UK-Africa summit: Wooing Africa after Brexit - BBC News

After Brexit, the UK wants to boost business trade with Africa, but as a major UK-Africa business summit starts in London, Matthew Davies asks if there really will be new opportunities for the continent.

Trade is tricky. Trade agreements are trickier. Trade negotiations to get those agreements are exponentially more complicated.

And the road that the Brexit can has been kicked down for so long is rapidly running out.

Once the UK leaves the European Union at the end of January, it has 11 months to come up with a trade deal with the European Union to avoid reverting to WTO rules.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Leave supporters have always expounded the virtues of being outside the EU, including the ability to negotiate its own trade deals on its own terms for the benefits of its own citizens.

Being part of a big gang has its advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, you have to make compromises and adapt your goals to match commonly-agreed policies. But you also get the power of the bloc behind you in trade negotiations.

Where does this leave Africa?

The UK's International Development Secretary, Alok Sharma, is, as one would expect, very optimistic saying that Britain's relations with Africa will be "turbo-charged", with trade, business and investment deals being struck left, right and centre.

The UK government seems to be taking it seriously.

The UK-Africa Investment Summit can be seen as evidence of that but any potential change in actual trade conditions is some way off. Possibly years.

What changes when Britain exits the EU?

Mostly, nothing changes at the end of January.

There will be much political posturing and speech making, but the UK will still be a member of the EU Customs Union and Single Market until the end of the year.

There is a provision for it to extend that by a further two years, but that would seem to be ruled out by Prime Minister Johnson.

That means trade relations between the UK and Africa stay the same for 2020, conducted under the EU's various existing deals with the continent.

What about after 2020?

Beyond the 2020 horizon, trade arrangements between many African countries and a fully-Brexited UK are also set to remain the same under a number of "continuity agreements".

These basically say that the trade conditions (tariffs, quotas, standards and so on) remain the same as they are currently between a number of African countries and trading blocs and the EU.

For example, in September last year, the UK initiated an Economic Partnership Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) - which is made up of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and eSwatini - and Mozambique.

UK's top African trading partners (2016)

Trade volume $bn

It is designed to keep things as they are under the current trade relationship that the southern African nations have with the EU.

It mirrors the agreement that the EU already has with Sacu.

According to Britain's International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, the agreement "will allow businesses to keep trading after Brexit without any additional barriers".

UK's top trading partners (2018)

Trade volume $bn

And that seems to be the UK's approach - keep the same conditions in place that already exist between the UK and African countries under EU deals. Worldwide, the UK has in place about 40 such "continuity" deals, covering some 70 countries.

The UK has been allowed to strike these deals with countries that already have similar agreements with the EU.

Why not change the trading arrangement?

Part of the reason of doing it this way is that it allows the UK to negotiate new arrangements with those who do not have an existing trade deal with the EU. The big one here is the United States.

Sounds simple, but it's not.

At least, not in the longer term because of the uncertainty that is still very much part of post-Brexit picture.

The "continuity agreements" will eventually run out. That's when the real opportunities and challenges for African states will emerge.

Can African countries get a better deal from the UK?

Outside the big EU gang, the UK, technically, has less negotiating clout.

That could mean that the African countries that trade with the UK may be able to squeeze out slightly more preferential terms in negotiations. Perhaps.

As mentioned earlier, trade negotiations are complex and require time and resources.

With the starting gun fired at the end of January, the UK's trade negotiating efforts will have to be prioritised.

Will the UK focus on Africa?

The lion's share of the UK's effort will be aimed at getting the best deal possible with the EU, its closest and, by far, its biggest trading partner.

Beyond that, deals with the likes of the US, China, South Korea and Australia will be prioritised, which means that African countries will be quite far down the list.

But it is also a question of volume and value. For example, South Africa is the sub-Saharan African country that does the most trade with the European Union.

Minerals, cars and agricultural products are exported into EU and of that total 18% end up in the UK.

But some agricultural products are subject to quotas.

Could the UK drop those quotas?

In theory, the UK could allow greater access to the British market than it does under the current arrangement, something which, for example, South African wine makers could take advantage of.

