News Feeds

It has been three months since Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed their memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a new bitumen oil pipeline to the west coast. With an April 1 deadline for a final deal with the oil industry only a month away, how are negotiations for this “grand bargain” going?

Private sector investors are still nowhere in sight. If a pipeline and associated Pathways Alliance carbon capture and storage (CCS) project goes ahead, Canadian taxpayers will be unsurprisingly footing most of the bill. The signing deadline will almost certainly be missed, and most major stakeholders are in open conflict.

In other words, not great.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is already demanding major concessions to water down industrial carbon pricing meant to finance the Pathways project. Environmental groups fault the federal government for giving up a laundry list of important climate policies including a proposed emissions cap, clean energy regulations, and the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act.

Ottawa committed to waiving the oil tanker ban on the north British Columbia coast, enraging local First Nations whose Traditional Territories would be decimated by an oil spill. The feds also caved on contentious tax credits for enhanced oil recovery from CCS and further delayed methane reduction targets. Despite such sweeping capitulations, no private pipeline proponent has come forward, and it is now obvious that none will.

Former Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said that industry still expects taxpayers to open their wallets for this latest oil patch boondoggle. Enbridge spilled the same tea on an earnings call with investors. When asked if his company would be the mythical pipeline proponent, CEO Greg Ebel said, “that’s not the type of risk that we’re looking to take on at this time. We don’t need to with all the other opportunities.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Oil industry grievance has become a commodity perhaps more valuable than oil itself. Cultivating a narrative of meddlesome political interference previously netted bitumen producers the $34 billion Trans Mountain pipeline paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Threats of another contentious pipeline corralled the BC government into supporting an increase in capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline by up to 400,000 barrels per day. An industry hit list of important climate policies has finally been killed off after years of patient spin machine effort.

With that stunning record of success, why would the oil patch dial down the rhetoric now? Following the Carney- Smith MOU smiling photo op on November 27, all the main stakeholders are either genuinely or performatively pissed off and the clock is ticking.

The root of this impasse is an endemic sense of entitlement of Canada’s most coddled industry. The non-profit Pembina Institute points out that if Alberta gets a bespoke policy carve-out for methane reductions, it would be grossly unfair to other industrial emitters across the country putting in the hard work and investments required to lower climate destabilizing emissions. Despite the federal government being on the hook for up to half of the Pathways project and billions more in subsidies from Alberta, the largest bitumen producers still refuse to pony up any of their own money.

If the MOU was intended to lower the rhetorical temperature with the Alberta government, it has so far been an utter failure. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when premier Smith reneged on Alberta’s commitment to raise provincial industrial carbon pricing to meaningful levels.

The current price has been frozen at $95  per tonne and was supposed to raise to $130 when the agreement is finalized. Just one week after the much-lauded agreement, the Alberta government flooded the market with additional tradeable carbon credits crashing the actual price to below $20. “Expect Alberta to continuously test the federal government for weakness, using moves like this to inform their approach at the negotiating table,” warned Dan Woynillowicz ofPolaris Strategy.

Smith conjured up additional headaches for Ottawa by enacting sweeping changes to electoral law just before Christmas, paving the way for separatists to move forward with a referendum question previously deemed unconstitutional by the courts. MAGA-aligned interests now openly conspire to assist in the breakup of Canada, while Alberta extremists brag about multiple meetings with the hostile Trump Administration.

As this constitutional fire smoulders, Smith is busy igniting several others. The premier recently took to the airwaves to announce a new divisive referendum this fall demanding jurisdiction over immigration, the ability to appoint federal judges and opt out of federal education and health programs while still receiving funding from Ottawa.

It should now be obvious that continuing to shovel concessions at Danielle Smith or her overlords in the oil industry will only lead to additional demands. If there is one winner in the MOU debacle, it is cagey Mark Carney. Sacrificing Indigenous relations and climate policy in favour of a pipeline without a business case or proponent seems to play well in Alberta.

The Liberal Party of Canada – typically despised in the province – is now polling neck and neck with the Conservatives. A new bitumen pipeline is neither needed nor profitable, but perhaps that is not the point. In politics, popularity is the only outcome that matters.

The post Mark Carney’s Pipeline MOU With Danielle Smith Has Been A Disaster appeared first on DeSmog.

The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 2.4% in 2025 to their lowest level in more than 150 years, according to new Carbon Brief analysis.

The biggest factors were gas use falling to a 34-year low and coal use dropping to levels last seen in 1600, when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne and William Shakespeare was writing Hamlet.

These shifts were helped by record-high UK temperatures, elevated gas prices, the end of coal power in late 2024 and a sharp slowdown in the steel industry.

Other key findings of the analysis include:

• The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell to 364m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2025, the lowest level since 1872.
• Coal use roughly halved, with more than half of this due to the end of coal power and another third due to closures and other issues in the steel industry.
• Gas use fell by 1.5% to the lowest level since 1992, with roughly equal contributions from cuts in heat for buildings and industry, more than offsetting a small rise in gas power.
• Oil use fell by 0.9%, despite rising traffic, helped by more than 700,000 new electric vehicles (EVs), electric vans and plug-in hybrids on the nation’s roads.
• The UK’s emissions are now 54% below 1990 levels, while its GDP has nearly doubled.

The 2.4% (8.9MtCO2e) fall in emissions in 2025 was only slightly more than half of the 15MtCO2e cut needed each year on average until 2050, to reach the UK’s legally binding net-zero target.

The analysis is the latest in a decade-long series of annual estimates from Carbon Brief, covering emissions during 2024, 2023, 2022, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Emissions fall to 150-year low

The UK’s territorial greenhouse gas emissions – those that occur within the country’s borders – have now fallen in 27 of the 36 years since 1990.

(The recent fall in territorial emissions has not been “offset” by a rise in the amount of CO2 embedded in imports, which has stayed relatively constant since around 2008.)

Apart from brief rebounds after the global financial crisis and the Covid-19 lockdowns, UK emissions have fallen every year for the past two decades.

The latest 9MtCO2e (2.4%) reduction takes UK emissions down to 364MtCO2e, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis, which is 54% below 1990 levels.

This is the lowest since 1872, as shown in the figure below.

UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions, MtCO2e, 1850-2024. Note the impact of general strikes in 1921 and 1926; the miners’ strike of 1984 had a smaller impact. Source: Jones et al. (2023) and Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).

The latest fall puts UK emissions below the level seen during the 1926 general strike, when the nation’s industrial base was brought to a standstill.

It means that UK emissions are now at sustained lows not seen since Victorian times.

Nevertheless, emissions will need to continue falling in order to meet the UK’s legal climate goals and its net-zero target, which is part of international efforts under the Paris Agreement to stop dangerous warming.

Record lows for coal and gas

The key factors in driving down UK emissions in 2025 were coal and gas use falling to their lowest levels since 1600 and 1992, respectively.

For gas, this was mainly down to lower demand from building heat and from industry, likely at least partly related to record-high temperatures and elevated gas prices. For coal, this was a combination of the end of coal power and a steel-industry slowdown, as shown below.

Contributions to emissions changes in 2025, MtCO2e. Left to right: Reduction due to building heat and industry; Reduction due to the end of coal power; Reduction due to the steel-industry slowdown; Reduction due to other factors; Overall reduction. Source: Carbon Brief analysis.

These were not the only factors driving the change in UK emissions in 2025.

The UK saw record generation from renewable sources, particularly wind and solar, but a further decline in nuclear generation, the end of coal power and an increase in electricity demand for the second year running meant that gas-fired power output also went up slightly.

In the transport sector, demand for oil fell by 0.9% year-on-year, even though traffic levels went up by around 1%, according to provisional figures through to September 2025.

This partly reflects the changing makeup of vehicles on the road.

By 2024, there were 2.8m fewer diesel vehicles than there were in 2019, a trend likely to continue due to falling diesel car sales. In contrast, there are now nearly 3m EVs, plug-in hybrids or electric vans on the nation’s roads, making up 5% of the car fleet overall and 2% of vans.

These electrified vehicles are cutting UK emissions by more than 7MtCO2 every year, according to Carbon Brief analysis, with the 700,000 new EVs in 2025 alone saving nearly 2MtCO2.

Drivers with EVs saved a total of £2m in lower fuel costs in 2025, the analysis shows, as EVs are much more efficient and, therefore, cheaper to run than petrol or diesel vehicles. This amounts to more than £700 per EV per year and more than £1,100 for each electric van.

Despite falling demand for oil-derived fuels and the impact of the growing EV fleet, Carbon Brief estimates that the UK’s oil-related emissions actually increased by 0.2% in 2025. This is largely down to a shift in the amount and type of biofuel blended into diesel and petrol at the pump.

Coal falls to lowest level in 400 years

There have been dramatic declines in UK coal use over the past decade, in particular resulting from the phaseout of coal-fired electricity generation.

UK coal demand fell by another 56% in 2025 to just under 1m tonnes (Mt). This is down 97% from the 37Mt burned in 2015 and is 99.6% below the peak of 221Mt in 1956.

As shown in the figure below, coal demand is now at the lowest level since 1600, when Elizabeth I was the queen of England and Ireland.

(It was during her five-decade reign that coal had become the country’s main source of fuel, following an Elizabethan “energy crisis” triggered by a lack of wood for making charcoal.)

Annual UK coal demand, million tonnes, 1500-2025. Note the impact of general strikes in 1921 and 1926, as well as the miners’ strike of 1984. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of data from DESNZ and Roger Fouquet.

The UK’s last coal-fired power plant, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire, closed down on 30 September 2024. It had run at low levels that year, but still burned some 0.7m tonnes of coal. The end of coal power contributed nearly three-fifths of the fall in demand for the fuel in 2025.

There has also been a marked reduction in UK steel production in recent years, particularly since the closure of two of the nation’s last blast furnaces at Port Talbot in south Wales in 2024.

The last blast furnaces in the country are at the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire, which had been due for closure in early 2025 until the government stepped in to keep it open.

The slowdown in coal-based steel production accounts for around a third of the decline in UK coal use in 2025, but only 14% of the drop in the past decade, which was mainly due to coal power.

Globally, the steel industry is facing intense competition in an oversupplied market, with a growing “glut” that has driven down prices. At the same time, the industry in the UK has ageing equipment and expensive electricity, which UK Steel says is largely a result of high gas prices.

The Port Talbot site is being converted to “electric arc furnace” (EAF) steelmaking, which does not rely on coal. The same shift is under discussion for the Scunthorpe site. Analysis from thinktank Green Alliance suggests EAFs would be the cheapest option for both sites.

Gas falls to lowest level in 34 years

There have also been dramatic declines in UK demand for gas over the past 15 years. After another 1.5% drop in 2025, gas use is now at the lowest level since 1992, as shown below.

This means gas demand is now similar to when the UK began its “dash for gas” in the early 1990s. Starting in 1991, this period saw a wave of new gas-fired power stations being built. It was triggered by a change in regulations to allow the use of gas to generate electricity, advances in turbine technology, a period of low gas prices and the privatisation of the UK electricity system.

In total, UK gas demand has fallen by nearly two-fifths since 2010. Half of this overall reduction is due to a 50% fall in gas-fired electricity generation, which has been displaced by falling demand and renewable sources. Another third of the overall reduction is from home heating, where demand has dropped due to more efficient gas boilers and improved insulation.

Annual UK gas demand, terawatt hours, 1822-2025. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of data from DESNZ and Roger Fouquet.

In 2025, the 1.5% reduction in gas use was caused by roughly equal contributions from lower demand for building heat and from industrial users.

This was helped by 2025 being the hottest year on record, with high gas prices likely also a factor.

Gas prices have remained significantly above the levels seen before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At the start of March 2026, UK gas prices roughly doubled as a result of the conflict in the Middle East triggered by the US and Israeli attacks on Iran.

Whereas the UK’s fleet of EVs is already having a significant impact on emissions, domestic heat pump sales remain at relatively low levels, particularly compared with other European nations.

After a 25% year-on-year increase in 2025, there were still only 125,000 heat pump sales in the UK. These new installations will have cut UK emissions by around 0.2MtCO2 in 2025 relative to gas heating, shows Carbon Brief analysis.

By the end of 2025, the UK had a total of around 450,000 domestic heat pumps, generating total savings of roughly 0.7MtCO2 after accounting for the increase in electricity demand.

The 2.3m domestic heat pumps expected by 2030 in the National Energy System Operator’s “future energy scenarios” would save the UK around 4.5MtCO2 per year.

Emissions continue to decouple from growth

In total, UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 fell to 54% below 1990 levels, the baseline year for its legally binding climate goals.

Since then, the UK economy has nearly doubled in size, with GDP growing by 95% according to data from the World Bank, as shown in the figure below.

Change since 1990, %, in UK greenhouse gas emissions (red) and GDP adjusted for inflation (blue). Source: Carbon Brief analysis of figures from DESNZ and the World Bank.

Transport remains the single-largest sector, accounting for around 30% of UK emissions, followed, in order, by buildings, agriculture, industry and electricity generation.

The majority of emissions cuts over recent decades have come in the power sector – formerly, the UK’s largest emitter – as coal has been phased out and renewables have replaced gas.

This is set to change over the next 10-15 years. The rise of EVs is set to make transport the largest source of emissions cuts from now until 2040, according to the Climate Change Committee.

