Latest news with #TheBigQuestion
Yahoo
04-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Big Question: Is a Swedish start-up the answer to Europe's ammunition problem?
TNT, or trinitrotoluene, was first developed in the late 1800s in Germany. It was initially produced as a yellow dye and only 30 years after its invention were its explosive properties discovered. It is now the most commonly used military explosive. And, after years of underinvestment and rise in demand due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in short supply in Europe. Sovereign defence is a hot topic right now, with the EU committing billions of euros in a bid to increase the bloc's military capacity. Some research suggests Russian ammunition production capabilities outweigh Europe's 4:1, though others think it could be as much as 6:1, and although Europe is home to some ammunition production giants such as Rheinmetall, BAE and KNDS, they don't produce their own TNT. In this episode of The Big Question, Joakim Sjöblom, CEO and co-founder of Sweden Ballistics (SWEBAL), sat down with Euronews' Mared Gwyn Jones to discuss increasing Europe's TNT production capacity, along with the economic and security benefits. Does Europe produce any TNT? There is currently one TNT producer in Europe, which is Nitro-Chem based in Poland, and much of their product is exported away from the EU. In April 2025, Nitro-Chem signed a $310 million (€269m) deal to supply 18,000 tonnes of TNT over a 3 year period, destined for the US military. It's estimated that Russia has an annual resource of 4.5-5 million artillery shells per year–with around 2M coming from allies North Korea. Europe's output was roughly estimated at 600,000 shells in 2023 and working together with the US, the 2024 output was estimated at 1.2million shells. The NATO deterrence philosophy is linked to the idea that the likelihood of conflict is significantly reduced if both parties are equally armed. There's around 10kg of TNT in every shell. In order to produce a comparable amount to Russia, Europe would therefore need a supply of roughly 50,000 tonnes of TNT. While Nitro-Chem produces a good amount of TNT for Europe, supplies aren't currently sufficient, and the bloc relies heavily on Asian producers. Joakim fears the consequences of relying on external producers and only one local producer. 'If we go back to the COVID pandemic, we saw that the UK was producing vaccines but they were applying an export ban to it,' he recalls. 'If something were to happen in Poland, I am very certain there would be an export ban on TNT. Same goes for the Asian country that is currently exporting TNT. If there's a conflict in their proximity, there will be an export ban.' China is one of the world's largest producers of TNT, although NATO countries exclude the country from their supply chains. Related Concrete just got a makeover and could slash the cost of housing in Europe Car industry needs to 'shape up' to compete with Chinese EVs, says Volvo CEO Increasing TNT production in Europe Joakim's company SWEBAL is bringing TNT production back to Sweden and aims to be producing 4,500 tonnes per year of TNT at full capacity, enough for 400-450,000 shells by 2027. Whilst this isn't enough to plug Europe's shortfall, Joakim described it as a 'significant contribution' nevertheless. 'So Sweden used to have TNT manufacturing until 1998,' Joakim explained. 'But during this time when there was a lot of demilitarisation, you could refurbish TNT from the shells that you were demilitarising and the mining industry could get TNT almost for nothing. So there was no commercial incentive to run a TNT manufacturing plant in the 90s.' 'And now we're paying the debt for that,' he added. 'So we are actually building our plant 30 minutes from the old plant in Sweden and we're also building just three kilometres from the Alfred Nobel Dynamite factory, so we're building on very historical ground.' With the right planning, Joakim is confident the growing industry could not only increase the bloc's security, it could provide economic benefits too. 'European member states are spending €200 billion every year on defence material. More than 60% of that is purchased from American producers. 'If those components were to be manufactured in the EU, we would create more than 10 million jobs,' he added. SWEBAL is aiming for all of the machinery, materials and production in their supply chain to be sourced within a 550km radius. Not only is this good for the local economy, it helps to reduce lead time. Asian imports currently take over two months to arrive, as shipping is redirected around the Horn of Africa to avoid the Suez Canal. Related Defence sector outpaces overall job market in Europe amid rising security priorities Are EU citizens on board with higher defence spending? Building a European defence industry But while SWEBAL invests in scaling up production, is there significant funding for the European explosives industry? The EU's ReArm Europe 2030 plan could release up to €800 billion over the next four years, which includes a €150 billion loan instrument called SAFE (Security Action for Europe) to help member states prioritise homegrown companies. However, Joakim said procurement orders are not coming in from armed forces and member states as quickly as they are being asked to scale up. 'The risk profile is suboptimal right now. The industry needs to carry a lot of risk, which is a benefit as a new player in the industry, because we don't have the same shareholders to cater for and we don't have the same stock price that we consider on a quarterly basis,' he told The Big Question. 'My job here is to make sure that we prevent a future conflict, and making short-term profit is not high on my agenda.' Joakim also highlighted another limiting factor for the industry in Europe. 'One of the biggest risks that I see in the European military is that we are not harmonised. So intercompatibility: the tanks of this country should be compatible with ammunition from another country.' 'And in order to achieve that, the market also needs to evolve… To use a famous quote, 'you either have an army or you have another country's army in your country'. So I think the price we pay if we don't do it is going to be even higher.' The Big Question is a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today's agenda. Watch the video above to see the full discussion on European TNT production. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Euronews
04-08-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Is this Swedish start-up the answer to Europe's ammunition shortage?
