Swedish megabrand Ikea’s affordable self-assembly furniture has made Scandi style the go-to look for homes, hotels and Airbnbs all over Europe. More than 30 million of its ubiquitous Poang armchairs, for example—curious-but-memorable names also being an Ikea speciality)—have been sold since launch in 1977, making it one of the most popular furniture products ever.
But the company has another, less well-known claim to fame. Since 2009 it has invested over €4.2 billion ($4.9 billion) in renewable energy, which now provides 75% of the electricity used by the business to make, transport and retail all that furniture. “Today, it turns out that we are also a mid-sized utility company, although to be honest that was not part of the strategy,” deadpans Jesper Brodin, CEO of Ingka (the largest Ikea franchisee, responsible for 90% of group sales).
It’s only half a joke: if their output was sold on the power market, the 49 wind farms and 26 solar parks owned by Ingka do produce enough low carbon electricity to meet the needs of 1.47 million EU households.
The investment has certainly paid off in carbon terms. The firm’s CO2 emissions—scope 1,2 and 3—are down 30% since the Paris Agreement of 2015, while sales have grown by 24% over the same period. Yet what started out as a desire to do the right thing for the planet and the brand (68% of Ikea customers think that climate change is the most serious global challenge, says Brodin) has morphed into an unexpected source of competitive advantage.
$4.9 billion
Ikea’s investment in renewable energy since 2009
“When we set out to invest, we were not sure that it would be smart from an economic point of view. But our energy bills are down 27% [from 2015] so we have saved a lot of money. Over a three-to-five-year period, renewables come out at about half the price [of fossil fuel generated power]. People think that renewable energy will come at a financial premium, but actually it’s the opposite.”
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a two-year spike in wholesale gas prices, a similar change of emphasis has occurred in Brussels. The EU Commission’s latest plan for its carbon economy—the Clean Industrial Deal, announced in February—has dropped previous appeals to the collective consciences of business leaders to help save the planet, in favor of focusing on the competitiveness advantages of further adopting renewable power across the continent.
Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has said that the deal will “cut the ties that still hold our companies back, and make a clear business case for Europe”.
Alongside reforms to electricity and gas markets designed to cut energy costs, the Clean Industrial Deal aims to mobilize €100 billion of EU funding to support low-carbon manufacturing, particularly in hard-to-abate industries like metals, chemicals and cement that rely on hydrocarbons for their highly energy-intensive processes. The Commission predicts the policy program will create over 500,000 new jobs, and ample opportunities for European businesses looking to carve a competitive, low-carbon niche.
Green steel start-up Stegra is one such company. It has raised a total of €6.5 billion (including a €250 million grant from the EU innovation fund) to build a plant at Boden in the north of Sweden which will use 100% renewable energy to produce 5 million tonnes of homegrown ‘green’ steel per annum by 2030, with a carbon footprint 95% smaller than a traditional ‘brown’ steel plant.
Stegra’s process uses renewable power to generate hydrogen, which is then used not as a fuel but as a chemical reagent. Production will begin at a lower level in 2026, and despite a 25%-30% price premium over brown steel, it is already proving popular: the firm has forward-sold around 1.25 million tonnes—half of its initial production target—to customers eager to get in on the green steel ground floor.
“Our customers are planning ahead, they see that brown steel will eventually be more expensive than green steel once the full cost of carbon is included. They are not buying it for branding or marketing purposes, it’s pure economics,” says Henrik Henriksson, Stegra’s CEO.
High costs, big barriers
If von der Leyen’s vision of secure, green growth is to be realized at scale for more companies, Europe needs to ramp up the transition to renewables significantly, at the same time as bringing down costs.
By the end of 2023, Europe (excluding Russia) had 786 gigawatts of installed renewable generation capacity, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). That’s an increase of 79% since 2014, and the pace has continued since, with a record increase of 65.6 gigawatts in the EU alone last year and another record predicted this year.
However, it still leaves a long way to go to reach the EU’s ambitious targets of 69% of electricity consumption and 42.5% of total energy coming from renewables by 2030. According to the European Commission’s 2022 REPowerEU plan to end reliance on Russian fossil fuels, the EU would need to nearly double its capacity to 1,236 gigawatts to achieve this goal. Some estimates suggest this will cost around €1.5 trillion.
Then there’s the need to update Europe’s grids, not just to handle the greater peak loads from these investments, but also to cover the distance between the best sites for renewable generation (solar in southern Europe, wind in coastal western Europe) and distant urban centers. So far, network investment has considerably lagged investments in renewables themselves.
“Because of the variability of wind [and solar], there is an urgent need for more interconnectors, and more investment in grids,” says Christophe Zipf, spokesperson for WindEurope, the trade body for the EU wind energy industry. One such mooted project is the North Sea Renewables Grid, a £20bn project to link 400 wind turbines in the North Sea, to facilitate the exchange of wind power between countries on both sides of the water. “Where there are such clusters it makes sense to link them to more than one country—the U.K., Denmark and Belgium for example,” Zipf says.
But where will the money come from? Given the right regulatory environment, there is capital ready to move, says Francecso Starace, partner at EQT, the world’s third largest private equity investor, which has invested €17 billion in renewables in Europe over the past 15 years. There is already quite an appetite for investment in the grid and distribution networks. The networks need to be restructured for the modern world, not for the world of 50 years ago when they were built.
“Regulators have a major role to play, but they need to understand that more money needs to be invested into the networks. Network operators need regulation that incentivizes investment rather than discouraging them from doing that, which has been the case for many years,” says Starace, a former CEO of Enel.
In practice, pro-investment regulation can mean several things: improvements in investor returns, relaxation of planning restrictions and greater central coordination of national transmission upgrade schemes.
Even if all that happens, what of the days when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing? Renewables may be homegrown, but their output is inherently unpredictable.
“Network operators need regulation that incentivizes investment rather than discouraging them from doing that, which has been the case for many years”Starace, former CEO of Enel
As a result, Starace believes the next big thing will be grid-scale battery storage. “We believebatteries will be the next source of explosive growth. Battery storage can deal with fluctuations, and batteries are becoming pervasively competitive and a compelling investment.”
Battery infrastructure on this scale would also require substantial capital, of course, altogether making the idea of cheaper power by 2030 seem rather less likely: whether through bills or taxes, someone’s got to pay.
But relying on fickle global gas markets no longer seems an option once your main supplier turns into an adversary, and in the long term the economic logic is there: once the infrastructure is built, the marginal unit cost of renewable power is far lower. In the meantime, as companies like Ikea and Stegra are showing, European businesses are increasingly looking for opportunities from the transition itself, rather than just waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.
With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.
“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.
The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.
CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
Reversing recent guardrails
MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.
The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.
The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.
MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.
The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.
“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.
The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.
“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.
Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market.
The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.
That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.
“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”
By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump.
Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.
The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.
The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.
“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”
European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.
The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.
Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.
Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.
Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation.
“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.
Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.
The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.
Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.
Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.
Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.
AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.
The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.
The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives.
More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.
Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said.
The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.
“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”
To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.
The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.”
OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.”
Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.
Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.
Politics8 years ago