Today is the day the AI Act clears its final hurdle: The ministers of the member states in the Telecommunications Council want to approve the Artificial Intelligence Act – without further debate. At least that is the plan. And this time, nothing is expected to go wrong. But who knows…
Digital Minister Volker Wissing and his colleagues, on the other hand, want to debate the Belgian draft Council conclusions on the future of EU digital policy. According to the paper, which Table.Media was able to view, the member states have a whole series of demands for the future EU Commission:
For example, the promotion of the EU’s digital sovereignty and technological independence. In order to increase strategic autonomy and resilience, investments in key technologies such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and 6G are necessary.
They also want to see effective implementation and harmonization of digital legislation – just as the industry wants. The Commission should take measures to create synergies, avoid duplication of work and reduce the administrative burden, especially for SMEs and start-ups.
Finally, the Member States are calling for the development and implementation of digital technologies that can contribute to the green transformation to be promoted. The Commission should prioritize investments in digital and green technologies and ensure they contribute to achieving climate neutrality.
By the way, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also dealing with AI today. He is representing Germany at the virtual “Leaders’ Session” of the AI Seoul Summit, which follows on from last year’s AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK.
Have a good start to the week,
According to the European Commission, agriculture accounts for more than ten percent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The sector’s emissions have not decreased in the past two decades. Addressing these emissions in light of the EU’s climate goals could become a significant issue in the upcoming legislative period.
The main controversy is whether and how to include agriculture in the mandatory EU emissions trading system. Currently, agriculture is the only climate-relevant sector whose emissions are not subject to pricing. However, this topic is divisive, even within the European Commission.
On one side is the Directorate-General for Climate Action (CLIMA). Last year, it sparked the debate by commissioning a study on CO2 pricing in agriculture and its value chain. The study is also intended to contribute to the political discussion surrounding the 2040 climate goal, according to DG CLIMA upon its publication in November.
The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) takes a more cautious approach. AGRI Director-General Wolfgang Burtscher recently acknowledged at an event in Brussels that the pressure to reduce agricultural emissions is high and that the debate on CO2 pricing is gaining momentum. However, he argued that emissions could also be reduced through incremental measures incentivized by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
So far, this has not worked: A 2021 report by the European Court of Auditors concluded that despite substantial funding, the CAP has hardly contributed to emission reductions. The debate is also likely to be influenced by the political climate around farmer protests. In February, the Commission significantly softened the section on agriculture in its recommendation for the 2040 climate goal compared to earlier drafts. The idea of a mandatory emissions trading system is unpopular in the industry.
The German Farmers’ Association (DBV) argues in a position paper that inclusion in the statutory emissions trading system is “not feasible” due to the structure of agriculture, the nature of emissions based on natural processes and administrative hurdles. Instead, the industry favors voluntary compensation for CO2 sinks and positive financial incentives for emission reductions. Similarly, Peter Liese, MEP and rapporteur on emissions trading, wants to emphasize the benefits for farmers.
Nonetheless, DG CLIMA is not giving up: It has commissioned a new study to be developed starting mid-year. The results could be ready in time for the plans for the 2040 climate goal to be translated into law after the election, including an impact assessment for a CO2 price in agriculture.
The debate on how to price agricultural emissions to apply the polluter-pays principle to agriculture, as demanded by the European Court of Auditors, is in full swing. One option would be a CO2 tax – the most direct form of CO2 pricing. However, this is considered difficult to implement due to national sovereignty over tax matters.
It is conceivable to include agriculture in the existing EU emissions trading system for industrial plants. The market and structure already exist and legal implementation would be relatively straightforward. However, the agricultural sector consists of over nine million farms with emissions of around 400 million tons of CO2 equivalents. The impact of their inclusion on price stability in the ETS would be difficult to calculate and potentially counterproductive for climate action.
The incentive for emission reductions in sectors already covered by the ETS could decrease due to falling prices, warns Hugh McDonald, a fellow at the Ecologic Institute and one of the authors of the first study on CO2 pricing in agriculture for DG CLIMA. “Looking ahead to 2050 maybe it makes sense to have one price to rule them all. But I think what we’re talking about at the moment is the next 10 to 15 years.”
Additionally, there should be benefits for farmers and landowners, says McDonald. “Otherwise, it will be difficult to enforce this policy.” He refers to the reward for carbon dioxide removal through land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF). One possibility would be to link the pricing of emitted greenhouse gases with compensation for sequestered emissions.
