President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress in Washington on Feb. 24, 2026.
Andrew Harnik
TNS
The most baffling part of President Trump’s State of the Union speech was his fixation on tariffs that have already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and have failed to boost the U.S. economy. But you don’t need a Ph.D. in economics to understand why he’s so obsessed with them.
Before we get into that, let’s look at what his import duties have accomplished so far.
When he announced the tariffs on his so-called “Liberation Day” nearly a year ago, Trump promised that they would reduce the U.S. trade deficit, bring back factories from China and Mexico, and spark a manufacturing boom in America.
None of that has happened. Instead, the manufacturing renaissance Trump had promised — and touted again in his State of the Union speech — failed to materialize: the number of U.S. factory jobs fell by 103,000 jobs last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The reason is simple: it’s still much cheaper for multinationals to make goods in Asia, Mexico or Canada than in America, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
As for the trade deficit, it remained virtually unchanged last year, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Despite Trump’s massive tariffs on foreign goods, it shrank by a paltry 0.2% — almost nothing.
What makes Trump’s tariff push more puzzling is how unpopular it is. A new CNN poll shows 62% of Americans disapprove of his tariffs, while only 37% support them. A Fox News poll found even bigger opposition to the tariffs: 63% of Americans dislike them, while 37% like them.
Most Americans feel those tariffs are simply passed on by importers to consumers who end up paying more for toys, TV sets, coffee and other imported goods.
So why is Trump pushing so hard with his tariffs, if they are hurting his popularity and not producing economic gains?
The answer is power. Trump wants to be at the center of the world stage, wielding a kind of power no recent U.S. president has used — the power to turn trade into a tool to punish enemies and reward friends.
Tariffs also give Trump leverage over U.S. companies and have raised more than $200 billion in revenue, money he can redirect to programs he favors.
Among them: a $12 billion bailout for farmers, a $2,000 “dividend” rebate check for low- and middle-income Americans and an increase in military spending. It’s not clear what will happen with these and other promises now.
Trump has made no bones about his use of tariffs as a political weapon in foreign affairs. In his State of the Union address, he said he uses these tariffs “to make great deals for our country, both economically and on a national security basis.”
Trump recently threatened to impose higher import duties on eight European countries if they didn’t help him negotiate a U.S. purchase or annexation of Greenland.
Earlier, he slapped huge tariffs on Brazil, saying the country’s leftist government was carrying out a “witch hunt” against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally who faced trial for attempting a coup. Trump also publicly threatened higher tariffs on Mexico if it didn’t do more to reduce illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling.
Marcelo Giugale, a Georgetown University economics professor and former top World Bank official, told me tariffs have been an “extraordinary power tool” for Trump.
“Internationally, he’s used them left and right, for whatever reasons he wanted, in whatever amounts he wanted, to the countries he wanted. And most countries bend the knee,” he said.
“Domestically, they force American producers to line up at the White House and plead, ‘Please protect me, place a tariff on my foreign competitors,’ or conversely, ‘Please exempt me from the tariff I’ll have to pay.’”
Trump made it clear in his address to Congress that tariffs aren’t just a temporary tactic but will remain a central pillar of his agenda. He said he will find new ways to bypass the Supreme Court ruling, and that his trade barriers will “remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes.”
Trump admitted that his proposed new avenues to reinstate tariffs “are a little more complex” but claimed they will result in a solution that will be “even stronger than before.” Legal experts dispute his optimism, noting that it will take more than six months to set in motion a new policy and that Trump’s negotiating power could be greatly diminished if — as current polls suggest — his party loses its grip on Congress in the November midterm elections.
One way or the other, Trump should not be taken lightly when he vows to stick with massive tariffs, despite their unpopularity at home and abroad. In his view, these aren’t just taxes — they are a political weapon to exert power, even if they do more harm than good to the economy.
Don’t miss the “Oppenheimer Presenta” TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español or on YouTube’s “Oppenheimer Presenta” channel. Blog: andresoppenheimer.com
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump‘s tariffs under IEEPA exceeded presidential authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion citing lack of clear congressional authorization.
The ruling invoked the major questions doctrine limiting executive power on significant economic actions.
The decision was challenged by businesses and 12 US states, mostly Democratic-governed.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies, handing a stinging defeat to the Republican president in a landmark opinion on Friday with major implications for the global economy.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a lower court’s decision that Trump‘s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. The justices ruled that the law at issue – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA – did not grant Trump the power he claimed to impose tariffs.
“Our task today is to decide only whether the power to “regulate … importation,” as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not,” Roberts wrote in the ruling, quoting the statute’s text that Trump claimed had justified his sweeping tariffs.
The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. Democrats and various industry groups hailed the ruling.
Part of the Supreme Court’s majority also declared that such an interpretation would intrude on the powers of Congress and violate a legal principle called the “major questions” doctrine.
The doctrine, embraced by the conservative justices, requires actions by the government’s executive branch of “vast economic and political significance” to be clearly authorized by Congress. The court used the doctrine to stymie some of Democratic former President Joe Biden’s key executive actions.
Roberts, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling, wrote that “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”
Roberts wrote that if Congress had intended IEEPA to bestow on the president “the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have it would have done so expressly – as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
Trump has leveraged tariffs – taxes on imported goods – as a key economic and foreign policy tool. They have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty.
The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump‘s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose the import taxes.
The three dissenting justices were conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh. Joining Roberts in the majority were conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom Trump appointed during his first term in office, along with the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The liberal justices did not join the part of the opinion invoking the major questions doctrine.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, previously had backed Trump in a series of other decisions issued on an emergency basis since he returned to the presidency in January 2025 after his policies were impeded by lower courts.
Trump‘s tariffs were forecast to generate over the next decade trillions of dollars in revenue for the United States, which possesses the world’s largest economy.
