investors would disagree with a policy but be afraid to comment.”

BRUSSELS — France and Germany said Friday they had struck a deal to favor European-made cars under a landmark EU industry bill in exchange for weakening a 2035 vehicle emissions target, ending months of wrangling between the bloc’s two biggest economies. Under the agreement, Germany would accept stricter “Made in Europe” — or local content — requirements for the automotive industry in the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act, a longstanding French demand, while France would back Berlin’s push to relax the EU’s plan to phase out new combustion-engine cars. The EU’s current target is for companies to reduce emissions from new vehicles by 100% from 2021 levels by 2035, with the possibility to “earn” 10% of emissions leeway through initiatives like offsets and investments. France and Germany now want to soften the 2035 target to 90% but without having  to offer investments in alternative fuels to compensate the remaining 10%, as proposed by the European Commission. “This balanced approach will enable the European Union to pursue its climate objectives while strengthening the technological sovereignty, industrial base and international competitiveness of its automotive industry,” the two countries said in a joint statement. The agreement, first reported by POLITICO in July, was due to have been announced Thursday, during a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels. But it was held up at the last minute by disagreements within Germany’s governing coalition. “We hope that this Franco-German dynamic can swiftly lead to an agreement with our partners, for our jobs and our industry,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in a post on social media. An Elysée official on Friday made clear that, under the Franco-German deal, the scope of Made in Europe for automotive can be extended to the U.K. and Switzerland under certain conditions. — addressing a key concern of Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government ahead of a Nov. 20 U.K.-EU summit in Brussels. The agreement was reached after the German Social Democratic Party, the junior partner in Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition government, dropped its opposition. “This is a modern realignment of German industrial policy that places significantly greater emphasis on preserving jobs and production sites,” said German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider, who is from the SPD. “The clear expectation for German companies is that they will use these new opportunities to make investments and guarantee jobs here in Germany,” he added. CORRECTION: This article was updated on Oct. 16 after an earlier version misrepresented the figures in the Franco-German proposal on the softening of 2035 targets.

Also: The whisper-quiet declaration of severe drought across a swathe of southern England, and the unsurprising news that far-right terror is on the rise. The post French student revolt reaches Argentina appeared first on Freedom Press.

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. A four-hour legislative committee hearing in June, punctuated by applause and anger, offered a window into the growing backlash against data centers. The prospect of unchecked development has galvanized a cross-section of Ohioans, urban and rural, Democrat and Republican, alarmed about the spread of the giant computing facilities. Residents are demanding that local governments impose bans and moratoria on data centers while gathering signatures for a statewide ballot measure that could go before voters in 2027. Leading the push is an eclectic group from rural Southern Ohio, including an outdoor-tourism guide, a lawyer and others who fear that the state’s data center boom is changing their communities faster than they can respond. “Especially on America’s 250th anniversary it’s your job to make sure there’s life for another 250,” Nikki Gerber, the tourism guide, said at the June 1 statehouse hearing. Data centers powered by fossil fuels are a rising source of planet-warming emissions. But for many opponents, the concerns are closer to home: They fear that data centers will change the look and feel of familiar landscapes and threaten local air and water. Resistance to data centers is spreading across the country, especially against the supersize complexes being built to support artificial intelligence. The issue is emerging as a focal point in the November midterm elections, with about 40 local ballot measures in seven states, according to Ballotpedia. Ohio has the most, with 21, including 10 communities set to vote next month on local restrictions on data centers: Conneaut, Defiance, Granville, Oregon, Pataskala, Piqua, Sunbury, Upper Sandusky, Trenton, and Urbana. The Ohio campaign stands out because the Columbus region has become one of the nation’s data center development hot spots. If opponents prevail in Ohio, the outcome could reverberate beyond the state. But Gerber is not thinking about the national stakes. Her focus is the 1.3-gigawatt data center that Amazon Web Services wants to build about 15 miles from her campground. She’s worried about what the project could do to the area’s water levels and biodiversity. Inside Climate News visited her business, Moondoggie Liveree, tucked into the woods near Ohio Brush Creek, which flows into the Ohio River in Adams County. Gerber’s office is an open-air shed left behind by a previous owner, with walls covered with knickknacks, bumper stickers and signs. Among the messages: “Watch! 