World
The European Green Deal faces its moment of truth: nature restoration

The Green Deal, described by Ursula von der Leyen as “Europe’s man on the moon moment,” is about to undergo a litmus test.
On Thursday morning, members of the European Parliament’s environment committee (ENVI) are set to convene and vote on the Nature Restoration Law, a draft piece of legislation that has become the prime target of an extreme opposition campaign.
The controversy around the law has taken Brussels – and now Strasbourg – by storm, pitting a coalition of conservatives, farmers and fishers against left-wing parties, NGOs, scientists and, surprisingly, the private sector.
The backlash has reached such intensity that the first point on Thursday’s agenda will ask MEPs whether to reject the legislation in its entirety, without further amendments or consultations. Two affiliate committees, agriculture (AGRI) and fisheries (PECH), have already struck down the text, raising the stakes even higher for what is expected to be a knife-edge decision.
How exactly did nature restoration become so contentious?
The law currently on the table was first presented by the European Commission in June 2022. The text, referred to as the “first continent-wide, comprehensive law of its kind,” aims to restore habitats and species that have been degraded by human activity and climate change.
It sets out legally-binding targets in seven specific topics, from pollinating insects to marine ecosystems, that put together should cover at least 20% of the European Union’s land and sea areas by 2030. (The target was later boosted to 30% in order to align the bloc with the landmark deal struck at COP15 in December.)
The Nature Restoration Law, like all pieces that make up the European Green Deal, is ambitious and far-reaching, reflecting the extent of the problem it tries to tackle: 81% of European habitats are in poor status, with peatlands, grasslands and dunes hit the worst, according to the Commission’s estimates.
The executive considers climate change and biodiversity loss to be the two sides of the same coin: one phenomenon exacerbates the other, and vice versa, making it indispensable to tackle both challenges at the same time.
The gloves are off
While this reasoning is shared across the political spectrum, the design of the Nature Restoration Law, and in particular its legally binding targets, has sparked an outcry from right-wing parties, who claim the legislation, in its current form, will force farmers to abandon some of their fields, endanger Europe’s supply chains, push food prices up and even hinder the roll-out of renewables.
COPA-COGECA and Europeche, the leading associations that lobby for European farmers and fishers, respectively, have called the draft law an “ill-thought out, unrealistic and unimplementable” proposal that is bound to have “devastating consequences” for farming, forestry and fisheries.
But no other group personifies this opposition better than the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the parliament’s largest formation, which has launched a relentless campaign to bring down the Nature Restoration Law.
Following several rounds of negotiations with other political parties, the EPP decided last month to walk out from the talks. Days later, the EPP submitted the agenda point to the ENVI committee to outright reject the legislation.
“This piece of legislation is simply a bad proposal,” Manfred Weber, chair of the EPP group, said on Tuesday, urging other lawmakers to vote down the law. “This is not the right moment. This is our position.”
In Weber’s view, the obligations imposed by the Nature Restoration Law would spill over beyond Europe and worsen food insecurity in low-income countries, a scenario he linked to the ongoing dispute over tariff-free grain coming from Ukraine.
“Nobody can tell me what is the answer on food production. The issue is huge! We talk about North Africa, about migration. People are escaping because they don’t feel they have a perspective anymore,” the German MEP said.
Weber then refuted accusations that he was blackmailing EPP lawmakers to abide by the party’s official line and accused the European Commission of employing “external infrastructure,” that is NGOs, to defend the Nature Restoration Law.
“Give me arguments. Give me a better piece of legislation,” Weber said.
That same day, Stanislav Polčák, a Czech MEP who sits with the EPP, announced on Twitter he would actually vote in favour of the legislation, saying “the prosperity of our society goes hand in hand with the quality of the environment.”
Hours later, he had a change of heart.
“I do not consider the EPP’s overall rejection of the proposal to be a good decision, but I decided to respect it,” he wrote. “As my position became so fundamentally against my group, I have asked to be substituted at Thursday’s vote.”
‘Fundamentally wrong’
In the face of mounting criticism, environmental organisations have struck a surprising alliance with the private sector to defend the Nature Restoration Law.
In a public letter released ahead of Thursday’s vote, CEOs and top executives from 50 companies, including IKEA, Nestlé, H&M, Iberdrola and Unilever, urged European lawmakers to “urgently” adopt rules on nature protection to create legal certainty for businesses, ensure fair competition and foster innovation.
“Our dependence on a healthy environment is fundamental to the resilience of our economies and, ultimately, our long-term success,” the CEOs wrote.
WindEurope, the association that represents Europe’s wind industry, published its own statement debunking one of the EPP’s most widely circulated claims: the Nature Restoration Law will make it harder to deploy renewables across Europe.
“This is fundamentally wrong. Nature restoration and the expansion of wind energy go hand in hand,” the association said.
Meanwhile, ClientEarth, BirdLife Europe, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have stepped up their public outreach to directly counteract the EPP’s no-holds-barred opposition, which the NGOs see as influenced by the upcoming European elections and the abrupt rise of BBB, the agrarian populist party that has disrupted Dutch politics.
“It’s a campaign that has been based on the active distribution of disinformation,” Ioannis Agapakis, a lawyer at ClientEarth, told Euronews in an interview.
“Each of the arguments that are being used goes against science, goes against the letter of the law, and for sure, not in support of the European Green Deal. So for me, the turn of events has been really, really concerning on that front.”
Agapakis argues nature restoration can take many forms and adapt to the socio-economic conditions of different regions, making it a case-by-case strategy rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. The law is “quite flexible,” the lawyer says, because it would allow EU countries to draft their own national plans to meet the overall target.
“For anyone that has read the actual proposal, it is clear that nowhere in the proposal does the Commission mention that agricultural production needs to stop in the areas where restoration will take place,” Agapakis said.
“On the other hand, I think that there are certain restoration practices that will boost agricultural production. So these types of narratives and these types of arguments are, first and foremost, not based on the content of the law itself.”
For its part, the European Commission, whose president, Ursula von der Leyen, is affiliated with the EPP, is trying to find a balance between safeguarding the integrity of its proposal and staying away from the raucous fight between political parties.
The executive has circulated non-papers, seen by Euronews, in which it refutes one by one the main points of criticism levelled at the restoration law, including the notion that nature restoration precludes any sort of economic activity.
This correlation is inaccurate, the Commission says, because nature restoration does not require the creation of protected areas, which is a separate legal category. A restored habitat can in fact prolong soil lifespans and offer farmers long-term opportunities to reinvent their practices and reduce their carbon footprint.
“The democratic process is ongoing,” a Commission spokesperson said in a statement. “It is now for the ENVI Committee and the plenary to express themselves.”

