#Fossil Fuel Companies Taxes To Russia

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

Sept. 23, 2024

"Unless we're organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it's corporate power that's going to set the agenda," one organizer said.

Big Tech, Big Oil, and private equity firms are among the leading companies that profit from controlling media and technology, accelerating the climate crisis, privatizing public goods and services, and violating human and workers' rights, the International Trade Union Confederation revealed on Monday.

The ITUC has labeled seven major companies as "corporate underminers of democracy" that lobby against government attempts to hold them accountable and are headed by super-rich individuals who fund right-wing political movements and leaders.

"This is about power, who has it, and who sets the agenda," Todd Brogan, director of campaigns and organizing at the ITUC, toldThe Guardian. "We know as trade unionists that unless we're organized, the boss sets the agenda in the workplace, and we know as citizens in our countries that unless we're organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it's corporate power that's going to set the agenda."

The "corporate underminers of democracy" are:

1. Amazon.com, Inc. 2. Blackstone Group 3. ExxonMobil 4. Glencore 5. Meta 6. Tesla 7. The Vanguard Group

ITUC chose the seven companies based on preexisting reporting and research, as well as talks with allied groups like the Council of Global Unions and the Reactionary International Research Consortium. The seven companies were "emblematic" of a broader trend, and the confederation said it would continue to add "market-leading" companies to the list.

"While these seven corporations are among the most egregious underminers of democracy, they are hardly alone," ITUC said. "Whether state-owned enterprises in China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia; private sector military contractors; or regulation-busting tech startups, the ITUC and its partners will continue to identify and track corporate underminers of democracy and their links to the far-right."

Amazon topped the list due to its "union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centers, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level," ITUC wrote.

In the U.S., for example, Amazon has responded to attempts to hold it accountable for labor violations by challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board. While its founder Jeff Bezos voices liberal opinions, Amazon's political donations have advanced the right by challenging women's rights and antitrust efforts.

"There is another force, one that is unelected and seeks to dominate global affairs."

Blackstone is the world's largest private equity firm and private real-estate owner whose CEO, Stephen Schwarzman, has given to right-wing politicians including former U.S. President Donald Trump's 2024 reelection campaign. It funds fossil fuel projects and the destruction of the Amazon and profited from speculating on the housing market after the 2008 financial crash.

The United Nations special papporteur on housing said the company used "its significant resources and political leverage to undermine domestic laws and policies that would in fact improve access to adequate housing."

ExxonMobil made the list largely for its history of funding climate denial and its ongoing lobbying against needed environmental regulations.

"Perhaps the greatest example of Exxon's disinterest in democratic deliberation was its corporate commitment of nearly four decades to conceal from the public its own internal evidence that climate change was real, accelerating, and driven by fossil fuel use while simultaneously financing far-right think tanks in the U.S. and Europe to inject climate scepticism and denialism into the public discourse," ITUC wrote.

Glencore is the world's largest commodities trader and the largest mining company when judged by revenue. Several civil society and Indigenous rights groups have launched campaigns against it over its anti-democratic policies. It has allegedly funded right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia and anti-protest vigilantes in Peru.

"The company's undermining of democracy is not in dispute, as it has in recent years pled guilty to committing bribery, corruption, and market manipulation in countries as varied as Venezuela, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and South Sudan," ITUC said.

As the world's largest social media company, Meta's platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram have roughly as many users as everyone expected to vote in 2024 worldwide—almost 4 billion. Yet there are concerns about what its impact on those elections will be, as right-wing groups from the U.S. to Germany to India have used Facebook to recruit new members and target marginalized groups.

"Meta continues to aid right-wing political interests in weaponizing its algorithms to spread hate-filled propaganda around the world," ITUC wrote. "Increasingly, it has been engaged in dodging national regulation through the deployment of targeted lobbying campaigns."

Tesla made the list for its "belligerent" anti-union stance, as well as the vocal anti-worker and right-wing politics of its CEO, Elon Musk. Of Musk, ITUC observed:

As owner of the social networking platform X (formerly Twitter), he responded to one user's allegations about a coup in Bolivia–a country with lithium reserves considered highly valuable for electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla–by saying, "We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!" He has committed to donating $45 million per month to a political action committee to support the reelection campaign of Donald Trump, and sought to build close relationships with other far-right leaders, including Argentina's Javier Milei and India's Narendra Modi. Musk has also re-platformed and clearly expressed his support of white nationalist, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ+ accounts since taking ownership of X.

No. 7 on the list is The Vanguard Group, an institutional investor that funds many of the other companies on the list, including with billions in the stock held by workers' retirement plans.

"Effectively, Vanguard uses the deferred wages of workers to lend capital to the self-same companies complicit in undermining democracy at work and in societies globally," ITUC wrote.

ITUC is exposing these companies in part to advance its agenda for a "New Social Contract" that would ensure "a world where the economy serves humanity, rights are protected, and the planet is preserved for future generations."

It and other workers' organizations plan to push this agenda at international gatherings like the U.N. General Assembly and Summit of the Future in New York this week as well as the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan in November. Yet part of advancing this agenda means raising awareness about the opposition.

"There is another force, one that is unelected and seeks to dominate global affairs. It pushes a competing vision for the world that maintains inequalities and impunity for bad-faith actors, finances far-right political operatives, and values private profit over public and planetary good," ITUC wrote. "That force is corporate power."

However, Brogan told The Guardian that labor groups, when organized across borders, could fight back.

"Now is the time for international and multi-sectoral strategies, because these are, in many cases, multinational corporations that are more powerful than states, and they have no democratic accountability whatsoever, except for workers organized," Brogan said.

To that end, ITUC is gathering signatures for a petition for a global treaty holding corporate power in check.

"For international institutions like the United Nations to reflect the democratic will of workers, they must be willing to hold these corporate underminers of democracy accountable," the petition reads. "That is why we are calling on you to support a robust binding international treaty on business and human rights, one that addresses the impact of transnational corporations on the human rights of millions of working people."

[workersolidarity]

Seymour Hersh: Prigozhin’s Folly

In an interview with Seymour Hersh, an anonymous Intelligence Officer gives a condensed analysis of the recent Wagner PMC Rebellion and how it has strengthened Putin's position:

Seymour Hersh was also given access to some intelligence on the great so-called counter-offensive that began about three weeks ago, and has only led to the capture of a number of small, depopulated hamlets, a few fields and some abandoned trench networks.

At the end of the article, Sey Hersh goes on to give his own assessment of the current iteration of the Democratic Party:

"as the Democrats move closer to the intellectual and moneyed classes" is the key sentence here. But unacknowledged in this assessment is the fact that the Democratic Party made this decision long, long ago.

The Democratic Party represents one coalition of Capitalist Class Elites, while the Republican Party represents another coalition of Elites.

The Republican Party represents the old moneyed elites, the Fossil Fuel companies, old Wall Street, big traditional Investment Banks, Military Contractors, Energy and Natural Resource extraction and processing companies, and some traditional Manufacturing, Shipping and trading companies.

The Democrats represent the new moneyed interests, the Silicon Valley tech giants (this is why Dems talk about Net Neutrality and breaking up tech giants but magically never bring a bill to vote), other Tech and Engineering companies, Renewable energy companies getting massive subsidies under Democratic budgets along with favorable regulations (amazing how much they can get done for their donors even as they can never manage passing anything in favor of workers who vote for them).

But despite the parts of their coalitions that are different, the Democratic and Republican Parties have far more of their parts of their coalitions in common: Defense Contractors, Energy companies, Insurance companies, Big Banks and Wall Street.

