Earth Day: April 22: The G20’s Time for Climate Leadership, as Trump Adm. ready to block project - by Teresa Ribera

Global Warming Disaster:The question is not if but when

At the start of 2016, the United States was well positioned to lead the global fight against climate change. As the chair of the G20 for 2017, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been counting on the US to help drive a deep transformation in the global economy. And even after Donald Trump won the US presidential election, Merkel gave him the benefit of the doubt, hoping against hope that the US might still play a leading role in reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions.

But at Merkel and Trump’s first in-person meeting, no substantive statements were issued, and their body language made the prospect of future dialogue appear dim. Trump’s slogan “America first” seems to mean “America alone.”

By reversing his predecessor’s policies to reduce CO2 emissions, Trump is rolling back the new model of cooperative global governance embodied in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The countries that signed on to that accord committed themselves to sharing the risks and benefits of a global economic and technological transformation.

Trump’s climate-change policy does not bode well for US citizens – many of whom are now mobilizing resistance to his administration – or the world. But the rest of the world will still develop low-carbon, resilient systems. Private- and public-sector players across the developed and developing worlds are making the coming economic shift all but inevitable, and their agendas will not change simply because the US has a capricious new administration. China, India, the European Union, and many African and Latin American countries are still adopting clean-energy systems.

As long as this is the case, businesses, local governments, and other stakeholders will continue to pursue low-carbon strategies. To be sure, Trump’s policies might introduce new dangers and costs, domestically and worldwide; but he will not succeed in prolonging the fossil-fuel era.

Still, an effective US exit from the Paris agreement is a menacing development. The absence of such an important player from the fight against climate change could undermine new forms of multilateralism, even if it reinvigorates climate activism as global public opinion turns against the US.

More immediately, the Trump administration has introduced significant financial risks that could impede efforts to address climate change. Trump’s proposed budget would place restrictions on federal funding for clean-energy development and climate research. Likewise, his recent executive orders will minimize the financial costs of US businesses’ carbon footprint, by changing how the “social cost of carbon” is calculated. And his administration has already insisted that language about climate change be omitted from a joint statement issued by G20 finance ministers.

These are all unwise decisions that pose serious risks to the US economy, and to global stability, as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently pointed out. The US financial system plays a leading role in the world economy, and Trump wants to take us all back to a time when investors and the general public did not account for climate-change risks when making financial decisions.

Since 2008, the regulatory approach taken by the US and the G20 has been geared toward increasing transparency and improving our understanding of possible systemic risks to the global financial system, not least those associated with climate change and fossil-fuel dependency. Developing more stringent transparency rules and better risk-assessment tools has been a top priority for the financial community itself. Implementing these new rules and tools can accelerate the overall trend in divestment from fossil fuels, ensure a smooth transition to a more resilient, clean-energy economy, and provide confidence and clarity for long-term investors.

Given the heightened financial risks associated with climate change, resisting Trump’s executive order to roll back Wall Street transparency regulations should be a top priority. The fact that Warren Buffet and the asset-management firm Black Rock have warned about the investment risks of climate change suggests that the battle is not yet lost.

Creating the G20 was a good idea. Now, it must confront its biggest challenge. It is up to Merkel and other G20 leaders to overcome US (and Saudi) resistance and stay the course on climate action. They can count as allies some of the world’s large institutional investors, who seem to agree on the need for a transitional framework of self-regulation. It is incumbent upon other world leaders to devise a coherent response to Trump, and to continue establishing a new development paradigm that is compatible across different financial systems.

At the same time, the EU – which is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome this year – now has a chance to think about the future that it wants to build. These are difficult times, to be sure; but we can still decide what kind of world we want to live in.

Note EU-Digest: the EU needs to take its own independent and united position on this issue. Compromise should not be part of the equation. In addition, it has become extremely difficult  for any country to negotiate with the Trump Administration on just about any issue, given they change their position more often than the Kama Sutra.

