Thursday, June 11, 2026

Myanmar’s Rare Earth: The Hidden Costs Of The Global Green Transition – Analysis

June 11, 2026 
Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
By Htay Su Wai

The global transition toward renewable energy and electric vehicles has accelerated demand for rare earth minerals, placing Myanmar’s conflict-affected borderlands at the center of emerging critical mineral supply chains. As rare earth extraction expands in Kachin State following the 2021 coup, environmental degradation, weak regulation, and fragmented governance structures have increasingly shaped the country’s role in the global green economy.

Key Takeaways:

Myanmar has become the world’s third-largest producer of rare earth elements, after the US and China, for advanced renewable energy technologies, as China increasingly shifts environmentally destructive extraction beyond its borders into Myanmar’s weakly regulated frontier regions.

The rapid expansion of rare earth mining in Kachin State after the 2021 coup reflects fragmented governance systems involving militias, armed actors, informal taxation networks, and opaque cross-border business arrangements operating with limited environmental oversight or accountability.

Myanmar’s rare earth frontier exposes a deeper contradiction within the global green transition: while wealthier societies pursue cleaner energy and “greener” cities, the environmental and human costs of extracting critical minerals are increasingly displaced onto conflict-affected and politically fragile regions, creating zones of ecological sacrifice that remain largely invisible within global climate narratives.



Introduction

Rapidly reducing dependence on fossil fuels and accelerating the transitiontoward renewable energy have become central to global climate strategies and the pursuit of a net-zero future. Electric vehicles, wind turbines, batteries, and other low-carbon technologies are increasingly viewed as essential tools for addressing climate change and advancing sustainable development goals. Yet the technologies driving this transition depend heavily on critical minerals, particularly rare earth elements essential for renewable energy systems and advanced manufacturing industries.


As global demand for critical minerals intensifies, governments and industries face growing challenges surrounding supply chain security, environmental sustainability, and geopolitical competition. While the expanding critical mineral economy presents economic opportunities for resource-rich developing countries, it also risks reproducing patterns of environmental degradation, corruption, conflict, and unequal resource governance commonly associated with the “resource curse.”

Myanmar has emerged as an increasingly important supplier within regional rare earth supply chains linked to China’s processing industries. According to Global Witness, Myanmar’s exports of rare earth minerals to China increased dramatically from approximately US$1.5 million in 2014 to nearly US$780 million by 2021. Much of this extraction has concentrated in Kachin State along Myanmar’s northern borderlands, where long-standing conflict dynamics and contested territorial authority continue to shape local governance systems.

As extraction rapidly expands, Myanmar’s rare earth frontier increasingly reveals a deeper contradiction at the heart of the global green transition: while renewable energy technologies are promoted as environmentally sustainable solutions, the environmental and governance costs associated with critical mineral extraction are increasingly displaced onto fragile border regions affected by conflict and weak regulation.

Myanmar’s Rare Earth Boom and China’s Supply Chain Shift

Rare earth minerals have become strategically important because of their essential role in renewable energy technologies and advanced manufacturing industries. Heavy rare earth elements such as dysprosium and neodymium are particularly valuable because they are used in permanent magnets essential for electric vehicles, wind turbines, batteries, smartphones, and high-performance electronics. As governments accelerate climate goals and low-carbon industrial strategies, global demand for these minerals has surged dramatically.

China has dominated the global rare earth industry since the 1980s and continues to control much of the world’s processing and refining capacity. However, the environmental consequences of rare earth extraction within China became increasingly severe over the past decade. Illegal mining, toxic waste, poisoned waterways, and long-term ecological degradation generated mounting environmental concerns, particularly in Jiangxi Province, often referred to as China’s “rare earth kingdom.”

In response, Chinese authorities intensified environmental enforcement measures after 2016 and shut down many domestic heavy rare earth mining operations. Yet while China reduced environmentally destructive extraction within its own territory, global demand for rare earth minerals continued to rise rapidly. Rather than reducing extraction overall, mining activities increasingly shifted across the border into Myanmar’s weakly regulated frontier regions. While China argues for a non-interference policy in the Myanmar crisis for Western powers, they are exploiting the Myanmar Civil War as a tool to increase China’s influence in Myanmar by dealing with both the military-led government and the ethnic military. China’s cooperation with KIA for rare earth minerals from Kachin state is evidence of China’s double standard in its own foreign policy towards Myanmar.

A six-month investigation by Global Witness documented how this highly polluting industry expanded rapidly into Myanmar’s Kachin Special Region 1, a semi-autonomous territory controlled by militia groups affiliated with Myanmar’s military establishment. Within just a few years, the region became one of the world’s largest suppliers of heavy rare earth minerals.

Reports indicate that thousands of Chinese workers and technicians crossed into Myanmar between 2016 and 2019 to establish and operate mining sites using the same in-situ leaching methods previously employed in Jiangxi. The mines continue to supply Chinese state-owned processing companies that dominate the global rare-earth refining industry. Commodity research firm Roskill noted in 2021 that nearly all major Chinese state-owned enterprises involved in heavy rare earth processing had become dependent on Myanmar as a source of raw materials.