While industrial emissions have also declined significantly since 1990, falling some 74% by 2025, the size of UK manufacturing output has also roughly doubled.

Despite the progress in cutting emissions to date, the UK has a long way to go if it is to meet its climate goals in the future, including the yet-to-be legislated seventh “carbon budget”, covering the years 2038-2042, as well as the 2050 net-zero target.

Emissions would need to fall by 15MtCO2e each year until 2050 on average, in order to meet the net-zero target. Meeting the UK’s 2035 international pledge under the Paris Agreement, a 78% reduction below 1990 levels, emissions would need to fall by 22MtCO2e per year.

These figures can be compared with the 9MtCO2e cut achieved in 2025. Emissions did, in fact, fall by an average of 15MtCO2e per year over the past decade – and by an average of 13MtCO2e per year since the turn of the century.

Methodology

The starting point for Carbon Brief’s analysis of UK greenhouse gas emissions is preliminary government estimates of energy use by fuel. These are published monthly, with the final month of each year appearing in figures published at the end of the following February. The same approach has accurately estimated year-to-year changes in emissions in previous years (see table, below).

Annual change in UK greenhouse gas emissions, % YearOfficial figuresCarbon BriefDifference 20102.52.70.1 2011-7.2-7.7-0.4 20123.13.60.6 2013-2.1-4.1-2.0 2014-7.4-7.5-0.1 2015-3.8-3.70.0 2016-5.4-5.7-0.3 2017-2.4-2.00.4 2018-1.6-1.7-0.1 2019-3.6-3.9-0.3 2020-8.9-8.80.1 20213.63.5-0.1 2022-4.3-3.60.7 2023-5.0-5.2-0.2 2024-2.7-3.0-0.3 2025-2.4

One large source of uncertainty is the provisional energy use data, which is revised at the end of March each year and often again later on.

Emissions data is also subject to revision in light of improvements in data collection and the methodology used, with major revisions in 2021 and more minor changes in early 2026.

The latest changes to the DESNZ emissions methodology have led to 2% reduction in baseline 1990 emissions, but the impact on recent years is minimal.

This does not affect the UK’s carbon budgets, which are set in terms of tonnes of emissions over a five-year period, rather than a percentage reduction compared with 1990 levels.

The table above applies Carbon Brief’s emissions calculations to the comparable energy use and emissions figures, which may differ from those published previously.

Another source of uncertainty is the fact that Carbon Brief’s approach to estimating the annual change in emissions differs from the methodology used for the government’s own provisional estimates. The government has access to more granular data not available for public use.

Carbon Brief’s analysis takes figures on the amount of energy sourced from coal, oil and gas reported in Energy Trends 1.2. These figures are combined with conversion factors for the CO2 emissions per unit of energy, published annually by the UK government. Conversion factors are available for each fuel type, for example, petrol, diesel, gas and coal for electricity generation.

For oil, the analysis also draws on Energy Trends 3.13, which further breaks down demand according to the subtype of oil, for example, petrol, jet fuel and so on. Similarly, for coal, the analysis draws on Energy Trends 2.6, which breaks down solid fuel use by subtype.

Emissions from each fuel are then estimated from the energy use multiplied by the conversion factor, weighted by the relative proportions for each fuel subtype.

For example, the UK uses roughly 50m tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in the form of oil products, around half of which is from road diesel. So half the total energy use from oil is combined with the conversion factor for road diesel, another one-fifth for petrol and so on.

Energy use from each fossil fuel subtype is mapped onto the appropriate emissions conversion factor. In some cases, there is no direct read-across, in which case the nearest appropriate substitute is used. For example, energy use listed as “bitumen” is mapped to “processed fuel oils – residual oil”. Similarly, solid fuel used by “other conversion industries” is mapped to “petroleum coke” and “other” solid fuel use is mapped to “coal (domestic)”.

The energy use figures are calculated on an inland consumption basis, meaning they include bunkers consumed in the UK for international transport by air and sea. In contrast, national emissions inventories exclude international aviation and shipping.

The analysis, therefore, estimates and removes the part of oil use that is due to the UK’s share of international aviation. It draws on the UK’s final greenhouse gas emissions inventory, which breaks emissions down by sector and reports the total for domestic aviation.

This domestic emissions figure is compared with the estimated emissions due to jet fuel use overall, based on the appropriate conversion factor. The analysis assumes that domestic aviation’s share of emissions is equivalent to its share of jet fuel energy use.

In addition to estimating CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, Carbon Brief assumes that CO2 emissions from non-fuel sources, such as land-use change and forestry, are the same as a year earlier. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions are assumed to change in line with the latest government energy and emissions projections.

These assumptions are based on the UK government’s own methodology for preliminary greenhouse gas emissions estimates, published in 2019.

Note that the figures in this article are for emissions within the UK measured according to international guidelines. This means they exclude emissions associated with imported goods, including imported biomass, as well as the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published detailed comparisons between various approaches to calculating UK emissions, on a territorial, consumption, “environmental accounts” or “international accounting” basis.

The UK’s consumption-based CO2 emissions increased between 1990 and 2007. Since then, however, they have fallen by a similar number of tonnes as emissions within the UK.

Bioenergy is a significant source of renewable energy in the UK and its climate benefits are disputed. Contrary to public perception, however, only around one-quarter of bioenergy is imported.

International aviation is considered part of the UK’s carbon budgets and faces the prospect of tighter limits on its CO2 emissions. The international shipping sector has a target to at least halve its emissions by 2050, relative to 2008 levels.

Analysis: Trump has overseen larger coal decline than any other US president

Coal

|

12.02.26

Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions have now been ‘flat or falling’ for 21 months

China energy

|

12.02.26

Analysis: World’s biggest historic polluter – the US – is pulling out of UN climate treaty

Emissions

|

08.01.26

Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions have now been flat or falling for 18 months

China energy

|

11.11.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_6265e70f40545c6fff2c329122e83a7c .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: UK emissions fall 2.4% in 2025 as coal hits 400-year low appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Data shows that renewable standard portfolio and net-metering programs can raise rates, but clean energy deployed outside of these programs has no discernible impact, said the Clean Air Task Force.

The Federal Reserve released its February 2026 Beige Book, providing an updated snapshot of economic conditions across all 12 Federal Reserve Districts. A growing share of districts reported flat or declining activity as economic uncertainty and price sensitivity weighed on consumer spending alongside rising housing and food insecurities.

The report paints a clear picture of rising tariff costs, higher prices for basic necessities, and Trump administration policies disrupting businesses and squeezing working families.

Groundwork Collaborative’s Chief of Policy and Advocacy, Alex Jacquez, reacted with the following statement:

“Trump sold Americans a bill of goods he can’t deliver on, and he owes working families a refund. The president has driven up costs for consumers and businesses alike with his chaotic tariff policies and foreign wars. The Federal Reserve’s report should serve as a major red flag for the White House that Trump’s economy is flailing.”

BACKGROUND

The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book plays a critical role in informing monetary policy decisions by highlighting regional economic conditions gathered from contacts at businesses, banks, and community organizational contacts at each of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts. Economists have found that the Beige Book can offer early signals about turning points in the economy, including rising recession risks. In the March edition of the Beige Book, contacts reported that:

• Tariffs continue to push up costs. Nine Federal Reserve Districts cited rising input prices tied to tariffs, with many firms saying they are passing those increases directly on to customers.
  • A New York food ingredient company reported tariff-driven price increases moving through the supply chain. Some manufacturers are responding by shrinking package sizes while keeping prices the same.
  • In the Cleveland District, one manufacturer raised prices by 4.25% instead of the planned 3% to offset new steel tariffs.
  • Manufacturers in the Chicago District said tariffs are becoming harder to absorb. One firm noted that after splitting the cost with customers last year, they now plan to pass “the full cost on in 2026.”
• Rising prices for basic necessities are squeezing household budgets. As essential expenses rise, more households are cutting back and turning to community support to meet basic needs.
  • Nonprofits in the Philadelphia District reported increased demand for food assistance as many clients struggle to afford basic necessities.
  • In the Boston District, contacts highlighted continued reliance on food pantries driven by high prices for food, rent, and home heating.
  • Contacts in the Atlanta District said rising prices are forcing families to find new ways to stretch their budgets. Households are “selling clothes online, scrapping metal, tapping savings, utilizing buy now/pay later offerings, eliminating dining out, using coupons, and buying in bulk.”
  • Organizations serving low-income consumers in the Chicago District described rising food insecurity and ongoing challenges finding affordable housing.
• Spending patterns reveal a widening economic divide. While higher-income households continue to spend, many lower- and middle-income consumers are cutting back or trading down to cheaper options.
  • Contacts in the San Francisco District described a “bifurcated, or K-shaped, economy.” Discretionary spending remained strong among higher-income households, while lower- and middle-income consumers continued shifting toward lower-cost and store-label alternatives.
  • In the New York District, sales gains were concentrated among higher-income consumers. Even so, many shoppers remained price-conscious and searched across multiple retailers for better prices.
  • Retail patterns in the Atlanta District reflected the same divide. Discount stores reported steady demand from price-conscious shoppers, while higher-end retail sales remained resilient.
• Health care and insurance costs are rising. Contacts pointed to higher premiums, shrinking access to coverage, and growing financial strain on health care providers.
  • In the New York District, contacts said low- and moderate-income households and older adults are facing increasing challenges maintaining health insurance coverage as premiums rise and access to low-cost plans declines.
  • Nonprofits in the Dallas District warned that expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies and changes to Medicaid requirements could lead to a rise in the uninsured. Contacts said the shift could limit access to preventative care while hospitals absorb the cost of treating patients without coverage.
  • In the Kansas City District, contacts warned that many rural hospitals are under severe financial strain. Roughly half are operating at a loss, with several facilities in northern Missouri at risk of closure.

The European Commission has put forward a plan to boost production of EU-made, low-carbon steel, cement and renewables in an effort to rely less on other countries. 

The proposed “Industrial Accelerator Act” (IAA) aims to boost “resilient and decarbonised” industrial production in EU manufacturing, says the commission. 

Under the proposal, a percentage of products bought from “energy-intensive industries” and other sectors under public-procurement deals would be required to be “low-carbon” and made in the EU. 

This includes targets for steel, aluminium and electric vehicle (EV) parts.

Non-EU countries with trade agreements, such as the UK and Japan, could also be included in the “Made in Europe” portion of the plan.  

The proposal – which must be approved by the European Parliament and EU member states – could save millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2030, claims the commission. 

Much of the media coverage on the proposed policy focuses on its aim to tackle reliance on China for low-carbon technologies, while Politico calls it a “climate law in disguise”. 

In this Q&A, Carbon Brief outlines the key details of the proposal, what must happen for it to take effect and what it could mean for climate change. 

Where does the ‘Industrial Accelerator Act’ proposal come from?

The publication of the proposed IAA follows weeks of delays as the EU attempts to boost its manufacturing industries – which have been struggling with international competition and high energy costs – while also supporting decarbonisation. 

Industries such as steel, cement and chemicals produce roughly a fifth of the EU’s emissions, so decarbonising them will be essential for achieving the bloc’s net-zero goals.

The IAA is an effort to help energy-intensive industries cut their emissions while remaining globally competitive, in part by “creating lead markets for low-carbon products”.

It was first announced in the European Commission’s 2024 political guidelines, laying out its priorities for the five years out to 2029.

In the section concerning the EU’s plans for a “clean industrial deal” – referring to broader plans to support industries and accelerate their decarbonisation – the guidelines stated:

“We will put forward an industrial decarbonisation accelerator act to support industries and companies through the transition.”

When the clean industrial deal was subsequently released in February 2025, it said the promised act would introduce “clean, resilient, circular, cybersecure” criteria that would “strengthen demand for EU-made clean products”.

The act was also intended to “speed-up permitting for industrial access to energy and industrial decarbonisation” and “develop a voluntary label on the carbon intensity of industrial products”.

Underpinning these plans was the idea of increasing demand for low-carbon products in public and private procurements – in particular, those that were “Made in Europe”.

The proportion of products that will be included under the “Made in Europe” definition remains unclear. In the final proposal, the commission notes it will “tailor requirements to the specific structure, maturity and dependencies of each sector”.

The word “decarbonisation” was dropped from the act’s title by commission president Ursula von der Leyen in her state of the EU address in September 2025, in order “to allow for a broader sectoral and technological scope”.

This reflects wider disputes within the commission itself around the coverage of the IAA. There has also been strong opposition to the proposed “made in Europe” section of the act from different groups of member states.

The debate has also taken place against the background of calls to weaken key parts of EU climate policy – in particular, the EU emissions trading system (ETS).

Environmental groups have voiced concerns about the climate focus of the IAA being sidelined, at the expense of boosting the bloc’s competitiveness.

A major issue in the discussions has been whether the “made in Europe” label should include “trusted partners” from outside the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. 

The commission’s trade directorate has reportedly pushed for a more open system that includes more countries. Germany has been among the member states warning that restrictive rules could deter foreign investment and raise prices.

Meanwhile, Politico reported that the commission’s growth directorate, supported by France, wanted “made in Europe” to be restricted to countries in the European Economic Area – the 27 EU member states alongside Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

The publication of the IAA proposal – which follows on from the automotive package adopted by the EU in December 2025 – was delayed numerous times amid the disagreements. 