 

Read more: The G20’s Time for Climate Leadership by Teresa Ribera - Project Syndicate 
-

France: Champs-Elysées terror shooting impact on the French election? Could Marine LePen Presidency increase terrorism?

Terrorism or manipulation ?: The French Presidential Elections

France has long feared a terror attack in the run-up to the presidential election. What impact will the Champs-Elysées shooting of a policeman that was claimed by terror group Isis have on Sunday's crucial first round vote?

The news that a policeman had been shot dead on the famous Champs-Elysées avenue broke as the 11 presidential candidates were appearing live on TV in a show dubbed “15 minutes to convince” France.

The far-right Marine Le Pen had not long finished her 15-minute slot when it became clear that France had been hit by another jihadist attack against its forces of law and order. An attack quickly claimed by terror group Isis.

Authorities had long feared an Isis-inspired or organised attack in the run-up to the election, as it would represent not just a symbolic attack on democracy, but also a chance to perhaps influence the result to their liking, with a victory for Le Pen fitting in with their desire to divide France's communities.

Hence the reason the government extended the state of emergency to cover the campaign.

The immediate impact of Thursday night's attack saw Marine Le Pen, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron announce they were suspending their campaigns. They all cancelled meetings on Friday, the last official day of campaigning.

Although events have been cancelled the candidates haven’t quite gone quiet.

Marine Le Pen, who has seen her campaign tail off in recent weeks launched an attack on previous governments.

Mrs. Le Pen, however, has several major supporters in Europe and the US, including President Putin and President Trump

Marine Le Penn also went to Russia recently and met with President Putin and has often also praised  President Trump on  his foreign and immigrant policies.

Yesterday, right after the attack in Paris, Mr. Trump went live on US TV and deplored not only the attack in Franc,  but also indirectly mingled into French politics, supporting Marine Le Penn by saying that the attack will have a "big impact" on the polls in France as they relate to the Sunday Presidential elections there. 

Unfortunately, US president Donald Trump, whose own populist victory was celebrated by Marine Le Pen, used this deplorable attack in France to once again show his loyalty to  a fellow populist right-wing nationalist politician in Europe - just as he had done earlier in the week, after the Turkish contested Referendum, by congratulating Turkish "strongman" Erdogan with his so-called victory.

Even though the Paris Champs-Elysées terrorist carried a note on himself  showing support  for ISIS, one can only hope that the French criminal investigators will scrupulously investigate this case to eliminate all possible doubts as to the motives of this attack, so close to the elections French Presidential   

EU-Digest   

City Survey: Best Cities for Millennials 2017 - World Ranking- Amsterdam Number One

Millennials are often defined by their affinity with technology, their entrepreneurial mindset, and their revitalising effects on cities. For all their positive attributes, this demographic is also well-documented for their highly expectant standards, and will not stay long in a location that doesn’t match their criteria.

Each year, students and young professionals flock from their home towns, suburbs and villages to find work and apartments in vibrant cities. But which cities actually offer the most for millennials?

At Nestpick, we help people of all ages relocate to some of the most exciting cities in the world, and our role has given us key insights into not only the migration patterns of millennials, but also the potential suitability of cities for the demographic. We studied thousands of cities to hand-pick 100 places considered to be millennial dream destinations. We then ranked them by relevant factors to compile the ultimate Millennial City Ranking.

In order for a city to rank highly, we determined that it must have a thriving business eco structure, allow affordable access to the essentials that young people need to survive, have a sense of openness and tolerance that is increasingly prevalent in the 21st century, and lastly, offer a chance for millennials to kick back and relax.

The results reveal the definitive list of the best cities for Millennials this 2017.

To view the list click on this link: : Best Cities for Millennials 2017 - World Ranking | Nestpick

US - Turkey Relations: Pres. Trump’s deafening silence on Turkey dictatorship: Are business interests muzzling POTUS? - by Jordan Schachtel

Birds of a feather flock together

Are President Trump’s business ties to Istanbul stopping him from reprimanding the Turkish president for his authoritarian power grab?

