#president of the european commission ursula von der leyen

[mariacallous]

In 2025, we will see a fundamental transformation in the language of climate politics. We’re going to hear a lot less about “reducing emissions” from scientists and policymakers and a lot more about “phasing out fossil fuels” or “ending coal, oil, and methane gas.” This is a good thing. Although it is scientifically accurate, the phrase “reducing emissions” is too easily used for greenwashing by the fossil-energy industry and its advocates. The expression “ending coal, oil, and methane gas,” on the other hand, keeps the focus on the action that will do most to resolve the climate crisis.

This discourse shift has been initiated by the latest report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The world’s climate scientists say that already existing fossil-energy infrastructure is projected to emit the total carbon budget for halting global heating at 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial temperatures. This statement means two things. It means that the world cannot develop any more coal, oil, or gas, if we want our planet to remain relatively livable. And it means that even some already developed fossil-fuel deposits will need to be retired before the end of their lifetime, since we need to leave space in the carbon budget for essential activities like agriculture.

The international community has already integrated this new science into its global climate governance. The 28th Conference of the Parties—the annual conference of the world’s nations party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—called for every country to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels.” Never before in the history of international climate negotiations had the main cause of global heating been clearly named and specifically targeted. The United Nations itself now calls for the phaseout of coal, oil, and methane gas.

This new climate language will become mainstream in 2025. In her policy plans for her second term aspPresident of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen pledged not to work to lower EU emissions, but to “continue to bring down energy prices by moving further away from fossil fuels.” The new UK government promised in its manifesto that it will withhold licenses for new coal and for oil exploration—and states outright that it will “ban fracking for good.” And in France, Macron has explicitly vowed to end fossil-fuel use entirely.

Climate politics in the US will also evolve in the wake of Donald Trump’s reelection for president. Republicans will continue to embrace a “drill, baby, drill” climate agenda, denying the danger or sometimes even the reality of climate change while advocating for expanding domestic crude and methane-gas production. They may try to greenwash their policies by claiming they embrace an “all of the above” energy strategy, but this messaging will have limited effects. Due to political polarization the association of Trump with coal, oil, and gas will raise Democratic support for phasing out fossil fuels. Before the 2024 election, 59 percent of Democrats said climate change should be the Federal government’s top priority, but only 48 percent said they supported a phaseout. In 2025 majorities of Democrats will begin to support fossil-fuel phaseout, especially if climate advocates revive science-based climate messaging, continue to emphasize that clean-energy deployment is job creation, and frame choosing to phase out fossil fuels as a form of freedom that upholds our right to a livable future.

Given that Democrats won many down-ballot races, and cities and states are still pledging to pass climate policies, this shift in the Democratic majority will keep the US on the map in international climate negotiations, whether or not Trump withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement, creating new local alliances with the UK, the EU, and global south nations calling for international fossil-fuel phaseout targets. This bloc can counter the power of petrostates in international climate negotiations. At the very least, the mainstreaming of the language of fossil-fuel phaseout will help undermine the greenwashing strategy of current oil and gas company PR, which falsely advertises industry as pursuing technologies at scale to help “reduce emissions” even as they continue their upstream investments.

Of course the petrostates, along with India and China, will push back against the rhetoric of fossil fuel phaseout. But India can be helped to turn away from its domestic coal stores by clean-energy financing at close to cost along with the international aid and technology transfers already pledged at previous climate conferences. And although its rhetoric may not align with that of the West, China should not be imagined as opposed to climate action. China has enacted the most comprehensive climate policy on the planet, in service of its goal to peak emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2060. If their climate messaging remains focused on “emissions,” in light of their plan to keep using fossil fuels past 2030, they are preparing for next decade’s pivot away from fossil fuels by building out clean energy at a truly extraordinary rate.

In 2025 climate discourse will recenter on the message that halting global heating requires the phaseout of coal, oil, and gas. This new consensus will shift the politics of climate change and help motivate an urgent sprint to a clean-energy, ecologically integrated economy—the only economy that ensures a livable future.

[labbaik-ya-hussain-as]

[xtruss]

At Last, “Corrupt, Complicit Witch and Genocidal European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen” Opened her Zionists’ 🐖 🐷 🐗 Scrotums Licker Mouth on the Crimes of the Bastard Child of the 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇩🇪🇫🇷 🇮🇹 🇪🇺: Illegal Regime of Apartheid Isra-hell.