According to Politico, “haggling” continued over the Monday and Tuesday before the proposal was released, before it could be agreed internally within the commission by the “college of commissioners”.

What is in the IAA proposal?

Following these tense internal negotiations, the European Commission released its IAA proposal on 4 March 2026. It says the proposal will “increase demand for low-carbon, European-made technologies and products”. 

The act sets a goal of increasing manufacturing’s share of EU GDP to 20% by 2035, up from 14.3% in 2024. 

It introduces “targeted and proportionate” low-carbon and “made in EU” requirements for public procurement and public support schemes for specific sectors. 

These will initially apply to steel, cement, aluminium, cars and net-zero technologies – defined within the proposal as batteries, battery energy storage systems (BESS), solar PV, heat pumps, wind turbines, electrolysers and nuclear technologies. It also establishes a framework that could be extended to other energy-intensive sectors in the future.

The commission notes that these sectors have been chosen due to their strategic importance, as well as being “essential enablers of the clean transition and vital to downstream industries”.

However, it says they are facing declining production in Europe, slower decarbonisation investments and global competition and market distortions, such as unfair subsidies.

For steel, the proposal would introduce a requirement for public procurement and public support schemes to use low-carbon steel within the automotive and construction industries. 

This will help “create market demand” and “give investors confidence and predictability, boosting innovation and making clean steel a core part of the EU’s industrial future”, says the commission.

However, this falls short of the 70% low-carbon steel requirement that had been included in an earlier draft of the act, according to Reuters. Other earlier drafts of the IAA proposal had also included an emissions label for steel. 

This voluntary carbon-intensity label had previously been set out within the clean industrial deal and had originally been expected to come into effect in 2025, before being pushed back and, ultimately, excluded from the IAA.

Beyond steel, the IAA sets minimum “Made in EU” requirements for public procurement of 70% for EVs, 25% for aluminium and 25% for cement. 

The European Commission will now offer the UK, Japan and other like-minded countries the opportunity to be included under the “Made in Europe” manufacturing targets, if they offer reciprocal access to EU-based manufacturers, according to the Financial Times. The outlet adds that this is being welcomed by the UK government, which had lobbied for such access for months.

The measures within the IAA are in line with the recommendations of the Draghi report on EU competitiveness, says the commission. As such, it says they are designed to “increase value creation in the EU, strengthening our industrial base against the backdrop of growing unfair global competition and increasing dependencies on non-EU suppliers in strategic sectors”.

Alongside the introduction of requirements on public procurement within the bloc, the IAA proposal highlights that the EU is “committed to maintaining that openness as a key source of economic strength and resilience”. 

The EU hosted almost a quarter of global foreign direct investment in 2024. 

To further support such investment and ensure the benefits extend to technology transfer and job creation, the IAA introduces additional conditions for international investments. 

These would apply for investments of more than €100m in emerging sectors such as batteries, EVs, solar PV and critical raw materials by companies that hold more than 40% of global production capacities. 

Conditions would include EU companies holding a majority share, technology transfer, integration into EU value chains and job creation, according to the European Commission. There would also need to be a guarantee that a minimum of 50% of employees are European.

The introduction of common conditions across the bloc would mean the IAA “strike[s] a carefully calibrated balance by ensuring that strategic foreign investments contribute to Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and industrial transformation, while preventing fragmentation”, according to the commission. 

Additionally, EU member states would be required to set up a single digital permitting process to “speed up and simplify manufacturing projects” under the IAA.

This would include dedicated single points of contact and maximum timelines of 18 months for certain projects, such as energy-intensive industry decarbonisation projects or those located in “industrial acceleration areas”. 

Member states would designate these areas to encourage strategic manufacturing clusters, it says. The commission adds that projects within these areas would benefit from improved coordination and access to infrastructure, finance and skills ecosystems, as well as faster permitting. 

What comes next?

The commission’s proposal will now be negotiated by members of the European Parliament and then by country ministers at the Council of the EU. 

After these negotiations take place, the proposal can be adopted and the act can take effect. 

But this may not be a simple process, as many countries remain divided on the key terms of the proposed law. (See: Where does the ‘Industrial Accelerator Act’ proposal come from?)

Nine EU countries pushed back on the proposal last December, reported Politico. The UK has been “lobbying” countries including Germany, Italy and the Netherlands to oppose it, according to Bloomberg. Reuters noted that the plan is backed by France. 

EU commissioner for internal market and services, Stéphane Séjourné, told a press conference on 4 March that the “faster” the proposal moves through the EU lawmaking stages, the “more stability we will actually have”. 

After the law takes effect, the commission says it will evaluate the key results three years later. A full review is then proposed after five years. 

What could the act mean for carbon emissions? 

The IAA could save around 30.6m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) in 2030, according to the European Commission.

According to the impact assessment published alongside the proposed act, the changes brought in for the steel, cement, aluminium, battery and vehicle sectors would drive significant CO2 reductions by 2030. 

The document breaks down these emissions savings for 2030 as follows: 

• Producing more batteries in the EU, rather than relying on imports from China, could save 25.6MtCO2. 
• The 25% low-carbon steel target in the automotive and construction sectors could save around 3.4MtCO2. 
• Vehicle manufacturing emissions could drop by 0.7MtCO2 due to “shifts in production”. 
• The 5% low-carbon cement target could save 0.69MtCO2. 
• The 25% low-carbon aluminium target could save 0.22MtCO2. 

According to the impact assessment, the emissions required to produce a battery in the EU  are around 25% lower than a “Chinese manufactured battery using the average Chinese grid”. This is due to “strict” EU environmental standards, it adds. 

The report estimates that all of these savings in CO2 would be worth more than €3bn in avoided climate damages. 

Streamlining the process for permitting to “accelerate” decarbonisation projects should also “lea[d] to an accelerated pace of GHG [greenhouse gas] savings”, the document says, but does not list a figure for this. 

The impact assessment for the IAA proposal notes that there is currently a “structural imbalance” in the EU’s industrial transition. 

It states that although emissions associated with industrial production are declining, this is “largely driven by shrinking production”, rather than improved carbon efficiency. 

Carbon emissions and production volumes in the EU iron and steel sectors have dropped “almost in parallel” between 2005 and 2023, says the report. 

It adds that projections show that these emissions will need to decline “much faster” to meet future EU climate targets. 

The “competitiveness and decarbonisation” of EU manufacturing is “unlikely to improve” without further action, such as the IAA, says the report. 

In other words, the IAA effectively aims to ensure that emissions cuts can accelerate while maintaining – or even increasing – industrial production within the EU.

What has the reaction to the IAA been? 

While many welcomed the IAA proposal as a “first step”, others criticised the final proposal for walking back on the ambition in earlier drafts.

In a statement released alongside the proposal, Stéphane Séjourné, executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy at the European Commission, said the IAA marked a “major step in the renewal of the European economic doctrine”. He added: 

“Facing unprecedented global uncertainty and unfair competition, European industry can count on the provisions of this Act to boost demand and guarantee resilient supply chains in strategic sectors. It will create jobs by directing taxpayers’ money to European production, decreasing our dependencies and enhancing our economic security and sovereignty.”

Others shared his sentiment that in the face of a changing international trade environment, the IAA would boost European competitiveness. Neil Makaroff, director at the European thinktank Strategic Perspectives, said in a statement: 

“With its first ‘made in Europe’ policy, the EU is embracing long-overdue economic realism and adapting itself to the new brutal global trade reality. Rather than letting the single market be an open outlet for Chinese overcapacities, each euro of taxpayer money can be directed to rebuild Europe’s manufacturing base. This is how Europeans can start learning the language of industrial powers.”

Tinne van der Straeten, the CEO of WindEurope, said the IAA sent an “important political signal”, but “a simple and harmonised implementation of the new rules is crucial”. 

WWF highlighted that public procurement is only a small part of the EU economy and called for complementary measures that also target private consumption. 

Camille Maury, senior policy officer on industrial decarbonisation at WWF EU, said: 

“The commission has finally pressed the accelerator on clean industry by opening the door to create demand for clean products. However, to win the race to decarbonise, the commission and policy makers will need to put effort into strengthening low-carbon requirement criteria and designing truly green labels for steel and cement that exclude fossil fuel-based production.”

In particular, the lack of a low-carbon label for steel within the IAA drew criticism, with, for example, Daniel Pietikainen, policy manager for steel at climate NGO Bellona Europa, saying: 

“The Act no longer provides the basis for a low-carbon steel label. While we can work with the Ecodesign Regulation as the vehicle for a steel label, the commission must commit to an ambitious timeline now. Any operational labelling scheme that is contingent on a delegated act with no clear timeline is not a signal; it is a delay.”

Similarly, the exceptions for international investment in emerging sectors, such as batteries and solar, were labelled as a “very disappointing…watering-down” by Christoph Podewils, secretary general of the European Solar Manufacturing Council. In a statement, he added: 

“We need ‘Made in Europe’ to ensure the continent’s long-term energy security. The current explosion in energy prices, caused by the war in Iran, demonstrates the importance of being independent of other regions. 

“If the European solar industry has to wait another three years after the legislation is adopted, many companies will have disappeared in the meantime due to ongoing unfair competition from China.”

Analysis: EVs just outsold petrol cars in EU for first time ever

Energy

|

27.01.26

Q&A: European Commission’s proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040

EU policy

|

03.07.25

Q&A: What does the new German coalition government mean for climate and energy?

Emissions

|

11.04.25

The Carbon Brief Profile: Germany

Country profiles

|

18.02.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_e42ccddf0d55b33d2353db0ef6b04456 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: What the EU’s new industry and ‘Made in Europe’ rules mean for climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Partout en Europe et au-delà, les droits des personnes transgenres font l’objet de réactions politiques négatives et d’une couverture médiatique défavorable. Parallèlement, les efforts déployés par les personnes transgenres pour revendiquer un discours d’autonomisation ont largement échoué. Comment pouvons-nous apprécier l’expérience de vie des personnes transgenres sous tous ses aspects positifs sans tomber dans les pièges de la pathologisation, de la victimisation ou de la mystification ?

Aria n’hésite pas quand on lui pose la question : pour elle, la transition de genre, c’est “la meilleure chose qui [lui] soit arrivée, contrairement à ce que certains peuvent penser”. La jeune Bruxelloise suit un parcours d’affirmation de genre depuis des années. Elle se dit heureuse de ce choix qui lui a permis de vivre plus librement son identité. “J’ai repris goût à la vie, en quelque sorte”, résume-t-elle. Aria vient d’avoir 27 ans ; voilà quatre ans, à peu près, qu’elle a annoncé sa transidentité à ses proches. Pour elle, c’est un peu une nouvelle existence qui commence.

Le terme parapluie “transgenre”, qui définit une personne dont l’identité de genre est différente de celle associée au genre qui lui a été attribué à la naissance, se retrouve désormais régulièrement sur les plateaux télévisés et dans les hémicycles. Mais les transidentités restent largement incomprises des personnes cisgenres – celles dont l’identité de genre correspond à celle associée au genre attribué à la naissance.

Marion (le nom a été changé) est assistant d’éducation en France et se considère comme non binaire. Pour Marion, “être trans signifie ne pas comprendre le concept de genre en premier lieu, et surtout ne pas vouloir s’y conformer”. Iel y voit également un moyen de se sentir plus en phase avec soi-même. “J’ai acquis un plus grand sentiment d’équilibre. Quand j’ai réalisé que j’étais non binaire, j’ai eu l’impression que tout devenait plus clair, et cela m’a beaucoup apaisé. Cela m’a permis de comprendre et d’expliquer beaucoup de situations de mon passé et de mon enfance, et d’arrêter de me dire que j’étais bizarre ou anormal.”

De la transidentité, les médias grands publics et les personnalités politiques ne nous font souvent qu’un récit stéréotypé, réduit à la transition médicale (qui elle-même ne concerne pas toutes les personnes transgenres) ou aux questions de discriminations et d’accès au droit. La réalité concrète de la transidentité, ou l’expérience intime que celle-ci représente sont rarement mises à l’honneur. Trop souvent, le droit à l’existence des personnes transgenres est remis en question par des figures médiatiques et politiques aux discours haineux et déconnectés.

Discrimination et victimisation

Ces dernières années, l’Europe a été le théâtre d’une campagne contre les droits des personnes transgenres. Le 16 avril, la Cour suprême britannique a statué que la définition juridique d’une femme était fondée sur le sexe biologique. Bien qu’il ait été avancé que les droits des personnes transgenres étaient toujours protégés par la loi sur l’égalité de 2010, certaines organisations ont souligné les implications profondes de cette décision, avertissant que l’accès des femmes transgenres aux services et aux espaces typiquement réservés à un seul genre pourrait être compromis.

La décision de la Cour suprême, saluée par le gouvernement travailliste du Premier ministre Keir Starmer pour avoir apporté de la “clarté” (même si certains la jugent encore extrêmement vague dans son application), est l’aboutissement d’une intense campagne de lobbying menée par l’organisation féministe trans-exclusive For Women Scotland.

