Group of Seven nations backed away from plans to set a target for making sure most new cars sold are greener vehicles, instead pledging only [to] speed up efforts to move away from combustion engines.
In the final communique Sunday, the bloc include an autos section that was far more modest than earlier versions being discussed. It pledged to do more to electrify the transport sector but didn’t set firm target dates.
Most interesting: in these "for-show" communiques, the goals are always overstated. To back away even a bit is a huge story.
Note: the "backpedaling" on "new car sales" may simply be one person's opinion; the G-7 will argue it did not backpedal, and perhaps they did not. But if the meme holds, that the G-7 did, indeed, backpedal, the discussion has changed.
The obvious question, of course, is what drove this decision? This had to have driven a lot of discussion.
- the earth hangs in the balance; literally hangs in the balance according to Algore, AOC, others.
- this would be the #1 take-away for this group;
- the headline; the way the 47th G-7 would define itself.
Let's look at the participants (those in the "G-7 photo in bold):
- South Africa:
- South Korea;
- EU, president of the European Council:
- EU, president of the European Commission:
Another attendee as host, but not in the photo or listed as an official participant: the Queen.
- The EU seems to be over-represented: three countries plus two EU reps, or five positions on the 9-position stage;
- one assumes the five would have been somewhat united in arguing their case
- none of these leaders will be on the G-7 stage in 2030, so they had nothing to lose from that perspective; they could have issued a joint communique that that their successors would hold the 2035 meeting on the moon for that matter;
- so, to step back on EVs is a big, big deal -- especially when the earth is at stake! Greta is aghast!
- this tells me that none of these guys seriously believes the earth-as-we-know-it is at risk due to manmade CO2 emissions
- weighted opinion among those at the table, on a scale of 1 to 10:
- Australia: 3 (coal)
- Canada: 4 (oil sands)
- France: 0
- Germany: 8 (automobile manufacturing, energy sector, economy)
- India: 0
- Italy: 0
- Japan: 5 (economic powerhouse, EV batteries)
- South Africa: 0
- South Korea: 0 (should be 8, economic powerhouse; automobile manufacturing; EV potential)
- UK: 1
- US (as a country, 8; Biden: 0)
- so, Germany probably dominated the conversation; in addition, Merkel -- of all participants, has the most gravitas; the EU economy is driven by Germany
- she also speaks English -- host country -- fluently
- science background
recently said "climate change" biggest risk to US, earth; it had been "white
supremacy" prior to the G-7 meeting. If Biden said "climate change" was
the biggest risk, why would his public opinion not prevail?
- Biden's private opinions differ from public statements;
- unable to debate effectively any more (if ever);
- Biden has little credibility with others at G-7;
- most of these leaders will not be defeated/re-elected based on their "global warming" positions;
- therefore, the participants did not make their decision based on polling; in fact, from a polling point of view, it would have been easier, less controversial, not to backpedal; the mainstream media cannot support this backpedaling;
- once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth
- the impossible; meeting prior EV hyperbole;
- the improbable: the G-7 backpedals
- the German automobile manufacturing sector convinced Merkel she needed to step back;
- margins on EVs are ridiculously low;
- Germans will lose their automobile manufacturing dominance to Asia (China, South Korea, Japan)
- the unions are in charge
- Lots of verbiage, bottom line: why did G-7 backpedal on EVs?
- polling: no
- reality: yes
- Germany vs Asia
- Merkel wins