TNT, or trinitrotoluene, was first developed in the late 1800s in Germany. It was initially produced as a yellow dye and only 30 years after its invention were its explosive properties discovered. It is now the most commonly used military explosive. And, after years of underinvestment and rise in demand due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in short supply in Europe. Sovereign defence is a hot topic right now, with the EU committing billions of euros in a bid to increase the bloc's military capacity. Some research suggests Russian ammunition production capabilities outweigh Europe's 4:1, though others think it could be as much as 6:1, and although Europe is home to some ammunition production giants such as Rheinmetall, BAE and KNDS, they don't produce their own TNT. In this episode of The Big Question, Joakim Sjöblom, CEO and co-founder of Sweden Ballistics (SWEBAL), sat down with Euronews' Mared Gwyn Jones to discuss increasing Europe's TNT production capacity, along with the economic and security benefits. Does Europe produce any TNT? There is currently one TNT producer in Europe, which is Nitro-Chem based in Poland, and much of their product is exported away from the EU. In April 2025, Nitro-Chem signed a $310 million (€269m) deal to supply 18,000 tonnes of TNT over a 3 year period, destined for the US military. It's estimated that Russia has an annual resource of 4.5-5 million artillery shells per year–with around 2M coming from allies North Korea. Europe's output was roughly estimated at 600,000 shells in 2023 and working together with the US, the 2024 output was estimated at 1.2million shells. The NATO deterrence philosophy is linked to the idea that the likelihood of conflict is significantly reduced if both parties are equally armed. There's around 10kg of TNT in every shell. In order to produce a comparable amount to Russia, Europe would therefore need a supply of roughly 50,000 tonnes of TNT. While Nitro-Chem produces a good amount of TNT for Europe, supplies aren't currently sufficient, and the bloc relies heavily on Asian producers. Joakim fears the consequences of relying on external producers and only one local producer. 'If we go back to the COVID pandemic, we saw that the UK was producing vaccines but they were applying an export ban to it,' he recalls. 'If something were to happen in Poland, I am very certain there would be an export ban on TNT. Same goes for the Asian country that is currently exporting TNT. If there's a conflict in their proximity, there will be an export ban.' China is one of the world's largest producers of TNT, although NATO countries exclude the country from their supply chains. Increasing TNT production in Europe Joakim's company SWEBAL is bringing TNT production back to Sweden and aims to be producing 4,500 tonnes per year of TNT at full capacity, enough for 400-450,000 shells by 2027. Whilst this isn't enough to plug Europe's shortfall, Joakim described it as a 'significant contribution' nevertheless. 'So Sweden used to have TNT manufacturing until 1998,' Joakim explained. 'But during this time when there was a lot of demilitarisation, you could refurbish TNT from the shells that you were demilitarising and the mining industry could get TNT almost for nothing. So there was no commercial incentive to run a TNT manufacturing plant in the 90s.' 'And now we're paying the debt for that,' he added. 'So we are actually building our plant 30 minutes from the old plant in Sweden and we're also building just three kilometres from the Alfred Nobel Dynamite factory, so we're building on very historical ground.' With the right planning, Joakim is confident the growing industry could not only increase the bloc's security, it could provide economic benefits too. 'European member states are spending €200 billion every year on defence material. More than 60% of that is purchased from American producers. 'If those components were to be manufactured in the EU, we would create more than 10 million jobs,' he added. SWEBAL is aiming for all of the machinery, materials and production in their supply chain to be sourced within a 550km radius. Not only is this good for the local economy, it helps to reduce lead time. Asian imports currently take over two months to arrive, as shipping is redirected around the Horn of Africa to avoid the Suez Canal. Building a European defence industry But while SWEBAL invests in scaling up production, is there significant funding for the European explosives industry? The EU's ReArm Europe 2030 plan could release up to €800 billion over the next four years, which includes a €150 billion loan instrument called SAFE (Security Action for Europe) to help member states prioritise homegrown companies. However, Joakim said procurement orders are not coming in from armed forces and member states as quickly as they are being asked to scale up. 'The risk profile is suboptimal right now. The industry needs to carry a lot of risk, which is a benefit as a new player in the industry, because we don't have the same shareholders to cater for and we don't have the same stock price that we consider on a quarterly basis,' he told The Big Question. 'My job here is to make sure that we prevent a future conflict, and making short-term profit is not high on my agenda.' Joakim also highlighted another limiting factor for the industry in Europe. 'One of the biggest risks that I see in the European military is that we are not harmonised. So intercompatibility: the tanks of this country should be compatible with ammunition from another country.' 'And in order to achieve that, the market also needs to evolve… To use a famous quote, 'you either have an army or you have another country's army in your country'. So I think the price we pay if we don't do it is going to be even higher.' The Big Question is a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today's agenda. Watch the video above to see the full discussion on European TNT production.