THAT is who the two parties truly represent: the donors and Lobbyists they share together.

That is why they can always find money for war, new military bases, big weapons procurement projects, Imperialist actions abroad, oil drilling, deregulation, austerity, disinvestment in American communities, subsidies and tax breaks for the rich and giant corporations, all the while inflicting censorship and political repression of alternative views and media domestically.

Anything done positive for workers and civilians is incidental to their goals and policies, or is an attempt to throw a bone to people to keep them engaged with the system.

[eaglesnick]

“Practically every environmental problem we have can be traced to our addiction to fossil fuels, primarily oil.”

Dennis Weaver

Oilman Sunak today (27/09/23) approved fossil fuel drilling in the North Sea. This policy is “better for our energy security", said the Prime Minister. Absolute nonsense!

Greenpeace remind us that 80% of oil produced in British waters is already exported. What is more, the Russian-Ukrainian war that is often used as an excuse for ensuring  “energy security” is a misleading argument as only 3% of the gas we use is from Russia.

There is another flaw with “we must drill for oil and gas to secure or own energy supplies” argument.  What Rishi Sunak and energy secretary Grant Shapps neglect to tell us is that any fossil fuels extracted from the North Sea BELONG TO THE LICENCE HOLDER not the UK government. They can sell that oil and gas wherever they like.

To make matters worse, Sunak is granting licenses to foreign multinationals and foreign state-owned fossil fuel companies. It is these companies that will benefit the most from the massive profits that the fossil fuel market has generated in recent years.

“Monster profits for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence.”  (Guardian:09/02/23)

As if that wasn’t a big enough weakness in Sunak’s strategy then consider this

In July of this year (2023) the government passed the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill, which, among other things introduced a new “super- deduction” style investment relief scheme. This quote from a government minister says it all.

“The new 80 per cent investment allowance will mean that, overall, businesses will get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest, providing them with a clear incentive to do so.” (Chartered Institute for Taxation: 15/07/230

In other words, the British taxpayer, you and I, will be giving foreign owned fossil fuel companies £91 for every £100 they invest in North Sea fossil fuel extraction.

If we were private investors we would expect and get a return on any profits the fossil fuel companies make proportionate to how much we had invested in the companies. What dividend does the British Taxpayer receive for such a massive investment in private companies? NONE!

 Britain, or rather, the Conservative Party, has ruled out a Sovereign Wealth Fund.

“The UK government doesn’t have a sovereign wealth fund and the Government currently has no plans to introduce one.” (House of Commons Library: UK Sovereign Wealth Fund: 09/12/16)

Our government quite literally gives taxpayer money to private companies, some of which are owned by the sovereign wealth funds of other countries, and expects nothing back in return. I am sure Rishi Sunak didn’t make his own estimated wealth of £730million by giving away money and not expecting a return on his investment so why does he expect the British taxpayer to act differently? Could it be he wants a job in the oil industry when he is kicked out of office?

[argyrocratie]

​Clan capitalism

Ukraine became independent in 1991 following a referendum in which more than 90% of voters voted in favor.[3] Until 2014, Russia accepted this result and recognized Ukraine’s existence in a sort of regime of “limited sovereignty”. Ukraine was tied to its larger neighbor by economic relations[4] and Russia was able to use its local clients to influence internal political development. The latter has long been turbulent.

The period of economic transition in which Ukraine followed, to some extent, the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, quickly created a new capitalist class. At first, it was composed mainly of “red directors” (i.e., the managerial cadres of the Stalinist regime), and later also of broader layers – from the ranks of the technical intelligentsia, various parts of the state apparatus and the criminal underworld. The 1990s were a true Eldorado for this class, though often quite dangerous for its individual members. Using both legal and extralegal methods, it seized key enterprises and banks, which it either stripped of all assets or concentrated into giant holdings and investment groups. Profits were exported to tax havens. At the same time, it began to take control of the media and politics. Unlike its predecessors in the Stalinist nomenklatura, it also managed to integrate itself into the global capitalist class, at least in terms of the use of its consumption fund (yachts and luxury properties abroad, jets, as well as private investments in international financial markets).

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s real GDP per capita was in steady decline– up until 2000. Average life expectancy decreased from 70.5 (in 1989) to 67.7 years. Non-payment of wages,[5] work in the informal economy, and a decline in purchasing power became everyday realities for the Ukrainian working class. Although the numerous strikes, marches, hunger strikes, and blockades have managed to score some local successes (e.g., the payment of wage arrears, postponement of privatization, etc.), they failed to change the overall course or create a broader movement.

The story so far is not that different from the Russian one.[6] However, the centralization and consolidation that Putin implemented after the Asian financial crisis and the collapse of the ruble (1997–98) never took place in Ukraine. Putin gradually nationalized some energy companies, built a “power vertical”, whose backbone was formed by security service cadres and various personal friends, and subordinated the oligarchs to this structure. The latter has since overseen the distribution of rent derived mainly from fossil fuel extraction. Ukraine’s domestic capitalist class, by contrast, has remained divided into competing “clans” that are tied to specific sectors of the economy and geographic regions.[7] The rivalry between these factions of Ukrainian capital has been the basis of political instability.

The numerous movements of political protest which often also voiced social and welfare demands were always co-opted by a political project of one of the groups – either from the very beginning or gradually. The “Ukraine without Kuchma” (2001–2002) and “Arise, Ukraine!” (2002–2003) protests were directed against President Leonid Kuchma, involved in several scandals, including the murder of a journalist. The “Orange Revolution” (2004–2005) was in response to the electoral fraud of the then prime minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych, as well as the suspicious privatization of Ukraine’s largest steelworks in Kryvyi Rih (Dnipropetrovsk Oblast), in which Kuchma’s brother-in-law was involved along with the former Donetsk gangster, Rinat Akhmetov. The movement “Rise up, Ukraine!” (2013) opposed President Yanukovych and his attempts to consolidate power. Finally, the Euromaidan (2014) was a reaction to his decision not to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. The most successful of these movements, the Orange Revolution, and the Euromaidan, may have led to a change of political leadership, but they did not significantly shake the position of the clans, let alone the clan system as such. Ultimately, they became a means of bringing another faction of the domestic business class to power.

The lumpen-capitalist competition, in which one or the other faction gained control of the state (and thus preferential access to loans, subsidies and contracts), explains, at least in part, why the state has failed to impose a long-term, viable development plan on the country. On the other hand, this unstable environment also left some room for the development of a resistant civil society, including independent trade unions, activist organizations, and the radical left.[8]

Russia maintained an influence over Ukraine through those sections of the local capitalist class that were materially interested in maintaining close relations – for example, in the interests of their own sales, favorable prices for inputs (especially, but not exclusively, energy inputs), or gas transfer fees. The capital base of this faction was mainly concentrated in the Donbas, the former industrial heartland of the Soviet Union, home to a large Russian-speaking population and the birthplace of the Stakhanovite “movement”. In the 1990s it was the scene of the bloodiest conflicts within the capitalist class, a center of organized crime – but also the epicenter of the tragedy of the “old” working class, especially the miners. Their mass strikes in the late 1980s and early 1990s helped destroy the Soviet regime and win Ukraine’s independence,[9] but after a wave of privatizations, asset stripping and bankruptcies, many found themselves with no jobs or prospects. Between 1992 and 2013, the population of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts fell by 1.7 million, declining at twice the rate of the rest of the country.[10]

- karmína,“the tragedy of the ukrainian working class” (2022)

_ _ _

[3] This was about 76% of all eligible voters. In Crimea, support for independence was the weakest, at around 54% of the vote. Similarly in Crimea’s Sevastopol, which was a separate constituency – 57%. In Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, however, almost 84% of those who voted were in favor of independence. Wikipedia summarizes the results in detail.