But equally, their French counterparts could lean on their government to lean on Brussels negotiators to get their exported wine into the UK under more preferential terms than those from South Africa.

You may also be interested in:

In truth, it is impossible to tell what could happen, but this does point to the complexities of over-arching trade negotiations.

Uncertainty remains a factor, despite the efforts being made to counter it.

Razia Khan from Standard Chartered Bank says: "In the short-term, greater uncertainty will weigh on prospects, although this has been mitigated to some extent by the UK's offer of an extension of trade agreements for two years, in order to deal with this uncertainty."

Could Brexit effect other aspects of the African economy?

Of course, the Brexit effect goes beyond trade.

This may be seen if the UK falls into a recession after Brexit. That would hit places like South Africa hard.

The UN calculates that the UK is South Africa's eighth-largest import and export market in global terms.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

If the UK's economy gets a recessionary cold, South Africa's could get flu.

And given South Africa's powerhouse status as regards other African economies, that would not bode well.

What about Kenya's flower growers?

Brexit could also require new infrastructure in the UK to deal with certain imports.

Flowers are one of Kenya's biggest exports and foreign currency earners. The industry is also a major employer, providing 100,000 people with direct work and around two million indirectly.

At the moment, Kenya's flowers enter the EU through the massive market in Amsterdam.

From there 18% of them end up in the UK. But what happens after Brexit?

Zero-tariff arrangements can still be place under a continuity agreement, but there could be physical problems.

The Kenya Flower Council has pointed out that the infrastructure for flying flowers directly to the UK is not as developed as the Nairobi-Amsterdam route.

In other words, there could be an impact.

What should business people be looking at?

As far as African companies are concerned, the post-Brexit world will depend very much on the nature of their business with both the EU and the UK.

"Companies that depend heavily on EU-related preferences in the UK market need to keep a watchful eye on developments in Europe; and on negotiations between the UK and their own country on future arrangements," says Matthew Stern at DNA Economics in Pretoria.

"If all goes to plan, these preferences will be maintained, but any slippage from either party could be costly for certain firms."

As African politicians and business leaders gather in London for the UK-Africa Investment Summit, uncertainty remains.

It may be mitigated to some degree by the continuity agreements, but somewhere down the line, new negotiations are likely to happen.

Uncertainty is the enemy of investment. And behind the handshakes and smiles at the summit, it will be at least one of the elephants in the room.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC1hZnJpY2EtNTExNDkwOTPSATJodHRwczovL3d3dy5iYmMuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL3dvcmxkLWFmcmljYS01MTE0OTA5Mw?oc=5

2020-01-20 12:00:44Z
52780557115783

UK-born children of migrants 'feel more discriminated against' than foreign migrants - BBC News

People born in Britain to migrant parents are more likely to feel discriminated against than migrants who are new to the UK, research suggests.

Evidence from two 2018 surveys points to ethnicity being at the root of any perceived discrimination rather than a person's status as a migrant.

Among immigrants, more than 70% say Britain is welcoming and 90% believe migrants can make it if they work hard.

But more non-EU migrants feel they face prejudice than those from Europe.

The University of Oxford's Migration Observatory briefing, Migrants and Discrimination in the UK, is based on data accrued in the European Social Survey and the UK longevity household study (40,000 households) in 2018.

Amongst predominantly white migrants from the EU, only 8% say they feel they are discriminated against in Britain, while those from outside the EU are more than twice as likely to say they were part of a group that is discriminated against, at 19%.

For second generation migrants, born in Britain, the sense of being discriminated against increases to 30%.

Dr Marina Fernandez-Reino, researcher at the Migration Observatory and author of the briefing, described the reasons behind the perceived hostility as "complex".

"Some UK-born minorities actually have worse outcomes than migrants, such as higher unemployment," she said.

"Research also suggests that children of migrants, who were born and raised here, have higher expectations and so are more sensitive to inequalities or unequal treatment they encounter.

"By contrast, people who migrated here may compare their experience to life in their country of origin and feel that they have benefited from moving - even if they still face some disadvantages."

