The Prime Minister arrived at the Elysee Palace in Paris for a working lunch with French President Emmanuel Macron.

They are expected to discuss important issues on the EU agenda during the 90-minute meeting, including the deteriorating economic outlook for Europe and the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Energy, the economy and Ukraine are expected to top the agenda for today’s meeting, which is expected to last around 90 minutes.

The two leaders shook hands and paused for photos on the palace steps before heading inside.

This visit is seen by the government as an additional opportunity to strengthen ties between Ireland and France.

The two leaders are expected to discuss topical European issues such as Europe’s economic prospects and how the EU can continue to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

However, the focus will also be on energy, with Mr Martin due to sign on the Celtic Interconnector tomorrow, linking the power grids of France and Ireland.

This event will also bring together Climate Minister Eamon Ryan and French Minister for Energy Transition Agnès Pannier-Runacher.

Speaking ahead of his visit, Mr Martin said the signing of the Celtic Interconnector marked a “new impetus” in relations between Ireland and France.

On Ukraine, he said that “he will discuss with President Macron how the EU can continue to provide the ‘humanitarian support that Ukraine will need'”.

The Taoiseach will also meet the Franco-Irish community in Paris and speak at an Ireland-France Business Awards ceremony.

Hungary has failed to adopt promised rule of law reforms, the European Commission decided on Wednesday, putting billions of EU dollars for the country at risk.

The determination comes as Brussels tussles with Viktor Orbán’s government over the release of €7.5 billion in regular EU payments and €5.8 billion in recovery grants in the event of a pandemic – money the EU has temporarily frozen due to democratic backsliding issues in Hungary.

As the Commission on Wednesday recommended approving Hungary’s plan to spend its stimulus funds, it was clear the country wouldn’t get the money until it implemented 27 upgrades. specific to the rule of law.

In the meantime, the Commission has also concluded that Hungary has failed to deliver on its earlier commitment to adopt 17 rule of law reforms needed to access the €7.5 billion in EU funds, which are blocked under a mechanism allowing the EU to freeze funds at risk of corruption.

EU countries will decide whether to adopt, modify or reject the Commission ruling by December 19.

The move is something of a surprise. As recently as last week, Brussels and Budapest were expected to reach an agreement on releasing the money. But Wednesday’s decision appears to be a little more nuanced – giving the go-ahead for a spending plan but not the money, blaming Hungary for failing to deliver on earlier promises and essentially pushing it on EU countries to make one last call.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with key commissioners on Wednesday to finalize this way forward. Their recommendation will have to be formalized next week by the entire College of Commissioners.

On Wednesday, the Commission was particularly critical of Hungary’s new “integrity authority”, questioning its power and independence, as well as Budapest’s progress on commitments on asset declaration rules and the ability to review the decision of a prosecutor on whether to pursue a case.

Brussels also presented a new list of 27 reforms, or “super milestones”, that Hungary must adopt to receive its 5.8 billion euros in pandemic recovery funds. The 27 reforms include the 17 previous commitments agreed by the two parties during their discussions on the preservation of the 7.5 billion euros. Other conditions include the realization of the judicial reforms promised by Hungary, as well as the adoption of rules for auditing and reporting on EU funds.

Once the Commission formally adopts its decisions next week, it will be up to the Council of the EU to support or reject them by qualified majority – comprising 55% of EU countries and 65% of the population – what should happen at a conference of finance ministers. Meet.

The exact date of this meeting is still unclear, as the one initially scheduled for December 6 may be too early for countries to go through national parliamentary procedures. Thus, the Czech Presidency of the Council could schedule another ministerial meeting later in December.

Approval of Hungary’s plan and corresponding liquidity is crucial for a number of top EU priorities, including an €18 billion aid package for Ukraine and a global agreement on a minimum rate corporate tax, all of which Hungary has blocked.

Elon Musk’s promise to European regulators that Twitter would follow the rules set out in the European Union’s new Digital Services Act (DSA) will finally be put to the test. The first few weeks of Musk’s reign at the company suggest he could be embroiled in a fight.