[alpha-mag-media]

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war | In Trend Today

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war Read Full Text or Full Article on MAG NEWS

[ur-mag]

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war | In Trend Today

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war Read Full Text or Full Article on MAG NEWS

[niveditaabaidya]

EU’s Von Der Leyen Praises Amazing Pace of Ukrainian reforms. eu #nato #...

[molfarua]

President 🌍 of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen received a gift from Ukrainian children 💛💙

Президентка 🌍 Єврокомісії Урсула фон дер Ляйен отримала подарунок від українських дітей 💛💙

[i-am-aprl]

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen (@ursulavonderleyen) was interrupted by a protestor accusing her of complicity in genocide as she began her speech to a conference on strengthening the weapons industry. She smiled through the entire interruption.

—

@electronicintifada

[rostbef]

Clare Daly, Irish Member of the European Parliament, criticises European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for not calling for a ceasefire, 8th November 2023

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claims to have ideas for quickly settling the Russia-Ukraine. Whether or not that’s true—and there’s plenty of reason to think it’s not—it’s likely the Trump administration will soon halt its bankrolling of Ukraine’s war effort. On the campaign trail, Trump derided U.S. funding of Ukraine, which currently amounts to more than $60 billion—around half of Ukraine’s total military support from abroad—and has given every indication that he would discontinue it.

This would plunk the problem of support for Ukraine squarely in Europe’s lap. The continent is still not prepared for that reality. The fear of a Russian rout of Ukraine, however, could motivate Europe to try assuming responsibility for supporting Ukraine on its own—beginning with a recognition that ramping up its support is not beyond its ability.

The possibility of U.S. disengagement from Ukraine hasn’t caught Europe completely by surprise. Although Trump didn’t disclose specifics while on the campaign trail, he presented an outline of a plan to end the war: U.S.-led negotiations would stop Russia where it is on the battlefield, cede the territories that Russia occupies to it, and then lift international sanctions against Russia in exchange for the termination of military hostilities toward Ukraine. There would be no NATO or other Western security guarantee but rather, according to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, a demilitarized zone along Ukraine’s new borders with defensive fortifications robust enough to prevent another Russian invasion. Most important to Trump seems to be jettisoning the U.S. financial commitment to Ukraine.

Europe’s own contribution to Ukraine’s cause so far should not be underestimated. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the European Union is the largest provider of aid to Ukraine, having allocated a total of $133 billion since Russia’s full-scale invasion. (In total, the US has shelled out nearly $91 billion in combined military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.) The EU states have come up with more than $45 billion in military aid for Ukraine’s defense, including large volumes of weaponry and munitions. The bloc’s offer of membership to Ukraine and money for reconstruction and recovery—all directed toward fulfilling membership criteria, as well as rebuilding—buttress the country’s resilience and fuel its democratic aspirations. And at home, member states are accommodating 4 million refugees and have dramatically cut their fossil energy imports from Russia.

The losses, however, should the United States really step back, would be egregious in terms of leadership, money, and weaponry. Europe’s leaders remain convinced that maintaining Ukraine’s independence and halting Russian aggression is vital to the entire continent’s security. But there’s also a recognition that Europe’s effort alone is likely not enough to hold Ukrainian lines on the battlefield, much less serve Russia a knockout blow.

Germany was never a convincing candidate for leadership on the military front, and now that Chancellor Olaf Scholz is heading up a minority coalition until new elections early next year, it will enjoy even less clout. In France, even though President Emmanuel Macron has aspired to leadership—and obviously understands what is at stake for Europe—he is politically weak and facing tough elections soon, too. And the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, is fresh in office and already engulfed in struggles.

Thus, the task could fall on the shoulders of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, if they accept it. Even though she doesn’t command a single battalion, von der Leyen has already shown what she can do as point person when the occasion demands it: When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Europe in 2020, she organized the EU-wide response like a seasoned field marshal, and then immediately on its heels, the quick pivot of Europe’s energy imports away from Russia. Simultaneously, the EU wasted no time imposing sanctions on Russia. And though only by a hair’s breadth, the EU recently outbattled Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moldova, where it helped fend off an onslaught of Russian disinformation, thus helping to reelect a liberal-minded president who is committed to democracy.

If the United States really bows out of the Russia-Ukraine war, however, von der Leyen is going to have to assume an even greater burden—leading a truly global military effort. The EU has allies beyond the bloc in countries like the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea—all of which are pitching in for Ukraine but require a point person to look toward and to coordinate their support. This war was internationalized long before Russia put 10,000 North Korean troops on the ground, and the maintenance of a global pro-Ukraine front is vital to success.

