Carta a um irmão político

Tornar o evidente implícito ( código deontológico ) em sentimentalismo explícito, denota desnecessária ausência de discreção e é sinónimo de falta de profissionalismo através de exibicionismo lamecha ... indo, precisamente atingir o objectivo, supostamente, NÃO pretendido ... limitação de espaço de manobra e consequentemente, sombra na imagem de insenção.
António Sérgio Rosa de Carvalho.

Juncker en situation favorable, mais rien n’est acquis / LE MONDE.

← A moins d’un veto de Cameron, Juncker en pole position pour la Commission

28 mai 2014 / LE MONDE / http://unioneuropeenne.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/05/28/juncker-en-pole-mais-rien-nest-acquis/

Juncker en situation favorable, mais rien n’est acquis

Angela Merkel et ses homologues ont, sans surprise, convenu de garder la main. Comme prévu, chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des Vingt-Huit ont mandaté Herman Van Rompuy, le président du Conseil européen, afin qu’il démine le terrain en vue de désigner le successeur de José Manuel Barroso. Mais avant de trancher sur les personnes, les Vingt-Huit veulent réfléchir aux priorités du prochain président de la Commission : croissance, intégration de la zone euro, énergie, et diplomatie-défense commune.

D’ici au prochain sommet, fin juin, les consultations pilotée par Van Rompuy devront être menées en « étroite concertation » avec Jean-Claude Juncker, chef de file du Parti populaire européen, arrivé en tête des élections, et les nouveaux responsables du Parlement européen, a souligné Angela Merkel. « Il n’y a pas d’automatisme », a répété la chancelière, tout en martelant que l’ancien premier ministre luxembourgeois était bien « le candidat » du PPE. Sans dire si l'intéressé figurerait, ou pas, dans le tableau final.

La mission confiée à Herman Van Rompuy cherche avant tout à éviter un « clash » entre Parlement et Conseil européen. Car plusieurs dirigeants, dont quelques-uns sont membres du Parti populaire européen, se sont appuyés sur la vague anti-UE constatée dimanche 25 mai pour contester le choix de M. Juncker, vétéran de la construction européenne, et cofondateur de l’euro. « L’Europe doit changer », et « nous n’avons pas besoin d’homme du passé », a lâché David Cameron. Le premier ministre populiste hongrois Viktor Orban, le Suédois Fredrik Reinfeldt, la Danoise Helle Thorning-Schmidt, le Néerlandais Mark Rutte et les dirigeants baltes ont renchéri. A eux tous, ces personnalités ne sont pas loin, pour diverses raisons, de former une minorité de blocage susceptible d’entraver la nomination de M. Juncker.

Paradoxe, l’ancien président de l’Eurogroupe s’est targué, avant le dîner, et devant les dirigeants de sa famille politique, dont Angela Merkel, d’être soutenu par l’ensemble des chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement… socialistes. Y compris François Hollande. « C’est à lui de mener les consultations, puisqu’il est arrivé en tête », dit-on dans l’entourage du président de la République. L’ancien premier ministre luxembourgeois espérait obtenir au plus vite un mandat pour former une large coalition entre droite et gauche du Parlement européen.

Lors du sommet du PPE, avant le dîner des Vingt-Huit, il a même insisté en ce sens, contre l'avis d'Angela Merkel et d'Herman Van Rompuy. Agacée, la chancelière s'est dite "très surprise" par sa détermination, selon un participant, même si plusieurs de ses homologues, dont le Polonais Donald Tusk, ont soutenu le candidat du PPE. Pour la chancelière, c'est au Conseil de désigner le successeur de M. Barroso, pas au Parlement européen. M. Juncker va donc devoir patienter. Mais il craint, non sans raison, que le débat sur les priorités, et le mandat donné à Herman Van Rompuy,ne soient une façon déguisée de lui barrer la route.

Philippe Ricard

Europe needs a bold reformer Juncker is not the right choice to head the commission.