World
Cubs Win Again in Wrigley View Rooftop Lawsuit

A federal judge this week denied a motion to send the Chicago Cubs’ lawsuit against Wrigley View Rooftop—a company that provides 200 guests with a view of neighboring Wrigley Field in exchange for fees—to arbitration. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected Wrigley View Rooftop’s request that she reconsider her denial in January of the company’s motion to dismiss.
Last year the Cubs sued Wrigley View Rooftop and company owner Aidan Dunican, claiming that Wrigley View Rooftop engages in illegal conduct by selling seats to watch Cubs games, concerts and other events from an adjacent building. The lawsuit includes claims for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, unfair competition and unauthorized use of Cubs’ trademarks.
Wrigley View Rooftop denies wrongdoing and insists the dispute must be resolved out-of-court through arbitration. The problem with that argument, Coleman explained, is that the relevant arbitration clause expired in 2023.
That clause stems from the Cubs and rooftop businesses near Wrigley Field, including Wrigley View Rooftop, settling previous litigation back in 2004. The settlement agreements, which contemplated rooftop businesses sharing revenue with the Cubs and contained arbitration clauses, were set to expire in 2023. Those businesses, except for Wrigley View Rooftop, accepted the Cubs’ offers to extend the settlements beyond 2023.
Last year–after the expiration of the settlement agreement–Wrigley View Rooftop defied the Cubs by selling tickets to games and using Cubs’ trademarks. The company is continuing to sell tickets in the 2025 MLB season and uses the tagline, “the last Wrigley rooftop to be independently owned and operated!”
Wrigley View Rooftop maintains the arbitration language should survive expiration of the settlement agreement. As Wrigley View Rooftop tells it, the dispute is mainly about use of trademarks without permission and whether the Cubs have a right to demand royalties from Wrigley View Rooftop. The company says this dispute concerns a legal right that “accrued or vested” under the settlement agreement, which contemplated royalties in exchange for trademark usage. The Cubs disagree; the team says a plain reading of the settlement agreement makes clear the arbitration language ended when the agreement expired. The idea of contractual rights and restrictions continuing beyond a contract’s expiration doesn’t add up, the team insists.
Coleman agreed with the Cubs, saying she found Wrigley View Rooftop’s argument “unfounded.” After the settlement agreement expired, the judge explained, the Cubs were “not entitled to collect royalties,” and Wrigley View Rooftop was not “entitled to use” Cubs’ trademarks without permission. Along those lines, Coleman noted, the Cubs “do not allege that the expired” settlement provided a right to collect royalties from Wrigley View Rooftop. Instead, the team argues Wrigley View Rooftop “improperly used the trademarks after the expiration of the Settlement Agreement without providing any royalties” to the Cubs.
According to court filings, pretrial discovery of relevant facts must be completed by the parties by June 12. If the case eventually goes to a jury trial, it could resolve a longstanding property law debate over whether rooftop businesses can lawfully sell seats to watch a live performance taking place in an adjacent and famed building, Wrigley Field, built in 1914.
World
A Berlin doctor has been charged with the killings of 15 patients under palliative care