[4] As recently as 2013, imports from Russia accounted for 29% of total imports of goods; exports to Russia accounted for almost 23% of Ukrainian exports of goods. By 2020, both indicators had dropped to 11% and 6%, respectively (see oec.world). On the other hand, exports to the EU15 already accounted for a larger share of total Ukrainian exports than exports to Russia in 2002. Thus, the dependence of Ukrainian industry on Russian gas and oil has played a decisive role. 

[5] A specific feature of the Ukrainian (as well as Russian) transition was that official unemployment never reached a level close to twenty percent, such as in Poland (2002) or Slovakia (2001). Workers in enterprises that ran into trouble remained formally employed but were not paid – although in many cases they continued to work. Sometimes they received payments in kind instead of cash.

[6] Of course, in many respects it is also reminiscent of the history of other former Eastern Bloc countries, including Slovakia.

[7] The history and structure of the “clans” is described in “The Oligarchic Democracy” by Sławomir Matuszak. See also “The Consolidation of Ukrainian Business Clans” by Viatcheslav Avioutskii.

[8] A peculiar phenomenon of political life in Ukraine was the emergence of a seriesof fake left-wing groups founded around 2000 by the same circle of people. These pseudo-organizations established contacts with foreign “internationals”, mainly of the Trotskyist variety, and lured material aid or money from them. It was enough to write that they identified with their political program and wanted to become a Ukrainian or Russian section. Despite personal meetings, it took three or four years for the foreign donors – delighted by the unexpected growth of the workers’ movement in the former Eastern Bloc – to discover that their “partners” were in fact political hucksters. The scandal had seriously damaged the international reputation of the Ukrainian left, though one may also pause at the credulity of Western leftists.

[9] On earlier strikes by Donbas miners for economic demands and democratization, see the documentary Perestroika from Below (1989). Later strikes had more explicit political demands, including national independence. See the interviews with strike leaders in Donetsk, as well as a brief documentary (with English subtitles). The history of miners’ protest from perestroika to 2000 is summarized in an essay by Vlad Mykhnenko subtitled “Ukrainian miners and their defeat”. See also the recollections of the Dnipro working-class militant, Oleg Dubrovsky, in a 1996 interview (in English), as well as his analysis of the process of privatization of the mining industry (in Russian).

[10] One of the consequences of the disintegration of the mining industry in the Donbas has been the growth of illegal mining in the so-called kopanki. A section of the 2005 documentary, Workingman’s Death, focuses on the phenomenon. The post-apocalyptic landscape of the Donetsk Oblast is depicted in the short documentary, Life After the Mine (2013).

[lumbarphilosophies-blog]

What do I think Of Biden, Now, As President? (A Question I Accidently deleted)

1st of all, I am sorry to whoever asked this as I accidently deleted your question, hopefully you will see this... Once again I hate talking politics so instead of going down a laundry list of things of why I think Biden is the worst President we've had in the last 20 or so years. I'm just going to start with one topic.

GAS PRICES

I believe Biden directly controls the gas prices by the policies he pushes. Such as shuttering the pipeline, reducing refinery capacity and sanctioning 43% of the world's natural gas and oil supply.

They claimed gas prices were high because of Russia right? Wrong. The majority of the gas price hikes took place before russia.

They claimed the President has no control over Gas Prices. This statement is also incorrect. It is actually one of the issues where they have more control than most people. This is because the oil business is all about projection rather than supply and demand. Future Earnings and determining whether or when you’re going to drill or pull back. You will sometimes see gas prices drop depending on when someone comes into office just because of policies that may not be enacted for another year or two because they’re willing to invest knowing they’ll recoup it. 

Now if you worked for a fossil fuel company what would you do if someone came into office threatening to shut down your company and claimed to enact policies that would greatly affect you, your profits, etc.

May 15th 2020

June 11th 2019

September 6th 2019 “I guarantee you, we are going to end Fossil Fuel!!!”

Biden has taken over 80 actions impacting or what would impact gas prices/fossil fuels. Largely against them. Most of them are executive orders.

Paris Climate Accord

He revoked the Keystone XL Pipeline (Keystone XL is different from Keystone)

He supported increases of $230,000,000,000 in taxes on oil

He reinstated the social cost of carbon metric

The Climate Change Order

Climate Financing 

 Climate Financial risk   

That’s to name a few, I’ll leave a link listing all the policies, executive orders, taken against fossil fuel. 

Another false claim is that it is the result or “Bounce back” from Covid. Meaning more people are driving now than during Covid… The problem with that statement is there is no data to suggest that this is even remotely true. Again, if you look at the prices on that chart you will see the before and after Covid and it remained hovering around $2.50 a gallon. Look at when the steep increase took place

There is a false claim that under President Joe Biden there is actually more domestic drilling than President Trump. Really? The truth is Biden did approve more drilling permits at a whopping number of 4,881 in 2021 than Trump’s 4,631 permits issued in 2020. However, the permits issued under Biden are for leases sold mostly under Trump… See what I’m saying? It rolled over, they’re rollover leases. If this piece of information doesn’t matter to you then maybe this will…. The Biden Administration slashed the approvals of drilling in August 2021.

Permits Slashed: “The data suggest the administration wants to show it’s meeting its obligation to issue permits for existing leases.”

YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER

Look, this is just one of his many failings but I've spent to long typing this out on just one topic that to disect his entire presidency and everything I believe he has done wrong would take me days and weeks to describe on this platform. That being said I'll speak briefly on inflation.

INFLATION

The CPI (Instrument to measure Inflation) went up 7.9% through february of 2022 which is the highest inflation rate for a quarter or month in 40 years.

If you do the math it is exactly 40 years since the embarrassment of Jimmy Carter where the CPI rose 13.5% in 1980. That number (13.5%) included the rising cost of housing. (Don’t know if you’ve noticed but that’s still kind of a problem today too) The numbers under Joe Biden (7.9%) does not include the rising cost of housing, so the inflation rate is actually 11%. These numbers are old and guaranteed to have risen at this time on December 30th 2022.

I DO NOT BEGRUDGE ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR HIM, I DO HOWEVER BELIEVE WE WERE BETTER OFF WITH TRUMP!

GOD BLESS!

[beardedmrbean]

Oct. 10 (UPI) -- German energy consumers will have some relief through the winter heating season by way of a $195 billion subsidy to cover their bills, a government panel announced Monday.

A panel of experts on Monday proposed a two-stage system that would help cover the cost of energy bills. The Guardian reported the proposal offers sweeping relief for December bills. After that, large firms could pay about 7 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour of energy for the first 70% of their bills for 16 months starting in January. Private consumers would pay 12 cents for the first 80%.

Some regional costs for October are around 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

Veronika Grimm, a member of the panel of experts advising the German government on the issue, said high prices and subsidies could become a "new normal" for German energy consumers.

Most European economies rely heavily on Russia for energy supplies and the war in Ukraine has added a substantial geopolitical risk premium to energy bills. Europe, meanwhile, is looking to distance itself from Russia, adding to the supply-side woes.

Before the war, Germany had relied on Russia for 55% of its fossil fuels. That has dropped to 9.5% since February's invasion.

A concern, however, is that the financial relief spelled out in the German proposal won't do anything to discourage demand, which would offset some of the benefits. It's also stoking a bit of jealousy among its fellow members of the European Union, who complained they can't afford the same relief that Germany, Europe's largest economy, is proposing.

