Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union laid out ambitious plans to fight climate change through a variety of economic measures, including a proposed carbon border tax that would levy fees on imports based on the levels of carbon they produce.

The United States has expressed concern about the EUs plans to reduce carbon emissions by raising taxes and there are concerns about increased disputes within the World Trade Organization. But at the end of the day, it will likely have the longer-term effect of getting other nations to act in a similar matter, according to Columbia University professor of natural resource economics Scott Barrett.

This does put pressure on other countries like the United States to step up, Barrett said in a recent interview with Marketplace Morning Report host Andy Uhler. And from that point of view, its a positive move.

Barrett said that while the EU will likely see some trade retaliation going forward, Brussels latest move will force others to materially engage with climate change policies.

I think it is really inevitable that any serious action on climate change is going to have to link with trade, Barrett said. Its just finding the way to link trade and climate that is not disruptive to trade, does not damage relations among countries and does address the collective-action problem of getting countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Below is an edited transcript of Uhler and Barretts conversation.

Andy Uhler: Im curious, from your perspective, this idea of implementing climate change initiatives, implementing sort of the idea that we have to face climate change and the realities, and putting them into things like trade deals. Is this novel? Is it a new idea? How did this come about?

Scott Barrett: The idea has been kicking around a long time. And its actually come up in the climate negotiations before but never carried further. The final output you see is all silent on this issue. But it has come up before. It appeared in U.S. legislation, the so-called Waxman-Markey bill incorporated an element of this very similar to the EU proposal. And Europe itself adopted something like this for one sector, for international aviation, some years ago. But that was never fully implemented. Or to put it differently, they backed off from it when there was a threat of retaliation by other countries.

Uhler: You know, the United States has come out and said, Look, we dont have a price for carbon, how are we going to do this? Right? I mean, is there going to be pushback, just sort of inherently, when you have these sorts of things, I guess, traversing different platforms, right? You have trade deals, and then you have carbon?

Barrett: Well, I think theres got to be a mixed response. I think on the one hand, you know, what Europe is trying to do is push the negotiations along. Its main interest is ensuring that its own industries dont lose out from its more ambitious policy on climate. And also to make sure that emissions dont relocate, which is a big worry about the trade system, that if Europe tightens up, other countries may take up the slack, as it were, and emit more. I think, however, there will be some issues. One is that this is being done unilaterally, I think that would be of concern to some. There are some other issues about WTO compatibility, but we wont know how that would be resolved until a case, you know, comes to the WTO, if one does come. Probably the issues will be worked out in negotiations before that stage. But this does put pressure on other countries like the United States to step up. And from that point of view, its a positive move.

Barrett: One more thing, actually, I should say. You know, their concern is about something called leakage. So thats this problem that if one country, a group of countries, acts, their own costs go up, therefore, they lose comparative advantage in the greenhouse-gas-intensive industries to the other countries. So thats a real negative. But another aspect of this, which they cant control through this measure, is that their demand for fossil fuels will shrink because of their ambition, that will actually lower world prices for fossil fuels and cause other countries, indirectly, to increase their emissions. And theyre not able to control for that.

Uhler: In terms of setting that price for carbon, you know, we talk about this all the time in international relations, right? The idea of, you dont have a global governing body, you dont have somebody saying, Hey, this is how we do things. You have sort of that idea of sovereignty. Is this just inherent in anything that we try to do? When were dealing with sort of common goods, the idea of the world attacking climate change, again, is inherently difficult, right?

Barrett: Its inherently difficult. Its actually probably the most difficult problem of its kind weve ever seen. And weve made repeated attempts to try to negotiate an effective agreement over 30 years, investing an enormous amount of diplomatic effort. And theres not a lot to show for it. And the Paris Agreement is a voluntary agreement and so is relying on the different countries in the world to step up. And theyre really not doing that. This trade measure is not really getting at that directly. Its aim is just to neutralize the competitive effects. But a different way to think about this is actually to use trade as a means to enforce an agreement reached multilaterally to reduce emissions, in this case, probably just for the greenhouse-gas-intensive sectors. So I dont know if this is how things are going to finally end up. But I think this, well, if you look at the history with the aviation directive, well, first their instinct was to retaliate. Thats sovereignty, they dont want someone else to tell them what to do. But also it kind of kick-started some negotiations among countries on how to address this problem internationally. And its possible that that may also be an implication, or a final result, rather, of this unilateral effort by Europe and may actually just wake up other countries and get them to think more seriously about how theyre really going to attack this problem.

