A transforming China, conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere, and irreconcilable clashes over money have put the prospects for progress at a new low.
Global power is fractured. Temperatures have risen to record levels. Bitterness and anxiety are rising in vulnerable countries lashed by deadly heat and floods.
This week, as presidents and prime ministers assemble at the United Nations General Assembly, they confront a vastly different world from the one that existed nearly 10 years ago, when nations rich and poor found a way to rally together around a remarkable global pact.
In that agreement, the 2015 Paris accord, they promised to act and acknowledged a bare truth: Climate change threatens all of us, and we owe it to each other to slow it down. Countries agreed to nudge each other to raise their climate ambitions every few years, and the industrialized nations of the world — which had prospered from the burning of coal, oil and gas — said they would help the rest of the world prosper without burning down the planet.
Turns out, geopolitics can be as unpredictable as the weather.
Three big things have shifted since the climate accord that, together, have sunk the prospects of global climate cooperation to a low point. China has raced ahead of every other country, including the United States, to dominate the global clean-energy supply chain, fueling serious economic and political strains that undermine incentives to cooperate. Rich countries have failed to keep their financial promises to help poor countries shift away from fossil fuels. A widening gyre of war — from Ukraine to Gaza and now, in Lebanon — has become an impediment to global climate consensus.
“Major emitting countries are much less likely to work cooperatively on climate due to geopolitical tensions and concerns about supply-chain security than they were in 2015,” said Kelly Sims Gallagher, a former White House adviser who is now dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Then there’s the biggest, most consequential uncertainty of all: the coming U.S. elections.
China is the world’s largest producer of solar panels. Also wind turbines. Also batteries for electric vehicles. It manufactures more electric cars, buses and motorcycles than any other country.
It also processes the vast majority of the world’s cobalt and lithium, essential components in the batteries that will help electrify everything from trucks to factories to advanced weaponry.
In short, it holds the keys to the treasure chest of the renewable-energy transition, even as, paradoxically, it burns more coal than any other country. That makes China the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the moment, while the United States is the biggest emitter in history.
China’s dominance of clean-energy goods has sparked a protectionist backlash few would have expected when the Paris accord was signed in 2015 — with the U.S. and China as two of its most important backers. Today, however, Western countries, fearing that they will fall even farther behind, have imposed nearly insurmountable tariffs on China’s electric vehicles. And they have sought to eliminate Chinese-processed metals from their own factories.
That has added a new stumbling block to climate diplomacy between the world’s biggest emitters. It’s not helped by rising tensions between Washington and Beijing. The two sides are still talking, but they’re not agreeing on much. The global energy transition is getting bogged down as they quarrel.
“There’s no question that geopolitics are more challenging than they were when the Paris Agreement was struck,” said Ani Dasgupta, president of the World Resources Institute.
But he took pains to note that many countries continue to push the world’s powerful to come together, and with some success. “The biggest change, and a welcome one, we have seen since Paris is the rise of climate leadership from the Global South,” he said, referring to low-income nations that often feel disproportionate effects from global warming.
Money has bedeviled climate diplomacy for decades. There has been intense disagreement over who should pay, and how much.
A handful of countries — the United States, most of Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan — are responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions that have caused the planet to heat up over the past century. But each of those countries, in their own way, argues that they alone can’t foot the bill for a global fix.
They also argue that China in particular, now the world’s second biggest economy and its biggest polluter, should also pony up money to aid low-income countries.
The one explicit acknowledgment of this obligation has been the creation of a formal Loss and Damage Fund to help poor countries cope with climate disasters made worse by the greenhouse gases emitted by wealthy nations. A little over $700 million has been pledged, a drop in the bucket of what it costs even one country to recover from one climate disaster. (The European Commission allocated $10 billion this week to help Central European countries respond to the latest floods.)
Recently, a few courts have begun to take up cases that strive to penalize the industry or require fossil fuel companies to help pay the cost of fighting climate change. But even if the plaintiffs were to prevail, any decisions would likely be years in the future.
Meanwhile, the costs of climate change have piled up for low-income countries, many of which are also heavily indebted. On average, African nations are losing 5 percent of their economies because of floods, droughts and heat, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Many are spending up to a 10th of their budgets managing extreme weather disasters.