Une telle décision est particulièrement significative dans le contexte actuel d’une guerre culturelle qui a donné lieu à des controverses très médiatisées, comme la publication du rapport Cass, qui critiquait l’aide médicale apportée par le Service national de santé aux jeunes transgenres, ou le scandale autour de la boxeuse Imane Khelif. Des personnalités de premier plan telles qu’Elon Musk et J. K. Rowling, qui utilisent leur fortune et leur influence pour attaquer les minorités de genre à travers le monde, se sont exprimées dans le “débat sur le genre”. Dans le même temps, les médias reprennent parfois sans discernement les arguments de l’extrême droite, jouant ainsi un rôle fondamental dans une réaction politique qui a des conséquences très réelles pour les personnes transgenres.

En Hongrie, une loi introduite en 2021 interdit aux organisations de partager des informations relatives aux personnes LGBT avec les mineurs dans les écoles et les médias. En 2024, le Sénat français a adopté un projet de loi interdisant les traitements hormonaux pour les moins de 18 ans et contrôlant strictement les bloqueurs de puberté. Le gouvernement a désapprouvé le texte, et on ne sait toujours pas si le Parlement l’examinera.

Et la situation n’est guère meilleure outre-Atlantique : les décrets signés par Donald Trump ont interdit aux personnes transgenres de servir dans l’armée et de pratiquer des sports féminins.

Dans toute l’Europe, les personnes transgenres sont confrontées à une insécurité croissante. En 2023, 14 % des personnes LGBTQIA+ interrogées par l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (FRA) ont déclaré avoir été victimes d’agressions physiques ou sexuelles en raison de leur identité de genre ou de leur orientation sexuelle au cours des cinq années précédant l’enquête, soit trois points de pourcentage de plus qu’en 2019. Si l’on ne considère que les statistiques relatives aux personnes transgenres, ce taux passe à 20 % (contre 17 % en 2019). 

Comme l’a résumé la FRA dans ses conclusions, “dans l’ensemble, les résultats de l’enquête montrent que les personnes LGBTIQ, et en particulier les groupes transgenres et intersexués, continuent d’être victimes de violences motivées par la haine, de discrimination directe et indirecte et de victimisation, malgré la protection offerte par le droit européen”. De plus, depuis plusieurs années, les droits des personnes LGBTQIA+ font l’objet d’attaques habituelles (et croissantes) de la part d’acteurs de droite et d’extrême droite, compromettant les progrès réalisés dans la lutte pour les droits des personnes transgenres. 

Dans son rapport annuel pour 2024, l’Association internationale des personnes lesbiennes, gays, bisexuelles, transgenres et intersexuées (ILGA) fait état d’une forte augmentation des discours haineux à l’encontre des personnes LGBTQIA+, en particulier de la part de personnalités publiques et d’institutions. Le rapport révèle un paradoxe : d’une part, l’acceptation publique des minorités sexuelles et de genre progresse lentement mais sûrement en Europe, et certains gouvernements facilitent les changements d’état civil. D’autre part, l’accès aux soins de santé, la reconnaissance familiale, la liberté d’association et le logement deviennent des questions plus complexes pour les personnes LGBTQIA+. L’ILGA note également une augmentation des “tactiques alarmistes autour de l’éducation sexuelle […] avec l’extrême droite et d’autres acteurs qui instrumentalisent les enfants dans des arguments anti-LGBTI et sèment la division entre les jeunes et les parents”.

Pour Aria, cette insécurité croissante est source d’inquiétude. Même si elle n’a pas été personnellement agressée en raison de son identité transgenre, Aria reconnaît qu’elle pourrait être victime de harcèlement ou d’abus à l’avenir. Dans le même temps, elle pense que la médiatisation croissante du débat sur les droits des personnes transgenres (et ce que certains décrivent à tort comme une “épidémie transgenre”) alimente les réactions négatives : “On dirait que pour les gens, parce que le sujet est plus médiatisé, l’identité transgenre soit nouvelle et que beaucoup de personnes soient transgenres, mais ce n’est pas vrai”, dit-elle. “C’est une petite minorité, que nous devons défendre. Une minorité qui a le droit d’exister.”

Marion avoue également avoir peur. “Pas pour moi […] mais pour mes proches ; et je pense que nous nous inquiétons toujours plus pour les autres que pour nous-mêmes. De la même manière, le recul des droits à l’avortement dans certains pays m’a beaucoup inquiété, mais cela me semble lointain car dans mon entourage immédiat, je ne côtoie que des personnes en sécurité, et le danger ne semble pas faire partie de mon quotidien”. Mais de percevoir une menace grandissante : “J’ai l’impression que les choses empirent”, s’inquiète Marion, qui dit craindre “un très mauvais backlash ; et je plains les personnes transgenres dans les pays où la situation devient vraiment horrible. Egoïstement, je croise les doigts pour que cela reste aussi loin que possible de [la France].”

Riposter

Bien qu’il faille évidemment parler de la violence, de l’accès au droit et de la percée du radicalisme d’extrême droite, la couverture médiatique des questions relatives à la transidentité entretient également ses propres angles morts : décrire uniquement les minorités sexuelles et de genre comme des victimes leur dénie leur capacité de contrôler leur existence. Comme la détermination de la communauté LGBTQIA+ après l’interdiction de la Marche des fiertés de Budapest en mars 2025 le prouve pourtant, la discrimination est un puissant moteur pour l’indignation et l’engagement citoyen.

Aria, pour sa part, aimerait manifester, mais un handicap physique l’en empêche. Vivre en affirmant son genre a profondément impacté les convictions personnelles de la jeune Bruxelloise. “Les gens pour qui je vote [n’ont] pas changé, mais je suis plus sensibilisée, sur le fait d’être queer, d’être femme”, précise-t-elle. “Etant moi même marginalisée, j’ai plus d’empathie pour les personnes marginalisées.” De son côté, Marion garde confiance. “Même si les politiciens essaient de nous isoler et de ruiner nos vies, je pense que nous pouvons riposter, et c’est aussi important : ne pas rester seul, ne pas laisser les gens seuls”. Marion tente de transmettre cette détermination dans son travail d’assistant d’éducation dans un lycée français, en veillant à ce que les jeunes personnes queer à sa charge “se sentent écoutées et sachent qu’elles ont le droit d’exister, et qu’il est beau et merveilleux d’être soi-même et d’être entouré de personnes qui tiennent à vous. Et qu’il est normal d’être différent de ce que la société veut que nous soyons.”

Pour Marion, la lutte pour les droits des minorités de genre a déjà conduit à des changements positifs : “J’ai le sentiment que même si ce qui est visible publiquement, comme les médias ou les décisions politiques, est transphobe, il y a une amélioration dans la perception des personnes non queer.”

Le chemin est encore long avant de voir les minorités sexuelles et de genre être pleinement acceptées en Europe, quand bien même certaines victoires ont été décrochées, souvent de haute lutte, par les milieux militants. Au-delà de la défense des droits, l’activisme pourrait également impacter la santé mentale des gens qui le pratiquent. Une étude de Travis R. Scheadler, Katherine R. Haus, Tanner A. Mobley et Kristen P. Mark, publiée en 2023 dans la revue Journal of Homosexuality, s’est penchée sur les conséquences psychologiques de l’activisme populaire des personnes LGBTQIA+. On peut y lire que “l’activisme […] pourrait faciliter le développement de la résilience chez les personnes LGBTQ+”. Le fait de se rassembler, d’être ou de côtoyer des rôles modèles et de défendre ses droits favoriserait “l’affirmation de l’identité ou la perception positive de son identité”, aidant donc au “développement de l’identité LGBTQ+ et [au] bien-être”, rapportent les chercheurs.

L’engagement citoyen n’est certes pas tout rose : les frustrations, inquiétudes et attaques directes sont monnaie courante. 

Pathologisation et autodétermination

Le premier pays européen à permettre aux personnes transgenres de changer leur état civil fut la Suède en 1972. À l’époque, cette modification ne pouvait se faire qu’à condition d’avoir entrepris une opération chirurgicale d’affirmation de genre.

Quand les Etats autorisent la modification de la mention du genre, celle-ci reste régulièrement liée à une vision psycho-médicale de la transidentité. Etre reconnue en tant que personne transgenre, au regard du droit, revient à cocher une succession de cases : avoir reçu un diagnostic psychologique, entamé un traitement hormonal, procédé à une intervention chirurgicale voire même subi une stérilisation forcée… 

Face au consensus scientifique – parfois vu par certaines personnes comme la seule chose à même de donner sa légitimité à une transidentité encore considérée comme un problème mental – le ressenti des personnes transgenres et le droit à l’autodétermination est souvent ignoré. Ce qui a poussé de plus en plus d’activistes à demander une dépathologisation de la transidentité. Seul huit pays européens permettent l’autodétermination du genre : la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, l’Irlande, le Luxembourg, Malte, le Portugal et l’Espagne. À l’heure actuelle, deux pays européens interdisent tout changement d’état civil : la Bulgarie et la Hongrie. 

Mais ce qui est souvent absent des discussions sur la protection des droits des personnes transgenres, c’est le potentiel de changement positif pour la société dans son ensemble. “Je pense que la société a beaucoup à gagner à inclure et à comprendre les personnes transgenres”, affirme Marion. “Il y a tellement de dysfonctionnements et de souffrances associés à la binarité des genres. Cesser de considérer le genre comme deux cases distinctes pourrait aider à éviter que des personnes souffrent à cause de leur genre. Je parle ici principalement des femmes, qui sont confrontées quotidiennement au sexisme, mais plus généralement de toutes les personnes qui subissent le patriarcat.”

Pour Marion, comprendre l’identité transgenre signifie comprendre que le genre n’est pas binaire et que personne n’est obligé de rentrer dans “l’une des deux cases dans lesquelles la société nous enferme”.

“De plus, la société est toujours gagnante lorsqu’elle cesse de discriminer et devient plus ouverte et accueillante”, poursuit Marion. “En tout cas, un monde qui ne le serait pas ne m’intéresse pas.”

La transidentité est un récit fait par les autres

Les personnes transgenres peinent à véritablement s’approprier un grand récit qui prête peu attention aux expériences et aux individualités des concerné·e·s pour leur préférer des clichés bien connus et répétés. Un constat qui n’échappe pas à Arnaud Alessandrin, sociologue du genre à l’université de Bordeaux. “En 2015, plus de 96 % des personnes transgenres interrogées n’étaient plutôt pas satisfaites ou pas du tout satisfaites de la façon dont le sujet était couvert dans les médias”, explique-t-il. Si la transidentité est davantage visible dans les médias aujourd’hui, les personnes concernées gardent l’impression que le discours les concernant reste stigmatisant, discriminant – quant il ne confine pas à la haine, continue le chercheur. 

Quand la transidentité fait parler, c’est rarement sur un registre choisi par les personnes concernées. “On remarque que ce qui intéresse le plus, c’est la dimension politique de la transidentité”, précise Alessandrin, qui mentionne les questions relatives à l’accès au droit, au changement d’état civil, etc. Vient ensuite la “dimension ‘incarnée’ : le récit biographique d’une célébrité, son parcours de vie” ; autant d’histoires personnelles, de parcours souvent structurés autour d’un avant-après la transition. Les questions plus “sensationnelles”, selon le sociologue, structurent également un récit qui laisse peu de place aux questionnements plus intimes ou sensibles – le rapport au vieillissement, la scolarité des personnes trans, etc. Même si, tempère le chercheur, ces sujets apparaissent bien plus aujourd’hui qu’hier.

“La transidentité”, résume Alessandrin, “est un récit fait par les autres”. Et quand ce récit s’adresse au grand public, il n’échappe pas aux contraintes du storytelling, et donc à la subjectivité de celui ou celle qui le raconte. “D’ailleurs, ce storytelling est souvent accompagné d’éléments de langage qu’on rencontre souvent : ‘le mauvais corps’, ‘la souffrance’, l’idée de ‘faire le deuil’”, continue-t-il. Autant de mots et de concepts qu’on ne retrouve pas nécessairement chez les personnes transgenres interrogées, avance-t-il.

Si les récits ont gagné en subtilité depuis le début des années 2010, ils restent marqués par la pesanteur de la souffrance : la douleur psychologique, le poids médical, l’impact de la discrimination … Autant de considérations légitimes qui barrent pourtant la route à des interprétations plus positives de la transition. “On s’intéresse davantage à la question de la discrimination et de la souffrance qu’à l’expérimentation de la discrimination qui mènerait à de l’indignation puis à un militantisme, ce qui est peu exploré”, précise par exemple Alessandrin.

Cette dépossession du récit va de pair, argumente-t-il, avec une “polarisation” de la transidentité. “Les personnes transgenres sont [soit des victimes], soit des personnes héroïques, courageuses, belles, subversives”, récapitule-t-il. “On finit par accoler à des personnes qui ne le veulent pas une subversivité qu’elles n’ont pas souhaité.”

