Carbon Dioxide

Latest story

138 Shares189 Views

E.V. Tax Credits Are a Plus, but Flaws Remain, Study Finds

by

The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Shipping Contributes Heavily to Climate Change. Are Green Ships the Solution?

    by

    On a bright September day on the harbor in Copenhagen, several hundred people gathered to welcome the official arrival of Laura Maersk.Laura was not a visiting European dignitary like many of those in attendance. She was a hulking containership, towering a hundred feet above the crowd, and the most visible evidence to date of an effort by the global shipping industry to mitigate its role in the planet’s warming.The ship, commissioned by the Danish shipping giant Maersk, was designed with a special engine that can burn two types of fuel — either the black, sticky oil that has powered ships for more than a century, or a greener type made from methanol. By switching to green methanol, this single ship will produce 100 fewer tons of greenhouse gas per day, an amount equivalent to the emissions of 8,000 cars.The effect of global shipping on the climate is hard to overstate. Cargo shipping is responsible for nearly 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — producing roughly as much carbon each year as the aviation industry does.Figuring out how to limit those emissions has been tricky. Some ships are turning to an age-old strategy: harnessing the wind to move them. But ships still need a more constant source of energy that is powerful enough to propel them halfway around the world in a single go.Unlike cars and trucks, ships can’t plug in frequently enough to be powered by batteries and the electrical grid: They need a clean fuel that is portable.Ursula von der Leyen, center, the president of the E.U. Commission, stands with the captains of the Laura Maersk as well as company and government officials in Copenhagen in September.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesThe Laura Maersk is the first of its kind to set sail with a green methanol engine and represents a significant step in the industry’s efforts to address its contribution to climate change. The vessel is also a vivid illustration of just how far the global shipping sector has to go. While roughly 125 methanol-burning ships are now on order at global shipyards from Maersk and other companies, that is just a tiny portion of the more than 50,000 cargo ships that ply the oceans today, which deliver 90 percent of the world’s traded goods.The market for green methanol is also in its infancy, and there is no guarantee that the new fuel will be made in sufficient quantities — or at the right price — to power the vast fleet of cargo ships operating worldwide.Shipping is surprisingly efficient: Transporting a good by container ship halfway around the world produces far less climate-warming gas than trucking it across the United States.That’s true in part because of the scale of modern cargo vessels. The biggest container ships today are larger than aircraft carriers. Each one is able to carry more than 20,000 metal containers, which would stretch for 75 miles if placed in a row.That incredible efficiency has lowered the cost of transport and enabled the modern consumer lifestyle, allowing retailers like Amazon, Walmart, Ikea and Home Depot to offer a vast suite of products at a fraction of their historical cost.Yet that easy consumption has come at the price of a warmer and dirtier planet. In addition to affecting the atmosphere, ships burning fossil fuel also spew out pollutants that reduce the life expectancy of the large percentage of the world’s people who live near ports, said Teresa Bui, policy director for climate at Pacific Environment, an environmental organization.Cargo ships at the Port of Los Angeles in 2021 sometimes had to wait days to dock because of congestion, producing huge amounts of pollution.Coley Brown for The New York TimesThat pollution was particularly bad during the Covid-19 pandemic, when supply chain bottlenecks caused ships to pile up outside of the Port of Los Angeles, producing pollution equivalent to nearly 100,000 big rigs per day, she said.“They have been under regulated for decades,” Ms. Bui said of the shipping industry.Some shipping companies have tried to cut emissions in recent years and comply with new global pollution standards by fueling their vessels with liquefied natural gas. Yet environmental groups, and some shipping executives, say that adopting another fossil fuel that contributes to climate change has been a move in the wrong direction.Maersk and other shipping companies now see greener fuels such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen as the most promising path for the industry. Maersk is trying to cut its carbon emissions to zero by 2040, and is pouring billion of dollars into cleaner fuels, along with other investors. But making the switch — even to methanol, the most commercially viable of those fuels today — is no easy feat.Switching to methanol requires building new ships, or retrofitting old ones, with different engines and fuel storage systems. Global ports must install new infrastructure to fuel the vessels when they dock.Perhaps most crucially, an entire industry still needs to spring up to produce green methanol, which is in demand from airlines and factory owners as well as from shipping carriers.Methanol, which is used to make chemicals and plastics as well as fuel, is typically produced using coal, oil or natural gas. Green methanol can be made in far more environmentally friendly ways by using renewable energy and carbon captured from the atmosphere or siphoned from landfills, cow and pig manure, or other bio waste.By using green methanol, the Laura Maersk could produce 100 fewer tons of greenhouse gas per day, equivalent to the emissions of 8,000 cars.