Chris Packham has filed a High Court legal challenge against the UK government’s decision to weaken climate policies.

The environmental campaigner and broadcaster has applied for a judicial review of the government’s decision to ditch the timetable for a number of green policies.

These include plans for phasing out petrol and diesel cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating, and minimum energy ratings for homes.

The measures and their timetable were set out in the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, put before parliament in March, but in September Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a number of delays.

He pushed back the ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, and said 20% of households will be exempt from a new gas boiler ban, saying he doesn’t want to ‘burden ordinary people with the costs’.

Chris Packham wrote to Mr Sunak as well as the energy and transport secretaries to challenge the decision, saying the prime minister doesn’t have the legal right to change the timeline of the pledges, as actioning the plan is governed by statute.

But he says he didn’t receive a satisfactory response and has therefore filed a judicial review at the High Court.

The legal challenge cites the requirement to have plans in place to meet the budgets if the proposals and policies within them are altered.

Chris also says the grounds for his judicial review include obligations under the Climate Change Act, and alleges there was a failure to consult on the changes to the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.

He said: ‘We are in a crisis which threatens the whole world, everything living is in danger, including all of us.

‘We have the potential to reduce that threat, we have the solutions and we have plans and targets. We must not divert from these.

‘To do so on a whim for short term political gain is reckless and betrays a disregard for the future security of the planet.’

Chris argued the emissions reductions from the vehicle and gas boiler policies were ‘intrinsically important to the UK’s ability to reach somewhere near its net zero commitments’.

He added: ‘They should not have been changed without proper process and consultation. I believe that action was unlawful.’

Rowan Smith, a solicitor at Leigh Day, said: ‘If the government’s lawyers are correct, then the secretary of state would have carte blanche to rip up climate change policy at the drop of the hat, without any repercussions whatsoever.

‘Chris and his supporters believe that would be an acute abuse of process, made even worse at the time of climate and ecological breakdown.

‘That’s why this legal challenge is so important: if successful, it will mean that the secretary of state has to keep to their promises to have in place policies that will enable carbon budgets to be met.’

Leigh Day said it has instructed barristers David Wolfe KC, Catherine Dobson and Toby Fisher for the legal challenge.

It comes after a successful legal challenge by Friends of the Earth that the 2021 sixth carbon budget did not include sufficient detail in order to demonstrate how the UK would reach net zero by 2050 as the Climate Change Act 2008 says it must.

Source : Metro UK

The post Chris Packham in Court to Challenge Government Weakening Green Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority targeted 146 crypto companies in a new warning, following the rollout of the new promotional rules which require companies to register with the FCA.

The warning, which is the first since the rules went into effect, is the latest in a series from the FCA to attempt curbing illegal financial promotions targeting UK customers. 

As part of the warning, the FCA published a warning list of those who have not registered with the FCA. The list includes KuCoin and Huobi, among others.

“We take a risk-based approach, so not all firms of potential concern will be added straight away. This list will be continually updated as we identify firms which may be illegally communicating crypto asset promotions and are failing to engage with us constructively,” the FCA said in its warning.

Some companies, including OKX and Binance, announced that they’re working to comply with the FCA’s promotional rules. 

Komainu joined the ranks of FCA-registered companies on Friday, Oct. 6. Under the new rules, Komainu is registered as a custodian wallet provider. 

“This is a key regulatory milestone as the UK remains one of the most important hubs for financial technology and innovation that will spur the convergence of traditional and decentralized finance,” CEO Nicolas Bertrand said.

PayPal announced in August that it was “temporarily” pausing the ability of UK customers to buy crypto on its platform so that it could ensure it followed the new regulations. PayPal is aiming to offer the services again in 2024, according to reports. 

ByBit also announced that it would be suspending services in late September. 

“Bybit has made a choice to embrace the regulation proactively and pause our services in this market,” it said in a blog post at the time. 

Source : Block Works

The post FCA Issues Another Warning to Unregistered Crypto Firms as Promotional Rules Take Effect appeared first on Policy Print.