Von der Leyen’s first hurdle, though, will be rallying the entire EU to the cause, and two members—Hungary and Slovakia—are pushing Trump-like “solutions.” Moreover, Russian-friendly populists are surging just about everywhere in the bloc.

At the recent European Political Community summit in Budapest, von der Leyen and Europe’s other top officials seemed to grasp the urgency of the task at hand but stopped short of offering specific plans for a way forward. “It is in all our interests that the autocrats of this world get a very clear message that there is not the right of might, that the rule of law is important,” von der Leyen said.

One thing appears absolutely certain: Europe will have to dig much deeper into its pockets. This means domestic politicos have to make the case to their populations much more bluntly: This war is about Europe, and Ukraine’s defeat would throw into jeopardy much of what decades of integration has accomplished—and cost their countries dearly in many ways.

EU leaders have already begun shifting monies to defense-related priorities.  Nearly a third of the bloc’s common budget, over $400 billion for 2021 to 2027, is allotted to cohesion funding, namely for the reduction of economic inequality between members. But, according to the Financial Times, nearly 95 percent of this budget goes untapped. This spending cannot go toward traditional military hardware but it can buy “dual-use products,” such as drones, global positioning satellites, night vision technology, thermal imaging, and some lasers. Germany, for instance, which is a transportation nexus for western Europe’s shipping for military goods to Ukraine, could call on its more than $40 billion in cohesion funds to repair its badly aged roads, bridges and trains.

A first step will have to involve pushing the third of NATO members who don’t even bankroll the alliance with the stated goal of committing 2 percent of their output to military spending. But maintaining Ukraine’s war effort will demand far more than that.

A proposal by Estonia, made before the U.S. election, deserves serious consideration. It calls for all NATO members anteing up at least 0.25 percent of their GDP for Ukraine’s defense, as the Baltic states already do. That would net   for ensuring Ukraine can still purchase weapons to check Russia. The EU could also consider pursuing raising funds in this way on its own, outside of NATO.

Whether these armaments come from the production facilities of European or foreign arms-makers is beside the point. Europeans’ procurement of weaponry is already happening beyond Europe’s own defense industries. The Czech Republic, head of a multinational arms-buying initiative, tapped markets in a number of non-EU countries to supply Ukraine’s armed forces with 800,000 million artillery shells.

Denmark is trailblazing direct investment in the Ukrainian defense industry. The Danish contribution and frozen Russian assets managed by Denmark on behalf of the EU pay the Ukrainian defense industry $600 million to produce attack drones, artillery, anti-tank weapons, missiles, and naval missiles. Belgium is also working in this direction, with the idea being that every euro buys armaments (more cheaply than on the international market) and establishes a more sophisticated defense industry in Ukraine itself.

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) recommends the creation of a law similar to the U.S. Defense Production Act, which grants the U.S. president powers to bolster the nation’s defense by fast-tracking the production of materials and services. It would, according to ECFR, “provide European policymakers with the tools to use the collective power of EU institutions, member-state governments, and European development banks to respond faster and more effectively to crises.” This would allow Europe to more efficiently use any additional money it commits to Ukraine, accelerating production of defensive armaments such as artillery shells and air-defense missiles, as well as medical supplies. The key would be for Europeans to do all this as one unit—not 27 separate states.

One key item that Europeans will not provide is the advanced surveillance and reconnaissance technology that the United States excels in. “All precision weapons systems today depend on this technology and no industry does it like the [United States],” said Christian Mölling, deputy director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Certainly, part of the European strategy must be to talk sense to Trump. A scenario to avoid at all costs would be the United States canceling sanctions or just ignoring them in return for nothing but Russian business. Europeans might point out to Trump that Russia’s two main allies are Iran and North Korea, countries that he disfavors. And perhaps, if the United States can’t be convinced with political arguments, they can find a way to interest Trump in the form of a bargain: The Europeans could agree to spend big specifically on U.S. weapons in exchange for Washington holding the Western line on Russia. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested Europe’s NATO members offer Trump the carrot that they raise defense spending to 3 percent by the end of his tenure in 2028.

Whatever happens, even in best case, it is highly unlikely that Trump will lead an alliance against Russia the way the Biden administration did. This means that Europe’s hour has arrived: It can grab the initiative and set the agenda rather than allowing the Orbans, Putins, and Xis of the world to do it their way.