The expansion of extraction into Myanmar demonstrates how stricter environmental governance in one country can displace ecological harm into weaker regulatory environments elsewhere. As one industry expert cited by Global Witness observed, “the environmental challenges that come with this type of mining in China have spread to a neighbouring nation.”

Fragmented Governance After the Coup

The rapid expansion of rare earth extraction in Myanmar cannot be understood solely through global market demand. It is also deeply connected to fragmented governance systems that intensified following the 2021 military coup.

Rather than producing a simple absence of governance, the post-coup crisis generated overlapping systems of competing authority involving military actors, militias, ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), border business networks, and informal economic actors. In many extraction zones across northern Myanmar, governance operates through negotiated control, informal taxation systems, and localized power arrangements rather than centralized state regulation.

In Kachin Special Region 1, mining operations reportedly function through opaque agreements involving militia-controlled authorities and cross-border commercial actors. Although foreign investment in small- and medium-scale mineral extraction is technically illegal under Myanmar law, enforcement remains limited in conflict-affected borderlands where competing systems of authority overlap.

The Institute for Strategy and Policy-Myanmar (ISP) reported that militia leaders and affiliated business networks have become central brokers in the rare-earth economy, facilitating mining operations, granting access to extraction sites, collecting informal taxes, and controlling cross-border trade routes into China. In many cases, Myanmar-registered companies reportedly function as fronts for Chinese investment operating through informal and opaque commercial arrangements.

The post-coup political environment has further weakened environmental oversight and institutional accountability. Under fragmented governance conditions, extraction activities continue with limited regulatory monitoring, while armed actors and border business networks benefit economically from the rapid expansion of rare earth mining.


Myanmar’s rare earth sector, therefore, illustrates how conflict-affected borderlands can become integrated into global supply chains through systems of shadow governance and informal extraction economies operating beyond effective environmental regulation.
Environmental Consequences in Kachin State and Beyond

The environmental consequences of rare earth extraction in Myanmar increasingly mirror the ecological devastation previously witnessed in China’s Jiangxi Province, where decades of poorly regulated mining contaminated waterways, destroyed forests, and generated massive long-term cleanup costs. China’s “Take profit without responsibility” policy in neighbouring countries for Rare-earth mining clearly downgrades China’s role as a global normative actor.

Mining operations in Kachin State commonly use in-situ leaching methods that inject chemical solutions such as ammonium sulfate directly into mountainsides to extract rare earth minerals. While highly profitable and relatively inexpensive, this process leaves behind toxic wastewater, contaminated soil, deforested landscapes, and unstable terrain vulnerable to erosion and landslides.

Global Witness documented how mining sites across Kachin State have expanded rapidly across mountainous terrain, with thousands of chemical collection pools identified near river systems and forest areas. Local communities have reported worsening access to clean water, dying fish populations, contaminated farmland, and the disappearance of wildlife from nearby forests. Residents also described growing fears about surrounding toxic exposure, respiratory illnesses, and long-term environmental destruction linked to chemical leaching processes.

The environmental consequences are no longer confined to isolated mining zones. Recent environmental monitoring in Thailand detected alarming levels of arsenic contamination in transboundary river systems linked to mining activities upstream in Myanmar, including areas associated with rare earth extraction. Investigations reported by Mongabay found growing concerns along the Salween River basin, where communities increasingly fear the impacts of toxic contamination on fisheries, agriculture, drinking water systems, and local livelihoods.

These developments highlight how environmental harm generated within Myanmar’s conflict-affected borderlands increasingly carries regional ecological and human security consequences. The contamination of shared river systems demonstrates that the environmental costs of weak extraction governance do not stop at national borders.

The long-term implications may prove severe. In China’s Jiangxi Province, authorities estimated that environmental cleanup costs linked to rare earth mining could exceed US$5.5 billion, with ecological recovery potentially taking up to a century. Myanmar currently lacks both the institutional capacity and regulatory mechanisms necessary to manage environmental remediation on a comparable scale.

The Hidden Contradiction of Global Green Transition


Myanmar’s rare earth frontier reveals a critical contradiction at the heart of the global green transition. Renewable energy technologies are frequently presented as environmentally sustainable solutions to climate change. Yet, the extraction systems that support these industries often impose severe environmental and social costs in politically fragile regions.

The environmental burdens associated with critical mineral extraction are not distributed equally. Instead, they are increasingly externalized onto vulnerable borderland communities where governance systems remain weak, fragmented, and conflict-affected. A green transition that ignores the social and environmental impacts on local communities is not truly green; it is simply greenwashing under the language of sustainability. While industries and consumers elsewhere benefit from electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, and advanced technologies, the ecological and political consequences of extraction are concentrated in frontier regions such as northern Myanmar.

This dynamic raises broader questions about environmental governance, supply chain accountability, and the political economy of climate transition policies. Efforts to accelerate renewable energy adoption without addressing extraction governance risk reproduce new forms of environmental injustice and conflict-linked resource exploitation.