Within hours of Musk’s takeover, racist language previously blocked on the platform increased. The billionaire praised targeted ads, which are the subject of a European crackdown aimed at better protecting users from pervasive online surveillance. He personally retweeted misinformation about the assault and attempted kidnapping that seriously injured the husband of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And he has now cut Twitter’s workforce in half and jettisoned the majority of the company’s thousands of contractors, who traditionally handle content moderation.

The DSA, which came into force on November 16, is a bold set of sweeping regulations on online content governance and accountability for digital services that subjects Twitter, Facebook and other platforms in many ways to the European Commission. and national authorities. These bodies will oversee compliance and enforcement and seem determined to make the internet a fairer place by limiting the power of Big Tech. Many expect this landmark EU legislation to set a new benchmark for other regulators around the world.

Concerns for safety and respect

The DSA’s content moderation rules could be a real challenge for Musk. While the DSA does not tell social media platforms what speech they can and cannot post, it sets new standards for terms of service and regulates the content moderation process to make it more transparent to users and regulators. The DSA is driven as much by security concerns and respect for fundamental rights as by the interests of the market. It draws attention to the impact of algorithmic decision-making (and there’s a fine line between Twitter’s new paid subscription model and algorithmic discrimination), and reinforces EU codes of conduct, such as the Misinformation Code of Practice, to which Twitter has subscribed.

And that requires platforms to remove illegal content. EU regulators say the DSA will ensure that anything illegal offline will also be illegal online. But what is considered illegal varies between EU member states. For example, an offensive statement flagged as illegal in Austria could be perfectly legal in France. It is true that the DSA has taken some steps to avoid imposing the law of one country on all other countries, but the fragmentation of the EU has led to and will continue to require significant compliance efforts from the share of platforms. There are also new due diligence obligations, some of which could increase the risk of legal discourse being swept aside as platforms err on the side of removal to avoid fines.

Perhaps working in Musk’s favor, the DSA does not require platforms to remove all harmful content, such as “awful but legal” hate speech. In fact, the DSA sets some limits on what can be removed, which means Musk may find it easier to remove as little as possible. But platforms are required to act responsibly and work with trusted flaggers and public authorities to ensure their services are not misused for illegal activity. And while platform operators have wide latitude to set their own speech standards, those standards must be clear and unambiguous, which Musk pledged to do anyway.

Sometimes it’s hard to take Musk at his word. He said in late October that no major content or account reinstatement decisions would occur until a content moderation board comprised of “widely diverse viewpoints” was formed. He has yet to announce the existence of such a council, but on November 20 several people fired the platforms for hate speech and misinformation, including former President Donald Trump – who was allowed to return to Twitter after Musk quizzed users — and Kanye West.

Twitter’s trust and safety and content moderation teams have suffered huge successes since Musk took over as “Chief Twit,” as he calls himself. Half of Twitter’s 7,500 employees have been laid off, with trust and security services the hardest hit. Twitter’s top trust and safety, human rights and compliance officers have left the company, as have some EU policy officials. That Musk fired the entire human rights team could backfire. This team has been tasked with ensuring that Twitter adheres to the United Nations Principles Establishing Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights.

Media outlets reported that the company’s content moderation staff did not have access to their enforcement tools. Meanwhile, a second wave of global job cuts hit 4,400 of Twitter’s 5,500 external contractors last week, many of whom had worked as content moderators to tackle misinformation on the platform in the United States and abroad.

Extended obligations for large platforms

All of this raises questions about whether Twitter has the technical and political muscle to comply with and implement DSA obligations, particularly whether Twitter is designated as a “very large online platform” or VLOP (over 45 million users) under the DSA. If designated as such, the company will have to comply with important obligations and responsibly address systemic risks and abuses on its platform. They will be held accountable through independent annual compliance audits and public scrutiny and must provide a public repository of the online advertisements they have displayed over the past year. It is unlikely that Twitter will be able to meet these commitments if it does not have enough qualified personnel to understand the impact of its operations on human rights.

Additionally, Musk is a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” who said he acquired Twitter because civilization needs “a common digital public square.” He criticized Twitter content moderation policies and says he opposes “censorship” which “goes far beyond the law”. Yet, after much criticism, he also said that Twitter cannot become a “free-for-all hellscape” where anything can be said without consequences.