Such a model would also address the demands of prominent economists and the European Court of Auditors to reward farmers for CO2 removal. And it seems Brussels is already considering this. The orders for the development of the two studies on an agricultural ETS came from the department within DG CLIMA responsible for CO2 removals, rather than the emissions trading experts.
The question is whether the two activities – emitting and removing – can be linked in a single system or need to be separated. McDonald believes that a separate system is more practical in the medium term. This way, there can be two distinct goals – one for emission reductions and one for CO2 removals. “The risk with a combined system is that it could be cheaper for farmers to buy low-quality removal certificates instead of reducing their own emissions.”
However, McDonald warns against focusing solely on an agricultural ETS. There are other political measures that are simpler and quicker to implement and thus more effective for reducing agricultural emissions. The economist still sees great potential in redesigning the 60 billion euros CAP subsidies as a climate action instrument. “Making changes in the Common Agricultural Policy is politically very difficult, but on a technical level we’ve already got a structure and all this money flowing into the scheme.”
A new system like an ETS, including compensation for CO2 removals, would have to compete with the vast sums from the CAP. Therefore, a redesign of the CAP would be inevitable if agricultural emissions are to be reduced, believes McDonald. This is also a task for the next legislative period: the Commission is expected to present initial ideas next year on what the CAP should look like after the current funding period ends. The current CAP runs until 2027 but could be extended.
The US tariff increase on Chinese electric car batteries will likely shift Chinese exports to Europe. Last week, President Biden announced additional tariffs on Chinese electric car batteries, battery parts, electric vehicles and solar panels to counteract the flood of cheap Chinese overcapacities.
Tariffs on electric car batteries have tripled to 25 percent. In 2026, tariffs on lithium-ion batteries used in other applications, such as energy storage systems, will also be increased. “If Europe does not follow suit with similar tariffs, Chinese batteries will become even cheaper for Europe because the overcapacities have to go somewhere,” says Dirk Uwe Sauer, a professor at RWTH Aachen, to Table.Briefings.
For European manufacturers, this means even more competition. “For the efforts of ACC, Northvolt and VW/PowerCo to produce their own batteries in Europe, this will be a particular burden,” says Sauer. The start-up of new factories will coincide with a period of absolute price competition, making it especially difficult for newcomers.
The battery market already has massive overcapacity. China alone has production capacities sufficient to meet global demand. The country dominates all steps of the supply chain. Experts warn that overcapacity could continue to rise as companies in Europe, the USA, and China continue to invest billions.
By the end of 2025, there could be 7.9 terawatt-hours of global battery production capacity, according to BloombergNEF (BNEF) analysts. However, demand will only be 1.6 terawatt-hours. Even if many of these new factories do not move beyond the planning stage, “the market is heading for an even greater oversupply,” write BNEF experts.
Other experts also believe that the new US tariffs “could drive Chinese batteries to Europe,” as battery expert Andy Leyland of consultancy Benchmark Minerals wrote on Twitter. Earlier this year, Leyland was more optimistic about Western battery manufacturers. “The order books of [Western] companies like Northvolt, LG Chem, and Panasonic are well filled for years,” he wrote.
According to him, China is “in a problematic situation”. The country must export its overcapacities in “Chinese electric cars, electronics and batteries for energy storage,” says Leyland. The market for energy storage systems will experience a significant additional supply of batteries to complement solar and wind storage. “This is a nice boost for the energy transition,” Leyland believes.
Batteries are considered one of the most important future technologies. They are seen as the “new oil” and a “master key” to accelerating the transformation of the energy and transportation systems. Countries leading in the battery sector could achieve “great industrial gains” in the future, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Currently, China is still the leader in the battery industry. Europe, though still very dependent on China, is catching up thanks to government support and large investments.
Batteries are seen as a key technology for several reasons:
Currently, China dominates large parts of the battery supply chain:
The USA and Europe, however, are catching up and have established numerous factories in recent years. Many more are in the planning stage. According to the IEA, the USA and Europe could meet their battery demand with domestic production by 2030. According to the NGO Transport and Environment (T&E), this could be possible by 2026.
For critical components like cathodes and anodes, however, China’s dominance will likely continue, according to the IEA. T&E also criticizes that there are only two cathode factories in Europe, despite the continent’s potential to meet more than half of the demand through domestic production.