[labbaik-ya-hussain-as]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Khaled Beydoun (@khaledbeydoun)

[alpha-mag-media]

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war | In Trend Today

Call for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to resign over comments on Israel-Hamas war Read Full Text or Full Article on MAG NEWS

[motsimages]

Info about European Parliament elections

Because the elections to the European Parliament are approaching (6-9 of June), I wanted to make some kind of master post about it to see if I understand it better and to give some tips. But I forgot we're talking about the fucking European Union and all its levels and sublevels and the respect to each country doing whatever the fuck they want. You may want to watch the series Parliament. It's funny and you will understand how the EU works better than I could ever explain it (I am not kidding).

THANKFULLY, the EU knows the mess it all is and they created a very clear and easy to use website just for this: https://elections.europa.eu.

It gives you general info and a guide for your country. I want to kiss in the mouth to whoever designed the website and wrote the text. Whatever it is they are paid, it's not enough.

IF READING THIS POST IN ENGLISH IS HARD FOR YOU, THAT WEBSITE, AS MOST EU WEBSITES/INFO, IS TRANSLATED INTO EVERY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE EU.

The most important thing about these elections is that the European Parliament represents the interests of the European citizens. Copying from that website I gave: The European Commission is the EU’s executive branch, responsible for proposing and implementing EU law and the day-to-day running of the EU. The European Parliament, representing the interests of EU citizens, and the Council, representing the interests of the countries, shape Commission proposals and, if they agree on them, adopt them.

This is important to know because the Parliament will elect the new President of the European Commission who later will examine and approve the entire College of Commissioners. But this is another thing, so go check wikipedia about the President of the European Comission. In the last elections there was some mix-up between the candidate, the system and who ended up being president (current president is Ursula von der Leyen, chosen in 2019).

The European parliament is separated into 7 political groups. 23 members are necessary to create a group and each group must represent at least a quarter of the countries in the EU (again, watch Parliament, this is very well explained there in a fun way). Here you can find the list of the political groups (if you click each link, they send you to the website of the group and you can look for who/which party from your country is part of it). Some people do not belong to any political group.

From what I see, those 7 political groups include:

4 Right-wing groups (some say "center-right" but they may be right-right. 2 of them are clearly called something like "Christian democrats" or "Conservatives")

1 green party

1 left party

1 center-leftish party

Not all of the websites for these political groups are in several languages of the EU, but they are all in English. Here you can see how many members of the parliament belong to each group by country. In short, you can see where your country is leaning in the European parliament. For instance, Spain has 13 christian democrats, 9 "center-right" and 4 right vs 21 "center-left", 3 green and 6 left, plus 3 non registered in any group for a total of 59 members.

In reality, we do not vote for those political groups. We vote for politicians in our countries and then, they, if they want, they join one group or another. In short, if you vote a left-wing party from your country, it is likely that they will be part of The Left political group of the European parliament.

Historically, over 50% of the parliament is a group of right and another group of center-right. No sé qué de los nazis por Europa estos últimos años. This is how it looks like right now. The yellow party is right-wing adjacent too (Renew Europe), so you can see how it currently looks for the left (green and red colours, where the dark red colour is The Left and the bright red is center-left). The gray one do not belong to any political group.

In other elections, about 50% of the population did not vote (which may be why there are more right-wing parties than others, just saying).

So yeah, vote. This organ represents you and your interests directly. They are the ones who adopt laws that affect anyone and everyone.

Vote because the European Parliament is your voice in the EU.

[zvaigzdelasas]

Kyiv is in talks to transit gas from Azerbaijan to the EU after the contract to transit Russian gas expires in December 2024, President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with Bloomberg on July 3.

Kyiv and the EU have said they would not seek the prolongation of the transit deal for Russian gas at the end of the year. The deal was signed in 2019.

Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko told Bloomberg in March that he does not "see the possibility" that Russian gas would continue to flow through Ukraine after December.[...]

Transiting gas from Azerbaijan instead is "one of the proposals," Zelensky said.

According to Bloomberg, Ukraine earned around $1 billion from transit revenue in 2021, and therefore continuing to use the extensive system of pipelines "would help provide crucial funding for the war-torn economy."[...]

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen signed a deal with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Baku in July 2022 to bring imports of Azeri natural gas to "at least" 20 billion cubic meters annually by 2027.

4 Jul 24