International Relations

More stories

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. to Press China to Stop Flow of Fentanyl

    by

    President Biden pressed the Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Wednesday to crack down on the Chinese firms that are helping to produce fentanyl, a potent drug that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.A plan to curb China’s illicit exports of fentanyl and, particularly, the chemicals that can be combined to make the drug was hoped to be one of the more significant achievements for the United States out of Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi’s meeting, which took place as leaders from Pacific nations gathered for an international conference in San Francisco.A summary of the meeting published by China’s CCTV News said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi had agreed to establish an anti-drug working group.China is home to a thriving chemical industry that pumps out compounds that are made into pharmaceuticals, fragrances, textile dyes and fertilizers. Some of those same compounds can also be combined to create fentanyl, an opioid that can be 100 times as potent as morphine.U.S. officials argue that this vast chemical industry is playing a key role in the American fentanyl crisis by supplying the bulk of materials used in illegal drug labs, including in Mexico, which is now the largest exporter of fentanyl to the United States.The Chinese government denies that its country plays such a pivotal role and instead blames the United States for harboring a culture of drug use.“All-out marketing by pharmaceutical companies, over-prescription by doctors, ineffective government crackdowns and the negative implications of marijuana legalization are among the combination of factors behind an ever-growing market for narcotics,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement last year.U.S. officials say they have stopped more fentanyl from coming into the United States in the past two years than in the previous five years combined. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl and other synthetic opioids may have resulted in more than 77,000 overdose deaths in the United States between May 2022 and April 2023. The problem with fentanyl overdoses is particularly acute in San Francisco, where Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi are meeting.Ian Johnson, a senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that getting China to agree to do something about fentanyl would resonate more with average Americans than the typical “deliverables” from international meetings.“For Biden, that would be nice to have to show to the heartland of the United States that relations with China are more than just some esoteric matter, but can actually bring something to ordinary people,” Mr. Johnson said in a briefing held by the council last week. Republicans have made fentanyl-related deaths a central piece of their campaign against Mr. Biden and Democrats in the 2024 elections.Red stained pollen grain sample at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Chicago, last year.Lyndon French for The New York TimesCollecting pollen samples at a Customs and Border Protection facility. The extent to which an agreement with China would curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States is unclear.Lyndon French for The New York TimesStill, given the difficulties with policing an illicit industry, the extent to which an agreement would curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States is unclear.Roselyn Hsueh, an associate professor of political science at Temple University, said that an agreement between Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi could lead the Chinese central government to provide more oversight and invest more resources into inspection and monitoring. But she said Beijing had run into difficulty in the past clamping down on fentanyl and precursor chemicals.Before 2019, China was the primary source of fentanyl coming into the United States, typically through the mail and other commercial couriers. As a part of trade talks with President Donald J. Trump, the Chinese government in 2019 agreed to prohibit the production, sale and export of all fentanyl-related drugs except through special licenses.But that resulted in Chinese companies rerouting to Mexico and India’s emergence as a new production site, Ms. Hsueh said. The main source of U.S. fentanyl became Mexican criminal organizations, which used Chinese-made components and Chinese money-laundering services.Today, online sales that mask the identities of sellers and buyers further complicate enforcement. The regulation and enforcement of fentanyl and precursor chemicals remain “fragmented and decentralized” among Chinese local governments, industry associations and firms with vested interests in the chemical trade, Ms. Hsueh said.U.S. officials have said that problem is compounded because many of the ingredients used to make fentanyl are legal chemicals that can be used for legitimate purposes in other industries. The United States has issued sanctions against dozens of people in China and Hong Kong for their role in fentanyl trafficking. In September, Mr. Biden added China to the U.S. list of the world’s major drug-producing countries, a move that the Chinese government denounced as “a malicious smear.”Last month, the U.S. customs department released an updated strategy to combat fentanyl and synthetic drugs, including through the enhanced use of data and counterintelligence operations to track drug manufacturing and distribution networks, and target suspicious locations and recipients that demonstrate patterns of illicit activity. “In my 30 years as a customs official, the trafficking of synthetic illicit drugs like fentanyl is one of the toughest, most daunting challenges I have ever seen,” said Troy Miller, the acting commissioner for Customs and Border Protection.U.S. officials say they have stopped more fentanyl from coming into the United States in the past two years than in the previous five years combined.Mamta Popat/Arizona Daily Star, via Associated PressU.S. officials believe China’s dominance as a chemical producer makes Beijing’s cooperation key for enforcement. Administration officials, including Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo, have raised the issue with top Chinese officials during recent trips to China.When six lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, had a chance to talk to Mr. Xi during a visit to China last month, the main issue they brought up was not trade or military coordination or climate change, but the harm that fentanyl had caused in their home states.“Everyone told stories, personal stories about how, you know, friends of ours, family, have died from fentanyl, and how this was a really important issue, and I think that you could tell that made an impression on him, how deeply we felt about it,” said Mr. Schumer, a New York Democrat.Fentanyl precursors from China have become a bipartisan issue in Congress, and the six senators who spoke with Mr. Xi were three Democrats and three Republicans.“China needs to enforce laws that prevent the export of fentanyl precursors to international drug markets,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana.Despite the scale of the problem, there is hope that greater coordination between the United States and China could improve the situation. Cooperation between the countries on preventing shipments of the precursor chemicals stalled several years ago after the United States placed sanctions on a Chinese government entity for its alleged involvement in human rights abuses in China’s westernmost region, Xinjiang.That entity was located at the same address in Beijing as the National Narcotics Laboratory of China, which plays a key role in China’s law enforcement effort on drug-related chemicals.Chinese officials deeply resent American sanctions on their institutions, and U.S. officials have taken the position that because of the risk of confusion among the two institutes at the same address, neither institute can work with the United States.China then broadened its position in August 2022 when it halted any counternarcotics coordination with the United States as one of a series of measures taken in response to a visit to Taiwan by Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the speaker of the House. Beijing claims Taiwan, a self-ruled island democracy, as part of its territory.Eileen Sullivan More

