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

BRUSSELS — The European Commission has unveiled a new plan to end the dominance of planet-heating fossil fuels in Europe’s economy — and replace them with trees. The so-called Bioeconomy Strategy, released Thursday, aims to replace fossil fuels in products like plastics, building materials, chemicals and fibers with organic materials that regrow, such as trees and crops. “The bioeconomy holds enormous opportunities for our society, economy and industry, for our farmers and foresters and small businesses and for our ecosystem,” EU environment chief Jessika Roswall said on Thursday, in front of a staged backdrop of bio-based products, including a bathtub made of wood composite and clothing from the H&M “Conscious” range. At the center of the strategy is carbon, the fundamental building block of a wide range of manufactured products, not just energy. Almost all plastic, for example, is made from carbon, and currently most of that carbon comes from oil and natural gas. But fossil fuels have two major drawbacks: they pollute the atmosphere with planet-warming CO2, and they are mostly imported from outside the EU, compromising the bloc’s strategic autonomy. The bioeconomy strategy aims to address both drawbacks by using locally produced or recycled carbon-rich biomass rather than imported fossil fuels. It proposes doing this by setting targets in relevant legislation, such as the EU’s packaging waste laws, helping bioeconomy startups access finance, harmonizing the regulatory regime and encouraging new biomass supply. The 23-page strategy is light on legislative or funding promises, mostly piggybacking on existing laws and funds. Still, it was hailed by industries that stand to gain from a bigger market for biological materials. “The forest industry welcomes the Commission’s growth-oriented approach for bioeconomy,” said Viveka Beckeman, director general of the Swedish Forest Industries Federation, stressing the need to “boost the use of biomass as a strategic resource that benefits not only green transition and our joint climate goals but the overall economic security.” HOW RENEWABLE IS IT? But environmentalists worry Brussels may be getting too chainsaw-happy. Trees don’t grow back at the drop of a hat and pressure on natural ecosystems is already unsustainably high. Scientific reports show that the amount of carbon stored in the EU’s forests and soils is decreasing, the bloc’s natural habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates. Protecting the bloc’s forests has also fallen out of fashion among EU lawmakers. The EU’s landmark anti-deforestation law is currently facing a second, year-long delay after a vote in the European Parliament this week. In October, the Parliament also voted to scrap a law to monitor the health of Europe’s forests to reduce paperwork. Environmentalists warn the bloc may simply not have enough biomass to meet the increasing demand. “Instead of setting a strategy that confronts Europe’s excessive demand for resources, the Commission clings to the illusion that we can simply replace our current consumption with bio-based inputs, overlooking the serious and immediate harm this will inflict on people and nature,” said Eva Bille, the European Environmental Bureau’s (EEB) circular economy head, in a statement. TOO WOOD TO BE TRUE Environmental groups want the Commission to prioritize the use of its biological resources in long-lasting products — like construction — rather than lower-value or short-lived uses, like single-use packaging or fuel. A first leak of the proposal, obtained by POLITICO, gave environmental groups hope. It celebrated new opportunities for sustainable bio-based materials while also warning that the “sources of primary biomass must be sustainable and the pressure on ecosystems must be considerably reduced” — to ensure those opportunities are taken up in the longer term. It also said the Commission would work on “disincentivising inefficient biomass combustion” and substituting it with other types of renewable energy. That rankled industry lobbies. Craig Winneker, communications director of ethanol lobby ePURE, complained that the document’s language “continues an unfortunate tradition in some quarters of the Commission of completely ignoring how sustainable biofuels are produced in Europe,” arguing that the energy is “actually a co-product along with food, feed, and biogenic CO2.” Now, those lines pledging to reduce environmental pressures and to disincentivize inefficient biomass combustion are gone. “Bioenergy continues to play a role in energy security, particularly where it uses residues, does not increase water and air pollution, and complements other renewables,” the final text reads. “This is a crucial omission, given that the EU’s unsustainable production and consumption are already massively overshooting ecological boundaries and putting people, nature and businesses at risk,” said the EEB. Delara Burkhardt, a member of the European Parliament with the center-left Socialists and Democrats, said it was “good that the strategy recognizes the need to source biomass sustainably,” but added the proposal did not address sufficiency. “Simply replacing fossil materials with bio-based ones at today’s levels of consumption risks increasing pressure on ecosystems. That shifts problems rather than solving them. We need to reduce overall resource use, not just switch inputs,” she said. Roswall declined to comment on the previous draft at Thursday’s press conference. “I think that we need to increase the resources that we have, and that is what this strategy is trying to do,” she said.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