Unfortunately, Twitter descended into pretty much that kind of a landscape soon after Musk took over. A flurry of racist slurs appeared on the platform in the first few days, while a revised paid subscription scheme that gives users a blue tick – which once indicated that the identity of the account holder had been verified as authenticated – was reintroduced but without the verification step. Anyone paying $7.99 could buy a blue check, and many who created fake accounts posing as people and businesses and tweeted out false information, from an Eli Lilly account announcing that its product to insulin base was now free to multiple accounts impersonating and parodying Musk himself.

Musk halted the deployment, but the damage was done. Margrethe Vestager, executive vice president of the European Commission, told CNBC that such a practice indicates that “your business model is fundamentally flawed.”

If Twitter is deemed a “very large online platform”, it will need to assess all kinds of risks, including misinformation, discrimination and lack of civic discourse arising from using the service, and take steps to mitigation to reduce societal harm. If Musk succeeds in his plans to grow Twitter’s user base over the next few years, Twitter will certainly face greater scrutiny under the DSA and could be forced to backtrack and staff its service. content moderation.

This is also the opinion of Thierry Breton. Commenting on the reduction in the number of moderators, the European commissioner for the internal market warned Musk that “he will have to increase them in Europe”.

“He will have to open his algorithms. We will have control, we will have access, people will no longer be able to talk nonsense,” Breton said.

Restrict user information for ads

Targeted advertising is another area where Musk’s plans could conflict with DSA obligations. Twitter’s advertising business is its main source of income. With the company losing money, Musk wants to increase his ad revenue. The DSA prohibits platforms from using sensitive user information, such as ethnicity or sexual orientation, for advertising purposes. Ads can no longer be targeted based on this data.

More broadly, the DSA increases transparency about the ads users see on their feeds: platforms must clearly differentiate content from advertising; ads should be labeled accordingly. It’s hard to see how all of these requirements will mesh neatly with Musk’s plans. He told advertisers that what Twitter needs are ads that are as relevant to users’ needs as possible. Highly relevant ads, he says, will serve as “real content.”

One of the most concerning things the DSA does not do is to fully protect anonymous speech. The provisions give government authorities alarming powers to flag controversial content and uncover data on anonymous speakers — and everyone else — without adequate procedural safeguards. Pseudonymity and anonymity are essential to protect users who may have opinions, identities or interests that do not match those in power.

Marginalized groups and human rights defenders can be in grave danger if those in power manage to discover their true identity. Musk pledged to “authentic all real humans” on Twitter; Unfortunately, the DSA is doing nothing to help them if Musk keeps his promise.

The DSA is an important tool for making the internet a fairer place, and it’s going to cause some turbulence for Twitter as Musk seeks to realize his vision for the platform. Much will depend on how social media platforms interpret their obligations under the DSA and how EU authorities enforce the regulation. Breton, the internal market commissioner, swore that Twitter “will fly by our rules.” For Musk, the seatbelt sign is on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

IMAGE: Elon Musk’s Twitter account is seen displayed on a smartphone with a Twitter logo in the background on November 21, 2022. (Photo by Nathan Stirk/Getty Images)

Posted on November 21, 2022 at 6:28 p.m. by

The Maritime Executive

Efforts continue to build partnerships with European ports to develop hydrogen supply for future fuels. In Germany, Hamburg has announced plans for the country’s first large-scale green energy import facility linked to existing facilities in the port, while in France, the port of Nantes – Saint Nazaire is part of a project to support large-scale green hydrogen production facilities to fuel the energy transition of the Loire Valley.

The project in Hamburg will see Air Products work with Mabanaft, through its subsidiary Oiltanking Deutschland, which currently operates the large tank farm in Hamburg, to develop Germany’s first large-scale green energy import terminal. . The planned terminal is to be located on the existing Mabanaft tank terminal, which would provide strategic access to green ammonia from large-scale green hydrogen production facilities operated by Air Products and its partners worldwide .

According to the proposal, they plan to import ammonia which would be converted into green hydrogen at Air Products’ facilities in Hamburg. It would then be available for distribution to buyers locally and in northern Germany. The aim is to launch the operation by 2026 and it joins others in Germany, such as the new Wilhelmshaven terminal being developed for LNG which is also exploring ammonia imports.

