Donald Trump leaves G7 summit over Middle East tensions
US President Donald Trump departed a day early from the 51st G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada on 16 June 2025.
The White House cited the Israel-Iran conflict as the reason.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed this, stating that 'what's going on in the Middle East' prompted the action.
Trump called a Situation Room meeting with National Security Council personnel in Washington.
Before his departure, Trump urged Iranians on Truth Social to 'immediately evacuate Tehran' due to rising tensions.
'Iran should have signed the 'deal' I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!' – President Donald J. Trump
Trump also labelled French President Macron's assertion that his departure was related to a ceasefire as 'Wrong!' on Truth Social.
President Donald Trump initially objected to the G7's de-escalation statement, which led to changes before he signed.
The final statement called for the de-escalation of Gaza, referred to Iran as a 'principal source of regional instability', and affirmed Israel's right to self-defence.
Following Trump's exit, the remaining six leaders continued to advance global trade, energy security, and Ukraine.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on G7 leaders to support more sanctions against Russia to increase pressure.
She emphasised that 'sanctions are critical' to bringing Russia to the negotiating table, securing a genuine ceasefire, and ending the war.
In order to sustain concerted international pressure, von der Leyen also urged the G7 allies to support the EU's proposed 18th sanctions package.
At the summit, President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed a trade deal that lowered tariffs on UK cars and planes.
EU leaders, like von der Leyen and António Costa, called for an end to protectionist policies and an opening up of trade.
Trump reaffirmed his belief that Russia's exclusion from the G8 in 2014 was a 'mistake' at the G7 summit in Kananaskis on 16 June 2025.
He asserted that Russia's presence might have prevented the conflict in Ukraine.
G7 allies reaffirmed Russia's annexation of Crimea as the legitimate reason for its removal.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Foreign transfers are now flowing mostly North to South via remittances — World Inequality Lab report
A new study from the World Inequality Lab covers a lot of ground but one of the things that sticks out is that financial transfers are now moving mostly in a North-South direction – because of remittances. This is a striking contrast to the colonial era that defined the 19th century. The World Inequality Lab, a think-tank fronted by the economic historian Thomas Piketty, has produced a new study that looks at the unequal North-South wealth exchange through the prism of global trade flows and balance of payments over the longue durée from 1800 to 2025. Piketty is a prolific author and public intellectual whose work is focused broadly in readable and insightful ways on the history of inequality. Piketty's latest effort is typically trailblazing and is erected from the foundations of a vast new database on global trade flows and the world balance of payments from 1800 to the present. The study, co-authored by Gastón Nievas, covers a lot of ground but one of the many things that stands out is how financial transfers are now moving in a North-South direction – largely because of remittances. This is a striking contrast to the colonial era that defined the 19th century. 'No country or world region has ever received foreign income inflows approaching the magnitude of Europe's in the 19th century,' the study says. This accumulation of foreign wealth to the European colonial powers – an extractive process – had many taps: France imposed a large debt in Haiti in 1825 to compensate former French slave owners for the loss of their property(!), Britain saddled China with a debt from the Opium War, and there were also massive transfers of tax revenues from colonies to the metropolis. 'Today, financial transfers mostly flow from North to South, particularly through private remittances, rather than from South to North, via colonial transfers. For instance, sub-Saharan Africa received very large cumulated net transfer inflows between 1970 and 2025 (the equivalent of +64% of its 2025 GDP), approximately as much as the cumulated foreign income outflows (-55%),' the authors write. So one of the many trends the study has unearthed is that Africa's inflow of financial transfers since 1970 has exceeded its outflows, and this is mostly explained by wage and salary earners from the continent working abroad and sending part of their income home – and in a big way. These findings come against the backdrop of a rising tide of xenophobia and racism in Europe and North America, fuelled on the far right by the 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory which holds that white folks up North are being 'replaced' by a tsunami of dark-skinned migrants from the South. Of course, there has been significant migration in recent decades from South to North, not least because of the labour market needs in advanced economies with ageing populations. Far-right shrills in the US and France who want to shut down such migration will shut down their own economies in the process. The findings also underscore the importance of remittances to regions such as Africa. For families these can be literal lifelines of income support, and multiplied many, many times they amount to