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

Amid concerns over sustainability fraud, the European biodiesel industry is pushing for regulatory reform. As Europe accelerates efforts to decarbonize transportation, biofuels have emerged as an important solution. These CO2-neutral fuels ― derived from sustainable feedstocks including crops and waste and residues ― are the leading contributor to renewable energy in the transport sector, providing an immediate and cost-effective substitute for conventional fuels. Dickon Posnett, president, EBB  “If Europe is serious about decarbonizing transport, we should be encouraging more biofuel use, not less.” Evidence suggests some importers, particularly from China and Southeast Asia, are circumventing sustainability standards, threatening to undermine both climate progress and fair competition. The European Biodiesel Board, representing EU producers, is raising concerns over these practices. As the European Commission prepares to review rules on biofuels verification, EBB President Dickon Posnett spoke with POLITICO Studio about the critical need for stronger controls and a more level playing field. From expanded audits to harmonized reporting, targeted changes can ensure the system remains effective for legitimate businesses doing their bit to bring down Europe’s transport emissions. POLITICO Studio: Just how bad is the biofuel fraud problem and the impact on European producers? Dickon Posnett: By far, the majority of biofuels on the EU market are legitimate and contribute to emission reduction. However, any level of fraud is a very big concern for the biodiesel industry in Europe. There are two main effects. First, by bringing in fraudulent biodiesel that’s not as sustainable as claimed, they are cheating the EU’s climate ambitions and not achieving the greenhouse gas reductions we should be. That’s unacceptable. But perhaps even more damaging is the longer-term effect of eroding trust and political confidence in our industry. Once that trust is eroded, the regulatory support for decarbonization drops away. That hits everyone, including producers abiding by the rules. Without those regulations, this market wouldn’t exist. Fraud also depresses prices to an unrealistic level that has become unsustainable for some European producers. > Rules applying to domestic producers should be enforced just as strictly > outside the EU. PS: What are the most critical reforms needed to combat fraud and ensure fair competition? DP: The basic principle is that rules applying to domestic producers should be enforced just as strictly outside the EU. For example, on-site audits should be systematic in production facilities abroad, as is common in Europe. Additionally, every producer should report the quantities, capacities and feedstock use of the biofuels they make. There are a lot of rules about what biofuels can count toward EU targets based on feedstock. Biofuels that offer the highest greenhouse gas savings are therefore more susceptible to fraud. Shining a light on how much biofuel you can realistically produce from these premium feedstocks will prevent trickery. Some EU countries already require this. We suggest it should apply to all biofuels on the EU market, regardless of where they’re produced. PS: Is it feasible to require non-EU producers to face the same strict verification rules as European companies? DP: Of course it is. All biofuels imported into the EU must have a Proof of Sustainability. It’s perfectly reasonable to require all fuels used in the EU to comply with EU sustainability rules. There is a verification system in place, but we need to clarify requirements on audits and access to information. This will enable authorities to oversee economic operators, voluntary schemes and certification bodies, both inside and outside EU jurisdiction. In fact, it can be done now. As the Commission reviews verification rules, we’ve already drafted detailed amendments that can be implemented immediately. PS: What key information should be added to the EU biofuels database to enable better fraud detection? DP: The Union Database for Biofuels is a major asset in fighting fraud. EBB has been instrumental in its inception — in fact, it’s something we have been striving for since 2012. It will fundamentally improve prevention once the system is fully functional, hopefully by early 2026. Via iStock Beyond the core data, we’ve suggested including additional information