4 Turtles! Caution!” The business rents campsites, canoes and kayaks, and assists hikers. “Everybody thinks Ohio’s flat,” she said. “But it’s not, and it’s a really, really special area out here.” The office of Moondoggie Liveree, a business that supports camping, kayaking and outdoor tourism.Dan Gearino/Inside Climate News Gerber is a local leader in promoting Adams County—one of Ohio’s poorest counties based on median household income—as a destination for outdoor tourism. She’s worried that the proposed data center could open the door to more projects, transforming the rustic landscape into an industrial zone. She bought her property after working for years as a medical assistant. During the offseason, she builds rental cabins around the region. After learning about the proposed Amazon data center early this year, she grew frustrated by what she saw as a lack of details from the local government. Adams County officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In neighboring Brown County, also one of the poorest counties in the state, attorney Austin Baurichter left his job at a law firm office in Cincinnati, partly because he didn’t want to work on behalf of data center developers. He opened his own practice and connected with Gerber and others looking for answers about the projects. They seem to have little in common. Gerber spends most of her day outdoors in flip-flops and shorts, while Baurichter is an early-career lawyer, usually dressed in a suit and tie. But they share a dedication to the cause. Gerber is “the living embodiment of the sparkle emoji,” Baurichter said, interviewed by phone from his home office. He praised her energy and optimism. The two are among the half-dozen people at the core of Conserve Ohio, the organization leading a statewide campaign for a data center moratorium. Austin Baurichter testifies before the Select Committee on Data Centers on June 1 in Columbus, Ohio, asking lawmakers to listen to concerns about out-of-control development.The Ohio Channel via Inside Climate News Baurichter has grown frustrated with local governments, which he says are becoming more hostile toward data center opponents. He argues that some officials “got bamboozled” by developers early on, sometimes signing nondisclosure agreements and supporting projects without understanding the ramifications. He approaches his activism with intensity, bringing his legal skills into the fight, filing public-records requests and questioning officials at public meetings. > “We would rather you fight for our honor than for scraps that are being > offered by people who know what they’re offering [is] scraps.” In late September, he was there when the Ohio General Assembly voted on a temporary pause in the state’s gasoline tax. Data center opponents, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton, a former director of the state health department, urged lawmakers to pass a measure pausing data center development that day. Majority Republicans declined to take up the issue. Ohio political blogger D.J. Byrnes, who writes The Rooster newsletter about Ohio politics, captured video of Baurichter speaking on the sidelines with state Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney, a Cleveland-area Democrat. Baurichter admonished her for not doing more. “We would rather you fight for our honor than for scraps that are being offered by people who know what they’re offering [is] scraps,” he said. His conversations at the statehouse underscored his sense that leaders are not listening. “It’s exhausting, like throwing your energy down a black hole,” he said soon after. The legislature responded to public concerns last spring by creating the Select Committee on Data Centers. The panel has met five times, including the June 1 hearing, and has gathered feedback from local officials, data center companies, and the public. “We’re committed to being a good neighbor—operationally, economically, and in how we engage with communities across the state,” Thor Underdahl, data center and energy public policy manager for Meta, said at a June 4 committee hearing. Craig Sundstrom, head of energy and sustainability policy for Amazon Web Services, testified about the jobs and investment that data centers could bring. He pushed back against concerns about their water use, saying claims about excessive water consumption are false. An Amazon data center “uses less water than a few car washes do annually,” he said. State Rep. Adam Holmes, a Republican from a rural district in the east-central part of Ohio, is the committee’s co-chair. In an interview, he said that legislators are in a fact-finding phase, trying to understand how the state can reap the economic benefits of development while addressing the issues raised by voters. “It’s overwhelming the amount of money that’s coming, and it’s coupled with this historic