Europe

Ford will have two electric cars based on the Renault 5. It is confirmation of a Ford that is diluted in Europe

by

Ford will have at least six electric cars on the market. Four of them will not be “purely Ford” cars. And the American company has confirmed that it has reached an agreement with Renault to provide the brand with two “affordable” electric cars. The agreement also contemplates a future partnership for commercial vehicles. But above all, a concept floats in the air: what Ford do we expect for Europe? Two electric made in Renault. With a press release, Ford and Renault have confirmed that the first will use the Ampere platform to launch two “affordable” electric cars on the market in the coming years. The first, they point out from Ford, should reach dealerships in the early stages of 2028. That is to say, what seems certain is that we will see a kind of Renault 5 with the Ford logo. The question is whether we will see a second electric car based on the Renault 4 (to expand spectrum with something B-SUV type) or based on the Twingo to look for another type of client. For now, everything indicates pointing to new Renault 5 and 4 Ford. In France. These Ford cars with a French flavor will even be manufactured in Electricitythe plant that Renault has in France and where the aforementioned come from Five and Fourhence it is the couple that we will probably see on the street. The arrival of these new models is also a boost to the factory itself. It is where Renault’s small electric models are assembled, but also the Nissan Micra (brother of the Renault 5). They have the capacity to continue expanding production and had options from Alpine, Dacia or Mitusbishi, which are also part of the Renault Group or are collaborators. The arrival of the new Ford is an endorsement for a plant that has the capacity to assemble up to 620,000 vehicles annually. Ford, what Ford? In the statement, Ford wanted to mark territory and defend that the new cars that leave the French plant will have the hallmarks of the oval brand. “The two cars will feature distinctive driving dynamics, authentic Ford brand DNA and an intuitive user experience,” the company says. The truth is that in the medium term, Ford will have six electric cars on the market and four of them are mounted on external platforms. Thus, only the Puma Gen-E and the Mustang Mach-E They are purely Ford cars. The ford explorer and Capri have been launched on the basis of Volkswagen’s MEB, with the ID.4 as a brother of the Americans. Now two more electric cars will arrive from outside the company. The two speeds. The announcement does nothing more than reaffirm the strategy that Ford seems to have decided for Europe. The company has long been talking about a company at two speeds where the vehicles with the highest cost for the customer (and benefits for the company) are manufactured by Ford with its hallmarks and sold in exclusive families within the company itself such as Ford, Raptor or Bronco. The rest of the models, such as electric ones, for which you must make big investments and whose financial results are not being too good due to slower customer reception than expected, is what is being left in the hands of third parties. That is to say, Ford is trying to focus its efforts and make its highest-cost investments in those models that it knows work best for them. This has a counterpart. The brand risks being diluted between models that have their personal touch, like the Explorer, but where there is no doubt that they have a very characteristic Volkswagen car flavor. This strategy of “third party” models for Europe endangers the company’s brand image and could place it in a less dominant position if in the future they want to return to making their own investments for the European market. And Valencia? The announcement adds to the future Ford Bronco Sport for Europe, a model that will be assembled in Valencia, according to Automotive Newsand that comes to keep the plant alive with a “Europeanization” of the American model based on the Ford Kuga. A few weeks ago, The Automotive Tribune It also pointed out this possibility and that another second model would arrive at the Valencian plant. This strategy would help keep the factory alive by assembling models with combustion engines while electric ones (which require greater investment and lower return at low prices) are being left in the hands of third parties. Photo | Renault and Ford In Xataka | Until now, on Amazon you could buy practically everything except cars. That just changed with Ford

Europe has been warning for years that firing in Spain is a bargain. Now Congress is making a move with the “restorative dismissal”