China’s market dominance is due to a long-term industrial policy and subsidies for battery manufacturers. Manufacturers in China are among the technological leaders and can produce large quantities at low prices due to lower energy and labor costs compared to Europe.
The success of European manufacturers in the market will also depend on politics. Europe has significant competitive disadvantages. In Europe, “both the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating costs (OPEX) for building and operating battery cell, component, and material factories” are particularly high, writes Transport and Environment. If Europe offered the same government support as the USA under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the annual operating costs for battery factories alone would amount to 2.6 billion euros, the organization calculates.
However, there are other ways to support the industry: “Environmental, social, and governance standards will be crucial in determining market winners and losers,” writes the IEA. T&E calls for a secure investment environment and adherence to phasing out internal combustion engines. Additionally, investment aids at the EU level and “stronger ‘Made in EU‘ requirements for public procurement, subsidies, and EU grants and loans for EV and battery manufacturers” are needed.
Funda Tekin – Director Institute for European Politics
As Director of the Institute for European Politics in Berlin, Funda Tekin works intensively on European integration. Tekin also contributes her expertise to the political process, for example as a member of the Franco-German expert group on institutional reforms of the EU. The honorary professor at the University of Tübingen has also published extensively on relations between the EU and Turkey.
Franz Mayer – Professor of European Law, Bielefeld University:
The lawyer at Bielefeld University is probably the most respected expert on European law in Germany. He has represented the Bundestag and the Federal Government in several proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, including the Treaty of Lisbon. Mayer was also a member of the Franco-German group of experts that presented proposals for institutional reforms of the EU last fall.
Patrizia Nanz – President of the European University Institute
Political scientist Patrizia Nanz has been President of the European University Institute in Florence since March 2024. She was previously the Founding ´Director of the Franco-German Institution for the Future, which was established in the 2019 Aachen Treaty, and built it as a dialog forum for socio-ecological transformations. Nanz is an expert on democratic co-determination and modern administration.
Thomas Biebricher – Professor of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt
The Heisenberg Professor of Political Science has written a book on the crisis of moderate conservatism in European countries, which has been read and discussed in the ranks of the Christian Democrats. He is also frequently present in the media as an expert on the demarcation between the center-right parties and the far-right.
Christian Calliess – Professor of Law, Free University of Berlin
The European and environmental law expert teaches at the Free University of Berlin and holds a Jean Monnet Chair. He advised the EU Commission’s think tank for three years and is also frequently consulted as an expert.
Sandra Wachter – Professor of Technology and Regulation, University of Oxford
At the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, Sandra Wachter researches the legal and ethical implications of AI, big data and robotics, as well as the regulation of the internet and platforms. Her current research focuses include profiling, inferential analytics and explainable AI. She is also dedicated to questions of algorithmic bias, diversity and fairness.
Lutz Eckstein – Head of the Institute for Motor Vehicles, RWTH Aachen University
If there is one university professor in Germany who deserves the epithet “car,” it is Lutz Eckstein. He has headed the Institute of Automotive Engineering at RWTH Aachen University since 2010. He has been President of the Association of German Engineers since 2023. Before his academic career, he was a development engineer at Mercedes and BMW.
Philipp Hacker – Professor of Law, European University Viadrina
Philipp Hacker has held the Chair of Law and Ethics of the Digital Society at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder) since 2020. In addition to the Faculty of Law, he is also a research professor at the European New School of Digital Studies (ENS). With Sarah Hammer, he founded the international consortium of experts on the regulation, economics and informatics of AI (RECSAI), which he heads today. He has worked as a consultant for the German government and the European Parliament.
Thomas Schildhauer – Research and Founding Director of the HIIG
As Research and Founding Director of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Thomas Schildhauer has also taken over the scientific management of the Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Society research group. He is a computer scientist, holds a PhD in public health and marketing, is an internet researcher and a Professor of Electronic Business at the Berlin University of the Arts.
Ludger Kühnhardt – Director at the Center for European Integration Studies Bonn
He specializes in European integration and Europe’s role in the world. The trained journalist and qualified political scientist teaches at Bonn University and has been Director of the Center for European Integration Research since 1997. He was a research assistant to Karl Dietrich Bracher and speechwriter to German Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker.