“For developing nations, especially those on the front lines of climate disasters, this is not just an injustice, it’s a betrayal of trust and humanity,” said Harjeet Singh, global engagement director at an activist group called the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has lifted energy security to the top of the agenda for big world powers. That has both strengthened the argument to shift to renewable energy — but also shifted the focus of many world leaders from emphasizing a transition away from oil and gas to making sure they have enough of it for their energy needs.
It has also buoyed the fortunes of oil and gas producers worldwide. At the same time, food and fuel costs have risen worldwide, and with it, hunger.
If the war in Ukraine scrambled the economics of the energy transition, then the war in Gaza scrambled its politics, driving up distrust and realigning geopolitical allegiances. Western hegemony over global trade, including of fossil fuels, has faded.
Both China and India, as well as Turkey and Iran, two sets of rivals, have made deft energy deals with Russian President Vladimir Putin, allowing Russian oil and gas to enjoy new markets as Europe weans itself from Russian energy. The United States has, in turn, sought to counter that new dynamic by exporting more of its own oil and gas than ever.
This week at the United Nations, there are likely to be some pointed reminders to world leaders, particularly from the 20 largest economies, known as the G20, to rally around climate action.
The United Nations’ top climate official, Simon Stiell, whose grandmother’s home in on the Caribbean island of Grenada was destroyed by Hurricane Beryl earlier this year, said as much in a recent speech. “It would be entirely incorrect for any world leader, especially in the G20, to think, ‘Although this is all incredibly sad, ultimately it’s not my problem,’” he said.
The wildest wild card in all of this is what happens in November, when Americans go to the polls.
In his first term as president, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the global climate accord. Should he return to the White House, he has promised to do so again.
As Tim Benton, a fellow at Chatham House, a London-based research organization, wrote recently, “a new Trump administration promises only — directly and indirectly — to frustrate ambitious, effective climate policies in the U.S. and abroad.”
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/climate/climate-diplomacy-fracture.html
The net profit of solvent banks in Ukraine in January-August 2024 reached UAH 106.08 billion, which is 11.6% more than in the same period in 2023, according to the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU).
According to the NBU, in August this year, banks’ net profit decreased to UAH 12.47 billion from UAH 14.58 billion a month earlier, up 4.8% compared to August 2023.
According to the National Bank, net interest income in January-August this year increased by 18.5% to UAH 152.74 billion, while net commission income increased by 8.2% to UAH 36.11 billion.
The share of interest income in the total structure of banks for 8 months of this year increased to 68.6% from 67.5% for 8 months of last year, while the share of commission decreased to 21.0% 21.9%.
At the same time, in August of this year, net interest income increased by 11.6% to UAH 19.98 billion compared to August of last year, while net fee and commission income increased by 14.3% to UAH 4.48 billion.
According to the NBU, in August, banks added additional reserves in the amount of UAH 0.78 billion compared to UAH 0.75 billion in July and UAH 1.68 billion in June, but in general, since the beginning of the year, this figure amounted to only UAH 1.15 billion compared to UAH 6.52 billion for 8 months of last year, including UAH 1.62 billion in August-2023.
It is noted that banks paid UAH 30.71 billion in income tax in January-August this year, compared to UAH 17 billion last year.
As reported, last fall, the Verkhovna Rada retroactively increased the bank profit tax for 2023 from 18% to 50%, setting it at 25% for the following years. However, this year, in September, the Parliament again approved in the first reading a retroactive increase in the bank profit tax to 50% in 2024.
However, the National Bank opposes this and said it would try to persuade parliamentarians.
Import changes in % to previous period in 2023-2024
Open4Business.com.ua
Ukraine exported 691.8 thsd tonnes of sugar in 2023/2024 marketing year (MY, July 2023 – June 2024), of which 77% was shipped to the European Union, the press service of the National Association of Sugar Producers of Ukraine “Ukrtsukor” reports.
According to the report, the main importing countries of Ukrainian sugar to the EU were Italy, whose share in the supply of Ukrainian sugar to the EU was 19%, Bulgaria (18%) and Hungary (14%).
In addition, the top three buyers of Ukrainian sugar outside the EU were Cameroon, which accounted for 17% of supplies, Libya (15%) and Turkey (11%).
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy has arrived in the United States.
“We are starting a visit to the United States. We are now flying to Pennsylvania. A special visit. Then New York, Washington,” he said in a video address on Sunday evening.