transformation in technology that we’re facing,” he said. “The change is dramatic; that creates a lot of anxiety.” Ohio Rep. Adam Holmes, co-chairman of the Select Committee on Data Centers, speaking on the House floor.Ohio General Assembly via Inside Climate News Holmes wants to make sure consumers are protected from potential increases in electricity and water bills tied to data centers’ demand for those resources, he said. But he’s still figuring out how to approach proposals that would pause development. He noted that both Acton, the Democratic nominee, and her Republican opponent, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, support some form of a moratorium. That said, candidates differ on what could come next. On her campaign website, Acton has called for greater transparency, ending state incentives for data centers and restricting where they can be built. This is in addition to a moratorium that would give lawmakers time to establish new rules. Ramaswamy, a former presidential candidate and prominent supporter of President Donald Trump, has proposed making electricity free for residents of communities with data centers and strictly enforcing clean-air and clean-water rules for the projects. He supports pausing development until state law clearly protects consumers. “Despite my opponents’ claims, I’m not ‘pro-data center,’” he said on his campaign website. “I’m pro-Ohio, and I have a plan to fix the problem.” Conserve Ohio leaders are skeptical of both candidates. They question whether politicians, especially Republicans, can withstand pressure from gigantic tech companies and Trump. The Trump administration has a stake in Ohio’s data center debate because the federal government owns the land that would host the largest data center in the country, Ports Technology Campus near Piketon, which is not far from Adams and Brown counties. When fully built, the project would require 10,000 megawatts of electricity. A proposed natural-gas power plant would supply 9,200 megawatts, with an additional 800 megawatts that may come from other sources. The federal government is working with SoftBank, the Japanese conglomerate, to develop the site, with OpenAI expected to be its primary user. Even though Ports Technology Campus is a short drive from where Gerber and Baurichter live, the project is almost too large for them to comprehend, and its federal ownership makes it difficult to challenge, they said. So far, the proposal has drawn little opposition in Pike County, which, like Adams and Brown counties, has struggled to attract jobs for decades. Data center opponents are focusing on several dozen hot spots where resistance is strongest. Conserve Ohio advises local activists on how to obtain public records. In return, local activists help gather signatures for a statewide moratorium vote. As of Oct. 2, the campaign has collected about 140,000 signatures of the roughly 410,000 needed to qualify for the ballot, Baurichter said.The campaign is too late to make the November ballot, meaning the earliest the issue could go before voters is 2027. Polling suggests the campaign has public support. A survey released by Bowling Green State University’s Democracy and Public Policy Network found that 75 percent of residents opposed data center construction in their communities, while 63 percent oppose such projects anywhere in Ohio and 55 percent oppose them anywhere in the United States. Ohio has emerged as one of the country’s leading data center markets, ranking among the top five states for development based on the number of projects and their electricity demand, according to industry research firms. Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate research firm, ranks Columbus third among US data center markets behind Virginia and Portland and Eastern Oregon. Much of the development has happened in New Albany, a suburb northeast of Columbus. Amazon and Meta were among the companies that built large data centers in New Albany in the 2010s. Today, rows of buildings filled with computer equipment, surrounded by muddy construction sites, occupy much of the city, as The Columbus Dispatch showed in a recent video. For data center opponents, New Albany is an example to be avoided. An aerial view of Google’s New Albany data center campus in Central Ohio. Google via Inside Climate News Michael Thomas, CEO of Cleanview, a research firm that tracks power plants and data centers, said that the Columbus-New Albany area is attractive for data centers because of its abundant electricity and close proximity to many of the nation’s population centers. “Ohio has cheaper power than most other states, and historically the state and its utilities have offered generous incentives and easy permitting,” he said in an email. Back on Gerber’s property, she led a tour of Ohio Brush Creek, where the water level was unusually low. The area, she said, has suffered from drought broken up by flooding, making her wary of projects that may affect the region’s water. The campaign has cost Gerber time and added to her stress, but she sees those costs as small compared with what is at stake. She believes this fight will determine the future of Adams County. “It’s overwhelming,” she said.