Trump‘s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump‘s tariffs based on IEEPA stood at more than $175 billion. And that amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs.
POWERS OF CONGRESS
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. But Trump instead turned to a statutory authority by invoking IEEPA to impose the tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner without the approval of Congress. Trump has imposed some additional tariffs under other laws that are not at issue in this case. Based on government data from October to mid-December, those represent about third of the revenue from Trump-imposed tariffs.
IEEPA lets a president regulate commerce in a national emergency. Trump became the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, one of the many ways he has aggressively pushed the boundaries of executive authority since he returned to office in areas as varied as his crackdown on immigration, the firing of federal agency officials, domestic military deployments and military operations overseas.
Kavanaugh, who also was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, in a written dissent said that IEEPA’s text, as well as history and prior Supreme Court rulings supported the Trump administration’s position.
“Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” wrote Kavanaugh, whose dissenting opinion was joined by Thomas and Alito.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,” Kavanaugh added. “But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. I respectfully dissent.”
Kavanaugh also said the decision could impact current trade deals.
“Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Trump described the tariffs as vital for U.S. economic security, predicting that the country would be defenseless and ruined without them. Trump in November told reporters that without his tariffs “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us.” Trump said the United States was abused by other countries including China, the second-largest economy.
Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the decision was a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy.
“Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” Laing said in a statement.
After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters that “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump‘s tariffs as possible. Among others, these include a statutory provision that permits tariffs on imported goods that threaten U.S. national security and another that allows retaliatory actions including tariffs against trading partners that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters.
None of these alternatives offered the flexibility and blunt-force dynamics that IEEPA provided Trump, and may not be able to replicate the full scope of his tariffs in a timely fashion.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the decision a “victory for the wallets of every American consumer,” adding: Trump‘s illegal tariff tax just collapsed. He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill. Enough chaos. End the trade war.”
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said the ruling left many questions unanswered.
“The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid. Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves,” Warren said.
INCREASED LEVERAGE
Trump‘s ability to impose tariffs instantaneously on any trading partner’s goods under the aegis of some form of declared national emergency raised his leverage over other countries. It brought world leaders scrambling to Washington to secure trade deals that often included pledges of billions of dollars in investments or other offers of enhanced market access for U.S. companies.
But Trump‘s use of tariffs as a cudgel in U.S. foreign policy has succeeded in antagonizing numerous countries, including those long considered among the closest U.S. allies.
IEEPA historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets, not to impose tariffs. The law does not specifically mention the word tariffs. Trump‘s Justice Department had argued that IEEPA allows tariffs by authorizing the president to “regulate” imports to address emergencies.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if all current tariffs stay in place, including the IEEPA-based duties, they would generate about $300 billion annually over the next decade.
Total U.S. net customs duty receipts reached a record $195 billion in fiscal 2025, which ended on September 30, according to U.S. Treasury Department data.
On April 2 on a date Trump labeled “Liberation Day,” the president announced what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from most U.S. trading partners, invoking IEEPA to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits, though the United States already had run trade deficits for decades.
In February and March of 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency.
EXTRACTING CONCESSIONS
Trump has wielded his tariffs to extract concessions and renegotiate trade deals, and as a weapon to punish countries that draw his ire on non-trade political matters. These have ranged from Brazil’s prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro, India’s purchases of Russian oil that help fund Russia’s war in Ukraine, and an anti-tariffs ad by Canada’s Ontario province.
IEEPA was passed by Congress and signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. In passing the measure, Congress placed additional limits on the president’s authority compared to a predecessor law.
The cases on tariffs before the justices involved three lawsuits.
The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with five small businesses that import goods in one challenge, and the states of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont in another.
Separately, a Washington-based federal judge sided with a family-owned toy company called Learning Resources.
President Trump wants to make U.S. furniture great again with a series oftariffs that took effect Tuesday. Trump announced these tariffs partially to revitalize North Carolina’s home furnishing industry, he said on Truth Social. There is now a 10 percent tariff on softwood lumber, and a 25 percent tariff on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and upholstered furniture. On January 1, 2026, the tariffs will increase to 50 percent on cabinets and 30 percent on upholstered furniture.
North Carolina’s High Point Market, the largest home furniture trade show in the world, brings together U.S. and global furniture designers twice a year. Many businesses in the state now focus on high-end, customizable furniture, while lower to middle-end upholstered furniture is largely produced in Mississippi.
While the long-term economic impact of the tariffs is hard to predict, the short-term effects are already being felt by manufacturers. Typically, U.S. furniture plants receive component parts from different countries. Those components are subject to the tariff duties, even if the final product is made in America.
For example, a recliner might have a powered motor, which wouldn’t be made in the U.S. Tools also cost more. Michael Rozell, a furniture designer and owner of Granville, Ohio-based Wooden Objex, says prices on essential materials are rising rapidly, sometimes by thousands of dollars.
An Inc.com Featured Presentation
“It’s a very scary, weird time, and people who are just bouncing around, smiling all happy are not paying attention,” says Rozell, adding that an order he placed for tools from Canada more than six weeks ago still hasn’t arrived. “It made it to the Customs depot, and Customs would not release it to the United States because the tariffs were so confusing.”
Alex Shuford, CEO of North Carolina-based manufacturer Rock House Farm, says his company’s tariff bill in 2024 was $300,000, but that this year’s will be well over $3 million. “Next year, if this continues, we’ll be pushing $6 or $7 million,” he says.
John Hart, who runs Lewisville, Texas-based design company Arteriors and imports 97 percent of the furniture he sells, has been looking to move his operations out of Southeast Asia. The region has been hit hard by Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and he says he’s looked at other regions that have more favorable trade relationships with the U.S. But navigating that switch to other countries means dealing with a new set of rules and regulations, depending on where he sources his products.