German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck said: “Now more than ever, we need to drive the hydrogen economy forward. To do this, we are setting up our own hydrogen production in Germany, but of course we also need hydrogen from imports. An accelerated energy transition with more speed in the expansion of renewable energies and the rise of green hydrogen are the right answers to Russian aggression and the right answers to strengthen energy security, resilience and competitiveness.

Similarly in France, they are also exploring efforts to develop an offshore hydrogen production supply chain. Nantes? The port of Saint-Nazaire, which is the fourth seaport in France, will work with Lhyfe, a French company developing renewable and green hydrogen sources to develop the hydrogen supply chain. Lhyfe operates a renewable hydrogen production facility using water electrolysis and in September launched its Sealhyfe project in Saint Nazaire which is the world’s first offshore renewable hydrogen production platform. The prototype, which will be connected to a floating wind turbine, will have a capacity of 1 MW. Lhyfe plans to set up similar onshore facilities across Europe.

Together with the port, the companies will work together to identify port areas and facilities capable of hosting R&D prototypes, as well as industrial requirements for the construction of equipment and support infrastructure needed for hydrogen production. large-scale offshore.
Companies will also explore how best to bring renewable gas to shore and integrate it into the onshore grid.

Other European ports, notably in the Netherlands and Belgium, are also looking to build hydrogen supply facilities. They are each exploring import opportunities both to supply domestic users and to develop bunkering operations to provide alternative fuels to the marine industry.

Beverage sectors fear that the European Commission’s new proposal on packaging legislation is misguided by focusing their sectors almost exclusively on reusable packaging at the expense of recycling systems, rather than adopting a holistic approach combining the two .

Pierre-Olivier Bergeron is the general secretary of Brasseurs d’Europe. Milica Jevtic is the General Secretary of the European Association of Cider and Fruit Wines (AICV). Wouter Lox is the Secretary General of the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN). Patricia Fosselard, General Secretary of Natural Mineral Waters Europe. Nicholas Hodac is the Managing Director of UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe.

Our sectors (beers, ciders, fruit juices, natural mineral waters and soft drinks) have been pioneers in the progress towards environmental sustainability. We are strongly committed to creating a circular economy for our beverage packaging, by reducing, recycling and reusing it. This is a complex task for almost every business.

We support ambitions to increase reuse. It should be part of the EU’s strategy to reduce packaging waste, but it should complement the efforts already made – and still to be continued – to reduce and recycle packaging, and it should make it possible to adapt to changing local contexts and emerging evidence.

We are therefore deeply concerned that the European Commission’s proposed revision of the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) could open a dramatic and discriminatory new path for our beverages, singling out our sectors and defining reusable packaging as essentially our only path to packaging.

Unintended consequences for recycling

This approach will be disastrous not only for companies in our sectors, but also for all existing recycling systems that work well. The huge investments made in recent years will have to be reduced or reversed to achieve circularity in our packaging. Ultimately, it will make our journey towards greater environmental sustainability longer and more complex, with no guarantee of success.

Recycling and reusing are different routes to the same goal. Both can contribute to the circularity of packaging, reduced use of virgin materials and a lower environmental footprint compared to the status quo. We should not, a priori, favor reuse over recycling, especially when the relative environmental impact varies depending on multiple factors. Although there are situations and conditions where reuse is preferable and already works well, it is not necessarily better than recycling. Impact assessments have not established that high reuse targets at all levels will have a positive impact on the environment in all cases and for all packaging. Context is key.

When assessing the environmental impact of reusable beverage packaging, many factors come into play, such as the resources needed to produce reusable packaging, the extent to which consumer behavior will change to ensure that the containers are actually reused, the carbon footprint related to the transport of returnable bottles and crates, and the energy required to wash the packaging before reusing it. Impacts will differ between categories – for example, legislation requires natural mineral water to be bottled at source, which limits flexibility in production and logistics.

Let’s ensure a level playing field for our drinks

If the European Commission’s proposals only proposed reuse targets within the beverage industry, this would also be discriminatory and show a complete disregard for all the pioneering circularity efforts that our sectors are already relying on.

When it comes to setting reuse targets and obligations for beverages, it would also be incomprehensible and unacceptable to the beer and cider sectors if exemptions were a priori granted for the other sectors of alcoholic beverages.