vast inflows of capital which are at odds with perceptions of capital flight. Remittances, of course, can also create a dangerous economic dependency for the countries on the receiving end that can evaporate if the needs of the labour market change or an isolationist regime builds a wall. Lesotho offers an arresting example on this front. As this correspondent has previously reported, during the peak of South Africa's gold production under apartheid – which relied on a ruthlessly exploited pool of migrant, rural labour – remittances from the wages of Basotho working underground here amounted in 1987 to an astonishing 236% of the mountain kingdom's GDP. They now equal 21% of GDP, according to World Bank data – a 'remittance shock' without parallel in modern global economic history. South Africa's mines once employed almost 500,000 foreign workers. That number, according to the last available data, stood at 35,000 in 2022. This explains why so many Basotho are now 'zama zamas' at the bottom of the exploitative and transnational criminal pyramid of illicit gold mining. Lesotho's economy has not developed or industrialised in meaningful ways to provide jobs and domestic economic opportunities for its labour force. Exploited by the legal gold industry in the past, many of its young men are now exploited by the illicit sector in the precious metal. Does that stand as a warning for Africa more widely? Certainly there is a lot of talk these days about industrialisation and the 'beneficiation' of minerals and stuff like that. And remittance inflows to Africa are clearly important and at a scale larger than many have perhaps assumed. Africa notably between 1970 and 2025 had a cumulated trade surplus from primary commodities that equalled close to 200% of its GDP, but a trade deficit in manufactured goods equal to 169% of its GDP. It is surely no bad thing to develop your economy and raise the living standards for most of your population through processes such as industrialisation, and not just as a precaution if the remittance flows are suddenly staunched. But for now, remittances are flowing one way, and that in itself speaks to enduring global disparities in economic opportunity. DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Modern generation planning — understanding the Levelised Cost of Energy
The Levelised Cost of Energy is the industry's go-to benchmark for comparing the cost-effectiveness of different electricity generation technologies. The Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) represents the average cost to build and operate a power-generating facility over its lifetime, divided by the total energy it produces. Expressed in $/MWh or ZAR/MWh, it offers a standardised basis for comparing solar farms, wind turbines, battery storage facilities, gas-to-power plants and nuclear reactors. LCOE includes capital costs, financing, operations and maintenance, fuel (where applicable), and end-of-life costs. Crucially, it excludes market price fluctuations and environmental externalities. LCOE = Total Lifetime Costs ÷ Total Lifetime Energy Production Taking into account the time value of money through a discounted cash flow analysis, this can be expressed more correctly as: Where: I t = Investment expenditures in year t (typically upfront capital cost in year 0, and reinvestments over time) O t = Operation and maintenance costs in year t F t = Fuel costs in year t (zero for renewables like solar and wind) E t = Electricity generated in year t (usually in MWh) r = Discount rate (reflecting the cost of capital) N = System lifetime (typically 20 to 40 years, depending on technology) This formula allows stakeholders to compare technologies on an equal footing – whether they rely on coal, sunlight, wind, coal, gas or steam. Why LCOE matters LCOE is central to energy investment, planning and procurement. Project developers use it to assess economic viability. Utilities and regulators use it to shape long-term power system plans. Governments refer to it when crafting renewable energy auctions and climate policy. And investors rely on it to evaluate return-on-investment potential. In an age of surging energy demand, carbon targets and technology disruption, LCOE plays a defining role in shaping what gets built, where and why. Insights from Lazard's 2025 LCOE+ report The June 2025 LCOE+ report by Lazard – now in its 18th edition – confirms that renewables remain the lowest-cost sources of new electricity in the United States and elsewhere, even without subsidies. In the US, unsubsidised costs for utility-scale solar PV range from $37 to $44/MWh, while onshore wind spans $37 to $66/MWh. In contrast, gas combined-cycle plants come in at $48 to $109/MWh, and coal is significantly higher at $109 to $157/MWh. Nuclear power remains the costliest, ranging from $141 to $251/MWh. When current US tax incentives – like the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC) – are factored in, these costs reduce significantly. Utility-scale solar with full incentives can fall to just $15 to $24/MWh. However, under the Trump administration, the US tax incentive regime is experiencing some uncertainty and change. This price competitiveness, coupled with speed to deploy, explains why renewables continue to dominate new-build generation – even as supply chain volatility and inflation have slightly pushed prices upward. LCOE in integrated energy planning In Integrated Resource Planning (IRP), utilities project decades into the future to identify the least-cost mix of generation. Here, LCOE