May 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Europe needs a bold reformer

Juncker is not the right choice to head the commission

EDITORIAL / FINANCIAL TIMES / http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d18eb9e4-e739-11e3-aa93-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz33B1nYzfV

The results of last weekend’s elections to the European Parliament show the deep discontent that millions of voters feel towards the EU. The poll was far from a comprehensive rejection of the bloc and its political values. But the big gains for eurosceptic parties of left and right – especially in France, Britain and Greece – exposed the frustration many feel at the growing power of a remote EU elite.

Ideally, Europe’s leaders – both in national government and in Brussels – would lose no opportunity to respond to the voters’ message. Some, like Britain’s David Cameron, have said it can no longer be “business as usual” for the EU. Yet within days of the elections, the bloc is heading for a prolonged institutional deadlock that threatens to make Europeans even more frustrated that their leaders are failing to deliver the jobs and prosperity that are urgently sought.

The focus of this looming impasse is the appointment of a new president for the European Commission, the top job in the Brussels hierarchy. While it has been somewhat politically marginalised under José Manuel Barroso, its current president, the commission remains the key European institution, operating as the civil service for the EU, regulator of the single market and now also an eagle-eyed monitor of national budgets and economic policies. But thanks to an ambiguity in the 2009 Lisbon treaty, the right to appoint the commission president is being contested by the parliament and the 28 heads of government in the Council of Ministers.

The parliament argues that Jean-Claude Juncker, former prime minister of Luxembourg, should get the job. The main pan-European parties in the elections all chose leading candidates (or Spitzenkandidaten) who were their standard-bearers and nominees to be president. Mr Juncker, selected by the centre-right, which won most parliamentary seats, assumes the post is his by right.

Europe’s 28 national leaders should unite to rule out Mr Juncker’s appointment for two reasons. First, his candidacy amounts to a crude institutional power grab by the parliament. The appointment of Spitzenkandidaten was a tactic by leading MEPs aimed solely at bolstering their claim to choose the commission’s boss. It has no basis in the EU treaties. Given the 43 per cent turnout in the election, the parliament has a very questionable mandate to decide who leads the commission. Its attempt to do so is an affront to democratic accountability.

Second, the appointment of Mr Juncker would symbolise the dismissal by Europe’s leaders of the anti-EU protest at the polls. The Luxembourgeois may be a canny dealmaker in the back rooms of Brussels but he is an arch-federalist of the old school and represents everything that the protest voters distrust about the EU.

National leaders need to appoint a fresh face, a figure who can boast experience in government and who has popular appeal. However, they need to do more than find a recognised name. They must also ensure that the new president can give a better focus and balance to EU governance.

The new president needs to overhaul the structure and scope of the commission. There are 28 commissioners, one from each member state and each with their own policy competence. This is too many. The EU needs a smaller commission with half a dozen policy clusters based on issues such as the single market, trade and energy. There must be tighter limits on the amount of legislation the body can produce.

Europe’s leaders also need to begin to explore how the powers of the parliament can be significantly scaled back so as to give a much bigger role to legislatures in member states. National parliaments enjoy the democratic legitimacy that the European Parliament lacks. They need to have a far bigger say in Brussels, especially at the commission, which has the right to propose EU legislation.

A programme to reform the EU along these lines is now essential. Europe is at a turning point. It may have seen off the eurozone crisis and economic growth may be returning – if fitfully. But last week’s elections reflect the deepening popular resentment across the continent at political interference by Brussels in national affairs.

If Europe’s leaders are to confront this populist challenge, they need to ensure that the institutions in Brussels are more efficient, more nimble and show a confident new face to the EU’s 500m citizens. There is no time for endless institutional debates. And this is no time for yesterday’s men.

Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution.Carbon pollution Q&A: why Obama's proposal could make climate history.

Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution

• Proposed regulations could cut carbon pollution by up to 25%

• President still faces potential opposition from Republicans

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

 theguardian.com, Thursday 29 May 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/29/obama-unveil-historic-climate-plan-carbon-pollution

President Barack Obama will unveil a plan on Monday that will cut carbon pollution from power plants and promote cap-and-trade, undertaking the most significant action on climate change in American history.