Today is the day the AI Act clears its final hurdle: The ministers of the member states in the Telecommunications Council want to approve the Artificial Intelligence Act – without further debate. At least that is the plan. And this time, nothing is expected to go wrong. But who knows…
Digital Minister Volker Wissing and his colleagues, on the other hand, want to debate the Belgian draft Council conclusions on the future of EU digital policy. According to the paper, which Table.Media was able to view, the member states have a whole series of demands for the future EU Commission:
For example, the promotion of the EU’s digital sovereignty and technological independence. In order to increase strategic autonomy and resilience, investments in key technologies such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and 6G are necessary.
They also want to see effective implementation and harmonization of digital legislation – just as the industry wants. The Commission should take measures to create synergies, avoid duplication of work and reduce the administrative burden, especially for SMEs and start-ups.
Finally, the Member States are calling for the development and implementation of digital technologies that can contribute to the green transformation to be promoted. The Commission should prioritize investments in digital and green technologies and ensure they contribute to achieving climate neutrality.
By the way, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz is also dealing with AI today. He is representing Germany at the virtual “Leaders’ Session” of the AI Seoul Summit, which follows on from last year’s AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK.
Have a good start to the week,
According to the European Commission, agriculture accounts for more than ten percent of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The sector’s emissions have not decreased in the past two decades. Addressing these emissions in light of the EU’s climate goals could become a significant issue in the upcoming legislative period.
The main controversy is whether and how to include agriculture in the mandatory EU emissions trading system. Currently, agriculture is the only climate-relevant sector whose emissions are not subject to pricing. However, this topic is divisive, even within the European Commission.
On one side is the Directorate-General for Climate Action (CLIMA). Last year, it sparked the debate by commissioning a study on CO2 pricing in agriculture and its value chain. The study is also intended to contribute to the political discussion surrounding the 2040 climate goal, according to DG CLIMA upon its publication in November.
The Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) takes a more cautious approach. AGRI Director-General Wolfgang Burtscher recently acknowledged at an event in Brussels that the pressure to reduce agricultural emissions is high and that the debate on CO2 pricing is gaining momentum. However, he argued that emissions could also be reduced through incremental measures incentivized by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
So far, this has not worked: A 2021 report by the European Court of Auditors concluded that despite substantial funding, the CAP has hardly contributed to emission reductions. The debate is also likely to be influenced by the political climate around farmer protests. In February, the Commission significantly softened the section on agriculture in its recommendation for the 2040 climate goal compared to earlier drafts. The idea of a mandatory emissions trading system is unpopular in the industry.
The German Farmers’ Association (DBV) argues in a position paper that inclusion in the statutory emissions trading system is “not feasible” due to the structure of agriculture, the nature of emissions based on natural processes and administrative hurdles. Instead, the industry favors voluntary compensation for CO2 sinks and positive financial incentives for emission reductions. Similarly, Peter Liese, MEP and rapporteur on emissions trading, wants to emphasize the benefits for farmers.
Nonetheless, DG CLIMA is not giving up: It has commissioned a new study to be developed starting mid-year. The results could be ready in time for the plans for the 2040 climate goal to be translated into law after the election, including an impact assessment for a CO2 price in agriculture.
The debate on how to price agricultural emissions to apply the polluter-pays principle to agriculture, as demanded by the European Court of Auditors, is in full swing. One option would be a CO2 tax – the most direct form of CO2 pricing. However, this is considered difficult to implement due to national sovereignty over tax matters.
It is conceivable to include agriculture in the existing EU emissions trading system for industrial plants. The market and structure already exist and legal implementation would be relatively straightforward. However, the agricultural sector consists of over nine million farms with emissions of around 400 million tons of CO2 equivalents. The impact of their inclusion on price stability in the ETS would be difficult to calculate and potentially counterproductive for climate action.
The incentive for emission reductions in sectors already covered by the ETS could decrease due to falling prices, warns Hugh McDonald, a fellow at the Ecologic Institute and one of the authors of the first study on CO2 pricing in agriculture for DG CLIMA. “Looking ahead to 2050 maybe it makes sense to have one price to rule them all. But I think what we’re talking about at the moment is the next 10 to 15 years.”
Additionally, there should be benefits for farmers and landowners, says McDonald. “Otherwise, it will be difficult to enforce this policy.” He refers to the reward for carbon dioxide removal through land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF). One possibility would be to link the pricing of emitted greenhouse gases with compensation for sequestered emissions.