Myanmar’s rare earth frontier ultimately reveals a critical paradox at the heart of the global green transition: technologies designed to secure a sustainable future increasingly depend upon extraction systems rooted in environmental destruction, fragmented governance, and conflict-affected borderlands. Without stronger environmental accountability and conflict-sensitive supply chain governance, the pursuit of clean energy risks reproducing new forms of ecological injustice under the banner of sustainability.
Policy Recommendations

Addressing the environmental and governance challenges of rare earth extraction in Myanmar requires stronger international cooperation, conflict-sensitive environmental governance, and improved supply chain accountability.

Key priorities include:

Strengthening environmental monitoring in conflict-affected extraction areas and tightening regulations on rare earth trade linked to environmentally harmful practices, particularly within Chinese-linked supply chains.

Improving transparency and traceability in critical mineral supply chains, including the potential use of blockchain technologies to reduce illicit trade and improve accountability.
Expanding responsible sourcing standards for companies and governments reliant on rare earth minerals for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and advanced manufacturing.

Enhancing regional cooperation to address transboundary environmental impacts such as river pollution and ecological degradation. Local actors, including the NUG and EAOs, should also consider long-term environmental consequences in governance decisions.

Encouraging ASEAN to take a more active role in addressing regional environmental risks stemming from Myanmar’s extractive and ecological crises.



About the author: 
Htay Su Wai is a Junior Research Fellow at the Sustainability Lab of the Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) and holds a Master of Public Policy (MPP) from the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, Germany.

Source: This article was published by The Sabai

About Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre
The Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre (SRIc) is a hybrid think tank (non-partisan) and consultancy firm that advances sustainable governance, policy innovation, and sustainability literacy in Myanmar. Through its Sustainability Lab, SRIc conducts in-depth public policy research and analysis to promote sustainable development and guide Myanmar toward a more resilient, equitable, and environmentally conscious future. SRIc provides strategic policy advocacy, CSR consultation, and the development of sustainability roadmaps grounded in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. These services support public institutions and private sector actors in aligning their operations with the Sustainable Development Goals. By integrating rigorous research with actionable consultancy, SRIc supports responsible business practices, fosters innovative CSR strategies, and designs impactful sustainability pathways. SRIc contributes to local transformation & global sustainability efforts through this dual approach.
View all posts by Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre →
Trump’s Iran Predicament Is His Own Fault – OpEd

LIBERTARIAN ANTI-IMPERIALISM



June 10, 2026 
MISES
By Connor O’Keeffe

Over the weekend, Iran and Israel launched direct strikes on each other for the first time since all parties agreed to a ceasefire back in early April.

It began with an Israeli strike on Beirut after a US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and the government of Lebanon was rejected by Hezbollah—the actual combatant that is fighting Israeli forces. Iran responded as they warned they would, with a wave of ballistic missiles aimed at targets in Israel. The Israeli government claimed all those missiles were intercepted—though videos posted to social media appear to show at least some getting through.

After the attack, Trump reached out to reporters and claimed he was going to call Israeli PM Netanyahu and tell him not to attack Iran in response. The president told a Financial Times reporter that he, not Netanyahu, was calling the shots.


However, a few hours later, Israeli forces did exactly what Trump had publicly demanded they not do and launched airstrikes on targets across Iran. Afterward, Trump called on both sides to “stop shooting” and, at the time of writing, it appears that both have for the moment.

But the situation remains just as fragile as it had been before the exchange.

One of the main sticking points holding back Trump’s attempt to reach a lasting peace deal continues to be the fighting in Lebanon. Days after US and Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader, the militant group Hezbollah began launching rockets into Israel, presumably to help exhaust interceptor stocks and to take some heat off their allies in Iran.

In response, Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. The Israeli government ordered the evacuation of all territory up to the Litani River. Israel’s defense minister claimed none of the 600,000 residents would be allowed to return to their homes until Israel felt that its security was guaranteed (meaning when Hezbollah was no more).

Eventually, as US and Israeli interceptor stockpiles dwindled and the global economic consequences of the war became more acute, Trump backed down from his original demand of an “absolute surrender” and pursued a ceasefire with Iran.

However, despite all the tactical successes of US and Israeli forces, on the strategic level, time was more on Iran’s side. US and Israeli missile defenses were running dangerously low. And Iran had made it clear to everyone that they are the dominant power controlling the Strait of Hormuz and that it was rather straightforward for them to use that power to cause worldwide economic pain—something that gave them, arguably, even more leverage over their opponents than they had before Trump launched the war.

What appears to have convinced the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire despite a position that was getting stronger with time was both an assurance from Trump that the fighting would also stop between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and some signaling that the US was willing to unfreeze Iranian assets or deliver some form of financial compensation to the Iranian regime.

Trump may have succeeded in convincing the Iranians of both, but that was the easy part. If he is genuine about wanting to reach a deal, he faces several difficulties that make a lasting peace agreement highly unlikely in the near future.

For starters, Lebanon, being a key part of not only a potential future deal but of the ceasefire itself, has kicked off what is, in effect, a game of chicken between Israel and Iran. The Israelis seem to want either for the war to restart and continue until the Iranian regime collapses or, at least, for Iran to abandon Hezbollah. And the Iranians appear to want the US to step in and restrain the Israelis.