The proposed regulations Obama will launch at the White House on Monday could cut carbon pollution by as much as 25% from about 1,600 power plants in operation today, according to those claiming familiarity with the plan.

Power plants are the country's single biggest source of carbon pollution – responsible for up to 40% of the country's emissions.

The rules, which were drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under review by the White House, are expected to do more than Obama, or any other president, has done so far to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for climate change.

They will put America on course to meet its international climate goal, and put US diplomats in a better position to leverage climate commitments from big polluters such as China and India, Obama said in a speech to West Point graduates this week.

“I intend to make sure America is out front in a global framework to preserve our planet,” he said. “American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can not exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else.”

It won't be without a fight. Obama went on in his remarks at West Point to take a shot at Republicans who deny climate change is occurring, and the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, on Thursday accused critics of making “doomsday claims” about the costs of cutting carbon.

But the White House still showed some signs of nervousness about a political backlash, releasing a report about expanded oil and gas production on Obama's watch and adding to the furious spinning by environmental and industry groups about the potential costs and benefits of the EPA regulations.

“We actually see this … as the Super Bowl of climate politics,” said Peter Altman, director of the climate and clean air campaign for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which produced a model carbon-cutting plan that has helped guide the EPA regulations.

But if all unfolds according to plan, Obama will have succeeded in overcoming blanket opposition – and outright climate denial in many cases – from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, an industry-funded misinformation campaign, and a slew of anticipated lawsuits.

Obama had originally hoped to cut carbon pollution by moving a bill through Congress. Four years after that effort fell apart, campaigners say the EPA rules could deliver significant emissions cuts – near the 17% Obama proposed at the Copenhagen climate summit – and the cap-and-trade programmes that were so reviled by Republicans.

The EPA, using its authority under the Clean Air Act, proposed the first rule phase, covering future power plants, last September.

In this the more politically contentious phase of the plan, it is widely believed the EPA will depart from the “inside the fence-line” convention of earlier environmental regulations for mercury and other pollutants, which focused on emissions-scrubbing on specific power plants.

The EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, is seeking steep reductions – as much as 25% – but she has hinted repeatedly that she will allow states latitude in how they reach those targets.

The plan would allow electricity companies to reduce pollution by shutting down the oldest and most polluting coal plants. They can install carbon-sucking retrofits. They can expand wind and solar energy, upgrade the electrical grid, encourage customers to update to more efficient heating and cooling systems, or more efficient appliances and lightbulbs.

“They have recognised huge emissions reductions opportunities are often cheaper than trying to do it all inside the plant,” said David Doniger, who heads the climate programme at the NRDC. “If you want to get substantial reductions and you want to get it economically, you have to take into account a system-wide approach.”

The EPA to expected to try to soften the impact of the regulations by coming out with a range of targets, taking account of the energy mix in different states, and by allowing a two-step phase-in of the targets, with steeper cuts delayed until 2030.

But campaigners and industry are bracing for a fight.

The Chamber of Commerce, one of the major opponents of the environmental regulations, said in a report on Wednesday the EPA regulations would cost $51bn a year in higher electricity prices and lost jobs and investment – but those figures were disputed.

Coal mining companies, power plant operators that are heavily dependent on coal, attorney generals in about a dozen Republican-controlled states, and conservative think tanks also argue the system-wide approach oversteps the EPA's authority, and are lining up for legal challenges.

“I suspect we will see more environmental litigation as it relates to CO2 emissions going forward from a variety of sources,” said Karen Harbert, who heads the Chamber's energy institute.

America's carbon dioxide emissions have been falling over the last few years to the lowest levels since the 1990s, because of a switch from coal to cheaper natural gas, and on a smaller scale increased investment in renewables. The economic downturn also reduced demand for electricity.

The White House said those changes – which were mainly market-driven – showed the EPA regulations would not hurt the economy as critics claim.