by

Unfair dismissal in Spain is a bargain for companies. At least that is what the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), dependent on the Council of Europe, has been telling Spain for years. Throughout this time, the Government has turned a deaf ear to the recommendations from Brussels. However, an unexpected turn caused by the mistake of a representative of the Popular Party During a vote in Congress, a Non-Law Proposal (PNL) by Sumar was allowed to prosper, which urges the Government to present a bill to reform the laws that prevent the application of the restorative dismissal that Europe has actively and passively requested. Europe has been warning since 2021. When Spain ratified in 2021 the European Social Charterassumed the commitment to harmonize its labor legislation with its principles. Since then, the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), an advisory body of the Council of Europe, has reiterated that the Spanish system, based on a fixed calculation of 33 days per year worked and a maximum of 24 months, does not meet the criteria of said commitment. The problem is that the European Social Charter is a set of guidelines, but it is not binding, and the CEDS is a consultative body, so it cannot demand legislative modifications from Spain. Its resolutions are recommendations, valuable from a legal and political point of view, but without executive force. This lack of obligation has allowed Spain to postpone reforms that would change the way compensation is calculated for employees for unfair dismissal. The cornerstone: article 24. The point of greatest friction to undertake the reforms is found in article 24 of the European Social Charter. It requires “the right of workers dismissed without valid reason (unfair dismissal) to adequate compensation or other appropriate relief.” This means ensuring that compensations to employees for unfair dismissal must be “appropriate and dissuasive”. Something that, as a general rule, does not occur in the system of fixed compensation that is currently applied in all judicial processes for unfair dismissal. This time the request has not come from Europe. Despite having dictated different resolutions and requestsnothing has changed in Europe’s position, nor has it gained power to force Spain to implement the legislative changes. However, what has changed is internal politics. In September, a Non-Law Proposition promoted by Sumar managed to get ahead thanks to the voting error of a PP deputy, repeating the scene that in 2022 allowed approve the labor reform. This NLP does not modify the law itself, but it does urge the Government to begin the legislative process to adapt the regulations to the European framework. This implies the opening of a social dialogue table with unions and employers and, subsequently, the preparation of a bill that must return to Congress to be voted on. The reform of the regulations to legislate unfair dismissals, therefore, is still a long way off, but for the first time the Executive is obliged to put it on the table. “Restorative dismissal” is not a type of dismissal. Among all the CEDS recommendations, none has generated as much debate as the so-called restorative dismissal. The name can lead to confusion: it is not a new category of dismissal as the disciplinarynull or inadmissible, but refers to a proposal to transform How compensation is calculated when a dismissal is declared unfair. Europe considers that the current Spanish system is too predictable and, in many cases, insufficient. The result is that companies can treat unfair dismissal as a more or less easy cost to assume and choose which employees or how many to dismiss based on the cost of the operation. Restorative dismissal causes this calculation to vary from one employee to another and is under the sole discretion of a judge, which would prevent companies from calculating in advance the final cost of the dismissal. What is restorative dismissal?. As its name indicates, restorative dismissal is a model that seeks to individualize the severance payment to the specific damage it causes to the dismissed employee, instead of an automatic calculation based in days per year worked. Judges could assess specific factors in each case, taking into account factors such as the age and social situation of the worker, the real probability of re-entering the labor market, the economic and personal impact of the dismissal, or the size, solvency, or economic capacity of the dismissing company. Based on these factors, for example, a 60-year-old worker with children and a 24-year-old single worker who were fired by the same company in similar positions would obtain different compensation because, statistically, the older one would have less likely to return to the labor market than the young person. Europe understands that this flexibility is essential to repair the real damage of dismissal and to act as a preventive mechanism. Deterrence, protection and less business calculation. The objective of restorative dismissal is not only to better compensate the worker based on the impact caused, but also to discourage the appeal of unfair dismissal and that, if companies really have economic problems that justify dismissals, they do so through dismissals for objective reasons. If the cost is no longer predictable, the company loses the ability to make profitability calculations. This protection measure especially affects precarious groups who, due to their low salary or short seniority, are very cheap to fire: young people, women and precarious workers. Furthermore, Europe insists that the reinstatement after dismissal inadmissible should no longer be optional for the company as it is currently, and should become a real possibility imposed by the court when it is appropriate. Restoration, in this sense, is not only economic, but also labor-related. Justice has its hands tied. Despite Europe’s insistence, the Spanish courts have rejected impose compensation higher than the current scale included in the article 56 of the Workers’ Statute. The reason was not a lack of judicial will, but the absence of a legal framework that would allow additional compensation to be established without generating legal uncertainty. In Xataka | … Read more

Europe had chosen the electric car as the only solution for the future. Germany is about to knock him down

by

There is no official confirmation. It should arrive on December 10, but there is already a first warning that it is possible that the communication will be delayed until January 2026. “For good reasons,” the political leaders assure us. The same people in charge who already advance the guidelines that the review of the 2035 objectives will follow: allowing cars with combustion engines to remain alive. A preview. This is what Apostolos Tzitzikostas, European Commissioner for Transport, gave to the German newspaper Handelsblatt. Like almost everything in this life, neither the time nor the place chosen is coincidental. In this interview, the European official points out that in the European Commission “we are open to all technologies”, which already suggests that this ban on selling combustion engines in 2035 is close to falling. In the absence of knowing all the specific and official details, what it does say is that “the role of zero-emission fuels (known as efuels) and with low emissions and advanced biofuels.” And this is where some doubts arise. Why does an electric car have less autonomy than advertised? No emissions? What the European Union has to resolve is to what extent it is willing to open its hand. The efuels or synthetic fuels They have been sold as an alternative solution because, it is assumed, they do not generate CO2 emissions. When the car burns said fuel it does generate these emissions but they are neutral because the same or greater amount of CO2 is trapped in their production. The European Union has already opened the door to this possibility changing the wording of the ban. We went from talking about banning combustion engines that produced emissions to combustion engines that were not carbon neutral. The difference is subtle but key because with the burning of any fuel (including hydrogen) polluting emissions beyond CO2 are produced, such as NOx or the dangerous ones fine particles which, in both cases, are harmful to humans. “Low emissions”. Now the European Commissioner also speaks of “low-emission fuels.” It remains to be known what these low emissions are and in what quantities they will be allowed. And the alternative that was put on the table was to allow the sale of combustion engines as long as they were associated with highly electrified options. This would lead, for example, to extended range electric. Cars with long electric ranges but that, in essence, are plug-in hybrids because they have a gasoline tank for emergency use. One of the latest proposals is that the car itself, through software, cape the power when a specific number of kilometers has been traveled without recharging the vehicle. Another technically viable possibility is to geofence the cities. That is, using the vehicle’s navigator, the car always moves in completely electric mode when passing through a city or especially sensitive areas of it (hospitals, schools…). This alternative has been contemplated by some plug-in hybrids for years, like BMW’s. And why all this? Because, according to Tzitzikostas, Europe is risking part of its industrial and economic future. “We want to maintain our objectives, but we must take into account all the latest geopolitical events. We must try not to jeopardize our competitiveness and, at the same time, help European industry maintain its technological advantage,” he points out in the interview. In reaching this conclusion it seems that German pressures have had their effect. “Chancellor Merz’s letter has been very well received,” he told the German media. And Germany has been pushing for some time to go back in the face of the “all electric” that seemed decided for Europe. The German industry is facing one of the worst crises in its history and it is estimated that, in just the last two years, about 55,000 jobs have been lost. When will it be official? The idea is that in December we should already know what will happen to this ban in 2035. In recent days the idea had gained strength that it would be December 10 when the European Commission would confirm all these details but the person in charge of transport has already announced that it is possible that this communication will be delayed until January 2026. Photo | Sophie Jonas and Angelo Abear In Xataka | The Government presents the Auto Plus Plan to forget MOVES III: direct aid for the purchase of electric cars with doubts to clear up