Towards those ends, Israel has continued to launch attacks in southern Lebanon. In fact, they have recently pushed north of the Litani River and occupied territory beyond the already massive “temporary” buffer zone they announced back in the spring. And Iran has launched strikes across the region in response to signal their continued support for Hezbollah and their willingness to return to a full-on war if Trump doesn’t keep the Israelis in line. As the Iranians probably intended, the current setup highlights and amplifies the differences between Trump and Netanyahu’s aims.

The regime currently in power in Tel Aviv has invested a lot of time, energy, and money in the last few decades into steering US military power towards Israel’s regional rivals. The American warfare state, which is always in need of new enemies to justify its existence, has been happy to oblige on a number of occasions.

However, although the Israeli government and its official and unofficial lobbying entities in Washington are among the most effective interest groups active in modern DC, they are not the only ones. Sometimes things don’t go the way Tel Aviv wants, such as when Obama reached a nuclear deal in 2015 with Iran, Israel’s biggest regional rival at the moment.


But then came Donald Trump. Pro-Israel groups poured millions of dollars into his campaign and, after winning back in 2016, he governed as a bombastically pro-Israel president—withdrawing from the JCPOA and pivoting to a “maximum pressure” posture against Iran that moved the region closer to war. However, despite some direct engagements, a full-on US war on Iran did not break out.

But when Trump returned for his second term last year, the situation was more urgent from the Israeli perspective since support for Israel among the American public was collapsing after the IDF’s brutal response to the Hamas attack on October 7.

Being pro-Israel is already nearly disqualifying for Democratic candidates. And support among (especially young) right-wingers is also falling quickly. The prospect of the next president being anybody even close to as pro-Israel as Trump was clearly growing dimmer, which may have been why Netanyahu made such a push for Trump to launch a war on Iran now.

Israeli war hawks and their ideological allies here in the US are clearly not pleased that Trump has been unwilling to go all the way and wage war until the Iranian regime collapses. Many are still agitating for Trump to stop trying to make a deal and do just that. But Trump does appear to have been rattled by the economic consequences of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. And understandably so.

Gas prices have jumped up to the Biden-year levels he campaigned against, with oil prices likely to rise a lot higher soon as the market’s temporary shock-absorbers are exhausted. Also, food prices are likely to follow as the war-induced fertilizer shortage during the spring planting season carries over into a food shortage and a new parasite threatens the country’s beef supply. A lot of future economic pain has already been locked in, and the Strait remains closed.

However, if Trump prioritizes the country’s economic well-being and abandons this war, he risks running afoul of the pro-Israel donors, lobbyists, and commentators that have so far been some of his most enthusiastic and financially-generous supporters. And that is especially true if he follows through and agrees to unfreeze some or all of the $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets that Tehran has demanded as a prerequisite for ending the war and opening the Strait. That would be a political disaster for Trump after he spent years decrying Obama for sending “pallets of cash” containing less than $2 billion in unfrozen Iranian assets to Tehran as part of the JCPOA.

It is hard to see how Trump could possibly reach some lasting peace agreement in the near future that all sides will abide by. Just about anything the Iranians are willing to agree to will be a political disaster domestically, but so is any prolonged closure of the Strait if Trump can’t deliver something the Iranians will accept. And everything that even appears like a step towards ending the war rather than restarting it will probably be resisted, if not sabotaged, by the Israelis—barring some major escalation against Hezbollah that Iran would never agree to or allow.

Trump is in a genuinely difficult position. But it’s important to remember that it’s entirely his fault.

None of these challenges are surprising or even unexpected. The danger of a closed Strait and the escalatory nature of the conflict were all things skeptics and restrainers have been citing as a reason to avoid a war with Iran for decades. Trump dismissed those concerns and charged ahead under the delusional assumption that it would all work out. He deserves no sympathy.

But he’s also not the only one who deserves blame. Many people over many years have worked hard to push the US towards a war with Iran. The Israel lobby was instrumental, of course, but they were not the only ones. The weapons industry, other Gulf countries, hawkish think tanks, the intelligence agencies, the establishment press, and, really, the entire political establishment were instrumental in kicking off and escalating the interventionist project that marched the country up to the brink of war with Iran.


Now, as it’s becoming harder and harder to pass this war off as anything other than a disaster, several hawkish figures such as Robert Kagan and Max Boot have tried to distance themselves from a conflict they helped prepare the political, ideological, and institutional ground for. Their criticisms are often sound. But the attacks are always focused on Trump and Trump alone. And deliberately so.

As things get worse, the political establishment will want the public to think of this episode as an out-of-the-blue, madman-led diversion from what had been decades of sound foreign policy. But that isn’t true. The political class has spent decades propagandizing the public into thinking of the US military as a global police force that had, not just the ability, but the duty to intervene anywhere in the world to liberate the oppressed and overthrow tyrants.

The tragedy of this war is not that Trump abandoned America’s foreign-policy consensus, it is that he followed it all the way to its logical conclusion.


