Global Warming

More stories

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change Takes Center Stage in Economics

    by

    With climate change affecting everything from household finances to electric grids, the profession is increasingly focused on how society can mitigate carbon emissions and cope with their impact.A major economics conference this month included papers on wind turbine manufacturing, wildfire smoke and the stability of electricity grids.From left: Joe Buglewicz for The New York Times; Earl Wilson/The New York Times; Zack Wittman for The New York TimesIn early January in San Antonio, dozens of Ph.D. economists packed into a small windowless room in the recesses of a Grand Hyatt to hear brand-new research on the hottest topic of their annual conference: how climate change is affecting everything.The papers in this session focused on the impact of natural disasters on mortgage risk, railway safety and even payday loans. Some attendees had to stand in the back, as the seats had already been filled. It wasn’t an anomaly.Nearly every block of time at the Allied Social Science Associations conference — a gathering of dozens of economics-adjacent academic organizations recognized by the American Economic Association — had multiple climate-related presentations to choose from, and most appeared similarly popular.For those who have long focused on environmental issues, the proliferation of climate-related papers was a welcome development. “It’s so nice to not be the crazy people in the room with the last session,” said Avis Devine, an associate professor of real estate finance and sustainability at York University in Toronto, emerging after a lively discussion.We 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?  More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Problem Is Enormous, and the System for Fixing It Is Broken