The round of peace meetings in Ukraine has ended. Russia says it is “ready”, but for war with Europe

by

The last two rounds of contacts between the Kremlin and Trump’s envoys have confirmed that the peace process for Ukraine is technically alive, but politically blocked. Putin took advantage of the arrival of the emissaries to launch a verbal offensive: Accused Europe of torpedoing peace, suggested the EU “is on the side of war,” and said Russia does not want a continental conflict but that if Europe starts one, “we are ready right now.” A trapped peace process. For Moscow, the talks are “very useful” as they allow it probe the limits Washington and explore what it is willing to sacrifice in exchange for a stable ceasefire. For the United States, they are an opportunity to zoom in positions without openly acknowledging that the original plan favored Russia too much and was unacceptable to kyiv. Five hours of meeting in Moscow served to review successive versions of the US document, but not to generate a “compromise option”: Russia accepts some elements, rejects others with a “critical and even negative attitude” and, above all, keeps intact its objective of translating its military advances in territorial gains formalized on paper. Moscow red lines. At the center of the disagreement is the territorial question. Moscow insists Ukraine must resign to 20% of Donetsk which he still preserves, while boasting (not without response from kyiv) of having taken Pokrovska key logistical hub that had been in operation for more than a year trying to capture with a great cost in lives and material. This insistence is not only cartographic: is part of a maximization logicin which victories at the front are used as an argument to tighten political conditions. Added to this are other structural requirements: deep cuts in the Ukrainian armed forces, severe limits on Western military aid and a fit of Ukraine into the Russian sphere of influence that would empty its formal sovereignty of content. In this context, talking about “progress” is, in reality, talk about margins: Washington explores how far it can give in without kyiv perceiving it as a capitulation, while Russia calculates how far it can stretch its demands without completely breaking the diplomatic channel that is useful to buy time and legitimize its narrative. Parallel diplomacy and mixed signals. Witkoff and Kushner’s role adds a ambiguity layer to the process. They are not classic diplomats, but political emissaries who operate in a gray zone between official diplomacy and American domestic politics. His presence in Moscow, after meeting with Ukrainians in Florida and reviewing a 28 point plan which initially tilted the board towards Moscow, sends several signals at once: kyiv is shown that Washington “listens” to its objections and tweaks the document, Moscow is made clear that the White House is willing to continue negotiating concession frameworks, and Europe is reminded that the decisive conversation remains, above all, Washington-Moscow. The Trump statement Calling the war a “mess” that is difficult to resolve fits with that approach: rather than a closed strategy, the administration seems to seek an agreement that reduces the political and economic cost of the war for the United States, although the final balance is very delicate for Ukraine. Europe as a scapegoat. The Putin’s words on Europe reveal a perfectly calculated strategy: presenting European capitals as the real obstacle to peace, accusing them of “being on the side of the war” and of preventing Washington from closing an agreement. By saying that “Europe is preventing the US administration from achieving peace in Ukraine,” the Kremlin is trying several things at the same time: put pressure on the Europeans to lower their demands, feed the fatigue of war in Western societies and drive a wedge between the United States and its allies, suggesting that Washington would be more flexible if it were not bound by “European demands.” The added threat that Russia “does not intend to fight Europe, but is ready if Europe starts” has a double effect: it works as a military warning and, at the same time, as an internal message to reinforce the idea of ​​a besieged Russia that only defends itself. The risk of being isolated. For Ukraine, cross-play is especially dangerous. Zelenskiy insists on receiving security guarantees “livable” for the future, that is, mechanisms that prevent a new Russian attack once an agreement has been signed. HE frontally opposes to any formula that forces him to give up territory that he currently controls or to reduce his army to levels that leave him defenseless. But, at the same time, it knows that a part of the European capitals and the American political class are seeking, with increasing urgency, an outcome that freezes the war and stabilizes the front, even if that enshrines a status quo very unfavorable for Ukraine. Its margin consists of supporting in the European bloc tougher (those countries that see a bad agreement as a disastrous precedent for continental security) and to remember that any credible reconstruction involves using frozen russian assets and for a framework of Western guarantees that makes another Kremlin attack politically unaffordable. Putin’s calculation of strength. The threats “cutting off Ukraine from the sea completely” and intensifying attacks on ports and ships entering them fit into a broader strategy: combine slow but steady advances in the Donbas with the ability to strangle the Ukrainian economy and make the protection of its maritime corridors more expensive. Each city taken or partially controlled serves the Kremlin as proof that time is in its favor and that it can rise the price of peace at each plan review. Editorials from related media, as Komsomolskaya Pravdareinforce this idea by presenting the negotiations as a scenario in which Russia can afford to tighten its conditions as “more and more Ukrainian territory” passes into its hands. The implicit message is clear: if the current proposals already seem harsh, the next round could be worse for kyiv if the war continues. Uncertainty. The final result is a peace process that formally remains open, but that moves on a dangerous … Read more

