European Union

Many look towards Silicon Valley for the next breakthrough in low-carbon energy. There is much excitement around Google’s energy kite and Elon Musk’s pledge to solve southern Australia’s power shortage with solar batteries.

Other solutions are in still in their infancy: solar geo-engineering, or ocean fertilisation to promote algae CO2 absorption. For these technologies, unforeseen consequences for our climate system still need to be understood.

Elsewhere, established energy producers are not idle. Statoil is exploring ways to deliver energy from hydrogen using existing oil and gas infrastructure, and expects to invest between 15% and 20% of annual capital expenditure in new energy solutions by 2030.

But can business be trusted to deliver on the climate agenda? I think it is more pertinent to ask whether it is even possible to solve the challenge of climate change without a significant business involvement. In an area where governments can be slow to react, strong business leadership is essential.

“Can business be trusted to deliver on the climate agenda?”

In response to calls for greater transparency on corporate climate risk, such as the framework proposed by G20’s Financial Stability Board, the private sector is becoming more open about how climate change will affect business earnings.

These days, major oil and gas companies such as BP, Shell and Statoil are publishing forecasts of how their bottom line will be impacted by stronger government action against climate change. This should go some way towards creating openness and trust.

Right now, engineers are preparing to attach 75-metre-wide blades to towers that will rise 178 metres above sea level on floating structures in UK waters. This Hywind wind park will deliver energy to 20,000 households both from the wind and the swell of the sea – a world first.

At the same time, a 64,000 tonne subsea structure is being shipped to the Aasta Hansen field off the coast of Norway. Once installed 1,300 metres below sea level, it will deliver natural gas to Europe in the most efficient manner ever seen. These are two examples of Statoil projects which illustrate the scale of our plans to transform infrastructure and deliver low-carbon energy to millions.

“Incremental steps won’t solve the exponential problem of climate change”

Statoil’s recent strategy update and ‘2030 climate roadmap’ are further evidence of our conviction to tap into the ‘low-carbon advantage’. The strategy is based on maintaining a low cost base, reducing exposure to high-carbon projects, and making significant investments in renewables, new energy solutions and direct emission reductions in company operations.

By rebalancing its business model, Statoil is preparing for tighter regulation and a greater price on emissions. Statoil’s most recent climate stress test showed that if the world introduces policy measures to meet the 2°C target agreed at the Paris climate change conference, the future value of the company would increase by six per cent by 2030.

Incremental steps won’t solve the exponential problem of climate change. Investors, leading businesses and entrepreneurs see major opportunity in delivering energy, products and services that are fully aligned with the world we all want to live in. All parts of society, from institutions to decision-makers to consumers, need to encourage pioneer companies to use their ingenuity to deliver more energy with less carbon.

IMAGE CREDIT: CC/Flickr – World Bank Photo Collection

The post Business ingenuity for a low-carbon world appeared first on Europe’s World.

“France has doubted itself for decades. It feels that its culture, social model and deepest beliefs are under threat.”

As Emmanuel Macron took on the mantle of France’s head of state on Sunday, he was at pains to stress the the scale of the task ahead. His speech to France’s political elite, assembled at the Elysée Palace, namechecked every former holder of the office going back to the founding of the 5th Republic by Charles de Gaulle, in each case pointing out the historic challenges each of his predecessors had faced. For his own mandate, he set himself the goal of restoring France’s “confidence in itself” and, in doing so, reinforcing his country’s voice in Europe and in the world. As in the election campaign, he set out a vision of a France that “is not in decline”, but that needs to throw off the shackles of political inertia and anachronistic regulations. His first full day in office will see him confront two of the biggest questions hanging over the start of his five-year term: Firstly, how to form a government that can succeed where so many others have stumbled by driving through economic reform; secondly, how to strike up a partnership with Germany that will bring new energy to the EU. On the first point, Mr Macron is set today to announce his prime minister. Choosing a head of government is always a loaded decision for a French president, but particularly so in Mr Macron’s case, given his independence from France’s established centre-right and centre-left parties. With his decision, he has a chance to extend a large olive branch (should he want to) to potential defectors. Le Journal du Dimanche has a profile of the person who is widely tipped to get the job: Édouard Philippe, an MP and mayor of Le Havre who is also a close ally of Alain Juppé, the former centre-right prime minister. Other names very much in the frame include Nathalie Kosciuscko-Morizet, a former centre-right ecology minister, and Sylvie Goulard, a high profile liberal MEP. Mr Macron’s first full day in office then continues with his first official trip as president – to see Angela Merkel in Berlin. Mr Macron is seeking support from Germany for his plans for institutional reform of the euro area. The early signs have not been good, with senior figures in Berlin vehemently opposed to Macron’s idea of a joint eurozone budget, and at odds with his vision of closer economic policy coordination in the currency bloc. Simon Nixon smartly reflects on the dilemmas in today’s Wall Street Journal. In his speech on Sunday, Mr Macron said France’s willingness to politically pull itself together and reform would bolster its weight on the world stage. But even before achieving results at home, one of his first tasks will be to develop a sense of joint Franco-German endeavour that was so often lacking under his predecessor François Hollande.