  • 88 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Sharp Drop in Airfares Cheers Inflation-Weary Travelers

    by

    Airfares to many popular destinations have recently fallen to their lowest levels in months, and even holiday travel is far cheaper than it was last year, providing some welcome relief to consumers who have been frustrated for months by high prices for all manner of goods and services.The glut of deals suggests that the airline industry’s supercharged pandemic recovery may finally be slowing as the supply of tickets catches up and, on some routes, overtakes demand, which appears relatively robust.Consider the fares that Denise Diorio, a retired teacher in Tampa, Fla., recently scored. She spent less than $40 on flights to and from Chicago and paid just $230 for a round-trip ticket from New York to Paris and back, a trip she plans to take this month.“I’ve been telling all my friends, ‘If you want to go somewhere, get your tickets now,’” she said.The bargains she found may be exceptional, but Ms. Diorio is right that deals abound.Early this month, the average price for a domestic flight around Thanksgiving was down about 9 percent from a year ago. And flights around Christmas were about 18 percent cheaper, according to Hopper, a booking and price-tracking app. Kayak, the travel search engine, looked at a wider range of dates around the holidays and found that domestic flight prices were down about 18 percent around Thanksgiving and 23 percent around Christmas.“In a lot of cases, we’re seeing some of the lowest fares that we’ve seen really since travel started coming back after the drop-off in 2020,” said Kyle Potter, executive editor of Thrifty Traveler, a travel blog and deal-watching service.Domestic ticket prices fell over the summer, Mr. Potter said, and deals on international travel, particularly to Europe, have become more common recently.Airlines lower their fares when they are trying to get more people to book tickets as demand is slowing or they are facing stiffer competition. There’s little question that competition has intensified on some routes, but travel experts say it’s not clear whether demand is waning.Thanksgiving this year is expected to set a record for air travel, with nearly 30 million passengers forecast, according to Airlines for America, an industry group. That would be about 9 percent more than last year and 6 percent more than in 2019, before the pandemic.But some airlines say demand is slowing outside of holiday and other peak travel periods. In addition, some airports have been so flooded with flights that carriers have been forced to cut fares to fill planes.That hadn’t been much of a problem for most of the recovery from the pandemic. Weather and other disruptions limited the supply of flights last year and in 2021, as did shortages of trained pilots, parts and planes, among other factors. That drove up ticket prices, kept planes full and helped airlines take in strong profits.Thanksgiving this year is expected to set a record for air travel, with nearly 30 million passengers anticipated.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times“The airline industry has never delivered the types of profit margins and return on capital that it has done over the last 2.5 years,” said John Grant, chief analyst with OAG, an aviation advisory and data firm. “We’re getting back to a more normal industry.”For the largest U.S. airlines, the good times have continued, fueled in particular by thriving demand for international travel. But smaller and low-fare carriers have started to suffer. Several reported disappointing financial results for the three months that ended in September. Executives at those airlines have said demand is weakening, fares are falling and costs remain high. They also say bad weather and a shortage of air traffic controllers have made flying more difficult.JetBlue Airways, for example, lost $153 million in the third quarter, compared with a $57 million profit in the same period last year. The company said recently that it was moving flights away from crowded markets, such as New York, to those where it expected stronger performance, such as the Caribbean. The budget carriers Spirit Airlines and Frontier Airlines recently told investors that they were looking to cut costs by tens of millions of dollars.Competition has been fierce in some important markets, driving down fares and profits.In Denver, where Frontier is based, about 14 percent more seats were available on flights this summer than in the summer of 2019, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. Miami and Orlando, Fla., two popular destinations served by many budget carriers, saw even larger increases in capacity.But while airlines added flights in popular markets as they chased passengers, airports in other cities, including Los Angeles, a hub for several major airlines, had large declines in capacity from the summer of 2019.“You’ll find that there’s a large correlation between the airlines that are doing well and the ones that are struggling, margin-wise, when you compare where their concentrations are,” Barry Biffle, Frontier’s chief executive, said last month on a conference call to discuss the airline’s third-quarter results.When it comes to international routes, analysts are less certain of why fares are falling and whether they will remain low. The kinds of deals that Ms. Diorio got for her Paris trip could mean that larger airlines soon find themselves facing a financial squeeze or merely that the industry is returning to a prepandemic normal.“Historically, demand to Europe softens in the winter,” said Steve Hafner, Kayak’s chief executive. “So I think that reflects normal trends.”But demand for international travel could face challenges, partly because of the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. Analysts also warn that many consumers may be less willing or able to splurge on travel than they were in the last couple of years, when they had pandemic savings to draw from. Even if demand remains strong, airlines risk offering too many seats on popular overseas routes.Whatever the cause of the recent drop in fares, the deals are a welcome break to travelers from years of high prices, Mr. Potter said.“Either way the recipe is there for cheap flights,” he said. “If it’s just a little bit of overcapacity, that’s a win for consumers. If travel demand is dropping, in some ways that’s an even bigger win for people who are never going to give up on travel.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Pacific Trade Pact Suffers Setback After Criticism From Congress