Such a model would also address the demands of prominent economists and the European Court of Auditors to reward farmers for CO2 removal. And it seems Brussels is already considering this. The orders for the development of the two studies on an agricultural ETS came from the department within DG CLIMA responsible for CO2 removals, rather than the emissions trading experts.
The question is whether the two activities – emitting and removing – can be linked in a single system or need to be separated. McDonald believes that a separate system is more practical in the medium term. This way, there can be two distinct goals – one for emission reductions and one for CO2 removals. “The risk with a combined system is that it could be cheaper for farmers to buy low-quality removal certificates instead of reducing their own emissions.”
However, McDonald warns against focusing solely on an agricultural ETS. There are other political measures that are simpler and quicker to implement and thus more effective for reducing agricultural emissions. The economist still sees great potential in redesigning the 60 billion euros CAP subsidies as a climate action instrument. “Making changes in the Common Agricultural Policy is politically very difficult, but on a technical level we’ve already got a structure and all this money flowing into the scheme.”
A new system like an ETS, including compensation for CO2 removals, would have to compete with the vast sums from the CAP. Therefore, a redesign of the CAP would be inevitable if agricultural emissions are to be reduced, believes McDonald. This is also a task for the next legislative period: the Commission is expected to present initial ideas next year on what the CAP should look like after the current funding period ends. The current CAP runs until 2027 but could be extended.
The US tariff increase on Chinese electric car batteries will likely shift Chinese exports to Europe. Last week, President Biden announced additional tariffs on Chinese electric car batteries, battery parts, electric vehicles and solar panels to counteract the flood of cheap Chinese overcapacities.
Tariffs on electric car batteries have tripled to 25 percent. In 2026, tariffs on lithium-ion batteries used in other applications, such as energy storage systems, will also be increased. “If Europe does not follow suit with similar tariffs, Chinese batteries will become even cheaper for Europe because the overcapacities have to go somewhere,” says Dirk Uwe Sauer, a professor at RWTH Aachen, to Table.Briefings.
For European manufacturers, this means even more competition. “For the efforts of ACC, Northvolt and VW/PowerCo to produce their own batteries in Europe, this will be a particular burden,” says Sauer. The start-up of new factories will coincide with a period of absolute price competition, making it especially difficult for newcomers.
The battery market already has massive overcapacity. China alone has production capacities sufficient to meet global demand. The country dominates all steps of the supply chain. Experts warn that overcapacity could continue to rise as companies in Europe, the USA, and China continue to invest billions.
By the end of 2025, there could be 7.9 terawatt-hours of global battery production capacity, according to BloombergNEF (BNEF) analysts. However, demand will only be 1.6 terawatt-hours. Even if many of these new factories do not move beyond the planning stage, “the market is heading for an even greater oversupply,” write BNEF experts.
Other experts also believe that the new US tariffs “could drive Chinese batteries to Europe,” as battery expert Andy Leyland of consultancy Benchmark Minerals wrote on Twitter. Earlier this year, Leyland was more optimistic about Western battery manufacturers. “The order books of [Western] companies like Northvolt, LG Chem, and Panasonic are well filled for years,” he wrote.
According to him, China is “in a problematic situation”. The country must export its overcapacities in “Chinese electric cars, electronics and batteries for energy storage,” says Leyland. The market for energy storage systems will experience a significant additional supply of batteries to complement solar and wind storage. “This is a nice boost for the energy transition,” Leyland believes.
Batteries are considered one of the most important future technologies. They are seen as the “new oil” and a “master key” to accelerating the transformation of the energy and transportation systems. Countries leading in the battery sector could achieve “great industrial gains” in the future, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Currently, China is still the leader in the battery industry. Europe, though still very dependent on China, is catching up thanks to government support and large investments.
Batteries are seen as a key technology for several reasons:
Currently, China dominates large parts of the battery supply chain:
The USA and Europe, however, are catching up and have established numerous factories in recent years. Many more are in the planning stage. According to the IEA, the USA and Europe could meet their battery demand with domestic production by 2030. According to the NGO Transport and Environment (T&E), this could be possible by 2026.
For critical components like cathodes and anodes, however, China’s dominance will likely continue, according to the IEA. T&E also criticizes that there are only two cathode factories in Europe, despite the continent’s potential to meet more than half of the demand through domestic production.