At the end of last month the US Supreme Court endorsed – and effectively advanced – the Trump/MAGA sadist agenda by ruling against those working to stop ICE’s (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) abduction, kidnapping and torturing of mostly non-whites before (often illegally) expelling them to countries other than their homelands without giving them the chance to appeal or adduce the deportations as human rights violations. These include, for instance, being flown into war zones or areas where LGBTQ+ people are targets. Given that ICE (also implicated in voter suppression efforts) was recently ordered to increase the number of arrests it has to make each day back up to the previous ‘target’ of 3,000, such abuses seem certain to increase. Bo French is a candidate to lead the Texas Railroad Commission, the body that regulates that state’s oil and gas industries. But he has other interests. He enjoys posting images of non-whites at a sports event and describing them as being “…far worse than any of us could imagine…” and calling for the public execution of his opponents. After asking on social media last year whether Jews or Muslims posed the greater threat, French won the nomination in May. This is, of course, well in line with the ways in which the US government also frequently acts towards LGBTQ+ opponents. The US State Department (the equivalent of the UK’S Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) appears to be illegally diverting a significant amount of money (the equivalent of roughly £152m) officially apportioned by Congress for human rights. It’s going to far right, Fascist and racist/supremacist groups and organisations in order to ‘safeguard western civilisation norms’. This is largely consistent with a view expressed belligerently and unequivocally by the US Vice President Vance recently when, referring to a black candidate for the US Senate in Florida, he said that because of her views and race she should “Get the hell out of here”. The same treatment is meted out to those drawing attention to and actively opposing the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, such as lawyers like Florida-based Jalal Shehadeh.  They have either been detained or had their phones and other belongings seized without cause. High profile critics of Trump continue to be subjected to deliberately intimidating searches of their homes – without cause. After all, if Trump can order an investigation by the FBI into posts on TikTok because he doesn’t like them, and can defy a court ruling that he must reverse his exclusion on media of which he disapproves, he can pretty much do anything – including apparently turning a blind eye to, even encouraging, an attack on Los Angeles and San Diego, which would take 10 million lives. In fact, Trump’s supremacist incitements to violence against non-whites reached a new low last week when he posted just about as clear a threat as possible that he will use government terrorists to kill and injure guest-workers in (in this case) Minnesota if he wants to. As long as supremacist rants of this kind on fascist propaganda outlets like Fox are broadcast, accepted and consumed by the estimated third of the adult population in the US, which is still taken in by MAGA, it’s of little surprise that not more people have yet caught up with what’s really happening; and why. Little that the Trump/MAGA cult has done in their second term more starkly highlights corruption and arrogance than their illegal campaign advertisements for next month’s midterm elections. They have been estimated to cost a total of $20 million dollars (about £15 million). So each resident in the US is having to pay to be lied to. It is illegal to use government funds for (party) political campaigning. Indeed, what is happening may even count as theft. But the Supreme Court has already ruled [pdf] that everything which a sitting president does in furtherance of their official activities automatically indemnifies them from criminal prosecution. The Trump/MAGA censorship wave continues with – according to a new report issued last week by PEN (Poets, Playwrights, Editors, Essayists, Novelists) America – a total of almost 12,000 books being banned in the school year, 2025-2026. Texas and Florida, unsurprisingly, account for by far the greatest numbers, 68% and 27% respectively. Many of those titles which the cult deems unfit to be read are young adult fiction by non-white authors. The same demographic, however, is trusted with weapons. ENVIRONMENT Minimally satisfactory though it was, the last administration did make a show of promoting electric vehicles, and a move away from transport using fossil fuels. Trump and members of his cult can’t or won’t understand the wisdom of taking (such) steps to address climate collapse. So at the end of last month they announced a significant reduction in the requirements to which car makers must adhere on the control of emissions from cars and smaller lorries produced between 2022 and 2031. Vehicles are the largest source (nearly 30%) of greenhouse gas generation in the US. In the middle of last month it was widely reported that Trump’s Environmental ‘Protection’ Agency (EPA) was planning to repeal limits to carbon pollution for coal- and gas-powered power plants. This is well in line with MAGA’s environment lying. With few objections from lawmakers, they soon did just that! Although there will be legal challenges, the time those may take and the favour with which the ultimate legal authority, the US Supreme Court, looks upon MAGA suggest that this, but the latest move for the cult in characterising climate collapse as a ‘hoax’, may well be successful. As El Niño promises to be fiercer than for many years, the emissions from fossil fuels are likely to accelerate the disaster. The cult inflicted double damage last week when its border patrol agents attacked and arrested protesters to remove a 200-year-old cottonwood tree in southern Arizona. They both destroyed ancient plant life, inflicting irreparable harm on the environment; and desecrated the ‘grandmother tree’ sacred to local populations. This was to further the building of Trump’s border wall to keep non-whites out of the US. HEALTH Of major concern are also the assertions by prominent Trump/MAGA cult members such as this one by quack secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr, that we should prefer the diagnostic conclusions of AI to those made by qualified doctors. Kennedy has also announced an ‘inquiry’ into ‘injuries caused’ by vaccines. Cult members at every level have also so far failed to make it clear why Trump’s own AI chatbot should be believed when it returns several assertions such as that Trump did not lose the 2020 election. One wonders how long it’ll be before he abandons it and takes it down. The post Paying to be lied to appeared first on Freedom Press.