Uhler: Theres also weve talked about this 100 times on Marketplace but sort of the idea of a market opportunity here for countries if you get out in front. I mean, China has been pretty explicit about getting out in front of the idea of clean energy and renewables and things like that. There are economic benefits to being sort of the first out there, right?

Barrett: There are benefits, potentially, provided you get this transformation worldwide. So in other words, it has to be the case that the markets are changing everywhere, because then the countries that move early to develop the technologies will find markets. So youre playing this delicate game where on the one hand, youre trying to push out to urge the rest of the world to go. And youre hoping youre going to gain from that. But what happens if the rest of the world doesnt join you? And thats whats been going on for about 30 years. This is partly what theyre trying to get at with this measure. But there are actually other ways in which they might push it even further. But that really should be handled much more at the multilateral level. So I think another implication of this is that we may need to rethink how we negotiate agreements like the Paris Agreement, to bring in measures like this, that are negotiated and therefore agreed by the different countries, but that really propel action globally to address this great threat.

Uhler: These are proposals, these certainly arent laws. Youre going to have cases in front of the WTO, I would imagine, arguments of protectionism. Do we have a timeline idea of how this sort of plays out? You talked about 30 years of dealing with this. I hope thats not what were looking at.

Barrett: I dont think it is. I think Europe is going to be moving forward with this. They have a lot to work out. They have their own internal negotiations to sort out. But I think theyre going to want to move forward with this. Now as they do, well have to see how other countries respond as well. And as we did, we saw this played out before with the aviation directive. So this is basically the first shot across the bow. But I do think that no one can really accept the status quo ante because thats been ineffective. And I think it is really inevitable that any serious action on climate change is going to have to link with trade. Its just finding the way to link trade and climate that is not disruptive to trade, does not damage relations among countries and does address the collective-action problem of getting countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

More:
How will the world respond to the European Unions proposed carbon border tax? - Marketplace

DRUSKININKAI, Lithuania Migrants from Iraq and Africa have faced rapacious traffickers and perilous land and sea crossings as they tried to make their way to the European Union to seek asylum.

Now some are finding themselves caught in a geopolitical battle between the European Union and Belaruss strongman, President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, which has intensified since his government forced down an international flight to drag off a young opposition activist, drawing worldwide condemnation and E.U. sanctions.

Those battle lines appear to have been drawn at the Belarusian-Lithuanian border in recent weeks, as the number of migrants crossing into Lithuania, a member of the European Union, from Belarus has soared.

Lithuanian officials accuse Mr. Lukashenko of encouraging the migrants to cross the border, using them as hybrid weapons. In response, Lithuania is building a border fence as quickly as it can and just passed a law to fast-track asylum claims.

Migrants at a camp that has been rapidly set up in the quaint Lithuanian spa town of Druskininkai seemed confused when asked if they knew the government of the territory they had just entered considered them unwitting weapons in a geopolitical battle.

I have no idea what is going on between Belarus and Lithuania, said a young man who gave his name as Collins and said he was from Nigeria. But I know the E.U. is going to protect us. Right?

However, Lithuania appears to be taking an increasingly tough line against arriving migrants, whose numbers have shot up in recent months.

Of the 118 migrants whose cases have been processed this year, none has received asylum, according to the Interior Ministrys department for migration. And last week, the Lithuanian parliament passed, almost unanimously, a law fast-tracking asylum procedures to 10 days, allowing the authorities to process and return migrants faster, and legalizing detention for migrants for up to six months without a court order.

The camp in Druskininkai, with tents and rudimentary showers to house the migrants, was set up this month but is already at capacity, said Cmdr. Andrius Beloruchkinas, the regional border chief. The Lithuanian army has also started laying loops of concertina wire for what will eventually become a formidable barrier along the 422-mile border.