    by

    The administration will no longer try to announce the completion of the trade terms this week, after prominent Democrats objected to some provisions.The Biden administration has pulled back on plans to announce the conclusion of substantial portions of a new Asian-Pacific trade pact at an international meeting in San Francisco this week, after several top Democratic lawmakers threatened to oppose the deal, people familiar with the matter said.The White House had been aiming to announce that the United States and its trading partners had largely settled the terms of its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, an agreement that aims to strengthen alliances and economic ties among the United States and its allies in East and South Asia.But Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, and other prominent lawmakers have criticized the pact, saying it lacks adequate protections for workers in the countries it covers, among other shortcomings.The Biden administration, facing the possibility of additional critical public statements, has decided not to push to conclude the trade portion of the agreement this week, and has been briefing members of Congress and foreign trading partners in recent days on its decision, the people said.The agreement has been a key element of the Biden administration’s strategy to counter China’s growing influence in Asia by strengthening relations with allies. The framework’s partners include Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Singapore and together account for 40 percent of the global economy.The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity has four main parts, or “pillars.” The first portion, which the administration completed in May, aims to knit together the countries’ supply chains.The Biden administration still appears likely to announce the substantial conclusion this week of two other big portions of the agreement, one on clean energy and decarbonization and another on taxation and anticorruption. The Commerce Department negotiated those two pillars, as well as the supply chain agreement.But the thorniest part of the framework has been the trade pillar, which is being overseen by Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, and her office. The trade negotiations cover issues such as regulatory practices, procedures for importing and exporting goods, agriculture, and standards for protecting workers and the environment.Congressional Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who leads the Senate Finance Committee, have expressed concern over the labor and environmental standards. Lawmakers of both parties have criticized the administration for not closely consulting Congress during the negotiations, while others have been dismayed by the administration’s recent clash with big tech firms over U.S. negotiating positions on digital trade.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, second from left, has pledged to include tough labor standards in the agreement.Jason Henry/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn a statement last week, Mr. Brown, who is facing a tough re-election fight next year, called for cutting the entire trade pillar from the agreement, saying it did not contain strong enough protections to ensure workers aren’t exploited.“As the administration works to finalize the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, they should not include the trade pillar,” Mr. Brown said. “Any trade deal that does not include enforceable labor standards is unacceptable.”Members of Congress and their staffs had communicated concerns about a lack of enforceable provisions in meetings for several months, one Senate aide said.In a meeting with White House officials this fall, officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative proposed waiting until next year to announce the completed trade pillar, at which point all of the agreement’s contents, including the labor provisions, would be settled, according to a person familiar with the deliberations, who was not authorized to speak publicly.But White House officials were eager to have developments for President Biden to announce during the meetings in San Francisco. U.S. trade officials pushed their partners in foreign countries in recent weeks to complete a package of agreements that did not include the labor provisions, intending to finish them in 2024.After Mr. Brown’s public objections, the White House and the National Security Council asked to pull back on the announcement, the person who is familiar with the deliberations said.A spokesman for the National Security Council said in a statement that the Biden administration had focused on promoting workers’ rights and raising standards throughout the negotiations, and that the parties were on track to achieve meaningful progress.A spokesperson for Ms. Tai’s office said it had held 70 consultations with Congress while developing and negotiating the Indo-Pacific framework and would continue to work with Congress to negotiate a high-standard agreement.The decision to push back final trade measures until next year at the earliest is a setback for the Biden administration’s strategic plans for Asia. It’s also a demonstration of the tricky politics of trade, particularly for Democrats, who have frequently criticized trade agreements for failing to protect workers and the environment.Ms. Tai worked with Mr. Wyden, Mr. Brown and others during the Trump administration, when she was the chief trade counsel for the House Committee on Ways and Means, to insert tougher protections for workers and the environment into the renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement.Ms. Tai has pledged to include tough labor standards in the Indo-Pacific agreement, which covers some countries — such as Malaysia and Vietnam — that labor groups say have low standards for protecting workers and unions. But critics say the power of the United States to demand concessions from other countries is limited because the deal does not involve lowering any tariff rates to give trading partners more access.While doing so would promote trade, the Biden administration and other trade skeptics argue that lower barriers could hurt American workers by encouraging companies to move jobs overseas. A previous Pacific trade pact that proposed cutting tariffs, the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the Obama administration, fizzled after losing support from both Republicans and Democrats.In a statement, Mr. Wyden said senators had warned Ms. Tai’s office for months “that the United States cannot enter into a trade agreement without leveling the playing field for American workers, tackling pressing environmental challenges and bulldozing trade barriers for small businesses and creators.”“It should not have taken this long for the administration to listen to our warnings,” Mr. Wyden said. “Ambassador Tai must come home and work with Congress to find an agreement that will support American jobs and garner congressional support.” More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Janet Yellen, U.S. Treasury Secretary, Will Meet With Chinese Counterpart