There was a furniture boom during the pandemic, as American consumers stuck at home decided to get new couches, tables, and other items, but in recent years, demand has dried up. U.S. furniture manufacturing has a common historical cycle, according to John Joe Schlichtmann, a professor of urban sociology at DePaul University, whose 2022 book “Showroom City” focuses on High Point’s deindustrialization and reinvention.
What tariffs won’t solve, Schlichtmann notes, is a lack of skilled labor. Young people in the area aren’t interested in furniture manufacturing, likely because the industry follows cheaper labor and is known for its historical volatility.
“You have community colleges in the region that are teaching furniture skills, but they’re going to have to really be injected with investment,” Schlictmann says. “It’s going to require a scalpel, and not a mallet, to make that happen.”
Trump isn’t new to High Point Market. Back in 2007, he visited the market for his Trump Homes brand, an imprint of Lexington Home Brands that manufactures 20 miles outside of High Point. But Trump Homes’ factories were not always U.S. based. In 2010, his crystal bearing line was made in Slovenia. After Lexington chose to discontinue its partnership with Trump in 2011, he teamed up with Dorya, a Turkish luxury furniture company, whose production process was based in Izmir, Turkey.
Though these tariffs might intend to encourage American furniture manufacturing, Rozell says buyers at High Point Market were hesitant when he was there in April, asking for 20 percent discounts on his wholesale prices. He says if the administration wanted to help, they would invest the tariff revenue back into the industry, to bring back infrastructure and labor.
“Most people would love to have their products say ‘made in America,’” Rozell said. “Everyone loves this country. It’s the greatest place on earth, but the reality is, it’s so expensive here.”
BRUSSELS — The European Union was edging closer to setting a $60-per-barrel price cap on Russian oil — a highly anticipated and complex political and economic maneuver designed to keep Russia’s supplies flowing into global markets while clamping down on President Vladimir Putin’s ability to fund his war in Ukraine.
EU nations sought to push the cap across the finish line after Poland held out to get as low a figure as possible, diplomats said Thursday. “Still waiting for white smoke from Warsaw,” said an EU diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were still ongoing.
The latest offer, confirmed by 3 EU diplomats, comes ahead of a deadline to set the price for discounted oil by Monday, when a European embargo on seaborne Russian crude and a ban on shipping insurance for those supplies take effect. The diplomats also spoke on condition of anonymity because the legal process was still not completed.
The $60 figure would mean a cap near the current price of Russia’s crude, which fell this week below $60 per barrel, and is meant to prevent a sudden loss of Russian oil to the world following the new Western sanctions. It is a big discount to international benchmark Brent, which traded at about $88 per barrel Thursday, but could be high enough for Moscow to keep selling even while rejecting the idea of a cap.
When the final number is in place, a new buyer’s cartel — which is expected to be made up of formal and informal members — will be born. Western allies in the Group of Seven industrial powers led the price cap effort and still need to approve the figure.
Oil is the Kremlin’s main pillar of financial revenue and has kept the Russian economy afloat so far despite export bans, sanctions and the freezing of central bank assets that began with the February invasion. Russia exports roughly 5 million barrels of oil per day.
The risks of the price cap’s failure are immense to the global oil supply. If it fails or Russia retaliates by stopping the export of oil, energy prices worldwide could skyrocket. Putin has said he would not sell oil under a price cap and would retaliate against nations that implement the measure.
U.S. and European consumers could feel the ramifications in more spikes to gasoline prices, and people in developing countries could face greater levels of food insecurity.
With the EU and U.K. banning insurance for Russian oil shipments, the price ceiling allows companies to keep insuring tankers headed for non-EU countries as long as the oil is priced at or under the cap. That would avoid a price spike from the loss of supplies from the world’s No. 2 oil producer and put a ceiling on Russia’s oil income near current levels.
The Treasury Department has released guidance meant to help firms and maritime insurers understand how to abide by the price ceiling, saying the price cap could fluctuate depending on market conditions.
Robin Brooks, chief economist at the Institute of International Finance in Washington, said the cap should have been implemented earlier this year, when oil was hovering around $120 per barrel.
“Since then, obviously oil prices have fallen and global recession is a real thing,” he said. “The reality is that it is unlikely to be binding given where oil prices are now.”
Critics of the price cap measure, including former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, have called the plan “ridiculous.”
Mnuchin told CNBC during a panel in November at the Milken Institute’s Middle East and Africa Summit that the price cap was “not only not feasible, I think it’s the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard.”
Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said that while a worst-case scenario envisions Russia cutting off the global supply of its oil, “the Saudis and Emiratis would boost production.”
“Russia has made is clear the countries that abide by the cap won’t receive their oil and that could result in cuts to natural gas exports as well,” she said. “This will be an interesting few weeks and few months.”
———
Hussein reported from Washington. AP Business Writer David McHugh contributed from Frankfurt, Germany.
BRUSSELS — The European Union and the United States are treading precariously close to a major trans-Atlantic trade dispute at a time when the two Western giants want to show unity in the face of challenges from Russia and China.
EU trade ministers on Friday insisted they would be forced to respond if Washington stuck to all the terms of its Inflation Reduction Act, which is favorable to local companies through subsidies and, according to the EU, will unfairly discriminate against its firms that want to compete for contracts.
“Nobody wants to get into a tit-for-tat or subsidy race. But what the U.S. has done really isn’t consistent with the principles of free trade and fair competition,” Irish Trade Minister Leo Varadkar said.
Even though the allies have stood shoulder to shoulder by imposing strict sanctions against Russia since the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, they cannot gloss over the trade differences.
“What we are asking for is fairness. We want and expect European companies and exports to be treated in the same way in the U.S. as American companies and exports are treated in Europe,” EU Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said.
And beyond the European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the 27 member nations on trade issues, the concerns are largely shared in EU national capitals, too.