Lithuanian suspicions about the reasons for the new influx of migrants have been fueled by a veiled threat Mr. Lukashenko made after the European Union initiated new sanctions against Belarus as punishment for forcing down a European passenger jet carrying the Belarusian dissident in late May.

Understand the Situation in Belarus

We used to catch migrants in droves here now, forget it, you will be catching them yourselves, he told European Union leaders.

And now that threat appears to be coming true.

Just eight migrants arrived in March, with the number jumping to 77 in May. But in June, 473 asylum seekers crossed over, and more than 1,130 in the first half of July.

The Belarusian regime is using refugees, people from Iraq and other countries against Lithuania, against Europe as a hybrid weapon, Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said in a phone interview. If people are used as a weapon against Lithuania, then a barrier can be used as a defense line, he said.

Lithuanians also believe their country is being targeted because it hosts the Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who fled to Vilnius after claiming to win the presidential election in Belarus last August. Ms. Tikhanovskaya and members of her team were this month granted diplomatic status as the Belarusian Democracy Representative Office.

Laurynas Kasciunas, the chairman of the parliaments defense committee, said Belarus had stopped answering a hotline that was used for years by border guards from both countries, and that they stopped implementing their obligations to accept returned migrants.

Belarus did not respond to requests for comment, and has publicly denied the charges leveled against it by Lithuania. In an interview with Sky News Arabia TV, Mr. Lukashenko said Belarus was ready to help deal with the crisis, but not free of charge.

He added: If you want us to help you, you do not throw a noose around our neck, in an apparent allusion to the E.U. sanctions.

Lithuania has also been turning to Hungary, which sees itself as an antidote to the liberal policies of the European Union, as a model for successful border management.

Its border plans are loosely based on a controversial wall Hungary built on its southern border with Serbia in 2015 after a wave of migrants traveled from Turkey through the Balkans in the hopes of reaching Western Europe.

In mid-June, Mr. Kasciunas made a study visit to the Hungarian border, and became the first local politician to advocate that Lithuania follow a similar model.

Most of the migrants arriving in Lithuania say they are from Iraq, with the majority identifying as Kurds. The next largest groups were from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Guinea, Iran and Syria.

Now that they have made it to Lithuania, many are worrying about their futures.

Is this prison, or is this a camp? a 28-year-old Iraqi who gave his name as Birhat asked outside one of the army tents that had been hastily erected in Druskininkai.

Birhat and others gathered around him had similar stories of how they got to Lithuania. Some said they found groups on Facebook that informed them they could fly to the Belarusian capital, Minsk, from Baghdad, get a visa upon arrival and then make their way with ease to the Lithuanian border. Birhat was apprehended a week ago by border guards.

The Lithuanian government believes that the travel is being encouraged by Mr. Lukashenkos regime, though Belarusian officials have denied explicit involvement. Mr. Landsbergis said that Belarus began issuing tourist visas to Iraqis upon arrival several months ago. A state-owned travel agency, Centrkurort, works with local partners in Iraq and elsewhere to organize flights for migrants, according to Mr. Landsbergis.

Until early this month, a narrow canal was the only border between Lithuania and Belarus, two former Soviet countries.

But the new barrier that will separate them is rapidly taking shape.

Tomorrow we will lay another quarter of a mile of this razor wire in this unbearable heat, said Commander Beloruchkinas, detailing the plan to complete the fence in the next two months.

According to the governments plans, the concertina wire will eventually be buttressed by a second parallel, taller fence, with equipment and technology at a cost of 41 million euros (about $48 million).

This is a fence not against the free world but against a leader who wants to destroy the free world, Mr. Kasciunas said in an interview in Lithuanias parliament.

When Belarus will be a democratic regime, we can tear it down, he said, referring to the fence. But for now, this could only be the start of a new migrant wave, he added. We are determined not to open a new route for migrants to Europe.