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesCargo ships require fuel sources that are powerful enough to propel them halfway around the world in a single go.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesFlemming Sogaard Christensen, the chief engineer of the Laura Maersk, inside the engineering room. The ship’s engine can burn oil or a greener type of fuel made from methanol.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesBut the world today does not yet produce much green methanol. Maersk has committed to using only sustainably produced methanol, but if other shipping companies end up using methanol fuel made with coal or oil, that will be no better for the environment.Ahmed El-Hoshy, the chief executive of OCI Global, which makes methane from natural gas and greener sources like landfill gas, said companies today were producing “infinitesimally small volumes” of green methanol using renewable energy.“Companies haven’t done much in our industry yet quite frankly,” he said. “It’s all hype.”Fuel producers still need to master the technology to build these projects, he said. And in order to finance them they need buyers who are willing to commit to long-term contracts for green fuel, which can be three to five times as expensive as conventional fuel.Maersk has signed contracts with fuel providers including OCI and European Energy, which is building in Denmark what will be the world’s largest plant producing methanol with renewable electricity. The shipping company already has clients like Amazon and Volvo that are willing to pay more to have their goods transported with green fuels, in order to reduce their own carbon footprints.But many other companies are not yet willing to pay the necessary cost for greener technologies, Mr. El-Hoshy said.The missing piece, said Mr. El-Hoshy and others in the shipping and methanol industries, is regulation that would help level the playing field between companies trying to clean up their emissions and those still burning dirtier fuels.The European Union is ushering in rules that encourage ships to decarbonize, including new subsidies for green fuels and penalties for fossil fuel use. The United States is also spurring new investments in green fuel production and more modern ports through generous domestic spending programs.Maersk has clients like Amazon and Volvo that are willing to pay more to have their goods transported with green fuels, in order to reduce their own carbon footprints.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesBut proponents say the key to a green transition in the shipping sector are global rules that are pending through the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations body that regulates global shipping.The organization has long received heavy criticism for its lagging efforts on climate. This summer, it adopted a more ambitious target: eliminating the global shipping industry’s greenhouse gas emissions “by or around” 2050.To get there, nations have promised to agree on a legally binding way to regulate emissions by the end of 2025, which they would put into effect in 2027.Yet countries have yet to agree on what kind of regulation to use. They are debating whether to adopt a new standard for cleaner fuels, new taxes per ton of greenhouse gas emitted or some kind of mix of tools.Some developing countries, and nations that export low-value goods like farm products, say that strict regulation would raise shipping costs and be economically harmful.Proponents of the regulation — including Maersk — say it’s necessary to avoid penalizing those who are trying to clean up the business, and provide certainty about the industry’s direction.“There has to be an economic mechanism by which you level the playing field so that people are incentivized and not punished for using low-carbon fuels,” said John Butler, the chief executive of the World Shipping Council, which represents container carriers including Maersk.“Then you can invest with some confidence,” he added.A container ship traveling halfway around the world produce less climate-warming gas than a truck traveling across the United States.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesVincent Clerc, the chief executive of Maersk, said the company would continue to adopt new green technologies as they became available.Betina Garcia for The New York TimesStill, Maersk acknowledges that green methanol is unlikely to be the final solution. Experts say that the fuel’s reliance on finite sources of waste, like corn husks and cow manure, mean there will not be enough to power the entire global shipping fleet.In an interview, Vincent Clerc, the chief executive of Maersk, said that the entire maritime sector was unlikely to ever be powered predominantly by methanol. But Maersk had no regrets about moving some of its fleet from fossil fuels to methanol now, then adopting new technologies as they become available, he said.“This marks a real systemic change for this sector,” Mr. Clerc said, gesturing toward the vessel piled high with 20-foot containers in front of him.Eric Leveridge, the climate campaign manager for Pacific Environment, said his group was glad that Maersk and other shipping companies were moving toward more sustainable fuels. But the organization is still concerned that “it is more for optics and that the impact is potentially being exaggerated,” he said.“When it comes down to it, even if there is this investment, there’s still a lot of heavy fuel oil ships on the water,” he said. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Exxon Acquires Pioneer Natural Resources for $60 Billion