“We can transform our energy system to be less carbon intensive while still growing the economy,” Obama's counsellor, John Podesta, told a conference call.

The EPA rules would fix those reductions in place and – as several campaigners and energy analysts noted – be a relatively easy reach for a large number of states which have already moved to cut emissions and expand wind and solar power.

More than 30 states already have regulations promoting renewable energy. Minnesota and Colorado are pledged to get 30% of their power from renewables by 2020.

Meanwhile, nine north-eastern states and California are already rewarding power companies which cut carbon through operating cap-and-trade systems.

Those changes in the energy landscape – and an intense outreach campaign by McCarthy and other officials – could defuse of the opposition, said Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant who served on Bill Clinton's climate change task force. “I think there is a divide between the companies,” he said. “Coal heavy companies are going to fight it tooth and nail, especially behind the scenes, legally. The more gas, nuclear and renewable-heavy companies are going to be more sanguine about it.”

The EPA rules could also end up vastly expanding regional cap-and-trade programmes. Kelly Speakes-Backman, who heads the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the north-east, said she had already had quiet approaches from a number of state officials.

She said the nine states in RGGI had already cut carbon dioxide emissions 40% from 2005 levels, and were aiming to halve carbon pollution by 2020. The new EPA rules would be a “game-changer” for cap-and-trade.

Once Obama makes his announcement on Monday, the clock starts ticking. The EPA will have one year to take public comment from anyone from Greenpeace to Peabody Coal before finalising the new standards in June 2015.

Once those rules are final, the states will have one year, or until June 2016, to submit their plans for meeting the new EPA targets.

With Obama's term ending in January 2017, those are tight deadlines – especially with the legal and political battles ahead. But it does put Obama in position to fulfill the promises he made on climate change when he was first elected in 2008.

“This whole suite of policies is getting us within shooting range of where we could have been with a cap-and-trade bill,” said Vicki Arroyo, who heads the climate centre at Georgetown University law school. “If the EPA is really restructuring programmes to take advantage of systems wide benefits … then that is just huge.”

Carbon pollution Q&A: why Obama's proposal could make climate history

EPA-drafted regulations could cut carbon emissions responsible for climate change. Here's everything you need to know

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

 theguardian.com, Thursday 29 May 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/29/carbon-pollution-qa-obama-carbon-proposal

Why is Obama doing this instead of Congress?

The House voted for cap and trade in 2009, but the bill died in the Senate. Congress has shown no interest in taking up the issue – and half of the Republican members deny climate change is occurring or oppose measures to cut emissions.

Obama said last year he would use his executive authority to deal with climate change, and now he is.

Why is this a big deal in terms of climate change?

Climate legislation would have imposed economy-wide limits on carbon pollution. With that option off the table, this is the next best thing. Power plants are the single biggest source of carbon pollution, responsible for up to 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change. Much of that carbon pollution is produced by burning coal, especially in old plants.

Obama already cut emissions from the second biggest source – transport – with new rules for cars during his first term.

Will they still be able to keep the lights on without coal?

Yes. Cheap natural gas, now available because of fracking, was already squeezing out coal in power plants, and now accounts for about 30% of electricity generation, according to official figures. Hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal power are expanding and make up about 12%. Nuclear accounts for about 19%

Will this mean many more nuclear plants?

Unlikely – because of the multi-billion dollar price tags and long lead time in permitting and construction. Energy experts expect the emissions reductions to come from retrofits, expanding renewable power, and finding ways to reduce waste, such as modernising the electricity grid.

What should I look out for on Monday?

It's still not clear how tough the new regulations will be. Industry and environment groups will be looking at the emissions reductions target but just as much at the starting and finishing lines. Carbon pollution from power plants has been dropping since 2007, because of natural gas and the downturn. A 25% cut on 2005 levels would be much easier to reach than a 25% cut on the – already lower – 2012 levels. People will also be watching to see whether Obama sets even stricter targets farther out in time, for 2030 or 2040.