Russian oil never stopped arriving in Europe and this 30-year-old German knows it well because he has earned millions by supporting the system.

by

JR Ewing, the oil magnate dallasused to repeat that “the essential thing in this business was to always be one step ahead.” If I lived in 2025, I probably wouldn’t be wearing a Texan hat: I’d be a trader in my late 30s with a laptop, a rented office in Dubai, and a German passport. And perhaps he would look a lot like Christopher Eppinger, the young man who, according to an extensive report in the Financial Timeshas managed to become a millionaire by speculating with sanctioned Russian oil while Europe proclaimed from the rooftops that it was breaking dependence on the Kremlin. Because while Brussels talked about “energy sovereignty” and announced price caps, a parallel ecosystem of nomadic traders, ghost fleets and opaque companies continued to move millions of barrels away from the official radar. In that underground of the global economy, Eppinger found his opportunity. The sanctioned oil never stopped flowing; It simply stopped being visible. And he knew how to make it profitable. When a door closes. Christopher Eppinger, marked since childhood by the chapters of dallas that he saw with his grandmother, he found in the war a window to get rich. The young German moved with the same logic that much more veteran intermediaries have used for decades: special purpose companies in the United Arab Emirates, triangulated operations with India or China, sales contracts for discounted crude oil and the logistics of a ghost fleet that operates on the margins of maritime law. While European governments presented sanctions in solemn press conferences, he took advantage of every crack in the system to buy low and resell high. He didn’t need his own ships, or infrastructure, or even physically touching a barrel: it was enough to know where the opportunities were and who didn’t want to look too closely. Showing an uncomfortable truth. The story of this young German is not an anecdote, but evidence that the sanctioning system never acted as intended. Organization reports like Public Eye show that, between 2023 and 2024 alone, newly created companies or companies relocated to Dubai accounted for more than half of the Russian oil exported by sea, displacing traditional centers such as Switzerland and Singapore. According to Bloombergkey figures in the energy trade, such as Murtaza Lakhani, helped Rosneft reconfigure its export chains through the Emirates to keep flows active despite sanctions. And while much of Europe tried to break ties with Moscow, some countries —like Hungary and Slovakia— took advantage of exceptions to continue receiving crude oil and gas through the Druzhba pipeline. Energy dependence, far from being broken, fragmented into a more chaotic, less transparent and more vulnerable system. In this environment, profiles like Eppinger’s are not only possible: they are almost inevitable. The recipe for enrichment. Eppinger’s method follows a clear logic that the Financial Times details precisely. The first step is to move to Dubai, which has become the “Desert Ireland”thanks to minimal taxation, thousands of special purpose companies created in record time and a confidentiality regime that allows operations without revealing the beneficial owner. The United Arab Emirates does not apply sanctions against Moscow and serves as a perfect platform to move cargo, contracts and dividends without European surveillance. The second pillar is the ghost fleet: hundreds of aging, poorly insured oil tankers, with registrations in opaque countries and with transponders that turn off just when the ship approaches a Russian cargo. These ships They are the heart of parallel trade which has kept Russia exporting above the $60 limit imposed by the G7. The third consists of the Offshore transfers and triangulations. The scheme is simple: buy cheap Russian crude, transfer it to another tanker in international waters, mix it or rename it “Malaysian” or “Indian”, and resell it at an international price. A digital business, fast and — above all — difficult to track. And the fourth element is the ambiguous tolerance of the West. As Bloomberg has detailedthe United States avoided acting harshly for months to avoid causing a global rise in the price of oil. In the EU, exceptions and loopholes allowed non-European companies, although controlled by Europeans, to operate without restrictions. Eppinger moved precisely in that gray space: a legally ambiguous but economically explosive territory. The great gray void where everything is possible. The short answer is: it depends. The long answer is more uncomfortable. According to regulators cited in the different sources, an operation can be technically legal if Russian oil is purchased below the price ceiling, transported to a country that does not apply sanctions and is executed from a legally established entity outside the EU. Switzerland even recognizedaccording to Public Eye— that subsidiaries of Swiss companies established in Dubai are not subject to Swiss sanctioning legislation, as long as they are formally “independent.” This legal architecture allows traders like Eppinger to act without violating the letter of the law, even if they clearly violate its spirit. The question is not so much whether what you do is legal, but why it is possible to do it. Will there be consequences? The cracks in the system are beginning to produce visible effects. On the military front, Ukraine has expanded the war towards Russian energy infrastructure: attacking refineries thousands of kilometers from the front and disabled tankers linked to sanctioned crude oil trading. Russia has lost around 13% of its refining capacity and several regions have suffered queues and gasoline rationing, according to the Financial Times. On the diplomatic and economic level, according to BloombergWashington is already studying specific sanctions against intermediaries in the Emirates, while the United Kingdom has begun to penalize marketing companies with opaque property registered in Dubai. In Europe, pressure is growing on countries that continue to receive Russian energy by land, such as Hungary and Slovakia, identified as leakage points in the system. Eppinger’s business, like that of many others, could have its days numbered if the regulatory fence tightens. For now, it is still profitable. Russia gets richer while Europe … Read more