    by

    The high-level meetings in San Francisco will lay the groundwork for talks between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen will hold two days of high-level meetings with her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, this week, as the United States and China look to build upon an effort that started earlier this year to improve communication between the world’s two largest economies.The meetings will take place on Thursday and Friday in San Francisco ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which begins on Saturday. The meetings will help lay the groundwork for expected talks at the summit between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping. The Treasury Department said that the United States hoped Ms. Yellen’s meetings would “further stabilize the bilateral economic relationship” and make progress on key economic issues.The revival of economic diplomacy between the two countries comes at a fraught moment for the global economy, which is grappling with sluggish output and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.A senior Treasury Department official said the Biden administration continued to seek a better understanding of China’s economic policies. Ms. Yellen is expected to talk to Mr. He about issues like debt relief for developing countries and the financing of international efforts to combat climate change. The discussions are also intended to address any misunderstandings from recent national security actions that the Biden administration has taken, such as restrictions on investments that Americans can make in Chinese industries.The talks in San Francisco follow Ms. Yellen’s trip to Beijing in July. After that visit, the Treasury Department established financial and economic working groups to promote more regular dialogue between the United States and China.As Treasury secretary, Ms. Yellen has been trying to help the United States diversify its supply chains so that it relies more on allies and domestic production and less on China, which over the past decade has similarly worked to become less reliant on imports.In a speech at the Asia Society last week, Ms. Yellen said that the United States would continue to respond to China’s economic practices while seeking ways to work together where possible. But she also made clear that she opposed efforts to sever economic ties with China.“A full separation of our economies, or an approach in which countries including those in the Indo-Pacific are forced to take sides, would have significant negative global repercussions,” Ms. Yellen said. “We have no interest in such a divided world and its disastrous effects.” More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Risk of a Wider Middle East War Threatens a ‘Fragile’ World Economy