    by

    The acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, Exxon’s largest since its merger with Mobil in 1999, increases the company’s presence in the Permian basin in Texas and New Mexico.Exxon Mobil announced on Wednesday that it was acquiring Pioneer Natural Resources for $59.5 billion, doubling down on fossil fuel production even as many global policymakers grow increasingly concerned about climate change and the oil industry’s reluctance to shift to cleaner energy.After decades of investing in projects around the world, the deal would squarely lodge Exxon’s future close to its Houston base, with most of its oil production in Texas and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and along the coast of Guyana.By concentrating its production close to home, Exxon is effectively betting that U.S. energy policy will not move against fossil fuels in a major way even as the Biden administration encourages automakers to switch to electric vehicles and utilities to make the transition to renewable energy.Exxon executives have said that in addition to producing more fossil fuels, the company is building a new business that will capture carbon dioxide from industrial sites and bury the greenhouse gas in the ground. The technology to do that remains in an early stage and has not been successfully used on a large scale.“The combined capabilities of our two companies will provide long-term value creation well in excess of what either company is capable of doing on a standalone basis,” said Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive.American oil production has reached a record of roughly 13 million barrels a day, around 13 percent of the global market, but growth has slowed in recent years. Despite a wave of consolidation among oil and gas companies, and higher oil prices after the Russian invasion of Ukraine last year, producers are having a more difficult time finding new locations to drill.The Pioneer deal is a sign that it is now easier to acquire an oil producer than to drill for oil in a new location.Exxon, a refining and petrochemical powerhouse, needs a lot more oil and gas to turn into gasoline, diesel, plastics, liquefied natural gas, chemicals and other products. Much of that oil and gas is likely to come from the Permian basin, the most productive U.S. oil and gas field, which straddles Texas and New Mexico and where Pioneer is a major player.Exxon’s $10 billion Golden Pass terminal near the Texas-Louisiana border is scheduled to begin shipping liquefied natural gas to the rest of the world next year. Gas bubbles up with oil from the Permian basin, making the basin all the more valuable for exports as Europe weans itself from Russian gas.The Pioneer deal would be Exxon’s largest acquisition since it bought Mobil in 1999. It is bigger than the company’s ill-fated $30 billion acquisition of XTO Energy, a major natural gas producer, in 2010. Exxon had to write off much of that investment later when natural gas prices collapsed from the high levels that prevailed when it bought XTO.By buying Pioneer now, when the U.S. oil benchmark is around $83 a barrel, Exxon is counting on prices remaining relatively high in the next few years.Exxon has been careful in recent years to invest modestly in new production as it raised its dividends and bought back more of its own stock. Buying Pioneer would add production, a big change in its strategy.The acquisition would make Exxon the dominant player in the Permian basin, far outpacing Chevron, its biggest rival.Pioneer has been a darling of Wall Street investors as it has capitalized on the shale drilling boom. Scott Sheffield, its chief executive, got the company out of Alaska, Africa and offshore fields while buying up shale operations in the Permian at cheap prices. By 2020, it had become one of the biggest American drillers, with relatively low cost production.Mr. Sheffield is retiring at the end of the year. His company has a market value of about $50 billion, roughly one-eighth the size of Exxon. Many of its oil and gas fields are still untapped.“While the company has a solid succession plan in place, oil and gas markets have been volatile and the capital available to traditional oil and gas companies in the U.S. has been limited,” said Peter McNally, an analyst at Third Bridge, a research and analytics firm.The deal would be Exxon’s first major acquisition since Mr. Darren Woods became chief executive in 2017, replacing Rex Tillerson, who went on to become secretary of state.Exxon, which reported a record profit of $56 billion last year, is flush with cash that it could invest in Pioneer’s untapped fields. Since Exxon is also a large producer in the Permian, analysts say the merger would bring greater efficiencies in operations of both companies.This is just the latest in a series of mergers and acquisitions in the oil industry in recent years. But it has been consolidating. Occidental Petroleum acquired Anadarko Petroleum four years ago for nearly $40 billion, a deal that made Occidental a major competitor to Exxon and Chevron in the Permian basin. Pioneer spent more than $10 billion buying two other Permian producers, Parsley Energy and DoublePoint Energy, in 2021.Exxon bought Denbury, a Texas energy company that owns pipelines that can transport carbon dioxide, for $4.9 billion this year. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    European Steel Plan Shows Biden’s Bid to Merge Climate and Trade Policy