Europe has signed the first agreement to protect dogs and cats. Breeders won’t like it

by

The Animal Welfare Law It came into force in Spain two years ago. Among its measures, the law prohibits individuals from breeding and selling pets, allowing only registered breeders. Now, it is the European Union that wants to put an end to abusive breeding. what has happened. On November 25, the Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement provisional agreement which establishes a series of stricter rules for the dog and cat trade. It will affect both breeders, pet stores and shelters. The agreement still has to be endorsed, but a date has already been set for the standards to be met: 2028. Why it is important. It is the first agreement on animal welfare at community level. Until now, the only European regulation that affected pet animals was the one that regulated movements between member countries, but the fact that the fight against abusive breeding is being prioritized is further proof that animal welfare is at the center of public debate. Starting point. It is estimated that the cat and dog purchasing market moves 1,300 million euros a year and 60% of purchases are made online. In Spain, the Animal Welfare Law expressly prohibits direct sales over the internet and requires breeders who advertise in magazines or other media to include their registration number, but in many other EU countries there is no regulation in this regard. animal welfare. Establishments must meet a series of requirements to provide well-being to the animals they house and which will be aimed at covering the diet, physical environment, health, behavior and mental state of the animals. Some of these requirements are: The environment will have good quality, which means that it is comfortable, that they have enough space and a good temperature. The animals will be safe, clean and healthy. Disease or injury prevention measures must be applied. It is prohibited to have dogs or cats in spaces (cages, showcases…), except for transport. It is prohibited to keep dogs tied for long periods. Dogs and cats must have access to the outdoors to exercise and socialize. They must receive water and food in sufficient quantity and quality. Establishments must have sufficient competence to care for dogs and cats, including an understanding of their biological behavior and ethological needs. At least one caregiver per establishment will have to receive official training in animal care. They must ensure veterinary visits at least once a year and record the results. When selling or adopting an animal, the recipient must be made aware of responsible ownership. Breeders. The regulations focus especially on the breeding and reproduction of animals, with a series of requirements that aim to end harmful practices such as mutilations or inbreeding. They are the following: Age limits will be established for the dogs and cats used for breeding, as well as a frequency between litters. Consanguinity will be prohibited, that is, breeding between parents, descendants, siblings or grandparents will not be permitted. If a female dog or cat has undergone two cesarean sections, she should be removed from breeding to protect her health. The creation of hybrids through crossing with wild species, for example dogs and wolves, is prohibited. Mutilations such as cutting ears, tails or removing nails cannot be carried out. It cannot be used to breed dogs or cats with extreme traits. For example, very short noses or “flat faces” typical of breeds such as the French bulldog or the pug. Mandatory identification. All dogs and cats sold or given up for adoption must be microchipped and registered in the national database. Starting in 2028, breeders and shelters will be obligated, but within ten years it will be mandatory for all dog or cat guardians. In Spain, microchipping is already mandatory for both species. The novelty introduced by this regulation is that the databases will be interoperable at the European level. Who it doesn’t affect. There are exceptions and againthe regulations will not affect hunting dogs, guard dogs or cats that live freely in rural areas. The FAADA Foundation regrets this decision and states that “it will leave some 18 million cats and 2 million dogs in the EU without adequate protection.” There is also an exception regarding the prohibition of consanguinity. It will be allowed when it is to “preserve local breeds with a limited genetic pool.” Small establishments will also not have to comply with the rules except for the identification of animals with a microchip. To be considered a small establishment, they must meet these requirements: Breeders who have a maximum of three dogs or cats and produce a maximum of two litters per year. Pet stores that have a maximum of three dogs or six cats. Animal shelters that have a maximum of ten dogs or twenty cats. Images | Pexels In Xataka | Yes, the neighbors on the tenth floor can have chickens at home even if they don’t want to. The Animal Welfare Law says so

While the US and China dominate different sectors, Europe leads an unexpected leadership: heat pumps