    by

    After shocks from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there’s little cushion if the fighting between Hamas and Israel becomes a regional conflict.Fears that Israel’s expanding military operations in Gaza could escalate into a regional conflict are clouding the global economy’s outlook, threatening to dampen growth and reignite a rise in energy and food prices.Rich and poor nations were just beginning to catch their breath after a three-year string of economic shocks that included the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Stinging inflation has been dropping, oil prices have stabilized and predicted recessions have been avoided.Now, some leading international financial institutions and private investors warn that the fragile recovery could turn bad.“This is the first time that we’ve had two energy shocks at the same time,” said Indermit Gill, chief economist at the World Bank, referring to the impact of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East on oil and gas prices.Those price increases not only chip away at the buying power of families and companies but also push up the cost of food production, adding to high levels of food insecurity, particularly in developing countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.As it is, nations are already struggling with unusually high levels of debt, limp private investment and the slowest recovery in trade in five decades, making it tougher for them to grow their way out of the crisis. Higher interest rates, the result of central bank efforts to tame inflation, have made it more difficult for governments and private companies to get access to credit and stave off default.Israeli soldiers surveying destruction in Kfar Azza, a community near the Gaza border that Hamas militants raided last month.Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times“All of these things are happening all at the same time,” Mr. Gill said. “We are in one of the most fragile junctures for the world economy.”Mr. Gill’s assessment echoes those of other analysts. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said last month that “this may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades,” and described the conflict in Gaza as “the highest and most important thing for the Western world.”The recent economic troubles have been fueled by deepening geopolitical conflicts that span continents. Tensions between the United States and China over technology transfers and security only complicate efforts to work together on other problems like climate change, debt relief or violent regional conflicts.The overriding political preoccupations also mean that traditional monetary and fiscal tools like adjusting interest rates or government spending may be less effective.The brutal fighting between Israel and Hamas has already taken the lives of thousands of civilians and inflicted wrenching misery on both sides. If the conflict stays contained, though, the ripple effects on the world economy are likely to remain limited, most analysts agree.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, said on Wednesday that “it isn’t clear at this point that the conflict in the Middle East is on track to have significant economic effects” on the United States, but he added, “That doesn’t mean it isn’t incredibly important.”Mideast oil producers do not dominate the market the way they did in the 1970s, when Arab nations drastically cut production and imposed an embargo on the United States and some other countries after a coalition led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel.At the moment, the United States is the world’s largest oil producer, and alternative and renewable energy sources make up a bit more of the world’s energy mix.“It’s a highly volatile, uncertain, scary situation,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. But there is “a recognition among most of the parties, the U.S., Europe, Iran, other gulf countries,” he continued, referring to the Persian Gulf, “that it’s in no one’s interest for this conflict to significantly expand beyond Israel and Gaza.”Mr. Bordoff added that missteps, poor communication and misunderstandings, however, could push countries to escalate even if they didn’t want to.And a significant and sustained drop in the global supply of oil — whatever the reasons — could simultaneously slow growth and inflame inflation, a cursed combination known as stagflation.Women buying and selling grain in Yola, Nigeria. The aftereffects of the pandemic have stunted growth in emerging markets like Nigeria.Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York TimesGregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, said a worst-case scenario in which the war broadened could cause oil prices to spike to $150 a barrel, from about $85 currently. “The global economic consequences of this scenario are severe,” he warned, citing a mild recession, a plunge in stock prices and a loss of $2 trillion for the global economy.The prevailing mood now is uncertainty, which is weighing on investment decisions and could discourage businesses from expanding into emerging markets. Borrowing costs have soared, and companies in several countries, from Brazil to China, are expected to have trouble refinancing their debt.At the same time, emerging markets like Egypt, Nigeria and Hungary have experienced some of the worst scarring from the pandemic, according to Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, resulting in lower growth than had been projected.Conflict in the Middle East as well as economic strains could also increase the stream of migrants heading to Europe from that region and North Africa. The European Union, which is teetering on the brink of a recession, is in the middle of negotiations with Egypt over increasing financial aid and controlling migration.China, which gets half its oil imports from the Persian Gulf, is struggling with a collapse in the real estate market and its weakest growth is nearly three decades.By contrast, the United States has confounded forecasters with its strong growth. From July through September, the economy grew at an annual rate of just a shade under 5 percent, buoyed by slowing inflation, stockpiled savings and robust hiring.India, backed by enthusiastic consumers, is on track to perform well next, with estimated growth of 6.3 percent.A natural gas pipeline terminal in Ashkelon, Israel, in 2017. When it comes to energy markets, events in the Middle East “will not stay in the Middle East,” said M. Ayhan Kose, a World Bank economist.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesThe region with the gloomiest prospects is sub-Saharan Africa, where, even before fighting broke out in Israel and Gaza, total output this year was estimated to fall 3.3 percent. Incomes in the region have not increased since 2014, when oil prices crashed, said M. Ayhan Kose, who oversees the World Bank’s annual Global Economic Prospects report.“Sub-Saharan Africa has already experienced a lost decade,” Mr. Kose said in an interview. Now “think about another lost decade.”As far as energy markets are concerned, something that “happens in the Middle East will not stay in the Middle East,” he added. “It will have global implications.” 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

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Middle East War Could Cause Oil Price Shock, World Bank Warns