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Big Question: Do companies need to re-evaluate how they set climate goals?
By now, we're all used to seeing corporate sustainability pledges, promising things like carbon neutrality or net zero by 2050. However, can we truly trust that these pledges are credible and mean what we believe they do? 'We have a big issue in the broad environmental and sustainability space, where organisations are really trying to have their cake and eat it too,' Chris Hocknell, director at Eight Versa, said. 'They want to have these ambitious grand strategies to meet net zero or even carbon neutral. But they, in many respects, don't actually have the solutions within their control or they don't have the plans to get there.' And whilst an unrealistic roadmap is a problem, Chris thinks the entire way we look at sustainability is bad for business. 'I want to change how we evaluate carbon performance. It's kind of anti-innovation, it's anti-growth.' In this episode of The Big Question, Euronews' Business editor Angela Barnes is joined by sustainability consultant Chris Hocknell, to discuss where companies are going wrong with their climate targets. 'An honesty deficit' 'One of the problems is that it's not properly audited and verified, so we have companies that will use it incorrectly and say things that are technically untrue, but they can't actually be verified unless you have the data to dig into, so there's a lack of policing effectively,' Chris explained. He also suggested that both Apple and BP have been criticised for being unclear with their terminology. BP in particular, he noted, has set itself a target of achieving 'net zero operations' by 2050. However, this only applies to their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. 'It really means that they exclude the use of their product, the oil and gas itself, which is technically not correct. 'If your product is liquid carbon effectively, then oil is ultimately used to be combusted and turned into other products or even as a fuel. So your main product is not a net zero product,' Chris told The Big Question. In case you're unfamiliar with the scope system, here's a basic explainer. Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources owned and controlled by the organisation. Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy. Scope 3: Indirect emissions in the value chain. E.g From suppliers or from product use. Whilst Chris criticised BP's use of terminology, he acknowledged that oil and gas 'are the lifeblood of the whole economy and industrialised society' and suggested that focusing on making their direct emissions more efficient and being clearer with that messaging is the best foot forward. Related Concrete just got a makeover and could slash the cost of housing in Europe Banks backtracked on climate pledges last year, handing €750bn to fossil fuel firms Should we be suspicious of all climate pledges? Chris' outlook wasn't all doom and gloom. He highlighted how climate messaging does match the actions of many companies. 'Orsted is one where they've transitioned into obviously making green tech and are very large. They've got a very self-evident business model which is pivoting towards the technology of the future, in theory,' Chris explained. 'There are other companies like Patagonia [which] is a classic case study, they've internalised this sustainable and pro-environment philosophy into their business model but they're tailoring their message, their product to a slither of the market and I think the problem is that the companies that can actually reinvent or target their products to that kind of very pro-green element of the market is a minority.' For some industries, striving for 'net zero' or 'climate neutral' just isn't possible. 'We call them kind of hard to abate industries. You know, there's steel, glass, any of the big, heavy industry. There's not an option for them. 'They've got to keep doing what they're doing and we depend on it. So they don't have any easy options. And I think that's the big elephant in the room, these hard to abate industries. 'How do we transition them? Because there isn't the technology at hand. And that's another kind of myth is that we think we have these technologies just at our fingertips and we actually don't.' Related 'That would be a huge mistake', fashion alliance fears 'watering down' of environmental legislation Is there a better way for companies to approach their climate goals? Instead of setting unrealistic goals that the business leaders of the future will not be able to achieve, Chris suggested companies begin discussing their climate goals in terms of efficiency. 'Probably all the people on the board at this point in time, won't be on the board in 2040, 2045, 2050. So we have this real challenge where it's much easier to keep pretending you're on track.' Each year, they should aim to achieve more whilst reducing their current impact - doing more with less. He believes regulation could help with that too. 'I think we need an efficiency philosophy rather than a rationing and a budgetary perspective on things. 'We need to innovate and grow our way out of this problem and that current runs through almost all of our regulation and I think we need a more entrepreneurial and innovation-minded approach to all of our policy making rather than bureaucratic boxing in and limits and hurdles.' The Big Question is a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today's agenda. Watch the video above to see the full discussion with Chris Hocknell. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Euronews