“All the member states are concerned,” said Czech Trade Minister Jozef Sikela, who chaired the emergency meeting.
The Czech minister said the EU still hopes divergences can be solved during a Dec. 5 meeting of the task force that the U.S. and EU have set up, with the possibility that the bloc would be treated like Canada and Mexico and be exempted from the subsidy conditions.
Trade disputes have been a red line for decades in trans-Atlantic relations, highlighted by fights over aircraft subsidies and steel exports and affecting everything from hormone-treated beef to liquor exports.
Planned subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act passed by the U.S. Congress in August, are especially grating for the EU. For example, electric car buyers are eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 as long as the vehicle runs on a battery built in North America with minerals mined or recycled on the continent.
The EU believes that the measure is a potential trans-Atlantic trade barrier discriminating against foreign producers. Potential actions the EU can take are complaints before the World Trade Organization, trade sanctions or upping subsidies for their own companies.
Those considerations have to weighed against the need to cooperate on the geopolitical stage and the essence of showing a united front.
“We see that the parts from the East actually are trying to divide us,” Estonian Trade Minister Kristjan Jarvan said. “And of course economy plays a huge role in that.”
LONDON — The British government on Sunday denied a report that it is seeking a “Swiss-style” relationship with the European Union that would remove many of the economic barriers erected by Brexit — even as it tries to improve ties with the bloc after years of acrimony.
Health Secretary Steve Barclay told Sky News “I don’t recognize” the Sunday Times report, insisting the U.K. was still determined to “use the Brexit freedoms we have” by diverging from the EU’s rules in key areas.
Switzerland has a close economic relationship with the 27-nation EU in return for accepting the bloc’s rules and paying into its coffers.
The U.K. government said “Brexit means we will never again have to accept a relationship with Europe that would see a return to freedom of movement, unnecessary payments to the European Union or jeopardize the full benefit of trade deals we are now able to strike around the world.”
But despite the denials, the new Conservative government led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak wants to restore relations with the EU, acknowledging that Brexit has brought an economic cost for Britain. Treasury chief Jeremy Hunt last week expressed optimism that trade barriers between the U.K. and the EU would be removed in the coming years.
The shift comes as public opposition grows to the hard form of Brexit pursued by successive Conservative governments since British voters opted by a 52%-48% margin to leave the bloc in a 2016 referendum.
Now, according to polling expert John Curtice, 57% of people would vote to rejoin the bloc and 43% to stay out.
When the U.K. was negotiating its divorce from the EU, Conservative governments under Prime Ministers Theresa May and her successor Boris Johnson ruled out remaining inside the EU’s borderless single market or its tariff-free customs union. Politicians who wanted closer ties were ignored or pushed aside.
The divorce deal struck by the two sides in 2020 has brought customs checks and other border hurdles for goods, and passport checks and other annoyances for travelers. Britons can no longer live and work freely across Europe, and EU citizens can’t move to the U.K. at will.
The British government’s fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said last week that leaving the EU has had “a significant adverse effect on U.K. trade.”
Yet only recently have members of the government begun acknowledging Brexit’s downsides. Hunt, who last week announced a 55 billion-pound ($65 billion) package of tax increases and spending cuts to shore up an economy battered by soaring inflation, acknowledged Brexit had caused “trade barriers” with the U.K.’s nearest neighbors.
“Unfettered trade with our neighbors is very beneficial to growth,” he told the BBC, and predicted that the “vast majority” of barriers would be removed – although it would take years.
Any move to rebuild ties with the EU will face opposition from the powerful euroskeptic wing of the Conservative Party. Even the opposition Labour Party — reluctant to reopen a debate that split the country in half and poisoned politics — says it won’t seek to rejoin the bloc, or even the EU’s single market, if it takes power after the next election.
Sunak, who took office last month, is a long-time Brexit supporter, but also a pragmatist who has made repairing the economy his top priority. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has rocked European security and sent energy prices soaring, has put Brexit squabbles into perspective for politicians on both sides of the English Channel.
Sunak wants to solve a festering feud with the EU over trade rules that have caused a political crisis in Northern Ireland, the only part of the U.K. that shares a border with an EU member nation. When Britain left the bloc, the two sides agreed to keep the Irish border free of customs posts and other checks because an open border is a key pillar of the peace process that ended 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland.
Instead, there are checks on some goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K. That angered pro-British unionist politicians, who say the new checks undermine Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. They are boycotting Belfast’s power-sharing government, leaving Northern Ireland without a functioning administration.
The U.K. government is pinning its hopes on striking a deal with the EU that would ease the checks and coax Northern Ireland’s unionists back into the government.
Months of talks when Johnson was in office proved fruitless, but the mood has improved since Sunak took over, though as yet there has been no breakthrough. ———
Follow AP’s coverage of Brexit at https://apnews.com/hub/brexit and of British politics at https://apnews.com/hub/british-politics
SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — A Russian billionaire under sanctions by the United States and Europe over his alleged ties to the Kremlin said Wednesday that he was not surprised by protests against his country at this year’s U.N. climate talks, but insisted that Russia wants to remain engaged on the issue of global warming because it deeply affects the nation.
Andrey Melnichenko, who heads the climate policy panel of Russian business lobby group RSPP, told The Associated Press that “regardless of the very terrible moment which we all experience now, we will participate, we will observe” at the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Pro-Ukraine activists disrupted the start of an event hosted by the Russian delegation at the climate talks Tuesday before being escorted out by security staff.
“I wasn’t surprised,” said Melnichenko, who was speaking on the panel alongside Russian delegates. “What’s so surprising? That there are people who are deeply concerned about what’s happening in Ukraine and want to make their opinion known?”
“I completely 100% understand that,” he said.
His comments, while not directly critical of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, indicate a more nuanced view of the bloody conflict than the official Kremlin line, which describes the war as a “special military operation.”