    by

    A major escalation of the war between Israel and Hamas — one that spilled over into a broader Middle East conflict — could send oil prices surging as much as 75 percent, the World Bank warned on Monday.The potential for a global energy shock in the wake of Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel has been a pressing question for economists and policymakers, who have spent the past year trying to combat inflation.Energy prices have remained largely contained since Hamas invaded Israel on Oct. 7. But economists and policymakers have been closely monitoring the trajectory of the war and studying previous conflicts in the region as they try to determine the potential scale of economic repercussions if the current conflict intensifies and broadens across the Middle East.The World Bank’s new study suggests that such a crisis could overlap with energy market disruptions already caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine, exacerbating the economic consequences.“The latest conflict in the Middle East comes on the heels of the biggest shock to commodity markets since the 1970s — Russia’s war with Ukraine,” Indermit Gill, the World Bank’s chief economist and senior vice president for development economics, said in a statement that accompanied the report. “If the conflict were to escalate, the global economy would face a dual energy shock for the first time in decades — not just from the war in Ukraine but also from the Middle East.”The World Bank projects that global oil prices, which are currently hovering around $85 per barrel, will average $90 per barrel this quarter. The organization had been projecting them to decline next year, but disruptions to oil supplies could drastically change those forecasts.The bank’s worst-case scenario is pegged to the 1973 Arab oil embargo that took place during the Arab-Israeli war. A disruption of that severity could remove as much as eight millions barrels of oil per day off the market and send prices as high as $157 per barrel.A less severe, but still disruptive, outcome would be if the war plays out as the 2003 war in Iraq, with oil supply being reduced by five million barrels per day and prices rising as much as 35 percent, to $121 a barrel.A more modest outcome would be if the conflict parallels the 2011 civil war in Libya, with two million barrels per day of oil lost from global markets and prices rising as much as 13 percent, to $102 per barrel.World Bank officials cautioned that the effects on inflation and the global economy would depend on the duration of the conflict and how long oil prices remained elevated. They said that if higher oil prices are sustained, however, that would lead to higher prices for food, industrial metals and gold.The United States and Europe have been trying to keep global oil prices from spiking in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Western nations introduced a price cap on Russia’s energy exports, a move aimed at limiting Moscow’s oil revenues while ensuring oil supply continued to flow.The Biden administration also tapped its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease oil price pressures. A senior administration official told The New York Times last week that President Biden could authorize a new round of releases from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an emergency stockpile of crude oil that is stored in underground salt caverns near the Gulf of Mexico.Biden administration officials have publicly downplayed their concerns about the economic impact of the conflict, saying it was too soon to predict the fallout. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen noted at a Bloomberg News event last week that oil prices had so far been generally flat and that she had not yet seen signs that the war was having global economic consequences.“What could happen if the war expands?” Ms. Yellen said. “Of course there could be more meaningful consequences.” More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The Multimillion-Dollar Machines at the Center of the U.S.-China Rivalry