Putin backs moves to improve Russia’s investment climate.

May 29, 2014 3:53 pm

Putin backs moves to improve Russia’s investment climate

By Kathrin Hille in Moscow /Financial Times / http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9b7592ac-e738-11e3-aa93-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz33B1nYzfV

When Lanxess, the German chemicals maker, tried to get the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk to supply power to the industrial park where it planned to build a factory, nothing happened for five years. But after bringing the problem to the federal government’s attention in 2012, everything suddenly became very easy.

“Within two days, everyone from the vice-minister level down promised that they’d help, and within six months, the transformer was built,” says Georges Barbey, the company’s general director for Russia. “It is possible to get good conditions for investment in Russia – when the federal authorities come in like a deus ex machina.”

That pretty much sums up how Russia approaches its key macroeconomic problem: widespread complaints about its business climate which have kept companies from investing enough to boost ailing economic growth.

Investment, historically already low compared with other emerging markets at just 25 per cent of gross domestic product, contracted by 0.3 per cent last year and slid another 4 per cent in the first quarter as fears of potential systemic sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea have strangled foreign credit inflows and driven many businesses to put off expansion plans.

But the government of President Vladimir Putin is undeterred. Introducing a rating that ranks the investment environment for Russian regions last week, Mr Putin said the survey would become “a tool for real change”.

The survey is designed with the help of Boston Consulting Group and a number of Russian and foreign business associations and based on polls among companies across the country. It brought to light, for example, that while it is possible to get power for a factory within 60 days in some regions, it takes 288 days on average elsewhere. Equally, the availability of financial support for small companies, the number of documents required to register property rights and local authorities’ basic understanding of business processes varies vastly.

Andrei Belousov, Mr Putin’s economic adviser, says Moscow is trying to use businesses’ expertise to improve the regulatory framework. “The most important thing is not just that we receive information about how a particular region is ranked but that we are collecting best practices,” he says. “We are going to closely monitor the changes in the performance indicators, especially in the worst regions, in order to improve.”

Such efforts are being appreciated. Last year, Russia jumped by 19 places to rank 92 in the World Bank’s survey on doing business in 189 countries.

Still, some argue that such efforts only scratch the surface. Many Russian businesses continue to structure themselves under offshore holding companies in order not to fall under Russian law. “There is no real rule of law in Russia, and you can never be sure that your property rights will be protected,” says a senior executive at one of Russia’s largest conglomerates.

FT Video

Rock-bottom Russia?

Russian stock brokers work inside Russia's ruble-based MICEX stock market in Moscow

March 2014: Moscow’s stock market is valued at just five times its forward earnings, almost half that of other emerging markets.

Memories of the forced bankruptcy and sell-off of Yukos, once Russia’s largest oil company, after its main owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky fell foul of Mr Putin more than 10 years ago, are still vivid, although most investors concede that similar cases occur much less frequently.

The government argues that the difference between the focus of its efforts and the big rule of law issues is artificial, and that the devil is in the detail.

“No doubt problems [with rule of law and political interference in business] exist, but not on a massive scale,” says Mr Belousov. “If you look at the polls, especially those conducted among foreign companies, you can see that what they are concerned about most in Russia is bureaucracy, the very lengthy procedures of decision-making, corruption, the fact that inspections of businesses are unregulated, and the lack of efficiency in the judicial system.”

Moscow’s other response is a complete overhaul of the civil law system. “The government is trying to create a more balanced and business-oriented set of rules, which could regulate business relationships more flexibly and effectively protect their participants’ rights and interests,” says a lawyer at a foreign law firm in Moscow.

For example, the presumption of acting in good faith has been replaced by an obligation to do so – in line with many European jurisdictions. Escrow accounts will soon be recognised by law, and legislation regarding a host of financial and contractual activity was modernised.

Moscow is seeing some results to its push to improve the investment climate. In the industrial park in Dzerzhinsk, which was empty until 2012, 16 new companies set up shop within a year after Lanxess’s lobbying victory.