European leaders are scrambling to find ways to address the energy crisis. Collectively, they've made slow, but steady progress toward dealing with the issue through measures such as a proposal to cap the price of oil and natural gas.

That measure would be difficult to coordinate, though individual member states are taking their own initiatives to cope. Despite frustration with the proposed German subsidies, French President Emmanuel Macron announced last month that his nation will join Germany in supporting a European Union windfall tax on the "excessive" profits posted by energy companies in an effort to rein in soaring gas, coal and oil prices for consumers.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is expected to approve the subsidy plan quickly.

[plethoraworldatlas]

Big Tech, Big Oil, and private equity firms are among the leading companies that profit from controlling media and technology, accelerating the climate crisis, privatizing public goods and services, and violating human and workers' rights, the International Trade Union Confederation revealed on Monday.

The ITUC has labeled seven major companies as "corporate underminers of democracy" that lobby against government attempts to hold them accountable and are headed by super-rich individuals who fund right-wing political movements and leaders.

"This is about power, who has it, and who sets the agenda," Todd Brogan, director of campaigns and organizing at the ITUC, toldThe Guardian. "We know as trade unionists that unless we're organized, the boss sets the agenda in the workplace, and we know as citizens in our countries that unless we're organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it's corporate power that's going to set the agenda."

The "corporate underminers of democracy" are:

Amazon.com, Inc.

Blackstone Group

ExxonMobil

Glencore

Meta

Tesla

The Vanguard Group

ITUC chose the seven companies based on preexisting reporting and research, as well as talks with allied groups like the Council of Global Unions and the Reactionary International Research Consortium. The seven companies were "emblematic" of a broader trend, and the confederation said it would continue to add "market-leading" companies to the list.

"While these seven corporations are among the most egregious underminers of democracy, they are hardly alone," ITUC said. "Whether state-owned enterprises in China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia; private sector military contractors; or regulation-busting tech startups, the ITUC and its partners will continue to identify and track corporate underminers of democracy and their links to the far-right."

Amazon topped the list due to its "union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centers, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level," ITUC wrote.

In the U.S., for example, Amazon has responded to attempts to hold it accountable for labor violations by challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board. While its founder Jeff Bezos voices liberal opinions, Amazon's political donations have advanced the right by challenging women's rights and antitrust efforts.

Blackstone is the world's largest private equity firm and private real-estate owner whose CEO, Stephen Schwarzman, has given to right-wing politicians including former U.S. President Donald Trump's 2024 reelection campaign. It funds fossil fuel projects and the destruction of the Amazon and profited from speculating on the housing market after the 2008 financial crash.

The United Nations special papporteur on housing said the company used "its significant resources and political leverage to undermine domestic laws and policies that would in fact improve access to adequate housing."

ExxonMobil made the list largely for its history of funding climate denial and its ongoing lobbying against needed environmental regulations.

"Perhaps the greatest example of Exxon's disinterest in democratic deliberation was its corporate commitment of nearly four decades to conceal from the public its own internal evidence that climate change was real, accelerating, and driven by fossil fuel use while simultaneously financing far-right think tanks in the U.S. and Europe to inject climate scepticism and denialism into the public discourse," ITUC wrote.

Glencore is the world's largest commodities trader and the largest mining company when judged by revenue. Several civil society and Indigenous rights groups have launched campaigns against it over its anti-democratic policies. It has allegedly funded right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia and anti-protest vigilantes in Peru.

"The company's undermining of democracy is not in dispute, as it has in recent years pled guilty to committing bribery, corruption, and market manipulation in countries as varied as Venezuela, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and South Sudan," ITUC said

[industrynewsupdates]

Exploring the Latest Trends in Jet Fuel Procurement Intelligence

The jet fuel category is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 8.4% from 2023 to 2030. The category is mainly driven by the rising focus on clean jet oil and the growing demand for air transportation services. Additionally, factors such as tightened supplies of crude oil (the U.S. stockpiles, and rising production cuts by OPEC countries) impacted the crude oil prices which is the raw material of jet fuel. Environmentally friendly aviation fuels of superior quality play a crucial role in minimizing CO2 emissions. Sustainable jet fuels exhibit emission levels in transportation, combustion, production, and distribution that are about 75% lower than those associated with fossil jet fuel. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) produced from municipal solid waste, woody biomass, and other feedstocks can significantly contribute to low CO2 emissions. Adoption of renewable oil results in a significant reduction, up to 90%, in hazardous particle emissions and a complete elimination of sulfur emissions.

The global category price was around USD 131.02/bbl in the last week of September 2023. According to the IATA Jet fuel price index, prices of the category have steadily declined in the quarter ended September 2023 as compared to the first quarter of 2023. The prices were down due to excess supply of jet fuel which was due to a production hike at the start of the year owing to the anticipation that demand would increase in the future. However, the demand has been stable but not in line with the supply surge. The possibility of a prolonged Russian ban on motor fuel exports, leading to a diesel shortage, boosted jet fuel prices in Europe. This situation could prompt refiners in the East of Suez region to prioritize diesel production over jet fuel.

The U.S., China, India, and Russia are the top jet oil-producing countries in the world. In July 2023 the U.S. output of the category was around 1,773.8 thousand barrels per day. India which is one of the best-sourcing countries for the category exported 208,433 barrels per day of aviation fuel as of June 2023. The global average export volume was 1.58 million barrels per day during Jan – Sept 2022, however, it went up to around 1.85 million barrels per day in the fourth quarter of 2022. Throughout 2022, there was a gradual demand recovery.

Order your copy of the Jet Fuel Procurement Intelligence Report, 2023 – 2030, published by Grand View Research, to get more details regarding day one, quick wins, portfolio analysis, key negotiation strategies of key suppliers, and low-cost/best-cost sourcing analysis

Sustainable aviation oils derived from renewable biomass and waste resources have the capacity to match the performance of conventional jet fuel made from petroleum, while significantly reducing the carbon footprint. This offers airlines a strong foundation for separating flight-related greenhouse gas emissions, marking a significant step towards environmental sustainability. Companies are continuously taking the initiative to produce eco-friendly fuels. For instance, in May 2023 Honeywell International announced new technology to produce lower-carbon aviation fuel from carbon dioxide and green hydrogen captured from industry, which would result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.

Airlines are the primary buyers of the category in the industry. The bargaining power of buyers is moderate to high as airlines often negotiate with multiple suppliers to secure the best prices. However, the availability of substitutes is limited, and fuel is a significant portion of an airline's operating costs, giving suppliers some power.

Production of jet fuel has various cost components such as raw materials (crude oil), labor, machinery, transportation, marketing costs, taxes, and others. Raw material (crude oil) cost is the major component accounting for more than 40% of the total cost. The costs associated with refining are highly dependent on the price of raw materials. Fluctuations in prices of the category impact the airline industry.

When it comes to procuring jet fuel, the hybrid model stands out as a widely adopted approach, merging in-house efforts with comprehensive outsourcing services. Some businesses prefer a partial outsourcing strategy, outsourcing specific operations like refining and distribution. Conversely, having an internal team handle tasks ranging from crude oil extraction to refining and transportation can prove advantageous. Building robust partnerships with suppliers and maintaining the reliability and traceability of the supply chain are crucial factors in sourcing within this category.