About the author: Connor O’Keeffe (@connorokeeffe) writes a weekly column for the Mises Wire, hosts Guns & Butter a weekly podcast on current trends, and co-hosts the Power & Market podcast. He has a master’s in economics and a bachelor’s in geology.


Source: This article was published at the Mises Institute


About MISES

The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.
View all posts by MISES →
The European Parliament And U.S. Interests – Analysis


The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected institution of the 27-country European Union (EU). The EP’s current 720 members represent the EU’s roughly 450 million citizens. The EP has accumulated more power over time (most recently with the 2009 Lisbon Treaty) as part of EU efforts to improve democratic accountability in EU policymaking. Congress-EP ties are long-standing, and the EP’s potential to shape or otherwise influence aspects of U.S.-EU relations—such as trade, digital rules, and policies on Russia and China—may be of interest to Congress. The most recent EP elections were in June 2024.

Role and Responsibilities

The EP plays a role in the EU’s legislative and budget processes and has a degree of oversight responsibility. The EP works closely with the two other main EU institutions: the European Commission, which represents the interests of the EU as a whole and functions as the EU’s executive, and the Council of the European Union(informally the Council, or Council of Ministers), which represents the interests of the EU’s national governments. Although the European Commission has the right of legislative initiative, the EP shares legislative power with the Council of the EU in most policy areas, giving the EP the right to accept, amend, or reject the vast majority of EU laws (with some exceptions, such as taxation and most aspects of foreign policy). Both the EP and the Council of the EU must approve a European Commission proposal for it to become EU law in a process known as the ordinary legislative procedure or co-decision. The EP must approve the accession of new EU members and international agreements (including on trade) and may issue nonlegislative resolutions (used, for example, to provide opinions on foreign policy issues).

With the Council of the EU, the EP decides how to allocate the EU’s annual budget (fixed as a percentage of the EU’s combined gross national income). The EP has a supervisory role over the European Commission, limited oversight over the Council of the EU, and monitors EU policies, including through investigations and public hearings. EU member states are required to take EP election results into account in choosing the European Commission president, and the EP must approve each new slate of European Commissioners, including the president, every five years.

Structure and Organization

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms. Voting for the EP takes place on a national basis, with the number of MEPs elected in each EU country based roughly on population size.
Political Groups

Once elected, MEPs caucus according to political ideology (rather than nationality) into groups, which span the political spectrum and typically represent over 200 national political parties. In the 2019-2024 EP, there were seven political groups; in the current EP, there are eight, as well as a number of “nonattached” or independent MEPs (see Figure 1). Although the majority of MEPs hail from political parties that support the EU project, some are considered to be antiestablishment and euroskeptic—that is, critical of the EU or anti-EU to varying degrees. Most euroskeptic parties in the EP are on the right or far right and hold predominantly nationalist and anti-immigration views.

No single group in the EP has an absolute majority, making compromise and coalition-building key features of the EP. Historically, the two largest groups—the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D)—have tended to dominate the EP by cooperating in unofficial “grand coalitions.” At the same time, voting blocs may vary on specific pieces of legislation. The relative size of the political groups also helps determine EP leadership and committee posts.

EP Leadership, Committees, and Delegations

MEPs elect a president of the EP every two-and-a-half years (twice per parliamentary term). The president oversees the work of the EP and represents it externally. Roberta Metsola, a Maltese MEP from the EPP, was reelected to a second term as EP president in July 2024. The EP has 22 standing committees that are key actors in the adoption of EU legislation. Each committee considers legislative proposals that fall within its jurisdiction and recommends to the full EP whether to adopt, amend, or reject proposed legislation. The EP also may establish temporary committees on specific issues or committees of inquiry on breaches of EU law. Forty-eight EP delegations maintain parliament-to-parliament relations throughout the world (including with the U.S. Congress).
Location and Administration

The EP’s official seat is in Strasbourg, France (a location near Germany symbolic of postwar peace), where plenaries typically are held once per month. Committee meetings and some part-plenary sessions occur in Brussels, Belgium. A Secretariat of over 7,000 nonpartisan civil servants and contract staff, based in both Brussels and Luxembourg, provides administrative and technical support. MEPs and political groups also have their own staff assistants (around 3,000 personnel total). The EP has faced criticism that its multiple locations entail a wasteful duplication of resources and sizeable commuting costs, as well as calls for greater transparency about MEPs’ office and travel expenses. The EP tightened ethics rules in 2023 following the so-called Qatargate corruption scandal involving alleged bribes paid to several MEPs and staffers. In 2025, allegations of corruption and bribery within the EP involving China’s Huawei technology company renewed questions about EP lobbying and transparency rules.




Source: Created by CRS, drawn from European Parliament data. For current EP seats, see https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/table, updated regularly. For 2019-2024EP seats, see https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/european-results/2019-2024/outgoing-parliament/.


The 2024 EP Elections


In the June 2024 elections, the overall size of the EP increased to 720 MEPs due to EU demographic changes. Pro-EU center-right EPP and center-left S&D retained their positions as the two largest groups. Voter concerns about migration, the economy, and EU climate policies helped drive increased support for euroskeptic parties and a loss of seats for the centrist, economically liberal, pro-EU Renew Europe (RE) group and the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA), composed of pro-environment parties and leftist regional parties (e.g., Catalonian, Corsican). Despite the gains by euroskeptics, the EPP, S&D, RE, and Greens/EFA hold a combined 450 seats (63%). Average turnout across the EU was 51% (same as the 2019 election).