Mr. Kasciunas was careful to differentiate Lithuanias approach from Hungarys, which has been criticized for its practice of pushing back refugees to Serbia, depriving migrants of food, and effectively prohibiting would-be asylum seekers from asking for protection at the border.

While Hungarys border wall was heavily criticized in Brussels and by human rights groups, European Union leaders have supported Lithuanias government in its efforts.

Here we see indeed a pattern, a politically motivated pattern, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said in early July referring to Belarus. And the European Commission and the European Union stand by your side in these difficult times.

She promised emergency funding, and the European Union border agency, Frontex, has dispatched a mission to assist Lithuania.

Josep Borrell, the European Unions top diplomat, suggested last week that Belarus could be subject to further sanctions. To use migrants as a weapon, pushing people against borders, is unacceptable, he said.

Still, human rights groups have raised concerns that Lithuanias new asylum law could result in people with legitimate claims being denied.

Egle Samuchovaite, the program director at the Lithuanian Red Cross, said some of the elements of the law appear to violate E.U. standards.

Under this system, some people with pretty reasonable grounds can be returned back to their countries, she said.

Tomas Dapkus contributed reporting from Vilnius, and Ivan Nechepurenko from Moscow.

Read more from the original source:
Migrants in Lithuania Caught Up in Battle Between Belarus and E.U. - The New York Times

Europe's drug regulator said on Tuesday it had started a real-time review of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by French drugmaker Sanofi and Britain's GlaxoSmithKline, the fifth shot under such a review currently.

The decision to start the "rolling review" of the vaccine, Vidprevtyn, was based on preliminary results from lab studies and early stage clinical trials in adults, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-rolling-review-covid-19-vaccine-vidprevtyn.

Late-stage global trials for the protein-based coronavirus vaccine candidate began in May.

Sanofi and GSK hope to get approvals by the end of 2021 after early stage results showed the vaccine produces a robust immune response.

"EMA will assess the compliance of Vidprevtyn with the usual EU standards for effectiveness, safety and quality," the regulator said, without giving details on data it had received so far and an expected timeline for approval.

EMA's rolling reviews are aimed at speeding up the approval process by allowing researchers to submit findings in real-time before final trial data is available.

Vidprevtyn uses the same technology as one of Sanofi's seasonal influenza vaccines. It will be coupled with an adjuvant, a substance that acts as a booster to the shot, made by GSK.

Other COVID-19 vaccine candidates in EU's rolling review are those from CureVac, Novavax, Sinovac

and Russia's Sputnik V.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

More:
European Union begins real-time review of Sanofi-GSK Covid vaccine - Business Standard

A surprising ruling from a top EU court means that the UK may be able to discriminate against EU nationals who have been granted the right to live and work in the UK after Brexit.

This decision has huge implications for millions of EU nationals in the UK, some of whom have been resident (and working) in the UK for years, and also raises questions about the meaning of equal treatment throughout the EU.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has upheld a UK rule that bars some EU citizens in the country from accessing benefits. The rule applies to those who have pre-settled status, which is one of two new statuses created under the EU Settlement Scheme allowing EU/EEA nationals (and their family members) to remain in the UK post-Brexit. Broadly, those who can show they had lived the UK for five years or more are entitled to settled status, while those with a shorter period of residence get pre-settled status. So far, over 2.3 million people have been granted pre-settled status.

The rights of each status are largely the same, but with one vital difference. In 2019, the UK government introduced regulations requiring those with pre-settled status to show another right to reside (typically meaning they are in work) before they can claim welfare benefits.

The case in question concerns CG, an EU national woman with pre-settled status, who came to Northern Ireland in 2018. She subsequently fled a domestic violence situation and has been living in a refuge with her two children. She applied for and was refused universal credit on the grounds that her pre-settled status did not entitle her to access benefits in the UK.

Law Centre Northern Ireland persuaded a first-tier benefit tribunal to take the unusual step of referring the case to the CJEU, to ask whether this restriction was discriminatory, and whether EU nationals with pre-settled status should therefore have the same access to benefits as UK nationals.