Oxford Migration Observatory research on attitudes to immigration finds more than a third of British people would want no Nigerians or Pakistanis to come to the UK, but just one in 10 would want to stop those from culturally close countries, such as Australia.

EU migrants have traditionally reported fewer experiences of discrimination than those born outside the EU.

However, there was a spike in the number of EU migrants who reported experiencing discrimination around the time of the EU referendum in 2016 - more than double the levels seen in 2010-12 or later, in 2018.

In addition, data for 2016-2018 shows EU migrants in the UK were more likely to feel that they faced discrimination (14%) than EU migrants in other EU countries (9%).

By contrast, the perception of discrimination among non-EU migrants was slightly lower in the UK than in the rest of the EU.

The latest data suggest attitudes to immigration in the UK have softened again since 2016.

"The increase in EU migrants' perceptions of discrimination around the time of the referendum is likely associated with the public debate in that period," said Dr Fernandez Reino.

"EU migration was one of the top issues on the UK political agenda in the run-up to the 2016 vote, but has received less attention since."

BBC Briefing is a mini-series of downloadable in-depth guides to the big issues in the news, with input from academics, researchers and journalists. It is the BBC's response to audiences demanding better explanation of the facts behind the headlines.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MTE3MDQwNtIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTExNzA0MDY?oc=5

2020-01-20 08:08:27Z
CBMiJGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy91ay01MTE3MDQwNtIBKGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvdWstNTExNzA0MDY

Harry and Meghan's new royal arrangement splits opinion in U.K. - NBCNews.com

Buckingham Palace's announcement that Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, will no longer use their "royal highness" titles or receive public funds for royal duties, appears to have split opinion in the U.K.

With the agreement of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and Prince William, the pair will be allowed to step back from royal duties and Prince Harry will no longer be required for official military appointments. The pair will also no longer be funded by the British taxpayer.

However, the couple will be allowed to continue to maintain their private patronages and associations.

It follows their announcement earlier this month that they are going to "step back" from their roles as senior members of the royal family and live a more independent life.

Some have dubbed this "Megxit," a play on "Brexit", which refers to the U.K.'s decision to leave the European Union.

Jan. 18, 202001:36

Their decision made the headlines around the world and polarized opinion among British commentators.

“Comparisons are being made to the abdication crisis of 1936, but, of course, Prince Harry was not a future king necessarily,” NBC News royal contributor Camilla Tominey said Sunday, referring to the abdication of King Edward VIII to marry his American lover, Wallis Simpson.

“This separation of powers, this divorce, if you like, from the Royal Family is unprecedented in the modern era.

“In her statement last night, the Queen, like her subjects, concluded that this was not a situation where Harry and Meghan would be able to have their cake and eat it, to be half in and half out.It was basically a case of all or nothing, and clearly the Queen and the Monarchy chose the latter.”

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

She added: “It remains to be seen whether they can transcend their previous position and sort of become for brand ambassadors for what it is that they are now selling — themselves.”

Royal author Penny Junor told U.K tabloid The Mail on Sunday that the agreement was “the best possible outcome and an outcome which will actually avoid a catastrophe” for the Royal Family.

'The country was so divided about this and so angry and so upset, so I think it was all a big mess and it was getting nastier by the day," she said.

Praising the fact that the couple would keep hold of their patronages, she added that it was a “clean break for the pair," as they will no longer receive public funds.

“There are no blurred lines. They are starting afresh," she added.

A number of charities also pledged their support for the couple, saying they “felt confident” they will still benefit from their links, even as they step back from royal duties.

In an archive shot, Britain's Queen Elizabeth, Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, pose for a picture at in London, Britain.POOL New / Reuters

Elsewhere, Alistair Bruce, a royal commentator for British broadcaster Sky News, called the agreement a “seismic announcement” from the Queen, in which she “brought down the iron fist of monarchical leadership on a problem that needed to be solved.”

He said that although her statement was full of warmth, it represented the Queen drawing a final line and making it clear that no one can be a royal and a private individual at the same time.

