International Trade and World Market

More stories

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Lawmakers Call for Raising Tariffs and Severing Economic Ties With China

    by

    A bipartisan report recommended stripping China of the low tariffs the United States granted it two decades ago, among other actions.Bipartisan lawmakers on Tuesday called for severing more of America’s economic and financial ties with China, including revoking the low tariff rates that the United States granted Beijing after it joined the World Trade Organization more than two decades ago.The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party released a wide-ranging set of recommendations for resetting America’s economic relationship with China. The report, which was signed by both House Democrats and Republicans, argued that China had carried out a “multidecade campaign of economic aggression” that had undercut American firms, dominated crucial global industries and left the United States highly vulnerable in the event of a broader military conflict.The 53-page report included nearly 150 recommendations that Congress and the administration could take to offset those vulnerabilities. They ranged from imposing new tariffs on older types of Chinese chips to further cutting off the flow of capital and technology between the world’s largest economies.Among the report’s other recommendations were requiring that publicly traded American companies disclose ties to China and investing further in U.S. research and manufacturing capacity to counter China’s dominance of sectors like pharmaceuticals and critical minerals. It also suggested developing plans to coordinate economically with allies if the Chinese government invades Taiwan.Many of the recommendations may never be adopted by a fractious Congress. But the report could provide a path toward some bipartisan legislation on China in the months to come.Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican of Wisconsin and the committee’s chairman, said in an interview that he would like to see Congress come together on a major China bill next year ahead of the presidential election. He said that while some American firms opposed restrictions on doing business with China — a large and growing market — legislation clarifying what was allowed would be beneficial for many companies.“If Congress doesn’t step up and do something legislatively,” Mr. Gallagher said, “we’re just going to bounce back and forth between different executive orders that have wildly different rules that create chaos for Wall Street and the market.”The report is a tangible sign of how much the bipartisan consensus toward China has shifted in recent years.The most prevalent argument a decade ago was that economic interdependence between the United States and China would be a force for peace and stability. Some — including Biden administration officials — still say that business ties can help stabilize the relationship and promote peace.But that theory has increasingly given way to fears that ties to China could be weaponized in the event of a conflict. It could be catastrophic for the U.S. economy or the military, for example, if the Chinese government cut off its shipments to the United States of pharmaceuticals, minerals or components for weapons systems.Beijing’s subsidization of Chinese firms and incidents of intellectual property theft have also become an increasing source of friction. In some cases, China has allowed foreign firms to operate in the country only if they form partnerships that transfer valuable technology to local companies.The report said that the United States had never before faced a geopolitical adversary with which it was so economically interconnected, and that the full extent of the risk of relying on a strategic competitor remained unknown. The country lacks a contingency plan in the case of further conflict, it said.“Addressing this novel contest will require a fundamental re-evaluation of U.S. policy towards economic engagement with the P.R.C. as well as new tools to address the P.R.C.’s campaign of economic aggression,” the report said, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China.This year, the committee hosted a tabletop exercise to simulate how the United States would respond if the Chinese government invaded Taiwan. It found that U.S. efforts to deter China through sanctions and financial punishment “could carry tremendous costs to the United States,” the report said.The lawmakers said that they did not advocate a full “decoupling” of the U.S. and Chinese economies, but that the country needed to find a way to reduce Beijing’s leverage and to make the United States more economically independent.The report includes a variety of other recommendations, including increasing the authority of a committee that reviews foreign investments for national security threats and devising new high-standard trade agreements, especially with Taiwan, Japan and Britain.But the report’s first recommendation, and perhaps its most significant, is phasing in a new set of tariffs for China over a short period of time.When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the United States and other members began offering China lower tariffs to encourage trade. In return, China started undertaking a series of reforms to bring its economy in line with the organization’s rules.But the report argued that China had consistently failed to make good on those promised reforms, and that the “permanent normal trade relations” the United States had granted to China after its W.T.O. succession did not lead to the benefits or economic reforms Congress had expected. The report said Congress should now apply a different, higher set of tariffs to China.Such a move has been debated by lawmakers, and has been backed by former President Donald J. Trump and other Republican candidates. Last year, Congress voted to revoke permanent normal trade relations with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.But increasing tariffs on China, one of the United States’ largest trading partners, would provoke more opposition from businesses, since it would raise costs for products imported from China and most likely slow economic growth.The United States already has significant tariffs on many Chinese products, which were imposed during the Trump administration’s trade war and President Biden is still reviewing. The further changes suggested by Congress would increase levies on other items, like toys and smartphones, that have not born additional taxes.A study published by Oxford Economics in November and commissioned by the U.S. China Business Council estimated that such tariffs alone would lead to a $1.6 trillion loss for the U.S. economy over a five-year horizon. It would also be likely to cause further friction at the World Trade Organization, where the group’s most steadfast supporters have already accused the United States of undermining its rules.Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy, said that the U.S.-China economic relationship was “mutually beneficial” and that the proposals would “serve no one’s interests.”The report runs counter to “the principles of market economy and fair competition, and will undermine the international economic and trading order and destabilize global industrial and supply chains,” he said.The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group that includes Target, Home Depot and Dollar General, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was concerned about the recommendations. Raising tariffs on Chinese products would “only harm U.S. businesses and invite retaliation from China,” it said.The lawmakers’ report acknowledged that such a change would be an economic burden, and suggested that Congress consider additional appropriations for farmers and other support for workers.Mr. Gallagher said that extricating the United States from its “thorough economic entanglement” with China would not be easy, and that Washington should work to develop alternative markets and prepare for potential retaliation from Beijing.Reaching consensus on the report required months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, which its authors said should send a message to China. Only one member of the 24-person committee voted against the report: Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat who had concerns about protectionism.“One of the theories that the C.C.P. has about the United States is that we are divided, that we are tribal, that we are incapable of coming together to deal with challenges,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the committee’s top Democrat, referring to the Chinese Communist Party. “On this particular issue of competition between the United States and the C.C.P., we are of one mind.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    E.U. Relaxes Trade Rules on Electric Cars From Britain

