Swiss Pumps $300 Million into a Geneva Left Reeling from US Cuts
Geneva, a historic hub for global diplomacy, is home to 38 international organizations including the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization and the International Committee of the Red Cross. They employ 29,000 people, spend some $7 billion each year and support around 400 non-governmental organizations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The UK's year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure
We're now halfway through the UK government's critical decade for tackling climate change – and 2025 is fast becoming a year of climate U-turns. Airport expansions have been approved, the phaseout of gas-fired boilers shelved and, under the government's latest industrial strategy, green levies on industrial energy bills that support renewables have been slashed. All while key indicators of global climate stability are deteriorating. As carbon budget and energy policy researchers, we believe the UK's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), are failing to hold the government accountable for backsliding on climate action. Worse still, the CCC's recommendation that the UK reach net zero emissions by 2050 does not align with international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C and 'well below 2°C'. It also fails to reflect the UN principle of fairness and equity whereby wealthier nations like the UK cut emissions earlier and faster than poorer countries. In fact, it systematically undermines these promises, with the CCC's 2025 seventh carbon budget (a landmark report that advises the UK government how to tackle its emissions for the period 2025-2050) a case in point. Hiding carbon colonialism As a signatory to UN climate agreements, the UK is obligated to 'take precautionary measures' based on 'best available scientific knowledge' to prevent 'threats of serious or irreversible damage' to the climate. This includes setting carbon budgets rooted in the principles of equity and with a high chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Yet, scientists warn this window is closing fast. Recent research concludes that from 2025, the world can emit no more than 160 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. Despite this, the CCC uses a global carbon budget almost 50% higher, at 235GtCO₂. Internationally, the UK ranks tenth in wealth, fourth in historical cumulative emissions, and has per capita historical emissions four times the global average. Yet, the CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions. With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK's equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN's equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities. Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK's high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC's departure from the UN's core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy. Carbon removal roulette Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC's recommendations. In contrast, large-scale engineered removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fossil fuel carbon capture and storage are assumed to be technically and socio-economically feasible. The CCC definition of 'feasible' prioritises near-term political convenience over scientific integrity and climate stability. Despite a 4% decline in car travel over the past decade, the CCC estimates a per person increase of 10% by 2050. By avoiding pathways that challenge consumption norms, the CCC sidelines proven approaches like reducing car dependence or enforcing robust energy efficiency standards. This highly cautious approach to behavioural change contrasts sharply with its assumptions on the future deployment of CDR, projecting UK engineered removals to increase from 0-13MtCO₂ by 2035, and 36MtCO₂ by 2050 – or nine and 26 times the total global level in 2024. This scale of expansion contradicts historical trends. Similar heroic assumptions underpin CCS projections in electricity and blue hydrogen production (from natural gas). The CCC proposes the UK capture and store 33 MtCO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current global rate – for a technology that has barely advanced despite decades of promises and investment. While some carbon removal is necessary to offset 'impossible to mitigate' emissions from agriculture – for example, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use – using CDR to justify ongoing fossil fuel use is a high-risk approach that undermines the Paris climate commitments. Read more: Nature-based carbon removal options are also overstated. The CCC projects removing 30 MtCO₂ per year by 2050 but insufficiently addresses the impacts on food security and land conflicts. Though reforesting offers ecological benefits, climate-driven wildfires, droughts and pests can rapidly re-release stored carbon. Such insecure carbon storage cannot offset guaranteed emissions from burning fossil fuels. Ultimately, the CCC is deeply conservative on near-term changes to consumption norms, while embracing dangerously optimistic projections of future carbon removal technologies. It accepts temperatures will overshoot global targets significantly, and banks on future correction – despite the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points. Hard truth The allure of the CCC's net zero 2050 advice is that it claims to offer a pathway to avoid both major social transformation and a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, yet still meet the UK's fair share of the 1.5°C commitment. This politically appealing interpretation is scientifically flawed, downplays the gravity of climate risks and disregards principles of international justice. The CCC and others must stop being silent on these critical issues and end the carbon colonialism at the heart of the climate agenda. The UK's net zero 2050 framing isn't just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Kevin Anderson is presenting views here that belong to the named authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Chris Jones has received funding from UKRI. The views in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Gaurav Gharde does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
E&E News
6 minutes ago
- E&E News
Joint EU-US statement confirms lower tariffs on autos, other sectors
The United States and the EU on Thursday executed the verbal agreement President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reached in Scotland late last month, including lowering tariffs on automobiles and other sectors to 15 percent. The White House framed the statement as an important step toward reaching a comprehensive deal with the 27-nation bloc, collectively the United States' largest trading partner. 'These are ambitious things and we expect in the coming weeks … to fully paper over the agreement,' a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday evening ahead of the announcement. Advertisement The joint statement affirms several aspects of the verbal agreement the president unveiled July 27, including a 15 percent tariff rate on most goods — half the 30 percent rate Trump had threatened. That includes critical sectors like autos, following weeks of uncertainty that had frustrated the EU.
New York Times
7 minutes ago
- New York Times
Facing a ‘Reading Crisis,' Denmark Wants to Make Books Cheaper
Officials in Denmark, as in many other places, are worried about whether people are still turning to a good book in a world of screens and scrolling. They are hoping that a new proposal intended to make books cheaper will help. Books will soon be exempt from the 25 percent value-added tax, or VAT, that Denmark applies to most goods and services, the government said this week. 'We would like people to read more,' Jakob Engel-Schmidt, Denmark's culture minister, said in a phone interview on Thursday. The proposed exemption, he said, was intended to combat what he called a growing 'reading crisis' in the country, particularly among younger people. 'Making books more accessible, lowering the prices in the bookstore, will definitely do something about that.' Concerns over a decline in reading are not limited to Denmark. The share of Americans who read for fun has declined sharply in the past two decades, according to one recent study. Researchers have theorized that the increased use of cellphones and social media, along with economic pressures, could be driving the trend. In Denmark, books are among the goods subject to a value-added tax of 25 percent, among the highest in Europe. Other Nordic countries, including Finland, Sweden and Norway, have lowered or entirely lifted the consumption tax for books. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