Prevent the use of more virgin materials

Overambitious reuse targets can also, in some cases, increase the amount of virgin material on the market, especially in the transition phase. Much heavier, reusable beverage containers, durable enough to survive multiple trips along the reuse chain, will be needed to store the sector.

Reuse systems can also lead to logistical bottlenecks because they depend on the efficient return of packaging by consumers and retailers. As producers wait for the containers to return, more packaging is needed to fill the gap, necessarily requiring more raw materials for their production.

As for metal cans, the preferred packaging for many small producers and nomadic consumers, they are infinitely recyclable but do not currently exist in a reusable form. Other materials would be needed to replace them if too high reuse targets were to be met for all types of beverage packaging.

A heavy economic blow for thousands of businesses

Policy makers should recognize that overambitious reuse targets could be economically ruinous for thousands of businesses in our sectors. Achieving new reuse targets is not a minor adjustment, but a complete change in business model and production processes for many producers, especially SMEs. For example, a PwC report commissioned by UNESDA found that moving towards a 20% market share of reusable PET bottles by 2030 would cost EU soft drink manufacturers €19 billion. euros.

SMEs, already squeezed by inflation and high energy costs, simply do not have the resources to commit to such massive investments in such a short time. There are thousands of SMEs in our supply chains that sell locally, often in rural areas, with a single packaging line. Thousands of jobs in local communities are at stake.

This discriminatory, disproportionate and misplaced targeting of our channels would be a bitter pill to swallow even if it were the only path to sustainable packaging. But it’s not. The Commission’s draft plan is currently to require our sectors to get involved in a single policy measure while ignoring the progress made in recycling and the effectiveness of many systems already in place to collect and recycle our packaging. It does not mean anything.

Necessary ambition but the right ambition

We do not advocate the absence of ambition. In fact, the opposite is true. We are leaders in sustainability packaging and advocating for the core vision of the EU Green Deal to be delivered: ambitious, evidence-based policy measures that support sustainable, meaningful growth and jobs for our environment.

We know that a combined approach including reduce, reuse and recycle works. Reusable drink wrappers aren’t the only way.

There is a better way, based on the combination of all available solutions, which is already leading to the circularity of our beverage packaging. It must not be mined. We therefore look forward to a favorable and reasonable proposal from the European Commission.

Fifa President Gianni Infantino has blasted critics of Qatar’s World Cup, accusing European countries of hypocrisy and saying they were unable to teach moral lessons.

In a combative 90-minute press conference on the eve of the World Cup in Doha, Infantino said much of the criticism leveled at the tournament hosts was ‘deeply unfair’ with the western world guilty of doubles standards.

“For what we Europeans have done for the past 3,000 years in the world, we should apologize for the next 3,000 years before we start giving moral lessons,” he said.

Europe has been at the forefront of criticism ahead of the tournament, with some national football associations joining calls for a compensation fund for the families of workers killed or injured during construction work before the tournament.

A number of teams are also planning to wear rainbow captain’s armbands during games to send a pro-inclusion message to the world. Homosexuality remains illegal in Qatar, but Fifa has assured fans that “everyone is welcome”.

Infantino, 52, railed against those who have focused on Qatar’s human rights record, treatment of foreign labor and its laws governing homosexuality – rather than the progress made in the small Gulf state. He went on to criticize Western immigration policies, saying thousands of people had died trying to reach Europe in search of a better life.

“Why is no one asking for compensation for the families of these deceased migrants? Maybe their life is not worth the same,” he said. “Qatar actually gives them those opportunities. . . in Europe, we close our borders.

“Give them a future. Give them some hope. But this one-sided, giving moral lesson is just hypocrisy,” he said.

Infantino began the session with an hour-long monologue in which he compared his own life experience to that of migrant workers in Qatar and gay people around the world.

“Today I feel Qatari. Today I feel Arab. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled. I feel like a migrant worker,” he said.

“I feel like them because I know what it means to be discriminated against [against], be harassed. When I was a kid in school, I was bullied at school because I had red hair.

The Fifa president, who took the top job after Sepp Blatter left office early in 2016, also pointed the finger at multinationals, saying they had been free to do business with Qatar for years. years without being asked to push for social change.

“These European and Western companies, which earn millions and millions every year – billions – from Qatar and other countries in the region, how many of them have addressed the rights of migrant workers? None of them . . . because changing the legislation means less profit,” he said. “Who really cares about the workers? FIFA does. Soccer yes.