by

Europe is experiencing an energy and industrial crisis that has reopened old fears: factories that lose competitiveness, homes punished by gas and a political debate that looks backwards. But behind the noise, the data tells a completely different story: Europe is not going backwards. It is leading the largest energy transformation in the world. And at the center of that transformation is a technology that is already changing the rules: heat pumps. The real problem: an industry trapped by gas. A large part of public opinion believes that European industry is becoming more expensive because of climate policies. But, As Jan Rosenow points outOxford energy professor, in EUobserver, the reality is exactly the opposite: “I do not accept the analysis underlying the reversal narrative. The idea that green policies must be dismantled to lower prices is nonsense.” According to Rosenow, the real shock came after 2021, when Europe lost access to the cheap Russian gas pipeline and had to replace it with much more expensive LNG from the United States. The impact was brutal: energy-intensive industries stopped production and never returned to pre-Ukrainian War levels. Ember’s report quantifies it: Europe paid an accumulated extra cost of 930 billion euros during the energy crisis due to its dependence on imported fossil fuels. The conclusion is uncomfortable, the problem is not that Europe has gone too fast in the transition, but too slow. Europe leads the solution, although it does not know it yet. While the political debate goes in circles, the market advances. Europe is, today, world leader in heat pumpsa title that he does not hold by chance. In residential adoption, some countries are decades ahead of the rest of the world: Norway has 632 heat pumps per 1,000 homes and Finland has 524, according to European Heat Pump Association (EHPA). And the surprise is in the laggards, countries like Poland, Ireland or Portugal continue to grow even in years of weak market. The European industry dominates the market. European manufacturers such as Vaillant, Stiebel Eltron, Bosch, Viessmann, Danfoss, NIBE or Clivet dominate the global market. Unlike what happened with solar panels, Europe has retained manufacturing capacityalthough it still partially depends on imported compressors and electronics. Still, most employment, engineering and assembly remain on European soil. A revolution underway. Industrial projects are not prototypes: they are signs of the times: So why do we still depend on gas? Despite technological leadership, adoption is slower than it should be. There are four main blocks: Electricity continues to be weighed down by the price of gas. In much of central Europe, gas sets the marginal price of electricity. This means that even if renewables lower the cost, gas increases it again at the peaks. As the Financial Times points outthe result is an obvious paradox: the most efficient technology (the heat pump) seems expensive because electricity is distorted by gas. Taxation. The Oxford Professor details that the majority of European countries They charge more taxes on electricity than on gas. This penalizes the clean option and favors the fossil option. Lack of installers. The European Commission calculates that they are needed 750,000 additional installers before 2030. The German company Apricum adds that the experience installation remains “complex and fragmented”. Cultural barrier. As Rosenow explains: “Most industries are used to burning things.” Fire is perceived as safe and familiar, even though it is more expensive and inefficient. But this barrier disappears when you look at northern Europe: Sweden, Finland or Denmark already use heat pumps on a large scale even at sub-zero temperatures. Electrification is not a green whim. Heat pumps are not a technological anecdote, but the pillar of a broader movement: the electrification of the continent. According to the EMBER reportelectrification could halve the EU’s fossil dependence by 2040, and that two-thirds of energy demand could be met by mature technologies: heat pumps, electric vehicles, storage and solar. Today, however, the EU has barely electrified 22% of its final energy, which reveals ample room to triple that share in the coming years. The European Commission agree with this diagnosis. Brussels estimates that Europe will have to reach 60 million heat pumps installed in 2030 – compared to 25.5 million currently – to meet its climate and energy security objectives. Also, remember that the entry into force of the new ETS2 from 2027 fossil gas will progressively become more expensivenaturally accelerating its replacement by more efficient electrical technologies. Europe needs to trust its own leadership. European politics is trapped between nostalgia for cheap gas and the fear of losing competitiveness compared to other regions. But the data tells another story: Europe is leading the technology that can free it from those dependencies. While some in Brussels debate whether the Green Deal should be slowed down, the market and European engineers are saying the opposite. If Europe wants secure energy, strong industry and affordable bills, the answer is not in returning to gas, but in something much simpler: plugging itself in. Image | dbdh Xataka | Aerothermal energy is the heating of the future, but the electrical installation is stuck in the past

Faced with the threat of an “orbital Pearl Harbor”, Europe has made the same decision as the US: shield space