    by

    Economists offer alternatives to financial safeguards created when the U.S. was the pre-eminent superpower and climate change wasn’t on the agenda.Martin Guzman was a college freshman at La Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, in 2001 when a debt crisis prompted default, riots and a devastating depression. A dazed middle class suffered ruin, as the International Monetary Fund insisted that the government make misery-inducing budget cuts in exchange for a bailout.Watching Argentina unravel inspired Mr. Guzman to switch majors and study economics. Nearly two decades later, when the government was again bankrupt, it was Mr. Guzman as finance minister who negotiated with I.M.F. officials to restructure a $44 billion debt, the result of an earlier ill-conceived bailout.Today he is one of a number of prominent economists and world leaders who argue that the ambitious framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability, with the I.M.F. and World Bank as its pillars, is failing in its mission.Martin Guzman, a former finance minister in Argentina, is among the economists and world leaders who argue that the framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability is not working.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesJavier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, at an election event in Salta, Argentina, in October. He has described himself as an “anarcho-capitalist.”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe current system “contributes to a more inequitable and unstable global economy,” said Mr. Guzman, who resigned last year after a rift within the government.The repayment that Mr. Guzman negotiated was the 22nd arrangement between Argentina and the I.M.F. Even so, the country’s economic tailspin has only increased with an annual inflation rate of more than 140 percent, growing lines at soup kitchens and a new, self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” president, Javier Milei, who this week devalued the currency by 50 percent.The I.M.F. and World Bank have aroused complaints from the left and right ever since they were created. But the latest critiques pose a more profound question: Does the economic framework devised eight decades ago fit the economy that exists today, when new geopolitical conflicts collide with established economic relationships and climate change poses an imminent threat?Volunteers serving free meals in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is in a tailspin, with growing lines at soup kitchens.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressProtests in Buenos Aires in 2001. A debt crisis in Argentina led to default, riots and a devastating depression.Fabian Gredillas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis 21st-century clash of ideas about how to fix a system created for a 20th-century world is one of the most consequential facing the global economy.The I.M.F. was set up in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., to help rescue countries in financial distress, while the World Bank’s focus was reducing poverty and investing in social development. The United States was the pre-eminent economic superpower, and scores of developing nations in Africa and Asia had not yet gained independence. The foundational ideology — later known as the “Washington Consensus” — held that prosperity depended on unhindered trade, deregulation and the primacy of private investment.“Nearly 80 years later, the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust,” António Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer at a summit in Paris. “Even the most fundamental goals on hunger and poverty have gone into reverse after decades of progress.”The world today is geopolitically fragmented. More than three-quarters of the current I.M.F. and World Bank countries were not at Bretton Woods. China’s economy, in ruins at the end of World War II, is now the world’s second-largest, an engine of global growth and a crucial hub in the world’s industrial machine and supply chain. India, then still a British colony, is one of the top five economies in the world.A session of the United Nations Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., on July 4, 1944. Delegates from 44 countries are seated at the long tables.Abe Fox/Associated Press, via Associated PressAntónio Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer that “the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust.”Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockThe once vaunted “Washington Consensus” has fallen into disrepute, with a greater recognition of how inequality and bias against women hamper growth, as well as the need for collective action on the climate.The mismatch between institution and mission has sharpened in recent years. Pounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, spiking food and energy prices related to the war in Ukraine, and higher interest rates, low- and middle-income countries are swimming in debt and facing slow growth. The size of the global economy as well as the scope of the problems have grown immensely, but funding of the I.M.F. and World Bank has not kept pace.Resolving debt crises is also vastly more complicated now that China and legions of private creditors are involved, instead of just a handful of Western banks.The World’s Bank’s own analyses outline the extent of the economic problems. “For the poorest countries, debt has become a nearly paralyzing burden,” a report released Wednesday concluded. Countries are forced to spend money on interest payments instead of investing in public health, education and the environment.An assembly line at the electric vehicle manufacturer Nio in Hefei, China. China’s economy was in ruins at the end of World War II but is now the world’s second largest and an engine of global growth.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesGita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said of the current financial system, “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockAnd that debt doesn’t account for the trillions of dollars that developing countries will need to mitigate the ravages of climate change.Then there are the tensions between the United States and China, and Russia and Europe and its allies. It is harder to resolve debt crises or finance major infrastructure without bumping up against security concerns — like when the World Bank awarded the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei a contract that turned out to violate U.S. sanctions policy, or when China has resisted debt restructuring agreements.