The UK offshore energy industry has reinforced the key role it can play to help the country boost jobs, grow the economy, cut emissions and provide energy security following a speech by the Prime Minister from Downing Street on Wednesday.

While much of the focus remains on consumer measures, the leading representative body for the sector, Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), said an enduring consensus is needed across parties if it is to unlock £200 billion of company investment in oil, gas, wind, hydrogen and carbon capture over the next decade.

OEUK’s recent Economic Report found that with the right support, the UK sector could commit up to £80 billion of offshore wind investment, of which OEUK members are helping to develop 13 GW of the offshore wind pipeline capacity by 2030. These projects alone require almost £30 billion of private investment

OEUK members are also developing the UK’s first wave of carbon capture and hydrogen cluster projects – with a possible spend of up to £20 billion.

OEUK has sight of around £35 billion of potential oil and gas capital investment over the next 10 years, of which about half will go on projects in existing fields and half on new fields. This is part of wider oil and gas expenditure that could be £90 billion through to 2030.

To unlock these funds, OEUK has identified concerted policy support, a stable and globally competitive tax regime and improved planning and regulatory timelines as critical. The report details the key moves necessary across all areas of the energy mix to make the UK globally competitive.

OEUK is calling for pragmatic policy across all political parties ahead of the next General Election to safeguard energy security and the homegrown jobs and supply chains needed to build the low carbon future here in the UK.

Mike Tholen, OEUK sustainability and policy director, said, “Today, we heard the Prime Minister confirm his commitment to net zero. In recent months we have felt the direct impact of underinvestment in homegrown energy on job security for our workers, the competitiveness of our firms internationally, and our future energy bills.

“We know this sector can and must be a big part of the answer to the challenges the country faces on the cost of living, energy security, economic growth and tackling climate change.

“The Prime Minister is right that we need to take people with us, and that includes the 200,000 people working in this industry, as well as the industries and consumers which need an enduring consensus and collaboration if we are to continue  building  energy security as well as the  low carbon energy system in the UK, for the UK.

“With the right frameworks in place, this industry can make the long-term investments to help the UK tackle these challenges head-on.

“The UK mustn’t just become a good place to do energy business, it must become irresistible. Our Economic Report shows that as the global race for energy investment accelerates, the UK must compete by making the most of its diverse homegrown industry, from oil and gas to offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture. Globally, this is the lesson other countries have learnt.”

Source : World Oil

The post OEUK: Offshore Oil Industry Needs Policy Support to Improve Energy Security, Economic Growth appeared first on Policy Print.

Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government’s key green commitments in a major policy shift.

It could include delaying a ban on the sales of new petrol and diesel cars and phasing out gas boilers, multiple sources have told the BBC.

The PM is preparing to set out the changes in a speech in the coming days.

Responding to the reported plans, he said the government was committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 but in a “more proportionate way”.

The aim of net zero is for the UK to take out of the atmosphere as many greenhouse gas emissions – such as carbon dioxide – as it puts in.

The prime minister said: “For too many years politicians in governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs. Instead they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.

“This realism doesn’t mean losing our ambition or abandoning our commitments. Far from it.

“I am proud that Britain is leading the world on climate change.”

He said the UK was committed to international climate agreements it had already made.

“No leak will stop me beginning the process of telling the country how and why we need to change,” he said.

Mr Sunak added that he would give a speech later this week “to set out an important long-term decision we need to make so our country becomes the place I know we all want it to be for our children”.

If he presses ahead with the plan it would represent a significant shift in the Conservative Party’s approach to net zero policy, as well as establishing a clear dividing line with the Labour Party.

According to multiple sources briefed on Downing Street’s thinking, Mr Sunak would use the speech to hail the UK as a world leader on net zero.

But he would also argue that Britain has over-delivered on confronting climate change and that other countries need to do more to pull their weight.

Some specifics of the speech are still thought to be under discussion, but as it stands it could include as many as seven core policy changes or commitments, documents seen by the BBC suggest.

First, the government would push the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars – currently set to come into force in 2030 – back to 2035. The 2030 date has been government policy since 2020.

Second, the government would significantly weaken the plan to phase out the installation of gas boilers by 2035, saying that they only want 80% to be phased out by that year.