The Head of State emphasized that this fall it will be decided what will happen next in the Russian-Ukrainian war. “Together with our partners, we can strengthen our positions as necessary for our victory, our common victory, for a truly just peace,” he said.
According to Zelenskyy, Ukraine will present the Victory Plan in the United States, and President Joseph Biden will be the first to see it in full.
Zelenskyy also promised to present the Victory Plan to all the leaders of partner countries, “who, like President Biden, are leaders of the world and can become leaders of the world by helping us with the Victory Plan.”
“We will also present it to Congress – both parties – and to both presidential candidates in the United States. America has all the power it needs to work with Ukraine, with our allies and partners to deliver what we want most. We need peace. Exactly as envisioned by the Peace Formula. Exactly as envisaged by the UN Charter. We are doing everything for this,” the Head of State said.
“Weapons to protect our independence and our people. Diplomacy to consolidate partners and force Russia to peace. And justice so that Russia is responsible for this war and feels its consequences,” he added.
Zelensky also expressed gratitude to everyone who continues to help Ukraine. “I am grateful to every nation, to all the leaders who felt that much more is being decided in this war of Russia against Ukraine than the fate of our Ukrainian people alone,” he said.
Separately, Zelenskyy thanked the United States as a leader of support and every nation that has shown its independence and leadership to help Ukraine protect people and prevent Russia from “expanding this war.”
“When Ukraine defends itself, every other democratic nation will benefit. It is now being determined what will be the legacy of the current generation of state leaders. Those who are in the highest offices. In the coming days, I will be meeting with the leaders of the Global South, the G7, Europe, and international organizations – with many who help consolidate the world. Meetings with representatives of the United States are very important. Real peace and a real victory for Ukraine and international law is what we need,” the Ukrainian leader summarized.
State-owned PrivatBank in July 2024 reduced its net profit by 2.6% by June – to UAH 6.25 billion and with this indicator headed the top five most profitable banks in the country in July, according to the data of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) on its website.
According to them, Privat is followed by state-owned Oschadbank, which in July received 2.18 billion UAH of net profit compared to 0.07 billion UAH in June.
Universal Bank (mono) rounded out the top three, having almost eightfold increased its profit compared to June – up to UAH 0.84 bln.
It is followed by two banks with foreign capital: Credit Agricole and Raiffeisen Bank with UAH 0.62 bln (+28.3% to June) and UAH 0.56 bln (+78%) respectively.
The second five most profitable banks in July were headed by Ukrsibbank, which increased its net profit by 10.1% to UAH 0.55 bln. It also included: City Bank – UAH 0.54 billion, Ukrgasbank – UAH 0.43 billion, FUIB – UAH 0.42 billion and Ukreximbank – UAH 0.38 billion.
In July 2024, net profit of over UAH 100 million was received by three more banks: OTP Bank – UAH 365.3 million, Pivdennyi Bank – UAH 340.7 million and Kredobank – UAH 193.5 million.
At the same time, the three most unprofitable banks in July were formed by Sense Bank with net loss of UAH 65.67 mln, Alliance Bank – UAH 17.81 mln and Pravex Bank – UAH 13.34 mln.
The list of the most profitable banks in general for seven months of this year is also headed by Privat with a large gap – UAH 37.16 billion, followed by Oschadbank – UAH 11.00 billion.
Next in a denser group are Raif – UAH 4.87 billion, Ukrexim – UAH 4.74 billion, FUIB – UAH 4.24 billion, Credit Agricole – UAH 4.22 billion Ukrsib – UAH 3.97 billion and Ukrgas – UAH 3.73 billion.
Six other banks also received net profit over UAH 1 billion for 7 months of this year: mono – UAH 3.19 billion, OTP – UAH 3.00 billion, City – UAH 2.73 billion, Sense – UAH 2.21 billion, Pivdennyi – UAH 1.61 billion and Credo – UAH 1.16 billion.
A-Bank is a little short of this threshold – UAH 0.92 billion, while ProCredit Bank, which follows it, has a net profit of UAH 0.60 billion.
As for unprofitable banks, according to the results of January-July, there are 8 out of 62 banks in Ukraine. The worst indicator is Pravex Bank – UAH 95.79 billion, followed by Industrialbank – UAH 39.00 billion.
At the First Investbank and Motor-Bank, which were transferred to the state from the sub-sanctioned owners following the results of the trial, the net loss for 7 months amounted to UAH 25.69 mln and UAH 14.69 mln, respectively.