Foreign governments are also guilty of turning a blind eye to moral issues, he said. “A country that had only sand and pearls in the sea, well in fact they found something worth much more – that’s gas. If there was no gas, no one wouldn’t care. Now they all come and they all want something.

Infantino, who is expected to be re-elected unopposed for another term at the helm of Fifa next year, has chastised sections of the media for their relentless negative coverage of Qatar’s preparations. Fans, he said, would prefer to read about the sport.

“The magic of football – as soon as the ball rolls, people focus on it, because that’s what people want,” he said.

Asked if it was right for Iran to still participate in the World Cup as protesters faced a brutal crackdown from authorities, Infantino said he did not belong. Fifa to make radical moral judgments on entire countries.

“It’s not two regimes playing against each other,” he said. “There are 80 million people in Iran. Do you think they are all bad? Do you think they are all monsters? I do not think so.”

Mustafa Qadri, chief executive of human rights group Equidem Research, said: “History will not judge this moment kindly. Infantino’s speech was an insult to the thousands of hard-working women and men who made the World Cup possible.”

Bangkok, Thailand
CNN
—

The big three world leaders summits that took place across Asia last week made one thing clear: Vladimir Putin is now sidelined on the world stage.

Putin, of which attack on ukraine over the past nine months has devastated the European country and rocked the global economy, refused to attend any of the diplomatic rallies – and instead found himself subjected to significant censorship as international opposition to his war seemed to harden.

A meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders in Bangkok closed on Saturday with declaration which refers to the positions of nations expressed in other forums, including in a UN resolution deploring “in the strongest terms” Russian aggression against Ukraine, while noting divergent views.

It echoes verbatim a statement from the Group of 20 (G20) leaders’ summit in Bali earlier this week.

“Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and underlined that it immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy,” the document said, adding that there were differing “assessments” of the situation within the group.

Summit talks aside, the week also showed Putin – who is believed to have launched his invasion in a bid to restore Russia’s supposed former glory – increasingly isolated, the Russian leader being cowered in Moscow and not even wanting to face his counterparts at major global meetings.

Fear of potential political maneuvers against him if he left the capital, an obsession with personal safety and a desire to avoid confrontational scenes at summits – especially as Russia faces heavy losses on the battlefield – were all probable calculations that went into Putin’s assessment. , according to Alexander Gabuev, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In the meantime, he may not want to draw unwanted attention to the handful of nations that have remained friendly with Russia, for example India and China, whose leaders Putin saw at a regional summit in Uzbekistan in September.

“He doesn’t want to be this toxic guy,” Gabuev said.

But even among countries that have not taken a hard line against Russia, there are signs of losing patience, if not with Russia itself, than with the ripple effects of its aggression. Energy tensions, food security concerns and spiraling global inflation are now weighing on economies around the world.

Indonesia, which hosted the G20, did not explicitly condemn Russia for the invasion, but its President Joko Widodo told world leaders on Tuesday “we must end the war”.

India, which has been a key buyer of Russian energy even as the West has shunned Russian fuel in recent months, also reiterated its call for “find a way to resume the path of ceasefireat the G20. The final declaration of the summit includes a sentence saying: “The era of today must not be one of war” – language that echoes what Modi said to Putin in September, when they met met on the sidelines of the summit in Uzbekistan.

It is less clear whether China, whose strategic partnership with Russia is strengthened by a close relationship between leader Xi Jinping and Putin, came to any change in position. Beijing a long time ago refused to condemn the invasion, or even refer to it as such. He instead decried Western sanctions and amplified Kremlin talking points blaming the United States and NATO for the conflict, though that rhetoric appeared to be echoed somewhat in his state-controlled domestic media in recent months.

In side meetings with Western leaders last week, however, Xi reiterated China’s call for ceasefire through dialogueand, according to the readings of his interlocutors, agreed to oppose the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine – but these remarks are not included in the narrative of the talks by China.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi later told Chinese state media that Xi had reiterated China’s position during his bilateral meeting with US President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the G20 that “nuclear weapons cannot not be used and a nuclear war cannot be waged”.

But China’s foreign policy watchers say its desire to maintain strong ties with Russia likely remains unwavering.