by

The race to militarize space has accelerated to an extent unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. The reasons are several, but the main one is driven by the combination of explicit russian threatscovert sabotage and an international architecture incapable of containing the emergence of atomic weapons out of the atmosphere. The last one to join: Europe. The war in orbit. Moscow not only has reactivated its classic nuclear discourse, but has opened a second front in low Earth orbit through the development of anti-satellite systems equipped with nuclear warheads that openly violate the Outer Space Treaty. In this context, European and North American experts match in which the Kremlin is lowering the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons both on Earth like in spacewhile experimenting with platforms capable of camouflaging orbital bombs designed to disable satellites essential for the economy, defense and communication. Thus, the very idea of ​​a “Space Pearl Harbor” (a nuclear explosion that destroyed thousands of satellites, blinded entire continents and turned low orbit into a radioactive dump for generations) has forced Europe to abandon the romantic vision of an exclusively civil space and enter a new strategic reality which combines deterrence, diplomacy and operational preparedness. The bet of the old continent. This turn has crystallized in a historic decision: For the first time, European Space Agency countries have approved funding a program designed explicitly for military functions. He ERS projectconceived as a “system of systems” equipped with surveillance capabilities, secure navigation, encrypted communications and Earth observation, marks Europe’s entry into the club of actors who recognize that their future security depends both on what happens on the ground and what happens hundreds of kilometers above it. The approved financing (1.2 billion euros with more to come) comes accompanied by an unprecedented political mandate that redefines the concept of “peaceful purposes” at a time when China multiplies its space capabilities and Russia turns orbit into a space hybrid pressure. The magnitude of the support, bordering 100% of what was requestedreflects an internal consensus: without its own capabilities, Europe would be a vulnerable spectator in a conflict that would be decided by the speed and resilience of its satellite constellations. The French and German response. On this new board, France and Germany have assumed a central role both for its industrial capacity and for its newly adopted conviction that the wars of the future will begin (or be decided) in space. Paris has invested 10 billion euros in its new Space Command, oriented to military operations in orbit, to shield satellites against kinetic attacks and to promote an interoperable architecture with NATO. Berlin, for its part, has announced an investment of 35 billion until 2030 to reinforce its own Space Command, develop guardian satellites and equip itself with advanced early warning systems. Both countries have publicly assumed that orbital infrastructure is so critical such as energy or digitaland that any Russian aggression could paralyze not only defense, but European civil society as a whole. National security is no longer decided solely on the eastern land border, but in a three-dimensional environment where the loss of a single satellite node can destabilize entire sectors. Nuclear beyond the atmosphere. Analysts agree that the most feared scenario is not a specific attack against specific satellites, but the detonation of a nuclear charge in orbitcapable of generating devastating electromagnetic pulses and cascading space junk that would render low orbit useless for decades. Historical precedents, such as try Starfish Prime that destroyed a third of existing satellites in the 1960s, serve as a warning of what it would mean to repeat a similar experiment today, with more than 10,000 active satellites. Such an explosion would kill astronauts, destroy global navigation infrastructure, fossilize the digital economy and cause a domino effect that could move the war from space to Earth. Although some experts hold While Moscow would only resort to such action in a scenario of terminal collapse, the mere existence of these capabilities forces Europe to prepare for a type of conflict that would break the traditional limits of deterrence. Political pressure and a new order. Fear of an orbital conflict has reactivated debates on nuclear disarmamentboth in the United States and in Europe, where legislators are promoting initiatives to revitalize multilateral negotiations that have been stagnant for decades. At the same time, ESA has achieved a record budget (22.1 billion euros) that not only finances its transition towards space security, but also promotes scientific and commercial programs, such as reusable rockets, Martian exploration or new astrobiological missions. This growth, supported by Germany, France, Italy and Spain, reflects the strategic convergence between defense, research and technological sovereignty. In the new scenario, Europe seeks not to be a secondary actor in the face of spatial duopolization between the United States and China, but to develop real autonomy that reduces dependence on private platforms like starlink or American systems such as the space interceptors of the Golden Dome. Militarize space. If you also want, the intersection between russian threatsAmerican technological advances and the European strategic awakening marks the beginning of a stage in which the Earth’s orbit is consolidated as the new global scenario military competition. What was once a scientific and commercial domain has become a space where the resilience of entire societies is decided. He ERS projectthe expansion of national space commands and the growing funding of dual capabilities make up a defense ecosystem that seeks to avoid a conflict that no one wants to imagine. And in that scenario, Europe seems to have understood that the only way to deter orbital escalation is to demonstrate that it has the same means to resist it, respond to it and recover. Image | RawPixelESA/Mlabspace In Xataka | The US wants to build an unprecedented anti-missile shield called “Golden Dome.” And SpaceX has the ideal technology In Xataka | Space solar never worked. A military escalation in orbit is making it a reality

Europe has been closing refineries for 10 years. Now even a fire in Nigeria raises the price of diesel

by

Diesel prices in Europe have once again set off alarm bells. In a matter of days, the market has experienced a sharp rebound that cannot be interpreted as a one-off shock, but rather as the symptom of a fragile energy system that, in the face of a global chain of incidents, has left the continent without defenses. A chain of critical interruptions. The immediate origin is in a succession of stoppages in refineries and international tensions. According to the Financial TimesEuropean operators reacted with concern after several facilities in Kuwait, the United States and Nigeria were forced to stop or reduce production due to fires or technical problems. These interruptions coincided with already very low inventories and with demand that remains stronger than expected. Adding to this instability was the announcement that United States sanctions against the two largest Russian producers, Lukoil and Rosneft, will come into effect immediately. As the British media explains, these measures will block any operation related to the international assets of both companies, including refineries that still indirectly supply the European market. Only the Bulgarian Lukoil refinery has received a temporary exemption until 2026. The scenario is even more complicated with the fall of Russian crude oil. According to Bloombergits price has fallen to the lowest level in more than two years, just when large Asian buyers have paused purchases due to the entry into force of sanctions. In addition, the EU has also sanctioned Russian refined products that arrive re-exported from India or Türkiye, a flow that had served as an indirect way to compensate for the lack of European diesel. An extremely vulnerable market. Europe has lost refining capacity over the last decade. According to data cited by the Financial Timesthe continent has closed about 400,000 barrels per day since 2024. This reduction means that it is increasingly dependent on imported fuels and a global market that has become more volatile and unpredictable. The European industrial crisis amplifies this problem. Based on data from the petrochemical industry, high energy costs and Asian competition have caused massive closures of plants in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. This industrial deterioration also affects the infrastructure linked to fuel processing. For analyst Benedict Georgethe result is clear: “European prices are much more sensitive to any disruption because Europe has closed many refineries in recent years.” A tense world. Although the price of diesel has skyrocketed, the global crude oil market presents a paradox. The International Energy Agency foresees a record surplus in 2026powered by the increase in OPEC+ production and for the rebirth of the American offshore. However, this future abundance is not alleviating current tension. As Bloomberg points outthe market remains trapped between sanctions, fears of specific shortages and sudden changes in global flows. Added to this is a particularly delicate geopolitical context for Europe. The peace plan proposed by the United States for Ukraine has generated a “diplomatic storm” in Brussels and kyiv for their apparent alignment with pro-Moscow positions. This diplomatic uncertainty – which affects sanctions, energy and continental security – adds pressure to an EU that already depends on abroad to guarantee its diesel supply after two years of war. A direct hit. Europe faces a structural problem: it has little of its own refining capacity, low inventories and a growing dependence on imports. Every global incident reaches the European consumer almost unmuffled. And this directly affects Spain for three reasons: Spanish transport depends mainly on diesel. Trucks, logistics vans, buses and much of rural transport continue to use diesel. The escalation is transferred to the prices of goods. Food, imported products, construction materials… Everything that moves by road becomes more expensive when diesel does. Price spikes are amplified. Being a net importer, Spain especially suffers from international volatility. The rapidity with which diesel has risen shows that Europe “has no margin”: each shock becomes a direct blow for consumers and companies. For a standard 55 liter tank, filling a diesel car is already around 79 euros, while with 95 gasoline the cost is close to 82 euros, according to current average prices. Is there relief in sight? In the short term, analysts cited by Financial Times They believe the rebound could moderate during the winter months, when refineries avoid scheduled shutdowns to maximize production. But they warn that the market will remain “vulnerable to any disruption.” In the medium term, the perspective is contradictory. On the one hand, the International Energy Agency anticipates a global surplus in 2026 and an increase in production in both the United States and OPEC+. On the other hand, Chinawhich has purchased more than 150 million barrels for reserves— could stop its acquisitions at any time, releasing an excess capable of sinking global prices or further tightening the chains if it decides to continue accumulating. The warning of a weak system. Europe faces uncomfortable evidence: it has built a fragile energy system at a time of maximum global tension. The combination of refinery shutdowns, sanctions on Russia, diplomatic tensions and loss of industrial capacity has left the continent exposed. As the London media summarizes, “inventories are extremely low and demand is better than expected.” An explosive mixture. While the world navigates between a future surplus and constant geopolitical crises, the present shows that any spark – a fire, a sanction or a diplomatic disagreement – ​​can reignite the European diesel market. And Europe, for now, appears to have few tools to prevent the next shock from hitting even harder. Image | FreePik Xataka | The world is heading towards an oil surplus: the US responds by filling the Gulf of Mexico with platforms again