Euroskeptic parties in the EP hold a range of views, including on EU reforms and attitudes toward Russia. The largest euroskeptic group in the new EP is Patriots for Europe (PfE), an alliance of far-right parties. The Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) is farther right and more stridently euroskeptic. The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is considered a more moderately euroskeptic group. The Left group includes former communist parties and some far-left EU critics.

In the new EP’s first year, one analysis indicated that the EPP, S&D, and RE voted alike in 88% of decisive EP plenary votes. The EPP also has cooperated with ECR (regarded by the EPP as pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, and pro-rule of law) and with PfE and ESN on selected issues (including a resolution on Venezuela, changes to an EU deforestation rule and corporate sustainability reporting rules, and measures to facilitate migrant returns). The EPP’s willingness to partner at times with ECR, PfE, and ESN reportedly has generated tensions with S&D, RE, and the Greens/EFA.

The United States, Congress, and the EP

With the Lisbon Treaty, the EP gained a more prominent role in some aspects of U.S.-EU relations, particularly with the right to approve or reject international agreements. In 2010, the EP initially rejected a U.S.-EU accord on countering terrorist financing due to concerns about U.S. data privacy safeguards; the EP subsequently approved this accord and other U.S.-EU information-sharing and data protection agreements. EP approval of some regulations is necessary to fully implement EU commitments on tariffs under the 2025 U.S.-EU framework agreement on trade, tariffs, and other issues; the EP considered and negotiated some changes to the regulations amid broader U.S.-EU tensions and U.S. legal and policy developments.


More generally, the EP’s role in EU lawmaking may affect certain U.S. interests. The EP was central to shaping and approving the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which applies to many U.S. companies doing business in Europe. In the 118th Congress, some House and Senate Members voiced concern that EU digital rules approved by the EP could target U.S. technology firms; such concerns persist in the 119th Congress, and Trump Administration officials and some Members also have criticized EU digital rules as censoring free speech. Meanwhile, some EP positions on China have aligned with U.S. concerns, for example, about China’s military provocations against Taiwan. Many MEPs support Ukraine and EU sanctions on Russia (although decisions on sanctions rest with the member states). Some MEPs also have welcomed EU efforts to help boost member states’ defense spending and Europe’s defense industry.

Interparliamentary exchanges between Congress and the EP date back to the 1970s. The Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) has been the formal mechanism for engagement between the U.S. House of Representatives and the EP since 1999. TLD meetings are intended to take place twice a year to discuss various political and economic issues. Some MEPs and analysts have long argued for further enhancing cooperation with Congress, suggesting that closer ties could help strengthen U.S.-EU relations and reduce frictions. At the same time, structural and procedural differences between Congress and the EP could pose challenges to greater legislative cooperation.


About the author: Kristin Archick, Section Research Manager

Source: This article was published by Congressional Research Service (CRS).

About CRS
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.


View all posts by CRS →

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

 

Defying Russia: Poland and Germany plan massive offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea

Defying Russia: Poland and Germany plan massive offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea
Copyright Anadolu

By Diana Resnik
Published on

Despite hybrid attacks from Russia, Poland is betting on offshore wind power from the Baltic Sea. At a forum in Berlin, one message was clear: the region could become Europe’s next major energy hub. Will Europe seize this opportunity?

Germany's offshore wind energy expansion is progressing only slowly. Yet after phasing out nuclear power, the country has effectively put all its eggs in one basket. For too long, Germany remained dependent on imports of fossil fuels. However, Russia has now been ruled out as an energy supplier due to its full-scale war against Ukraine, while the conflict involving Iran and the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have placed Germany's energy-dependent economy in an increasingly precarious position.

Jan Tombiński: 'A Good Crisis Should Not Be Wasted'

“A good crisis should not be wasted,” says Jan TombiÅ„ski, Poland’s ambassador to Germany. He cites a Chinese proverb that carries a powerful message: every crisis also presents an opportunity.

That opportunity was the focus of discussion on Tuesday at the 4th German-Polish Energy Transition Forum in Berlin. Diplomats and business leaders from Germany and Poland gathered at the Polish Embassy to explore joint solutions to emerging challenges.

According to Tombiński, Poland has now become an even more important economic partner for Germany than the United States. The economies of both countries are deeply interconnected. Closer German-Polish cooperation in offshore energy offers significant opportunities to strengthen Europe's overall energy sovereignty.

The Baltic Sea is the key area for this cooperation. Yet Germany has so far been hesitant to expand offshore installations there, potentially missing a major opportunity to increase energy independence through cross-border collaboration.

Warsaw has also recognized that it became overly dependent on energy imports. “We put ourselves in this position, and we must get ourselves out of it,” says Jacek Kostrzewa, President and CEO of the National Energy Conservation Agency (KAPE).