Since late February the war has devastated Ukraine, with bombs and shelling decimating towns and cities and killing thousands.
The war has resulted in a raft of sanctions being imposed on Russian officials and prominent businesspeople linked to the Kremlin.
Melnichenko — who now lives in Dubai — criticized Western sanctions on Russia, which he said were applied without regard for possible consequences, such as the effect restrictions on fertilizer exports would have on global food prices and Russia’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of fertilizers.
“Sanctions were put like a blanket on the Russian economy,” said Melnichenko, who once ran the fertilizer producer Eurochem and SUEK, one the the world’s largest coal companies. “It affects everything. Take for example food and fertilizer supply.”
He claimed the sanctions had affected food supply for “hundreds of millions” of people worldwide.
“Of course, this decision affects Russia’s possibility to move faster on the way of the decarbonization of its economy,” added Melnichenko.
Russian participants at the climate talks in Egypt have kept a low public profile, with no top government officials attending. Although the Russian delegation is half the size of last year’s, it is still larger than that of the United States, according to an analysis by Carbon Brief.
According to Melnichenko, Russia is particularly focused on efforts to reduce emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, along with rules for international carbon markets and carbon offsets — an issue where the Russian government sees great potential due to the country’s huge forests.
Melnichenko said that Russia will continue to export fossil fuels to fulfill demand, and it should be left to markets to decide which forms of energy are the most competitive. Russia is a top exporter of oil and natural gas although it has faced sanctions from EU trading partners. Other countries, like India and China, continue to import Russian oil.
“I believe that Russia’s fossil fuel production (is) very competitive globally in terms of the total cost, externalities included,” he said. “That’s why Russia will be able for a reasonably long period of time, a very long period of time, to maintain quite (a) big share of the fossil fuel market and … benefit from it also.”
Melnichenko, who according to Forbes is worth some $23.5 billion, said the world community should pay more attention to the large share of greenhouse gas emissions that aren’t caused by human activity, such as respiration, decomposition and even volcanoes. Scientists say the global warming measured in recent decades is mainly caused by the large-scale burning of fossil fuels since industrialization.
Asked what role concerns about climate change play in Russian civil society, he said that environmental issues such as air pollution had become more prominent in bigger cities over the past six to seven years
Peaceful protests on the issue were possible, he insisted. “And the government really responds.”
“That’s one of the area where you can have freedom of expression,” he said. “And that’s understandable because it’s pretty safe in terms of the political environment.”
———
Follow AP’s climate and environment coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
———
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
CANBERRA, Australia — Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Friday he would ask Chinese President Xi Jinping to lift billions of dollars in trade barriers in the event that the two leaders hold their first bilateral meeting.
Both leaders will attend a Group of 20 meeting in Indonesia and then an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting in Thailand next week.
Albanese was speaking in Sydney before departing Australia on Friday for an East Asia Summit in Cambodia, which Xi is not expected to attend.
A face-to-face meeting between the Chinese and Australian leaders would mark a major reset in a bilateral relationship that plumbed new depths under the nine-year rule of Australia’s previous conservative government.
Beijing had banned minister-to-minister contacts and imposed a series of official and unofficial trade barriers on products including wine, coal, beef, seafood and barley in recent years that cost Australian exporters 20 billion Australian dollars ($13 billion) a year.
Albanese said a meeting with Xi was “not locked in at this point in time.”
“We obviously will be attending the same conferences, or at least two of them (G-20 and APEC) over the next nine days. And I would welcome a meeting if it occurs over that time,” Albanese said.
China lifting economic sanctions was the first priority in returning to normal relations, he said.
“We have some AU$20 billion of economic sanctions against Australia. That is not in Australia’s interest in terms of our jobs and the economy, but it’s also not in China’s interest,” Albanese said.
“Australia has world class products — in seafood, in meat, in wine, in other products that we export to China. It’s in China’s interest to receive those products, it’s in Australia’s interest to export them. So I’m very hopeful — we’ll continue to put our case that these sanctions are not justified, that they need to be removed,” Albanese added.
Asked what China wanted from Australia to improve relations, Albanese replied: “It’s not up to me to put forward their case.”
“What I want to see with the relationship with China is cooperation where we … maintain our Australian values where we must,” Albanese said.
Bilateral relations soured over issues including Australian demands for an independent inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic, a ban on Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei’s involvement in the Australian 5G networks on security grounds and recent laws that ban covert foreign interference in domestic politics.
China’s Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian said in August that Beijing would discuss with Australia whether conditions were right in November for Albanese to meet Xi during the G-20 summit.
China’s People’s Daily English-language newspaper reported this week that “signs of resetting bilateral ties have emerged” since Albanese’s center-left Labor Party came to power in May.
The White House has confirmed President Joe Biden will hold talks with Xi on Monday on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Indonesia, their first face-to-face meeting since Biden became president in January 2021.
The meeting would come as competition for influence among South Pacific island nations heightens between China and the United States, with its allies including Australia, since Beijing struck a security pact with the Solomon Islands early this year that has raised fears of a Chinese naval base being established in the region.
Albanese said Australia has “strategic competition in the region” with China.
“China, of course, has changed its position. And it is much more forward-leaning than it was in the past,” Albanese said.
“That has caused tensions in the relationship, and we need to acknowledge that that’s the context in which the relationship exists,” he added.
BEIJING — China’s trade shrank in October as global demand weakened and anti-virus controls weighed on domestic consumer spending.
Exports declined 0.3% from a year earlier to $298.4 billion, down from September’s 5.7% growth, the customs agency reported Monday. Imports fell 0.7% to $213.4 billion, compared with the previous month’s 0.3% expansion.
China’s global trade surplus edged up 0.9% from a year earlier to $85.2 billion.
Forecasters expected Chinese trade to weaken as global demand cooled following interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve and other central banks to rein in surging inflation.