“The global rules-based system was not built to resolve national security-based trade conflicts,” Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said Monday in a speech to the International Economic Association in Colombia. “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”The World Bank and I.M.F. have made changes. The fund has moderated its approach to bailouts, replacing austerity with the idea of sustainable debt. The bank this year significantly increased the share of money going to climate-related projects. But critics maintain that the fixes so far are insufficient.“The way in which they have evolved and adapted is much slower than the way the global economy evolved and adapted,” Mr. Guzman said.Argentina’s new president devalued the currency by 50 percent this week.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesA vegetables shop in Almagro in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is South America’s second largest.Anita Pouchard Serra for The New York Times‘Time to Revisit Bretton Woods’Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, may be the global economic system’s most notorious repeat failure, but it was Barbados, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, that can be credited with turbocharging momentum for change.Mia Mottley, the prime minister, spoke out two years ago at the climate change summit in Glasgow and then followed up with the Bridgetown Initiative, a proposal to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.“Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” she said in a speech at last year’s climate summit in Egypt. Ms. Mottley argues that there has been a “fundamental breakdown” in a longstanding covenant between poor countries and rich ones, many of which built their wealth by exploiting former colonies. The most advanced industrialized countries also produce most of the emissions that are heating the planet and causing extreme floods, wildfires and droughts in poor countries.Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation, in Ghana, said that even recent agreements to deal with debt like the 2020 Common Framework were created without input from developing nations.“We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” Ms. Owusu-Gyamfi said, from her office in Accra, as she discussed a $3 billion I.M.F. bailout of Ghana.Yet if the fund and bank are focused on economic issues, they are essentially political creations that reflect the power of the countries that established, finance and manage them.And those countries are reluctant to cede that power. The United States, the only member with veto power, has the largest share of votes in part because of the size of its economy and financial contributions. It does not want to see its influence shrink and others’ — particularly China’s — grow.The impasse over reapportioning votes has hampered efforts to increase funding levels, which countries across the board agree need to be increased.A vegetable market in Accra, Ghana. “We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Ghana.Natalija Gormalova for The New York TimesCustomers at lunch in Buenos Aires. Mr. Guzman and others pushing for change argue that indebted countries need more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times‘Big Hole’ in How to Deal With DebtStill, as Mr. Guzman said, “even if there are no changes in governance, there could be changes in policies.”Emerging nations need enormous amounts of money to invest in public health, education, transport and climate resilience. But they are saddled with high borrowing costs because of the market’s often exaggerated perception of the risk they pose as borrowers.And because they are usually compelled to borrow in dollars or euros, their payments soar if the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation as they did in the 1980s and after the Covid pandemic.The proliferation of private lenders and variety of loan agreements have made debt negotiations impossibly complex, yet no international legal arbiter exists.Zambia defaulted on its external debt three years ago, and there is still no agreement because the I.M.F., China and bondholders are at odds.There’s a “big hole” in international governance when it comes to sovereign debt, said Paola Subacchi, an economist at the Global Policy Institute at Queen Mary University in London, because the rules don’t apply to private loans, whether from a hedge fund or China’s central bank. Often these creditors have an interest in drawing out the process to hold out for a better deal.Mr. Guzman and other economists have called for an international legal arbiter to adjudicate disputes related to sovereign debt.“Every country has adopted a bankruptcy law,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, “but internationally we don’t have one.”The United States, though, has repeatedly opposed the idea, saying it is unnecessary.Rescues, too, have proved to be problematic. Last-resort loans from the I.M.F. can end up adding to a country’s budgetary woes and undermining the economic recovery because interest rates are so high now, and borrowers must also pay hefty fees.Those like Mr. Guzman and Ms. Mottley pushing for change argue that indebted countries need significantly more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines, along with a slate of other reforms.“The challenges are different today,” said Mr. Guzman. “Policies need to be better aligned with the mission.”Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, offered a proposal this year to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesFlash flooding in Bangladesh last year. The global economic framework was devised long before climate change posed an imminent threat to poor nations.Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    At COP28, More Than 20 Nations Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity

    by

    The group, including Britain, France and the United States, said the agreement was critical to meeting nations’ climate commitments.The United States and 21 other countries pledged on Saturday at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, saying the revival of nuclear power was critical for cutting carbon emissions to near zero in the coming decades.Proponents of nuclear energy, which supplies 18 percent of electricity in the United States, say it is a clean, safe and reliable complement to wind and solar energy. But a significant hurdle is funding.Last month, a developer of small nuclear reactors in Idaho said it was canceling a project that had been expected to be part of a new wave of power plants. The cost of building the reactors had risen to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of increasing interest rates and inflation.Britain, Canada, France, Ghana, South Korea, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates were among the 22 countries that signed the declaration to triple capacity from 2020 levels.Tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which would also help Europe reduce its dependence on Russia oil and gas, would require significant investment. In advanced economies, which have nearly 70 percent of global nuclear capacity, investments has stalled as construction costs have soared, projects have run over budget and faced delays. On top of cost, another hurdle to expanding nuclear capacity is that plants are slower to build than many other forms of power.Addressing the issue of financing, John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, said that there were “trillions of dollars” available that could be used for investment in nuclear. “We are not making the argument to anybody that this is absolutely going to be the sweeping alternative to every other energy source — no, that’s not what brings us here,” he said. But, he added, the science has shown that “you can’t get to net-zero 2050 without some nuclear.”Nuclear power does not emit carbon, and an International Energy Agency report last year that said nuclear was crucial to helping to reduce carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals outlined in 2015. President Emmanuel Macron of France said nuclear energy, including small modular reactors, was an “indispensable solution” to efforts to curb climate change. France, Europe’s biggest producer of nuclear power, gets about 70 percent of its own electricity from nuclear stations.Mr. Macron and other leaders, including Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden, called on the World Bank and international financial institutions to help finance nuclear projects. Mr. Kristersson said that governments must “assume a role in sharing the financial risks to strengthen the conditions and provide additional incentives for investments in nuclear energy.”While world leaders on Saturday called nuclear the most effective alternative to fossil fuels, some climate activists said nuclear energy was not a panacea.David Tong, a researcher at Oil Change International, said the pledge was divorced from the reality of nuclear energy — that it was too costly and too slow. “It’s a self-serving political pledge that doesn’t reflect the role that nuclear is likely to play in the energy transition, which is menial,” he said. “There is very small growth in nuclear — certainly nothing like tripling.” He said he rejected the stance that there was no pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, a goal set in the Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of global warming, without nuclear. Masayoshi Iyoda, an activist from Japan with 350.org, an international climate action campaign, cited the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011 and said that nuclear power was a dangerous distraction from decarbonization goals. “It is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming,” he said in a statement.“We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency,” Mr. Iyoda said.All but four of the 31 reactors that have begun construction since 2017 were designed by Russia or China, with China poised to become the leading nuclear power producer by 2030, the International Energy Agency said. This year, Germany shut its last three nuclear plants.Nuclear capacity rose in the 1980s, particularly in Europe and North America, but dropped sharply over the subsequent years after accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. New technology and tighter regulations have been put in place since then. Americans are conflicted about nuclear power, but a growing number favor expansion compared with a few years ago, according to a Pew Research Center study published in August. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Protesters Get in Fed’s Face as Policy Clash Grows Louder