Poland’s economy is thriving. While many major European economies are stagnating, Poland has consistently grown faster than the EU average for years. Real GDP growth of approximately 3.3 to 3.5 percent is expected in 2026.

How Poland’s Strategy Works

Konrad Wojnarowski, State Secretary at Poland’s Ministry of Energy, explains the country's approach. Russia is no longer considered a reliable partner, while war continues to destabilize the Middle East. As a result, Poland is pursuing a strategy based on “diversification of energy sources.”

Onshore and offshore renewable energy must continue to expand, while energy storage infrastructure must be developed. At the same time, Poland intends to continue investing in nuclear power. “Strengthening security and ensuring supply” is the guiding principle.

The costs of inadequate preparation, Wojnarowski warns, would be enormous. “A nationwide blackout would cost Poland €9.5 billion per day.” Therefore, Poland’s objective is “as little dependence on Russia as possible.”

Poland has significantly accelerated the expansion of wind energy. The country's installed onshore wind capacity surpassed the 2,000-megawatt mark years ago and has now exceeded 11 gigawatts (11,000 megawatts), enough to supply approximately seven to ten million households annually.

Poland’s first offshore wind farm is already under active construction and is expected to become fully operational in the second half of 2026.

Which Direction Will Europe Take?

But where is Europe heading?

“Cross-border cooperation is extremely important,” says Piotr WiÅ›niewski, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Polish Chamber of Renewable and Distributed Energy (PIGEOR) and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of EnercoNet.

“We need the right infrastructure. In twenty years, it will work very well,” WiÅ›niewski says.

Germany’s offshore wind activity in the Baltic Sea remains significantly smaller than in the North Sea. The Baltic 1 and Baltic 2 offshore wind farms off the coast of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania feed electricity into the German grid but remain part of a relatively limited regional expansion effort.

By contrast, Poland is pursuing a much more dynamic development strategy in the Baltic Sea region and is rapidly expanding its capacity. In addition to Baltic Power, projects such as Baltic 3 and Baltic 9+ are currently under development. German companies are increasingly involved as suppliers and project developers.

Dr. Elmar Stracke, Strategy and Policy Advisor at the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), confirms that Germany’s offshore wind sector faces challenges.

“Things are moving better in Poland than they are here,” Stracke says. Germany needs more efficient spatial planning and greater efficiency in achieving its offshore expansion targets.

According to Stracke, the future lies neither in Germany nor in Poland alone, but offshore—in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.

“The sea is the space that matters, not the individual coastline,” he says.

However, this vision requires major investments in energy infrastructure. “The infrastructure of the energy system must be resilient enough not to throw us off course.”

Hybrid Threats in the Baltic Sea: Taking Responsibility

The Baltic Sea presents not only opportunities but also significant challenges.

The region has become a central stage for hybrid threats. Russia has increasingly relied on signal interference, sabotage, and provocations aimed at critical Western infrastructure and at increasing political pressure on European supporters of Ukraine.

Undersea telecommunications cables, data links, and gas pipelines face constant threats. At the same time, growing interference signals over the Baltic Sea are disrupting the navigation systems of both ships and aircraft

Wojnarowski’s response is straightforward: Europe must assume greater responsibility from both a military and an energy-security perspective.

Poland is the largest recipient of the European SAFE (Security Action for Europe) defence financing program. The initiative is helping modernize the country’s armed forces while strengthening its domestic defence industry, which also contributes to securing the Baltic Sea region.

Will Germany Unlock the Baltic Sea’s Potential?

Dr. Dirk Biermann, Chief Operating Officer of transmission system operator 50Hertz, emphasizes that the company feels a responsibility to make greater use of the Baltic Sea’s potential.

50Hertz operates the high-voltage electricity transmission grid in north-eastern Germany and is already making significant efforts to develop the region’s still largely untapped opportunities.

According to estimates by the European Commission from 2019, the technical offshore wind potential for all EU countries bordering the Baltic Sea exceeds 90 gigawatts.

The initiative also coincides with the upcoming 35th anniversary of the German-Polish Treaty of Good Neighbourship, providing a symbolic boost for future cooperation.

Several projects are already in development to advance this vision. Among them is the Bornholm Energy Island concept, designed as a central offshore energy hub in the Baltic Sea region.

The Bornholm Energy Island Diana Resnik, Euronews


Additional plans include cross-border subsea cable connections linking offshore wind farms with power grids in Germany, Denmark, Poland, and the Baltic states, enabling the exchange of renewable electricity between countries.

A joint subsea interconnector between Lithuania, Latvia, and Germany—the Baltic-German PowerLink—is also under consideration. The project aims to strengthen cross-border electricity trade across the Baltic Sea region and facilitate the integration of up to 2 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity.

The Baltic-German PowerLink Diana Resnik, Euronews

Overall, the trend is clearly moving toward diversification and resilience—toward a more interconnected and integrated energy market in the Baltic Sea region.




 

‘Coal power has lost its status’: Solar power outstrips coal in US despite Trump's attacks

Solar panels operate on a farm with cattle Tuesday, April 28, 2026, in Christiana, Tenn.
Copyright AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel

By Angela Symons with AP
Published on

States won by Trump in the 2024 election accounted for 74 per cent of all solar capacity installed in the first quarter of 2026.

Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the US and remains the leading source of new power.

Data released on 10 June by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the US despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8 per cent, Ember said. Coal supplied 12.2 per cent, its fourth-lowest monthly share ever.

“For years solar power has risen in the US electricity mix," says Nicolas Fulghum, senior energy and data analyst at Ember. "At the same time, coal power has lost its status, first as the largest source in the US mix, and then gradually over the years has fallen even further.”

Solar also became the third-largest source of electricity in the US in May, behind natural gas and nuclear, Fulghum says. Coal generation hit an all-time monthly low in April and rebounded only modestly in May, allowing increasing solar generation to overtake coal, he adds.

US electricity demand is increasing

Electricity is produced by converting sources of energy – fossil fuels, renewable resources and nuclear – into electrical power. Burning coal, oil and natural gas for electricity emits carbon dioxide, trapping heat in the atmosphere and warming the planet. By contrast, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower and nuclear are carbon-free.

After about two decades of essentially flat electricity consumption in the US, electricity demand is increasing to power artificial intelligence, grow domestic manufacturing and electrify transportation and heating. Fulghum says he expects to see more months where solar exceeds coal generation, before overtaking it on an annual basis in a few years.

These milestones signify that solar “has staying power” at a time where there's less support for renewable energy at the federal level, he adds.

Wind and solar combined have overtaken coal in the past, and wind power alone has outpaced coal during spring months when wind speeds pick up. Ember gets its hourly and monthly data from the US Energy Information Administration.

Globally, electricity generation from renewables is growing rapidly. Renewables will become the largest global energy source, used for almost 45 per cent of electricity generation by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency.

Trump helps the struggling US coal industry while curtailing solar and wind

Last week, Trump announced a plan to boost the struggling US coal industry by spending nearly $700 million (€606m) to support coal-fired power plants and coal exports. Trump said at a White House event that “coal’s a great business”, and that "in terms of power, there’s really nothing like it”.

Martin Pochtaruk, CEO and founder of Canadian-based solar panel manufacturer Heliene, says Trump can say that coal is coming back, but investors will invest their money in whatever brings the best return. And for power generation that is solar, making it the fastest-growing fuel, he adds.

A White House spokeswoman defended the administration's overall energy policies, saying they were geared toward strengthening the country's security.

“The President has reversed the Left’s devastating policies, saved the American coal industry, prevented the retirement of more than 17 gigawatts of power, and saved lives during heightened demand periods," Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

A train with coal pauses on the tracks in Grafton, W.Va., March 18, 2026. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File

Solar remains the leading source of new power

While Trump is trying to reverse the coal industry's decline, solar has been the top source for new power for five years, SEIA says. SEIA and Wood Mackenzie say solar and battery storage were practically the only energy resources being built in the first quarter, making up 91 per cent of all new generating capacity.

The Trump administration has cancelled solar and wind projects, implemented policies that slowed clean energy permitting and development and terminated $7 billion (€6.06bn) in funding intended for affordable solar energy projects across the US.

“As power demand skyrockets, political and regulatory attacks are slowing down the exact resources we rely on,” Darren Van’t Hof, interim president and CEO of SEIA, says. “Impeding the only sector that is actively building new power is a reckless gamble that will only drive electricity bills higher.”

Several groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency over cancelling the Solar for All program. A district court dismissed the case last week citing lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have another filing pending in the Court of Federal Claims.

In a ruling on Saturday (6 June), a federal judge struck down guidance from the Internal Revenue Service restricting tax credits for wind and solar projects.

Trump has blamed renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power for skyrocketing energy costs. But energy analysts say recent price hikes are based on growing demand, ageing infrastructure and increasingly extreme weather events that are exacerbated by climate change. Most recently, the war in Iran that Trump launched has also led to a spike in energy cost

Top states for solar voted for Trump

States won by Trump in the 2024 election accounted for 74 per cent of all solar capacity installed in the first quarter of 2026, with Texas, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Arizona and Mississippi ranking among the top 10 states for new solar additions, SEIA says. The US now exceeds a total of six million installations nationwide across all solar sectors, which includes large-scale solar arrays, commercial, community solar and residential or rooftop solar.

Johanna Neumann, at the Environment America Research and Policy Center, says it's “good news for our health and our planet that solar continues to grow”, and also, not surprising.

“Today we can harness solar more affordably than any other energy source. It’s scalable. And it’s also our most abundant renewable energy source,” says Neumann, senior director of the centre's campaign for 100 per cent renewable energy. “So I think it’s hard to keep the lid on a good idea, especially if the economics are tilting in your favour as well, which they are in the case of solar.”

Environment America's renewable energy dashboard shows that 32 US states generated at least 10 per cent of their retail electricity sales from solar, wind and geothermal energy last year, compared to 18 states in 2016. Clean energy in the South is booming, particularly in Florida, Arkansas and Mississippi, Neumann says.

“I think there is a misconception in the United States that clean energy is something for the coasts and liberal cities,” she says. “The true story of renewable energy is a 50-state story.”