At home, consumer demand has been hurt by a “Zero COVID” strategy that has repeatedly shut down large sections of cities to contain virus outbreaks. That has disrupted business and confined millions of people to their homes for weeks at a time.
Economic growth picked up to 3.9% over a year earlier in the quarter ending in September from 2.2% in the first six months of 2022. But forecasters say activity is weakening as closures spread in response to a spike in infections.
“The economy slowed again in October due to the tightened Covid controls as well as the slowing external demand,” said Larry Hu of Macquarie Group in a report.
The downturn in Chinese demand hurts developing countries that supply oil, soybeans and other raw materials and the United States, Europe, Japan and other suppliers of consumer goods and microchips and other components and technology needed by manufacturers.
Exports to the United States rose 35.3% over a year earlier to $47 billion despite lingering tariff hikes in a trade war over Beijing’s technology ambitions. Imports of U.S. goods rose $52.4% to $12.8 billion.
China’s politically sensitive trade surplus with the United States swelled 29.9% to $34.2 billion.
Imports from Russia, mostly oil and gas, more than doubled, rising 110.5% over a year ago to $10.2 billion.
China can buy Russian energy exports without running afoul of sanctions imposed on President Vladimir Putin’s government by the United States, Europe and Japan. Beijing is stepping up purchases to take advantage of Russian discounts. That irks Washington and its allies by topping up the Kremlin’s cash flow and limiting the impact of sanctions.
Exports to the 27-nation European Union edged up 5.5% to $44.1 billion while imports of European goods shrank 15.5% to $21.4 billion. China‘s surplus with the EU widened by 38.1% to $22.7 billion.
For the first 10 months of the year, China’s exports rose 11.1% to $3 trillion while imports gained 3.5% to $2.3 trillion, the General Administration of Customs announced. The country’s trade surplus was $727.7 billion.
FRANKFURT, Germany — The OPEC+ alliance of oil-exporting countries on Wednesday decided to sharply cut production to support sagging oil prices, a move that could deal the struggling global economy another blow and raise politically sensitive pump prices for U.S. drivers just ahead of key national elections.
Energy ministers meeting at the Vienna headquarters of the OPEC oil cartel cut production by 2 million barrels per day starting in November at their first face-to-face meeting since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Besides a token trim in oil production last month, the major cut is an abrupt turnaround from months of restoring deep cuts made during the depths of the pandemic and could help alliance member Russia weather a looming European ban on oil imports.
In a statement, OPEC+ said the decision was based on the “uncertainty that surrounds the global economic and oil market outlooks.”
The impact of the production cut on oil prices — and thus the price of gasoline made from crude — will be limited somewhat because OPEC+ members are already unable to meet the quotas set by the group.
The alliance also said it was renewing its cooperation between members of the OPEC cartel and non-members, the most significant of which is Russia. The deal was to expire at year’s end.
The decision comes as oil trades well below its summer peaks because of fears that major global economies such as the U.S. or Europe will sink into recession due to high inflation, rising interest rates meant to curb rising consumer prices, and uncertainty over Russia’s war against in Ukraine.
The fall in oil prices has been a boon to U.S. drivers, who saw lower gasoline prices at the pump before costs recently started ticking up, and for U.S. President Joe Biden as his Democratic Party gears up for congressional elections next month.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. would not extend releases from its strategic reserve to increase global supplies.
Biden has tried to receive credit for gasoline prices falling from their average June peak of $5.02 — with administration officials highlighting a late March announcement that a million barrels a day would be released from the strategic reserve for six months. High inflation is a fundamental drag on Biden’s approval and has dampened Democrats’ chances in the midterm elections.
Oil supply could face further cutbacks in coming months when a European ban on most Russian imports takes effect in December. A separate move by the U.S. and other members of the Group of Seven wealthy democracies to impose a price cap on Russian oil could reduce supply if Russia retaliates by refusing to ship to countries and companies that observe the cap.
The EU agreed Wednesday on new sanctions that are expected to include a price cap on Russian oil.
Russia “will need to find new buyers for its oil when the EU embargo comes into force in early December and will presumably have to make further price concessions to do so,” analysts at Commerzbank wrote in a note. “Higher prices beforehand — boosted by production cuts elsewhere — would therefore doubtless be very welcome.”
Dwindling prospects for a diplomatic deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program have also lowered prospects for a return of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in Iranian oil to the market if sanctions are removed.
Oil prices surged this summer as markets worried about the loss of Russian supplies from sanctions over the war in Ukraine, but they slipped as fears about recessions in major economies and China’s COVID-19 restrictions weighed on demand for crude.
International benchmark Brent has sagged as low as $84 in recent days after spending most of the summer months over $100 per barrel.
At its last meeting in September, OPEC+ reduced the amount of oil it produces by 100,000 barrels a day in October. That token cut didn’t do much to boost lower oil prices, but it put markets on notice that the group was willing to act if prices kept falling.
NEW DELHI, India — The queues outside petrol pumps in Sri Lanka have lessened, but not the anxiety.
Asanka Sampath, a 43-year-old factory clerk, is forever vigilant. He checks his phone for messages, walks past the pump, and browses social media to see if fuel has arrived. Delays could mean being left stranded for days.
“I am really fed up with this,” he said.
His frustrations echo that of the 22-million inhabitants of the island nation, facing its worst ever economic crisis because of heavy debts, lost tourism revenue during the pandemic, and surging costs. The consequent political turmoil culminated with the formation of a new government, but recovery has been complicated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the consequent upending of global energy markets.
Europe’s need for gas means that they’re competing with Asian countries, driving up prices of fossil fuels and resulting in what Tim Buckley, the director of the thinktank Climate Energy Finance, refers to as “hyper-inflation … and I use that word as an understatement.”