“While these statements are an indirect criticism of Vladimir Putin, I don’t think they are meant to alienate China from Russia,” said Brian Hart, a fellow with the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Xi says these things to a public who wants to hear them.”

Russian isolation, however, looks even more stark against the backdrop of Xi’s diplomatic tour of Bali and Bangkok this week.

Although the Biden administration has named Beijing – not Moscow – the “seriousest long-term challenge” to the world order, Xi has been treated as a valued global partner by Western leaders, many of whom have met with the Chinese leader for talks aimed at increasing communication and cooperation.

Xi had an exchange with US Vice President Kamala Harris, who represents the United States at the APEC summit in Bangkok, at Saturday’s event. Harris said in a Tweet after noting a “key message” from Biden’s G20 meeting with Xi – the importance of keeping lines of communication open “to responsibly manage competition between our countries.”

In an impassioned plea for peace at a meeting of business leaders on the sidelines of the APEC summit on Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron appeared to draw a distinction between Russian actions and tensions with China.

While referring to US-China competition and growing confrontation in Asian regional waters, Macron said: “What makes this war different is that it is an assault on international rules. . All countries … have stability thanks to international rules”, before calling on Russia to return “to the table” and to “respect the international order”.

The urgency of this feeling increased after a Russian-made missile landed in Poland, killing two people on Tuesday, during the G20 summit. As a member of NATO, a threat to Polish security could trigger a response from the entire bloc.

The situation defused after an initial investigation suggested the missile came from the Ukrainian side in an accident during missile defense – but highlighted the potential for a miscalculation that could spark a global war.

A day after this situation, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pointed out what he called a “split screen”.

“What we see is a very telling split screen: as the world works to help the most vulnerable, Russia is targeting them; as world leaders reaffirmed our commitment to the Charter of the United Nations and to international rules that benefit all our peoples. President Putin continues to try to shred those same principles,” Blinken told reporters Thursday night in Bangkok.

As International Meetings Week approached, the United States and its allies stood ready to take this message to our international peers. And while strong messages have been sent out, it has not been easy to build consensus around this view – and differences remain.

The G20 and APEC statements both acknowledge the divisions between how members voted at the UN to support its resolution “deploring” Russian aggression, and say that while most members “strongly condemned the war, “there were other points of view and different assessments of the situation and the sanctions.”

Even making such an expression with caveats was an arduous process at both summits, officials said. Indonesian Jokowi said G20 leaders were up until “midnight” to discuss the paragraph on Ukraine.

The nations of the groupings maintain various geostrategic and economic relations with Russia, which has an impact on their positions. But another concern some Asian countries may have is whether moves to censor Russia are part of a US push to weaken Moscow, according to former Thai foreign minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon.

“Countries are saying we don’t just want to be a pawn in this game to be used to weaken another power,” said Suphamongkhon, a member of the advisory board of the RAND Corporation Center for Asia Pacific Policy (CAPP). Instead, framing Russia’s censorship around its “violation of international law and war crimes that may have been committed” would touch on aspects of the situation that “everyone here rejects”, he said. declared.

Russia’s rejection along these lines may also send a message to China, which itself flouted an international ruling refuting its territorial claims in the South China Sea and vowed to “reunite” with Taiwan’s self-governing democracy. that she never controlled. , by force if necessary.

While this week’s efforts may have increased the pressure on Putin, the Russian leader has experience of such dynamics: prior to Putin’s expulsion following his 2014 annexation of Ukrainian Crimea, the Group of Seven (G7) was the Group of Eight – and it remains to be seen whether international expressions will have an impact.

But without Putin in the fold, leaders stressed this week, the suffering will continue – and there will be a hole in the international system.

This story has been updated with new information.

New medium-term goals and long-term net-zero commitments, ambitious policy initiatives and technological development are helping to limit future global warming to around 1.8°C.

This is a considerable improvement on the previous projection of around 2.7°C made by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center (JRC).

However, achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target will require substantial and timely additional efforts by the entire international community, and in particular major emitters.

This is the main message highlighted by JRC scientists in their Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO) 2021 report released today, which provides an updated assessment of global climate commitments and projections of possible increases. temperature futures.