    by

    A potential agreement on steel trade provides the clearest look yet at how the Biden administration plans to implement a trade policy that is both protectionist and progressiveWASHINGTON — President Biden has promised to use trade policy as a tool to mitigate climate change. This weekend, the administration provided its first look at how it plans to mesh those policy goals, saying the United States and the European Union would try to curb carbon emissions as part of a trade deal covering steel and aluminum.The arrangement, which American and European leaders aim to introduce by 2024, would use tariffs or other tools to encourage the production and trade of metals made with fewer carbon emissions in places including the United States and European Union, and block dirtier steel and aluminum produced in countries including China.If finalized, it would be the first time a U.S. trade agreement includes specific targets on carbon emissions, said Ben Beachy, the director of the Sierra Club’s Living Economy program.“No U.S. trade deal to date has even mentioned climate change, much less included binding climate standards,” said Mr. Beachy.The announcement was short on details, and negotiations with European leaders are likely to face multiple roadblocks. But it provided an outline for how the Biden administration hopes to knit together its concerns about trade and climate and work with allies to take on a recalcitrant China, at a time when progress on multicountry trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization has stalled.“The U.S. leads the world in our clean steel technology,” Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said in an interview on Monday. She said the United States would work with allies “to preference cleaner steel, which will create an incentive to make more investments in technology,” resulting in fewer carbon emissions and more jobs.In the same interview, Katherine Tai, the United States Trade Representative, said the potential agreement would restrict market access for countries that don’t meet certain carbon standards, or that engage in nonmarket practices and contribute to global overcapacity in the steel sector — accusations that are often levied at China.The effort would seek to build “a global arrangement that promotes not just fair trade in steel but also pro-climate and responsible trade in steel,” Ms. Tai said.Kevin Dempsey, the president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said at an industry forum in Washington on Tuesday that the arrangement would be “positive for the U.S. industry,” which has the lowest carbon intensity per ton of steel of the major steel-producing countries.China accounts for nearly 60 percent of global steel production. Its use of a common steel-production method causes more than twice as much climate pollution as does the same technology in the United States, according to estimates by Global Efficiency Intelligence.In its announcement on Saturday, the Biden administration also said it had reached a deal to ease the tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump had imposed on European metals while the governments work toward the carbon accord.The United States would replace the 25 percent tariff on European steel and a 10 percent tariff on European aluminum with a so-called tariff-rate quota. In return, the European Union would drop the retaliatory tariffs it imposed on other American products, like bourbon and motorcycles.Under the new terms, 3.3 million metric tons of European steel would be allowed to enter the United States duty-free each year, with any steel above that volume subject to a 25 percent tariff.European producers would be allowed to ship 18,000 metric tons of unwrought aluminum, which often comes in the form of ingots, and 366,000 metric tons of wrought or semifinished aluminum into the United States each year, while volumes above that would be charged a 10 percent tariff, the commerce department said.To qualify for zero tariffs, the steel must be entirely made in the European Union — a provision designed to keep cheaper steel from countries including China and Russia from finding a backdoor into the United States via Europe.Supporters of free trade have criticized the Biden administration for relying on the same protectionist trade measures used by the Trump administration, which deployed both tariffs and quotas to protect domestic metal makers.Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, said the announcement would ratchet down trade tensions between the United States and Europe. But he called the trade barriers “an unwelcome form of managed trade” that would add costs and undermine American competitiveness.Ms. Tai said the administration had made a deliberate choice not to heed calls “for the president to just undo everything that the Trump administration had done on trade.”Mr. Biden’s plan, she said, “is that we formulate a worker-centered trade policy. And that means not actually going back to the way things were in 2015 and 2016, challenging us to do trade in a different way from how we’ve done it earlier, but also, critically, to challenge us to do trade in a way different from how the Trump administration did.”A factory in southern China that makes steel parts. The trade proposal would block dirtier steel and aluminum produced in countries including China.The New York TimesThe focus on carbon emissions differs from that of the Trump administration, which rejected any attempts to negotiate on carbon mitigation and withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change.But negotiations with Europe will face challenges, among them developing a common methodology for measuring how much carbon is emitted as certain products are made. Still, the announcement suggests that the United States and Europe might be ready to work toward a collaborative approach on lowering carbon emissions, despite past differences on how the problem should be addressed.European leaders have long advocated an explicit price on the carbon dioxide that companies emit while making their products. In July, the European Union proposed a carbon border adjustment mechanism that would require companies to pay for carbon emissions produced outside Europe, to discourage manufacturers from evading Europe’s restrictions on pollution by moving abroad.An explicit tax on carbon has met with more resistance in the United States, where some politicians want to update regulatory requirements or put the onus on companies to invest in cleaner production technology.Todd Tucker, the director of governance studies at the Roosevelt Institute, said the latest announcement suggested that the European Union may be “a little bit more flexible” on how the United States and other partners would go about lowering emissions. Mr. Biden’s reconciliation bill, for example, contains a proposal for a “green bank” that could provide financing for firms to transition to cleaner technologies, he said.“If the U.S. ends up achieving decarbonization through more of an investments and industrial-policy approach, it seems like they’re OK with that,” Mr. Tucker said.Though the earliest negotiations over carbon emissions in the steel sector involve the European Union, the Biden administration says it wants to quickly extend the partnership to other countries.In twin announcements on Sunday, the Department of Commerce said it had begun close consultations with Japan and the United Kingdom “on bilateral and multilateral issues related to steel and aluminum,” with a focus on “the need for like-minded countries to take collective action.”Both Japan and the United Kingdom still face a 25 percent tariff on steel exports to the United States imposed by Mr. Trump.The talks suggest a template for how the Biden administration will try to engage allies to counter China’s growing economic heft and make progress on goals like climate and workers rights.The administration has rejected Mr. Trump’s “America First” approach to trade, saying the United States needs to work with like-minded countries. But they have also acknowledged that the inefficiency of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, and distanced themselves from broader, multicountry trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.The announcements suggest that the Biden administration may not see comprehensive trade deals as the most effective way to accomplish many of its goals, but rather, industry-specific agreements among a limited number of democratic, free-market countries. That approach is similar to the cooperation the United States announced with the European Union for the civil aircraft industry in June.Ms. Raimondo said the agreement to ease the tariffs on the European Union was a “very significant achievement” that would help to alleviate supply chain problems and lower prices for companies that use steel and aluminum to make other products.“It’s all kind of a table setter to a global arrangement, whereby we work with our allies all over the world over the next couple of years,” she said. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Activists Crashed Exxon’s Board, but Forcing Change Will Be Hard