Jet Fuel Procurement Intelligence Report Scope

• Jet Fuel Category Growth Rate: CAGR of 8.4% from 2023 to 2030

• Pricing growth Outlook: 4% - 5% (annual)

• Pricing Models: Volume based Pricing; Competition based pricing

• Supplier Selection Scope: Cost and pricing, volume, production capacity, geographical presence, and compliance

• Supplier selection criteria: Industry served, revenue generated, employee strength, geographical service provisions, years in service, key clients, certifications, type of fuel (aviation fuel/jet fuel/others), fueling capacity, shipping capacity, energy content, density, and others

• Report Coverage: Revenue forecast, supplier ranking, supplier matrix, emerging technology, pricing models, cost structure, competitive landscape, growth factors, trends, engagement, and operating model

Browse through Grand View Research’s collection of procurement intelligence studies:

• Fuel Oil Procurement Intelligence Report, 2023 - 2030 (Revenue Forecast, Supplier Ranking & Matrix, Emerging Technologies, Pricing Models, Cost Structure, Engagement & Operating Model, Competitive Landscape)

• Biodiesel Procurement Intelligence Report, 2023 - 2030 (Revenue Forecast, Supplier Ranking & Matrix, Emerging Technologies, Pricing Models, Cost Structure, Engagement & Operating Model, Competitive Landscape)

Key companies profiled

• Exxon Mobil

• Chevron

• Shell

• Valero Energy

• BP Plc

• Total Energies

• Neste

• Bharat Petroleum

• Honeywell International

• Allied Aviation

Brief about Pipeline by Grand View Research:

A smart and effective supply chain is essential for growth in any organization. Pipeline division at Grand View Research provides detailed insights on every aspect of supply chain, which helps in efficient procurement decisions.

Our services include (not limited to):

• Market Intelligence involving – market size and forecast, growth factors, and driving trends

• Price and Cost Intelligence – pricing models adopted for the category, total cost of ownerships

• Supplier Intelligence – rich insight on supplier landscape, and identifies suppliers who are dominating, emerging, lounging, and specializing

• Sourcing / Procurement Intelligence – best practices followed in the industry, identifying standard KPIs and SLAs, peer analysis, negotiation strategies to be utilized with the suppliers, and best suited countries for sourcing to minimize supply chain disruptions

[pristineintelligenceresearch]

Biodiesel Market Research Report 2023 Growing at a CAGR of 8.10% From 2023–2030.

The biodiesel market is experiencing significant growth due to increasing environmental awareness, government regulations promoting renewable energy, and the need to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. By 2030, the market is expected to undergo substantial changes driven by technological advancements, policy frameworks, and evolving market dynamics.

The biodiesel market by 2030 will be characterized by significant technological advancements, stringent regulatory frameworks, and a growing emphasis on sustainability. While challenges related to feedstock availability, infrastructure, and market acceptance persist, opportunities in emerging markets, technological innovation, and sustainable practices present a promising outlook. Companies and stakeholders that adapt to these evolving dynamics and invest in sustainable and efficient biodiesel production will be well-positioned to capitalize on the market’s growth potential.

📚𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 >>https://pristineintelligence.com/request-sample/biodiesel-market-46

Segments Covered:

By Feedstock

Soybean Oil

Canola Oil

Palm Oil

Used Cooking Oil

Animal Fats

By Production Process

Traditional Transesterification Process

Supercritical Transesterification

Enzymatic Transesterification

By Application

Transportation

Heating

Electricity Generation

By Region

North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico)

Europe (Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Rest of Europe)

Asia-Pacific (China, India, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Rest of APAC)

Middle East & Africa (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Africa, Rest of MEA)

South America (Brazil, Argentina, Rest of SA)

Key Trends

Technological Advancements:

Feedstock Diversification: Development of advanced technologies to convert a wider range of feedstocks, including non-edible oils, waste oils, and algae, into biodiesel.

Production Efficiency: Innovations in production processes to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and minimize environmental impact.

Second-Generation Biodiesel: Increasing focus on second-generation biodiesel made from non-food feedstocks, reducing competition with food production and enhancing sustainability.

Regulatory and Policy Frameworks:

Government Mandates: Implementation of blending mandates and renewable fuel standards in various countries to promote biodiesel usage.

Subsidies and Incentives: Provision of financial incentives, tax credits, and subsidies to support biodiesel production and adoption.

Environmental Regulations: Stricter emissions standards and carbon reduction targets driving the shift towards biodiesel as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.

Sustainability and Environmental Impact:

Carbon Neutrality: Biodiesel’s potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional diesel, contributing to carbon neutrality goals.

Circular Economy: Promotion of circular economy principles through the use of waste and by-products as feedstocks for biodiesel production.

3. Challenges

Feedstock Availability and Costs:

Supply Constraints: Limited availability of sustainable feedstocks and competition with food production can constrain supply and increase costs.

Price Volatility: Fluctuations in feedstock prices, influenced by agricultural markets and geopolitical factors, can impact biodiesel production costs.

Technological and Infrastructure Barriers:

Production Technology: Need for continuous technological advancements to enhance production efficiency and feedstock flexibility.

Infrastructure: Insufficient infrastructure for biodiesel distribution and blending in certain regions can limit market penetration.

Market Acceptance and Awareness:

Consumer Awareness: Limited consumer awareness and acceptance of biodiesel, particularly in regions with established fossil fuel dependency.

Performance Perception: Addressing misconceptions about biodiesel performance and compatibility with existing engines and infrastructure.

4. Opportunities

Emerging Markets:

Significant growth opportunities in developing countries with rising energy demand and supportive government policies.

Investment in production facilities and infrastructure to meet local demand and export potential.

Technological Innovation:

Development of advanced bio-refining technologies to enhance feedstock flexibility and production efficiency.

Integration of biodiesel production with other renewable energy systems, such as solar and wind, to create hybrid energy solutions.

Sustainable Practices:

Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices to ensure a consistent and eco-friendly feedstock supply.

Collaboration with industries and municipalities to utilize waste oils and by-products for biodiesel production.

5. Future Outlook

Increased Blending Mandates:

Governments worldwide are likely to increase biodiesel blending mandates to meet renewable energy targets and reduce carbon emissions.

Higher blending ratios, such as B20 (20% biodiesel) and beyond, will become more common in transportation and industrial applications.

Advancements in Second-Generation Biodiesel:

Second-generation biodiesel, derived from non-food feedstocks, will gain prominence due to its sustainability benefits and lower environmental impact.

Ongoing research and development efforts will enhance the commercial viability of algae-based and other advanced biodiesel sources.

Read More : >>https://pristineintelligence.com/request-sample/biodiesel-market-46

[earaercircular]

Mega subsidies for fossil fuels

Fossil fuels are massively subsidised worldwide. The IMF started calculating and arrived at a total subsidy amount of 7 trillion dollars.[1]

Kerosene, the fuel used to power aircraft, is not subject to excise duties. Belgium has permanently reduced VAT on gas. Diesel for the professional market enjoys a lower excise duty. Fuel cards for company cars are fiscally advantageous.

These are just a few of the many ways in which fossil fuels are handled with kid gloves by the tax authorities. But Belgium is not the only country where this happens. Worldwide, the burning of fossil fuels yield $ 7,000 billion more to the tax authorities than is currently the case, the IMF has calculated. That is 7.1 percent of global worldwide GDP.

Of that amount, 18 percent is awarded in the form of explicit subsidies: direct financial interventions in the selling price. In 2020, those explicit subsidies still accounted for USD 500 billion, compared to USD 1,300 billion last year. This also includes government interventions to compensate the effects of the high energy price. Think of the 'basic packages' that the Belgian government paid to energy consumers last winter. They are expected to decrease again

"Efficient" price

The IMF also considers unaccounted for costs for global warming, traffic congestion and air pollution as subsidies. It is about the difference between what petrol costs at the pump and what petrol would have to cost to slow down consumption enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The latter price is called the 'efficient' price. Last year, 80 percent of all coal was sold at less than half the efficient price.