such as customs documents to clarify the origin of both the product and its sustainability documentation, enabling us to match them up. We’re also proposing links to national systems that record production capacities and feedstock use. Having all this data integrated would make anomalies easier to spot and investigate. Overall, a centralized database dramatically improves traceability and transparency. But it needs to be comprehensive and easily cross-referenced to fulfill its potential as a fraud-busting tool. PS: How can the revised rules boost European competitiveness and investment in domestic biofuels? DP: Confidence is key. The fraud issue has dented trust in biofuels and the price effects have made investors wary, at a time when major investment is needed to achieve our climate goals. Stronger verification will provide the credibility and predictability needed to drive long-term growth. The EU verification system relies on voluntary third-party verification based on criteria established by the legislator, and we do not want to change this. We build up on the current system and improve it. European producers are already subject to strict standards. Biofuels produced outside the EU and their supply chain are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. With a more level playing field, the commitment of EU producers to sustainability becomes an asset. Industries thrive when the rules are clear, consistent and rigorously enforced. Having a comprehensive solution in place is critical. A hard-to-navigate patchwork of caps and bans is not a viable solution. We’ve seen some calls to cap or cut biofuel use. A few member countries are looking at restrictions. That’s the opposite of what we need. If Europe is serious about decarbonizing transport, we should be encouraging more biofuel use, not less. Tackling fraud head-on removes a major barrier to doing that. It will take the brakes off investments and innovations that can push this industry forward. > A centralized database dramatically improves traceability and transparency. PS: Beyond verification, what other policy or market measures could help build a more resilient and sustainable European biofuels sector? DP: We need a comprehensive strategy. Of course, verification is the foundation because we have to shore up confidence. But we also need a stable, ambitious policy framework to drive demand. The more certainty there is about the market trajectory, the more investments will flow into expanding domestic production, developing new feedstocks and improving technologies. On the consumer side, education is important. We need people to understand the benefits and safety of biofuels. There’s still work to do in fighting misconceptions. Policymakers also have a role in incentivizing higher blends and ensuring vehicles that are fully compatible are also labeled as such. A renewable fuels infrastructure that’s convenient and accessible will boost uptake.

Seven European Union countries including Italy and Spain have joined France in calling for a “critical chemicals act” to protect Europe’s struggling chemicals sector. The call builds momentum behind France’s original proposal, obtained by POLITICO last month, which called on the European Union to declare about 15 key chemical compounds “strategic.” The idea is to protect the sector to ensure Europe remains self-sufficient in chemicals used in everything from fertilizer production to plastics, imitating similar rules for critical raw materials and medicines — the latter of which the European Commission released on Tuesday. The Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia have also backed the latest chemicals proposal. Germany, the EU’s biggest chemical producer, has not signed up. The latest proposal, first reported by POLITICO on Tuesday, adds a few more “strategic molecules” to the previous list, including toluene and xylene. Phenol and styrene also make the cut as key substances across a range of industries, from pharmaceuticals and adhesives to plastics and detergents. “Low carbon footprint molecules, that can characterize sustainable chemicals and substitute any of the above strategic molecules … should also be considered strategic,” the text suggests. It acknowledges, though, that since those molecules are still in “early stages of research and development, it remains difficult to foresee which ones will be the fossil-free molecules of the future” and, as such, EU support “should not be restricted to specific alternative molecules.” The new proposal lays out a “tentative” list of bio-based molecules that could replace fossil-based ones, including bio-based glycerol and bio-based ethanol. The idea is to protect the sector to ensure Europe remains self-sufficient in chemicals used in everything from fertilizer production to plastics. | Raul Bravo/Getty Images The countries say investing in biofuels, plastic recycling, bioplastics, downstream chemical chains would also be a “strategic” move. The proposal was put forward by EU member country ministers in the Competitiveness Council on Wednesday.