    by

    The tension between climate goals and lifting Exxon Mobil’s profits could make it difficult for activists to make progress.The growing urgency to address climate change and concerns about the financial performance of Exxon Mobil aligned this week to help activist investors place two directors on the company’s board.But it is not clear if the activists can deliver on their dual goals — reducing the emissions that are warming the planet and lifting the profits and stock price of Exxon. The potential tensions between those objectives could doom the investor effort to transform the company and the oil industry.Getting Exxon, a behemoth company with $265 billion in revenue in 2019 and oil and gas fields around the world, to switch to cleaner energy will be a yearslong and difficult process. It is unlikely to produce quick returns and could sap profits for a while as the company spends a small fortune to retool itself.And the biggest investment firms, which lent critical support to the activists and control a lot of Exxon’s stock, may be too timid to keep the pressure on company executives and board members who are determined to resist big changes.The manifesto put together by Engine No. 1, the hedge fund with a tiny stake in Exxon that led the dissident effort, is not particularly extreme. Nor does it contain a lot of details. The two people who won seats on the board declined interview requests, citing their new roles.“Two votes on a board of a dozen directors doesn’t win the day,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign. Still, he argued that it was “enough to bring a message” to the rest of the board. “Will it change everything? Probably not quickly.”Engine No. 1’s victory, which was not expected and came in the face of fierce opposition from management, has delivered a jarring reminder of the perils of doing too little to change — and veteran oil executives say it will encourage activists to push for change at other companies like Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company after Exxon.“This is an example of the domino theory,” said Jorge Piñon, a former senior executive at Amoco and BP who is now at the University of Texas at Austin. “One piece has fallen and you will see others follow. Exxon and Chevron are going to face quite a bit of pressure that in my opinion they are not going to be able to withstand and they will have to give in to new demands.”With governments around the world making ambitious commitments to cut emissions, including offering incentives for electric vehicles, and requiring utilities to shut down power plants powered by fossil fuels, the demand for Exxon’s main products could decline, depressing profits. Investors say Exxon and Chevron have been too slow to adapt to that shift compared with European oil companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell.“If you want to be a public company in a carbon-intensive industry you are going to have to convince investors that you still have a viable business in a low-carbon future,” said Mark Viviano, a managing partner at Kimmeridge, an energy-focused private equity firm.Exxon management says it realizes it must prepare for a lower-carbon future, and has supported the goals of the Paris climate agreement. But the company gave up on solar energy decades ago, and today its efforts to remake itself for an energy transition rely on some moonshot ideas that may not work out.It is a global leader in capturing carbon from industry and storing it below ground, and in recent weeks it has proposed an enormous $100 billion carbon capture and storage project along the Houston Ship Channel that could be a model for the world. But for the plan to be economically viable, the federal government would have to impose a carbon tax or another kind of price on carbon, a tough sell in Washington these days.Exxon has also worked for years to make advanced biofuels from algae, a project that other companies have abandoned. And it continues to bet heavily on exploration for oil and gas at a time when demand for such products may be peaking.Shareholders voted to retain Darren Woods as chief executive and chairman, a move that a Morgan Stanley research report viewed as an endorsement of his strategy to spend less on capital projects, reduce costs and continue to pay a generous dividend.