These implicit subsidies will continue to rise, the IMF expects. This is because the use of fossil fuels is still increasing, especially in non-Western countries. In those countries, the impact on global warming and air pollution is greater. The total grant amount is expected to exceed 8 percent of global GDP by 2030.

If all fuels were sold at efficient prices, for example by introducing a global carbon tax, it would generate a huge sum: $4,4 trillion or 3.6 percent of global GDP. Driving, flying and heating would therefore become much more expensive. But if the proceeds are used to reduce labour costs, for example, the effect may be neutral on balance. In that case, CO emissions would fall by 43 percent in the next 7 years. It would also prevent 1.6 million premature deaths from air pollution. “Even if you don't factor in the climate benefits, reforming fuel prices is beneficial because of cleaner air and elimination of price distortions.”

The most extreme examples of subsidising fossil fuels can be found in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Because those countries produce a lot of oil, gasoline and diesel cost very little at the pump, often even less than it costs to pump, refine and transport the oil. In European countries such as Germany, France and Italy, the price of a litre of petrol is close to the efficient price, and sometimes even slightly above it.

But for coal and gas, the European countries also fail to achieve the efficient price. However, the largest subsidies are awarded in non-Western countries. Indonesia, Turkey and China would have to multiply the price of coal or gas to arrive at an efficient price.

Europe is still a relatively good student, the IMF notes. The EU accounts for 310 billion of the total amount. That is less than India or Russia. The US comes out at 760 billion. By far the largest subsidy provider is China, with USD 2,200 billion.

Less than the Netherlands, more than Denmark

The IMF has performed calculations for 170 individual countries. So also for Belgium. The explicit subsidies (direct interventions in the selling price) mainly concern the gas market. Last year it was 4.1 billion dollars (3.8 billion euros). Implicit subsidies (including reduced taxes, but also climate and pollution costs that have not been taken into account) are particularly relevant for diesel: 4.6 billion euros. The implicit subsidies total 8.9 billion euros. Less than the Netherlands (13.9 billion euros), but more than Denmark (2.2 billion).

For Germany, the IMF has also calculated what the effect of an optimal fuel price reform would be. If all fossil fuels were sold at “efficient” prices, it would cost $12 billion but generate $18 billion in environmental benefits. There would be 20 percent fewer deaths from air pollution, and 15 percent fewer greenhouse gases.

Source

Ruben Mooijman, Megasubsidies voor fossiele brandstoffen, in: De Standaard, 25-08-2023, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20230824_96591052

[1] This paper provides a comprehensive global, regional, and country-level update of: (i) efficient fossil fuel prices to reflect supply and environmental costs; and (ii) subsidies implied by charging below efficient fuel prices. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP. Explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) have more than doubled since 2020 but are still only 18 percent of the total subsidy, while nearly 60 percent is due to undercharging for global warming and local air pollution. Differences between efficient prices and retail fuel prices are large and pervasive, for example, 80 percent of global coal consumption was priced at below half of its efficient level in 2022. Full fossil fuel price reform would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 43 percent below baseline levels in 2030 (in line with keeping global warming to 1.5-2oC), while raising revenues worth 3.6 percent of global GDP and preventing 1.6 million local air pollution deaths per year. Accompanying spreadsheets provide detailed results for 170 countries. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281#:~:text=Globally%2C%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20were,warming%20and%20local%20air%20pollution.

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

July 5, 2023

The trillions of dollars in public subsidies that governments around the world hand to the fossil fuel industry each year are facing growing scrutiny from lawmakers and climate campaigners as heatwaves across the planet push global temperatures into uncharted territory.

Environmentalist Annie Leonard, the former executive director of Greenpeace USA, called on members of the U.S. Congress to reject public subsidies for the oil and gas industry in the must-pass annual budget package, a sweeping measure that typically includes billions in tax incentives and other handouts that encourage production and consumption of planet-warming fossil fuels.

"Stop giving our money to the corporations cooking the planet," Leonard wrote on Twitter Tuesday, urging Americans to contact and pressure their representatives.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that world governments dished out nearly $6 trillion in total fossil fuel subsidies in 2020—around $11 million per minute—and that such giveaways are expected to grow in the coming years without significant reforms.

Last year, according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel consumption subsidies alone rose to more than $1 trillion worldwide—a surge fueled in part by the energy market chaos caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While such subsidies were aimed at shielding consumers from high gas prices, they had the "adverse effect of keeping fossil fuels artificially competitive with low-emissions alternatives," IEA said.

The same year that subsidies skyrocketed to record levels, the global fossil fuel industry raked in a staggering $4 trillion in profits, the IEA found.

"Big Oil companies are boosting profits and shareholder distribution while our climate suffers," U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said last month.

In late 2021, 197 countries including the U.S. and Canada signed a climate pact that contains a pledge to phase out "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." But as Emily Atkin and Arielle Samuelson wrote in the HEATED newsletter earlier this year, that promise turned out to be "meaningless" given the subsequent rise in oil and gas subsidies.

"This is why climate promises never come to pass," Atkin and Samuelson argued. "The polluters' pocketbooks are government-lined."

Amid a catastrophic wildfire season that has blanketed large swaths of the U.S. with toxic smoke, the Canadian government is reportedly expected to release a policy this month aimed at cutting off "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies," echoing the language of the Glasgow climate pact.

But advocates raised concerns about how the policy will define "inefficient." As the CBC's Benjamin Shingler reported last week, climate campaigners say "subsidies should only be considered 'efficient'—and therefore an acceptable form of government funding—if they align with Canada's Paris agreement goals."

"That means subsidies shouldn't support new or updated fossil fuel infrastructure, or delay the transition to renewables, according to signatories of the letter to [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau last month," Shingler added.

Trudeau and other world leaders will have a major opportunity to finally take concrete, coordinated action to end fossil fuel subsidies at COP28 in late November—but that would mean confronting an industry that will have a significant presence at the critical summit in the United Arab Emirates.

Chido Muzondo, a policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, wrote last month that governments at COP28 must do more than pay "lip service to the existing pledges—made in the Paris Agreement Article 2.c.1 and in the Glasgow statement—to stop subsidizing fossil fuels."

"This decade is decisive in our fight against global warming, and time is limited to align our actions with the measures needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change," Muzondo wrote. "Fossil fuel subsidies stand out as some of the most harmful policies hindering our efforts to tackle climate change."

Read more.

[olko71]

New Post has been published on All about business online

New Post has been published on http://yaroreviews.info/2023/03/energy-firms-call-for-windfall-tax-to-fall-with-prices

Energy firms call for windfall tax to fall with prices

Getty Images

By Noor Nanji

Business reporter, BBC News

Energy firms have called on ministers to reduce the windfall tax as oil and gas prices fall, ahead of a package of measures on energy security expected to be announced on Thursday.

Trade body Offshore Energies UK said that “when prices drop, it is fair that the windfall tax should fall away”.

It came as the Financial Times reported that ministers are set to offer energy firms relief on windfall taxes.

The Treasury insists it keeps all taxes under review.

Last year, the government introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas firms, to help fund its scheme to lower energy bills for households and businesses.

A windfall tax is used to target firms which benefit from something they were not responsible for. Energy firm profits have soared recently, initially due to rising demand after Covid restrictions were lifted, and then because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine raised energy prices.