Third, homeowners and landlords would be told that there will be no new energy efficiency regulations on homes. Ministers had been considering imposing fines on landlords who fail to upgrade their properties to a certain level of energy efficiency.

Fourth, the 2026 ban on off-grid oil boilers will be delayed to 2035, with only an 80% phase out target at that date.

In addition, Britons will be told that there will be no new taxes to discourage flying, no government policies to change people’s diets and no measures to encourage carpooling.

Mr Sunak is also likely to rule out what he sees as burdensome recycling schemes.

The government had reportedly been considering a recycling strategy in which households would have had “seven bins” – with six separate recycling bins plus one for general waste.

Labour’s shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said it was “an absolute farce”, with “late night policy statements from the Downing Street bunker, as ever driven by the absolute chaos within the Conservative Party, with a weak Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak”.

He declined to say whether Labour would restore any targets that are ultimately scrapped.

“We are making clear that we are absolutely rejecting this completely futile, short-term and facile way of doing politics,” he said. “This is not a serious way to make long-term decisions that require vast amounts of investments, where lots of jobs are at risk.”

Conservative MP Chris Skidmore, the former chairman of the UK government’s net zero review, said diluting green policies would “cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future”.

“Rishi Sunak still has time to think again and not make the greatest mistake of his premiership, condemning the UK to missing out on what can be the opportunity of the decade to deliver growth, jobs and future prosperity,” he said.

Conservative peer Lord Zac Goldsmith, who resigned as a minister earlier this year with a scathing attack on Mr Sunak’s “apathy” over climate change, said the prime minister was “dismantling” the UK’s credibility on environmental issues.

“His short stint as PM will be remembered as the moment the UK turned its back on the world and on future generations. A moment of shame,” he said.

Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas called any rollback on net zero “economically illiterate, historically inaccurate and environmentally bone-headed”.

But Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who chairs the net zero scrutiny group, said he was “pleased to see some pragmatism” from Mr Sunak.

Moving back dates for net zero targets “will take pie in the sky ‘greenwash’ measures out of clearly unachievable deadlines”.

Former Conservative minister David Jones said modifying green policies was “inevitable and sensible”, adding that pressing on with the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars would “seriously damage the British motor industry”.

On Thursday, the King will be on a State Visit to France, where he will host what is known as a Climate Mobilisation Forum.

The event convenes specialists in climate finance, and aims to help developing economies make adjustments to cut emissions.

The King will be accompanied by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly.

Source : BBC

The post Rishi Sunak Considers Weakening Key Green Policies appeared first on Policy Print.

The UK will water down policies aimed at achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and instead pursue a “pragmatic” approach to hitting the target, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.

“We can adopt a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach to meeting net zero,” Sunak told a news conference on Wednesday, saying a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars would be pushed back from 2030 to 2035.

That would bring it in line with countries such as France and Germany, he said.

The prime minister also announced an easing of energy efficiency targets for rental properties and backtracked on plans to make homeowners replace gas boilers with heat pumps.

The move comes amid growing concern over the potential financial cost of the government’s net zero pledge.

A general election is expected next year and Sunak’s Conservative Party is trailing in the polls behind the Labour opposition amid a cost-of-living crisis that has seen food and housing costs spiral.

The narrow win by a Conservative candidate in a west London by-election in July – largely put down to a campaign against the expansion of a vehicle pollution toll zone by London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, of the Labour Party – triggered calls within the party to rethink climate commitments.

‘I believe in net zero’

Stressing that “no one can doubt” the reality of climate change, Sunak said he was a firm believer both in net zero and the UK’s ability to achieve it.

But he added that “too often motivated by short-term thinking, politicians have taken the easy way out, telling people the bits they want to hear, and not necessarily always the bits they need to hear.

“We haven’t had an honest conversation about these issues in a long time. It’s not enough to just announce these targets – great headlines in the short term – to will this thing to happen. That’s not right,” he said.

The UK had leeway to ease targets as it had achieved “the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7”, he argued.

But the rethink sparked anger among opposition lawmakers, environmental campaigners, the car industry and some Conservative MPs, setting up a possible rift in Sunak’s party.