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

The UK has historically been a global leader in life sciences innovation, but recent statistics paint a worrying picture for medicines access. The right policy can start to reverse this. We are living in a time where the intersection between breakthrough science, technology and data insights has the potential to transform treatment options for some of the toughest health conditions faced by patients in the UK. The UK has long played a central role in driving innovation when it comes to healthcare, and at Johnson & Johnson (J&J) we were pleased to see some positive signs from the Government at the end of 2025, illustrating an intent to reverse a decade of decline of investment in how the UK values innovative treatments. It was a positive first step, but now the real work begins to enable us to deliver the best possible outcomes for UK patients. To achieve this, our focus must be on ensuring our health system is set up to match the pace and gain the benefits of innovation that science provides. We need a supportive medicines environment that fully fosters growth, because even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be accessed by patients when they need them most. > even the most pioneering drugs and therapies are only valuable if they can be > accessed by patients when they need them most. At J&J, we are proud to have been part of the UK’s health innovation story for more than a century. We believe that turning ambition into delivery requires a clearer focus on the foundations that enable innovation to reach patients. We have had a substantial and long-term economic presence, with our expertise serving as the grounds for successful partnerships with patients, healthcare providers, clinical researchers and the NHS. Recent national developments are a step in the right direction The UK Government’s recent announcements on the life sciences industry are an important move to help address concerns around medicines access, innovation and the UK’s international standing. This includes a welcome planned increase to the baseline cost-effectiveness threshold (the first change to be made since its introduction in the early 2000s). While it is crucial to get this implemented properly, this seems like a step in the right direction — providing a starting point towards meaningful policy reform, industry partnership and progress for patients. The true impact of stifling medicine innovation in the UK compared with our peers These positive developments come at a critical time, but they do not fix everything. Over the past decade, spending on branded medicines has fallen in real terms, even as the NHS budget has grown by a third.[i] Years of cost-containment have left the UK health system ill-prepared for the health challenges of today, with short-term savings creating long-term consequences. Right now, access to innovative medicines in the UK lags behind almost every major European country[ii]; the UK ranks 16th and 18th among 19 comparable countries for preventable and treatable causes of mortality.[iii]These are conditions for which effective medicines already exist. Even when new medicines are approved, access is often restricted. One year after launch, usage of innovative treatments in England is just over half the average of comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain.[iv] The effect is that people living with cancer, autoimmune conditions and rare diseases wait longer to access therapies that are already transforming lives elsewhere in Europe. And even at its new level, the UK’s Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG) clawback rate remains higher than in comparable countries.[v] J&J is committed to working together to develop a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive — enabling the UK to regain its position as a leading destination for life sciences. Seeing the value of health and medicines investment as a catalyst for prosperity and growth Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and a thriving economy. New research from the WifOR Institute, funded by J&J, shows that countries that allocate more resources to health — especially when combined with a skilled workforce and strong infrastructure — consistently achieve better outcomes.[vi] > Timely access to the right treatment achieves two things; it keeps people > healthy and prevents disease worsening so they can participate in society and > a thriving economy. The UK Government’s recent recognition of the need for long-term change, setting out plans to increase investment in new medicines from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.6 percent over the next 10 years is positive. It signals a move towards seeing health as one of our smartest long-term investments, underpinning the UK’s international competitiveness by beginning to bring us nearer to the levels in other major European countries. This mindset shift is critical to getting medicines to patients, and the life sciences ecosystem, including the pharmaceutical sector as a cornerstone, plays a pivotal role. It operates as a virtuous cycle — driven by the