    by

    Jerome H. Powell, the central bank’s chair, has been interrupted recently by a climate group that thinks disruption will win the day.A video of security officers wrestling a protester to the floor in the lobby of the Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming, outside the Federal Reserve’s most closely watched annual conference, clocked more than a million views.A protest that disrupted a speech by Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, at the Economic Club of New York this fall generated extensive coverage. And when the activists showed up again at Mr. Powell’s speech at the International Monetary Fund in early November, they seemed to get under his skin: The central bank’s usually staid leader was caught on a hot mic using a profanity as he told someone to close the door.All three upheavals were caused by the same group, Climate Defiance, which a now-30-year-old activist named Michael Greenberg founded in the spring. Mr. Greenberg had long worked in traditional climate advocacy, but he decided that something louder was needed to spur change at institutions like the Fed.“I realized there was a big need for disruptive direct action,” he explained in an interview. “It just gets so, so, so, so, so much more attention.”The small but noisy band of protesters dogging the Fed chair is also spotlighting a problem that the central bank has long grappled with: precisely what role it should play in the world’s transition to green energy.Climate-focused groups often argue that as a regulator of the nation’s largest banks, the Fed should play a major role in preparing the financial system for the damaging effects of climate change. Some want it to more overtly discourage bank lending to fossil fuel companies. Mr. Greenberg, for instance, said he would like the Fed to use regulation to make lending to oil and gas companies essentially cost-prohibitive.We 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?  More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Drought Saps the Panama Canal, Disrupting Global Trade