This year’s publication offers a global view of decarbonization scenarios as well as a deep dive into G20 countries, which account for around 75% of global GHG emissions since 1990.

For each of the G20 countries, the outlook assesses multiple emission pathways taking into account currently implemented policies, the most recent goals and commitments, and more ambitious global action that would put the world on the right path. to keep global warming to 1.5°C.

GECO 2021 stresses that substantial additional action will be required if the targets recently announced by several major economies are to be met, and that even greater action will be required to achieve a 1.5°C target.

The report also reveals potential reduction options across sectors, technologies and countries to align emissions with these goals, and provides in-depth analysis of global trends in energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ).

Towards climate neutrality

This year, the GECO 2021 report focuses on climate action driven by the latest commitments made under the Paris Agreement. The new edition takes stock of updates to the medium-term Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and long-term Net Zero Emissions (LTS) goals, as submitted before and during the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 26) in November 2021.

The report also assesses how recent LTS announcements by major global economies – which include some net-zero emissions targets – could affect the global effort for the low-carbon transition in the coming decades.

The GECO 2021 report shows that the recently announced targets for the short term (2030) and the long term (2050) would represent a clear break with historical trends and current policies.

The GECO 2021 analysis shows that if all countries meet these newly announced national targets (targets submitted in official UNFCCC documents or simply announced), the global temperature increase could be limited to 1.8°C from here 2100 (50% probability).

This figure is significantly lower than that assessed in previous editions of GECO; in 2019, the outlook calculated a temperature change of 2.7°C in an NDC scenario, with emissions not stabilizing until 2035-2040.

The new NDCs and LTS peak emissions around 2023, reducing them until 2050 and then stabilizing in the middle of the century, closing more than 80% of the emission gap around 1.5°C. An interesting feature common to all scenarios is that all show long-term stabilized emissions, with no discernible rebound induced by economic growth. This suggests a true decarbonization of our economic systems, where growth is decoupled from rising emissions.

However, substantial additional actions are needed to limit climate change to 1.5°C by 2100, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement and reaffirmed by parties to the Paris Agreement at COP26 in Glasgow.

The 1.5°C temperature goal requires global GHG emissions to decline rapidly over the next few decades and reach net zero by the start of the second half of the century.

Therefore, more ambitious targets are needed, both in the short term to achieve a steeper decline in emissions by 2030, and in the long term, as some large emitters have not yet adopted a net zero or only aim after 2050.

On top of that, strong action is needed for countries to achieve the goals they have already set themselves, as shown by the distance between current policies and NDC-LTS scenarios.

The transition to a low-carbon economy would initially rely mainly on the electricity generation sector. While a reduction in coal is the most significant change in primary energy consumption when moving from current policies to the NDC-LTS scenario, reaching the 1.5°C target would imply a sharp reduction in all fuels fossils.

In 2019, more than three-quarters (83%) of global energy demand was still met by fossil fuels, despite the significant growth in renewable energy over the previous decade. Fossil fuels represent only 29% of the energy supply in the 1.5C-Uniform scenario in 2050.

By aiming for the 1.5°C target, alongside achieving mostly carbon-free electricity generation, significant efforts are being made to improve energy efficiency, advance electrification and reduce emissions from climate change. land use.

Emission reductions are needed at all levels and the corresponding transition may have implications for the sectoral composition of employment. GECO 2021 provides insight into the labor market transition behind low carbon pathways.

Background

In 2019, the EU announced its target to become climate neutral by 2050. This target was confirmed as part of EU climate law, alongside a commitment to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 from 1990 levels (previous 2030 target was at least -40%). In order to achieve these reinforced objectives, the European Commission proposed the “Fit for 55” legislative package in July 2021.

However, as the EU accounts for only 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the challenge of limiting global warming must be taken up on a global level.

Several major emitters like the United States, China and India have recently announced climate change commitments that bring the world closer to the Paris Agreement target. GECO 2021 aims to reveal the implications of these pledges for emissions, energy systems and labor markets around the world, informing the global stocktaking process.

This GECO report is the seventh edition of the GECO series. It contributes to the work of the RCC in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which have recently called for action urgent coordinated global meeting on the climate crisis, unequivocally caused by human activities. .

Related content

JRC Report – Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2021: Towards Climate Neutrality

GECO 2021 webpage on the Science Hub