generation, production, investment in, access to and uptake of innovation. Exciting scientific developments and evolving treatment pathways mean that we have an opportunity to review the structures around medicines reimbursement to ensure they remain sustainable, competitive and responsive. At J&J, we have the knowledge and heritage to work hand-in-hand with the Government and all partners to achieve this. Together, we can realise the potential of medicine innovation in the UK Patients have the right to expect that science and innovation will reach them when they need it. Innovative treatments can be transformative for patients, meaning an improved quality of life or more precious time with loved ones. We fully support the Government’s ambitions for life sciences and the health of the nation. Now is the moment to deliver meaningful change — the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks and mechanisms that support access and uptake. Practical ways to do this include: * Establishing a new pricing and access framework that is stable, predictable and internationally competitive. * Evolving medicines appraisal methods and processes, to deliver on the commitments of the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. * Adapting thresholds and value frameworks to ensure they are fit for the future — in the context of wider system pressures, including inflation, and the evolution of medical innovation requiring new approaches to assessment and access. > the NHS, Government and all system partners, including J&J, must look at what > valuing innovation actually means when it comes to modernising the frameworks > and mechanisms that support access and uptake. By truly recognising the value of health as an investment, rather than as a cost, we can return the UK to a more competitive position. The direction of travel is positive. At J&J, we stand ready to work in partnership to help ensure the UK is once again the best place in the world to research, develop and access medicines. Follow Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine UK on LinkedIn for updates on our business, our people and our community. CP-562703 | January 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i] House of Commons Library (2026). ‘NHS Funding and Expenditure’ Research Briefing. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00724/ (Accessed January 2026). [ii] IQVIA & EFPIA (2025). EFPIA Patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2024 Survey. Available at: https://efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf. (Accessed January 2026) [iii] The Kings Fund (2022). ‘How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?’ Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/nhs-compare-health-care-systems-other-countries (Accessed January 2026) [iv] Office for Life Sciences (2024). Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2024: summary. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-sciences-sector-data-2024/life-sciences-competitiveness-indicators-2024-summary (Accessed January 2026). [v] ABPI. VPAG payment rate for newer medicines will be 14.5% in 2026. December 2025. Available at: https://www.abpi.org.uk/media/news/2025/december/vpag-payment-rate-for-newer-medicines-will-be-145-in-2026/. (Accessed January 2026). [vi] WifOR Institute (2025). Healthy Returns: A Catalyst for Economic Growth and Resilience. Available at: https://www.wifor.com/en/download/healthy-returns-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-resilience/?wpdmdl=360794&refresh=6942abe7a7f511765977063. (Accessed January 2026).

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Can a lump of coal ever be…cute? It’s a question no one was thinking about until last Thursday, when Interior Secretary Doug Burgum posted a cartoon of himself on X kneeling next to “Coalie”—a combustible lump with giant eyes, an open-mouthed grin, and yellow boots, almost like a carbon-heavy Japanese video game character. Department of the Interior It might seem like a strange mascot to promote what Burgum calls the “American Energy Dominance Agenda.” “Especially for this administration, I would have expected a little bit more macho twist to it,” said Joshua Paul Dale, a professor of literature and culture at Chuo University in Tokyo, and the author of Irresistible: How Cuteness Wired Our Brains and Conquered the World.  In Japan, Dale said, seemingly everything gets a cute character attached to it—not just in TV shows and games, but also as part of government public relations efforts. This ultra-adorable aesthetic, associated with rounded shapes and huge eyes, is so common it has a name: kawaii. Even the Tokyo police department has an orange, mouselike mascot, with a disarming cuddliness that serves to make law enforcement feel softer and less threatening.   > “There’s nothing funny about black lung disease. There’s nothing funny about > the water pollution.”  Coalie appears to do something similar, countering Burgum’s “mine, baby, mine” message with a kawaii-style innocence. “You know, it makes us feel more familiar,” Dale said. “It makes us want to get closer.” Those warm, fuzzy feelings come from how our brains are wired to respond to babylike characteristics. Give a character a round body, big eyes, and chubby arms and legs, and you can even make a lump of coal look huggable.  