On Monday, Trump congratulated Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan for a referendum victory (contested as undemocratic by multiple international monitoring organizations) that boosted his unilateral authority over his country.

Further, “[T]he leaders agreed on the importance of holding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accountable,” a readout of his call with Erdogan said. “President Trump and President Erdogan also discussed the counter-ISIS campaign and the need to cooperate against all groups that use terrorism to achieve their ends,” the statement concluded.

Over the past several months, Turkey has continued to move in the direction of becoming a full-blown Islamist tyranny.

President Erdogan, whose AKP party continues to push for an Islamist ideology that rejects Turkey’s founding as a secular country, has continued to cozy up with terror advocates like the Muslim Brotherhood and its subgroup Hamas. Some have even alleged that top officials in Ankara are responsible for financing operations by the Islamic State terror group.

Erdogan has pushed a vicious crackdown of any type of dissent. After Erdogan said that members of a rogue party attempted a military coup, the authoritarian leader has rounded up tens of thousands of military officials, journalists, academics, students, and others who he has alleged are part of a movement that is attempting to overthrow his seat of power.

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House.

So why hasn’t President Donald Trump called Turkey out for its gross violations of basic human rights? Is it simply because he wants to hold together the NATO alliance, or are there more selfish and financial motives at play?

One explanation points to his notable business interests there.

The president has licensed his name to a towering development in Istanbul. The agreement makes him an estimated $1 to 5 million per year, according to reports. Trump even admitted in 2015 that he has a “conflict of interest” when it comes to Turkey.

“I have a little conflict of interest ’because I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It’s called Trump Towers. Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it’s two. And I’ve gotten to know Turkey very well,” the president said in a December 2015 radio interview describing his Istanbul property.

And on social media, Trump has repeatedly tweeted excitedly about his property there, and his love for Istanbul.

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

But this isn’t exactly a new problem. Under Erdogan, Turkey has, year after year, become less free and more authoritarian, according to Freedom House. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/pres-trumps-deafening-silence-on-turkey-dictatorship-are-business-interests-muzzling-potus#sthash.IP3H104r.dpuf

Turkey Referendum Fraud: "Erdogan Uber Alles", as even the law is not sacred anymore in Turkey

Erdogan's Democracy In Action

Less than 24 hours after Erdogan declared "victory", Tana de Zulueta, head of the monitoring mission of the OSCE/ODIHR, offered a harsh analysis on the way the Turkish referendum was conducted.

In a damning statement, she said: "The legal framework for the referendum neither sufficiently provides for impartial coverage nor guarantees eligible political parties equal access to public media."

The ruling party and the president were given preference in the allocation of free airtime, she said. 

The campaign framework was described as "restrictive" and "imbalanced" because of the involvement of Erdogan and other national and local public figures in the "yes" campaign. 

De Zulueta also said that monitors saw 'No' supporters subjected to police intervention at events while also being equated to terrorists by senior officials in the 'Yes' camp, during a fractious campaign period. Monitors also said that the change in ballot validity rules was deemed to have undermined "an important safeguard and contradicting the law." 

The Turkish High Electoral Board at first said it would not accept ballots that were missing ballot commission stamps. But it announced a changed of course after voting was underway Sunday, saying it would accept unstamped ballots "unless they are proven to have been brought from outside." 

Given the fraud and controversy so far surrounding the Turkish referendum,  leaders of member states of the European Union have been cautious about the results of the referendum in Turkey.and no EU leader sent the traditional congratulations message to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his victory so far.

EU-Digest

Turkey votes to expand president’s powers wih minimal margin; critics cry fraud - by E. Becatoros, S. Fraser and Z.Bilginsoy

Turkey Referendum :Erdogan 's intimidation worked  barely

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a historic referendum Sunday that will greatly expand the powers of his office, although opposition parties questioned the outcome and said they would challenge the results.

With 99 percent of the ballots counted, the “yes” vote stood at 51.37 percent, while the “no” vote was 48.63 percent, according to the state-run Anadolu Agency. The head of Turkey’s electoral board confirmed the “yes” victory and said final results will be declared in 11-12 days.