Europe had been asking for a big hit on the table for some time. Revolut just gave it a huge valuation

by

Revolut was born in London as a fintech focused on digital payments and today it has become one of the most watched companies on the European financial landscape. It has already exceeded 65 million customers worldwide and its ambition is to reach 100 million, with its sights set on becoming the first global bank born from technology. Not only does it add users, it also builds physical structures: Spain was the country chosen to install its first ATMs with own brand. Now, he has added one more element to his story: a valuation of $75 billion. The operation validated by some of the largest funds in the world. The sale of Revolut shares was not carried out by traditional banks, but by some of the most influential investment funds in the technology sector, such as Coatue, Greenoaks, Dragoneer and Fidelity Management & Research Company. They were joined by names linked to large companies such as NVentures, NVIDIA’s investment fund, as well as Andreessen Horowitz, Franklin Templeton and T. Rowe Price. According to Bloombergthis operation has placed Revolut as the most valuable startup in Europe. It also allowed employees to sell shares, something Revolut has already offered on five occasions. A valuation that does not leave the stock market. Revolut remains a private company, so its shares are not available on public markets and its valuation is not set on the stock market. It is estimated from the price that investors accept when they buy a package of shares in operations like this: that price is taken as a reference to calculate how much 100% of the company would be worth. On this occasion, Revolut has made it easier for employees and existing shareholders to sell part of their stakes, while incorporating new investors into the capital. The result is a valuation that, as we say, sets the bar at 75 billion dollars. Revolut remains a private company, so its shares are not available on public markets and its valuation is not set on the stock market. Although it is still private, Revolut does publish figures that explain part of the investment enthusiasm. In 2024 it recorded $4 billion in revenue, with a growth of 72%, and $1.4 billion in profit before taxes, an increase of 149%. In 2025, the pace continues thanks to the performance of its business division, which already moves 1 billion annually. In addition, the company has made relevant regulatory progress: it has the final banking authorization for its next launch in Mexico, it has a banking incorporation license in Colombia and is preparing its arrival in India. Spain as a pilot bank. The Spanish market has become one of Revolut’s strategic laboratories. Here it inaugurated its first ATM network in Europe, with 50 machines installed and plans to expand to 200 next year. At the same time, it is exploring its entry into private banking by hiring specialized profiles. According to Expansionthe project is in the initial phase, but marks a symbolic step: it no longer competes only in mobile, but also in segments reserved for traditional banking. Europe gains visibility, but the United States sets the pace. That Revolut is the most valuable startup in Europe, as Bloomberg points out, demonstrates the moment that the technology sector is experiencing on the continent. Even so, the comparison with the United States remains significant: Reuters puts OpenAI at $500 billionabout 6.67 times above Revolut. There, the most notable startups come not only from fintech, but also from aerospace, autonomous vehicles, blockchain, design or productivity. Europe, on the other hand, has concentrated its progress mainly on fintech, quantum computing and corporate software. The $75 billion valuation does not automatically make Revolut a global bank, but it does send a clear message: large international funds are willing to back a model that mixes technology, financial services and international ambition. The next step will be to sustain that growth while obtaining key licenses, such as the one it is seeking in the United Kingdom. What is happening with Revolut shows that Europe can generate relevant players, although it remains to be seen how far they can go in a field historically dominated by American banking and technology. Images | Revolut In Xataka | A few weeks ago Amancio Ortega collected 1,552 million from Inditex: he just invested them in the second largest purchase in its history

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.