But it may take much more to build sustainable trust. Says a representative of a foreign business association: “In the end, it all boils down to how often and how much Putin can intervene, and when he intervenes, if he does the right thing.”

Bilderberg at 60: inside the world's most secretive conference Topics on the agenda for the three-day summit first held on 29 May 1954 will include: does privacy exist?

Bilderberg at 60: inside the world's most secretive conference

Topics on the agenda for the three-day summit first held on 29 May 1954 will include: does privacy exist?

Charlie Skelton

theguardian.com, Thursday 29 May 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/29/bilderberg-60-inside-worlds-most-secretive-conference?CMP=fb_gu

It's been a week of celebrations for Henry Kissinger. On Tuesday he turned 91, on Wednesday he broke his personal best in the 400m hurdles, and on Thursday in Copenhagen, he'll be clinking champagne flutes with the secretary general of Nato and the queen of Spain, as they celebrate 60 glorious years of Bilderberg. I just hope George Osborne remembered to pack a party hat.

Thursday is the opening day of the influential three-day summit and it's also the 60th anniversary of the Bilderberg Group's first meeting, which took place in Holland on 29 May 1954. So this year's event is a red-letter occasion, and the official participant list shows that the 2014 conference is a peculiarly high-powered affair.

The chancellor, at his seventh Bilderberg, is spending the next three days deep in conference with the heads of MI6, Nato, the International Monetary Fund, HSBC, Shell, BP and Goldman Sachs International, along with dozens of other chief executives, billionaires and high-ranking politicians from around Europe. This year also includes a visit from the supreme allied commander Europe, and a return of royalty – Queen Sofia of Spain and Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, the daughter of the Bilderberg founder Prince Bernhard.

Back in the 1950s, when Bernhard sent out the invitations, it was to discuss "a number of problems facing western civilization". These days, the Bilderberg Group prefers to call them "megatrends". The megatrends on this year's agenda include: "What next for Europe?", "Ukraine", "Intelligence sharing" and "Does privacy exist?"

That's an exquisite irony: the world's most secretive conference discussing whether privacy exists. Certainly for some it does. It's not just birthday bunting that's gone up in Copenhagen: there's also a double ring of three-metre (10ft) high security fencing. The hotel is teeming with security: lithe gentlemen in loose slacks and dark glasses, trying not to kill the birthday vibe. Or anyone else.

Already, two reporters have been arrested trying to interview the organisers of the conference in the Marriott hotel bar. It's easy enough to keep your privacy intact when you're employing so many people to guard it.

There's something distinctly chilling about the existence of privacy being debated, in extreme privacy, by people such as the executive chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, and the board member of Facebook Peter Thiel: exactly the people who know how radically transparent the general public has become.

And to have them discussing it with the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, and Keith Alexander, the recently replaced head of the National Security Agency. And with people such as the head of AXA, the insurance and investment conglomerate – Henri de Castries. Perhaps no one is more interested in data collection and public surveillance than the insurance giants. For them, privacy is the enemy. Public transparency is a goldmine.

Back in 2010, Osborne proudly launched "the most radical transparency agenda the country has ever seen". However, this transparency agenda doesn't seem to extend to Osborne himself making a public statement about what he has discussed at this meeting. And with whom.

We know, from the agenda and list, that Osborne will be there with the foreign affairs ministers from Spain and Sweden, and the deputy secretary general of the French presidency. And from closer to home, the international development secretary, Justine Greening, and fellow Bilderberg veteran and shadow chancellor, Ed Balls.

We know that he's scheduled to discuss the situation in Ukraine with extremely interested parties, such as the chief executive of the European arms giant Airbus, Thomas Enders. Not to mention the chief executive and chairman of "the defence & security company" Saab: Håkan Buskhe and Marcus Wallenberg. And billionaire investors including Henry Kravis of KKR, who is "always looking to sharpen" what he calls "the KKR edge". Helping Kravis sharpen his edge is General David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, now head of the KKR Global Institute – a massive investment operation.

The Bilderberg Group says the conference has no desired outcome. But for private equity giants, and the heads of banks, arms manufacturers and oil companies, there's always a desired outcome. Try telling the shareholders of Shell that there's "no desired outcome" of their chairman and chief executive spending three days in conference with politicians and policy makers.

Try telling that to the lobbyists who have been working so hard to push the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal that is being negotiated. Bilderberg is packed to the gills with senior members of powerful lobby groups. Will members of BritishAmerican Business's international advisory board, such as Douglas Flint and Peter Sutherland, express BAB's fervent support of TTIP when discussing "Is the economic recovery sustainable?" Or will they leave their lobbying hats at the door?

MP Michael Meacher describes Bilderberg as "the cabal of the rich and powerful" who are working "to consolidate and extend the grip of the markets". And they're doing so "beyond the reach of the media or the public". That said, every year, the press probes a little further behind the security fencing. Every year the questions for the politicians who attend, but remain silent, get harder.

They can try to laugh it off as a "talking shop" or a glorified knees-up, but these people haven't come to Bilderberg to drink fizzy wine and pull party poppers. It's possible that Reid Hoffman, the head of LinkedIn, has turned up for the birthday cake. But I doubt it. This is big business. And big politics. And big lobbying.

Bilderberg is big money, and they know how to spend it. From my spot outside, I've just seen three vans full of fish delicacies trundle into the hotel service entrance. I always thought there was something fishy about Bilderberg. Turns out that for tonight at least, it's the rollmops

Prince Charles: reform capitalism to save the planet.

Prince Charles: reform capitalism to save the planet.

A “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” is needed in order to tackle climate change, the Prince of Wales has said

By Emily Gosden7:30PM BST 27 May 2014 / http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10859230/Prince-Charles-reform-capitalism-to-save-the-planet.html

Prince Charles has called for an end to capitalism as we know it in order to save the planet from global warming.

In a speech to business leaders in London, the Prince said that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.

He called for companies to focus on “approaches that achieve lasting and meaningful returns” by protecting the environment, improving their employment practices and helping the vulnerable to develop a new "inclusive capitalism".

The Prince was taking part in his first major UK public engagement since sparking a diplomatic row last week by likening the behaviour of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to Adolf Hitler.

In a politically-charged speech at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, the Prince said: “I remember when the Iron Curtain came down there was a certain amount of shouting about the triumph of capitalism over communism. Being somewhat contrary, I didn't think it was quite as simple as that. I felt that unless the business world considered the social, community and environmental dimensions, we might end up coming full circle.”

The Prince, who has long been outspoken about the need to tackle climate change, said the world now stood at “a pivotal moment in history” ahead of major UN summit in Paris next year on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Over the next eighteen months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the ‘last chance saloon’ in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” he said.

“Either we continue along the path we seem collectively determined to follow, apparently at the mercy of those who so vociferously and aggressively deny that our current operating model has any effect upon dangerously accelerating climate change - which I fear will bring us to our own destruction - or we can choose to act now before it is finally too late, using all of the power and influence that each of you can bring to bear to create an inclusive, sustainable and resilient society,” he said.

The Prince was addressing an audience of 200 business leaders including Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and chief executives of multinational companies such as UBS, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever.

He called on businesses to focus on the long-term and make “an authentic moral commitment to acting as true custodians of the Earth and architects of the well-being of current and future generations”.

“It is only by adopting a broader sense of value that our finances will be sustained and we can find new sources of profit,” he said.

His comments appear to align with those of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, who has called for “responsible capitalism”.

The Prince suggested that companies must do more to put “young people properly at the heart of companies' employment practices and planning strategies, in order to tackle more effectively the world's growing youth unemployment crisis”.

Businesses must also “account properly for carbon dioxide emissions, the use of water and fertiliser, the pollution we produce and the biodiversity we lose”, he said.

The Prince said that businesses would be unpopular with their peers in the short term for going green but would reap “immense” rewards in the long term.