Although the margin fell short of the sweeping victory Erdogan had sought in the landmark referendum, it could nevertheless cement his hold on power in Turkey and is expected to have a huge effect on the country’s long-term political future and its international relations.

The 18 constitutional amendments that will come into effect after the next election, scheduled for 2019, will abolish the office of the prime minister and hand sweeping executive powers to the president.

In his first remarks from Istanbul, Erdogan struck a conciliatory tone, thanking all voters no matter how they cast their ballots and calling the referendum a “historic decision.”

“April 16 is the victory of all who said ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ of the whole 80 million, of the whole of Turkey,” Erdogan told reporters in address that was televised live.

But he quickly reverted to a more abrasive style when addressing thousands of flag-waving supporters in Istanbul

“There are those who are belittling the result. They shouldn’t try, it will be in vain,” he said. “It’s too late now.”

Responding to chants from the crowd to reinstate the death penalty, Erdogan said he would take up the issue with the country’s political leaders, adding that the question could be put to another referendum if the political leaders could not agree.

Note EU-Digest: Given the result of the referendum and charges of intimidation, in addition to the possibility of electoral fraud, President Erdogan, in all reality, can not really claim he got a sweeping mandate to change the Turkish Constitution in this referendum

The fears of electoral fraud and government meddling is now more relevant than ever, fueled by the extraordinary powers the government wields under the state of emergency. 

The badly crippled Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the main Kurdish political force, which has been trying to soldier on with its “no” campaign against its main rival, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has also voiced their concerns.

HDP members say they have been facing the “unchecked power” of the government, reflected not only in obstructions to their campaigns, but also in moves to keep party activists away from polling stations today, March 16.

Read more: Turkey votes to expand president’s powers; critics cry fraud - The Washington Post

Turkey-EU ties: a bargaining chip on eve of referendum

Turkey’s president Tayyip Erdogan has ramped up his anti-EU rhetoric on the eve of a referendum which would hand him sweeping powers.

Erdogan said he would review Ankara’s relationship with Brussels, as he seeks to shore up support for the constitutional changes needed to transfer more power away from parliament to the president.

Turkey’s president Tayyip Erdogan has ramped up his anti-EU rhetoric on the eve of a referendum which would hand him sweeping powers.

Erdogan said he would review Ankara’s relationship with Brussels, as he seeks to shore up support for the constitutional changes needed to transfer more power away from parliament to the president.

“The EU has lost all credibility. We don’t defend democracy, human rights and freedoms because they want us to, we do that because our citizens deserve it. As we get closer to democracy, they are moving away from it,” Erdogan told supporters at a rally in Istanbul.

He continued saying that the EU feared the new system because Turkey would be ‘even stronger’. In his speech he said that the EU had left Turkey waiting 54 years for membership, and that the vote on Sunday would be a turning point.

Over the course of the campaign Erdogan’s speeches have shown a clear shift in ties with Brussels, becoming far more critical of the 27-member bloc. When ministers attempted to campaign in EU countries, there was a clampdown on rallies and Erdogan responded by calling leaders ‘fascists’ and ‘Nazis’.

Also in Istanbul, the ‘No’ campaign formed a symbolic human chain on the European side of the Bosphorous strait which divides Asia and Europe.

They fear the constitutional changes would see Turkey lurch towards authoritarianism. The new system could allow Erdogan to run for two more terms, potentially stretching his rule to 2029.

“I have two children. I’m here for my children and for a Turkey where the values I was born with remain, where my children can continue to think freely and where journalists and teachers are not put behind bars,” said one ‘No’ supporter.

The vote comes at a time of turmoil, with the country reeling from a series of bombings by ISIL and Kurdish militants, a failed coup and subsequent purge as well as a deep economic slowdown, something which the president says requires a stronger leadership to bring under control.

Turkey-EU ties: a bargaining chip on eve of referendum | Euronews