Dans son essai Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity (Manifeste d’une femme trans, 2020, éditions Cambourakis), l’autrice et militante Julia Serano critique déjà ce qu’elle appelle la “mystification des personnes trans”, un procédé consistant à “entériner si fortement l’idée d’une nature taboue attribuée au ‘changement de sexe’ que l’on perd de vue le fait que la transsexualité (ndlr: pour rester fidèle au texte original, nous employons le terme “transsexualité” tel qu’employé par Serano, dont l’usage est lui-même critiqué aujourd’hui) est tout à fait réelle, tangible et souvent banale pour celles et ceux d’entre nous qui en faisons l’expérience directe”. Pour la penseuse américaine, “la transsexualité n’a rien de fascinant. Pour beaucoup d’entre nous, il s’agit simplement d’une réalité”. Faire des transidentités un objet mystérieux contribue selon elle à mettre en avant son “artificialité” : le genre assigné à la naissance serait “naturel”. Celui dans lequel les personnes trans vivent au jour le jour serait, lui, une illusion. 

Pour Arnaud Alessandrin, le grand récit médiatique des personnes transgenres met de côté les questions et les réalités quotidiennes que ces dernières vivent. “On parle rarement de la dimension entremêlée des subjectivités”, regrette-t-il. Toutes les expériences ne rentrent pas dans un grand canon médiatique. “La meilleure façon de lutter contre ça est de donner la parole aux personnes trans au pluriel”, conclut-t-il. “Comprendre cette subjectivité, cette multiplicité.”

Comment comprendre la transidentité ? Une façon certaine de mieux la cerner est déjà de donner la parole aux personnes qui la vivent chaque jour. Un changement de perspective s’impose également : percevoir l’affirmation de la transidentité comme un acte de réappropriation de soi dans toute sa complexité, avec ses épreuves et ses moments de bonheur, et qui, de par son caractère déterminant, ne peut pas être discuté, mis en doute, ou récupéré. Mais tout en gardant à l’esprit qu’il est question d’existences bien réelles, de vies ordinaires qui vivent au plus près les conséquences des politiques décidées en haut lieu et des discours de haine diffusés au sein de la société civile. 

Translated by Voxeurop.

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s China Briefing.

China Briefing handpicks and explains the most important climate and energy stories from China over the past fortnight. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments Government ‘work report’ for 2026 announced

LOWER GROWTH: China is aiming for economic growth of 4.5-5% in 2026, reported state-run newspaper China Daily in its coverage of the “government work report” – an outline of China’s policies in 2026 delivered by Chinese premier Li Qiang at the annual “two sessions” meeting of key government and party officials in Beijing. This is the lowest target since 1991, said BBC News, as China “grapples with challenges both at home and abroad”. Li said “geopolitical risks are rising”, noted the Financial Times. The lower GDP target reflects a shift to what Beijing calls “high-quality growth”, said the Guardian.

‘GREEN DEVELOPMENT’: The work report cited the publication of China’s 2035 climate pledge under the Paris Agreement as one of the achievements made last year, noted state-run broadcaster CGTN. Another CGTN article said that “new quality productive forces” also “grew steadily” in 2025, referring to a term that includes “green development”. Financial services firm ING said that the report highlighted priorities for 2026 including “high-quality” and “green development”, as well as domestic consumption, but that it also scaled back China’s consumer “trade-in” policy relative to 2025. 

‘LAX’ INTENSITY: The report set a target to cut China’s “carbon intensity” – its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per unit of GDP – by 3.8% in 2026, reported Reuters, which quoted Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air saying this was “alarmingly lax”. He told Carbon Brief that emissions could rise by up to 0.5-1.0% while still meeting this target.

DUAL-CARBON DOUBTS: The work report said that China’s goal of peaking CO2 emissions before 2030 would be “accomplished as planned” and that a system to control the total amount of emissions would also be implemented, said Bloomberg. The report offers little detail on the shift to this system for the “dual control of carbon”, said Greenpeace East Asia’s Yao Zhe in a statement.

上微信关注《碳简报》

TRANSITION FUND: Another China Daily article reported that China will “establish a national fund for low-carbon transition” this year. Citing the work report, it said this fund would be used to “foster new growth drivers such as hydrogen power and green fuels”. The newspaper pointed to other climate-related elements of the report, including promoting the “clean and efficient use of fossil fuels” and “zero-carbon industrial parks”, expanding the coverage of China’s emissions trading system and improving systems for carbon accounting.

Pre-meeting positioning

CARBON ‘CO-BENEFIT’S: The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) published new air quality standards that could “cut CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions by more than 7bn metric tonnes [over a decade] as a co-benefit”, said the state-run newspaper China Daily. Energy news outlet China Energy Net reported that these co-benefits could come from the new standards “effectively fostering…development of new quality productive forces such as clean energy and new-energy vehicles”, as well as driving low-carbon transitions in the “industrial, energy and transportation” sectors. 

GATHERING VIEWS: In a press conference held ahead of the two sessions, MEE spokesperson Pei Xiaofei told Shanghai-based outlet the Paper that 85% of policy proposals submitted to the ministry for the meetings were focused on “building a Beautiful China”, meeting China’s carbon peak and neutrality goals and “tackling pollution”. According to a partial transcript published on the MEE website, MEE atmospheric environment director Li Tianwei said “heavy reliance” on fossil fuels, dominance of heavy industries and “road-centric” transport presented continuing “challenges” for emissions reduction.

Subscribe: China Briefing

• .listing{background: #f4f4f4} .listing ul{list-style:none; margin:0} ol {background: #F4F4F4; padding: 0px;} .listing ul {background: #F4F4F4; padding: 0px;} .listing li{font-size:0px;}
  
  

  Sign up to Carbon Brief's free "China Briefing" email newsletter. All you need to know about the latest developments relating to China and climate change. Sent to your inbox every Thursday.

OFFICIAL OUTLOOK: Several director generals of National Energy Administration (NEA) departments published articles on their outlook for the fifteenth five-year plan. Development and planning department head Ren Yuzhi wrote in China Electric Power News that China must “expand the non-fossil energy supply system”, construct a power system “compatible with high proportions of renewable energy” and “promote the peaking of coal and oil consumption”. Head of the new energy and renewable energy department Li Chuangjun argued that the “main” direction for clean energy was “expanding scale, improving quality and ensuring reliable substitution”. The heads of the oil and gas, market regulation and power safety departments also authored articles.

OFFICIAL STATS: Meanwhile, new government statistics showed that China’s energy and industry emissions saw a 0.3% decline in 2025, reported the Financial Times. [The data confirmed earlier analysis for Carbon Brief that also calculated a drop of 0.3%.] The data release also revealed that “solar power generation overtook wind for the first time” in 2025, according to Bloomberg. China’s carbon intensity fell 5.1% in 2025, reported the state-run newspaper China Daily in its coverage of the data. [Carbon Brief put this figure at 4.7%, but the scope of the official data appears to have changed.]

Merz’s many meetings

EXTENDED COOPERATION: China and Germany signed an agreement on climate change during a visit by chancellor Friedrich Merz to Beijing, reported Agence France-Presse. The agreement to “extend” a Sino-German dialogue and cooperation mechanism on “climate change and the green transition” pledged to focus on “energy, industry, energy efficiency and the circular economy”, as well as “further implementing the objectives of the Paris Agreement”, said energy news outlet BJX News. Reuters noted that Germany signed far fewer agreements than the UK or Canada during their own recent visits, quoting Merz as saying that trade dynamics were “not healthy” due to overcapacity.

TECH TOUR: Xi told Merz that Germany’s focus on “technology, innovation and digitalisation…aligns closely with China’s smart, green and integrated development”, reported state news agency Xinhua. Merz later met with the heads of several Chinese technology firms in the eastern city of Hangzhou, including representatives from electric vehicle companies, reported the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP). 

OVERCAPACITY OUTCRY: Ahead of Merz’s China visit, EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič called for adapting global trading rules to account for “overcapacities”, “unfair trade policies” and “state subsidies”, said SCMP, quoting Šefčovič as saying Europe was “monitoring very closely the increase of plug-in hybrid Chinese vehicle” exports to the EU. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also called on China to halve state support for industry, noting that industrial policies are “giving rise to international spillovers and pressures” and have had a “negative” impact on China’s economy, according to the Financial Times.

More China news

• ENERGY SECURITY: Chinese refiners have been instructed to “suspend exports of diesel and gasoline” following the outbreak of the Iran war, reported Bloomberg.
• GET THE GAS: China will waive some import charges for certain oil and gas exploration equipment and gas imports to “improve” energy production and “support” gas utilisation, said energy news outlet International Energy Net. 
• LAW REVISIONS: The NEA aims to revise the Electricity Law and Renewable Energy Law in 2026, according to economic news outlet Jiemian.
• DIPLOMATIC ENDEAVOURS: The party committee of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in the communist party-affiliated People’s Daily that addressing climate change through “concrete actions” is a major element of its diplomatic strategy.
• SOLAR RUSH: Solar manufacturers are “ramping up production to boost exports” ahead of the cancellation of solar-export rebates in April, reported energy news outlet China Energy Net.
• DOC DROP: The UK has published its climate agreement with China, signed last year, which includes agreements on “offshore windfarms, electricity grids, battery storage, carbon capture and hydrogen”, reported the Daily Telegraph.

Captured Spotlight How climate features in China’s 15th five-year plan

China will set a carbon-intensity reduction target of 17% for 2030, according to a draft of the 15th five-year plan– although analysts note changes to the metric’s methodology.

More broadly, the draft represents continuity with China’s “build before breaking” approach to the energy transition.

Below are some of its key implications for China’s energy transition. A full analysis will be published on the Carbon Brief website tomorrow.

‘Active and steady’ advance

Achieving China’s climate targets will remain a key driver of the country’s policies in the next five years from 2026-30, according to the draft 15th five-year plan.

The draft, released this morning, said China will “actively and steadily advance and achieve carbon peaking”, with policymakers continuing to strike a balance between building a “green economy” and ensuring stability.

Five-year plans are one of the most important documents in China’s political system, outlining policy direction for the next five years. 

The latest plan covers the years until 2030, before which China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions. (Analysis for Carbon Brief found that emissions have been “flat or falling” since March 2024.)

China will “continue to pursue” its established direction and objectives on climate, Professor Li Zheng, dean of the Tsinghua University Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development (ICCSD), told Carbon Brief.

Carbon-intensity confusion

In the lead-up to the release of the plan, analysts were keenly watching for signals around China’s adoption of a “dual-control of carbon” system that will see targets set for both carbon intensity and total carbon emissions.

Looking back at the previous five-year plan period, the latest document said China had already achieved a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7%, just shy of its 18% goal.

Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), had suggested that China had only cut its carbon intensity by 12% over the past five years.

He told Carbon Brief that the newly reported 17.7% figure is likely due to an “opportunistic” methodological revision to include industrial processes.

The draft 15th five-year plan sets a binding target of another 17% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. The new methodology means that this leaves space for overall emissions to rise by “3-6% over the next five years”, Myllyvirta said.

The plan also did not set an absolute emissions cap, although Myllyvirta noted that a cap may be announced later in the five-year period, or imposed on select industries via China’s carbon market.

Double in a decade

The five-year plan continued to call for China’s development of a “new energy system that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” by 2030, with continued additions of “wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power”.

It also called for a doubling of “non-fossil energy” in “10 years” – although it did not clarify whether this meant their installed capacity or electricity generation, or what the exact starting point would be. 

Research has shown that doubling wind and solar capacity by 2035 in China would be “consistent” with aims to limit global warming to 2C. 

But the plan continued to support the “clean and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels” and did not mention either a cap or peaking timeline for coal consumption.

“How quickly carbon intensity is reduced largely depends on how much renewable energy can be supplied,” said Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, in a statement.

Meanwhile, clean-energy technologies continue to play a role in upgrading China’s economy, with several “new energy” sectors listed as key to its industrial policy.

Named sectors include smart electric vehicles, “new solar cells”, new-energy storage, hydrogen and nuclear fusion energy.

This comes as the EU outlined measures to limit China’s hold on clean-energy industries. 

However, China is unlikely to crack down on clean-tech production capacity, Dr Rebecca Nadin, director of the Centre for Geopolitics of Change at ODI Global, told Carbon Brief.

Instead, she said, Beijing is “prepared to pour investment into these sectors to cement global market share, jobs and technological leverage”.

Watch, read, listen

‘A LOT AT STAKE’: The Penn Project on the Future of US-China Relations held a webinar discussing China’s strength in clean-energy industries and how the US should respond. 

KEEPING COAL AFLOAT: Electricity Market Tracker explored the impact of China’s coal “capacity payment” mechanism and what it could mean for the country’s energy transition. 

TRACKING PRIORITIES: The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies podcast outlined key energy and climate issues to watch in China in 2026.

FINDING BALANCE: The Asia Society Policy Institute unpacked the drivers behind China’s overcapacity challenges and what a “plausible new equilibrium” might look like.

166.6bn yuan 

The direct economic losses ($24.2bn) caused by “floods and geological disasters” in China last year, according to a National Bureau of Statistics data release published by BJX News. China suffered a further 8.6bn yuan ($1.3bn) in losses due to drought, it added.