In July, Sunak approved hundreds of new oil and gas licences in the North Sea off Britain’s east coast, angering environmentalists.

Former prime minister and net zero proponent Boris Johnson warned that “we cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country”, while COP26 president and Conservative lawmaker Alok Sharma added that “for any party to resile from this agenda will not help economically or electorally.”

Reports suggested that some MPs may even be preparing letters of no confidence in protest.

‘Complete farce’

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas called the move “economically illiterate, historically inaccurate and environmentally bone-headed” while Ed Miliband, Labour’s spokesman for energy, said it was a “complete farce from a Tory government that literally does not know what they are doing day to day”.

Lady Parminter, chair of the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, also criticised Sunak’s move, saying she was “dismayed” by the announcement and will be outlining concerns and seeking clarification.

Criticism also came from industry, with Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, saying the UK should be a “leader in zero-emission mobility” but “clear, consistent” messaging is required from the government for consumers to want to switch to electric vehicles.

“Confusion and uncertainty will only hold them back,” Hawes added.

Green campaigners were angered, too.

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, said that move “will only hasten our waning influence on the world stage”.

Source : Al Jazeera

The post Sunak Announces U-turn on Several UK Net Zero Policies appeared first on Policy Print.

As the temperature rises and attention turns towards holidays, what is the latest picture for the UK economy? Our Deputy Director for Macroeconomic Modelling and Forecasting, Professor Stephen Millard, spoke to Associate Economists Paula Bejarano Carbo and Hailey Low to get their thoughts.

As the Bank of England (and NIESR for that matter) move into their Quarterly Forecast Round, what are the key issues for the UK economy that they need to think hardest about?

HL: The UK economy is under pressure from a number of complex and interconnected issues. These challenges, which include inflation, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and stagnation in living standards, inter alia, have coalesced into a fragile economy which policymakers are finding extremely difficult to manage. The Bank Rate is now at its highest level since 2008, and the MPC has signalled that there could be further rate hikes to come given the persistence of inflation. This all raises a number of key issues that should be considered as we think about the outlook for the UK economy.

Firstly, the MPC needs to strike a balance between their fight against inflation and raising rates too high as doing so might trigger a recession. It will take time for the full impact of the 13 consecutive increases in interest rates to be felt by consumers, given both the delays in the pass-through of changes to the policy rate into other interest rates and the cumulative nature of the change in rates. The economy has seen a cost-of-living crisis and has now been struck by the increased cost of borrowing. Higher rates mean that bad debts are expected to increase amidst the economic downturn as consumers and businesses struggle to repay loans at higher rates. This has negative implications for banks as risks to capital returns and asset quality intensify. Risks to the housing sector are also possible, as higher mortgage rates could mean seeing mortgagers having difficulties in housing repayments.

Secondly, as the NHS celebrates its 75th anniversary, the government needs to increase investment in the NHS so as to enable access to timely and proper healthcare. I cannot emphasise this enough as the labour market is suffering from a severe labour shortage and long-term sick are driving the high economic inactivity rate. Enabling this large group of people to return to the workforce would alleviate some pressure in the hot labour market, a point NIESR made in our Spring Budget Response.

CPI Inflation failed to fall in May, remaining at 8.7 per cent. What is driving this high inflation? What are we expecting inflation to be in June and over the next few months?

PBC: The annual rate of CPI inflation in May largely reflects energy price decreases being offset by price increases in both food as well as services such as travel, and recreational and cultural goods and services. This latest figure of 8.7 per cent represents a positive surprise in that many expected energy price decreases to drive a significant decrease in inflation in the second quarter of 2023. What we’ve seen, however, is that price rises in food (which makes up around 10 per cent of the consumer expenditure basket which the CPI inflation rate is based on) and services have contributed heavily to keeping the CPI inflation rate elevated.