Read more

Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, has pledged to take the country out of the European Union. But before last year’s referendum on 23 June, Ms May was a firm advocate against Brexit and for Britain remaining in the EU.

Can we trust a prime minister whose principles blow so easily in the wind? Is this really the sign of a ‘strong and stable’ leader?

The previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, felt compelled to resign after he urged the country to vote ‘Remain’ but the electorate voted instead to ‘Leave’.

But former Home Secretary, Theresa May, felt no similar compunction to go, despite the fact that she too urged the country to ‘vote remain’.

In a speech in April last year, Mrs May spoke firmly against Brexit and in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

She said then:

“My judgement, as Home Secretary, is that remaining a member of the European Union means we will be more secure from crime and terrorism.”

And as for replacing the trade we do with the EU with other markets, she asserted that this would be an unrealistic route. She said:

“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”

And there were other serious risks too.

“If we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.”

And other risks too.

“Outside the EU, for example, we would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which has allowed us to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years, and bring 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals to Britain to face justice.”

And leaving the EU, she said, could lead to the disintegration of the EU, resulting in “massive instability” with “with real consequences for Britain.”

In addition, Brexit might prove fatal to “the Union between England and Scotland“, which she did not want to happen.

And if Britain left the EU, she argued, we might not be successful in negotiating a successful divorce settlement.

Explained Mrs May:

“In a stand-off between Britain and the EU, 44 per cent of our exports is more important to us than eight per cent of the EU’s exports is to them.”

She added:

“The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market.

“We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined.

“It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy.”

In summary, Mrs May said just a year ago:

• “Remaining inside the European Union does make us more secure, it does make us more prosperous and it does make us more influential beyond our shores.

• “I believe the case to remain a member of the European Union is strong.

• “I believe it is clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the European Union.”

But as Prime Minister, Theresa May has completely changed her tune. She will now willingly take the country out of the Union and the EU Single Market, without even a glance back, and against her own advice.

Mrs May, who moved to 10 Downing Street less than a year ago, now says:

• “Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it.”

• “There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.”

• “There will be no attempts to re-join it by the back door; no second referendum.”

• “As Prime Minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union.”

• “The people have spoken, we will deliver on that.”

And in a complete turnaround from her position prior to 23 June, Mrs May announced:

• “Leaving the EU presents us with a world of opportunities and I’m determined to seize them.”

How is it possible for Theresa May to take Britain in a direction which only a year ago she advocated was most definitely not in the country’s best interests?

After all, nobody forced her to be the gung-ho Brexit Prime Minister, did they?

But on 8 June, the electorate has an opportunity to force two-faced Theresa and her Tory regime out of office. 

___________________________________________________

Other stories by Jon Danzig:

• All aboard for Brexit?
• Brexit Secretary, David Davis, gets 5 stars for double standards
• 70% of Mrs May’s cabinet wanted Britain to remain in the EU
• List of the latest articles by Jon Danzig

To follow my stories please like my Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

___________________________________________________

• The Reasons2Remain Facebook Community continues to support the case for Britain’s membership of the EU, and now, the actual impact of the Brexit vote. Join us!

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post Two-faced Theresa appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 174 - Draft report Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Cuba, of the other
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Some 88 million tonnes of food are wasted in the EU every year, equivalent to 173 kilos per person. Not only is this a waste or resources, it also contributes to climate change. Parliament is working on new measures to cut food waste in the EU by 50%. Check out our infographic to find out which sectors and countries waste the most food and read what is being done at EU level and what you can do yourself.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Plenary sessions : Some 88 million tonnes of food are wasted in the EU every year, equivalent to 173 kilos per person. Not only is this a waste or resources, it also contributes to climate change. Parliament is working on new measures to cut food waste in the EU by 50%. Check out our infographic to find out which sectors and countries waste the most food and read what is being done at EU level and what you can do yourself.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/222b505a-d19f-11e5-b6c6-bc764e08d9b2_93.41_thumb_169_1491578299_1491578298_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Foreign Affairs ministers meet on 15 May 2017 in Brussels to take stock of the implementation of the EU Global Strategy in the area of security and defence, in particular on the civilian aspects. The Council is also discussing the situation in the Horn of Africa, a region facing destabilisation, in particular in Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. EU-Africa relations are also being discussed, in preparation of the EU-Africa Summit (November). Another topic of discussion is the review of the Eastern Partnership, ahead of the ministerial meeting to take place on 19 June in Luxembourg and of the Eastern Partnership Summit foreseen on 24 November in Brussels.

Download this video here.

The people should return to politics - with this slogan Macron's movement La République en Marche has presented its candidates for the parliamentary elections in June. Many of them are new to politics, while most of the experienced politicians come from the Socialist camp. Europe's commentators take differing views of the situation and stress that the personnel carousel hasn't stopped spinning yet.

The pressure on US President Donald Trump is growing. After he fired FBI director James Comey in a surprise move allegations that the president wanted to prevent investigations into his campaign team's connections with Russia are gaining traction. Trump's credibility has been destroyed for good, commentators fear.