Do you think G7 summits, the next one to be hosted by Japan in Hiroshima in May, ever achieve anything tangible?

no.

this kind of meetings can be done easily online.

ZOOM as good example or some kind of it.

there is aboslutely no reason to travel around the world,burn piles of taxpayers cash for fuel,staff,security,food,accomodation just for few shots for press and some resultless meeting.

Zoom meetings can be recorded and hacked.

Online meetings are convenient, but after having done many over the past couple of years, my take is that they are not as effective as being in the same room. Much less expensive and time-consuming, yes; but for critical decisions I find they just can't beat having a discussion in-person.

That said, I think these G7 summits can achieve tangible results. This from the Global Governance Project: "Using data from 4,369 unique commitment assessments produced between 1975 and 2017, the G7 Research Group has identified two key predictors associated with G7 commitment success, even when economic factors are adjusted for. Specifically, holding meetings with relevant ministers before G7 summits and producing a greater number of commitments at the summits are associated with higher compliance on commitments made."

Kind of makes sense.

Tangible? Perhaps.

Beneficial for the vast majority? Nope.

No. Except for more carbon emissions.

For the J-gov, its a chance for them to turn Japan more and more into a police state.

No. G7 absolutely does more harm than good. Sometimes there are bold ideas, but they never seem to get anything done. Moreover, look at all the protests that occur everytime these clowns meet up. Every single time. They think they are providing value to global society when in reality they are just inconveniencing the common people.

Some degree of global cooperation was necessary after World War II. But the repetition is absolutely insane. Now, we have the United Nations, the G7, the G20, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, ect. None of these entities really do any actual good. Globalism is a parasitic and unsustainable philosophy.

No. They are political theatre, some photo ops for the memoirs, and a free trip abroad away from the electorate that despises them.

No, other than Japan showboating and playing victim again. How much you want to bet the first order of business will be a tour of the peace museum and Japan asking people to lay wreaths?

The "discussions" are total sham. It's all decided beforehand.

They are absolutely needed, but I would try to do more with the OECD countries so that the China-Russia block can see that it is the world arrayed against them. 43% of global gap in the OECD.

*global gap

So much for autocomplete: gdp

NO chance whatsoever!!!

For a bunch of people who care oh so much about the environment, it's pretty remarkable that they fly to these things in private jets -- when they can just as easily do a Zoom call.

BRICS has higher GDP than pathetic G7, LOL !!..

Foreign diplomats only like coming here for the free sushi. Whatever you think sushi means.

No. It's just a chance for all involved to puff out their chests and beat it. Add in a little peacocking and blowing out hot air before the comedy of errors ends...for now.

this kind of meetings can be done easily online.

It's still worth meeting in person. International meetings give participants ample opportunities to meet with each other on the side line, either arranged or by accident (pretended to be accidental, too?). Talks on the corridors often turn out to be more crucial than the mainstream agenda at the Summit.

Mainly because china wont stop it’s massive pollution while the rest of the world is attempting to do something about it

Is Kishida hosting it?

Then, no. Nothing positive will be achieved.

Lots of long expensive lunch’s and typical bureaucratic waste of money!

The individual relationships are extremely valuable in this work.

It is important they know each other face to face.

TokyoLiving

BRICS has higher GDP than pathetic G7, LOL !!..

Not per capita, it doesn't.