Most Asian countries are prioritizing energy security, sometimes over their climate goals. For rich countries like South Korea or Japan, this means forays into nuclear energy. For the enormous energy needs of China and India it implies relying on dirty coal power in the short term. But for developing countries with already-strained finances, the war is having a disproportionate impact, said Kanika Chawla, of the United Nations’ sustainable energy unit.
How Asian countries choose to go ahead would have cascading consequences: They could either double down on clean energy or decide to not phase out fossil fuels immediately.
“We are at a really important crossroads,” said Chawla.
SRI LANKA: “SLOW GRIND”
Sri Lanka is an extreme example of the predicament facing poor nations. Enormous debts prevent it from buying energy on credit, forcing it to ration fuel for key sectors with shortages anticipated for the next year.
Sri Lanka set itself a target of getting 70% of all its energy from renewable energy by 2030 and aims to reach net zero — balancing the amount of greenhouse gas they emit with how much they take out of the atmosphere — by 2050.
Its twin needs of securing energy while reducing costs means it has “no other option” than to wean itself off fossil fuels, said Aruna Kulatunga, who authored a government report for Sri Lanka’s clean energy goals. But others, like Murtaza Jafferjee, director of the think tank Advocata Institute say these targets are more “aspirational than realistic” because the current electrical grid can’t handle renewable energy.
“It will be a slow grind,” said Jafferjee.
Grids that run on renewable energy need to be nimbler because, unlike fossil fuels, energy from wind or the sun fluctuates, potentially stressing transmission grids.
The economic crisis has decreased demand for energy in Sri Lanka. So while there are still power cuts, the country’s existing sources — coal and oil-fired plants, hydropower, and some solar — are coping.
CHINA, INDIA: HOME-GROWN ENERGY
How these two nations meet this demand will have global ramifications.
And the answer, at least in the short-term, appears to be a reliance on dirty-coal power — a key source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.
China, currently the top emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, aims to reach net zero by 2060, requiring significant slashing of emissions.
But since the war, China has not only imported more fossil fuels from Russia but also boosted its own coal output. The war, combined with a severe drought and a domestic energy crisis, means the country is prioritizing keeping the lights on over cutting dirty fuel sources.
India aims to reach net zero a decade later than China and is third on the list of current global emitters, although their historical emissions are very low. No other country will see a bigger increase in energy demand than India in the coming years, and it is estimated that the nation will need $223 billion to meet its 2030 clean energy targets. Like China, India’s looking to ramp up coal production to reduce dependence on expensive imports and is still in the market for Russian oil despite calls for sanctions.
But the size of future demand also means that neither country has a choice but to also boost their clean energy.
China is leading the way on renewable energy and moving away from fossil fuel dependence, said Buckley, who tracks the country’s energy policy.
“It might be because they are paranoid about climate change or because they want to absolutely dominate industries of the future,” said Buckley. “At the end of the day, the reason doesn’t really matter.”
India is also investing heavily in renewable energy and has committed to producing 50% of its power from clean energy sources by 2030.
“The invasion has made India rethink its energy security concerns,” said Swati D’Souza, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
More domestic production doesn’t mean that the two countries are burning more coal, but instead substituting expensive imported coal with cheap homegrown energy, said Christoph Bertram at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. What was “crucial” for global climate goals was where future investments were directed.
“The flipside of investing into coal means you invest less into renewables,” he said.
JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA: THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Both Japan and South Korea, two of Asia’s most developed countries, are pushing for nuclear energy after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Sanctions against Russian coal and gas imports resulted in Japan looking for alternative energy sources despite anti-nuclear sentiments dating back to the 2011 Fukushima disaster. An earlier-than-expected summer resulted in power shortages, and the government announced plans to speed up regulatory safety checks to get more reactors running.
Japan aims to limit nuclear energy to less than a quarter of its energy mix, a goal seen as overly optimistic, but the recent push indicates that nuclear may play a larger role in the country.
Neighboring South Korea hasn’t seen short-term impacts on energy supplies since it gets gas from countries like Qatar and Australia and its oil from the Middle East. But there may be an indirect hit from European efforts to secure energy from those same sources, driving up prices.
Like Japan, South Korea’s new government has promoted nuclear-generated electricity and has indicated reluctance to sharply reduce the country’s coal and gas dependence since it wants to boost the economy.
“If this war continues … we will obviously face a question on what should be done about the rising costs,” said Ahn Jaehun, from the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement.
INDONESIA: DAMAGE CONTROL
The war, and consequent rising gas prices, forced Indonesia to reduce ballooning subsidies aimed at keeping fuel prices and some power tariffs in check.
But this was a very “hurried reform” and doesn’t address the challenge of weaning the world’s largest coal exporter off fossil fuels and reaching its 2060 net zero goal, said Anissa. R. Suharsono, of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
“We’re sliding back, into just firefighting,” she said.
Coal exports have increased nearly 1.5 times between April and June, compared to 2021, in response to European demand and Indonesia has already produced over 80% of the total coal it produced last year, according to government data.
The country needs to nearly triple its clean energy investment by 2030 to achieve net zero by 2060, according to the International Energy Agency, but Suharsono said it wasn’t clear how it was going to meet those targets.
“There are currently no overarching regulations or a clear roadmap,” she said.
———
Bharatha Mallawarachi in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Edna Tarigan in Jakarta, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo, Japan, Tong-hyung Kim and Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea contributed to this report.
———
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
NEW DELHI, India — The queues outside petrol pumps in Sri Lanka have lessened, but not the anxiety.
Asanka Sampath, a 43-year-old factory clerk, is forever vigilant. He checks his phone for messages, walks past the pump, and browses social media to see if fuel has arrived. Delays could mean being left stranded for days.
“I am really fed up with this,” he said.