"This is an abdication, in a sense, from the Royal Family,” Bruce said, adding that Harry and Meghan "are now free, to a certain extent, to go and follow the dreams that they have to pursue very good works. But no longer part of the royal business.”

Meanwhile, James Cleverly, the chairman of the U.K.’s ruling Conservative Party, also told the channel: “Harry did not choose the life that he was born into."

If the queen was happy, he said, then the public should be too.

Related

But others have taken in the news less favorably.

The new arrangement means that Prince Harry will no longer carry out official military appointments, something that has been an important part of his life after serving two tours in Afghanistan.

As a result, he will stop being Captain General of the Royal Marines — the title he took from his grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh, after he retired.

"The whole situation is extremely sad and I think it is unfortunate, after his splendid service in the military, that he will now no longer be involved with the military in the U.K.," former First Sea Lord, Lord Alan West, told U.K. broadcaster, ITV News.

Meanwhile, outspoken British TV presenter Piers Morgan, who has repeatedly attacked the couple, laid the blame squarely on Meghan, calling her “a ruthless, social climbing, fame-obsessed piece of work who’s now forced Harry from his country” in a tweet.

Morgan has also commanded the Queen for her "right decision" to tell the Sussexes to "sling their part-time royal hook".

“Meghan/Harry wanted to have their cake and eat it, but the Queen just took the cake back to the royal kitchens,” he tweeted.

Yuliya Talmazan

Yuliya Talmazan is a London-based journalist.

Matt Bradley contributed.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiY2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5iY25ld3MuY29tL25ld3Mvd29ybGQvaGFycnktbWVnaGFuLXMtbmV3LXJveWFsLWFycmFuZ2VtZW50LXNwbGl0cy1vcGluaW9uLXUtay1uMTExODUxNtIBLGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5iY25ld3MuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL25jbmExMTE4NTE2?oc=5

2020-01-19 13:20:00Z
52780542675596

Meghan's father accuses daughter of 'cheapening' UK's royal family - Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Meghan Markle’s father, Thomas Markle, has accused his daughter of “cheapening” the British royal family, in part of an interview released a day after Buckingham Palace said Prince Harry and his wife would no longer be working members of the monarchy.

The palace announced on Saturday that the couple would no longer use their “Royal Highness” titles and would pay their own way in life. The monarchy had been thrown into turmoil earlier this month when Harry, 35, and his American former actress wife announced that they wanted to reduce their official duties and spend more time in North America.

Thomas Markle, who is estranged from his daughter, told Channel 5 news in a documentary that he believed Meghan, 38, was tossing away “every girl’s dream”.

“It’s disappointing because she actually got every girl’s dream. Every young girl wants to become a princess and she got that and now she’s tossing that away, for, it looks like she’s tossing that away for money,” Markle said.

The interview was filmed after the couple’s announcement that they would step back as senior members of the royal family. Channel 5 released part of the interview on Sunday and said the full documentary would air “in the coming weeks”.

Thomas Markle described the royal family as “one of the greatest long-living institutions ever”, saying that when Meghan married Harry in May 2018 they took an obligation “to be part of the royals and to represent the royals”.

“This is like one of the greatest long-living institutions ever,” he said. “They are destroying it, they are cheapening it, they’re making it shabby ... They are turning it into a Walmart with a crown of it now. It is something that is ridiculous, they shouldn’t be doing this.”

Thomas Markle and his daughter have been estranged since her marriage to Harry.

Earlier this month, the Mail on Sunday newspaper submitted its defense to court action by Meghan over the publication of a private letter she sent to her father.

Thomas Markle said he did not expect Meghan to get in contact.

“I can’t see her reaching out to me, especially now ... or Harry for that matter, but I think both of them are turning into lost souls at this point,” he said.

“I don’t know what they’re looking for. I don’t think they know what they are looking for.”

Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Frances Kerry

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMihQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5yZXV0ZXJzLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlL3VzLWJyaXRhaW4tcm95YWxzLWZhdGhlci9tZWdoYW5zLWZhdGhlci1hY2N1c2VzLWRhdWdodGVyLW9mLWNoZWFwZW5pbmctdWtzLXJveWFsLWZhbWlseS1pZFVTS0JOMVpJMEJS0gE0aHR0cHM6Ly9tb2JpbGUucmV1dGVycy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS9hbXAvaWRVU0tCTjFaSTBCUg?oc=5

2020-01-19 11:00:00Z
52780542675596

Grisly details emerge in jailhouse slaying of UK's worst pedophile - New York Post

The UK’s worst pedophile was strangled with a guitar string, choked by pens and condoms, and stabbed during a grisly jailhouse slaying last year, according to a new report detailing his demise.

Richard Huckle was behind bars in Yorkshire for abusing more than 200 Malaysian girls and boys between the ages of 6 months and 12 years when he was killed in October.

“He wasn’t just stabbed. He was strangled with a guitar string,” a source told the Toronto Sun.

Police arrested an unidentified 29-year-old fellow convict in connection with the slaying, according to the paper.

Australian cops busted Huckle, 33,  in 2014 as part of a wider probe into a since-shuttered pedophile website called “The Love Zone.”

Authorities discovered a trove of evidence on Huckle’s computer, including a manual he authored for other pedophiles on how to target vulnerable children.

“If I were to transfer my skills learned from India and tried to use them in the west, I wouldn’t last a month before I found myself in a cell,” Huckle reportedly wrote.

Huckle was handed 22 life sentences in 2016 on 71 sex abuse convictions.

Share this:

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiYGh0dHBzOi8vbnlwb3N0LmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzE4L2dyaXNseS1kZXRhaWxzLWVtZXJnZS1pbi1qYWlsaG91c2Utc2xheWluZy1vZi11a3Mtd29yc3QtcGVkb3BoaWxlL9IBZGh0dHBzOi8vbnlwb3N0LmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzE4L2dyaXNseS1kZXRhaWxzLWVtZXJnZS1pbi1qYWlsaG91c2Utc2xheWluZy1vZi11a3Mtd29yc3QtcGVkb3BoaWxlL2FtcC8?oc=5

2020-01-18 14:24:00Z
CAIiEBeodVBtY7WdNBkQqLfq6X0qGAgEKg8IACoHCAowhK-LAjD4ySww-9S0BQ

Under pressure from U.S. and China, U.K. faces dilemma on Huawei - NBC News

The United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States is facing another stern test over whether to allow the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei, which the U.S. and others accuse of being a security threat, to manage the roll-out of new broadband technology.

A meeting in London between senior U.S. and British officials this week came at an awkward time for the U.K. as it prepares to leave the European Union, the world’s largest economic bloc, at the end of the month.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government plans to carve out its own trade relationships as an independent nation, with both the U.S. and China set to be key targets for trade deals.

On Monday, a senior U.S. delegation gave Johnson’s government a warning about the risks of allowing Huawei to build its 5G technology, arguing that doing so could compromise the two nations’ close intelligence-sharing relationship. The U.K. has yet to make a final decision, but an announcement is expected soon.

While details of the meeting were not released by either government, a senior Trump administration official said the U.S. team was in London to “share information about the risks of using Chinese vendors in 5G networks.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government plans to carve out its own trade relationships as an independent nation, with both the U.S. and China.Ben Stanstall / AFP - Getty Images

Washington has long considered Huawei a threat, fearing that its access to vast amounts of personal data could be used for espionage, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order last May effectively banning it from operating in the U.S.

Matt Pottinger, the U.S. deputy national security adviser, was at the London gathering, along with Rob Blair, an assistant to the president and special representative for international telecommunications policy; and Chris Ford, acting undersecretary of state, the administration official said.

The American team handed over a dossier outlining the risks of using Huawei and the threat to the U.S.-U.K. intelligence sharing relationship, according to multiple press reports. Both countries are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, along with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Australia and New Zealand have also ruled out using Huawei to build 5G infrastructure.

According to reports in British news outlets, including The Guardian, The Times, Sky News and the Financial Times, the U.S. dossier argued that it would be “nothing short of madness” for the U.K. to proceed with Huawei as the key contractor on 5G.