The annual rate of food inflation was 18.3 per cent in May. This elevated figure is partly a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, since Ukraine is a big exporter of essential food like sunflower oil and wheat. For example, in May, the annual rate of inflation for flours and cereals was 23.6 per cent, whereas prior to the invasion (January 2021), the inflation rate for this sub-category was -3.3 per cent. At the same time, survey data, such as the S&P Global/CIPS UK Services Purchasing Manager’s Index tell us that price rises in the services sector partially reflect businesses passing on rising input costs like increased wages and still-high energy prices onto customers.

Looking at measures of underlying inflation can give us an idea of the nature of current inflation and where it may be headed. Core inflation rose to 7.1 per cent in May, its highest rate since March 1992. This measure indicates that, as a result of the original shock to energy and food prices caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, inflationary pressures have permeated indirectly (sometimes referred to as ‘second round inflation effects’) to other areas of the economy, such as services via increased input costs (like wages). At the same time, NIESR’s measure of underlying inflation, which excludes 5 per cent of the highest and lowest price changes, fell to 9.9 per cent from 10.2 per cent in April. Trimmed-mean inflation being higher than headline inflation indicates that the energy price fall which has driven headline CPI down is a rather volatile price movement.

Taken together, the latest data suggest that, though inflation will fall gradually over the coming months, this may be slower than expected and we can expect inflation to exhibit persistence in the third quarter of 2023.

The Bank of England recently raised rates to 5 per cent. Should we be bracing for further increases and where do we see interest rates heading over the medium term?

PBC: Against a backdrop of 8.7 per cent inflation, the MPC opted to raise interest rates at its June meeting. The MPC now expects that, given the available data, this interest rate level is sufficiently high to bring inflation back to its target rate of 2 per cent.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, the data indicate that inflation may continue to be stubbornly high in the coming months. Thus, it is possible that the next CPI data release contains another positive surprise. If that is the case, the MPC might deem it necessary to raise interest rates further to return to an inflation path that gets us back target in the medium term.

But, it’s not all about the CPI data. Interest rates at 5 per cent are quite high, and the effects of this on the economy (like households having to cut spending in order to afford elevated mortgage repayments) are definitely being felt and will continue to be felt over the coming months. With the consequences of higher borrowing rates being passed on slowly throughout the economy, it’s true that the MPC has already done much of the ‘heavy lifting’ needed to bring inflation back down. In fact, two members of the MPC felt that no further rate rises were needed at its June meeting.

So, while it’s possible that there may be one or two more rate rises as a result of CPI data surprises, interest rates are probably close to peak. So, over the coming months, we can expect the MPC to reach a peak interest rate and to hold it there for some time until it deems that the economy is ready for it to begin unwinding interest rates.

A key issue for a long while has been the fall in labour supply. Where is the UK labour market currently in terms of employment, unemployment and vacancies, participation, and wage growth and where do you see it going?

HL: The current state of the labour market: febrile and tight. Since NIESR published our Spring Outlook, the employment rate increased by 0.2 per cent to 76 per cent while the unemployment rate remained unchanged 3.8 per cent. It is notable that both indicators are still below the pre-pandemic rate.

However, there is some evidence the labour market is on the turn as vacancies fell by 0.05 million to 1.05 million suggesting that global economic uncertainty is still impacting businesses and firms are adjusting their hiring plans in response to weaker activity. The economic inactivity rate also decreased by 0.1 percentage point but remained 0.7 percentage points above its pre-pandemic level. The long-term sick remain the largest group within the inactive population and the number of long-term sick has reached its highest level since the start of the pandemic – this is a serious cause for concern amidst the hot labour market.

This shrunken workforce will lead to increased competition for staff and thus continue to drive rapid wage growth (especially in the private sector), which shows little signs of slackening, and this could keep price pressures elevated for some time. With near record-low unemployment, more than a million job vacancies and wage growth of 7.2 per cent – we expect that the job market will remain tight for a long period.

Source: National Institute of Economic and Social Research

The post What Are the Main Issues Facing the UK Economy? appeared first on Policy Print.

During the meeting, a wide range of issues related to the Turkmen-British cooperation in the political, diplomatic, trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian areas were discussed, the Foreign Ministry reported.

The Turkmen side noted the great potential for further expansion of interaction between the two states. Interest was also expressed in intensifying inter-parliamentary relations.