    by

    The NewsThe European Union plans to postpone strict local-content rules that would have led to costly tariffs imposed on cars traded between the bloc and Britain beginning Jan. 1.“This removes the threat of tariffs on export of E.U. electric vehicles to the U.K. and vice versa,” Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s executive vice president, told journalists in Brussels Wednesday.The tariffs would have forced consumers in Britain and the European Union to pay more for many electric vehicles. Andrew Testa for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Relief for carmakers that were facing tariffs.The proposal provides for a three-year delay in the trade rule, and represents a huge reprieve for many carmakers, especially those with plants in Britain. Eighty percent of cars made in Britain are exported, with 60 percent of them going to the European Union. The delay means that British electric vehicles with batteries made outside Europe will no longer face tariffs of up to 10 percent starting in three weeks.European carmakers would have faced similar hits in their sales of cars to Britain, a major market. The delay will probably be seen as a win for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s British government, which lobbied for the change along with the European car industry.Background: Europe and Britain do not make enough batteries.The rule would have made it virtually impossible for cars made in Britain with batteries from Asia to be imported tariff-free into the European Union. Neither Britain nor the Europe Union is manufacturing enough batteries for the rising number of electric vehicles expected to be produced in coming years. Batteries are the most expensive components of electric vehicles.Local origin rules are designed to discourage automakers from importing expensive parts, and to encourage local production. But this rule would have been counterproductive, the auto industry argued, by forcing consumers to pay more for many electric vehicles. Those higher prices could have opened the door for electric vehicles from outside Europe, especially China, whose makers are churning out low-cost models that have gained traction in Britain.What Happens Next: Time for the battery industry “to catch up.”The proposal still needs the support of European Union governments. Early indications are that it will be welcomed by auto industry. An extension would give “the European battery industry time to catch up,” the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, a British trade group, said Wednesday in a statement.Mr. Sefcovic also said the European Union planned to provide 3 billion euros ($3.25 billion) to encourage local manufacturing of batteries. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Debates How Much to Sever Electric Car Industry’s Ties to China