    by

    The United States is taking unusual action to clamp down on sales of chip-making machinery to China, even as Chinese firms are racing to stockpile the equipment.They are smooth white boxes, roughly the size of large cargo vans, and they are now at the heart of the U.S.-Chinese technology conflict.As the United States tries to slow China’s progress toward technological advances that could help its military, the complex lithography machines that print intricate circuitry on computer chips have become a key choke point.The machines are central to China’s efforts to develop its own chip-making industry, but China does not yet have the technology to make them, at least in their most advanced forms. This week, U.S. officials took steps to curb China’s progress toward that goal by barring companies globally from sending additional types of chip-making machines to China, unless they obtain a special license from the U.S. government.The move could be a significant blow to China’s chip-manufacturing ambitions. It is also an unusual flexing of American regulatory power. American officials took the position that they could regulate equipment manufactured outside the United States if it contains even just one American-made part.That decision gives U.S. officials new sway over companies in the Netherlands and Japan, where some of the most advanced chip machinery is made. In particular, U.S. rules will now stop shipments of some machines that use deep ultraviolet, or DUV, technology made mainly by the Dutch firm ASML, which dominates the lithography market.Vera Kranenburg, a China researcher at the Clingendael Institute, a Dutch think tank, said that while ASML had made clear that it would follow the regulations, the company was already chafing under earlier regulations that barred it from exporting a more sophisticated lithography machine to China.“They’re of course not happy about the export controls,” she said.After being thrust into geopolitics yet again, ASML has been careful in its response, saying in a statement this week that it complies with all laws and regulations in the countries where it operates. Peter Wennink, the chief executive, said the company would not be able to ship certain tools to “just a handful” of Chinese chip factories. But “it is still sales that we had in 2023 that we’ll not have in 2024,” he added.In a statement, the Dutch foreign trade minister, Liesje Schreinemacher, said that the Netherlands shared U.S. security concerns and continuously exchanges information with the United States, but that “ultimately, every country decides for itself what export restrictions to impose.” She pointed to more permissive restrictions announced by the Dutch government in June.A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Commerce declined to comment.ASML’s technology has enabled leaps in global computing power. The increasing precision of its machines — which have tens of thousands of components and cost as much as hundreds of millions of dollars each — has allowed circuitry on chips to get progressively smaller, letting companies pack more computing power into a tiny piece of silicon.The technology has also given the United States and its allies an important source of leverage over China, as governments compete to turn technological gains into military advantages. Although Beijing is pouring money into the semiconductor industry, Chinese chip-making equipment remains many years behind the prowess of ASML and other key machine suppliers, including Applied Materials and Lam Research in the United States and Tokyo Electron and Canon in Japan.But U.S. efforts to weaponize this technological advantage against China appear to be straining alliances. In Europe, government officials increasingly agree with the United States that China poses a geopolitical and economic threat. But they are still wary of undercutting their own companies by blocking them from China, one of the world’s largest and most vibrant tech markets.Dutch technology, in particular, has been the focus of a multiyear pressure campaign from the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration persuaded the Dutch to block shipments to China of ASML’s most state-of-the-art machine, which uses extreme ultraviolet technology.After months of diplomatic pressure from the Biden administration, the governments of the Netherlands and Japan agreed in January that they would also independently curb sales of some deep ultraviolet lithography machines and other types of advanced chip-making equipment to China.The United States and its allies have viewed sales of the deep ultraviolet lithography machines as less of a national security risk. The chips they produce are considerably less advanced than those built with the most cutting-edge machines, which now power the latest smartphones, supercomputers and A.I. models.But that position was tested this summer when a Chinese firm used ASML’s deep ultraviolet lithography technology along with other advanced machines to blow past a technological barrier that U.S. officials had hoped to keep China from reaching.In August, the Chinese telecom giant Huawei unexpectedly released a new smartphone containing a Chinese-made chip with transistor dimensions rated at seven nanometers, just a couple of technology generations behind the latest chips made in Taiwan. Analysts have concluded that China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation made the chip with the use of the Dutch deep ultraviolet lithography machinery.Gregory C. Allen, a technology expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said the new export control rules had been in the works long before the Huawei announcement. But, he said, the development “helped leaders throughout the U.S. government understand that there was no more time to waste and that updated controls were urgently needed.”Mr. Allen said the controls would not necessarily break China’s most advanced chip-makers immediately, since they had already stockpiled a lot of advanced machinery. But it would “dramatically restrict” their ability to manufacture the most advanced kinds of semiconductors, like seven-nanometer chips, he said.For now, ASML is still doing brisk business with China. In its earnings report this week, ASML said sales to China had surged in the third quarter to account for 46 percent of the company’s global total, far above historical levels.Analysts at TD Cowen estimated that ASML’s China sales would reach 5.5 billion euros (about $5.8 billion) this year, more than double the total last year. Next year, the new export controls could cut 10 to 15 percent off the company’s China revenues, they projected.Roger Dassen, ASML’s chief financial officer, said in the earnings call that most of the orders that ASML was completing this year had been placed in 2022 or even the year before, and were largely for machines that would make slightly older types of chips.All the shipments were “very much within the limits of export regulation,” Mr. Dassen said.For the machines that face new U.S. restrictions, the Dutch company will now be barred from supplying replacement parts and helping to service those systems. That will mean Chinese companies are likely to have manufacturing problems at some point.These hugely expensive machines rely on regular software and maintenance support to continue churning out chips, said Joanne Chiao, a semiconductor analyst at TrendForce, a market research firm.ASML is not the only equipment supplier caught up in the latest restrictions. Other kinds of advanced machines that are essential to produce the most advanced chips, like those from the U.S. companies Applied Materials and Lam Research, are detailed in the latest restrictions.Lam, in a conference call on Wednesday, said revenue from China jumped 48 percent in its first fiscal quarter as companies stocked up on machines to make both mature chips and advanced products. It had already estimated that restrictions on sales to China would hold down revenue this year by $2 billion; executives added that the expanded rules issued this week wouldn’t materially change that estimate.An Applied Materials spokesman said the company was still reviewing the new rules to gauge their potential impact.John Liu More