#Europe Gas Generator Market

[prenasper]

Europe Gas Generator Market Growth, Trends, Demand, Industry Share, Challenges, Future Opportunities and Competitive Analysis 2033: SPER Market Research

The Europe Gas Generator Market encompasses the production, distribution, and utilization of gas-powered generators across European countries. With increasing concerns about energy security, environmental sustainability, and power reliability, the demand for gas generators is rising. Key drivers include the transition to cleaner energy sources, infrastructure development, and backup power requirements. Additionally, advancements in gas generator technology, such as improved efficiency and reduced emissions, contribute to market growth. Key players focus on innovation, product differentiation, and service quality to meet the diverse needs of customers and capitalize on market opportunities in Europe.

[newsfrom-theworld]

BRANDS TO BOYCOTT

1 Consumer boycott goals:

Let's start by boycotting these brands that are directly involved in Israeli apartheid

'' BIG THREE''

Mc Donald: gives free meals to Israeli soldiers

Disney ( sadly, Disney was my childhood): declared support for Israel by pledging $2 million

Starbucks: sued his union over its pro-Palestine positions

Siemens

Siemens (Germany) is the prime contractor of the Euro-Asia Interconnector, an Israel-EU undersea power cable that is expected to connect illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories to Europe. Siemens brand appliances are sold all over the world.

PUMA

PUMA (Germany) sponsors the Israel Football Federation, which governs teams in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Carrefour

Carrefour (France) is a facilitator of genocide. Carrefour-Israel supported Israeli soldiers who took part in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza with gifts of personal parcels. In 2022 it entered into a partnership with the Israeli company Electra Consumer Products and its subsidiary Yenot Bitan, both of which were involved in serious violations against the Palestinian people.

AXA

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the insurance giant AXA (France) took targeted measures against it. Yet as Israel, a 75-year-old regime of colonialism and apartheid, wages a genocidal war on Gaza, AXA continues to invest in Israeli banks that finance war crimes and the theft of Palestinian land and natural resources.

Hewlett Packard Inc (HP Inc)

HP Inc (USA) provides services to the offices of the genocide leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Finance Minister Smotrich.

SodaStream

SodaStream is actively complicit in Israel's policy of displacing Israel's indigenous Bedouin-Palestinian citizens in the Naqab (Negev) and has a long history of racial discrimination against Palestinian workers.

Ahava cosmetics

Ahava have their production site, visitor center and main store in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories.

D/MAX

RE/MAX (USA) markets and sells property in illegal Israeli settlements built on stolen Palestinian land, thus enabling Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank.

2 Divestment objectives:

Elbit Systems

Elbit Systems is the largest apartheid Israeli arms company. It “field tests” its weapons against the Palestinians, including in Israel's ongoing genocidal war against the Palestinians in Gaza. In addition to building killer drones, Elbit produces surveillance technology for the apartheid wall, checkpoints and fence in Gaza, enabling apartheid. The US and EU use Elbit technology to militarize their borders, violating the rights of refugees and indigenous peoples.

HD Hyundai/Volvo/CAT/JCB machinery

by HD Hyundai (South Korea), Volvo (Sweden/China), CAT (United States) and JCB (United Kingdom) have been used by Israel in the ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of Palestinians through the destruction of their homes, farms and commercial activities, as well as the construction of illegal settlements on stolen land, a war crime under international law.

Barclays

Barclays Bank (UK) holds more than £1 billion in shares and provides more than £3 billion in loans and subscriptions to nine companies whose weapons, components and military technology have been used in Israel's armed violence against Palestinians.

CAF

The Basque transport company CAF builds and provides maintenance services to the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), a tram line serving illegal Israeli settlements in Jerusalem. The CAF benefits from Israel's war crimes on stolen Palestinian lands.

Chevron

The US fossil fuel multinational Chevron is the main international company extracting gas claimed by Israeli apartheid in the eastern Mediterranean. Chevron generates billions in revenue, bolstering Israel's war chest and apartheid system and exacerbating the climate crisis.

HikVision

Amnesty International has documented high-resolution CCTV cameras made by Chinese company Hikvision installed in residential areas and mounted on Israeli military infrastructure for surveillance of Palestinians. Some of these models, according to Hikvision marketing, can connect to external facial recognition software.

TKH Security

Amnesty International has identified cameras from the Dutch company TKH Security used by Israel for surveillance of Palestinians. TKH supplies the Israeli police with surveillance technology used to enforce apartheid.

Other brands:

Zara

Zara's latest marketing campaign uses corpses in plastic wrapping, and warzone aesthetics, mocking the genocide by israel in Gaza. In a previous incident Joey Schwebel, a Canadian-Israeli dual national and chairman of israel's Zara franchisee Trimera, hosted the convicted terrorist Itamar Ben-Gvir at his home in the lead-up to the Israeli elections. Zara did not made a statement distancing themselves from this association and allowed this ad campaign to run.

Adidas

Adidas uses isr@eli manufacturer, Delta Galil, to manufacture its underwear range.

Prada:

Prada Beauty is a partnership with L'Oreal, which is a 'warm friend of Isr@el'.

Louis Vuitton:

The owner of Louis Vuitton's parent company, LVMH, Bernard Arnault invests hundreds of millions in Isr@eli companies

Dior:

The owner of Dior's parent company, LVMH, Bernard Arnault invests hundreds of millions in Isr@eli companies

Caterpillar:

Caterpillar bulldozers have been used in the demolition of Palestinian homes. The D9 bulldozer was specifically designed for the IOF.

American Eagle:

American Eagle posted an image of the Isr@eli Flag on their flagship billboard in Times Square showing their support for the apartheid state.

Fenty Beauty by Rihanna:

The owner of Fenty's parent company, LVMH, Bernard Arnault invests hundreds of millions in Isr@eli companies

Eurovision:

Eurovision is allowing israel to compete this year despite the genocide theyre comitting and they will use this opportunity to spread propaganda

Donna Italia

Sources:

BDS

this site

this specifical post on Twitter ( X )

if i discover news brands i will edit the post

And Always

Free Palestine, now and always.

[gingerofsuburbia]

BDS Consumer Boycott Targets

Everything here is copied over from the BDS website.

Hewlett Packard Inc (HP Inc)

HP Inc (US) provides services to the offices of genocide leaders, Israeli PM Netanyahu and Financial Minister Smotrich. HPE, which shares the same brand, provides technology for Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority, a pillar of its apartheid regime.

Chevron (including Caltex and Texaco)

US fossil fuel multinational Chevron is the main corporation extracting gas claimed by apartheid Israel in the East Mediterranean. Chevron generates billions in revenues, strengthening Israel’s war chest and apartheid system, exacerbating the climate crisis and Gaza siege, and is complicit in depriving the Palestinian people of their right to sovereignty over their natural resources. Chevron has thousands of retail gas stations around the world under the Chevron, Caltex, and Texaco brand names.

Siemens

Siemens (Germany) is the main contractor for the Euro-Asia Interconnector, an Israel-EU submarine electricity cable that is planned to connect Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory to Europe. Siemens-branded electrical appliances are sold globally.

PUMA

Since 2018, we have called for a boycott of PUMA (Germany) due to its sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA), which governs teams in Israel’s illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In a major BDS win in December 2023, PUMA leaked news to the media that it will not be renewing its IFA contract when it expires in December 2024. Until then, it is still complicit, so we continue to #BoycottPUMA until it finally ends its complicity in apartheid.