The EU’s ambitious goals for a decarbonized Europe are fundamentally reshaping industries. However, the journey toward climate neutrality for road transport has encountered a critical obstacle: the lack of technological neutrality in EU regulations for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. This rigidity is limiting innovation, undermining the EU’s competitiveness, creating new critical dependencies and, ultimately, slowing the decarbonization efforts it is supposed to accelerate. A defining feature of EU policy, the principle of technological neutrality — allowing all technologies that meet policy goals to compete on equal ground, based on their scientific and economic footprint — has been overlooked (or ignored) in the case of road transport, as Mario Draghi highlights in his recent report. Both light- and heavy-duty carbon dioxide standards focus almost exclusively on electrification as the only path to decarbonization. Such an approach disregards the potential contributions of alternative solutions like renewable fuels, effectively restricting the entire industry and consumers’ choices to a single technology. > Both light- and heavy-duty carbon dioxide standards focus almost exclusively > on electrification as the only path to decarbonization. Such an approach > disregards the potential contributions of alternative solutions like renewable > fuels. For the above, it is misleading to reduce the policy debate to the question of whether banning the internal combustion engine, based on an arbitrary definition that all electric vehicles are net-zero vehicles, regardless of the carbon dioxide footprint of the electricity they use or of their manufacturing and disposal phase. This only results in creating a sterile clash between two ideological factions. But to solve the complex and pressing challenge of transport decarbonization, the EU needs to abandon ideology and refocus on science, technology and the socio-economic assessment of all possible solutions.        Why exclude renewable fuels? Let’s go back to science FuelsEurope strongly supports a transition to a decarbonized road transport system. But to achieve this, we need policies that leverage all available technologies. The question of whether to ban or allow specific technologies detracts from the real challenge and the ultimate goal of real carbon dioxide reduction. In order to be efficient and pragmatic, we need to go back to science again, to assess and prove the real carbon dioxide reduction benefit of all available technologies over their lifecycle. Focusing solely on electrification, EU regulations are missing an opportunity to accelerate carbon reductions across the vast majority of the hundreds of millions of vehicles on the EU roads, not just new electric vehicles. Other strategic parameters such as the security of supply and critical infrastructure, competitiveness challenges, strategic dependencies, the resilience of economies and societies, and affordable access to mobility for all should not be ignored either. Unfortunately, Europe has recently been experiencing the consequences of this narrow approach as alarm signals are multiplying. The car industry’s increasing struggle to meet carbon targets for 2025 and onwards, solely through the electrification pathway, reveals international competitiveness challenges and customers’ reluctance to embark on the full electrification vision. A robust technical and economic reassessment of critical legislative pieces, such as the vehicles carbon dioxide standards regulations, is imperative and more than urgent. We must readjust the pathway to climate neutrality and open the doors to all carbon reduction technologies, not just one. There is no time to lose. > We must readjust the pathway to climate neutrality and open the doors to all > carbon reduction technologies, not just one. The immediate benefits to climate, consumers and the car industry Renewable fuels offer a unique advantage: they work seamlessly within existing infrastructures and can fuel the entire fleet, old and new, as of today, at no additional fleet or infrastructure cost. This means that all vehicle owners, not just those who can afford new electric cars, could contribute to reducing carbon emissions. As the automotive industry faces looming carbon reduction mandates and significant, disproportionate financial penalties, recognizing the decarbonization potential of renewable and low-carbon fuels can help the industry’s compliance with its reduction targets. In turn, this will help with safeguarding thousands of jobs, maintaining the industry’s competitiveness and making a decarbonized transport system more accessible to citizens across Europe, regardless of their ability to purchase new electric vehicles. Establishing the right policy framework would also provide a clear signal to investors in renewable fuels, encouraging the transformation of existing assets and enabling