His frustrations echo that of the 22-million inhabitants of the island nation, facing its worst ever economic crisis because of heavy debts, lost tourism revenue during the pandemic, and surging costs. The consequent political turmoil culminated with the formation of a new government, but recovery has been complicated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the consequent upending of global energy markets.
Europe’s need for gas means that they’re competing with Asian countries, driving up prices of fossil fuels and resulting in what Tim Buckley, the director of the thinktank Climate Energy Finance, refers to as “hyper-inflation … and I use that word as an understatement.”
Most Asian countries are prioritizing energy security, sometimes over their climate goals. For rich countries like South Korea or Japan, this means forays into nuclear energy. For the enormous energy needs of China and India it implies relying on dirty coal power in the short term. But for developing countries with already-strained finances, the war is having a disproportionate impact, said Kanika Chawla, of the United Nations’ sustainable energy unit.
How Asian countries choose to go ahead would have cascading consequences: They could either double down on clean energy or decide to not phase out fossil fuels immediately.
“We are at a really important crossroads,” said Chawla.
SRI LANKA: “SLOW GRIND”
Sri Lanka is an extreme example of the predicament facing poor nations. Enormous debts prevent it from buying energy on credit, forcing it to ration fuel for key sectors with shortages anticipated for the next year.
Sri Lanka set itself a target of getting 70% of all its energy from renewable energy by 2030 and aims to reach net zero — balancing the amount of greenhouse gas they emit with how much they take out of the atmosphere — by 2050.
Its twin needs of securing energy while reducing costs means it has “no other option” than to wean itself off fossil fuels, said Aruna Kulatunga, who authored a government report for Sri Lanka’s clean energy goals. But others, like Murtaza Jafferjee, director of the think tank Advocata Institute say these targets are more “aspirational than realistic” because the current electrical grid can’t handle renewable energy.
“It will be a slow grind,” said Jafferjee.
Grids that run on renewable energy need to be nimbler because, unlike fossil fuels, energy from wind or the sun fluctuates, potentially stressing transmission grids.
The economic crisis has decreased demand for energy in Sri Lanka. So while there are still power cuts, the country’s existing sources — coal and oil-fired plants, hydropower, and some solar — are coping.
CHINA, INDIA: HOME-GROWN ENERGY
How these two nations meet this demand will have global ramifications.
And the answer, at least in the short-term, appears to be a reliance on dirty-coal power — a key source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.
China, currently the top emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, aims to reach net zero by 2060, requiring significant slashing of emissions.
But since the war, China has not only imported more fossil fuels from Russia but also boosted its own coal output. The war, combined with a severe drought and a domestic energy crisis, means the country is prioritizing keeping the lights on over cutting dirty fuel sources.
India aims to reach net zero a decade later than China and is third on the list of current global emitters, although their historical emissions are very low. No other country will see a bigger increase in energy demand than India in the coming years, and it is estimated that the nation will need $223 billion to meet its 2030 clean energy targets. Like China, India’s looking to ramp up coal production to reduce dependence on expensive imports and is still in the market for Russian oil despite calls for sanctions.
But the size of future demand also means that neither country has a choice but to also boost their clean energy.
China is leading the way on renewable energy and moving away from fossil fuel dependence, said Buckley, who tracks the country’s energy policy.
“It might be because they are paranoid about climate change or because they want to absolutely dominate industries of the future,” said Buckley. “At the end of the day, the reason doesn’t really matter.”
India is also investing heavily in renewable energy and has committed to producing 50% of its power from clean energy sources by 2030.
“The invasion has made India rethink its energy security concerns,” said Swati D’Souza, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
More domestic production doesn’t mean that the two countries are burning more coal, but instead substituting expensive imported coal with cheap homegrown energy, said Christoph Bertram at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. What was “crucial” for global climate goals was where future investments were directed.
“The flipside of investing into coal means you invest less into renewables,” he said.
JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA: THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Both Japan and South Korea, two of Asia’s most developed countries, are pushing for nuclear energy after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Sanctions against Russian coal and gas imports resulted in Japan looking for alternative energy sources despite anti-nuclear sentiments dating back to the 2011 Fukushima disaster. An earlier-than-expected summer resulted in power shortages, and the government announced plans to speed up regulatory safety checks to get more reactors running.
Japan aims to limit nuclear energy to less than a quarter of its energy mix, a goal seen as overly optimistic, but the recent push indicates that nuclear may play a larger role in the country.
Neighboring South Korea hasn’t seen short-term impacts on energy supplies since it gets gas from countries like Qatar and Australia and its oil from the Middle East. But there may be an indirect hit from European efforts to secure energy from those same sources, driving up prices.
Like Japan, South Korea’s new government has promoted nuclear-generated electricity and has indicated reluctance to sharply reduce the country’s coal and gas dependence since it wants to boost the economy.
“If this war continues … we will obviously face a question on what should be done about the rising costs,” said Ahn Jaehun, from the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement.
INDONESIA: DAMAGE CONTROL
The war, and consequent rising gas prices, forced Indonesia to reduce ballooning subsidies aimed at keeping fuel prices and some power tariffs in check.
But this was a very “hurried reform” and doesn’t address the challenge of weaning the world’s largest coal exporter off fossil fuels and reaching its 2060 net zero goal, said Anissa. R. Suharsono, of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
“We’re sliding back, into just firefighting,” she said.
Coal exports have increased nearly 1.5 times between April and June, compared to 2021, in response to European demand and Indonesia has already produced over 80% of the total coal it produced last year, according to government data.
The country needs to nearly triple its clean energy investment by 2030 to achieve net zero by 2060, according to the International Energy Agency, but Suharsono said it wasn’t clear how it was going to meet those targets.
“There are currently no overarching regulations or a clear roadmap,” she said.
———
Bharatha Mallawarachi in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Edna Tarigan in Jakarta, Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo, Japan, Tong-hyung Kim and Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul, South Korea contributed to this report.
———
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
