The war in Ukraine and the energy shortage dominated the G7 summit of the major industrial nations, while other things fell behind. Also the fight against global warming.
By the last day of the G7 summit, the heat and sun had gone. Dark clouds settled over the imposing mountain scenery around Schloss Elmau and gave the Chancellor's final appearance a somewhat somber atmosphere. It matched what Olaf Scholz had to report. “We have a period of uncertainty ahead of us,” said the chancellor, referring to the war in Ukraine and its consequences. “We're not in a position where you can foresee the end.”
It's a “long road” that you have to be prepared for – and that has consequences for everything and everyone. Also for the outcome of the summit under the German G7 Presidency.
Signal of unity
The Chancellor spoke of “intensive and very constructive” days and once again pointed out that the meeting was “an important summit at a special time”. He spoke of the heads of state and government of the seven major industrial nations as “close friends and allies” who had sent out a signal of unity from the summit. “I felt that very specifically in Elmau.”
Unity, that's what the G7 and the EU wanted signal from Elmau
But one looks in vain for major political progress and significant improvements in the final communiqué of the G7 summit. There are only small things and intermediate steps that can be reported from Elmau.
Fighting hunger with 4.5 billion dollars
This applies above all to climate protection, which is mentioned in the communiqué on the list of the “major challenges of our time” only appears at the bottom of page two. Before that, it's about condemning Russia, supporting Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, the world economy, energy supply and global food security.
In which direction are the G7 heading?
The war has cut grain supplies from Russia and Ukraine . More than 800 million people worldwide are acutely threatened by hunger. The seven major industrial nations want to raise $4.5 billion to secure food supplies. But is that enough? The chronically underfinanced World Food Program puts its current additional requirements at around 28 billion US dollars.
Decisions are “glamor”
The aid organization Oxfam judges that the financial aid promised by the G7 is far too small to end the global food crisis. “The resolutions of the Elmau summit are a sham intended to distract attention from the historical failure of the G7.” For every dollar in aid, there would be two dollars that low-income countries would have to pay their creditors. “The G7 should have agreed that this debt should be canceled. But nothing like that happened.”
There were protests against the G7 not only in Garmisch, but also in the Philippines
Little has happened in terms of climate protection either. Germany, which this year chairs the group of seven major democratic industrial nations, actually wanted to make the fight against global warming the focus of the G7 summit in Elmau, Upper Bavaria. One goal was to set up a climate club for the willing – also with a view to the next world climate conference, which will be held in November in the Egyptian seaside resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.
Lots of intentions, hardly anything concrete
The climate club is an idea that Olaf Scholz developed when he was finance minister. Greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced on the basis of common standards. It should no longer be worthwhile for industry to relocate production due to different climate protection requirements. This would reduce competitive disadvantages. Close cooperation and support beyond the G7, especially with emerging and developing countries, is planned.
Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the final press conference in front of Schloss Elmau
However, the G7 postponed the founding of the climate club until the end of 2022, and the ministers should work out the details. It is already considered a success that the USA approved the plan at all. How the climate goals are to be achieved, which the world community has long since committed itself to realizing, also remained a mere theory. The final communiqué emphasizes once again that the 1.5-degree path is being adhered to and that it promises to “promote urgent, demanding and inclusive measures”.
The federal government is falling short of its claims
The coal phase-out, which the G7 climate ministers could imagine in the run-up to 2030, still has no specific date. Instead, it says they will “take concrete and timely steps to accelerate the phase-out in our respective countries”.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj was connected to the G7 summit
Friederike Meister from the organization Global Citizens judged the result to be “sobering”. “Although the G7 have avoided withdrawing previous commitments, that cannot be the yardstick given the worsening climate crisis.” The result cannot be what the Federal Chancellor and the traffic light government are claiming.
The G7 need gas
There is relief that the communiqué did not remove Glasgow's commitments to end fossil fuel financing abroad. In view of the energy crisis, however, Meister fears that the G7 could “prefer short-sighted gas investments to renewable energies”.
Criticism of the resolutions: Friederike Meister from Global Citizen with colleagues from Oxfam, ONE and World Vision
The G7 reaffirm that they will “gradually end our dependence on Russian energy without compromising our climate and environmental goals”. But Africa, for example, still has plenty of untapped gas deposits. Senegal could supply LNG, i.e. liquid gas, and talks are already underway about developing a new natural gas field off the West African coast.
Looking for allies
Senegal, which currently chairs the African Union, was one of five partner countries invited to the G7 summit. The Group of Seven spent a good half day presenting their view of the world to the heads of state and government of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa. None of the countries supports the sanctions against Russia, especially on this point the G7 had hoped for a rethink.
Watch video 01:09
G7 and partner countries at odds on Russia
Yes there was not. At the end it was said quite flowery that they were sending “a joint signal for strengthening resilient democracies” and “reaffirming the importance of close cooperation between global democracies and a rule-based international order”. More was probably not possible, even if Chancellor Scholz emphasized that they had “formulated a consensus for joint action” and “discussed what democracies in this world can do on an equal footing”.
Flew from the G7 summit the Federal Chancellor directly to the next big event in Madrid. NATO meets there and the war in Ukraine will be the number one topic there too. The clouds stayed in Elmau, became darker and darker and finally poured out in hours of heavy rain. The weather couldn't have been more symbolic.