G7 leaders urge Trump to ease off trade war
KANANASKIS - World leaders at the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday pushed US President Donald Trump to back away from his punishing trade war, arguing that it poses a risk to global economic stability.
At a summit where host Canada worked to avoid stoking Trump's anger, and with attention on events in the Middle East, leaders still urged the US president to reverse course on his plans to impose even steeper tariffs on countries across the globe as early as next month.
Most countries represented at the G7 are already subject to a 10 percent baseline tariff imposed by Trump, with European countries and Japan also hit with additional levies on cars, steel, and aluminum.
G7 leaders used the meeting to sit down with Trump one-on-one to make their case for the US leader to seal agreements that would eliminate the worse of the US tariff threat.
In official sessions, the leaders also warned Trump that the tariffs could bring serious harm to the world economy.
"Several participants asked to end the tariff dispute as soon as possible," a senior German official told reporters on condition of anonymity.
They argued that the dispute weakens the G7's economies and "in the end will only strengthen China," the official said.
Trump used the meeting to officially sign a deal already announced in May with Britain, the first country to secure a trade pact with the US to avoid Trump's threat of the crushing levies.
"I like them. That's the ultimate protection," Trump told reporters after a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the G7 sidelines.
At a media conference marking the deal, Trump opened a folder to display the signed agreement, only for the paperwork to slide out and spread across the ground.
"Oops, sorry about that," he said as Starmer scrambled to gather up the loose sheets and stuff them back in the folder.
- 'Get it done' -
The trade issue is of urgent interest to Canada after the Trump administration announced several additional levies on Canadian imports in recent months, throwing the economic future of America's northern neighbour into deep uncertainty.
After a meeting between Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Canadian government indicated that the two sides could reach a trade truce deal within the next 30 days.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters in Canada that he spoke to Trump for 30 minutes and discussed ways they could find a solution "in a manner that is in line with Japan's national interests," according to Japanese public broadcaster NHK.
"As there are still some points where both sides disagree, we have not reached an agreement on the package as a whole," Ishiba said.
There were hopes that non-G7 countries expected at the meeting on Tuesday would also have their time with Trump, but this was dashed by the US leader's decision to cut his attendance short due the Iran crisis.
Leaders from South Korea, India, Brazil, and South Africa will arrive at the gathering at a resort in the Canadian Rockies with Trump already gone.
Dozens of countries are locked in negotiations with Washington to clinch some sort of trade deal before the US imposes stinging reciprocal tariffs, threatened for July 9.
Mexico, whose president Claudia Sheinbaum was also expected, is meanwhile seeking to renegotiate its three-way North American free trade agreement that also includes Canada.
While there was little expectation that the summit would deliver a breakthrough in the trade negotiations between the US and the rest of the world, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was part of Trump's delegation.
A source at the summit said that French President Emmanuel Macron urged the American leader to quickly end the trade conflict once and for all.
The European Commission handles trade negotiations for the 27-country bloc, and the EU's trade chief Maros Sefcovic was also attending the summit, accompanying the delegation of EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen.
The EU institutions are official members of the G7, and during the morning session, von der Leyen argued to the leaders that "tariffs -- no matter who sets them -- are ultimately a tax paid by consumers and businesses at home."
Von der Leyen also met with Trump one-on-one on trade issues in a sit-down that US officials said was at her request.
"We instructed the teams to accelerate their work to strike a good and fair deal. Let's get it done," she said in a post on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
40 minutes 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
41 minutes 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
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
Dutch suggest social media ban for under-15s
AMSTERDAM - The Dutch government on Tuesday advised parents to forbid children under 15 from using social media apps like TikTok and Snapchat, the latest country to propose curbs over mental health concerns. The advice, which is non-binding, comes after Australia and New Zealand proposed social media bans for under-16s, and several European countries have issued similar guidelines. "Intensive screen and social media use can be bad for the (mental) health and development of children," said the Dutch ministry for health, wellbeing and sport. "Think of sleeping problems, panic attacks, depressive symptoms, reduced concentration and a negative self-image." The ministry distinguished between smartphone use, messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal, and social media apps like TikTok. Children younger than their last year of primary school (typically 11 or 12) should not be allowed a smartphone, the government advised. From secondary school (age 12 or 13), message apps should be permitted but no social media apps before 15, according to the guidelines. "A step-by-step approach helps: first learn to communicate via chat, then get acquainted with social media," said the government. The ministry also issued guidelines on screen time: none at all before the age of two, while children over 12 should not be in front of a screen for more than three hours. Healthy screen use is more than just time limits, the government said. "It's also about balancing screen time with other activities, using media together, and fostering positive online experiences." The advice brings the Netherlands into line with other age guidelines in Europe, said the government. Backed by France and Spain, Greece has spearheaded a proposal for how the European Union should limit children's use of online platforms. France, Greece and Denmark believe there should be a ban on social media for under-15s, while Spain has suggested a ban for under-16s. In the Netherlands, a children's advocacy group said earlier this month the "unchecked expansion" of social media platforms is driving an unprecedented global mental health crisis in kids and teens. The KidsRights report said what it termed "problematic" social media use was on the rise, with a direct link between heavy internet use and suicide attempts. However, blanket bans are not the answer, the group warned.