Coalie is just the latest in a long line of characters used by controversial industries, from tobacco to nuclear energy, that seem designed to make their risks feel less threatening—though they typically looked less cute, at least in the United States. David Ropeik, a risk expert, sees Coalie as part of a tradition of advertising strategies that widely disliked companies use to push back against criticism.  “It’s a common response from cultures that feel themselves under attack, looking for ways to make their case in a less than adversarial way to sell their point of view,” Ropeik said. President Donald Trump has been working on rehabilitating coal’s image as the administration tries to stall the fuel’s decline. Trump has even said he has a standing order in the White House for staff to use the phrase “clean, beautiful coal.” He explained why in November, saying, “It’s ‘clean and beautiful’ because it needs public relations help.” Even cuteness can backfire, though, if people notice that an extra-adorable character is trying to coax them into liking something dangerous. Consider Pluto-kun, a cherubic mascot from the 1990s who promoted the Japanese nuclear company Tepco—at one point by cheerfully drinking a glass of plutonium as if it were harmless. The character attracted little attention until the nuclear accident at Tepco’s Fukushima plant in 2011, when people began resurfacing Pluto-kun online to point out the irony of its upbeat reassurances as the threat of nuclear disaster felt real and immediate.  Some felt a similar dissonance when Interior Secretary Burgum posted the image of Coalie. Chelsea Barnes, director of government affairs and strategy at Appalachian Voices, an environmental nonprofit, said the character was mocked by some of her friends and colleagues who work to support coal communities because of the serious damage they see firsthand from coal. “There’s nothing funny about climate change,” she said. “There’s nothing funny about black lung disease. There’s nothing funny about the water pollution that many people in Appalachia experience because of coal mining.”  Part of the problem was that the timing was bad, Barnes said. The day after Coalie showed up on Burgum’s social media feed, Trump signed a law that redirects $500 million in funding originally set aside for cleaning up abandoned coal mines to the Forest Service and federal wildfire management programs. On top of that, the administration has been trying to roll back safety programs for miners. To people who care about the health of people working in mines and living near mines, Barnes said, Coalie “comes across as a middle finger, in a way.” For Coalie’s creators, the backlash was a bit surprising, according to Simone Randolph, the communications director at the Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or OSMRE. The thing is, Coalie wasn’t initially intended as a mascot for “American Energy Dominance.” Its story actually started way back in 2018, when a social media manager at OSMRE put googly eyes on a picture of coal.  “Coalie” became a running joke in the office and an icon on their Teams channel, evolving into different versions over the years, Randolph said. “If you walk down our hallway in the D.C. office, people have pictures of Coalie on their doors.” Despite the uproar over Coalie, Randolph hopes the mascot can help people learn about her obscure federal office. OSMRE oversees the permitting and regulation of the country’s coal mines and is responsible for cleaning up old, polluted mining land. The agency has transferred and authorized billions of dollars to restore mining lands for better uses—like what’s now the Pittsburgh Botanical Garden. “So often, communication boils down to something that’s kind of bland,” Randolph said. “It doesn’t really catch the public’s attention. And so we were hoping to do something that would be a little bit more attention-grabbing.” Last week, OSMRE posted an explainer of its work using Coalie as a guide to walk readers through the agency’s responsibilities.  But the office’s character has notable differences to the version of Coalie that Burgum posted on X, which has tiny pink circles next to its eyes. Its features show a clear link to kawaii, an unusual move for an American institution, Dale said. It’s possible that it’s the result of somebody in Burgum’s department using AI to generate the image. In his own experimentation, Dale has found that AI will often add kawaii features to cute characters. Randolph said that OSMRE’s team uses AI tools, encouraged by Burgum, and that the version of Coalie he posted was designed to align with the secretary’s existing “Cartoon Doug” character. Randolph said that it was an intentional decision to have the interior secretary introduce Coalie online, to bring more attention to OSMRE’s work. “The response has been extreme on both sides,” she said. “And my hope is that we can capitalize upon this moment to at least show the good work that is happening.”

BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen has summoned her team of European commissioners to a meeting to try to defuse mounting tensions and improve the way they work. The meeting is set for Feb. 4 in Leuven and is open to all members of the College, though attendance is not mandatory, according to a Commission official involved in organizing the event. The idea for such a meeting was conceived after tense exchanges between commissioners and frustration at the repeated late arrival of files on the desks of top officials, Commission officials said. POLITICO spoke to eight officials from different commissioners’ cabinets, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the internal dynamics. While the meeting will focus on competitiveness and will feature a special guest — IMF Managing Director and former Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva — also on the agenda are discussions on “geopolitics in the current context and the working methods of the European Commission,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Arianna Podestà told POLITICO. The latter element was prompted by what staffers inside the Berlaymont, the Commission’s HQ, describe as an unusually tense atmosphere. The spark for the idea of the meeting, according to four of the Commission officials, was a tense exchange in early December in which Dan Jørgensen, the energy commissioner, confronted Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera during a meeting of the College of Commissioners — as first reported in Brussels Playbook. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Both commissioners declined to comment on the incident but one official said Jørgensen had raised his voice when confronting Ribera, while another said the Danish commissioner “made a point toward Ribera that was unusually forceful by College standards” as they discussed a key environmental file. Jørgensen will be attending the Feb. 4 meeting, his team said. Ribera’s team did not respond. Meetings of the full College in the new year are not unusual, and in fact have been a regular practice since 2010, Podestà told POLITICO. However, this one features a session explicitly dedicated to finding better working methods and preventing differences of opinion between commissioners from getting out of hand. Descriptions of the meeting varied, with one official calling it “talks” rather than a formal team-building exercise, and another describing it as “a working group on working methods.” Several Cabinets are growing frustrated with files arriving on their desk just hours before College meetings, or late at night, on the weekend, or on the eve of the presentation of legal proposals. “This prevents us from working professionally,” one official said. “Of course emergencies happen but this can’t be the norm.” The frustration peaked during the presentation of the EU’s long-term budget plan last July, when official figures were reportedly shared with commissioners only hours before the presentation. According to officials close to von der Leyen’s Cabinet, the late arrival of the budget figures was justified as a tactic to prevent leaks. But the approach has only deepened irritation inside the College. According to one official, the “altercation” between Jørgensen and Ribera also concerned fast-tracking files. To get a file presented to the College, an executive vice president must “push the button” (Berlaymont jargon for putting something on the agenda). Faced with a tight deadline to examine the details of a file — the environmental omnibus, designed to simplify green rules — Ribera decided to wait before pushing the button, as she is entitled to do, according to her team. This led to tensions with Jørgensen, a fellow member of the socialist family. One Commission official noted that both center-left commissioners lead teams “with strong views,” making friction likely. “There’s a lot more infighting in [the] College than one might think,” a Commission official said. Some of these frictions reflect genuine differences of opinion but are magnified by a highly centralized system, in which many decisions must get approval on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont — home to von der Leyen’s Cabinet. “The way it works now creates situations that are avoidable and some problems where there aren’t any,” another official said. Jørgensen and Ribera are not the only pair under strain. Tensions have surfaced between Executive Vice President Stéphane Séjourné and Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, for example, particularly over the Biotech Act. Várhelyi has long objected to the package’s non-health elements, and insiders say his resistance has only hardened as Séjourné pushes a broader industrial strategy. Two officials also said Várhelyi’s behavior is sometimes interpreted as provocative — keeping his phone ringtone on or sprawling in his chair. According to the same officials, Várhelyi has even insisted that only von der Leyen, not fellow commissioners, may substitute for him at events. Neither Séjourné nor Várhelyi responded to requests for comment. Séjourné will not be present at the seminar, as he is taking part in ministerial discussions in Washington on critical raw materials, but will submit written contributions, according to his team. Várhelyi did not confirm if he would be attending the Feb. 4 meeting. Commission officials say that friction between EVPs and other commissioners is almost built into the system. EVPs are meant to coordinate and oversee the work of others, whereas under EU law all commissioners are supposed to be equal. That ambiguity, one official said, is manageable on good days, but doesn’t help when tempers flare. Von der Leyen did not respond to requests for comment. The meeting comes ahead of an EU leaders’ retreat on competitiveness scheduled for Feb. 12.