SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (863548)6/8/2015 5:01:59 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579980
 
G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by end of century

German chancellor Angela Merkel announces commitment to ‘decarbonise global economy’ and end extreme poverty and hunger

G7 leaders, including Angela Merkel (in pink jacket), and invitees line up for the traditional group photo at the end of the summit. Photograph: Sven Hoppe/dpa/Corbis
Kate Connolly in Garmisch Partenkirchen

Monday 8 June 2015 10.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 8 June 2015 16.48 EDT

The G7 leading industrial nations have agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has announced, in a move hailed as historic by some environmental campaigners.

On the final day of talks in a Bavarian castle, Merkel said the leaders had committed themselves to the need to “decarbonise the global economy in the course of this century”. They also agreed on a global target for limiting the rise in average global temperatures to a maximum of 2C over pre-industrial levels.

Environmental lobbyists described the announcement as a hopeful sign that plans for complete decarbonisation could be decided on in Paris climate talks later this year. But they criticised the fact that leaders had baulked at Merkel’s proposal that they should agree to immediate binding emission targets.

As host of the summit, which took place in the foothills of Germany’s largest mountain, the Zugspitze, Merkel said the leading industrialised countries were committed to raising $100bn (£65bn) in annual climate financing by 2020 from public and private sources.

In a 17-page communique issued after the summit at Schloss Elmau under the slogan “Think Ahead, Act Together”, the G7 leaders agreed to back the recommendations of the IPCC, the United Nations’ climate change panel, to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions at the upper end of a range of 40% to 70% by 2050, using 2010 as the baseline.

Merkel also announced that G7 governments had signed up to initiatives to work for an end to extreme poverty and hunger, reducing by 2030 the number of people living in hunger and malnutrition by 500 million, as well as improving the global response to epidemics in the light of the Ebola crisis.

Poverty campaigners reacted with cautious optimism to the news.
The participant countries – Germany, Britain, France, the US, Canada, Japan and Italy – would work on initiatives to combat disease and help countries around the world react to epidemics, including a fund within the World Bank dedicated to tackling health emergencies, Merkel announced at a press conference after the summit formally ended on Monday afternoon.

Reacting to the summit’s final declaration, the European Climate Foundation described the G7 leaders’ announcement as historic, saying it signalled “the end of the fossil fuel age” and was an “important milestone on the road to a new climate deal in Paris”.

Samantha Smith, a climate campaigner for the World Wildlife Fund, said: “There is only one way to meet the goals they agreed: get out of fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

The 350.org campaign group put out a direct challenge to Barack Obama to shut down long-term infrastructure projects linked to the fossil fuel industry. “If President Obama wants to live up to the rhetoric we’re seeing out of Germany, he’ll need to start doing everything in his power to keep fossil fuels in the ground. He can begin by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and ending coal, oil and gas development on public lands,” said May Boeve, the group’s director.

Others called on negotiators seeking an international climate deal at Paris later this year to make total decarbonisation of the global economy the official goal.

“A clear long-term decarbonisation objective in the Paris agreement, such as net zero greenhouse gas emissions well before the end of the century, will shift this towards low-carbon investment and avoid unmanageable climate risk,” said Nigel Topping, the chief executive of the We Mean Business coalition.

Merkel won praise for succeeding in her ambition to ensure climate was not squeezed off the agenda by other pressing issues. Some environmental groups said she had established herself as a “climate hero”.

German chancellor Angela Merkel’s announcement on G7 climate change goals Observers said she had succeeded where sceptics thought she would not, in winning over Canada and Japan, the most reluctant G7 partners ahead of negotiations, to sign up to her targets on climate, health and poverty.

Iain Keith, campaign director of the online activist network Avaaz, said: “Angela Merkel faced down Canada and Japan to say ‘Auf Wiedersehen’ to carbon pollution and become the climate hero the world needs.”

The One campaigning and advocacy organisation called the leaders’ pledge to end extreme poverty a “historic ambition”. Adrian Lovett, its Europe executive director, said: “These G7 leaders have signed up ... to be part of the generation that ends extreme poverty and hunger by 2030.” But he warned: “Schloss Elmau’s legacy must be more than a castle in the air.

But the Christian relief organisation World Vision accused the leaders of failing to deliver on their ambitious agenda, arguing they had been too distracted by immediate crises, such as Russia and Greece. “Despite addressing issues like hunger and immunisation, it was nowhere as near as ambitious as we would have hoped for,” a spokeswoman said.

Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust said the proposals would “transform the resilience of global health systems”. But he said the success of the measures would depend on the effectiveness with which they could be coordinated on a global scale and that required fundamental reform of the World Health Organisation, something the leaders stopped short of deciding on.

“We urge world leaders to consider establishing an independent body within the WHO with the authority and responsibility to deliver this,” he said.

Merkel, who called the talks “very work-intensive and productive” and defended the format of a summit that cost an estimated €300m (£220m), said that the participants had agreed to sharpen existing sanctions against Russia if the crisis in Ukraine were to escalate.

She also said “there isn’t much time left” to find a solution to the Greek global debt crisis but that participants were unanimous in wanting Greece to stay in the eurozone.

Demonstrators, about 3,000 of whom had packed a protest camp in the nearby village of Garmisch Partenkirchen, cancelled the final action that had been planned to coincide with the close of the summit.

At a meeting in the local railway station, the head of Stop G7 Elmau, Ingrid Scherf announced that the final rally would not go ahead “because we’re already walked off our feet”. She denied the claims of local politicians that the group’s demonstrations had been a flop. “I’m not at all disappointed, the turnout was super,” she said. “And we also had the support of lots of locals.”