    by

    For over a century, the Panama Canal has provided a convenient way for ships to move between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, helping to speed up international trade.But a drought has left the canal without enough water, which is used to raise and lower ships, forcing officials to slash the number of vessels they allow through. That has created expensive headaches for shipping companies and raised difficult questions about water use in Panama. The passage of one ship is estimated to consume as much water as half a million Panamanians use in one day.“This is the worst we have seen in terms of disruption,” said Oystein Kalleklev, the chief executive of Avance Gas, which transports propane from the United States to Asia.The problems at the Panama Canal, an engineering marvel that opened in 1914 and handles an estimated 5 percent of seaborne trade, is the latest example of how crucial parts of global supply chains can suddenly seize up. In 2021, one of the largest container ships ever built got stuck for days in the Suez Canal, choking off trade. And the huge demand for goods like surgical masks, home appliances and garden equipment during the pandemic strained supply chains to their breaking point.Before the water problems, the canal handled some 38 ships a day. In July the authorities cut that to 32 vessels.Fewer passages could deprive Panama of tens of millions of dollars in revenue, push up the cost of shipping and increase greenhouse gas emissions when ships travel longer routes.In Panama, a lack of water has hampered canal operations in recent years, and some shipping experts say vessels may soon have to avoid the canal altogether if the problem gets worse. Fewer passages could deprive Panama’s government of tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue, push up the cost of shipping and increase greenhouse gas emissions when ships travel longer routes.Though Panama has an equatorial climate that makes it one of the wettest countries, rainfall there has been 30 percent below average this year, causing water levels to plunge in the lakes that feed the canal and its mighty locks. The immediate cause is the El Niño climate phenomenon, which initially causes hotter and drier weather in Panama, but scientists believe that climate change may be prolonging dry spells and raising temperatures in the region.Before the water problems, as many as 38 ships a day moved through the canal, which was built by the United States and remained under its control until 2000. The canal authority in July cut the average to 32 vessels, and later announced that the number would drop to 31 on Nov. 1. Further reductions could come if water levels remain low. The canal authority is also limiting how far a ship’s hull can go below the water, known as its draft, which significantly reduces the weight it can carry.Container ships, which transport finished consumer goods, typically reserve passage well in advance, and have not faced long delays. But ships carrying bulk commodities generally don’t book passage.Tree trunks are visible due to low levels of water. The drought also presents tough choices for Panama’s leaders, who must balance the water needs of the canal with those of residents.Vessels waiting to cross the Panama Canal. The passage of one ship is estimated to consume as much water as half a million Panamanians use in one day.This presents bulk shipping companies with an expensive calculus: They can risk waiting for days, pay a big fee to jump the line or avoid the canal entirely by taking a longer route.Mr. Kalleklev, the shipping executive, said his company decided in August to pay $400,000 in a special auction to move a ship ahead in the queue, roughly doubling the total cost of using the canal. Other companies have paid over $2 million, a cost they will sometimes bear to ensure ships don’t miss their next assignment. A portion of these extra costs will be passed on to consumers, already pummeled by inflation.The pain, however, has been limited because the U.S. economy is not running very hot and demand for imported goods is relatively muted.“If this was a year ago, when we still had record high freight rates and consumers still spending a lot on containerized goods from the Far East, then you would see more drama than you have now,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, a shipping market analytics company.But traffic through the canal is likely to remain at lower levels in the coming months. Reducing passages helps conserve water, because huge amounts are used up every time a ship goes through the locks as it travels the 40 miles across Panama.The drought also presents tough choices for Panama’s leaders, who must balance the water needs of the canal with those of residents, over half of whom rely on the same sources of water that feed the canal.The canal’s board recently proposed building a new reservoir in the Indio River to bolster the water supply and increase traffic through the canal, which generates over 6 percent of Panama’s gross domestic product. Under the plan, the new water supply could allow for an additional 12 to 15 passages daily.For over a century, the Panama Canal has provided a convenient way for ships to move between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.The canal’s board recently proposed building a new reservoir in the Indio River to bolster the water supply and increase traffic through the canal.“In optimal terms, the canal can handle 38 transits per day, so 12 to 15 is a lot,” said Rodrigo Noriega, a lawyer and a columnist for Panama’s La Prensa newspaper.Building the reservoir is expected to cost nearly $900 million, and the canal authority could start accepting bids from contractors toward the middle of next year with construction starting early in 2025. But that timeline could well be delayed; the construction of larger locks was completed two years late, in 2016, and that project was marred by cost disputes.The new reservoir would also involve acquiring land that is protected by a 2006 law, and displace at least some of its inhabitants. Mr. Noriega said he expected Panama’s legislature to pass a law that would lift the ban on acquiring land. But he and others note that new water sources could also be built in other places.Without a new water source, the canal could lose significant amounts of business. Other ocean routes are, of course, longer and more expensive, but they are less likely to have unpredictable delays. One alternative is to transport goods between Asia and United States through the Suez Canal to the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Another is to ship goods from Asia to the West Coast ports — and then transport them overland by train or truck.“In theory, something that offers a cheaper, shorter route should always be in favor, but it’s the uncertainty that can be a killer,” said Chris Rogers, head of supply chain research at S&P Global Market Intelligence.Protracted disruptions at the canal could stoke interest in building land routes in Mexico, Colombia and other countries that have coastlines on both oceans, said Richard Morales, a political economist who is running as an independent candidate for vice president in an election next year.The efforts to secure new water supplies could be a race against climate change.Because interest in building a canal dates to the 19th century, Panama has rainfall records going back some 140 years. That gives scientists more confidence when concluding that a weather change is a permanent shift and not merely random, said Steven Paton, a director of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute’s Physical Monitoring Program on an island in Lake Gatun, which makes up a large part of the canal and supplies most of its water.He said that while scientists were unsure about climate change’s impact on El Niño, two of the driest El Niño periods of the last 140 years had occurred in the last quarter-century, and that the current one could be the third.“It doesn’t say that this is climate change,” Mr. Paton said, “but it does say that this is wholly consistent with almost all of the climate change models.”Sol Lauría More