It was stated that in the development of trade and economic relations, a large role belongs to the activities of the Turkmen-British trade and industry council, which serves as an important platform for the exchange of views on further enhancing cooperation in all sectors of the economy.

Interaction in the field of education and science, as well as in healthcare, medicine and environmental protection was highlighted as significant aspects of the development of Turkmen-British relations.

The post Deputy Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan Discusses Cooperation With UK Ambassador appeared first on Policy Print.

Young people ages 18 to 29 in British, French and German focus groups have few positive things to say about the United States or China as major players on the world stage. The U.S. is seen as the “world’s policeman” with a self-interested history of interventionism that is disappointing to Western allies, while China is labeled the “world’s factory,” respected for its economic dominance but strongly criticized for its expansionism and record of human rights violations.

“China is stronger in industry; the U.S. is stronger militarily.”Man, France, 27

In November 2022, Pew Research Center conducted focus group sessions among four distinct ideological groups in the capital cities of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The groups, which were convened to better understand how young people want their countries to engage with the world, revealed a series of nuanced and conflicting opinions about international engagement, the nature of that engagement, history and foreign policy priorities. But, when groups were asked to discuss the roles the U.S. and China play in global affairs and the international impact of their actions, the young participants expressed strong critiques of both major powers, regardless of country or ideological group.

China has received increasingly negative ratings in Pew Research Center surveys in Europe over the past few years, and the focus groups shed light on the deep concerns young people have about Beijing’s human rights record, China’s growing economic might and its policies in Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere. Focus group participants are largely pessimistic about future relations with China. But there is also a strong sense of pragmatism among these young adults who have largely resigned themselves to China’s economic power and see few, if any, ways to disentangle relations with China without collapsing their own economies. 

America’s image in Europe has, in contrast, improved markedly in recent years, following the election of President Joe Biden. He is much more popular than his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, and Biden’s more multilateralist approach to foreign policy is welcomed by most Europeans. And on a variety of survey questions we’ve asked in Europe over time – such as questions about human rights and which country should be the world’s leading power – the U.S. gets significantly higher marks than China.

However, the focus groups reveal ongoing concerns about the way America has used its power in world affairs, often discussing U.S. actions abroad as a point of comparison with their own countries. Focus group participants echo a criticism of the U.S. we’ve regularly seen in our surveys: Most believe the U.S. does not take allies’ interests into account when making foreign policy decisions. And participants are especially critical of U.S. military interventions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, echoing themes from survey research, some participants also express concerns about the state of American politics and society. Many suggest the U.S. has been hypocritical in the past, arguing for human rights and democracy abroad without fixing its problems at home.

Regardless of these criticisms, however, young Europeans want to engage and cooperate with the U.S., and they remain cautiously optimistic about the future of trans-Atlantic relations because the U.S. and Europe share fundamental democratic values. And, in many ways, the criticisms they levy against the U.S. are similar to ones that people – especially those on the left – have of their own government, too.

Young Europeans do not approve of the United States’ role as the “world’s policeman”

Though surveys find that majorities in France, Germany and the UK have favorable views of the U.S., America’s role on the world stage is described in mostly negative terms by the focus group participants. Across all three countries and four ideological groupings, young Europeans are steadfast in the opinion that the U.S. acts as the world’s policeman to the detriment of the world community. One young Briton said clearly, “I think on balance, [they] probably hurt more than they help.”

One French man said, “They’ve started wars that were completely illegal, against the opinion of the UN even, without any mandate.” A German woman added that the U.S. generally “finds themselves too great” and “interferes wherever they want, just because of their military power.” For his part, one young man in Germany noted that “a lot is swept under the carpet. They’ve got their fingers everywhere in the world. It’s not so clean.”

The United States’ actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its consequent withdrawal, were often pointed to as examples of this behavior. Majorities in each country considered the U.S. withdrawal poorly executed, according to Spring 2022 data from the Center, and the young people in the focus groups described both the withdrawal and the entire 20-year U.S. history in the country in forceful terms. One Briton framed it as “short-term help, long-term hurt.” Another French man said, “We saw with Iraq, they came in and left the country in ruins.” And a German man called the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan “a huge failure of a [20]-year long project. They just went away and the country was taken overnight.”