New science

• Rising greenhouse gas emissions have caused “icing days” – during which the daily maximum temperature is lower than 0C – to become less common, but more intense in China over 1961-2020 | Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres
• “A-share listed companies” in China “significantly enhanced” their carbon emission reductions and green innovation over 2007-22 in response to rising “climate risk”, but did not show a significant change to their “environmental protection” | Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

Recently published on WeChat

• 将升温限制在2C以内对保护原始南极半岛至关重要

• 分析：中国碳排放量连续21个月保持平稳或下降

China Briefing is written by Anika Patel and edited by Simon Evans. Simon Evans contributed to the writing of this edition. Please send tips and feedback to china@carbonbrief.org 

China Briefing 19 February 2026: CO2 emissions ‘flat or falling’ | First tariff lifted | Ma Jun on carbon data

China Briefing

|

19.02.26

China Briefing 5 February 2026: Clean energy’s share of economy | Record renewables | Thawing relations with UK

China Briefing

|

05.02.26

China Briefing 22 January 2026: 2026 priorities; EV agreement; How China uses gas

China Briefing

|

22.01.26

China Briefing 11 December 2025: Winter record looms; Joint climate statement with France; How ‘mid-level bureaucrats’ help shape policy 

China Briefing

|

11.12.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_653aa91ab1a5872e52782cf15ba5f67f .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post China Briefing 5 March 2026: New five-year climate goals revealed at ‘two sessions’ meeting appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Nuclear power can scale with the needs of AI, writes Amentum’s Mark Whitney. Companies and communities relying on renewables will risk outages, higher costs and missed opportunities.

Every year the ITB tourism trade fair takes place in Berlin. The world’s largest tourism and trade fair it brings together destructive companies operating at the intersection of aviation and tourism. This year, from 3rd-5th March 2026, the ITB takes place again but this time, German organisation Recherche AG are collaborating with the Indigenous Mayan group, the Maya Community Centre U kúuchil k…

Source

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 11-9 to advance Steve Pearce, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, to the full Senate. The Pearce nomination vote was the first real test of the Senate Stewardship Caucus, formed last fall with an ostensible focus on national public land access and management policy. Of the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who are also members of the Stewardship Caucus, only Senator Steve Daines of Montana voted to advance the Pearce nomination. Hours after the vote, Daines announced he will not be seeking reelection in November.

“For years, Western voters have expressed their overwhelming and unwavering support for protected public lands, wildlife habitats, and recreation access, only to have their clear preferences ignored time and again by lawmakers who prioritize loyalty to the Trump administration over service to their constituents,” Center for Western Priorities Policy Director Rachael Hamby said in a statement. “A vote for Steve Pearce is a vote to sell off and privatize our national public lands—the complete opposite of stewardship.”

Utah lawmakers introduce resolution to repeal Grand Staircase-Escalante management plan

On Wednesday, Utah’s congressional delegation introduced a resolution to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. This move is an attempt to significantly expand the use of the CRA, and could set a dangerous precedent that would lead to chaos in public land management across the country.

“Our national monuments belong to the American people and should not be managed in ways that are clouded by uncertainty,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney at Earthjustice. “This is yet another attempt by Utah politicians to hand over our public lands to industry. Every member of Congress should reject this and any other misguided CRA attack on our public lands.”

Quick hits Trump’s high-profile oil and gas lease sale in Alaska has no takers

New York Times

The National Park Service saw major job losses in the last year. More changes loom

Inside Climate News

How a new ‘conservation pool’ could provide a way forward for Colorado River users

Colorado Sun

Wyoming nuclear power plant receives federal approval for reactor construction

WyoFile | Associated Press

Meet the ten worst public lands villains of 2026

More Than Just Parks

The big beautiful drill act

RE:Public

Opinion: Montana knows the true cost of mining mistakes

Missoula Current

Opinion: Don’t desecrate Big Bend National Park with a useless border wall

Houston Chronicle

Quote of the day

Why use the Congressional Review Act to avoid the hard questions? Good projects shouldn’t need political shortcuts.”

—Randy Newberg, Missoula Current

Picture This @mountrainiernps

Some of the youngest lava flows on Mount Rainier are actually under the Emmons Glacier. About 5,600 years ago the summit and the northeast slope of the mountain collapsed during an eruption, forming the Osceola Mudflow that flowed as far as Puget Sound. After the mudflow, lava eruptions about 2,200 years ago partially rebuilt the mountain’s northeast slope with the summit craters created by lava flows from 1,000 years ago. These lava flows have been covered by glaciers including the current Emmons Glacier. You can see a part of these relatively “young” lava flows breaking though the Emmons Glacier as ridges of rock in the middle of the glacier on the upper mountain. Have you noticed these lava ridges while in the Sunrise area?

NPS Photo of the Emmons Glacier with lava ridges breaking through the upper part of the middle of the glacier, 2024.

 

Featured image: Upper Missouri River Breaks in Montana, BLM Montana and Dakotas

The post ‘Sell-off Steve’ Pearce BLM nomination advances appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Court of International Trade on Wednesday directed Customs and Border Protection to remove defunct tariffs when finalizing non-liquidated entries.

TeraWulf’s plan to buy a power plant from GenOn faces opposition at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as hyperscalers at White House meeting pledge to bring their own generation.

The construction permit to a subsidiary of Bill Gates’ TerraPower for a 345-MW commercial nuclear power plant project is the NRC’s first commercial reactor construction approval in nearly 10 years.

Power grid asset owners and operators have growing concern around their ability to protect critical assets from drone attacks as the U.S. government warns energy companies to prepare for possible Iranian retaliation.

The Daily Mail’s parent company (DMGT), which is attempting to buy The Telegraph newspaper, makes a quarter of its money hosting events in Middle East petrostates.

DMGT has made a £500 million bid to purchase the Telegraph Media Group. A previous offer backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was blocked by the UK government in 2024 over fears of foreign state influence in the British press.

The sale was also opposed by Telegraph staff including former editor Charles Moore, who said it would be “unforgivable” for the paper to be “controlled by a foreign power”, calling the UAE “a country which does not have press freedom”.

However, DMGT also has a significant financial stake in the UAE.

The latest DMGT accounts published on 17 February show the company made £259 million in the year to September 2025 from its events and exhibition business, which has its headquarters in the UAE.

Most of this revenue came from running high-profile energy and construction industry events in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, including several with ties to host governments.

This amounted to 24 percent of DMGT’s total revenue – more than it makes from print and digital advertising (23 percent), or from selling newspapers (22 percent). 

Geoff Dickinson, the CEO of DMG Events, is also on the advisory board of the Dubai International Chamber – a trade body representing the Emirate. Dickinson was appointed to the position by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai, in 2021.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has referred DMGT’s Telegraph bid to the Competition and Markets Authority, and media regulator Ofcom, which will advise the government on whether the deal should go ahead.

A DMGT spokesperson told The Guardian in December: “DMGT reiterates that the acquisition will be completely free from any prohibited foreign state influence, and that The Telegraph will remain editorially independent, while benefiting from significant investment to accelerate its international growth.”

However, DMGT’s Middle East events business is growing, while its newspaper revenues are in decline. Its latest accounts state that while consumer media revenues fell by two percent in the year to September 2025, its events business “continued to grow, benefitting from increases in exhibitor demand and visitor attendance.” 

DMGT’s total events revenue has increased by 59 percent since 2023, and by 160 percent since 2022.

“If DMGT’s takeover bid for the Telegraph goes through, it’ll be like one Death Star swallowing another,” said Mic Wright, author of Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn’t and Why it Matters. “And the fact that oil and gas events are as profitable to DMGT as its entire advertising business suggests to me that it will be rather inclined to go gently on Gulf petrostates in the long term.” 

The Telegraph and the Daily Mail consistently publish editorials hostile to climate action and the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Oil and Gas Events

DMGT describes the “core business” of its events arm as the hosting of five large annual exhibitions in the Middle East.

These are the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition (ADIPEC) energy show, reportedly the world’s largest energy exhibition; the EGYPES energy event in Egypt; two ‘Big 5’ construction sector events in Dubai and Riyadh; and the Saudi Food Show.

Several of these events have ties to the host country governments. ADIPEC is hosted by Adnoc, the UAE’s state oil company. EGYPES is “held under the patronage” of Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. And the Big 5 events are backed by the UAE Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, and the Saudi Ministry for Municipal, Rural Affairs and Housing.

The new DMGT accounts note another significant earner, Gastech, an annual energy trade show that focuses on “natural gas, LNG and hydrogen”, held last year in Milan, Italy.

On top of these five big events, DMGT also ran events “on behalf of third parties”, including the official Blue Zone at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in December 2023, and the Green Zone at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan – also a petrostate – in 2024.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia derive most of their wealth from oil production. Saudi Arabia is the world’s second biggest oil producer after the United States as of 2023. Oil and gas dominate Egypt’s exports and imports.

The UAE doesn’t hold popular elections. There are no political parties, critics of the government are often jailed, women face unequal treatment, and its penal code allows for the arrest of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) campaigners.

Daily Mail owner Jonathan Rothermere accompanied U.S. President Donald Trump on a visit to Doha, Qatar, another Gulf petrostate, in May 2025.

Rothermere’s previous bid for The Telegraph in 2023 reportedly involved backers from Qatar.

As DeSmog has reported, Nigel Farage’s pro-fossil fuel party Reform UK – which is leading polls at 29 percent ahead of May’s elections – is also building ties to the UAE through business deals, funded trips, and meetings with government ministers.

Claudia Rothermere, wife of Jonathan Rothermere, donated £50,000 to Reform UK in September.

DMGT and DCMS were approached for comment.

A version of this article was published by Private Eye.

The post Telegraph Bidder Daily Mail Cashing in from Oil Industry Events appeared first on DeSmog.

Electric vehicles are key for decarbonizing transportation and even reducing household emissions to slow down climate change. Yet as the world gets warmer and faces more extreme heat waves, there are concerns that EVs won’t fare well. That’s because the lithium-ion batteries age faster under high temperatures.

New research puts this worry at ease. In a new study, researchers show that batteries have improved so much over the past several years that their gains will more than offset their expected heat-related degradation on a warming planet. This should give consumers full confidence in their EV’s lifespan even under extreme weather, the researchers say.

Despite fits and starts, EV sales are now on a clearly upward trajectory. Sales of fully electric cars surpassed those of gasoline vehicles in the European Union in December 2025, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA).

EV performance is known to drop in very hot temperatures just as it does in frigid weather. Cold weather slows down the chemical reactions inside a battery, while hot temperatures speed things up so much that the battery degrades faster. This performance drop is one factor that keeps buyers from purchasing EVs.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:EVs aren’t just cars anymore. They can power your home slashing emissions—and bills.

 

So researchers from Peking University and the University of Michigan decided to find out how modern battery technology would hold up if the planet warmed by an average of 2°C. That’s the warming limit set by the Paris climate agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The researchers calculated the lifetimes of EV batteries across 300 major global cities. They combined climate projects, battery chemistry, and driving behavior for their analysis. The study used EV simulations with models of battery degradation and climate change. The team ran these simulations for older batteries made in 2010–2018 as well as newer ones made from 2019–2023 to understand how recent advancements have improved longevities.

In a 2°C warming scenario, their simulations showed that the lifetimes of older generation batteries would drop by an average of 8% up to a maximum of 30%. For new batteries, the average lifetime drop is 3% and the maximum is 10%.

“I think these improvements are well-known to experts in the field,” said Haochi Wu, lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change in a press release. “But when I started this project, I was looking at web forums and reading how people were deciding on cars. There are still a lot of durability concerns about EV batteries.”

Source: Wu, H., Chen, J., Vaishnav, P. et al. Technological improvements in EV batteries offset climate-induced durability challenges. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