21-07-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Apple, BP and Orsted: Can we trust corporate sustainability pledges?
By now, we're all used to seeing corporate sustainability pledges, promising things like carbon neutrality or net zero by 2050. However, can we truly trust that these pledges are credible and mean what we believe they do? 'We have a big issue in the broad environmental and sustainability space, where organisations are really trying to have their cake and eat it too,' Chris Hocknell, director at Eight Versa, said. 'They want to have these ambitious grand strategies to meet net zero or even carbon neutral. But they, in many respects, don't actually have the solutions within their control or they don't have the plans to get there.' And whilst an unrealistic roadmap is a problem, Chris thinks the entire way we look at sustainability is bad for business. 'I want to change how we evaluate carbon performance. It's kind of anti-innovation, it's anti-growth.' In this episode of The Big Question, Euronews' Business editor Angela Barnes is joined by sustainability consultant Chris Hocknell, to discuss where companies are going wrong with their climate targets. 'An honesty deficit' 'One of the problems is that it's not properly audited and verified, so we have companies that will use it incorrectly and say things that are technically untrue, but they can't actually be verified unless you have the data to dig into, so there's a lack of policing effectively,' Chris explained. He also suggested that both Apple and BP have been criticised for being unclear with their terminology. BP in particular, he noted, has set itself a target of achieving 'net zero operations' by 2050. However, this only applies to their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. 'It really means that they exclude the use of their product, the oil and gas itself, which is technically not correct. 'If your product is liquid carbon effectively, then oil is ultimately used to be combusted and turned into other products or even as a fuel. So your main product is not a net zero product,' Chris told The Big Question. In case you're unfamiliar with the scope system, here's a basic explainer. Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources owned and controlled by the organisation. Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy. Scope 3: Indirect emissions in the value chain. E.g From suppliers or from product use. Whilst Chris criticised BP's use of terminology, he acknowledged that oil and gas 'are the lifeblood of the whole economy and industrialised society' and suggested that focusing on making their direct emissions more efficient and being clearer with that messaging is the best foot forward. Should we be suspicious of all climate pledges? Chris' outlook wasn't all doom and gloom. He highlighted how climate messaging does match the actions of many companies. 'Orsted is one where they've transitioned into obviously making green tech and are very large. They've got a very self-evident business model which is pivoting towards the technology of the future, in theory,' Chris explained. 'There are other companies like Patagonia [which] is a classic case study, they've internalised this sustainable and pro-environment philosophy into their business model but they're tailoring their message, their product to a slither of the market and I think the problem is that the companies that can actually reinvent or target their products to that kind of very pro-green element of the market is a minority.' For some industries, striving for 'net zero' or 'climate neutral' just isn't possible. 'We call them kind of hard to abate industries. You know, there's steel, glass, any of the big, heavy industry. There's not an option for them. 'They've got to keep doing what they're doing and we depend on it. So they don't have any easy options. And I think that's the big elephant in the room, these hard to abate industries. 'How do we transition them? Because there isn't the technology at hand. And that's another kind of myth is that we think we have these technologies just at our fingertips and we actually don't.' Is there a better way for companies to approach their climate goals? Instead of setting unrealistic goals that the business leaders of the future will not be able to achieve, Chris suggested companies begin discussing their climate goals in terms of efficiency. 'Probably all the people on the board at this point in time, won't be on the board in 2040, 2045, 2050. So we have this real challenge where it's much easier to keep pretending you're on track.' Each year, they should aim to achieve more whilst reducing their current impact - doing more with less. He believes regulation could help with that too. 'I think we need an efficiency philosophy rather than a rationing and a budgetary perspective on things. 'We need to innovate and grow our way out of this problem and that current runs through almost all of our regulation and I think we need a more entrepreneurial and innovation-minded approach to all of our policy making rather than bureaucratic boxing in and limits and hurdles.' The Big Question is a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today's agenda. Watch the video above to see the full discussion with Chris Hocknell.