substantial contributions toward climate neutrality by 2050. This would also ensure a reliable supply of sustainable and affordable energy while fostering an innovative, globally competitive EU-based industry. Such measures would pave the way for a thriving market for advanced biofuels and e-fuels, driving economic growth, creating jobs and delivering significant environmental benefits. Building synergies, not silos Importantly, embracing renewable fuels will not compromise efforts in other sectors. Road transport’s use of renewable fuels will not compete with aviation and maritime. On the contrary, it would strengthen them. By increasing the renewable fuels market size and scaling up production, Europe can foster cost reductions that benefit all transport sectors, from cars and trucks to planes and ships. This would break silos of different decarbonization approaches across transport sectors and create a cohesive market, enabling Europe to globally lead in multiple decarbonization technologies. A false dichotomy FuelsEurope calls upon the EU’s new leadership to abandon the notion that the electrification of road transport must come at the expense of other technologies. An inclusive approach would place Europe in a stronger competitive position and allow multiple sectors to thrive through innovation and flexibility. By fostering collaboration rather than artificial competition among industries, we can accelerate progress on the climate front while strengthening Europe’s industrial backbone. Renewable fuels and electrification are not competitors — they are complementary in the journey to decarbonization. A balanced policy approach would reduce emissions faster, ensure that citizens have access to affordable clean mobility and maintain Europe’s global leadership in low-carbon technologies. Urgent action is needed Now is the moment to act, drawing lessons from the economy, the market and consumers. With the new legislative cycle already underway, we call for urgent action to address these pressing issues through a comprehensive review of existing legislation. This process must be grounded in robust scientific assessments and evidence-based decision-making to ensure effective and sustainable outcomes. Our sector stands ready to support legislators, offering our scientific knowledge and technical expertise to guide and inform their efforts in crafting solutions that truly make a difference for the climate, EU industries and citizens. Discover more in our More than a Manifesto: An Offer for Europe.

BRUSSELS — When the Netherlands’ Sicco Mansholt became Europe’s first agriculture commissioner back in 1958, the continent’s farmers faced a very different situation than they do today.  Officials in the postwar period were focused on guaranteeing food availability, boosting productivity with better fertilizers and pesticides, protecting farm incomes with fixed prices, and eating the difference to keep the cost of bread down for consumers. Mansholt’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — created in 1962 — did all of that and more.  Yet by the end of his career, the Dutchman had come to understand the environmental and economic harms the CAP was wreaking. Soil degradation, water pollution and biodiversity loss were killing ecosystems, while production-based subsidies were spawning the infamous “wine lakes” and “butter mountains” of commodities to be destroyed or dumped on foreign markets. Since then, much has changed. But much has also remained the same.  The current CAP is the most climate-friendly ever, packed with eco-schemes and green rules. Yet it has still failed to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions and species decline. The €55 billion-per-year package enriches billionaires and impoverishes smallholders. Farmers are old and their children want different lives, leaving migrants to work the fields for little pay. Amid this crisis, academics from Wageningen University — Europe’s top agricultural institution — presented their annual Mansholt Lecture last week, along with an 80-page report on the major dilemmas affecting European Union farming. Here are the four main takeaways: 1. AUTARKY IS POSSIBLE … This will be music to the ears of Europe’s politicians, who are increasingly fretting about food security. It’s mostly alarmism, of course, driven by farmer lobbies who claim environmental overregulation risks leading to empty supermarket shelves. In fact, Europe’s agri-food sector is pretty self-sufficient. Its dependency ratio — the share of imported food and inputs by value — is around 10 percent, well below tech and transport, according to the report. The bloc is a net exporter, pumping out staples like meat, dairy and cereals, and bringing in ancillary products like coffee, cacao and tropical fruit. The problem isn’t food availability, but affordability, which won’t be solved by more production. Rather, it requires tackling the