There was some reflection on the fact that each of these countries played their own role in Iraq and Afghanistan and have their own histories of military intervention. Still, the sense is that the charge was led by the U.S., as exemplified by a young Briton who said, in reference to his country’s presence in Iraq, “I think we can get influenced by larger countries, that we’re supposedly allies with, into conflicts that we shouldn’t really have involvement with.” Across the board, young people want to avoid military interventions, even among those eager for their countries to engage on the world stage. A young German woman questioned the extent to which intervening is beneficial, even “in countries where terrorism is high.”

Still, a few French individuals did highlight some of the potential benefits of American interventionism, focusing more on America as a strong power that can take forceful action. For example, noting U.S. support for Taiwan’s security, one French man said, “I think the only time the U.S. did well to intervene was regarding Taiwan … I think that if the U.S. hadn’t shown their support, Taiwan would have been part of China by now.” And one French woman shared respect for the idea of an “America first” policy,” suggesting it “is something France should do and be more strategic about.”

Disapproval of American interventionism among the focus group participants is tied clearly to their sense that U.S. actions abroad are self-interested. Center surveys have long found that people do not think the U.S. takes other countries’ interests into account when making foreign policy decisions; this theme was on full display in the focus groups. One German woman said she has “the impression that the U.S. doesn’t cooperate with anybody.” A French woman added that American interventions “aren’t in cooperation, it’s just themselves” and a Briton called it “just a power thing.”

Critiques of U.S. interventionism are particularly strong among internationally engaged Europeans who called out hypocrisy in the United States’ practice of addressing issues around the world while failing to tackle social inequities at home. In recent years, Center surveys have shown that people from these countries do not see the U.S. as a positive actor or example on climate, health care or civil rights. Take, for example, a French woman who called the U.S. a bad example for “human rights, in general.” When asked why, she said “they’ve gone back on abortion rights.” Others called out the United States’ lack of climate action, high rates of gun violence, inequitable health care system or even the fact that schools in poor areas get less funding.

The focus groups’ discussions led to a common conclusion: Young people are eager to see their countries maintain a strong, more independent presence on the world stage without relying on policy cues from the U.S. When describing his wishes for the UK, one Briton said, “I guess it’s not being like America and trying to save everyone, but offering help to people in need and communicating, sharing intelligence and collaborating on things that are world issues, whether that’s climate change or something else.” For her part, a young German woman called cooperation with the U.S. “sometimes useless, except for defining how we definitely don’t want to act.”  

Still, most in these countries see the U.S. as at least a somewhat reliable and important partner to their country. And while there is a desire to disentangle their policies and reputations from the U.S., young people maintain the expectation of some trans-Atlantic partnership. One German suggested that “in foreign policy, we should keep a healthy closeness to them, because they have a lot of influence in the whole world.” Similarly, though few like the way the U.S. has utilized its military strength, there is a shared sense that it is “the most powerful” and is important to have as an ally. A young German internationalist called it “quite useful” to have “the biggest military force … within the Western community.”

One pain point in relations with the U.S. that came up in each country was leadership. Confidence in the U.S. president reached historic or near historic lows in Center surveys during Trump’s four-year term. In focus groups, one Briton said he thought it was a joke “when the U.S. elected Trump.” A French man cited Trump’s presidency as reasoning for France to have a strong presence on the world stage saying they “would suffer the consequences of the choices of other powers, such as the U.S., as we saw with Donald Trump, we had a lot of difficulty dealing with him, even though his decisions had a direct impact on Europe.”

And, while confidence in the U.S. president jumped dramatically when Biden took office in 2021, it has since tempered, especially among young people. In Germany and France, those ages 18 to 29 are much less likely than those 50 or older to be confident in Biden’s leadership. While young adults are at least 30 percentage points more confident in Biden than they were in Trump in 2020, when the groups mentioned Biden, they often qualified their generally warm feelings with disappointment, with some suggesting he has done little to counteract Trump’s course. As one French respondent shared that, at this point, “I don’t even think U.S. policy changes that much when leaders change. It’s more the approach that changes but Biden won’t necessarily shift every policy.”