Euronews
07-07-2025
- Automotive
- Euronews
The Big Question: How can Volvo compete with Chinese EVs?
There are around 256 million cars on the roads in the European Union, according to data from the European Commission. With ambitious targets to phase out new petrol and diesel powered cars in the EU by 2035, an influx of Chinese EV brands such an BYD entering Europe and trade tariffs threatening the export market, the European automotive industry is at a critical moment. 'I think to have a credible end date for combustion cars there needs to be a very credible date also for investments and expansion of the charging networks. Otherwise, it will not be possible to be all electric by 2035,' Håkan Samuelsson, CEO and president of Volvo Cars, told Euronews. But what else needs to be done to ensure the industry stays alive, kicking and competitive? In this episode of The Big Question, Eleanor Butler sat down with Håkan Samuelsson to discuss the future of the automotive industry in Europe. Emissions targets softened In order to meet climate targets, the EU has introduced carbon limits for carmakers, looking at average emissions across a fleet. Many carmakers have sought to collaborate with other firms on these targets, forming 'pools' and combining their emissions. This means that companies with low-carbon or zero-carbon fleets can sell credits to more polluting automakers, permitting them to use a portion of their allowance. While EV frontrunners benefitted from these targets, demands are now softening. For instance, automakers can now average their emissions over three years instead of one. This means that if they overshoot the limit for one year, they can aim to undershoot for the next and avoid penalties. 'We plan, we develop these cars and we also, of course, saw value in emission credits that we could sell to other builders who are not as fast. And I think that's a good way of using that money to speed up the transition. And that is, of course, a big drawback now with the delay of everything, which is not good for our company,' Håkan told The Big Question. He also added that although countries like Norway are very advanced with their charging infrastructure, EV targets will not be met until charging capacity is boosted across the bloc. 'I think we need to rely on the possibilities to drive on a combustion engine when you lack charging possibilities,' Håkan added. Localised production for local tastes While some European carmakers are calling on the EU to impose tariffs on foreign competitors, Håkan takes a more liberal approach. 'There is really no protection in the form of tariffs or other ways. The only protection for our industry is that we shape up and we need to be more competitive.' 'I think a good forecast is that we will have very tough competition from new Chinese EV players [in the EU]. And then the sooner we get used to that and the sooner we start developing our cars, the better,' Håkan told The Big Question. In Europe, Volvo has already begun to produce the popular EX30 model in Ghent, Belgium in a bid to reduce delivery time and transportation costs and emissions. It's a similar situation in the US, where Volvo has a production plant in Charleston, South Carolina. Håkan hopes to increase production capacity here, not only to avoid Trump's tariffs but also to be closer to the customer base. 'We need now to find a bread-and-butter model that can sell in high volumes, which we can deliver faster to our customers and of course reduce stock and transportation costs. So local production is not only a cost increase, it has advantages also. 'So even if the tariffs come down to a more reasonable level, we still need to use our factory more than we do today,' he added. And in China, Håkan stressed that Volvo needs to really focus on what the local market is asking for, rather than replicating European offerings. 'Chinese customers are very tech-interested, so they like a lot of software features in their cars,' he explained. 'And I think that's an example of a situation where you can't just put European-developed features in the car, you need to develop [the tech] together with the Chinese to really lead.' The Big Questionis a series from Euronews Business where we sit down with industry leaders and experts to discuss some of the most important topics on today's agenda. Watch the video above to see the full discussion with Håkan Samuelsson.