overreliance on certain price-volatile inputs, namely animal feed, fertilizers and energy. Over 80 percent of our soybeans, a key feed for pigs, chickens and cows, comes from Brazil and Argentina. Of the three fertilizer types, 30 percent of our nitrogen relies on foreign fossil fuels. Over 60 percent of mined phosphate is Moroccan. And nearly 90 percent of mined potash is from Belarus and Russia. Brussels can partly reduce those dependencies, and indeed has been trying to do so. The upcoming EU Protein Strategy aims to ramp up soybean cultivation in Italy and France, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promised a Clean Industrial Deal in the first 100 days of her second term that will, among other things, incentivize the production of green nitrogen to make nitrogen-based fertilizers. Ruminants like cows, sheep and goats require dozens of crop calories to make a meat calorie. | William West/Getty Images “The EU could produce enough food … to feed its population, provided the production of protein crops and oilseeds is increased,” said the report.  But there’s a catch.  2. … AS LONG AS WE EAT LESS MEAT Livestock populations are shrinking by a few percent a year. Yet unless they fall dramatically — as consumers shift to plant-based diets — there is simply not enough land in Europe to grow all their feed, the report concluded. Of all the plants produced in Europe — for food, feed, textiles, wood, biofuels and bioplastics — 60 percent go to raising farm animals.  “That bar is huge. And if you’re looking for room for maneuvering, maybe it’s there,” said Harriette Bos, senior researcher at Wageningen, during the lecture.  Ruminants like cows, sheep and goats require dozens of crop calories to make a meat calorie. Pigs are slightly more efficient, but they eat less grass than ruminants, meaning they are much more soy-intensive. Poultry is best, converting feed to flesh with far less waste. That means white meat consumption can stay stable, but red must decline fast.  “A shift to more sustainable consumption patterns is needed,” the report summarizes, noting that this is crucial on health and climate grounds as well. EU citizens on average eat 40 percent more protein than is recommended, significantly raising their risk of cardiovascular disease and various cancers. Meanwhile, animal farming accounts for 85 percent of EU agricultural emissions, which have proven difficult to cut in recent years. The industry’s political clout has bought it a near-total exemption from climate targets, with EU officials delaying or shelving key legislation on sustainable diets and agrochemicals after bloc-wide farmer protests. 3. DIET IS NOT JUST AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE Last week, Christophe Hansen, the nominee for EU agriculture commissioner, argued that meat consumption is an individual choice that lawmakers shouldn’t get involved in. “I think it is very tricky to say and impose top-down who has to eat what,” he told lawmakers during his hearing before the European Parliament’s AGRI committee. Europe’s top agri-food experts don’t agree. “The hesitation to intervene in our food choices stands in stark contrast to the commonly accepted use of pricing strategies to reduce demand for [fossil] fuels, as well as tobacco and alcohol,” the Wageningen paper observes. “Interventions are needed to support consumer behavior toward more healthy and sustainable diets.” Action should be targeted and nonintrusive, of course, given that “public steering [of] consumer behavior” remains “a socially and politically delicate matter.” Meat taxes, as Germany is planning, could be sound in theory and yet prove politically toxic. Rebalancing subsidies is a more subtle alternative: Over 80 percent of the CAP, for example, supports animal agriculture.  So too are educational campaigns, proper labeling and “indirect strategies such as binding agreements” with manufacturers and retailers. Livestock populations are shrinking by a few percent a year. | Stringer/Getty Images 4. WE SHOULD CONSIDER DEINDUSTRIALIZING ANIMAL HUSBANDRY  Most of Europe’s meat now comes from factory farms, which leak chemicals into soils and rivers, heighten the spread of animal diseases and antibiotic resistance, and violate animal welfare. Feed production “will also continue to compete with the production of crops suitable for human consumption.” With that in mind, Wageningen’s researchers presented an “alternative vision for animal husbandry.” The plan involves much smaller herds raised in areas unsuitable for arable farming (like mountains) or close to zones with high waste streams (like processing, manufacturing or distribution facilities), to be fed on waste and “raw materials.” “In this more circular approach, the primary role of animals would be to convert these non-human food streams, with the number of animals in a region determined by the availability of these resources,” the report said.