Huawei dismissed allegations that it could undermine the U.K.’s national security as “unsubstantiated.”

A map showing the rollout points for BT Group Plc's EE 5G network sits on display following a news conference in London on May 22, 2019.Chris Ratcliffe / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Stephanie Hare, a British academic and technology expert, said China was making its approach “very clear.”

“If you ban us, we’ll punish you on trade and investment,” she said. “And the U.K. desperately wants to keep China onside because of Brexit. It needs to be making greater deals.”

“At the same time, it also wants a trade deal with the U.S. and it could go to the back of the queue, as Barack Obama famously said, or it could be put front and center,” she added, referring to the former president’s criticism of the Brexit campaign.

5G, or fifth-generation telecom systems that improve on existing 4G connections, will allow internet-connected devices to operate much faster and communicate with other devices more efficiently, potentially opening up opportunities for more automation at home, in the workplace, in retail and in transportation.

Huawei already provides all four of the U.K.’s cellular networks with limited 5G technology, but the company doesn’t yet have access to the core national infrastructure, where customers’ personal details are held.

Some British analysts agree that there are real dangers to Chinese companies being involved in key information infrastructure projects.

“Whatever Huawei says about its ownership is entirely irrelevant,” said Charles Parton, a China expert at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank.

“The point is no Chinese company is going to turn down a request from the Chinese government to do something. It’s just not going to happen whatever the Huawei publicity machine says,” he said. “By taking on Huawei you’re putting your faith in the benevolence of the Chinese Communist Party for the next 20 years, because there are going to be many, many upgrades and so on.”

Attendees walk past the Huawei Technologies Co. booth at the MWC Shanghai exhibition in Shanghai, China in June. Qilai Shen / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

While the U.K. has made no final decision on Huawei — which has been involved in the country’s telecoms systems since 2005 — Johnson told BBC News on Wednesday that anyone who disagrees with the company having such a role should come up with an alternative.

“The British public deserve to have access to the best possible technology,” he said. “We want to put in gigabit broadband for everybody. If people oppose one brand or another they have to tell us what is the alternative.”

However, he added, in a reference to U.S. concerns, that he wouldn’t “prejudice our national security or our ability to cooperate with Five Eyes intelligence partners.”

Another senior Trump administration official told NBC News it was a “positive sign” that Johnson was open to alternatives and admitted that the U.K. has a “different philosophy” on the issue than the U.S.

The economic incentive behind 5G is huge. A report released in December by Oxford Economics, a British analysis firm, predicted that the U.K. economy could miss out on up to 11.8 billion pounds ($2.4 billion) by 2035 if it restricts the growth of 5G.

And there is a strong feeling in some parts of the British establishment that the U.S. warnings are overblown and the cost of ditching Huawei would be too high.

An employee walks past a signage for the 5G Park at the Huawei Technologies Co. headquarters in Shenzhen, China.Qilai Shen / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

Andrew Parker, head of the secretive British domestic security agency MI5, told the Financial Times on Monday that he had “no reason today to think” that the U.K. would damage its intelligence relationship with the U.S. if it chooses Huawei.

In any case, if the U.S. fails to convince the U.K. of the risks of working with Huawei, it will be faced with trying to change London’s mind, argues Hare.

“Boris Johnson knows what the alternatives are, he’s had them presented to him. What he’s really saying is that it will cost the UK billions to remove Huawei and it will probably get hit by some sort of retaliation,” she said. “What he’s really saying, the real alternative, is ‘show us the money.’”

Victor Zhang, vice president of Huawei, said in a statement: “Huawei has worked with the U.K.’s telecoms companies for 15 years and looks forward to supplying the best technologies that help companies like BT and Vodafone fulfil the government’s commitment to make gigabit broadband available to all.”

BT and Vodafone are large British telecommunications companies.