  • 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

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Scales Back Hopes for Ambitious Climate Trade Deal With Europe

    by

    A negotiating deadline is quickly approaching, and the United States has lowered its expectations for a groundbreaking trade deal.For the past two years, the United States and the European Union have been working toward a deal that would encourage trade in steel and aluminum made in more environmentally friendly ways to combat climate change.But longstanding differences on the way governments should treat trade and regulation have cropped up, preventing the allies from coming to a compromise. With an Oct. 31 deadline to reach a deal approaching, the United States has significantly narrowed its ambition for the pact, at least in its initial iteration.The outcome has been deeply disappointing for American negotiators, including Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative in charge of the talks, according to people familiar with the negotiations. In speeches last year, Ms. Tai described the potential deal as “historic” and “a paradigm-shifting model” that would reduce carbon produced by heavy industries, while also limiting unfair trade competition from countries like China, which has been pumping out cheap steel that is not manufactured in an environmentally friendly way.U.S. negotiators had envisioned setting up a club of nations committed to cleaner production, initially with Europe and later with other countries, that together would act to block dirtier steel, aluminum and other products from their markets. Steel and aluminum production is incredibly carbon intensive, with the industries together accounting for about a 10th of global carbon emissions. But Europeans raised a variety of objections to the approach, including arguing that it violated global trade rules for treating countries fairly.Now, the Biden administration is trying to salvage the talks by pushing for a narrower deal in the coming weeks. The more limited U.S. proposal currently includes an immediate agreement for countries to take steps to combat a flood of dirtier steel from countries like China, as well as a commitment to keep negotiating in the coming years for a framework that would discourage trade in products made with more carbon emissions, the people familiar with the negotiations said.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, has been seeking a far-reaching deal with the Europe Union.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe agreement is expected to be a point of discussion at a summit planned for Oct. 20, when President Biden will meet the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House.The stakes are high: The United States is poised to bring back Trump-era tariffs on European steel and aluminum on Jan. 1, unless the sides reach an agreement, or American negotiators issue a special reprieve. Mr. Biden paused those tariffs for two years in 2021, when negotiations began with Europe.Restoring cooperation between the United States and Europe after years of rocky relations during the Trump presidency has been a key objective for Mr. Biden and his deputies.But the talks faced a basic obstacle: the United States and Europe have fundamental differences in how they are addressing climate change, trade and competition from China, and neither side is yet willing to significantly depart from its own policies.The Biden administration has largely dispensed with traditional trade negotiations focused on opening international markets, arguing that past trade deals that lowered global barriers to trade helped multinational corporations, rather than American workers, while supercharging the Chinese economy.Instead, the Biden administration has embraced tariffs, subsidies and trade arrangements that protect industries in the United States and allied countries, while blocking cheaper products made in China. It has done so in lock step with U.S. labor unions, which are opposed to removing tariffs and other policies that protect their industries.The European Union has criticized the American tariffs and subsidy programs as protectionist policies that threaten to undermine international trade rules.“This administration is trying to significantly retool the way we go about global economic engagement,” said Emily Benson, the director of Project on Trade and Technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “What’s unclear is the degree to which our allies buy into that agenda.”For their part, European officials are putting their efforts into an ambitious new carbon pricing scheme, that would tax companies across a range of industries in Europe and elsewhere for the greenhouse gases emitted during manufacturing. European officials have urged the United States to adopt a similar approach but American officials argue such a system is not viable in the United States, where Congress would be unlikely to impose new carbon taxes on American companies.The two governments also differ in how to approach China, which makes more than half of the world’s steel, often by burning coal. American steel makers say their Chinese counterparts receive generous government subsidies that allow Chinese steel to be sold at artificially low prices, unfairly undercutting competitors.European officials have been more reluctant to target China specifically. While the E.U. government has begun to take a more skeptical look at Chinese exports, many European nations still regard the country more as a vital business partner than a geopolitical rival.Given the close alignment between the United States and Europe on many issues, the history of trade negotiations between the governments is surprisingly bleak.The Obama administration pursued a trade deal with Europe that ultimately crumbled as a result of irreconcilable differences over regulation and agriculture. After lobbing both criticism and tariffs at Europe, the Trump administration tried for a more limited agreement, with similarly unimpressive results.The Biden administration successfully de-escalated some of those trade fights. But fundamental differences remain in how the United States and Europe view the role of government and regulation.“It’s incredibly complicated, largely because we have markedly different priorities,” said William Alan Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I can see a path but the path involves both sides making concessions that they really don’t want to make.”Miriam Garcia Ferrer, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said the countries were “fully committed to achieving an ambitious outcome” by October.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has warm relations with the American trade representative but that has not yet resulted in an agreement.Andy Wong/Associated PressThe European Union is seeking a permanent solution to U.S. tariffs and “re-establish normal and undistorted trans-Atlantic trade” while also driving decarbonization and addressing the challenge of global steel overproduction, Ms. Garcia Ferrer said.Sam Michel, a spokesperson for the U.S. trade representative, said that the Biden administration had “been fully committed to these negotiations over the last two years and we are hopeful both sides can reach an agreement that demonstrates the close partnership between the United States and the European Union.”People close to the talks say the outcome has been particularly disappointing given the close alignment and warm relations between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen, and Ms. Tai and her counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade.Ms. Tai and Mr. Dombrovskis committed earlier this year to meeting every month. Mr. Dombrovskis, the former prime minister of Latvia, hosted Ms. Tai at a seaside dinner in the Latvian capital in June, and she brought him to the White House on July 4 to watch fireworks from the lawn.U.S. officials initially thought those meetings might mark a turning point for the negotiations. In a trip to Brussels in July, Ms. Tai told her counterparts that time was running out and that they needed to get something done.But that top-level commitment did not fuel momentum at lower levels of the bureaucracy, and progress fizzled as European negotiators left for summer holidays.The pace of talks has accelerated over the past month, but for a much more limited agreement.Jennifer Harris, a former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council who played a key role in starting negotiations, expressed optimism that progress could be made in the final days and weeks of the negotiations, especially given the upcoming meeting between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen.The talks now need “the kind of swift injection of tailwind that only leaders can provide,” she said. “I don’t think either leader is going to let this thing fail.” More