Climate Change, Economic, G7, Government, Politics, United Nations

G7 summit: The communiqué indicates an agreement in striving for a low carbon economy…

G7 SUMMIT

At the summit on June 8 the group of seven leaders agreed to wean their economies off carbon fuels and supported a global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but they stopped short of agreeing their own immediate binding targets.

In a communiqué after their two-day summit in Bavaria, the G7 leaders endorsed the need for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions at the upper end, ranging from 40 to 70% by 2050 (and using 2010 as a basis). The range was recommended by the IPCC, the United Nations’ climate-change panel.

The leaders also backed a global target for limiting the rise in average global temperatures to two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.

The communiqué read: ‘We commit to doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term, including developing and deploying innovative technologies striving for a transformation of the energy sectors by 2050, and invite all countries to join us in this endeavour.’

The G7 host, Angela Merkel of Germany, who was once dubbed the ‘climate chancellor’, had hoped to revitalise her environmental credentials by getting the G7 nations to agree specific emission goals ahead of the United Nations climate conference in Paris at the end of the year.

Whilst the leaders stopped short of agreeing any such immediate binding targets for their economies, green lobby groups nonetheless welcomed the direction of their agreements.

A statement given by WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative, said: ‘They’ve given important political signals, but they could have done more, particularly by making concrete national commitments for immediate action… We had hoped for more commitments on what they would do right now.’

The Europeans had pressed their G7 partners to sign up to legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Russia Sanctions

A firm stance was taken on Russia and its involvement in the Ukraine conflict. Merkel said the G7 countries were ready, if necessary, to strengthen sanctions against Russia.

The leaders want Russia and Ukraine to comply with a February 12 ceasefire agreed in the Belarus capital Minsk that largely halted fighting in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government forces.

Mrs Merkel said: ‘We are also ready, should the situation escalate, which we don’t want, to strengthen sanctions if the situation makes that necessary, but we believe we should do everything to move forward the political process of Minsk.’

The communiqué specifically addresses the issue, and the leaders said they expected Russia to stop its support for separatist forces in Ukraine and by implementing the Minsk agreements in full. The sanctions, they said, ‘can be rolled back when Russia meets these commitments.’

Greece

The Greek debt crisis was discussed by the leaders as a group and also in bilateral meetings during the summit at the foot of Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitze.

Mrs Merkel said there was not much time left for a debt deal to keep Greece in the Eurozone and that Europe was prepared to show solidarity if Athens implemented economic reforms:

‘We want Greece to remain part of the euro zone but we take the clear position that solidarity with Greece requires that Greece makes proposals and implements reforms.’

‘There isn’t much time left. Everyone is working intensively… Every day counts now,” Mrs Merkel said.

Greece’s leftist government last week rejected proposals for a cash-for-reforms deal put forward by European lenders and the International Monetary Fund, but has yet to put forward its own alternative to unlock aid funds that expire at the end of June.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Europe, European Union, Financial Markets, G7, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine: Imposing tougher sanctions on Russia is needed…

UKRAINE

Intro: Sanctions, if stringent enough, could bring pressure to bear on Vladimir Putin

A strongly worded statement by the heads of the G7 leading nations condemning Russia for provoking civil unrest in eastern Ukraine was met with pro-Russian militias kidnapping eight international observers. The statement given, largely as a result of diplomatic protocol, said the G7 leaders ‘have now agreed that we will move swiftly to impose additional sanctions on Russia’. But the response of the pro-Russian activists and gunmen seems to be illustrating the clear ineffectiveness of applying any kind of western sanctions policy on the ground.

Some may well argue that to be the case. We should, however, be clear. Sanctions, if stringent enough, could bring pressure to bear on Vladimir Putin. Pragmatically, there is a limit to what the United States and the European Union can actually achieve.  The guarantors of Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity are not only down to the wishes of the western axis and what they hope for, but also of Russia given its close historical connections in so many different ways that it has with the country.

Travel bans on Russian officials and other minor irritations imposed on Russia are so far much weaker than they could have been, and on this a dichotomy of reasons has been laid bare. On the positive side, a reason for the less than tenuous sanctions applied will be that much of the EU, including Germany, is wholly dependent on Russian gas. Though there has been talk of the US diverting some of its rich supplies of shale gas to Europe in reducing this dependence, to instigate such an operation has neither been practical nor affordable.

On the downside, the reasons are perhaps cowardly. Governments, for instance, including our own, have been sensitive to business lobbying, particularly from those Russian oligarchs who would be severely punished if sanctions were tightened. Last month, a government document was caught on camera by a photographer as an official of the British government was about to enter Downing Street. It suggested that the UK should ‘not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London’s financial centre to Russians.’

The G7 statement was notable for its absence to specify in detail what ‘additional sanctions’ might or could be. Yet, whilst not mere cowardice that has prompted EU governments to hold back from tougher measures, there is a principled argument, albeit slightly cynical, that Mr Putin is doing so much damage to the Russian economy through his own actions that he needs no help from the West in making it any worse. Mr Putin’s nationalist adventurism has certainly seriously eroded his country’s economic interests. Indeed, if trade and other financial sanctions were imposed, it would allow the Russian president to blame ‘the West’ for Russia’s hardship rather than his own folly.

The problem for Mr Putin now is whether he realises that he is biting off more than he can chew. If he tries to assimilate populations into Russia who do not want to be assimilated he will only add to Moscow’s predicament and costs. Although the West should not have accepted Crimea’s annexation without a fight, its population is mostly Russian. Eastern Ukraine is entirely different; the region is quite against Russia’s interest to incite separatism there.

The historical cynic would no-doubt quote Napoleon and say that the West should not interrupt their enemy when he is making a mistake of this magnitude. Financial markets, for example, have already downgraded Russia’s credit rating to just above junk status. Mr Putin’s assertion of Russian power may have won him the support of his domestic audience at home meantime, but this could well change once the bills start arriving.

Given that Mr Putin’s rhetoric is already turned-up against the West, blaming the fall of Ukraine’s government on US and NATO-backed ‘fascist elements’, the notion that Britain, the EU and the US should hold back for fear that the Russian leader would blame us fails to persuade. Sanctions do not always work, that’s true. But they can work, and there is no other option open to those protagonists who support Ukraine’s independence and integrity. Now that Moscow’s proxies have started to abduct and hold hostage international observers, harsher economic pressure remains the best hope of bringing Vladimir Putin to his senses. There is no good reason for not upping the ante on Russia.

Standard