provides a financial lens for choosing between technologies – balancing cost, emissions and reliability, while also considering the time value of money. For example, planners might weigh the LCOE of a solar + battery hybrid system against that of a new gas peaker. This helps determine not only cost-optimal investments but also implications for transmission needs, grid stability and carbon goals. LCOE also supports policy decisions, such as structuring auctions, determining feed-in tariffs or prioritising transmission expansion. LCOE has its limits Despite its popularity, LCOE has well-known blind spots – especially as energy systems evolve. Most critically, LCOE does not account for unplanned intermittency of coal and nuclear, or the variability of renewable energy. It assumes all kilowatt-hours are equal, regardless of when they are generated. This obscures the grid value – or lack thereof – of resources like solar and wind that don't generate on demand. It also ignores the cost of integrating renewables: firming capacity, curtailment, congestion and storage. Nor does it capture locational constraints, grid upgrade needs or emissions externalities. LCOE also overlooks market value. Two resources with identical LCOEs might deliver vastly different profits or emissions benefits depending on when and where their electricity is delivered into the grid. In Lazard's own words, LCOE 'is not a forecasting tool' and does not reflect 'the complexities of our evolving grid and resource needs.' Lazard's broader view: LCOE+ Recognising these challenges, Lazard has expanded its 2025 report beyond traditional LCOE to include system-level costs and sensitivities. One key addition is the Cost of Firming Intermittency – a measure of the extra cost to ensure reliability when using solar, wind or hybrid systems. For instance, in California (CAISO), firming a standalone solar plant with a four-hour battery raises the total system cost from around $43/MWh to over $70/MWh. Lazard also quantifies the impact of fuel and carbon pricing. A $40 to $60 per ton carbon price adds up to $60/MWh to coal and gas costs, further improving the competitiveness of zero-carbon technologies. The report goes further to examine how LCOE is affected by capital cost assumptions. At higher interest rates, LCOEs for capital-intensive renewables rise more than for fuel-intensive gas plants – highlighting the financial exposure of clean energy projects. What about energy storage? Lazard's Levelised Cost of Storage (LCOS), now in its 10th edition, shows declining costs across the board. A 100 MW, 4-hour battery system has an unsubsidised LCOS of $132/MWh, dropping to $83/MWh with full tax incentives. Smaller commercial and residential systems cost more, but are also falling due to oversupply of battery cells and improvements in energy density. The role of storage in balancing renewables, providing grid services and avoiding curtailment makes it a growing complement to LCOE-based planning. LCOS adds a critical dimension to understanding long-term grid economics. So, how is LCOE used? One can think of LCOE as the foundation, but not the roof, nor the totality of energy analysis. In markets with modest renewable penetration, LCOE still serves as a strong guidepost. But as systems mature and require greater flexibility, LCOE must be integrated with broader metrics – firming costs, ELCC (Effective Load Carrying Capability), locational value, emissions intensity, and market signals. Lazard's 2025 analysis reaffirms that a diverse portfolio – renewables, storage, flexible gas, with the possibility of future emerging technologies like small modular reactors and geothermal – offers the best hedge against volatility and aligns with both affordability and resilience goals. Conclusions The energy sector is navigating a major transformation. In this environment, LCOE remains an essential compass – but it cannot navigate the journey alone. Used wisely, LCOE helps identify least-cost technologies. But to truly guide the energy transition, it must be paired with real-world operational insights and system-wide thinking. The key is not to discard LCOE, but to expand the toolkit. Lazard's 2025 report does exactly that, providing a more integrated, actionable view of what it takes to build the power system of the future. DM Chris Yelland is managing director of EE Business Intelligence
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
Skytrax crowns the Best Low-Cost Airline in Africa
Skytrax has crowned the best of the best airlines in various categories in their annual World Airline Awards, held on 17 June 2025. Amongst these categories was Best Low-Cost Airline in Africa, and one South African budget airline has walked off with the title. Beating out both LIFT Airline, which was awarded the same title last year, and Fastjet in the top three, FlySafair was named Best Low-Cost Airline in Africa for 2025. Known as 'the Oscars of the aviation industry', the World Airline Awards began in 1999, and are completely determined through a customer satisfaction survey conducted by Skytrax. Skytrax once again crowned Qatar Airways as the World's Best Airline, for a record-breaking ninth time. Qatar Airways was also given the titles of World's Best Business Class and Best Airline in the Middle East. The top ten best airlines according to Skytrax were: Qatar Airways Singapore Airlines Cathay Pacific Airways Emirates ANA All Nippon Airways Turkish Airlines Korean Air Air France Japan Airlines Hainan Airlines Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