How much windfall tax are oil giants paying?

Shell reports highest profits in 115 years

BP scales back climate targets as profits hit record

Oil and gas prices have now come down from their highs.

David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, said the windfall tax has “damaged the confidence” of companies to invest in the long-term energy security of the UK.

“If this tax is changed, as conditions and prices have changed, that would be a positive move that would go some way to start rebuilding confidence,” he said.

He added it would also spur companies to invest in the UK energy industry and in new technologies such as offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, as well as in jobs.

It comes as the government is expected to set out measures to boost the UK’s energy security on Thursday.

A Whitehall source confirmed the plans, which will be set out by the Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps, will focus on bringing down wholesale electricity prices in the UK and reducing energy bills for consumers and businesses.

The Financial Times reported that ahead of this, ministers have been holding talks with energy firms about adjusting the windfall tax if oil and gas prices dropped below a certain level.

Shadow climate secretary, Ed Miliband said the report was more evidence that next week’s announcements would be “Fossil Fuel Thursday”.

He said it would see “giveaways to companies already making record profits, for a policy that will make no difference to energy bills or security, fleecing the public whilst trashing the climate.”

The Treasury insists it does not comment on speculation.

But said the windfall tax “strikes a balance between funding cost of living support from excess profits while encouraging investment”.

It added that “the more investment a firm makes into the UK, the less tax they will pay”.

Related Topics

HM Treasury

Energy industry

North Sea oil and gas

Oil & Gas industry

More on this story

Shell reports highest profits in 115 years

2 February

BP scales back climate targets as profits hit record

7 February

[sciencespies]

Administration Expected to Endorse Limited Drilling in Alaska Project

https://sciencespies.com/environment/administration-expected-to-endorse-limited-drilling-in-alaska-project/

Administration Expected to Endorse Limited Drilling in Alaska Project

An environmental review expected soon would effectively signal that the Willow project proceed, according to people familiar with the report.

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is expected to propose a scaled-down version of a sprawling oil drilling project in the North Slope of Alaska, according to two people familiar with the decision. The proposal would allow drilling to proceed on a limited basis as part of an $8 billion project known as Willow that climate activists have criticized for years.

The project, led by ConocoPhillips, has the potential to eventually unlock 600 million barrels of crude oil. Opponents say the decision undermines the Biden administration’s promises to cut fossil-fuel use in order to limit the damage from climate change.

The Bureau of Land Management in Alaska is preparing to say that it has selected a “preferred alternative” for development on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that calls for curtailing the project from five drill sites to three, according to one person who viewed the draft report in recent days, and a second who was independently briefed on the report’s contents. Both requested anonymity to discuss the details of the plan.

The BLM’s action, which is expected in the coming days, is an environmental analysis that includes options that range from permitting five drill sites (the outcome sought by ConocoPhillips) to not allowing drilling at all. It does not represent a final decision by the government, but it would effectively be a recommendation to proceed with a scaled-back drilling operation.

Separately, BLM and White House officials are considering additional measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and environmental harm, such as delaying permitting decisions for one of the drill sites and planting trees, according to one of the two people familiar with the plan.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda

Colorado River: The seven states that rely on water from the shrinking river are unlikely to agree to voluntarily make deep reductions in their water use, which would force the Biden administration to impose cuts.

Mining Ban: A 20-year moratorium on new mining activity for more than 225,000 acres of federal land in Minnesota could deal a fatal blow to a proposed Twin Metals copper-nickel mine.

Logging in Alaska: The Biden administration banned logging and road-building on about nine million acres of the Tongass National Forest, North America’s largest temperate rainforest.

A Struggling E.P.A.: Despite an injection of funding, the Environmental Protection Agency is still reeling from an exodus of scientists and policy experts during the Trump administration.

The Interior Department’s final decision is expected to be issued in the next month or so. That decision will ultimately be made in the White House by President Biden’s top advisers, several administration officials said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The move to allow some drilling is widely considered a balancing act as the Biden administration seeks a middle ground between its climate change goals and pressure from the oil industry, as well as Alaska lawmakers. Willow is a particular priority for Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a moderate Republican who is frequently the most likely senator to break with her party and support Democratic appointees and some policy compromises.

Representative Mary Peltola of Alaska said she was concerned about the impact of climate, while also noting that Alaska relies financially on revenue from taxes on oil and gas.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

The politics are complex. Mr. Biden has urged oil companies to increase production amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which continues to threaten energy supplies. At the same time, the administration is overseeing $370 billion in wind, solar, electric vehicle and other clean energy investments to pivot the country away from fossil fuels.

To get those projects built, administration officials have said reforms to federal permitting laws are needed. But that effort has become deeply politicized, and some observers said moderate Republican lawmakers like Ms. Murkowski of Alaska might be able to help break a logjam.

“The Democrats’ Senate majority is still fragile, and they need to keep Lisa Murkowski open to voting with the Democrats on fundamental issues like the debt ceiling and budget and appropriations,” said Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University.

Climate activists called the environmental analysis a betrayal of President Biden’s campaign pledge to end new federal oil and gas leases. Over its lifetime, the project is expected to emit 278 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, at a time when scientists say the world must slash its carbon pollution dramatically to avoid catastrophe.

“It is incomprehensible how an administration that is as climate-conscious as this one could even be contemplating letting this project move forward,” said Abigail Dillen, the president of Earthjustice, an environmental group.

Time is also running out this year for drilling to start. ConocoPhillips has said it is hoping for a fast decision from the Biden administration that would allow initial construction to begin this winter. If spring sets in and warmer temperatures begin to melt the frozen roads, it could make it more difficult for crews to pass, and construction would have to be shelved for another year.

ConocoPhilips declined to comment on the environmental analysis until it is formally released.

Willow’s supporters, including Alaska’s congressional delegation, labor unions, building trades and some residents of the North Slope, argue that the project would bring much-needed crude oil to a market that is still seeking alternatives to Russian oil while bolstering America’s energy security. They also point out that it would create about 2,500 jobs and generate as much as $17 billion in revenue for the federal government.

Representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat who is the first Alaska Native in Congress, said she cared about the impact of climate change on Alaska, supported renewable energy and wanted to see fossil fuels phased out. But she also noted that 80 percent of Alaska’s revenues come from taxes on oil and gas operations, which is not income the state can afford to lose.

“Every Alaskan, without exception, can see with their own eyes the impacts of global climate change,” Ms. Peltola said in an interview, citing the growing trend of snowless winters. But, she added, “we still have to pay for education and public safety.”

Willow was initially approved by the Trump administration, and the Biden administration defended the approval in court. The project was then temporarily blocked by a judge, who said the prior administration’s environmental analysis was not sufficient and did not fully consider the potential harm to wildlife or the further impact on climate change.

#Environment

[college-girl199328]

Norway’s Oil Profits Soared To New Heights In 2022

After successful years, Norway again saw record oil and gas profits in 2022 as it expanded its renewable energy operations. With energy prices soaring last year in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent scarcity of oil and gas in Europe, Norway recorded significant profits. The Nordic powerhouse quickly stepped in to provide gas to other European countries facing severe shortages, offering an alternative to Russia. Thanks to its favorable position in the international energy market, Norway expects to continue achieving record earnings throughout 2023 while developing its green energy capacity to support the gradual transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

In October, Norwegian oil and gas firm Equinor announced record third-quarter profits, achieving $24.3 billion in July-September and over $9.77 billion in 2021. This was due to increased post-pandemic demand and higher gas prices, which have almost tripled since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This figure was higher than its previous earnings prediction of $23.5 billion.