Young Europeans concerned by China’s power as the “world’s factory”

Whereas focus group participants heavily focused on the United States’ role as “the world’s policeman,” they discussed China more often as “the world’s factory.” This is driven by both its dominance in manufacturing and exporting goods as well as its investment and infrastructure building around the world. When surveyed, pluralities in Germany, France and the UK called China the world’s leading economic power over the U.S., European Union and Japan. Put simply, one French woman said, “Everything is Chinese.” Another Briton referenced China as “producers of technology and clothes” saying that “they have these giant industrial cities where they churn stuff out at a rate and price which other countries basically see as a deal that’s too good to refuse.” Technology emerged as a common thread in discussions about China’s production power, and multiple participants mentioned the role China plays in the manufacturing of technology products from American and European companies such as Apple and Nokia.

Young Europeans are also wary of China’s investment around the world. A German man said he “finds it extremely dangerous that they try to buy or build up infrastructure in every country. In Africa they are building roads, in Greece they have bought harbors and have agreed to assume Greece’s debts. And they have also tried to buy harbors in Germany.” This sort of lending was also an issue for a French woman who noted that “because they have money, they allow long loans in exchange for ports or infrastructure,” continuing that “there’s nothing fair and honorable in the way the government is managed.”

Underpinning the wariness of China’s economic dominance are severe critiques of the country on two fronts: domestic human rights abuses and military action in the South China Sea. In a 2021 survey, more than eight-in-ten Germans, Britons and French say China does not respect the personal freedoms of its people. This view was espoused by one young British woman who said, “What they do to Muslim people there, concentration camps and invading Hong Kong … I think they’re great in terms of commodities but crap in terms of human rights.” In a similar vein, a French man said he thinks of China as “a dictatorship, which carried out a genocide on its own soil.”

The same man noted that China “wants to invade Taiwan …, contests the statue of Hong Kong [and] Macau” and that “it doesn’t have any legitimacy to intervene.” Unlike the U.S., China’s military was rarely mentioned. When participants did bring up the Chinese military, it was often in reference to Taiwan. A British man shared his view, saying that in “situations sort of like China and Taiwan, everyone’s too afraid to get involved … and Taiwan is this tiny little piece of land where China is doing ballistic missile tests every week now just to show their strength.”

There is agreement that these actions are bad but many young participants, particularly those on the ideological left, are clear that their own countries and the U.S. are not above the same criticisms. A French man said “we blame them for things we do ourselves, we blame [them] for their aggression towards certain countries, which is true, but we are also very aggressive, we wage war to many countries in the West more generally.”

When asked to look toward the future and consider their countries’ ongoing relationships with China, the young focus group participants acknowledge the struggle of balancing China’s human rights track record with their economic power. In fact, when asked to choose between promoting human rights in China regardless of economic consequence and prioritizing economic relations over addressing human rights issues in a recent survey, majorities in each of these countries chose the former. Some are optimistic that their country could, to some degree, achieve this through multilateralism and strengthening economic ties with other major actors, like the U.S. A French man noted that “facing against China could be complicated,” suggesting that his country “could get closer to key institutions, the EU for example, to try to have more power, among others, to try and change the balance a bit, because France alone wouldn’t have much impact against … the force of the Chinese economy.”

More commonly, participants feel that some morally driven stand against China would be nice, but when asked to describe how that would happen, they acknowledge that untying their countries and themselves from China economically is not a pragmatic goal. Put simply by a young British man: “It’s quite easy to point fingers but once again, what would we actually do without them?” Another Briton called the price of material goods coming from China “a deal that’s too good to refuse.” A German man posited that “if [China] were to sanction, then the German economy would crash from one day to the next and also many other countries, because a lot comes from China.” In that vein, some level of cooperation with China seems to be just as inevitable as partnership with the U.S. to young Europeans.

Source: Pew Research Center

The post Young Adults in Europe Are Critical of the U.S. and China – but for Different Reasons appeared first on Policy Print.