Big money for Trump by big US oil companies

A new analysis explores the possible payout if fossil fuel companies—who have already shown a willingness to put a price tag on the value of planet Earth—agree to the presumptive Republican nominee's election year "quid pro quo" deal.

The analysis reveals that the alleged US$ one billion election year "quid pro quo" offer that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made to executives of major oil company's could, if they agreed to the deal, bank them a handsome profit.

According to the study by Friends of the Earth Action, first reported by The Guardian on Thursday, the "remarkably blunt and transactional" offer from Trump—in which US$ one billion in campaign funding put together by the nation's major oil companies would be repaid upon his election with massive deregulation of the oil and gas sector as well as tax relief for the industry—would yield a major windfall for those same corporations, including an estimated US$110 billion from the tax breaks alone.

Republicans in Congress last year confirmed that if Trump wins back the White House and the GOP resume control of both chambers, they will move aggressively to make the Republican's 2017 tax cuts, which largely benefited the wealthy and corporations, permanent. As some of the most profitable companies in the US, oil and gas companies stand to benefit greatly from that outcome.

In Florida last month, not long before his meeting with oil executives, Trump told a different crowd of "rich as hell" supporters gathered at Mar-a-Lago: "We're gonna give you tax cuts, we're gonna pay of our debt."

The problem with the second half of that claim is presented in a recent CBO report which found that another wave of tax cuts like those passed by the GOP in 2017 would skyrocket the national debt by an estimated US$4.6 trillion over the next ten years.

 

Earlier this week, House Democrats, led by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin, launched a probe into the "quid pro quo" allegations between Trump and Big Oil, including letters to company executives believed to have been in attendance.

The blatant nature of Trump's corrupt intent, according to some political observers, is an opportunity that Democrats and champions of climate action and other progressive causes should not miss.

Writing about the circumstances in The New Yorker on Wednesday, journalist and veteran climate activist Bill McKibben argued that the stakes of this election are made plain in what Trump has offered the fossil fuel industry in exchange for its financial backing.

"Trump's reported billion-dollar offer to fossil-fuel executives shows that this is the key year to save the planet," McKibben writes.

"Given four years to finish the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, a second-term Biden Administration might finally be able to break the hold of fossil fuel political influence," his essay explains. "Another term of Trump, however—and with all that it means for undercutting global efforts at climate regulation, as well—offers an entirely plausible and entirely opposite outcome: climate chaos combined with continued fossil-fuel dependence."

What's true, according to McKibben, is that the fossil fuel industry "might well decide that defeating Biden in November is worth a lot of money." Citing recent profits by Chevron of US$21 billion and ExxonMobil's US$36 billion, he said the oil giants will "definitely give Trump something, and the return on investment on that donation—if successful—would be better than the luckiest well they ever hit."

Courtesy: Common Dreams

Pakistan: Agriculture Victim of Catastrophes

Agriculture sector growth of 4.4% in FY22 was not only more than 3.5% seen in FY21, it also surpassed the targeted growth of 3.5%. This was largely due to a considerable increase in the output of important crops and the growth in livestock sector.

Within the crop sector, production of important crops increased by 7.2%. Sugarcane, rice and maize exceeded their targets; whereas, wheat fell short of meeting its target by 2.6 million tons. Cotton, despite higher production than FY21, missed its target by 2.2 million bales.

Fertilizer offtake also remained lower than last year, especially in the Rabi season, when the global prices surged significantly and domestic gas shortages emerged in the winter season.

 Despite this performance, the country had to import food products worth US$9.0 billion, while exports amounted to US$5.4 billion during FY22 – causing a deficit of US$3.6 billion in net food exports.

As the world grapples with rising global temperature, changing rainfall patterns and extreme weather events, the spillover of climate change to food security in regions such as Pakistan is becoming a source of concern for various reasons. The challenges to food security will intensify under climate change from floods, low productivity, poor infrastructure, among other factors.

Pakistan is the 8th most affected country by climate change due to rising global temperatures – losing around 0.5% of GDP in 173 climate-related catastrophes from 2000-2019.

In the worst-case scenario, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) estimates average annual losses in Pakistan can be more than 9% of GDP, which would be the highest in South-Asia.

Increasing temperatures will significantly increase the risks to Pakistan’s food security since 77.5% of the agricultural production takes place in arid regions where temperatures are likely to increase more than in other climatic zones.

There are multiple channels through which food security will come under stress in Pakistan: 1) little room to expand area under cultivation (in particular for wheat) in the short to medium term under the prevailing technological constraints, 2) availability of water in the Rabi season acting as a constraint in the canal-irrigated areas of Pakistan, 3) land degradation due to imbalanced used of fertilizer and also waterlogging, 4) despite improving wheat yield in Pakistan over the years, climate change is likely to slow down the progress in the future – for instance global wheat yields are likely to drop by 17% globally due to changing weather patterns, 5) incessant population growth rate is posing resource availability challenges and 6 Increased threat of locusts, especially in the rice-wheat farm systems.

Biden Climate Change Obsession Threatens US Security, says Pompeo

Lately, former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said that President Joe Biden’s obsession to decarbonize the United States plays into the hands of adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), making them richer and more powerful while imposing costs on Americans and making them less safe.

In an op-ed published on December 05 in the Washington Examiner, Pompeo argued that the Biden administration’s focus on fighting climate change is misguided and will hurt US families while empowering the country’s adversaries.

He took aim at the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden recently described as the biggest, most important climate bill in the history of our country and which Pompeo said would make life more expensive for American families.

“The statement was telling, Americans were told its purpose was to reduce inflation, but in reality, it was a gas lighting Trojan horse,” Pompeo wrote in the op-ed, referring to Biden’s characterization of the Inflation Reduction Act, which the president made at a recent climate summit in Egypt.

Biden’s description of the measure perfectly encapsulated how climate change and green energy have skewed this administration’s priorities, Pompeo wrote.

When selling the Inflation Reduction Act to the American people, the Biden administration said it was meant to reduce inflation, which has been running close to a 40-year high.

Pompeo argued that in reality, it was a gas lighting Trojan horse meant to conceal the Biden administration’s real priority, which Pompeo said is to fight fossil fuels.

Pompeo also criticized US foreign policy under Biden as being so highly focused on fighting climate change that it diverts attention from the real threats posed by America’s adversaries on the world stage.

“Biden’s obsession to decarbonize America is guaranteed to enrich and empower the Chinese Communist Party,” he argued.

“A sizable portion of the law’s handout will go toward solar energy despite this administration being well aware that Chinese manufacturers dominate 80% of the market for solar panels and that many of them have ties to forced labor in Xinjiang,” he noted as an example.

When Pompeo served as Secretary of State under then President Donald Trump’s administration, he issued a determination that the CCP was guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity over its mistreatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Chinese officials have denied such allegations.

Congress later passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), which banned the import of goods from Xinjiang and other regions with links to forced labor.

Even though Biden signed the UFLPA into law, Pompeo alleged that the current administration has displayed mixed feelings about enforcing the measure in its bid to win concessions from China on climate change.

John Kerry, the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, faced allegations of lobbying against the UFLPA, which his spokesperson denied.

“This is false. Secretary Kerry has a thirty-seven-year record as a Senator and Secretary of State standing up for human rights and defending democracy,” a State Department spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon.

“As Secretary Kerry has said from the start, the United States and China have mutual interests in solving the climate crisis while there’s still time, even when we fundamentally disagree on other critical issues,” the spokesperson added.

Kerry also sidestepped a question during last year’s COP26 Climate Change Conference, saying the issue was not my lane.

He was responding to a question from a reporter if he had mentioned human rights issues, including forced labor in Xinjiang, in meetings with Chinese officials.

“Well, we’re honest. We’re honest about the differences, and we certainly know what they are and we’ve articulated them, but that’s not my lane here,” Kerry said in November 2021. “My job is to be the climate guy, and stay focused on trying to move the climate agenda forward.”

Pompeo recalled the controversy over Kerry’s remarks and called the climate czar’s comparison of the Biden administration’s climate diplomacy with China to former President Ronald Reagan’s arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union as foolish.

“Reagan was looking to make the world safer, while Biden is enabling genocide in exchange for making energy less affordable and reliable for Americans,” Pompeo said.

“And it is ironic, given the Chinese are building coal-fired power plants at a ridiculous rate and only making the problem worse,” he added.

Pompeo argued that by foolishly prioritizing climate change in its dealings with the CCP over gross human rights abuses, aggressive actions against US allies, and the CCP’s espionage activities in America, the Biden administration has empowered China.

 

Governments urged to phase out fossil fuel

The Investors managing US$39 trillion have called on governments around the world to raise their climate ambition; including setting plans to phase out fossil fuel use and forcing companies to set out science-based transition plans.

The move by some - but not all - top fund firms comes ahead of the next round of global climate talks in Egypt in November this year.

This year's letter is the most ambitious appeal to officials yet, backers of the effort said, with additional requests for action on tackling methane pollution and scaling up finance to poorer countries.

Organized by the Investor Agenda, a group of investor-focused groups that count many of the world's largest fund managers as members, the 2022 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis was the 13th one to be issued.

Investors are taking action as it is not only permitted by law but is in many cases required to ensure their ability to generate returns in the long-term as a core fiduciary duty and benefit from the opportunities associated with the shift to a net-zero emissions economy.

Other requests by the investors included scaling up low-carbon energy systems; implementing carbon pricing mechanisms that rise over time; establishing new or more ambitious plans to end deforestation.

In all, 532 investors signed the latest iteration including UBS Asset Management, Amundi SA and Federated Hermes.

However, none of the top three US index fund managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Corp signed onto this letter.

The reticence comes as the process of investing with an eye on environmental, social and governance-related issues, or ESG, faces growing pressure in the United States.

Hassanabad Bridge on Karakoram Highway linking Pakistan and China swept away

Hassanabad Bridge in Hunza on the Karakoram Highway linking Pakistan and China was on Saturday destroyed and swept away by a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) from the Shishper Glacier. 

The Gilgit-Baltistan tourist police confirmed the development, adding that traffic had been diverted to an alternate route on the Sas Valley Road.

Hunza Superintendent of Police (SP) Zahoor Ahmed said the glacier had started melting on Saturday due to heat and caused a flood that damaged the bridge and rendered it unusable for traffic.

He said tourists were facing difficulties and had been provided alternate routes through Ganish and Murtazabad. He added that tourist police were also appointed at various spots to prevent any inconvenience to tourists.

The SP said that families near the nullah were shifted to safer places and the entire administration, including the police and rescue services, were on alert due to the emergency situation.

Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Mohyuddin Ahmad Wani said that the National Highway Authority (NHA) and Frontier Works Organisation assured him that the bridge would be repaired as a matter of urgency.

The Chief Secretary also directed GB Home Secretary Iqbal Hussain, Gilgit's commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts to take immediate steps for the restoration of the Hassanabad bridge and resolve the inconvenience caused to the passengers.

According to information from the Chief Secretary's office, the supply of provisions and fuel to the tourists was also being ensured along with rehabilitation and rations for the affected families.

It added that two power plants of Hassanabad were also swept away by the flood.

A statement issued by the district police said that control rooms were set up in Hunza and Gilgit, which could be contacted on 05813-930721-2 and 05811-930033, respectively.

Climate Change Minister Sherry Rehman warned that there were many such vulnerable areas in GB and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. "Pakistan has the highest number of glaciers outside the polar region and many are losing mass due to high global temperatures," she pointed out.

Rehman had earlier cautioned the provincial disaster management authorities and home departments that due to an increase in regional temperatures, there was a possibility of GLOF events and flash floods in GB and KP.

Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari also said the melting of glaciers was a "matter of concern". He said collective efforts at the international level were needed to tackle climate change.

"The situation arising out of lake eruption on Shishper Glacier needs to be dealt with on an urgent basis. The government must ensure that local communities are not harmed in any way and land routes remain open.

"Hopefully, the administration will ensure that ordinary people and tourists do not face difficulties," Bilawal said.

GB Environmental Protection Agency Director Shahzad Shigri said climate change had accelerated the melting of glaciers in the region and posed a serious threat to the population.

 

 

United States pressurizing European Union to buy its LNG and quit Russian gas

Pressure is mounting on the European Union to abandon Russian gas supplies as individual countries begin turning off the tap. The Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia became Europe’s first region to abandon Russian gas supplies entirely past weekend, and they urged other nations on the continent to do the same.

Lithuania, the first EU nation to make the move, declared on Saturday that the country was acting “in response to Russia’s energy blackmail in Europe,” according to a news release from the country’s Energy Ministry.  

But whether this leads to other countries in Europe abandoning Russia’s gas is a big question.

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Sunday said Russia’s crimes could not go unanswered, but on Monday argued a full-scale embargo would hurt Germany more than Russia.

“We must plan tough sanctions, but gas cannot be substituted in the short term,” Lindner told reporters before meeting with the Eurogroup, the informal body of EU finance ministers.

“We would inflict more damage on ourselves than on them,” Lindner said.

Germany is in a particularly difficult position, as it imported about 55% of its gas from Russia last year. The EU as a whole gets about 40% of its gas from Russia.

The Baltic states comparatively import much less gas from Russia. Lithuania received about 26% of its gas from Russia directly last year, according to Bloomberg. The country will now rely on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States and Norway, Bloomberg reported, citing the country’s Energy Minister.

Morgan Bazilian, a public policy professor at the Colorado School of Mines, told The Hill that Lithuania eight years ago developed a floating storage and regasification unit at the country’s Klaipėda LNG terminal, which enables the country to take in gas from other countries.

“They were able to make the statements because of planning they had done eight years ago,” he said. “And Latvia and Estonia are sort of coming along with them.”

“While Lithuania might not be an example of how nations can get rid of Russian gas overnight, the country is a very good example of planning for your energy security and not just leaving it to market forces”, Brenda Shaffer, an international energy specialist at the Naval Postgraduate School, told The Hill.

Lithuania’s gas transmission system has been running without Russian gas imports since April 1, with zero flow of Russian gas coming through the Lithuanian-Belarusian interconnection, according to the country’s Ministry of Energy.

“From this month on — no more Russian gas in Lithuania,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda tweeted on Saturday.

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė followed up on Sunday by tweeting, “from now and so on Lithuania won’t be consuming a cubic centimeter of toxic Russian gas.”

Meanwhile, Uldis Bariss, CEO of Latvia’s Conexus Baltic Grid, told Latvian radio this weekend, “Since April 01, 2022 Russian natural gas is no longer flowing to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.”

The Baltic states are much smaller economies than other nations in Europe that import Russian gas, and as a result the moves, while important, will have a smaller affect on Russia than if larger nations turned off the spigot.

Bazilian noted that while the shift gives the right optics, it is a relatively small piece of the European puzzle.

“It’s very small in comparison to, say, Germany or Italy or other countries that rely on natural gas,” Bazilian said.

In the short to medium term, a larger European embargo on Russian energy is unlikely given the dependence of nations such as Germany on Russian gas, Shaffer said.

Germany and other big EU members also have much larger industrialized manufacturing sectors dependent upon Russian gas.

This has given Russia leverage over Germany, which before Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was backing a controversial new pipeline from Russia.

“For a country like Germany, which is heavily manufacturing based — like steel and cars and other equipment — the question of the price of the gas has very different economic impact than for a country like Lithuania, which is mostly light industry,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer also noted the tension between European climate goals and the present need to bolster traditional energy needs through more pipeline projects and LNG infrastructure.

“There is a conflict in a sense between European climate goals and building new infrastructure that would ensure their energy security,” Shaffer said. “In a strange way, almost, the climate camp would prefer the status quo.”

While the decision of the Baltic states to stop importing Russian gas will not likely carry over to the entire EU, Bazilian described the weekend’s events as a symbol that the rest of Europe is really serious about this and that the continent “is going to look to diversify from Russia.

One way to do that will be through US LNG supplies. President Biden recently announced the US would be supplying an additional 15 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe this year.

The EU has also said it is going to release a pathway on how to wean off Russian energy imports by 2027, and Bazilian expressed confidence that the US will be part of that solution.

Despite its small size, the Baltic region is yet another market that will be importing LNG, according to Shaffer. And while that won’t be solely from American sources, more market demand for LNG in general also means more demand for American LNG, she explained. 

Lithuania’s capital, Vilnius, also houses the NATO Energy Security Center of Excellence, which reflects how the country views energy “as a really important issue of national security,” Shaffer added.

“They’re sort of like the main voice within NATO on these issues, so I think it will have some impact on NATO thinking,” she said.