Without much explanation, the court ruled that people in the UK with pre-settled status cannot rely on the right enshrined in the treaty on the functioning of the EU to equal treatment on the grounds of nationality. The court also considered whether EU nationals could challenge being denied benefits as discriminatory within the meaning of the Free Movement Directive, which lays down residence rights and conditions for some EU migrants. The view was that these people first had to meet certain conditions, usually being in work.

However, the court suggested that while the UK was entitled to withhold benefits from CG, it must check whether doing so would violate her fundamental rights as contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. These include the right to live in dignity, the right to private and family life, and the best interests of the child.

What is particularly interesting about this case is CGs position as a woman and a mother. The Free Movement Directive, like other EU free movement laws, is biased in favour of men taking no account of periods of childcare, care for disabled or elderly relatives, or of periods of instability caused by fleeing from domestic abuse. These social-security risks all disproportionately affect women.

The court of appeal of England and Wales faced exactly the same questions in the case of Fratila in October 2020, but reached a dramatically different conclusion. It ruled that people with pre-settled status were entitled to the protection of EU law from discrimination on the ground of nationality, and should be entitled to claim benefits in the UK.

The UK government appealed to the supreme court, but the case was put on hold pending the CJEUs judgment in the case of CG. As the CJEUs ruling has not unequivocally endorsed or prohibited the UK rules, it seems likely that there will now be further hearings. Many claims will be put on hold while we wait for these cases to be resolved.

Beyond its implications for EU citizens with pre-settled status, the CG case is a good example of how, even after Brexit, EU law remains relevant in the UK. The facts of the case arose before the transition period ended, when EU law still applied, and the courts judgment is binding throughout the UK.

This case now presents a peculiar possibility. The UK government will probably argue, in a counterintuitive about-face, that EU law should be applicable in the UK, and that the supreme court should disregard UK national courts in favour of listening to the wisdom of the CJEU.

But if the UK government is allowed to maintain its exclusion of pre-settled status as a route to benefits, that exclusion is unlikely to be a blanket one. Individuals may have scope to argue, on a case-by-case basis, that a refusal of benefits would violate their fundamental rights.

All of this complexity only concerns benefits claims made before December 31 2020, but EU law has not stopped being relevant as of January 1 2021 either. The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement provides similar rights to EU and UK nationals who are covered by the agreement for the rest of their lives - and to their future children. So we may see separate disputes emerging on exactly what rights that confers on people with pre-settled status. The CJEU will continue to have a say on citizens rights contained in the Withdrawal Agreement until December 31 2028, by which time pre-settled status will probably be a thing of the past.

It is disappointing that the CJEU has shown itself less inclined than the court of appeal of England and Wales to guard the rights of EU nationals cast adrift in the UK, and that it has done so in a judgment that could seriously disrupt the interpretation of equal treatment rights throughout the rest of the EU, long after the UK has gone.

See the rest here:
Over 2 million EU nationals are at risk of discrimination in UK after shock EU court ruling here's what happens next - The Conversation UK

European Union leaders requested on Sunday that the bloc's starred flag fly at the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympic Games.

In a letter sent to International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, EU Commission Vice President Margaritis Schinas and Slovenia's Prime Minister Janez Jansa asked that Slovenian athletes be allowed to bear the EU flag alongside their national flag for the games' kick-off.

Slovenia is currently holding the rotating presidency of the EU.

"This will render Slovenian athletes ambassadors for European Unity and the values underpinning our Union, which match those of the Olympic movement," the two EU officials wrote.

"We will fully support you in any way you see appropriate in introducing this special and historical gesture," the pair added.

"The EU flag needs to show in the Tokyo 2020 opening ceremony as a symbol of peaceful coexistence, tolerance and solidarity," wrote Schinas as he posted the letter on his Twitter account.

France expressed its "full support" for the idea. French Deputy-Minister for European affairs Clment Beaune tweeted that it would be "a beautiful symbol, complementing our national flag."

The IOC was yet to respond to the request.

The 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, which were postponed due to the pandemic, are set to kick off on Friday.

.

Follow this link:
'Symbol of tolerance': EU pushes for its flag to fly at Tokyo Olympics opening ceremony - Euronews