 31 Years of Insatiable Greed and Plunder, The Continuous Fight Towards People’s Sovereignty over National Patrimony

Thirty-one years after the passage of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, or Republic Act No. 7942, the Filipino people continue to confront the consequences of a policy framework that entrenched neoliberal and imperialist control over the country’s mineral wealth – an unimaginable plunder driven by the greed of Marcos Jr. regime. Enacted at a time when the state sought to attract foreign capital into high-risk, capital-intensive extractive industries, the law institutionalized mechanisms that entrench imperial take over our national patrimony. Mechanisms like the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs), allowing up to 100% foreign ownership and control of large-scale mining operations. Under the PMA ‘95, mining corporations may control up to 81,000 hectares for 25 years, renewable for another 25. They are guaranteed generous incentives like the six-year tax holidays, export tax exemptions, and income tax breaks, advantages that ripen the ground for intensive extraction and profit accumulation, allowing the convenient entry of foreign capital in the country. Yet the promised development of mining remains illusory in the country after 31 years of the implementation of PMA 1995. Mining’s contribution to national employment has remained below 1%, and government revenues from taxes and fees have been disproportionately small compared to the immense value of extracted minerals. The Philippines’ estimated mineral potential is between US$850 billion and US$1 trillion, valued at around 10 times the country’s annual GDP and 15 times its total foreign debt. Only Php 16 went to the gov’t for every 100 pesos of minerals extracted. What has prospered instead are environmental destruction and community displacement. From the 1996 Boac River disaster linked to Marcopper Mining Corporation and Placer Dome in Marinduque, widely called the “mother of all mining disasters”, to the 2012 Philex Padcal tailings spill in Benguet, and the deadly 2024 landslide in Masara, Davao de Oro involving Apex Mining Co. Inc., mining operations have repeatedly resulted in loss of life, poisoned rivers, and devastated communities. These are tragedies resulting from an extractivist regime that hungers insatiably for profit, while completely negligent to the welfare of the people and ecosystems. In recent years, the state and mining corporations have also aggressively greenwashed large-scale extraction, portraying it as indispensable to the so-called “green economy.” Government agencies and corporate actors frame expanded mining as a contribution to climate solutions, obscuring the massive ecological damage, deforestation, water contamination, and displacement of communities that accompany extraction. In reality, the push for “critical” minerals has only intensified the pressure on mineral-rich territories like the Philippines, further legitimizing the same extractivist model that has permanently damaged ecosystems and communities in the name of profit. There are also series of human rights violations that have likewise marked the industry’s expansion. Paramilitary forces, the military, and CAFGU units have been linked to harassment and abuses in mining-affected areas. Extrajudicial killings of anti-mining activists intensified when state security forces were mobilized to protect mining investments. Even more alarmingly, around 60% of mining concessions in the country overlap with ancestral lands of indigenous peoples, placing them at the forefront of dispossession and violence as they defend their collective rights. Yet people’s resistance lives on against persecution and deterioration of communities. Across the archipelago, alliances of environmental advocates, church groups, local governments, academic institutions, and grassroots communities continue to demand the repeal of the Mining Act. People across the country are leading several community resistance against destructive projects that pose imminent threat to the biodiversity and socio-economy of the community. Recently, in Nueva Vizcaya, residents of Dupax del Norte continue the legacy of the people’s struggle against encroachment of large-scale mining. They have erected people’s barricades to block destructive operations of the British-owned Woggle Corporation. Supported by environmental advocate organizations, communities have secured temporary suspensions of permits. This triumph demonstrates that organized, collective action can compel accountability. On this 31st anniversary, the call is even more dire, urgent, and militant. We have to dismantle the structural architecture of plunder, feeding off from the destruction of nature and lives in the community. We have to relentlessly fight for the rights of our peasants and indigenous peoples most affected by the wreckage of inconceivable social and environmental destruction of mining. We must continuously and tirelessly struggle to advance a development path anchored on ecological sustainability, national industrialization, and genuine national sovereignty. Pass the People’s Mining Bill that institutionalizes mining for the development of national industry complemented with sustainable ecological and community protection. Hold the Marcos Jr. regime, along with his corporate cronies, responsible for the systemic and permanent destruction and displacement in different communities of peasants, indigenous peoples, and fisherfolks. We must courageously take on different forms of struggle that forward the genuine interest of the people. The struggle continues, not only against destructive mining projects, but against the systemic forces that enable them. Junk PMA 1995! Pass the People’s Mining Bill! People and nature over profit! #phminingactibasura #marcospanagutinminingpalayasin

.

 

CALGARY — JORDEN DYE, director of the Pembina Institute’s Carbon Dioxide Removal Centre (CDR Centre), made the following statement in response to the Government of Canada and the Government of Australia signing the Australia-Canada Clean Energy...

Our latest senseless illegal war against brown people, born of ever-shifting lies and fought by the sons of the blithe un-rich, is Trump's ultimate Wag-the-Dog distraction from his crimes, failures and pedophilia at home. Having oafishly declared the Iran regime “a vicious group of very hard, terrible people” - pot/kettle if you add "inept"- his "warriors" are now being told this is "part of God's divine plan," with The Rapture imminent (after killing more schoolgirls.) One sage: "It's a good thing Congress isn't alive to see this."

Leave it to "the world's most famous bone-spur patient," Board of Peace chair, recipient of a fake FIFA peace prize and pilfered real Peace Prize, cornered serial sexual predator facing exposure and pathological liar who vowed "no new wars" while attacking seven nations in a year to launch "the dumbest war in US history" - a tough competition - and the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell et al at least tried for months to justify with a pack of lies before making "the worst foreign policy decision in history." Trump: Hold my Coke. Experts have long warned that with his hubris, thin skin, historical ignorance and affinity for heedless demolition of buildings, customs, laws, credibility, he could wreak the most havoc in foreign affairs, where his power is most unbridled - especially now, as he grows increasingly desperate and dangerous.

Thus, having amassed a vast arsenal of US weaponry in the Persian Gulf, did he launch our current "national obscenity." Ever presidential, he did it in a sober, cogent speech at a White House lectern with all the gravity the occasion called for. Kidding: He did it in a histrionic 2:30 a.m post on his crappy platform from his golf bordello after a $1-million-a-plate fundraiser - cue cringe robotic dancing to God Bless the USA - and a bellicose, garbled speech, his face smeared in make-up beneath a tacky baseball cap?! Later, the White House released a photo of a hastily assembled War Room with black drapes around it and some guy peeking in - looking for the omelette bar? Observers: "Looks secure to me," "Looks like the Goodman wedding reception had to be moved," "These clowns seriously started WW lll from a blanket fort at a shitty golf club?!" and, "This is not how democracies go to war."

But we just did - with no (Constitutionally mandated) approval from Congress, no (historically obligatory) public debate, over the objections of his own intelligence agencies and against the wishes of 80% of Americans, including his own base. In a slurred, spurious, deeply Orwellian speech, he "upended half a century of US foreign policy" by proclaiming the $1-billion-a-day-but-who needs-groceries-or-health care Operation Epic Fury (presumably named by a 12-year-old minion), which he randomly called "the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country." Citing zero evidence, he said many of Iran’s soldiers "no longer want to fight," are "looking for Immunity from us," and hope to "peacefully merge with Iranian Patriots (to) bring back the Country to Greatness" (like ravaged America) to "achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” Because, bless his moronic heart, nobody ever thought of regime change before.

The world's worst negotiator moved to set the Middle East on fire after walking away from ongoing, reportedly promising talks in which Iran had already made concessions; given the regime's "stupefyingly overt corruption," they included bribes to a deeply unqualified Kushner and Witkoff. Trump's Very Serious, deep-dive analysis: "We were having negotiations with these lunatics, but it was my opinion they were going to attack first." So he did. The death toll in a swiftly spreading conflagration is now over 1,000, including at least six US service members. Gruesomely but not surprisingly, one of the first strikes hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in southern Iran, killing an estimated 170 girls aged seven to 12. In a searing video of the carnage - woe to the murderers of little children - a distraught man stands amidst bloodied books, bodies, backpacks and shouts, "This was a school and they came to study."

Also killed the first day was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of military commanders - so many, in a sign of Trump's famed proficiency, that he told news outlets he'd had a "beautiful plan" and several candidates for Iran’s new leadership but, oops, "They're all dead." There were other miscalculations. Despite his sanguine gibberish about PEACE, Tehran vowed to unleash "devastating blows" and the intact, powerful, heavily armed, fanatically loyal Revolutionary Guard, showing no interest in laying down their arms or ideology, warned of "a severe, decisive and regret-inducing punishment” of their killers. As in Iraq and everywhere else and one more time, a historian notes, regime change through bombing has never been successful: "Regimes are networks, (and) when an external power kills a leader, networks often consolidate, not fragment. Successors emerge, as do Martyr narratives."

As to the US, what has yet to emerge is a long-term plan, a lucid rationale for the mayhem. They throw spaghetti at the wall, offering wildly shifting goals, timelines, narratives, excuses of "imminent threat" so flimsy they'd be laughable if not lethal. They want to "destroy Iran’s missile capability," "annihilate their navy,” halt their regional hegemony, stop them from building nuclear weapons US intelligence insists are over 10 years away. Trump babbles: He wants "freedom for the people,” Iran "just wanted to practice evil," we have to "get rid of their whole group of killers and thugs," and they blocked his 2020 re-election. He really did "obliterate” their nuclear program in June but "we found they were in a totally different site - totally different, so it was just time.” One analyst: "The lack of any coherent message seems to suggest the lack of any coherent objective." Robert Reich: "He has no fucking clue what he’s doing."

Bizarrely, Trump's reportedly calling journalists to workshop objectives and timelines: 2 or 3 days, four to five weeks? More bizarrely - is it possible? - suddenly-anti-war MTG charges the regime, deep in "the same old bullshit," is even polling voters to ask how many casualties they'd accept: "How about ZERO you bunch of sick fucking liars." Meanwhile, MAGA struggles to define the debacle they've birthed. In a few head-spinning minutes, Mike Johnson claimed Iran "declared war on us," insisted "we're not at war," and clumsily pivoted to, "a very, umm, specific, clear mission, an operation." Enraged Dems were more forthright. Ruben Gallego: "Trump ran on exposing pedophiles and stopping wars, (and) is now protecting pedophiles and starting wars.” Chris Murphy on a vanity war "nobody in this country is asking for: "It won’t be the billionaire children of Trump and his buddies that die." Steve Schmidt, likewise bitter: They'll have "died to change the subject from child rape."

In greasy contrast, dry-drunk war-mongerer, preening macho cartoon, and "colossus of incompetence and extremism" Pete Kegsmith yammers about "our warriors fully unleashed to achieve our objectives, on our terms, with maximum authorities." Also "iron fist," "true force multiplier," "hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly" while seeking "off-ramps and escalations (to) execute what we need" with, "No apologies. No hesitation. Epic fury." What an epic asshole. He snarled at a presser with right-wing hacks: "Why would we tell you - you, the enemy, anybody - what we will or will not do?" He went full psychopath in another, braying of "death and destruction from the sky all day long" and "rules of engagement (that) are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power. We are punching them while they are down." Also, "War is hell." Though Sherman added, "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation."

A Christian nationalist, Crusades fan-boy and sexist xenophobe who attends Bible study and Pentagon prayer services, Hegseth is a vital force in an explosive push to enshrine brimstone-breathing - and unconstitutional - Christian fundamentalism in America's military. Thus is our new war of choice being feverishly sold, not as a ploy to distract from Epstein, ICE, inflation etc but as a Biblically-sanctioned holy crusade toward a devoutly-to-be-wished End Times. Or in the more skeptical words of The Fucking News, "Jesus Christ, They Drafted Jesus Christ To Fight Iran." Since the Iran attacks, reports Jonathan Larsen, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has logged over 200 complaints from 50 bases of every military branch about commanders telling troops this is "all part of God’s divine plan," with Trump improbably "anointed" to bring the Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Christ to recreate a white, straight, Republican, gated-community America.

Larson reports one Christian NCO wrote on behalf of 15 troops of multiple faiths, all rejecting the call to embrace a nihilistic, Revelation-based worldview. "This is not what my faith is for," he wrote, "and this is not what my uniform is for." MRFF head Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force and Reagan White House veteran, said he's been "inundated" by calls with "one damn thing in freaking common" - complaints about "the unrestricted euphoria" of commanders urging troops to accept their fundamentalist theology. Declares Weinstein, "Any military (pushing) their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted." Adds Dean Blundell, raised Evangelical, on a "crusade of low-IQ warriors": "If history has taught us one goddamn thing, it’s that holy wars don’t end when the true believers say they will. They end when there’s nothing left to burn."

Alas, in the case of this ill-conceived holy war, true believers may be embarking not just with epic fury, an iron fist and a blanket fort but irreparably clogged toilets. Adding a surreal twist to an already dark tale of Christofascist empire-building, new reports describe toilet lines of up to 45 minutes for 4,500 sailors on the world's most advanced warship, the US Navy's $13-billion, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, now facing what are politely termed "significant sanitation challenges" as it idles in the Persian Gulf. The ship's vacuum-based sewage system has long been plagued by repeated failures and lack of maintenance, but the latest breakdown of many of its 650 toilets may be the final straw for sailors already weary from an extended, 8-month deployment; after Trump's illegal Venezuela assault/kidnapping, they were ordered to go straight to his illegal Iran air strikes/mass murder. Some have posted gross videos of flooding shit; reads one, "Join the Navy, they said."

Still, their Commander-In-Chief says everything's swell. "It's going to go pretty quickly," he announced of the widening chaos in the Middle East. "We're way ahead of schedule." Experts warn the Iran war, coupled with the shift of national security resources to immigration, raises the risk of terrorism; says veteran and Rep. Jason Crow, "It just shot through the roof. But Trump just bragged about the "exciting times," and asked how he'd rate the success of the war on a scale of one to ten, he said he'd give it "about a fifteen." As to the likely growing casualties from his "noble mission," he's shruggingly said, "That's the way it is." Talk about epic fury: See the response from Kendall Brown, whose husband is on the USS Gerald Ford. "If you voted for this, I fucking hate you," she says in a now-viral video. "If you still support this, you are a monster."

"America is strong because its leaders are strong. President Trump proves that every day," reads a DraftBarron website by South Park's Toby Morton. "Naturally, his son Barron is more than ready to defend the country his father so boldly commands. Service is honor. Strength is inherited. Dog Bless Barron." Arguing, "Leadership starts somewhere," it offers the loving testimonial from his dad, "People come up to me, with tears in their eyes, and they say, ‘Sir, you’re the strongest. Send Barron off to war.’" For now, Operation What Now lurches on. Trump reportedly bombed Iran because "he had a feeling, based on fact." Melania explained how to achieve "enduring peace." Oil prices quickly spiked, and millions were stranded after airports and sea lanes shut down. Because we are the most exceptional, can-do country on earth, the State Department's Office of Overseas Citizens Services hotline was there to help. Sort of. Dog bless America.