China’s market dominance is due to a long-term industrial policy and subsidies for battery manufacturers. Manufacturers in China are among the technological leaders and can produce large quantities at low prices due to lower energy and labor costs compared to Europe.
The success of European manufacturers in the market will also depend on politics. Europe has significant competitive disadvantages. In Europe, “both the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating costs (OPEX) for building and operating battery cell, component, and material factories” are particularly high, writes Transport and Environment. If Europe offered the same government support as the USA under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the annual operating costs for battery factories alone would amount to 2.6 billion euros, the organization calculates.
However, there are other ways to support the industry: “Environmental, social, and governance standards will be crucial in determining market winners and losers,” writes the IEA. T&E calls for a secure investment environment and adherence to phasing out internal combustion engines. Additionally, investment aids at the EU level and “stronger ‘Made in EU‘ requirements for public procurement, subsidies, and EU grants and loans for EV and battery manufacturers” are needed.
Funda Tekin – Director Institute for European Politics
As Director of the Institute for European Politics in Berlin, Funda Tekin works intensively on European integration. Tekin also contributes her expertise to the political process, for example as a member of the Franco-German expert group on institutional reforms of the EU. The honorary professor at the University of Tübingen has also published extensively on relations between the EU and Turkey.
Franz Mayer – Professor of European Law, Bielefeld University:
The lawyer at Bielefeld University is probably the most respected expert on European law in Germany. He has represented the Bundestag and the Federal Government in several proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, including the Treaty of Lisbon. Mayer was also a member of the Franco-German group of experts that presented proposals for institutional reforms of the EU last fall.
Patrizia Nanz – President of the European University Institute
Political scientist Patrizia Nanz has been President of the European University Institute in Florence since March 2024. She was previously the Founding ´Director of the Franco-German Institution for the Future, which was established in the 2019 Aachen Treaty, and built it as a dialog forum for socio-ecological transformations. Nanz is an expert on democratic co-determination and modern administration.
Thomas Biebricher – Professor of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt
The Heisenberg Professor of Political Science has written a book on the crisis of moderate conservatism in European countries, which has been read and discussed in the ranks of the Christian Democrats. He is also frequently present in the media as an expert on the demarcation between the center-right parties and the far-right.
Christian Calliess – Professor of Law, Free University of Berlin
The European and environmental law expert teaches at the Free University of Berlin and holds a Jean Monnet Chair. He advised the EU Commission’s think tank for three years and is also frequently consulted as an expert.
Sandra Wachter – Professor of Technology and Regulation, University of Oxford
At the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford, Sandra Wachter researches the legal and ethical implications of AI, big data and robotics, as well as the regulation of the internet and platforms. Her current research focuses include profiling, inferential analytics and explainable AI. She is also dedicated to questions of algorithmic bias, diversity and fairness.
Lutz Eckstein – Head of the Institute for Motor Vehicles, RWTH Aachen University
If there is one university professor in Germany who deserves the epithet “car,” it is Lutz Eckstein. He has headed the Institute of Automotive Engineering at RWTH Aachen University since 2010. He has been President of the Association of German Engineers since 2023. Before his academic career, he was a development engineer at Mercedes and BMW.
Philipp Hacker – Professor of Law, European University Viadrina
Philipp Hacker has held the Chair of Law and Ethics of the Digital Society at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder) since 2020. In addition to the Faculty of Law, he is also a research professor at the European New School of Digital Studies (ENS). With Sarah Hammer, he founded the international consortium of experts on the regulation, economics and informatics of AI (RECSAI), which he heads today. He has worked as a consultant for the German government and the European Parliament.
Thomas Schildhauer – Research and Founding Director of the HIIG
As Research and Founding Director of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Thomas Schildhauer has also taken over the scientific management of the Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Society research group. He is a computer scientist, holds a PhD in public health and marketing, is an internet researcher and a Professor of Electronic Business at the Berlin University of the Arts.
Ludger Kühnhardt – Director at the Center for European Integration Studies Bonn
He specializes in European integration and Europe’s role in the world. The trained journalist and qualified political scientist teaches at Bonn University and has been Director of the Center for European Integration Research since 1997. He was a research assistant to Karl Dietrich Bracher and speechwriter to German Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker.