Carrefour

Carrefour (France) is a genocide enabler. Carrefour-Israel has supported Israeli soldiers partaking in the unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza with gifts of personal packages. In 2022, it entered a partnership with the Israeli company Electra Consumer Products and its subsidiary Yenot Bitan, both of which are involved in grave violations against the Palestinian people.

AXA

Insurance giant AXA (France) invests in Israeli banks financing war crimes and the theft of Palestinian land and natural resources. When Russia invaded Ukraine, AXA took targeted measures against it. Yet, Axa has taken no action against Israel, a 75-year-old regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid, despite its ongoing genocidal war on Gaza.

SodaStream

SodaStream is an Israeli company that is actively complicit in Israel's policy of displacing the indigenous Bedouin-Palestinian citizens of present-day Israel in the Naqab (Negev) and has a long history of racial discrimination against Palestinian workers.

Ahava

Ahava cosmetics is an Israeli company that has its production site, visitor center, and main store in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territory.

RE/MAX

RE/MAX (US) markets and sells property in illegal Israeli settlements built on stolen Palestinian land, thus enabling Israel’s colonization of the occupied West Bank.

Israeli produce in your supermarkets

Boycott produce from Israel in your supermarket and demand their removal from shelves. Beyond being part of a trade that fuels Israel’s apartheid economy, Israeli fruits, vegetables, and wines misleadingly labeled as “Product of Israel” often include products of illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land. Israeli companies do not distinguish between the two, and neither should consumers.

Non-BDS Grassroots Boycotts:

McDonald’s (US), Burger King (US), Papa John’s (US), Pizza Hut (US), WIX (Israel), etc. are now being targeted in some countries by grassroots organic boycott campaigns, not initiated by the BDS movement. BDS supports these boycott campaigns because these companies, or their branches or franchisees in Israel, have openly supported apartheid Israel and/or provided generous in-kind donations to the Israeli military amid the current genocide. If these grassroots campaigns are not already organically active in your area, we suggest focusing your energies on our strategic campaigns above. 

Recently, McDonald’s franchisee in Malaysia has filed a SLAPP lawsuit against solidarity activists, claiming defamation. Instead of holding the Israel franchisee to account for supporting genocide, we are now witnessing corporate bullying against activists. For both these reasons, we are calling to escalate the boycott of McDonald’s until the parent company takes action and ends the complicity of the brand.

Remember, all Israeli banks and virtually all Israeli companies are complicit to some degree in Israel’s system of occupation and apartheid, and hundreds of international corporations and banks are also deeply complicit. We focus our boycotts on a small number of companies and products for maximum impact.

[duckiemimi]

i’ve recently come across an insightful video analysis that was reposted on tiktok, explaining the Gaza situation in depth and touching on the geopolitical and economic motivations that background it, along with the potential impact from the ethnic cleansing and the active genocide of Palestinian people by zionists. here’s a summary with some links to more-reputable news articles:

-roughly around a month ago, netanyahu declared his plan for a “new middle east,” an economic corridor stretching from India to the European continent, through the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and “israel.”

-due to the weakening of the US Dollar, this “new middle east” corridor serves as a hopeful (on their part) counter to China’s new ongoing “silk road.” it’s essentially a move for leverage on world economics, trade, and politics.

-Russia is the country with the largest proven reserves of natural gas. in 2022, Nord Stream 1 and 2 (Russia’s gas pipelines) were both blown up. sanction packages from EU ban Russian gas. no more Russian gas coming into Europe.

-Iran, the country with the second largest gas reserves, signs the Nuclear Deal in 2015-2016. the US backs out of the deal and reimpose harsh sanctions on Iran. Iran is barred from selling its gas and oil to Europe and others.

-with Russia and Iran out of the picture, “israel” (US-backed) proposes itself as a solution to EU’s gas shortages. in 2010, they find the Leviathan—a giant gas field in the middle east (Mediterranean Sea), off the coast of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.

-Syria initially declines offers over its gas reserves; the US now controls 1/3 of Syria and all its oil fields, and “israel” regularly bombs it’s most vital port (Latakia). another major port is in Beirut, which mysteriously exploded in 2020. both Syria and Lebanon’s maritime activity are limited, including in trade and gas exploration.

-Gaza, also having its own unexplored gas fields, has been under siege, under naval blockade since 2007. the only working port left in the coast is haifa port in “israel.” “israel” is now the only one able to explore gas and implement an economic corridor, like the proposed “new middle east.” what the US and “israel” have essentially done is killed off the competition, stole their goods, and cornered the market.

-in light of Europe’s gas shortages, to get them gas before winter, “israel” attempts to “stabilize” the region by solving “the Palestinian question”—more than displacement, they’ve resorted to ethnic cleansing and genocide. basically an acceleration of their plan.

-what Palestinian resistance groups have done in response was because they were backed into a corner. tooth and nail, life or death. it did not happen in a vacuum.

it has always been a move for natural resources; Palestine, Syria, Congo—every move for destabilization framed as intervention. it has always been greed for capital.

update:

it’s come to my attention that the video in question might have some more pro-Russian leaning stances, and so i’ve deleted the google drive link to the reposted tiktok and the link to the actual tiktok as i do not wish to platform the denial, partial or in whole, of the atrocities done to Ukrainian people. i will keep the summary up with some parts omitted because i still do think it is an insightful analysis in general and i do think the knowledge is still useful and relevant.

[zvaigzdelasas]

The global market for carbon offsets is worth about $2 billion today and projected to grow to as much as $1 trillion in 15 years even as it faces fundamental questions about credibility and effectiveness. Add government appropriation to the list of risks for this climate solution. A shock announcement this week that Zimbabwe will take half of all revenues generated from offsets projects developed on its territory is a harbinger of an uncertain future in the carbon trade. The African nation is the world’s 12th largest creator of offsets, with 4.2 million credits from 30 registered projects last year, according to BloombergNEF.

Zimbabwe’s move gives the government control of carbon credit production and cancels all past agreements with international organizations. That means more revenue generated from credits tied to protecting forests and other efforts to cut emissions will flow into national coffers rather than going to project developers. There’s now risk that other countries might follow suit, creating new uncertainties for businesses that develop and sell offsets, corporations that purchase offsets as a way to counterbalance their greenhouse gas pollution and the cohort of traders who invest in this emerging asset class. [...]

The move “blindsided” CO2balance, a company that runs five carbon offset projects in Zimbabwe. “Everyone knew changes were happening but we weren’t expecting this — it wasn’t on the horizon,” said Paul Chiplen, head of sales, in an interview on Thursday. “It does put a question mark in investors’ minds when you’re not quite sure of what level of return you’re getting.” [...]

“I think it is an entirely understandable thing for Zimbabwe to want to take a proportion of the funds from any exports of carbon from its territory,” said Edward Hanrahan, director at carbon project developer Climate Impact Partners. “But the issue is they acted rapidly and without prior notice.”[...]

Each credit represents one ton of carbon dioxide and can be bought and sold many times before being used. The unregulated structure of the market involving companies, traders and governments creates risk of double counting. What if a government seeks to benefit by trading a credit produced in its territory after its been sold to an investor or used in a corporate sustainability plan?[...]

Treating carbon credits as just another export commodity underscores an imbalance at the heart of this global trade: Efforts to develop credits are usually funded by firms from wealthy countries and sold to corporate buyers in Europe and the US, yet most of the projects are located in emerging economies. This setup has been derided as a form of carbon colonialism that strips developing countries of an increasingly valuable resource. “Rushing to frame the decision by Zimbabwe as ‘nationalization risk’ exposes a sense of entitlement to access those resources by the global North,” said Rich Gilmore, chief executive officer at investment manager Carbon Growth Partners in Melbourne. “We need to acknowledge that the past 200 years of resource extraction have miserably failed people and the planet. And if we want the carbon market to scale, we need to respect the right of the nations of the south to determine their own rules.”[...]

Developers and investors might start to prioritize countries where governments have been transparent about their future carbon policies. Plus, if governments follow Zimbabwe in taking half of the project revenues, that will create a barrier to carbon projects that are the most costly to implement.[...]

It’s “entirely appropriate” for countries to seek a larger share from their carbon resources but they must “carefully consider the economics,” said Martijn Wilder, chief executive officer of Pollination, a climate advisory and investment firm. “If what’s left for a project developer is not sufficient to cover an investible rate of return, the project simply won’t happen.”

21 May 23

[alpaca-clouds]

Electric Cars Suck

There is some irony in how things turned out, right? Like eight years ago or so it was mostly the left who was like: "We need more electro mobility!" And the people on the right were like: "Noooo! We need our gas guzzlers that go VROOOOOM!" And somehow now the people on the right buy their stupid cybertrucks, while the people on the left have in large numbers converted to: "Actually, all cars fucking suck."

And hey, that's me. I am in that story. Because actually, all cars fucking suck!

But let's be a bit more serious: The main issue with cars is not even the CO2, the fine particles, or the microplastics they generate. (Yes, most microplastics in the environment originate with cars!) The main issue is, that we live in a car-centric society, that is so very much inaccessible for anyone who does not have a car.

And let's be honest here: In this regard I am complaining as someone with a lot of things going for me: I live in Germany and I live in a city here. We have actually somewhat working public transport, and even my physically disabled ass is capable of reaching the next super market, pharmacy, doctor's office and library within 5 minutes on foot. Sure, due to a lack of bus drivers (which again is due to a lack of proper payment for said bus drivers) they cut some of the bus lines here, making the time I need to get to the next hospital go up by a good chunk, but... What I am saying is: Hey, I am at least not living in the USA, where it is basically impossible to get around in a lot of places when you have no car, because the infrastructure is just so bloody car-centric.

And that is the reason why cars just suck so darn much. Because they need all that infrastructure that makes it harder for everyone to get around.

And the double issue with that is, that some people will still need cars no matter what, even if we try to improve that. I spoke about it before: Some disabled people will always need cars to get around, because they just do not have an alternative due to a variety of reasons. And some services (like ambulances, fire fighters and so on) will also just need cars. Which taken together means that we need to maintain some infrastructure.

Generally speaking I feel, a lot of folks within the Solarpunk scene do underestimate this issue, too. Especially in concern to the USA, Canada and some other colonizer cities in the global south, that have been created very much with cars in mind.

In Europe, most cities have been created with horse drawn carriages in mind and people who walk on foot. Sure, they have been retrofitted to allow for cars, but that retrofitting can easily be toned down in a way that would allow those cars that are needed to pass through, but allow the areas to be used otherwise. (I mean, we have several cities here were you can still see that the city originally has been build by Romans some 2000 years ago, because the city map features certain Roman city planning styles.) It is not really so hard to turn those cities into 15-minute-cities again.

But in the US? In the US a lot of the cities have always been constructed with the car in mind, and the entire street plan is organized around the car. Lots of wide streets. Lots of parking lots. Lots of other facilities that are needed for cars. Sure, you can reuse some of the space. But that does not negate the fact that everything has this wide sprawl that makes it a lot harder to get around. And that really is a problem if someone tried to make 15-minute-cities here. Because frankly... In some areas there just would not be another way but to just tear it all down to rethink city planning once more.

Like, sure, in the city cores it is not that much of an issue. Turning Manhatten into a 15-minute-city is not the issue. But the wider area of New York city? Eh... And in other cities it is worse, of course.

And yeah, those issues - the stupid infrastructure cars need... It is still the same, no matter whether the car goes VROOOOOOM or BZZZT.

[workersolidarity]

🇺🇳🇵🇸 🚨 UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME WARNS GAZANS FACE IMMEDIATE STARVATION

The United Nations' World Food Programme warned Friday that Palestinian civilians living in the Gaza Strip face immediate starvation and dehydration as the Israeli Occupation continues operations targeting Gaza.

The comments come as part of a United Nations World Food Programme press conference held on Friday morning.

"Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are becoming more desperate everyday in the search for bread and other essential foods," World Food Programme Senior Spokesperson for the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe, Abeer Etefa said.

Etefa told the press conference, "We are already starting to see cases of dehydration and malnutrition which is increasing rapidly and by the day. So Gaza actually risks sliding into hunger heavily without fuel and a rapid surge in food supplies."

According to Etefa, only 10% of necessary food supplies are entering the Gaza Strip at this time, and she told the conference that Gaza is facing a major food gap.

"So 2.2 million people, that's nearly the entire population of Gaza are now in need of food assistance," the spokesperson warned.

"People are barely able to have a meal a day. Food options are limited to canned food, if it is actually available, bread is a rare luxury and aid trucks are trickling into Gaza, but even the small amounts of food and water that make it over the border are barely able to be transported to where it needs to go as roads have been damaged or fuel is in very short supply."

Etefa went on to say that the existing food systems inside the besieged Gaza Strip are collapsing and food production has come to a complete halt since the events of October 7th.

"Fisherman cannot access the sea, Farmers cannot reach their farms, and the last bakery that the World Food Programme has been working with has closed its doors because of the shortage of fuel," Etefa explained.

"Shops have run out of food supplies, the bakeries are unable to operate because of the fuel, shortage of clean water or because they have sustained damage, and the last mill that was also operating to make... the wheat flour that's needed for baking bread has been hit [in an Israeli strike] and has stopped operating."

Etefa goes on to explain how all these problems have led to bread shortages, which she called the "last staple food for people in Gaza" and pointed to the lack of electricity supply as one of the main culprits for the desperation of the situation.

Etefa goes on to explain how perishable food items are not available, nor are they really an option due to the lack of electricity and fuel which prevents refrigeration.

According to Etefa, at the beginning of the conflict, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), working alongside its partner agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), partnered with 23 bakeries at the start of the conflict and have been providing bread for over 200'000 Gazans every morning.

"This is now over," Etefa stated plainly, "because all of the 23 bakeries are now out of service."

According to the spokesperson, at the start of the war there had been over 130 bakeries in Gaza, with more than 11 having been targeted in Israeli Occupation strikes, including one which had been contracted by the WFP, while the rest are effectively closed due to shortages of fuel.

"In general, 25% of the shops in Gaza, those ones that have been contracted by WFP remain open and others have run out of essential food items," the spokesperson explained.

"But even the ones that remain open have very limited supplies in the stores, the local markets have shut down completely, small quantities of food can be found, but they are being sold at alarmingly inflated prices and are of little use without fuel and cooking gas."

This means that most Palestinians living in Gaza are surviving on less than one meal a day, and the lucky ones may have a meal that includes canned food, however, many people have resorted to consuming raw onions and eggplants, as well as other foods that are normally cooked.

Etafa explains how it is impossible for the light trickle of Humanitarian Aid being allowed to enter Gaza by the occupation to make up for the complete halt of commercial operations in the Gaza Strip.

Etefa mentioned that since October 21st, the first day the Occupation allowed aid through the Raffah border crossing, 1'129 trucks loaded with aid have been allowed into Gaza.

However, of those 1'129 trucks carrying aid, only 147 of them were carrying food supplies.

"The volume remains very inadequate," Etefa told the audience.

According to the WFP spokesperson, since the Raffah border crossing was opened for emergency aid, more than 400 trucks were crossing into Gaza each day. However, now that number has been reduced to closer to 100 per day, and of those 100 trucks, only an estimated 10% contain food imports.

"That means that the food that has entered Gaza so far is only enough to meet 7% of the people's daily minimum of the caloric needs," Spokesperson Etefa explained.

"With winter fast approaching and the unsafe and overcrowded shelters, the lack of clean water, people are facing the immediate possibility of starvation," a stunning comment from the spokesperson.

According to WFP Spokesperson Abeer Etefa, aid has so far been delivered to around 764'000 people in Gaza and the West Bank, including food parcels and electronic vouchers, and assisted another 500'000 staying in UN shelters with bread, canned tuna fish, and date bars.

Another 520'000 people were provided with electronic vouchers at the beginning of the crisis, however the vouchers have become worthless as food, water and fuel have virtually disappeared over the last week and nothing remains in the shops for civilians to purchase.

Though, according to Etefa, the World Food Programme intends on scaling up operations in Gaza in the coming days with a goal of reaching 1 million people with aid by December.

However, for that to happen, the Israeli Occupation would have to allow many more trucks with Humanitarian Aid through the Raffah border crossing and other areas of access to Gaza.

"We need more than just one crossing point," Etefa told the audience.

"We need the safe access of Humanitarian Aid workers to distribute assistance and for the civilians to have safe access to the assistance, fuel for trucks, fuel for bakeries; so that we can continue to provide this staple food commodity and to be operational and, of course, connectivity to facilitate delivery of assistance, and the ability to rotate staff in and out of Gaza so that we can beef up our capacity on the ground and give relied to the people who have been working for the last few weeks tirelessly."

In a blunt assessment of the situation, Etefa said, "There is no way to meet the current hunger needs with the current situation."

"The collapse of food supply chains is catastrophic, it's a catastrophic turning point in an already very bad situation," Etefa concludes.

"Gaza was not an easy place to live before the 7th of October, and if the situation was difficult before this conflict, it's now disastrous."

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[mariacallous]

What would you want to tell the next U.S. president? FP asked nine thinkers from around the world to write a letter with their advice for him or her.

Dear Madam or Mr. President,

Congratulations on your election as president of the United States. You take office at a moment of enormous consequence for a world directly impacted by the twin challenges of energy security and climate change.

Democrats and Republicans disagree on many aspects of energy and climate policy. Yet your administration has the chance to chart a policy path forward that unites both parties around core areas of agreement to advance the U.S. national interest.

First, all should agree that climate change is real and worsening. The escalating threat of climate change is increasingly evident to anyone walking the streets of Phoenix in the summer, buying flood insurance in southern Florida, farming rice in Vietnam, or laboring outdoors in Pakistan. This year will almost certainly surpass 2023 as the warmest year on record.

Second, just as the energy revolution that made the United States the world’s largest oil and gas producer strengthened it economically and geopolitically, so will ensuring U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies enhance the country’s geostrategic position. In a new era of great-power competition, China’s dominance in certain clean energy technologies—such as batteries and cobalt, lithium, graphite, and other critical minerals needed for clean energy products—threatens America’s economic competitiveness and the resilience of its energy supply chains. China’s overcapacity in manufacturing relative to current and future demand undermines investments in the United States and other countries and distorts demand signals that allow the most innovative and efficient firms to compete in the global market.

Third, using less oil in our domestic economy reduces our vulnerability to global oil supply disruptions, such as conflict in the Middle East or attacks on tankers in the Red Sea. Even with the surge in U.S. oil production, the price of oil is set in the global market, so drivers feel the pain of oil price shocks regardless of how much oil the United States imports. True energy security comes from using less, not just producing more.

Fourth, energy security risks extend beyond geopolitics and require investing adequately in domestic energy supply to meet changing circumstances. Today, grid operators and regulators are increasingly warning that the antiquated U.S. electricity system, already adjusting to handle rising levels of intermittent solar and wind energy, is not prepared for growing electricity demand from electric cars, data centers, and artificial intelligence. These reliability concerns were evident when an auction this summer set a price nine times higher than last year’s to be paid by the nation’s largest grid operator to power generators that ensure power will be available when needed. A reliable and affordable power system requires investments in grids as well as diverse energy resources, from cheap but intermittent renewables to storage to on-demand power plants.

Fifth, expanding clean energy sectors in the rest of the world is in the national interest because doing so creates economic opportunities for U.S. firms, diversifies global energy supply chains away from China, and enhances U.S. soft power in rapidly growing economies. (In much the same way, the Marshall Plan not only rebuilt a war-ravaged Europe but also advanced U.S. economic interests, countered Soviet influence, and helped U.S. businesses.) Doing so is especially important in rising so-called middle powers, such as Brazil, India, or Saudi Arabia, that are intent on keeping their diplomatic options open and aligning with the United States or China as it suits them transactionally.

To prevent China from becoming a superpower in rapidly growing clean energy sectors, and thereby curbing the benefits the United States derives from being such a large oil and gas producer, your administration should increase investments in research and development for breakthrough clean energy technologies and boost domestic manufacturing of clean energy. Toward these ends, your administration should quickly finalize outstanding regulatory guidance to allow companies to access federal incentives. Your administration should also work with the other side of the aisle to provide the market with certainty that long-term tax incentives for clean energy deployment—which have bipartisan support and have already encouraged historic levels of private investment—will remain in place. Finally, your administration should work with Congress to counteract the unfair competitive advantage that nations such as China receive by manufacturing industrial products with higher greenhouse gas emissions. Such a carbon import tariff, as proposed with bipartisan support, should be paired with a domestic carbon fee to harmonize the policy with that of other nations—particularly the European Union’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism.

Your ability to build a strong domestic industrial base in clean energy will be aided by sparking more domestic clean energy use. This is already growing quickly as market forces respond to rapidly falling costs. Increasing America’s ability to produce energy is also necessary to maintain electricity grid reliability and meet the growing needs of data centers and AI. To do so, your administration should prioritize making it easier to build energy infrastructure at scale, which today is the greatest barrier to boosting U.S. domestic energy production. On average, it takes more than a decade to build a new high-voltage transmission line in the United States, and the current backlog of renewable energy projects waiting to be connected to the power grid is twice as large as the electricity system itself. It takes almost two decades to bring a new mine online for the metals and minerals needed for clean energy products, such as lithium and copper.

The permitting reform bill recently negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso is a good place to start, but much more needs to be done to reform the nation’s permitting system—while respecting the need for sound environmental reviews and the rights of tribal communities. In addition, reforming the way utilities operate in the United States can increase the incentives that power companies have not just to build new infrastructure but to use existing infrastructure more efficiently. Such measures include deploying batteries to store renewable energy and rewiring old transmission lines with advanced conductors that can double the amount of power they move.

Grid reliability will also require more electricity from sources that are available at all times, known as firm power. Your administration should prioritize making it easier to construct power plants with advanced nuclear technology—which reduce costs, waste, and safety concerns—and to produce nuclear power plant fuel in the United States. Doing so also benefits U.S. national security, as Russia is building more than one-third of new nuclear reactors around the world to bolster its geostrategic influence. While Russia has been the leading exporter of reactors, China has by far the most reactors under construction at home and is thus poised to play an even bigger role in the international market going forward. The United States also currently imports roughly one-fifth of its enriched uranium from Russia. To counter this by building a stronger domestic nuclear industry, your administration should improve the licensing and approval process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and reform the country’s nuclear waste management policies. In addition to nuclear power, your administration should also make it easier to permit geothermal power plants, which today can play a much larger role in meeting the nation’s energy needs thanks to recent innovations using technology advanced by the oil and gas sector for shale development.

Even with progress on all these challenges, it is unrealistic to expect that the United States can produce all the clean energy products it needs domestically. It will take many years to diminish China’s lead in critical mineral supply, battery manufacturing, and solar manufacturing. The rate of growth needed in clean energy is too overwhelming, and China’s head start is too great to diversify supply chains away from it if the United States relies solely on domestic manufacturing or that of a few friendly countries. As a result, diminishing China’s dominant position requires that your administration expand economic cooperation and trade partnerships with a vast number of other nations. Contrary to today’s protectionist trends, the best antidote to concerns about China’s clean technology dominance is more trade, not less.

Your administration should also strengthen existing tools that increase the supply of clean energy products in emerging and developing economies in order to diversify supply chains and counter China’s influence in these markets. For example, the U.S. International Development Finance Corp. (DFC) can be a powerful tool to support U.S. investment overseas, such as in African or Latin American projects to mine, refine, and process critical minerals. As DFC comes up for reauthorization next year, you should work with Congress to provide DFC with more resources and also change the way federal budgeting rules account for equity investments; this would allow DFC to make far more equity investments even with its existing funding. Your administration can also use DFC to encourage private investment in energy projects in emerging and developing economies by reducing the risk investors face from fluctuations in local currency that can significantly limit their returns or discourage their investment from the start. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is another tool to support the export of U.S. clean tech by providing financing for U.S. goods and services competing with foreign firms abroad.

Despite this country’s deep divisions and polarization, leaders of both parties should agree that bolstering clean energy production in the United States and in a broad range of partner countries around the world is in America’s economic and security interests.

I wish you much success in this work, which will also be the country’s success.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Canary Media:

Octopus Energy has surged to the top of the U.K. electricity market with its plucky brand of clean, flexible, customer-centric energy. Now it’s loading up on new investment to make a broader push into North America.

The sprawling clean energy startup pulled in two new investments in recent weeks. On May 7, it announced a re-up from existing investors, including Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and the Canada Pension Plan. Last week, it added a new round from the $1 billion Innovation and Expansion Fund at Tom Steyer’s Galvanize Climate Solutions. The parties did not disclose the size of the new infusions but said that they lift Octopus’ private valuation to $9 billion. Previously, Octopus raised an $800 million round in December, putting its valuation at $7.8 billion. Thus, eight-year-old Octopus enters the summer of 2024 as one of the most valuable privately held startups in the world, but one whose impact is felt far more in Europe than in the U.S. The new influx of cash will help fund expansion in North America, both by growing its retail foothold in Texas and by ramping up sales of the company’s marquee Kraken software to other utilities. The company has its work cut out if it wants to reproduce its U.K. market dominance across the pond.

“It is a Cambrian explosion of exciting growth in almost every direction,” Octopus Energy U.S. CEO Michael Lee told Canary Media last week.

In the U.K., Octopus has gobbled its way up the leaderboard of electricity retailers, consuming competitors large and small until it reached the No. 1 slot this year. It supplies British customers in part with clean power from a multibillion-dollar portfolio of renewables plants that it owns. The company lowers costs to customers by using smart devices or behavioral nudges to shift their usage to times when the renewables are producing the most cheap electricity. Octopus also began making its own heat pumps, to help households break out of dependence on fossil gas at a volatile time.

In the U.S., land of free markets and capitalist competition, market design largely blocks Octopus from rolling out its innovations, and instead protects the monopoly power of century-old incumbent utilities. There is no national electricity market to take over, but a state-by-state hodgepodge of fiefdoms that obey differing rules. So Octopus made its first stand in Texas, whose competitive power market most closely resembles the U.K.’s system. It now sources power for tens of thousands of retail customers in the state.

“It is absolutely clear to me that the energy transition is happening first in Texas,” Lee said. ​“This is a fantastic market to be in if you know how to work with customers and help them be a central focus in providing that energy transition to the grid.”

Such an assertion might have elicited derisive snorts from Californians or New Yorkers a few years ago, but facts on the ground now support Lee’s thesis.

[netscapenavigator-official]

General Motors has, at every turn of their EV game, flubbed their naming scheme.

They started with the 1997 General Motors EV1. Kinda simple, but it became rather iconic, and nobody was doing simple names like that back then. The vehicle itself was thrown into infamy, so even though it was discontinued, repossessed, and destroyed, surely GM would want to cash in on that infamous name with their second electric car, right?

WRONG! We're calling it the 2012 Chevrolet Volt. After the electrical unit. EV2 is sooo last decade. Oh, but we're gonna keep with the theme, and in Europe it'll be called the Opel Ampera, after the ampere electric unit.

Great! So we have a few other electric units to work with. We've got the Watt (and all its prefix variants). We've got the Ohm, too. That'll be a fun naming scheme for a while. We can also always go back to calling them the EV[#] once we get back in the business of full-electric cars, right?

WRONG AGAIN! We're calling our new fully-electric car the Bolt. After lightning, cause that's cool. What? You're saying that's too close to the "Volt," and people will get them confused? Nahhhh. We'll slap "EV" on the end of the name. That way nobody will confuse them (they did and still do.) Don't worry, though, we'll make up for in Europe where we're calling the car the... Ampera-e... even though it shared zero parts with the plug-in hybrid it's named after, and "Ampera" itself was already a word jumble of ampere, but now we're bringing back the letter e, but slapping it on the end with a dash... so........ But don't worry! We'll try again. This time we'll come with even better names!

WRONG AGAIN AGAIN! We gave up. Now we're calling all of our EVs by the nameplates of our gas powered models with "EV" slapped on the end of the name, even thought the Equinox EV, Blazer EV, Silverado EV, Sierra EV, etc. share no parts or even visual similarities with their iconic gas-powered counterparts. It won't confuse consumers. (It will, and it does.) Don't worry, though! We won't mess up the name in Europe, this time, because........ we left the European market and sold Opel to Stellanis. Goodbye.

[lethimfertilise]

When I joined an international trading company in 2005, I began discovering the demands of final markets. Brazil, at that time, was already one of the largest urea consumers in the world. However, most of the imported urea was in prilled form. Those days are now gone. Today, if I’m not mistaken, around 95 percent of Brazil's urea imports consist of granular urea. The same can be said for the US, all of Europe, and many other countries.

So, why has granular urea become more widely used than prilled urea in the last 15–20 years? Primarily, this shift has occurred due to advancements in agricultural practices and the evolving needs of farmers. Granular urea offers several advantages that have driven this change, making it the preferred choice for modern farming.

Granular urea is physically larger and more uniform in size compared to prilled urea. This uniformity allows for better mechanical handling and more precise application using modern spreading equipment. The consistency in size reduces the risk of uneven application, which can lead to over-fertilisation in some areas and under-fertilisation in others. This precision is particularly important in large-scale farming operations, where efficiency and accuracy are crucial.

Granular urea tends to be more resistant to environmental factors, such as wind and moisture, compared to prilled urea. The larger, denser granules are less likely to be blown away by wind or to absorb moisture from the air, which can cause caking or dissolution before application. This stability helps ensure that the fertiliser remains effective until it reaches the soil, reducing waste and improving overall crop yield.

The physical properties of granular urea make it more compatible with other types of fertilisers in blended applications. Farmers often use blends of different nutrients tailored to specific crop needs, and the uniform size and density of granular urea allow for better mixing with other fertiliser components. This compatibility is key in precision agriculture, where specific nutrient delivery is critical for optimising crop production.

Granular urea generally has a slower release rate compared to prilled urea. This slower release helps reduce nitrogen volatilisation, where nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia gas before it can be absorbed by the soil. This reduction in volatilisation means that more of the applied nitrogen is available for plant uptake, improving the efficiency of fertiliser use and reducing environmental impact.

As global agriculture has evolved, there has been a greater demand for fertilisers that support large-scale, intensive farming practices. Fertiliser manufacturers have responded by increasingly producing granular urea to meet this demand. Additionally, as more regions adopt mechanised farming techniques, the advantages of granular urea over prilled urea have become more apparent, further driving the shift in usage.

To summarise, as I have mentioned in my previous post, education and more sophisticated farming operations are key to these developments.

#urea #brazil #fertilisers #fertilizers #imstory #usa #europe #eu

[dagwolf]

EVERYONE RECALLS THE SHORTAGES of toilet paper and pasta, but the early period of the pandemic was also a time of gluts. With restaurants and school cafeterias shuttered, farmers in Florida destroyed millions of pounds of tomatoes, cabbages, and green beans. After meatpacking plants began closing, farmers in Minnesota and Iowa euthanized hundreds of thousands of hogs to avoid overcrowding. Across the country, from Ohio to California, dairies poured out millions of gallons of milk and poultry farms smashed millions of eggs.

The supply chain disruptions continue. Last year, there was a rice glut, and big box stores like Walmart and Target complained of bloated inventories. There was a natural gas glut in both Europe and in India, as well as a surfeit of semiconductor chips in the tech sector. Florida cabbages, microchips, and Asian rice may not seem like they have much in common, but each of these stories represents a fundamental if disavowed aspect of capitalism: a crisis of overproduction.

All economic systems have problems of scarcity, but only capitalism also has problems of abundance. The reason is simple: the pursuit of profit above all else leads capitalism to produce too much of things that are profitable but socially destructive (oil, private health insurance, Facebook) and not enough of things that are socially beneficial but not privately profitable (low-income housing, public schools, the ecosystem of the Amazon rainforest). For over a century, from the Industrial Revolution through the Great Depression, crises of overproduction were the target of criticism from across the political spectrum—from aristocratic conservatives like Edmund Burke who feared the anarchy of markets was corroding the social order to socialist radicals like Eugene Debs who thought it generated exploitation and poverty.

But the idea of capitalism’s inherent predilection for overproduction has almost completely disappeared from economic discourse today. It seldom appears in the popular press, including in stories about producers destroying surpluses, a problem that is instead explained away by pointing to freak accidents, contingencies, and unforeseen dislocations. To be sure, many gluts of the past few years have been the result of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. But overproduction preceded 2020 and shows no signs of going away. Revisiting historical arguments about the problem can help us better understand the interlocking crises of supply chain disruption, deliquescent financial markets, and climate change. The history of overproduction and its discontents offers a set of tools and ideas with which to consider whether “market failures” like externalities and inventory surpluses really are exceptions or are intrinsic to commercial society, whether markets ever actually do equilibrate, and whether the drive for growth is possible without continual excess and waste.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Of course, it’s true that China accounts for more than half the world’s coal power — and is the world’s largest carbon-dioxide emitter. It’s also true that U.S. CO2 emissions have declined over the years, while China’s are now nearly twice the U.S.’s. And it’s also true that, as David Holt, president of the fossil-fueled Consumer Energy Alliance recently wrote, China is home to 23 of the “top 25” cities “responsible for 52 percent of the planet’s urban greenhouse gas emissions.” But that fact doesn’t magically vacate the U.S.’s responsibility for its own emissions.

Nor does it obviate the fact that, as Mongabay pointed out, “historically, the U.S. is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas output.” That’s despite being home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population. In fact, the study Holt cited on emissions in China also noted that China’s per capita output is still below “wealthier countries” like the U.S. and those in Europe.

[...]

Simply put, corporate America has fueled much of China’s carbon-belching industrial behemoth. U.S. corporations and investors exploited China’s relatively few environmental regulations, along with its vast supply of cheap labor, in an effort to minimize the cost of doing their business. U.S. corporations were able to relocate their manufacturing to China thanks in no small part to All-American economic policies emphasizing maximum profit and avoidance of regulations. Those policies, in turn, globalized the supply chains that made those profitable regulatory dodges possible.

[...]

...there’s a direct correlation between the rise of China as Corporate America’s offshore factory and China’s rise as the world’s leading fossil fuel-burning, carbon-emitting nation. You can see the “lift-off” point after it was granted [Permanent Normal Trading Relations] in 2001.

Currently, U.S. corporations and consumers directly drive at least one-fifth of China’s industrial carbon output. But that doesn’t fully account for the indirect, carbon-polluting oil-driven supply chain that takes oil and gas out of the ground in the Middle East and ships it to China, where it is burned for fuel and manufactured into hydrocarbon-based plastic products. Those products get shipped overseas to ports on the West and East Coasts of the United States before being trucked to retail outlets and home shoppers around the country, with CO2 produced every step of the way. Even worse, China’s mass production of hydrocarbon-based plastic for the U.S. market helps sustain the global oil industry’s heavily subsidized business model.

China’s carbon production is also indirectly subsidized by the U.S. military, which is the de facto guarantor of the international oil economy and, specifically, of oil and gas shipments from U.S. partners in the Persian Gulf to China. The U.S. Navy’s Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet, among other military assets, ensures the free flow of hydrocarbons into China’s fossil-fueled factories. In 2020, according to World’s Top Exports, nearly “half (47.1 percent) of Chinese imported crude oil originated from nine Middle Eastern nations,” with U.S.-protected Saudi Arabia atop the list of China’s main oil providers. The U.S. is ninth on the list. In 2020, the U.S. and its staunch allies in the United Arab Emirates and oil-rich Norway were the only countries increasing oil exports to China’s carbon-generating industrial sector, while the rest saw declines.

[beardedmrbean]

ESSEN, Germany (AP) — For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government's financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow's cheap natural gas — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe's largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik's sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, dotted with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to keep its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany's foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Other dawning realizations: The money that the government readily had on hand came in part because of delays in investing in roads, the rail network and high-speed internet in rural areas. A 2011 decision to shut down Germany's remaining nuclear power plants has been questioned amid worries about electricity prices and shortages. Companies face a severe shortage of skilled labor, with job openings hitting a record of just under 2 million.

And relying on Russia to reliably supply gas through the Nord Stream pipelines under the Baltic Sea — built under former Chancellor Angela Merkel and since shut off and damaged amid the war — was belatedly conceded by the government to have been a mistake.

Now, clean energy projects are slowed by extensive bureaucracy and not-in-my-backyard resistance. Spacing limits from homes keep annual construction of wind turbines in single digits in the southern Bavarian region.

A 10 billion-euro ($10.68 billion) electrical line bringing wind power from the breezier north to industry in the south has faced costly delays from political resistance to unsightly above-ground towers. Burying the line means completion in 2028 instead of 2022.

Massive clean energy subsidies that the Biden administration is offering to companies investing in the U.S. have evoked envy and alarm that Germany is being left behind.

“We’re seeing a worldwide competition by national governments for the most attractive future technologies — attractive meaning the most profitable, the ones that strengthen growth,” Kullmann said.

He cited Evonik’s decision to build a $220 million production facility for lipids — key ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines — in Lafayette, Indiana. Rapid approvals and up to $150 million in U.S. subsidies made a difference after German officials evinced little interest, he said.

“I'd like to see a little more of that pragmatism ... in Brussels and Berlin,” Kullmann said.

In the meantime, energy-intensive companies are looking to cope with the price shock.

Drewsen Spezialpapiere, which makes passport and stamp paper as well as paper straws that don't de-fizz soft drinks, bought three wind turbines near its mill in northern Germany to cover about a quarter of its external electricity demand as it moves away from natural gas.

Specialty glass company Schott AG, which makes products ranging from stovetops to vaccine bottles to the 39-meter (128-foot) mirror for the Extremely Large Telescope astronomical observatory in Chile, has experimented with substituting emissions-free hydrogen for gas at the plant where it produces glass in tanks as hot as 1,700 degrees Celsius.

It worked — but only on a small scale, with hydrogen supplied by truck. Mass quantities of hydrogen produced with renewable electricity and delivered by pipeline would be needed and don't exist yet.

Scholz has called for the energy transition to take on the “Germany tempo,” the same urgency used to set up four floating natural gas terminals in months to replace lost Russian gas. The liquefied natural gas that comes to the terminals by ship from the U.S., Qatar and elsewhere is much more expensive than Russian pipeline supplies, but the effort showed what Germany can do when it has to.

However, squabbling among the coalition government over the energy price cap and a law barring new gas furnaces has exasperated business leaders.

Evonik's Kullmann dismissed a recent package of government proposals, including tax breaks for investment and a law aimed at reducing bureaucracy, as “a Band-Aid.”

Germany grew complacent during a “golden decade” of economic growth in 2010-2020 based on reforms under Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2003-2005 that lowered labor costs and increased competitiveness, says Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg bank.

“The perception of Germany's underlying strength may also have contributed to the misguided decisions to exit nuclear energy, ban fracking for natural gas and bet on ample natural gas supplies from Russia,” he said. “Germany is paying the price for its energy policies.”

Schmieding, who once dubbed Germany “the sick man of Europe” in an influential 1998 analysis, thinks that label would be overdone today, considering its low unemployment and strong government finances. That gives Germany room to act — but also lowers the pressure to make changes.

The most important immediate step, Schmieding said, would be to end uncertainty over energy prices, through a price cap to help not just large companies, but smaller ones as well.

Whatever policies are chosen, “it would already be a great help if the government could agree on them fast so that companies know what they are up to and can plan accordingly instead of delaying investment decisions," he said.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Atlantic Council is NATOs think tank]

Relations between the United States and Azerbaijan have historically centered on energy transit, most significantly the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Southern Gas Corridor. In July 2022, Baku signed a new memorandum of understanding with the European Union (EU) to increase Azerbaijani gas exports to the EU from 12 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year to 20 bcm by 2027. Officials in Brussels certainly see the importance of diversifying energy imports away from Russia—European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Azerbaijan a “reliable” partner in the bloc’s renewed emphasis on energy security.

But Azerbaijan’s geography means it is also a gateway to the countries of Central Asia and the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), also known as the Middle Corridor, that connects Europe with China via Central Asia and the South Caucasus. The Middle Corridor provides Europe with a critical alternative to trade routes that pass through Russia and Belarus, the so-called Northern Corridor. At the same time, the Middle Corridor provides the inverse opportunity for Central Asian countries to reduce dependency on transit through Russia to the European market. It is in Washington’s strategic interest to help develop alternative trade routes between Europe and Central Asia that minimize opportunities for Russian malign interference along the way.

Moreover, Azerbaijan and the United States share a set of strategic interests that may only grow in the coming years. Washington should resist the calls from some commentators to distance itself from Baku. Russia’s war on Ukraine has shaken stability in the South Caucasus, and Moscow may try to claw back influence in the region at the expense of regional peace and security. Greater US engagement with Baku should reinforce a platform for peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Stronger US-Azerbaijan ties can also help counter threats to shared interests emanating from Moscow and Tehran.[...]

The turning point came in May, when Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in the EU-mediated summit in Brussels, following US-mediated talks weeks earlier between the two countries’ foreign ministers in Washington.[...]

Some political groups in Armenia and in the diaspora continue to pressure the Pashinyan government against acknowledging Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized sovereignty over Karabakh. Separatist leadership in Karabakh refuses to integrate the region into Azerbaijan and recently undertook unrecognized “elections.” These authorities also receive financial and diplomatic support from Kremlin-connected individuals. A peace treaty signed via Western mediation and built upon the recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan would deal a severe blow to Russia’s influence in the region. Such a treaty would create preconditions for the withdrawal of Russia’s peacekeeping mission from the Karabakh region where it was deployed after the 2020 war and, generally, deprive Moscow of one lever of influence against Baku.[...]

By voicing a plan not to extend the Russian peacekeeping mission beyond 2025 and by investing more in the Western-mediated track of negotiations, Baku regularly challenges Russia’s policies vis-à-vis the peace process. Azerbaijan stands out as a rare post-Soviet state that has provided humanitarian and political support to Ukraine in the context of the country’s fight against Russian aggression.[...]

The Azerbaijani government’s stance on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine contrasts with the policies of two of its neighbors, Armenia and Iran. [...]

Baku has long opposed Tehran’s brazenly aggressive foreign policy, even as Iran’s ties with Armenia and Russia may be growing. Significantly, Baku has also redoubled its support for Israel—a major US ally—despite Iran’s anti-Israel threats and increasingly militaristic posture in the region. The time is right for the United States to strengthen its relationship with Azerbaijan and take the historic opportunity to pursue peace and break ground on a new template for regional stability.

Vasif Huseynov is the head of the Western Studies department at the Center for Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center), a think tank founded by the government of Azerbaijan. He is also a lecturer at Khazar and ADA universities in Baku, Azerbaijan.

15 Sep 23

[mariacallous]

In the lead-up to the European Parliament elections in June, during which far-right parties across Europe made gains while green parties and liberals suffered losses, the EU’s Green Deal, launched in 2020, and environmental policies generally were attacked—blamed for the economic downturn in many European countries, as well as inflation and the energy price crisis. Opposition to climate targets and the Green Deal has also been a theme in the recent French national elections. The policy platform of the far-right Rassemblement National—which won the first round of the elections—contains many proposals that would see backpedaling on existing greenhouse gas reduction targets, and a moratorium on wind energy development.

Tapping into a widespread sense of economic insecurity, both right-wing and centrist parties adopted this narrative and sparked a politicized debate that frames pro-green and pro-competitiveness policies as opposing forces. Italian co-leader of the hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group Nicola Procaccini called the Green Deal “crazy and sort of a religion,” while Peter Liese of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) said the planned phase-out of the internal combustion engine—a central policy of the Green Deal’s plan to decarbonize the transport sector—was a mistake.

European policymakers now face the challenge of crafting a green industrial strategy that meets climate and sustainability targets and competes economically with the U.S. and China—but also addresses the concerns of disenfranchised voters who have turned to extremist parties, particularly regarding the cost-of-living crisis and the perception that green policies are out of touch. Ensuring a just transition for workers in declining industries will be essential for the strategy to be economically effective and politically feasible.

What would be the key pillars of a European green industrial strategy, and how can they be designed to ensure both environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and societal acceptance? How can a green industrial strategy avoid becoming overly protectionist to ensure that trade policies support rather than hinder the cost-effective deployment of green technologies? And how can it benefit disenfranchised voters and appeal to the rising political right?

Rather than having a cohesive, long-term strategy, the EU’s industrial policy often consists of disjointed measures that respond to immediate pressures and development—such as competitive actions from global powers such as the United States and China.  China’s industrial policy has supported green industries for over a decade, especially in in the clean energy sector, and created challenges for European companies. Meanwhile the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which became law in the U.S. in August 2022, caught European policymakers by surprise, as its tax credits to promote the deployment of climate technologies has affected European companies’ investment decisions.

During its latest meeting in June, the European Council agreed on the Strategic Agenda 2024-2029, which calls to strengthen European competitiveness while at the same time retains the goal of making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. It emphasizes the importance of bolstering the European Single Market, but also highlights the need for strengthening Europe’s industrial base in order to decarbonize European industry, develop the Union’s competitive edge in digital and clean technologies and diversify strategic supply chains.

The good news is that Europe does not need to start from scratch. First of all, while an easy political target in the recent elections, the Green Deal—the set of proposals which guided the EU’s climate, energy, transport, and taxation policymaking over the last five years—contains several legislative acts as well as mid-term targets which can guide the new green industrial policy. Despite political stigma, key components of the Green Deal, such as policies that drive decarbonization in industry and support resource efficiency through circular economy business models, are essential for European competitiveness and economic security and must be upheld. These policies must also provide tangible benefits for small businesses and communities and generate employment by stimulating local economies.

Second, the financing aspect of an industrial strategy will be crucial. Increased government funding for innovation in net-zero and circular economy technologies is needed, with a particular focus on scaling-up successful pilots and innovations. Initiating mission-oriented public-private partnerships and continuous funding support from early-stage development to large-scale implementation has been recommended by the Corporate Leaders Group Europe. Furthermore, well-structured funding opportunities for green infrastructure projects and businesses, coupled with project de-risking measures such as government-backed guarantees and demand-side incentives will enhance the leverage of private capital.

To maintain leadership in the green transition, the EU must also invest more heavily in research and development to support the scaling and commercialization of green innovations in Europe, but also across entire value chains. European innovation ecosystems and networks will increasingly need to extend and include trading partners, especially upstream producer countries. This will also support European green tech companies to export their products globally.

Third, it will be important to ensure that a European green industrial strategy does not become overly protectionist and unnecessarily increases the costs of the green transition. A green industrial policy that erects trade barriers that do more harm than good would be self-defeating. However, protectionist policies are often supported by far-right groups in Europe such as the Rassemblement National who typically emphasize national sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency. They advocate for protectionist policies to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, out of a belief this preserves jobs and strengthen the national economy. Protectionist rhetoric also resonates with European voters who feel left behind by economic globalization, such as those in declining industrial regions.

While there is a case for green industrial policy in support of the development and adoption of early-stage clean technologies, it is important to avoid protectionist tariffs on mature technologies that increase costs for end users and could trigger retaliatory measures from trade partners. Favoring domestic firms and products by relying on tariffs, discriminatory public procurement, or investment-screening controls can be distortive, leading to less efficient resource allocation globally and to higher prices and fewer choices for European consumers.

An example are the recently announced EU tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles that follow earlier tariffs imposed by the U.S. While these new tariffs will affect Chinese EV manufacturers’ prospects in EU and U.S. markets, they will raise prices for European and American households and exacerbate the affordability issues of the energy transition for low-income social groups, who already perceive green policies as main contributor to the cost-of-living crisis. Additionally, such tariffs might provoke retaliatory measures from China, potentially impacting other sectors and posing new economic challenges, particularly for France’s agricultural sector and producers of cognac and pork. Also, tariffs will cushion and protect domestic manufacturers from Chinese competition rather than making them more competitive, as well as delay the transition to low-carbon electric mobility systems.

Rather than become inward-looking, Europe will need to increase its international cooperation with trading partners, especially low- and middle-income countries. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the issues arising from concentrated semiconductor supply, emphasizing the need for diversification in the supply of critical goods like semiconductors and raw materials. Since then the EU has initiated critical raw material partnerships with several resource-rich countries, including Namibia, Kazakhstan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia and Uzbekistan. These partnerships are crucial for European competitiveness (ensuring access to materials needed for the twin digital and green transitions), but must also support industrialization and value-added industries in partner countries beyond mere extraction to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Fourth, the link between environmental regulation and industrial policy needs to be further strengthened. One common argument has been that Europe’s environmental regulation and reporting requirements hampers competitiveness. For example, the leader of the German liberal Free Democratic Party, Christian Lindner, opposed the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive as it would place additional administrative burdens on companies. Eventually adopted in May 2024 after much political bargaining, companies are still concerned about increased compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with implementing comprehensive due diligence processes.

This, however, overlooks that the EU’s global leadership in setting environmental legislation and standards has been a cornerstone of its competitiveness and international influence for the last two decades. By setting stringent environmental standards and regulations, the EU has not only driven innovation within its borders but also shaped global norms and practices, compelling other regions to follow suit. Recent economic analyses show that Green Deal regulation has positively impacted innovation and European competitiveness internationally.

After the EU election outcomes, mainstream parties such as the EEP are already backpedaling on climate policy and have announced that they will oppose the planned phase-out of the combustion engine by 2035—partly because many far-right parties strongly oppose this policy. This, however, would not help competitiveness of European car manufacturers. Maintaining a focus on internal combustion engines cars could leave EU manufacturers lagging behind in the global EV markets and fall further behind technologically.

Instead, establishing unified EU-wide standards for green products and technologies and strategically advancing these standards internationally is crucial. It is essential to engage closely with Europe’s trading partners, particularly suppliers of materials and components in developing countries. These suppliers are integral to various value chains, including those for batteries, electronics, textiles, electric vehicles, semiconductors, and plastics. Without such engagement, Europe’s environmental policies and new standards run the risk of becoming trade barriers, restricting market access and causing disruptions for European brands and their suppliers, which would cause pushback.

Fifth, a green industrial strategy that identifies and supports leading sectors must also consider those negatively impacted by the transition. Therefore, principles of a just transition and social inclusivity are crucial. This includes implementing policies through the existing Just Transition Mechanism to support workers and communities affected by the shift to a green economy, minimizing social and economic disruptions. The mechanism, which includes training programs, will mobilize around €55 billion from 2021 to 2027 to the most affected regions, especially coal mining. Expanding the mechanism to other industries, for example the car manufacturing industry which is expected to lose up to half a million jobs in the shift to EV manufacturing, will be needed.

When it comes to consumer acceptance, the bottom line is affordability. If new green technologies are not affordable for most consumers, there will be political backlash, as seen with home heating systems in Germany. Heat pumps, a common piece of green home heating technology, became a major political issue used by the far-right AfD in Germany’s local and European Parliament elections. Thus, it is essential to design policies that keep the green transition affordable for consumers, avoiding regressive measures that disproportionately impact low-income households.

To remain competitive, the EU must reaffirm its commitment to leading the global green transition. By building on existing policies established under the Green Deal, Europe can develop a strategic green industrial strategy that not only matches the economic and technological advances of the U.S. and China but also reinforces its commitment to environmental sustainability and climate protection, but also social inclusion and equity. A political shift is underway in Europe, but this transition is inevitable. To make it more politically feasible and inclusive in the short term, it’s essential to implement strategies that address public concerns and demonstrate clear benefits. By doing so, the existing Green Deal can become a visible catalyst for economic and social transformation and the industries of the future.