"Five things to remember about war: 1. Many things reported with confidence in the first hours and days will turn out not to be true 2. Whatever they say, the people who start wars are often thinking chiefly about domestic politics 3. The rationale given for a war will change over time. 4. Wars are unpredictable 5. Wars are easy to start and hard to stop." - Timothy Snyder

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Skeptics of our latest imperialist incursion voice legitimate class concerns.Image from BlueSky

Despite being touted as an important element in the European green transition, night rail travel remains riddled with problems: passengers must contend with messy booking systems and last-minute cancellations, while providers struggle with low rail capacity, strained budgets, and a shortage of rolling stock. Can Europe find a way to address these issues and make night trains a reliable and accessible option for travellers?

From Basel to Berlin, Strasbourg to Stockholm, on the night of 12 December 2025, a dozen European train stations saw activists and travellers gathered on platforms in their pyjamas, toothbrushes in hand, to protest the slow death of European night trains. Organised by Back on Track EU, Stay Grounded Network, and Aterra, these sleep-in protests were a direct response to a string of high-profile cancellations – notably the Paris-Berlin line – and a growing frustration with a system that seems to be sabotaging its own green transition. These actions were also a public indictment of a political deadlock that has left the European night train map looking more like a series of disconnected islands than a unified continent.

Once a key element of the Green Deal’s sustainable mobility strategy, the night rail “renaissance” was also part of the post-Covid mobility dreamboard. But the reality is different: night rail is currently being strangled by three distinct bottlenecks that make international night travel a high-stakes gamble. This is despite 86 per cent of Europeans stating they’d like to see night trains developed further.

The first block is poor or nonexistent cooperation across borders: a fragmented booking landscape where national operators guard their data, making cross-border tickets nearly impossible to find on a single app, and a lack of cooperation between track managers from one country to the next. Second is a hardware vacuum: a scrap metal war where legacy rail operators are still using ageing stock, and night rail startups are left scavenging for 70-year-old carriages because newer stock is either too expensive or strategically scrapped by incumbents. Finally, a priority trap on the tracks ensures that when the rails become congested, the night train is the first to be sidelined for freight or maintenance.

Together, these forces create a sort of soft sabotage that pushes even the most climate-conscious travellers back toward the airport – I myself being one of them, after a disastrous Paris-Berlin cancellation two hours before departure, with no rebooking possible. So, is there hope for a functioning network of European night trains, or has that locomotive run out of track?

“Problem explainers, not problem solvers”

The first wall a traveller hits when travelling by night train is made of code. Victor Gérard, co-founder of the travel media outlet Voyager En Train, argues that current cross-border train travel, specifically night train travel, is defined by booking platforms and reservation management systems that protect national monopolies at the expense of the traveller.

The dysfunction can feel surreal, as Gérard found on a recent trip on the Paris-Vienna line. “We were receiving SMS alerts every hour saying our train was cancelled,” Gérard explains. “But the train was running perfectly – we were actually sitting inside it! There must be significant internal communication issues within the operators.” The tools used by operators like Nightjet and infrastructure managers like SNCF Réseau remain compartmentalised.

When asked why national platforms like SNCF Connect often fail to display or sell international sleeper routes, Gérard suggests that technical excuses often mask a deeper protectionism. While a new industry standard called OSDM (Open Sales and Distribution Model) is being rolled out to harmonise cross-border and multi-operator booking, technology alone won’t solve the problem.

“The main obstacle is political,” says Gérard. He is pointing to the stalled MDMS (Multimodal Digital Mobility Services) initiative, a proposal that would mandate data sharing across borders. “If the EU mandated that all companies must sell all available tickets, it would break this lock once and for all.”

This lack of cross-border coordination has a secondary consequence: the erosion of passenger rights. When systems don’t talk to each other, re-routing becomes a manual nightmare for the passenger. Gérard notes that while EU passenger protections exist on paper, they are rarely applied to international journeys because the systems are too complex for the average traveller to navigate alone.

In 2025, independent railway commentator Jon Worth released a detailed report about cross-border rail travel in Europe. To Worth, large public railways (SNCF, DB, and Renfe) simply lack the will to make international travel work.

“The big state-owned railways (…) do not want to make the effort. If they wanted to, they would find ways around all of the hurdles,” Worth says. “There is a general problem in the rail industry that they are problem explainers, not problem solvers.”

When systems don’t talk to each other, re-routing becomes a manual nightmare for the passenger.

While operators often blame “government funding,” Worth argues the failure is one of imagination: “For SNCF, that night train [Paris-Berlin] was too much bother, so they did not lobby to keep the subsidy. And the government wanted to ditch the subsidy. So, it was easy for SNCF to then blame the government. I think SNCF not having the imagination to think about anything that doesn’t run at 300km/h killed it.”

This institutional lack of interest manifests for the passenger as a ticketing nightmare. I recall my own “broken border” experience trying to book a sleeper from Switzerland to Prague – spending hours on the phone with Swiss, Austrian, and Czech operators who each blamed a different country. Finally, I gave up and booked a bus. When asked who has a real incentive to fix this digital and administrative void, Worth’s answer is blunt: “No one. These are cross-border problems, so you need the EU to help provide fixes, but even that is hard because the EU does what the rail industry lobbies it to do.”

The CER (Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies), which represents these incumbent operators, frames the issue differently. They argue that the failure isn’t one of will, but of a fundamentally broken competitive landscape. According to CER director Alberto Mazzola, the playing field is currently tilted against rail because of tax exemptions for aviation and a lack of internalised external costs. In economic terms, this means that while rail operators are directly charged for their infrastructure use and energy, the broader societal “bills” of air travel (carbon emissions, noise, and air pollution) are currently paid by the taxpayer rather than reflected in the ticket price. He maintains that for night trains to survive, European legislators must prioritise creating an “equitable framework for intermodal competition”.

Mazzola points to the EU’s upcoming Capacity Regulation as the solution to “optimise the use of existing rail infrastructure” and “improve coordination among infrastructure managers”.

For startups, the same lack of coordination is a hard barrier to entry; a challenge that Louis Lammertyn, co-founder of the Belgian startup Moonlight Express (now merged with European Sleeper), knows intimately. He is currently launching BookBetter, a platform that aims to make aviation more sustainable. In 2020, his team attempted to launch a route connecting the heart of Europe to the Mediterranean, but they were met with a wall of administrative silence that made coordination impossible.

“When we were planning a route – Brussels-Barcelona – after six months of trying to talk with the right people in Spain and France, we realised that it was going nowhere with Spain,” Lammertyn recalls. “They literally ignored us. There was no communication at all.”

This ghosting by national operators creates “grey zones” on the map that remain isolated because, as Lammertyn notes, startups are forced to “avoid France, which is known to be complicated, and Spain, which was just ghosting us.” He notes that the situation with France has changed over the past few years, as the country has opened itself to new carriers and shown a willingness to improve night train access.

Without an EU-level mandate, national operators have no incentive to cooperate, leaving passengers to navigate booking via multiple train operators for a single journey, a level of friction that practically gifts the market back to aviation.

Political will (or won’t)?

The European Union’s primary response to the capacity bottleneck strangling night trains is the Rail Capacity Regulation (2023/0271/COD). Voted by the European Parliament in early 2024 and having reached a pivotal political agreement in late 2025, the regulation aims to replace Europe’s fragmented, manual track allocation system with a harmonised digital framework designed to improve cross-border coordination.

To understand what the regulation does – and does not – change for night trains, the Green European Journal spoke with Tilly Metz, Green member of the European Parliament and a long-time advocate for sustainable transport. She underscored a central shortfall: the regulation acknowledges the systemic failures facing night trains but fails to guarantee their protection.

Crucially, the new law does not mandate priority access for night trains. As Metz explains, “There are no mandatory requirements with priority rules for certain train services. The ultimate decision will still be taken by the infrastructure manager.” In practice, this means an infrastructure manager can argue that a freight train carrying car parts has greater economic weight than a night train transporting 200 passengers, and when they both want access to the same track, it’s the passenger train that ends up on the cancellation board.

The regulation also establishes European frameworks for capacity and crisis management, yet enforcement remains weak. “These frameworks are to be seen as guidelines and rules for the infrastructure managers to do their utmost to follow; however, they are not legally binding,” Metz notes. The current compromise relies on a “wait-and-see” mechanism: only if the Commission can demonstrate that guidelines are being systematically ignored can it propose binding secondary legislation. Until then, compliance depends largely on goodwill.

The regulation does introduce penalties for last-minute cancellations, a measure designed to curb the routine sidelining of passenger trains. However, exemptions remain for “unavoidable emergencies” – a category that can be interpreted generously.

Asked what prevents routine maintenance from being reclassified as an emergency, Metz points to one of the Parliament’s hard-won concessions: infrastructure managers must now provide evidence that capacity restrictions are genuinely necessary to restore safe operations. If enforced, this requirement could finally limit last-minute disruptions. Still, whether it will be applied consistently across borders remains an open question.

Metz herself acknowledges that regulation alone will not rescue night trains from the current impasse. “The night trains need to be supported, regardless of the Rail Capacity Regulation,” she says. “We would also like to see an EU-funded pool of rolling stock [locomotives and wagons] for night trains which could be available for leasing.” In other words, legal harmonisation, even when ambitious, arrives too slowly for a sector already fighting for survival.

The CER is championing the Capacity Regulation, which it sees as a necessary step to optimise the use of existing rail infrastructure. It is currently working with the European Network of Infrastructure Managers (ENIM) to shape frameworks for traffic management that provide “predictability to the passenger operators” while maintaining flexibility for freight.

But the most consequential feature of the regulation is its timeline, with binding provisions only entering into force starting in 2030. This may appear to be a reasonable transition period for policymakers: for instance, the CER argues that this legal basis is required to create a Single European Rail Area that can actually deliver quality services.

For an entrepreneur, however, the 2030 implementation date is an eternity away. “Four years is definitely too long for a startup to navigate,” Lammertyn notes. “It’s a matter of being creative and doing things that can materialise within 1-2 years max.”

Staying on track

Lammertyn warns that the financial barrier to entry is nearly insurmountable for new players. “As a startup, you just don’t get tens or hundreds of millions of euros.”

To generate cash flow and credibility, European Sleeper opted to operate first and modernise later, a strategy Lammertyn describes as pragmatic: “You generate cash flow and start transporting passengers immediately. And if you have cash flow, you can show a leasing company that you can repay the cost of leasing newer coaches.” By adopting this model, European Sleeper has managed to transport more than 250,000 passengers.

Lammertyn even suggests a provocative technical rescue: China. While coaches from Siemens might cost up to 3 million euros, Chinese alternatives could cost significantly less. Still, “certification of Chinese coaches is slow, and it’s difficult for geopolitical reasons” for state operators to buy from China, though it remains an option for private entrepreneurs.

Thibault Constant, the founder of a Berlin-based night train startup called Nox, is pushing forward anyway. His vision deviates from the typical public transport role assigned to trains, and aims to adapt to the current system that does not protect night trains.

Until political ambition matches the reality of cross-border operations on booking platforms, rolling stock, and congested tracks, the situation will remain precarious for Europe’s struggling night trains.

“Rolling stock remains one of the most significant barriers,” Constant explained to the Green European Journal. He pointed out that European Sleeper, a pioneer in the sector, is forced to operate coaches nearly 70 years old. “The quality of the remaining assets is often incompatible with modern reliability and comfort expectations,” he noted.

According to Constant, this isn’t just a market shortage – it is a strategic blockade. While some companies sell off old stock, others have chosen to “block new entrants by scrapping second-hand rolling stock altogether.” This creates a hardware gap that is nearly impossible for startups to bridge, especially as major manufacturers have shifted away from traditional locomotive-hauled coaches to expensive, integrated “multiple-unit” platforms.

But Mazzola disputes the idea of deliberate obstruction. He states that CER members “do not scrap night trains’ rolling stock” unless forced by environmental or safety regulations – most notably, the presence of asbestos in older fleets. Furthermore, he points out that the financial barrier to entry is staggering for all rail operators, not just startups. The CER is currently lobbying the European Commission to modernise the Railway State Aid Guidelines. Its goal is to make it easier for EU member states to fund the purchase, renewal, and retrofitting of rolling stock through clearer and more flexible provisions.

Faced with regulatory delay and equipment scarcity, Constant has opted to pivot at Nox. Rather than chasing second-hand sleeper cars, the company is refurbishing high-speed daytime coaches capable of reaching 200 km/h. This is not only a response to availability but a tactical move to secure better track slots on saturated corridors. Nox follows the “Express” model, which connects large city centres without intermediate stops.

“We avoid intermediate stops during the night and concentrate arrivals on a limited number of key destinations. This approach reduces operational complexity and provides infrastructure managers with greater flexibility in capacity allocation,” Constant explains. The strategy minimises delay risk and aligns with the discretionary framework described by MEP Tilly Metz, whereby infrastructure managers have the legal leeway to decide which trains get priority. However, it also comes at a cost: smaller cities lose access in the name of operational survivability.

Constant agrees that while the 2030 Capacity Regulation will provide a “predictable, harmonised, and enforceable framework,” startups cannot wait four years for the law to catch up. For now, the strategy is “clear, early, and transparent coordination” with track managers.

Until political ambition matches the reality of cross-border operations on booking platforms, rolling stock, and congested tracks, the situation will remain precarious for Europe’s struggling night trains. Still, one thing is clear: the pyjama protests, the determination of new entrants, and the Capacity Regulation show that the night train renaissance may yet materialise.