“I’m not sure Exxon is going to change how they are going to deal with the energy transition,” said Mark Boling, a former executive vice president at Southwestern Energy, a Texas oil and gas company. “I think they have made a decision on how they are going to go and a few new board members are not going to make a difference.”Engine No. 1 managers are not saying much about their plans.“We’ve redefined what’s possible,” Chris James, founder of Engine No. 1, said in an interview after the vote. “Our overall goal is really greater transparency, which brings accountability, transparency on the impacts of what the business does as well as accountability on how to manage those impacts.”The two Engine No. 1 nominees who won election so far, Gregory Goff and Kaisa Hietala, have deep experience in the energy industry. Mr. Goff was chief executive of Andeavor, a refining and marketing company, while Ms. Hietala was executive vice president at Neste, a Finnish refiner and pioneer in biofuels.Engine No. 1 managers come across as cautious and modest in interviews. They don’t make brash pronouncements or hurl insults at Exxon as many climate activists often do.“There is no one big change,” said Charlie Penner, Engine No. 1’s head of active engagement. “Nothing is going to happen quickly.”Some big asset managers contend that companies like Exxon will have a better performance over the long run if they reduce their reliance on selling oil and gas, which many believe will fall in price if the world moves toward electric vehicles.Bryan Derballa for The New York TimesThe votes of giant asset management firms with big stakes in Exxon were critical in securing victory for Engine No. 1’s nominees. But it’s not clear how hard asset managers that voted for the hedge fund’s candidates like BlackRock, Exxon’s second-biggest shareholder, and Vanguard, its largest, will now push for climate-focused objectives.Laurence D. Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive, has said in recent years that he sees climate change as a big threat — and his firm has often used its enormous voting power to influence companies, and frequently targeted directors.In explaining its Exxon votes, BlackRock said Wednesday that the company had not done enough to assess the impact of a reduction in demand for fossil fuels, and contended this had “the potential to undermine the company’s long-term financial sustainability.”These big investors place a lot of faith in companies and the profit motive to make changes that can cost trillions of dollars. This year, Mr. Fink wrote that he had “great optimism about the future of capitalism and the future health of the economy — not in spite of the energy transition, but because of it.”But investors have not always rewarded companies that have announced ambitious plans to reduce emissions and move toward cleaner energy.Over the last five years, Exxon’s shares have fallen by about a third — a period over which the S&P 500 stock index was up about 100 percent. Its stock has done worse than the shares of other large oil companies. Yet, the shares of BP and Shell, two European companies that are investing a lot in cleaner sources of energy, are also lower — BP is down more than 17 percent over five years and Shell is down more than 26 percent.And despite their efforts, energy companies as a whole have not reduced emissions by nearly enough to stop temperatures rising above levels that scientists believe are dangerous for the planet, and many experts are calling for more far-reaching changes. The International Energy Agency said last week that countries needed to stop approving new oil and gas fields immediately for the world to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.Roberta Giordano, finance program campaigner for the Sunrise Project, an environmental group, said BlackRock, Vanguard and other asset managers needed to go much further, starting with the removal of Mr. Woods as Exxon’s chief executive.“Once again this shareholder season, BlackRock has failed to fully use its massive voting power on climate,” she said.But more optimistic analysts argue that Exxon could help the world reduce emissions and make money doing it. For example, the company’s experience with offshore oil drilling could be used to build offshore wind farms, said Geoffrey Heal, a professor at Columbia Business School. And Exxon could spend more on technology that removes carbon from the atmosphere and help make it affordable.“If I was one of the directors,” Mr. Heal said, “I’d be pushing for that.” More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Bad Was the Coronavirus Pandemic on Tourism in 2020? Look at the Numbers.