CEO Anders Opedal stated, "The Russian war in Ukraine has changed the energy markets, reduced energy availability, and increased prices." He added, "High production combined with continued high price levels resulted in very strong financial results." Due to Russian energy sanctions, Equinor will be the primary gas supplier to Europe in 2022, reducing Russian firm Gazprom's market share.

Despite profits, Equinor expects a 1 percent growth in production in 2022 compared to the previous year, lower than the planned 2 percent rise. This was blamed primarily on delays in its Johan Sverdrup Phase 2 development, which was expected to commence operations in December instead of October. Equinor expects the new phase of Sverdrup to boost its crude output by 220,000 BPD.

And the Norwegian government believes the country’s success will extend well into 2023, with anticipated earnings from oil and gas of $131 billion for the year. This would set a new record, marking an 18 percent rise over 2022 and five times the earnings of 2021. It predicts an output average of 4.3 million BPD, up from 4.1 million in 2022.

Although the Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Stoere, has rejected calls for a price cap on gas, Norway has introduced a windfall tax on its oil and gas companies. Stoere believes that a price cap would not support the boost in production required to meet Europe’s high gas prices as it continues to face shortages. However, taxes on Norwegian oil and gas will increase by around $195 million in 2023 as the government reverses an incentive package offered during the pandemic, reducing the tax deduction from 12.4 percent to 17.69 percent. The introduction of the windfall tax responds to pressure from left-wing parties to increase taxes on companies that are depleting Norway’s natural resources to tackle inflation.

While Norway’s oil and gas industry continues to boost its fossil fuel production and see record profits, there are concerns about the ongoing reliance on energy sources with high greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2020, Norway has run almost entirely on renewables. But it still operates large-scale, highly profitable oil and gas projects in response to the growing global demand for energy. For a country that strives to be a world leader in renewable energy and a forerunner in the transition to green, it still relies heavily on its oil and gas wealth. Norway is the seventh wealthiest country by GDP per capita and has seen its earnings soar over the last year thanks to oil and gas. This helps to channel funds into renewable energy capacity in other countries. Yet, it is at the cost of the environment.

[tearsinthemist]

Exxon sues EU over energy windfall tax

29December2022

ExxonMobil is suing the European Union in an attempt to get the bloc to scrap its windfall tax on oil companies. Fossil-fuel companies such as Exxon have "raked in multibillion-dollar profits" in the months since Russia invaded Ukraine, disrupting the global energy market and sending household bills soaring, The New York Times explained. The EU's windfall tax, which is supposed to take effect Saturday, aims to "shield consumers from high energy prices" by applying a levy that kicks in when an oil company's profits go 20 percent above those averaged between 2018 and 2021, the Financial Times said. Exxon, which reported global profits of $20 billion for this year, argues the levy is "counterproductive." Its lawsuit is "the most significant response yet against the tax from the oil industry," the FT added. [Financial Times, The New York Times]

[opedguy]

Biden Blames Oil Companies, Not Himself

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Dec. 16, 2022.--President Joe Biden, 80, lashed out at U.S. and global oil companies for gouging consumers, making record profits at a time of shortage and skyrocketing prices.  Biden takes no responsibility for the ongoing Ukraine War and Russian oil embargo that caused widespread shortages and skyrocketing prices in the U.S. and Europe.  Oil industry profits are cyclical, depending on global supply-and-demand.  Biden traveled to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia July 15, asking Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase oil production to help alleviate the strain on U.S. supplies due to the Russian oil embargo.  Biden was told no by Bin Salman, saying the price of oil had already fallen well below OPEC benchmarks, today about $74 a barrel.  Biden was furious at Bin Salman, threatening to take unspecified measures.  Today’s pump prices have come down but not to pre-Ukraine War levels.

Biden decided he’d throw his financial and military support to Ukraine, imposing a Russian oil embargo, largely to force 70-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin to get out Ukraine.  But in the 10 months of war, Biden committed U.S. treasure to funding the Ukraine government and war against the Russian Federation.  Now threatening to supply Kiev with Patriot Missile Batteries, the Kremlin warned Biden that there would be consequences to the U.S. to adding more lethal offensive weapons.  Ukraine has already sent predator drones to attack airbases inside Russia, prompting, prompting a furious air assault on Ukraine’s infrastructure.  Instead of working toward a ceasefire and peace talks, Biden and Ukraine’s 44-year-old President Volodymyr Zelensky still think they can break the Russian military, maybe topple Putin.  Ukraine complains daily about its decimated infrastructure.

Biden’s attacks on U.S. and global oil companies come after his administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, transporting tar sands oil from Canada to Houston, Tx., essentially wrecking the U.S. fracking industry.  Biden had no clue that his Russian oil embargo would do more damage to U.S. and European consumers than anyone in Russia.   Putin has skirted U.S. and EU sanctions over the Ukraine War, selling more oil to China, India, Brazil and South African than ever before.  Biden threatens the oil industry with a windfall profits tax, something tried-and-failed before during the Carter presidency when an OPEC oil embargo sent U.S. oil prices skyrocketing.  “Invest in American by increasing production and refining capacity,” Biden said, investing in “their consumers, their community and their country.”  Biden and his Democrat Congress has done everything to harm the fossil fuel industry.

Threatening a windfall profits tax, Biden won’t encourage more domestic fossil fuel production, he’ll discourages the industry from doing business in the United States.  Biden’s war in Ukraine with his Russian oil embargo has been the most harmful event to the oil industry, creating shortages and spiraling prices.  Instead of working to end the Ukraine War, Biden talks of giving Ukraine Patriot Missile Batteries, something the Kremlin warned with turn the U.S. into an enemy combatant with the Russian Federation.  French President Emmanuel Macron, 44, is the only EU leader pushing back on the U.S. war effort against the Russian Federation.  Macron seeks nothing but carnage and destruction to Ukraine its war with the Kremlin.  Yet there’s zero interest on Biden’s part to move the conflict from the battlefield to the peace table.  Only then can world oil markets eventually recover.

Biden seeks the oil industry as profiting from the Ukraine War, when many U.S. defense contractors have enriched themselves supplying unlimited cash-and-arms-to fund the Ukraine War.  “It’s time for these companies to stop war profiteering, meet their responsibilities in his this country and give the American people a break,” Biden said.  Biden knows that the only thing that will stop oil shortages and spiraling prices is an end to the Ukraine War.  “There has been a discussion in the U.S. about our industry returning some of our profits directly to the American people,” said ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods.  “Can’t believe I have to say this but giving profits to shareholders is not the same as bring prices down for American families,” Biden said, again blaming industry price gouging not his Russian oil embargo.  Disrupting the supply chain has consequences for consumers.

Biden got caught up in the Democrat claptrap about renewable energy and nuclear power as the wave of the future.  In the mean time, American consumers are paying through the nose at the pumps all because Biden refuses to find a practical peace proposal to end the Ukraine War.  All the talk about it’s Putin fault doesn’t solve the immediate problem of how the current Russian oil embargo harms U.S. and European consumers. Biden knows that a windfall profits tax has been tried before and failed.  If the president wants the oil industry to recover, he needs to figure out a way to end the Ukraine War.  It’s not enough to blame only Putin, since all conflicts have two sides.  Biden and his EU and NATO colleagues need to lobby Kiev to go to the peace table with Moscow and work out a mutually beneficial peace deal.  U.S. and EU donors will help Ukraine rebuild after a peace deal can be reached.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.