“We are confident that the U.K. government will make a decision based upon evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations,” he said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5iY25ld3MuY29tL25ld3Mvd29ybGQvdW5kZXItcHJlc3N1cmUtdS1zLWNoaW5hLXUtay1mYWNlcy1kaWxlbW1hLWh1YXdlaS1uMTExODAwNtIBLGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5iY25ld3MuY29tL25ld3MvYW1wL25jbmExMTE4MDA2?oc=5

2020-01-18 09:32:00Z
52780555696510

Gas heating is the biggest threat to Britain's climate goal - CNN

Dozens of countries have since followed its lead to achieve "net zero" emissions, and with three decades to go before the deadline, Britain's progress provides a promising blueprint.

Its carbon emissions were 44% below 1990 levels in 2018, with renewable energy now accounting for 33% of its energy mix and coal contributing just over 5%. That is thanks in large part to its success with offshore wind and focus on nuclear energy.

But the Committee on Climate Change, an independent advisory body, warns the country must do more to meet its carbon reduction targets for 2023 to 2027. And climate activists say the government should aim for "net zero" much sooner than 2050.

Heating homes

By far the biggest threat to the United Kingdom's 2050 ambition comes from the way it heats its homes, schools and hospitals.

More than 80% of homes are connected to the gas grid, according to Ian Radley, head of gas operations at National Grid.

While natural gas emits less carbon than coal, Britain's heavy dependence on the fossil fuel is deemed unsustainable. Heat is responsible for around half of all UK CO2 emissions, according to HyDeploy, a consortium that is currently piloting hydrogen as an alternative to gas.

In other words, the UK government's £1.5 billion ($2 billion) investment into reducing emissions from road transport won't be enough to meet its 2050 target if it doesn't also tackle heating.

"The heating story is the one that usually just gets neglected. It's in the box called 'too difficult,'" Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, told CNN Business. "How are you going to heat your house and do your cooking without natural gas? The answer to that question is at considerable expense."

A 2018 report commissioned by the National Infrastructure Commission, a government agency, found that decarbonizing Britain's heating infrastructure could cost as much as £450 billion ($586 billion).

The total cost of decarbonization could exceed £1 trillion ($1.3 trillion), according to the Committee on Climate Change.

Among the proposed solutions to the domestic heating challenge: stop connecting new homes to the gas grid, while encouraging existing homeowners to move to energy efficient alternatives such as hydrogen boilers.

Repurposing existing infrastructure will be critical. HyDeploy is conducting experiments at the University of Keele to establish how much hydrogen can be blended into the national grid as a replacement to gas, without people needing to buy new heating or cooking appliances. Hydrogen offers many of the benefits of natural gas, without the carbon emissions.

Production versus consumption

For Helm, even if the United Kingdom achieves its target in terms of power production, consumption is what ultimately matters.

"If we reduce carbon emissions in Britain but simply close down our large industries and import the stuff from China instead, then global warming will be worse off," Helm said. "The thing about carbon is it doesn't matter where it's emitted," he added, arguing that a carbon border tax is the only way to encourage all countries to decarbonize and ensure that "the polluter pays wherever the polluter is."

Carbon pricing mechanisms were discussed at December's UN climate summit in Madrid, but no agreement was reached on how to create a global carbon market where, for example, countries could trade greenhouse gas emission credits.

The United Kingdom will host this year's summit in Glasgow in November, and the progress made by major economies will be scrutinized, particularly following the disappointing outcome in Madrid.

The United Kingdom must have "made credible plans" to meet its 2050 target by then, according to Chris Stark, CEO of the Committee on Climate Change.

"The next 12 months are likely to be the most important yet in defining the UK's climate credentials," Stark wrote in a recent blog post.

— John Defterios contributed reporting.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiTWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAyMC8wMS8xOC9idXNpbmVzcy91ay1uZXQtemVyby1lbWlzc2lvbnMtMjA1MC9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFRaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAyMC8wMS8xOC9idXNpbmVzcy91ay1uZXQtemVyby1lbWlzc2lvbnMtMjA1MC9pbmRleC5odG1s?oc=5

2020-01-18 07:55:00Z
CAIiEDzAxIc6ZhS_rS8d-0Eqj8EqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU