The European gas price cap continues to take shape. The EU Commission has now drawn up a price cap in a key issues paper. This is to apply to transactions based on the Dutch price index TTF, which are concluded for the following month. Manuel Berkel has analyzed the as yet unpublished paper.
Smoking is to become significantly more expensive in the future, according to the EU Commission’s plan. The proposal, which is exclusively available to Europe.Table, envisages that the member states should link the minimum taxes to their purchasing power. What exactly this means for Germany, and what criticism is already emerging, Markus Grabitz has written down.
My colleague Leonie Düngefeld is in Brussels this week for EU Raw Materials Week. There, Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine to advance the raw materials partnership. There, people are already thinking about the reconstruction and investments that could be possible after the end of the war, Šefčovič says in an interview.
The Commission has drawn up key points for a price cap in gas trading. It is to apply to transactions concluded in the following month, based on the Dutch TTF price index. This price plays a key role as a reference on the European wholesale market for gas, writes the EU Commission in an as yet unpublished paper, which the ambassadors of the member states discussed on Wednesday and which has been made available to Europe.Table (link to the document).
However, the cap is only to take effect if there are no price jumps in the global LNG market. This is to ensure that the EU continues to import liquefied gas.
The paper does not yet specify a concrete price ceiling for the market correction mechanism. However, the “extraordinary price increase in Aug. 2022” could serve as a guide when setting it. Back then, the TTF price for gas supplies in December climbed up to €350 per megawatt hour, but on Wednesday the index was only about €125.
According to BDEW, the front month is normally the most liquid product traded in the short term under futures contracts. However, the Commission would thus be deviating from its draft regulation of Oct. 18. In it, it had announced that the price cap would apply to the spot market.
The price cap is an emergency measure and is to be limited to one year. As already announced, trading transactions away from exchanges are not to be affected. One disadvantage is therefore that gas trading could shift to so-called OTC transactions, the Commission writes in the key points. “This point alone implies that the approach will be ineffective in capping prices,” DIW economist Karsten Neuhoff tells Europe.Table.
The Commission also warns against this. It is true that the price cap could prevent some consumers who continue to demand gas even when prices are extremely high, as in August 2022, from temporarily setting the price for everyone. But, “It is not an instrument for structurally lowering the price level, which can only be achieved through additional supply and demand side measures.”
The EU executive only presented the key points after strong pressure from many member states. The Council had demanded a concrete legislative proposal so that the energy ministers could adopt the Oct. 18 regulation on Nov. 24. Surprisingly, the five-page paper now also contains some articles as possible building blocks of a legislative text. At the beginning of the week, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had announced to the EU states in a letter that she would only be able to present a “detailed overview” of the price cap by the time of the Energy Council.
If the price correction mechanism is adopted, however, the member states are to have no further influence on it. It is to be triggered automatically and the Commission wants to be given the power to suspend the price cap at any time.
The criteria for the suspension are the reservations that were already listed in the draft regulation of Oct. 18 and were confirmed shortly afterwards by the heads of state and government. For example, the price cap must not impede the flow of gas between member states.
The Commission wants excise taxes on tobacco and tobacco-related products to rise dramatically. Under the plans, minimum excise taxes on cigarettes would double in Germany. Currently, the tobacco tax on cigarettes in Germany is €115 per 1000 pieces. In the future, it would be €230 per 1,000 pieces.
Minimum taxes on cigars and cigarillos would increase to nine times today’s levels. Pipe tobacco would see a 445 percent tax increase, and hookah tobacco would see a 310 percent increase. Fine-cut tobacco would see an increase of 167 percent. For so-called less harmful tobacco products, which no longer burn tobacco but merely heat it, the tax would be lower than for conventional smoking products. The Commission proposes at least €91 per 1000 pieces. This is according to the Commission’s draft directive for excise duties on tobacco products, which is available to Europe.Table. The Commission plans to adopt its proposal on Dec. 7.
The Commission proposes to separate cigars and cigarillos as product classes. This would allow member states to set different taxes for cigarillos and cigars. The Commission also wants to subject nicotine-containing liquids for e-cigarettes to excise taxes. Accordingly, a tax of ten cents per milliliter is to be levied on liquids with a nicotine content of up to 15 milligrams per milliliter, and a tax of 30 cents per milliliter is to be levied on liquids with a nicotine content of 15 milligrams per milliliter or more.
In Germany, it was recently decided to gradually increase the tax on liquids. Currently, 16 cents per milliliter is due. The tax rate will rise to 32 cents per milliliter by 2026.
Tobacco taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the member states. As with all other tax issues, a unanimous vote of the member states is required to adopt the proposed directive. The European Parliament is not involved in the legislative project. As heard in Brussels, France in particular is pushing for higher tobacco taxes. Currently, many smokers are switching to neighboring EU countries because of a high level of tobacco tax.
The Commission justifies its push for drastically higher excise taxes with health policy. The proposal is “an integral part of the Europe against Cancer action plan,” according to the explanatory memorandum for the legislative text. Higher tobacco taxes and prices on tobacco products have proven to be the most effective measure against nicotine consumption.
With the directive, the EU is staying on course with the long-term goals of the plan to combat cancer: The aim here is to create the first tobacco-free generation in 2040, in which less than five percent of the population uses tobacco.
According to the proposal, the minimum taxes are to be linked to purchasing power in the respective member states. Two-thirds of the minimum tax is to be a nominal amount, and one-third of the minimum tax is to be linked to purchasing power. This means that the minimum tax would be lower in Romania, for example, where purchasing power is lower than in Luxembourg or Germany. In addition, the minimum tax is to be adjusted every three years depending on the depreciation of money.
Markus Ferber (CSU) considers the proposal “a relatively transparent attempt to export the high French taxation level for tobacco products to the whole of Europe.” He said he does not expect approval from the Council. “The Commission must be careful not to overdo it,” Ferber added. “If the Commission sets the tax rates too high, there is a risk that smokers will move to the black market.”
Dustin Dahlmann of the Independent European Vaping Alliance, the e-cigarette association at EU level, warns, “Introducing an EU-wide tax on liquids would significantly over-tax the much less harmful alternative, e-cigarettes, in many more countries.”
Especially in member states that currently tax e-cigarettes little or not at all, major upheavals in the market are to be expected, he said. Dahlmann demands: “Vaporizing must be significantly cheaper than smoking.”
Strong criticism comes from the European Cigar Manufacturers Association. Should the Commission submit this proposal, it would be “a massive and disproportionate intervention in the cigar market,” says Bodo Mehrlein of the association. The market for cigars is characterized by medium-sized and mostly family-run companies, he said.
“A 900 percent increase in the minimum tax and a definitional separation of cigars and cigarillos are pure arbitrariness.” Cigars and cigarillos are purely niche products for which the problem of protecting minors does not arise. Mehrlein warns: “The revenue from the tobacco tax would not increase, but the profitability of many companies would be destroyed.”
The energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine and geopolitical factors are complicating the fight against the climate crisis. In their opening statements at COP27, leaders did condemn Putin’s actions and urged greater commitment to climate action and clean energy.
But there is no doubt in my mind: Putin’s absence from the summit is a significant obstacle to the negotiations. At the same time, Russia’s war is exacerbating the climate crisis with each passing day. In the face of global sanctions, Putin refused to attend the COP27 talks.
He left it to Russia’s climate envoy Ruslan Edelgeriev to assure that the country would stay true to its climate commitments. But when Russian politicians say they will honor the country’s commitments, it is unclear what commitments they are talking about.
Despite all the years Russia has participated in climate negotiations, there is still no climate policy in the country. The official Russian climate strategy even says that Russian emissions will increase. Instead, they will most likely decrease – but this is a direct result of the economic crisis in Russia and thus a consequence of the war. It has nothing to do with the country’s climate commitments, but with the consequences of the crisis for the Russian fossil energy industry.
At the same time, Russia’s vast forests are getting worse. Since the beginning of Putin’s war, forest fires have been getting more severe, and it’s only going to get worse. It is a great threat to Russians and people everywhere when the forests of the largest country in the world burn.
However, the official Russian delegation will not talk about this or any other of the many issues affecting people at home at the talks. Instead, it will blatantly haggle with Russia’s “appropriate” behavior and hope that the world will continue to pay dictatorships for fossil fuels. But that would lead to another disaster in the near future. The climate crisis would kill thousands of people and leave millions homeless.
Greenpeace Russia is regularly threatened with being banned or classified as a foreign agent by the authorities. The activists are persecuted mainly for their campaigns against laws that threaten the ecosystem of Lake Baikal.
Formally, such locally defined issues are not up for debate at COP27, and certainly the lives of these activists will not be counted. But the importance of this ecosystem to the world is undeniable. About 20 percent of the world’s freshwater is threatened by corruption and abuse of nature in Lake Baikal.
Combined with the climate-related impacts on the drinking water supply of half the world’s population, the question arises as to why neither this nor the war is being addressed in these negotiations.
War is the elephant in the room at this conference. True, it was somewhat highlighted in the opening presentations. But even the unmistakable fact that, in my view, Putin’s war has set back all progress in negotiations by decades is not officially discussed.
There is a long history of ignoring the messages of activists like me, our work, and the threats we face, especially in crisis years like this one. But it is difficult to ignore the enormous danger of not addressing the unmistakable reality now.
The world failed to act when Russia attacked Chechnya and Georgia, occupied Crimea, and bombed Syria – this war in Ukraine must not be used as another opportunity to turn a blind eye.
The current situation makes it clear: Authoritarian regimes like Russia can blackmail the entire world by blocking talks and remaining silent in order to protect their power and legitimize violence and human rights violations. It is not only climate policy that is increasingly affected by this, but also everything else – whether in the authoritarian countries themselves or through the wars they wage against their neighbors.
In democracies, civil society can influence a country’s position and ensure that climate policy is adapted to the changing situation. It is true that this is happening in Russia at the moment. However, not because of greenhouse gas emissions, but because of the huge amount of petrodollars that have financed the regime in Russia so far, and because the previous buyer countries now feel the need to break away from Putin’s fossil blackmail.
In countries with authoritarian regimes, things are much more complicated than in democracies. My climate activism, for example, has resulted in my only citizenship being revoked. Activists of any kind are no longer allowed to protest in Russia.
The war has wiped out all the progress we have made over the years. Now environmental policy in Russia is reduced to work assignments, with people picking up trash where and when they are told to.
The fact that the international talks at COP27 are unable to directly confront Russia’s warmongering ultimately means that Ruslan Edelgiriev, advisor to the president on climate issues, can advocate for the lifting of sanctions in areas of climate policy.
He has advocated this line in numerous speeches. However, it is obvious that he does not mean, for example, the climate-relevant area of renewable energies. Solar and wind power currently generate less than one percent of Russia’s electricity, and there are no plans to expand them further. Instead, he means something else, suggesting, for example, that Russia could achieve carbon neutrality sooner than 2060 if sanctions were relaxed.
For more than 20 years, Russian policy and action on the climate crisis have been totally inadequate, despite all COPs. I myself would not have known about the climate crisis or the existence of climate negotiations without Greta Thunberg’s climate strike.
In Russia, no one is seriously concerned with this issue. Putin-controlled state television spreads world conspiracy theories and misleads the Russian people. And therefore it is only logical that Ruslan Edelgiriev does not take the climate crisis seriously, although it threatens millions of people in Russia. At COP25 in Madrid three years ago, he told me that activists did nothing but shout. Now we are not even allowed to do that.
Still, Edelgiriev is serious about some things, such as lifting sanctions, returning to Russia’s huge gains from fossil fuels, and promoting nuclear power to regain more influence over other countries’ energy systems. In Russia, the development of a plan to implement the long-term strategy for low-carbon development has been postponed until 2023, while global negotiations at COP27 continue. In other words, climate action in Russia will come tomorrow and only tomorrow – but tomorrow never comes.
Three years ago it seemed to me that Russia would not give up, that we would take to the streets until something really changed. After everything that has happened to me and my country since then, I can no longer have that confidence. That is why I ask the international community for hope.
For war, as for the climate crisis, there are no easy solutions, and we have difficult years ahead. But the longer we delay real and direct action, the higher the cost. Let’s not put more of the world’s progress at risk because of people like Putin.
Arshak Makichyan is a well-known climate activist from Russia. He has been striking in Moscow every Friday since 2019 alone for the climate and organized the Russian Fridays for Future movement. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, he protested against the war from day one. To avoid imprisonment, he traveled to Berlin in March, where he currently lives. Because of his involvement, his Russian citizenship – his only one – was recently revoked.
The European gas price cap continues to take shape. The EU Commission has now drawn up a price cap in a key issues paper. This is to apply to transactions based on the Dutch price index TTF, which are concluded for the following month. Manuel Berkel has analyzed the as yet unpublished paper.
Smoking is to become significantly more expensive in the future, according to the EU Commission’s plan. The proposal, which is exclusively available to Europe.Table, envisages that the member states should link the minimum taxes to their purchasing power. What exactly this means for Germany, and what criticism is already emerging, Markus Grabitz has written down.
My colleague Leonie Düngefeld is in Brussels this week for EU Raw Materials Week. There, Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine to advance the raw materials partnership. There, people are already thinking about the reconstruction and investments that could be possible after the end of the war, Šefčovič says in an interview.
The Commission has drawn up key points for a price cap in gas trading. It is to apply to transactions concluded in the following month, based on the Dutch TTF price index. This price plays a key role as a reference on the European wholesale market for gas, writes the EU Commission in an as yet unpublished paper, which the ambassadors of the member states discussed on Wednesday and which has been made available to Europe.Table (link to the document).
However, the cap is only to take effect if there are no price jumps in the global LNG market. This is to ensure that the EU continues to import liquefied gas.
The paper does not yet specify a concrete price ceiling for the market correction mechanism. However, the “extraordinary price increase in Aug. 2022” could serve as a guide when setting it. Back then, the TTF price for gas supplies in December climbed up to €350 per megawatt hour, but on Wednesday the index was only about €125.
According to BDEW, the front month is normally the most liquid product traded in the short term under futures contracts. However, the Commission would thus be deviating from its draft regulation of Oct. 18. In it, it had announced that the price cap would apply to the spot market.
The price cap is an emergency measure and is to be limited to one year. As already announced, trading transactions away from exchanges are not to be affected. One disadvantage is therefore that gas trading could shift to so-called OTC transactions, the Commission writes in the key points. “This point alone implies that the approach will be ineffective in capping prices,” DIW economist Karsten Neuhoff tells Europe.Table.
The Commission also warns against this. It is true that the price cap could prevent some consumers who continue to demand gas even when prices are extremely high, as in August 2022, from temporarily setting the price for everyone. But, “It is not an instrument for structurally lowering the price level, which can only be achieved through additional supply and demand side measures.”
The EU executive only presented the key points after strong pressure from many member states. The Council had demanded a concrete legislative proposal so that the energy ministers could adopt the Oct. 18 regulation on Nov. 24. Surprisingly, the five-page paper now also contains some articles as possible building blocks of a legislative text. At the beginning of the week, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had announced to the EU states in a letter that she would only be able to present a “detailed overview” of the price cap by the time of the Energy Council.
If the price correction mechanism is adopted, however, the member states are to have no further influence on it. It is to be triggered automatically and the Commission wants to be given the power to suspend the price cap at any time.
The criteria for the suspension are the reservations that were already listed in the draft regulation of Oct. 18 and were confirmed shortly afterwards by the heads of state and government. For example, the price cap must not impede the flow of gas between member states.
The Commission wants excise taxes on tobacco and tobacco-related products to rise dramatically. Under the plans, minimum excise taxes on cigarettes would double in Germany. Currently, the tobacco tax on cigarettes in Germany is €115 per 1000 pieces. In the future, it would be €230 per 1,000 pieces.
Minimum taxes on cigars and cigarillos would increase to nine times today’s levels. Pipe tobacco would see a 445 percent tax increase, and hookah tobacco would see a 310 percent increase. Fine-cut tobacco would see an increase of 167 percent. For so-called less harmful tobacco products, which no longer burn tobacco but merely heat it, the tax would be lower than for conventional smoking products. The Commission proposes at least €91 per 1000 pieces. This is according to the Commission’s draft directive for excise duties on tobacco products, which is available to Europe.Table. The Commission plans to adopt its proposal on Dec. 7.
The Commission proposes to separate cigars and cigarillos as product classes. This would allow member states to set different taxes for cigarillos and cigars. The Commission also wants to subject nicotine-containing liquids for e-cigarettes to excise taxes. Accordingly, a tax of ten cents per milliliter is to be levied on liquids with a nicotine content of up to 15 milligrams per milliliter, and a tax of 30 cents per milliliter is to be levied on liquids with a nicotine content of 15 milligrams per milliliter or more.
In Germany, it was recently decided to gradually increase the tax on liquids. Currently, 16 cents per milliliter is due. The tax rate will rise to 32 cents per milliliter by 2026.
Tobacco taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the member states. As with all other tax issues, a unanimous vote of the member states is required to adopt the proposed directive. The European Parliament is not involved in the legislative project. As heard in Brussels, France in particular is pushing for higher tobacco taxes. Currently, many smokers are switching to neighboring EU countries because of a high level of tobacco tax.
The Commission justifies its push for drastically higher excise taxes with health policy. The proposal is “an integral part of the Europe against Cancer action plan,” according to the explanatory memorandum for the legislative text. Higher tobacco taxes and prices on tobacco products have proven to be the most effective measure against nicotine consumption.
With the directive, the EU is staying on course with the long-term goals of the plan to combat cancer: The aim here is to create the first tobacco-free generation in 2040, in which less than five percent of the population uses tobacco.
According to the proposal, the minimum taxes are to be linked to purchasing power in the respective member states. Two-thirds of the minimum tax is to be a nominal amount, and one-third of the minimum tax is to be linked to purchasing power. This means that the minimum tax would be lower in Romania, for example, where purchasing power is lower than in Luxembourg or Germany. In addition, the minimum tax is to be adjusted every three years depending on the depreciation of money.
Markus Ferber (CSU) considers the proposal “a relatively transparent attempt to export the high French taxation level for tobacco products to the whole of Europe.” He said he does not expect approval from the Council. “The Commission must be careful not to overdo it,” Ferber added. “If the Commission sets the tax rates too high, there is a risk that smokers will move to the black market.”
Dustin Dahlmann of the Independent European Vaping Alliance, the e-cigarette association at EU level, warns, “Introducing an EU-wide tax on liquids would significantly over-tax the much less harmful alternative, e-cigarettes, in many more countries.”
Especially in member states that currently tax e-cigarettes little or not at all, major upheavals in the market are to be expected, he said. Dahlmann demands: “Vaporizing must be significantly cheaper than smoking.”
Strong criticism comes from the European Cigar Manufacturers Association. Should the Commission submit this proposal, it would be “a massive and disproportionate intervention in the cigar market,” says Bodo Mehrlein of the association. The market for cigars is characterized by medium-sized and mostly family-run companies, he said.
“A 900 percent increase in the minimum tax and a definitional separation of cigars and cigarillos are pure arbitrariness.” Cigars and cigarillos are purely niche products for which the problem of protecting minors does not arise. Mehrlein warns: “The revenue from the tobacco tax would not increase, but the profitability of many companies would be destroyed.”
The energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine and geopolitical factors are complicating the fight against the climate crisis. In their opening statements at COP27, leaders did condemn Putin’s actions and urged greater commitment to climate action and clean energy.
But there is no doubt in my mind: Putin’s absence from the summit is a significant obstacle to the negotiations. At the same time, Russia’s war is exacerbating the climate crisis with each passing day. In the face of global sanctions, Putin refused to attend the COP27 talks.
He left it to Russia’s climate envoy Ruslan Edelgeriev to assure that the country would stay true to its climate commitments. But when Russian politicians say they will honor the country’s commitments, it is unclear what commitments they are talking about.
Despite all the years Russia has participated in climate negotiations, there is still no climate policy in the country. The official Russian climate strategy even says that Russian emissions will increase. Instead, they will most likely decrease – but this is a direct result of the economic crisis in Russia and thus a consequence of the war. It has nothing to do with the country’s climate commitments, but with the consequences of the crisis for the Russian fossil energy industry.
At the same time, Russia’s vast forests are getting worse. Since the beginning of Putin’s war, forest fires have been getting more severe, and it’s only going to get worse. It is a great threat to Russians and people everywhere when the forests of the largest country in the world burn.
However, the official Russian delegation will not talk about this or any other of the many issues affecting people at home at the talks. Instead, it will blatantly haggle with Russia’s “appropriate” behavior and hope that the world will continue to pay dictatorships for fossil fuels. But that would lead to another disaster in the near future. The climate crisis would kill thousands of people and leave millions homeless.
Greenpeace Russia is regularly threatened with being banned or classified as a foreign agent by the authorities. The activists are persecuted mainly for their campaigns against laws that threaten the ecosystem of Lake Baikal.
Formally, such locally defined issues are not up for debate at COP27, and certainly the lives of these activists will not be counted. But the importance of this ecosystem to the world is undeniable. About 20 percent of the world’s freshwater is threatened by corruption and abuse of nature in Lake Baikal.
Combined with the climate-related impacts on the drinking water supply of half the world’s population, the question arises as to why neither this nor the war is being addressed in these negotiations.
War is the elephant in the room at this conference. True, it was somewhat highlighted in the opening presentations. But even the unmistakable fact that, in my view, Putin’s war has set back all progress in negotiations by decades is not officially discussed.
There is a long history of ignoring the messages of activists like me, our work, and the threats we face, especially in crisis years like this one. But it is difficult to ignore the enormous danger of not addressing the unmistakable reality now.
The world failed to act when Russia attacked Chechnya and Georgia, occupied Crimea, and bombed Syria – this war in Ukraine must not be used as another opportunity to turn a blind eye.
The current situation makes it clear: Authoritarian regimes like Russia can blackmail the entire world by blocking talks and remaining silent in order to protect their power and legitimize violence and human rights violations. It is not only climate policy that is increasingly affected by this, but also everything else – whether in the authoritarian countries themselves or through the wars they wage against their neighbors.
In democracies, civil society can influence a country’s position and ensure that climate policy is adapted to the changing situation. It is true that this is happening in Russia at the moment. However, not because of greenhouse gas emissions, but because of the huge amount of petrodollars that have financed the regime in Russia so far, and because the previous buyer countries now feel the need to break away from Putin’s fossil blackmail.
In countries with authoritarian regimes, things are much more complicated than in democracies. My climate activism, for example, has resulted in my only citizenship being revoked. Activists of any kind are no longer allowed to protest in Russia.
The war has wiped out all the progress we have made over the years. Now environmental policy in Russia is reduced to work assignments, with people picking up trash where and when they are told to.
The fact that the international talks at COP27 are unable to directly confront Russia’s warmongering ultimately means that Ruslan Edelgiriev, advisor to the president on climate issues, can advocate for the lifting of sanctions in areas of climate policy.
He has advocated this line in numerous speeches. However, it is obvious that he does not mean, for example, the climate-relevant area of renewable energies. Solar and wind power currently generate less than one percent of Russia’s electricity, and there are no plans to expand them further. Instead, he means something else, suggesting, for example, that Russia could achieve carbon neutrality sooner than 2060 if sanctions were relaxed.
For more than 20 years, Russian policy and action on the climate crisis have been totally inadequate, despite all COPs. I myself would not have known about the climate crisis or the existence of climate negotiations without Greta Thunberg’s climate strike.
In Russia, no one is seriously concerned with this issue. Putin-controlled state television spreads world conspiracy theories and misleads the Russian people. And therefore it is only logical that Ruslan Edelgiriev does not take the climate crisis seriously, although it threatens millions of people in Russia. At COP25 in Madrid three years ago, he told me that activists did nothing but shout. Now we are not even allowed to do that.
Still, Edelgiriev is serious about some things, such as lifting sanctions, returning to Russia’s huge gains from fossil fuels, and promoting nuclear power to regain more influence over other countries’ energy systems. In Russia, the development of a plan to implement the long-term strategy for low-carbon development has been postponed until 2023, while global negotiations at COP27 continue. In other words, climate action in Russia will come tomorrow and only tomorrow – but tomorrow never comes.
Three years ago it seemed to me that Russia would not give up, that we would take to the streets until something really changed. After everything that has happened to me and my country since then, I can no longer have that confidence. That is why I ask the international community for hope.
For war, as for the climate crisis, there are no easy solutions, and we have difficult years ahead. But the longer we delay real and direct action, the higher the cost. Let’s not put more of the world’s progress at risk because of people like Putin.
Arshak Makichyan is a well-known climate activist from Russia. He has been striking in Moscow every Friday since 2019 alone for the climate and organized the Russian Fridays for Future movement. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, he protested against the war from day one. To avoid imprisonment, he traveled to Berlin in March, where he currently lives. Because of his involvement, his Russian citizenship – his only one – was recently revoked.