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Future of TravelA Year Without TravelThe Impact on the EnvironmentReimagining Tourism in HawaiiAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyA Year Without TravelHow Bad Was 2020 for Tourism? Look at the Numbers.The dramatic effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the travel industry and beyond are made clear in six charts.Idle planes stored at an airport in the Netherlands in November.Credit…Siese Veenstra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesStephen Hiltner and March 8, 2021, 4:30 p.m. ETNumbers alone cannot capture the scope of the losses that have mounted in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Data sets are crude tools for plumbing the depth of human suffering, or the immensity of our collective grief.But numbers can help us comprehend the scale of certain losses — particularly in the travel industry, which in 2020 experienced a staggering collapse.Around the world, international arrivals are estimated to have dropped to 381 million in 2020, down from 1.461 billion in 2019 — a 74 percent decline. In countries whose economies are heavily reliant on tourism, the precipitous drop in visitors was, and remains, devastating.According to recent figures from the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the decline in international travel in 2020 resulted in an estimated loss of $1.3 trillion in global export revenues. As the agency notes, this figure is more than 11 times the loss that occurred in 2009 as a result of the global economic crisis.The following charts — which address changes in international arrivals, emissions, air travel, the cruise industry and car travel — offer a broad overview of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic within the travel industry and beyond. More