A doctor in Berlin has been charged with murder over the deaths of 15 patients under palliative care, prosecutors said Wednesday. He is also accused of trying to cover up the evidence by starting fires in their homes.
The doctor was part of a nursing service’s end-of-life care team and was initially suspected in the deaths of just four patients. That number has crept higher since last summer, and investigators now say they’ve found evidence linking him to the deaths of 15 people between September 22, 2021, and July 24 last year.
2 PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN A KNIFE ATTACK IN GERMANY; SCHOLZ SAYS THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES
The victims’ ages ranged from 25 to 94. Most died in their own homes.
A doctor in Berlin has been charged with murder over the deaths of 15 patients. (REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch)
He allegedly administered an anesthetic and a muscle relaxer to the patients without their knowledge or consent. The drug cocktail then allegedly paralyzed the respiratory muscles. Respiratory arrest and death followed within minutes, prosecutors said.
The doctor — a 40-year-old man whose name hasn’t been released, in line with German privacy rules — has been in custody since Aug. 6. Prosecutors said Wednesday that he has not yet responded to the case against him.
The charges were filed to the Berlin state court, which will now have to decide whether to bring the case to trial and if so, when.
Murder charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. Prosecutors said they aim to ask the court to establish that the suspect bears particularly severe guilt, meaning that he wouldn’t be eligible for release after 15 years as is usually the case in Germany. They also want him to be banned from his profession for life.
World
Trump touts ‘progress’ in Japan trade talks, as uncertainty roils stocks

Wall Street closes sharply lower as US Federal Reserve chair warns tariffs could lead to slower growth, higher inflation.
United States President Donald Trump has touted “big progress” in trade talks with Japan after making an unexpected intervention in the negotiations, as uncertainty caused by his sweeping tariffs continues to roil stock markets.
Trump made his comments on Wednesday after making the surprise decision to sit in on negotiations between his administration and Japanese officials in Washington, DC.
“A Great Honor to have just met with the Japanese Delegation on Trade. Big Progress!” Trump wrote on Truth Social after the talks, which included US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawa.
Akazawa said after the meeting that Trump wanted to reach a deal before the end of his 90-day pause on his “reciprocal” tariffs, with the Japanese hoping to see the agreement sealed “as soon as possible.”
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said the negotiations would not be easy, but the initial rounds of talks had “created a foundation for the next steps”.
Like dozens of other US trade partners, Japan has been hit with a 10 percent baseline tariff in addition to duties of 25 percent on cars, steel and aluminium, which rank among the East Asian country’s top exports.
Japan, a top US security ally and its fourth-largest trade partner, is also facing a targeted 24 percent “reciprocal” tariff under Trump’s “liberation day” trade measures, nearly all of which have been paused until July 9.
“Japan’s industry is so closely integrated in the US economy that everyone is very concerned about the trade talks,” Martin Schulz, chief policy economist at Fujitsu in Tokyo, told Al Jazeera.
“Although there cannot be winners in a trade war, we are also quite optimistic that agreeable results can be achieved. Japan is the largest investor in the US and interested in investing more.”
“If both economies can be kept on a growth track, higher imports from the US become possible,” Schulz added.
The US-Japanese talks came as Wall Street racked up further heavy losses amid continuing uncertainty over Trump’s trade salvoes.
The benchmark S&P 500 closed 2.24 percent lower on Wednesday, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 3.07 percent.
The losses followed a warning by US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell that Trump’s steep tariffs could leave the US economy grappling with weak growth, rising unemployment and higher inflation all at once.
“We may find ourselves in the challenging scenario in which our dual-mandate goals are in tension,” Powell said in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on Wednesday, referring to the US central bank’s twin goals of maximum employment and stable prices.
“If that were to occur, we would consider how far the economy is from each goal, and the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to close.”
US stocks have been on a rollercoaster ride since Trump’s inauguration in January, alternating between sharp dips and big jumps amid his back-and-forth tariff announcements.
Financial markets and businesses have been on tenterhooks waiting for signs that the US president is open to watering down or scrapping many of his tariffs in exchange for concessions from US trading partners.
Trump administration officials have said that more than 75 countries have reached out to begin negotiations on trade.
After the latest losses on Wall Street, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are down about 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively, since the start of the year.
Asian stock markets got off to a better start on Thursday, with Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225, South Korea’s KOSPI and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index each rising more than 0.5 percent in early trading.
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Film Review: 'Warfare' is an Immersive and Intense Combat Experience – Awards Radar
-
News1 week ago
3 Are Killed in Shooting Near Fredericksburg, Va., Authorities Say
-
Health1 week ago
As RFK Jr. Champions Chronic Disease Prevention, Key Research Is Cut
-
News1 week ago
Boris Johnson Has Run-In With Feisty Ostrich During Texas Trip
-
World1 week ago
EPP boss Weber fells 'privileged' to be targeted by billboard campaign
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta got caught gaming AI benchmarks
-
World1 week ago
DR Congo repatriates three US citizens convicted over failed coup
-
News1 week ago
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire Agencies’ Leaders