Only two demonstrators were arrested, police said, one for throwing a soup dish, another for carrying a spear.

theguardian.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (863548)6/8/2015 6:00:58 PM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579980
 
GE Is Considering Leaving Connecticut Over Democrats’ Tax Hikes

by Mark Antonio Wright
June 8, 2015 4:00 AM
nationalreview.com

Well, that didn’t take long. The same week Connecticut governor Dan Malloy pushed through a $1.1 billion in tax increases in the already heavily taxed state, the iconic firm General Electric appears to be considering fleeing the Constitution State, and moving its headquarters to more business-friendly climes.

In an e-mail to company employees obtained by National Review, GE chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt wrote that the “passing of this law, despite the concerns we raised, has serious implications for GE, other businesses and for the business climate in Connecticut.”

“As a result of this law passing, I have assembled an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ to another state with a more pro-business environment,” Immelt continued. (The text of the full e-mail is here.)

The e-mail included an attached fact sheet that detailed how low the state ranks in various business-friendliness rankings, the changes to the tax policy Malloy just pushed through (which include $700 million in new levies on businesses), and a detailing of GE’s contributions to the local community. (The PDF is here.)

New England, once a formidable manufacturing region, has seen businesses and jobs flee for more business-friendly climes elsewhere in the U.S. and even overseas for decades now, cutting into employment opportunities for less-skilled laborers. GE’s departure would be just another blow to a region now dotted with former industrial towns searching for a revival.

Connecticut has repeatedly increased taxes on businesses, the fact sheet noted, including a 2013 extension of the corporate tax surcharge. Meanwhile, the state has a 6.3 percent unemployment rate, almost a full percentage point above the national average and the highest in New England, and has seen a steady net outflow in population. The GE fact sheet also offered a merciless list of the the state’s rankings in various economic indexes: 50th in Job Climate (Gallup), 46th in Economic Profile (CNBC), and 44th in Economic Climate (Forbes).

While GE’s presence in Connecticut has shrunk over the years, it employs 5,700 people in the state, pays almost $1.8 million in property taxes in Fairfield County, in the southwest corner of the state, and buys nearly $14 billion in goods and services from other Connecticut companies. The company has “had a tough past decade in Connecticut,” Immelt’s e-mail says, “Our taxes have been raised five times since 2011.”

Relocation may sound drastic, but according to Carol Platt Liebau, president of the Yankee Institute, a Connecticut free-market think tank, GE’s move would be an essentially “rational” decision, given of the dramatically worsening business environment in the state.

“I think it does make sense, because what you’ve seen is not only a willingness to raise taxes, but a seeming lack of comprehension on the part of state leaders as to why that’s a problem,” Liebau tells National Review. “What’s mind-boggling is to hear some of the Democrats in the state house and the state senate essentially making light of the burdens that their choices are putting on the people of Connecticut.”

GE declined to comment on the possibility that it might move, but Immelt’s e-mail makes a very similar point:

The new taxes will raise more than $1.9 billion. This will be the second highest tax increase in the state’s history behind only the more than $2 billion tax hike passed in 2011. Throughout the week we conveyed our concerns that these would not improve the competitiveness of small and large businesses in the state. We further reiterated those points in a public statement as the legislature began its budget deliberations.

Connecticut’s Democratic leadership apparently did not take GE’s concerns under consideration, but there may be some blowback. The state’s paper of record reports that Malloy and legislative leaders “are open to tweaking the tax side of a budgetthat has alarmed several large Connecticut employers.”

That’s a newfound attitude, though, after the state senate’s top Democrat accused GE in a press conference of opposing the tax increases as cover for upcoming layoffs.

GE flatly denied the accusation, according to the Hartford Courant, saying, “This is completely untrue. The reason we have spoken out about this budget is that we need to operate in a state that allows business to be competitive.”

Connecticut’s tax hikes also aren’t the only bad news for GE these days: New financial regulations have the firm considering spinning off parts of its large financing arm, GE Capital, which may decrease the need to suffer Connecticut’s climate.

Republican state senator Scott Frantz tells National Review that a GE move would be “absolutely devastating for the state in terms of the job losses.”

“The state is in such rough shape these days from a business-climate point of view, from a tax-climate point of view,” he says, “that the jobs wouldn’t be replaced anytime soon — if ever, at all.”

Frantz, who represents parts of the prosperous Fairfield County, places the blame for the Constitution State’s malaise on the legislature’s zeal for spending. “For the last 40 years, we’ve been growing the [state] budget about 7 percent per year. It’s impossible to keep up with no matter what state you are,” he says.

As GE decides how to handle the new tax increase, the debate has been getting some national attention, thanks to MSNBC morning host and Connecticut resident Joe Scarborough, who has continued to cover the issue.

After heavily criticizing Malloy’s budget plans, when they passed, Scarborough blasted the governor “for passing yet another massive tax increase after promising not to pass another massive tax increase.”



Immelt promised to keep GE employees updated as the company considers relocation and said many factors will be considered, including the costs it would impose on employees. But it sure sounds like one of the state’s most iconic companies could be headed for the exits.

Would that finally be enough to spark some policy changes in the Nutmeg State? Some new legislators would probably be needed, first.

The Yankee Institute’s Liebau does not mince words on the subject: “I think Connecticut’s people can do better than a bunch of legislators who have no understanding and no respect for the free market.” Time will tell.

— Mark Antonio Wright is an intern at National Review.

Share