    by

    Some firms argue that a law aimed at popularizing electric vehicles risks turning the United States into an assembly shop for Chinese-made technology.The Biden administration has been trying to jump-start the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles so cleaner cars can be made in the United States. But the experience of one Texas company, whose plans to help make an all-American electric vehicle were upended by China, highlights the stakes involved as the administration finalizes rules governing the industry.Huntsman Corporation started construction two years ago on a $50 million plant in Texas to make ethylene carbonate, a chemical that is used in electric vehicle batteries. It would have been the only site in North America making the product, with the goal of feeding battery factories that would crop up to serve the electric vehicle market.But as new facilities in China came online and flooded the market, the price of the chemical plummeted to $700 a ton from $4,000. After pumping $30 million into the project, the company halted work on it this year. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive. “I’d essentially be paying people to take the product.”The Biden administration is now finalizing rules that will help determine whether companies like Huntsman will find it profitable enough to participate in America’s electric vehicle industry. The rules, which are expected to be proposed this week, will dictate the extent to which foreign companies, particularly in China, can supply parts and products for American-made vehicles that are set to receive billions of dollars in subsidies.The administration is offering up to $7,500 in tax credits to Americans who buy electric vehicles, in an effort to supercharge the industry and reduce the country’s carbon emissions. The rules will determine whether electric vehicle makers seeking to benefit from that program will have the flexibility to get cheap components from China, or whether they will be required instead to buy more expensive products from U.S.-based firms like Huntsman.After pumping $30 million into the project, Huntsman halted work on it. “If we were to start the project up today, we would be hemorrhaging cash,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the company’s chief executive.Callaghan O’Hare for The New York TimesCan the World Make an Electric Car Battery Without China?From mines to refineries and factories, China began investing decades ago. Today, most of your electric car batteries are made in China and that’s unlikely to change soon.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  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

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Solar Manufacturing Lured to U.S. by Tax Credits in Climate Bill

    by

    A combination of government policies is finally succeeding in reversing a long decline in solar manufacturing in the United States.Six years ago, an executive from Suniva, a bankrupt solar panel manufacturer, warned a packed hearing room in Washington that competition from companies in China and Southeast Asia was causing a “blood bath” in his industry. More than 30 U.S.-based solar companies had been forced to shut down in the previous five years alone, he said, and others would soon follow unless the government supported them.Suniva’s pleas helped spur the Trump administration to impose tariffs in 2018 on foreign-made solar panels, but that did not reverse the flow of jobs in the industry from going overseas. Suniva’s U.S. factories remained shuttered, with dim prospects for reopening.That is, until now. Last month, Suniva announced plans to reopen a Georgia plant, buoyed by tariffs, protective regulations and, crucially, lavish new tax breaks for Made-in-America solar manufacturing that President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, created.Solar companies have long been the beneficiaries of government subsidies and trade protections, but in the United States, they have never been the object of so many simultaneous efforts to support the industry — and so much money from the government to back them up.The combination of billions of dollars of tax credits for new facilities and tougher restrictions on foreign products appears to be driving a wave of so-called reshoring of solar jobs. Those efforts are succeeding where more modest approaches did not, although critics argue that the gains come at a high cost to taxpayers and may not hold up in the long run.In the year since the climate law was passed, companies have announced nearly $8 billion in new investments in solar factories across the United States, according to data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Rhodium Group, a nonpartisan research firm. That is more than triple the amount of total investment announced from 2018 through the middle of 2022.Suniva plans to reopen and expand a factory to make solar cells in Norcross, Ga., by spring. REC Silicon will restart this month a polysilicon plant in Moses Lake, Wash., that it shut down in 2019. Maxeon, a Singapore-based producer of solar cells and modules, will start work next year on a $1 billion site in New Mexico.In each of those cases, executives cited the incentives in the climate law as a driving factor in their investment decisions.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones.Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times“It was kind of exactly what we had in mind in terms of what would be needed, to pull these kinds of manufacturing initiatives forward,” said Peter Aschenbrenner, Maxeon’s chief strategy officer.China has loomed large over the industry for more than a decade. American demand for solar power has grown sharply since 2010 — by about 24 percent each year in that time, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. But much of that spending went to cheaper foreign solar panels, often made by Chinese companies or with Chinese parts. That raised concerns of American overreliance on China, which is restricting supplies of other key products and whose solar production has been troubled by human rights concerns.U.S. solar manufacturing employment peaked in 2016, with just over 38,000 workers. By 2020, nearly one-fifth of those jobs were gone.Factory solar jobs have begun to grow again.E2, an environmental nonprofit organization, estimated that new investments announced in the first year of the climate law would create 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent jobs across the entire solar industry in the years to come. Thousands of those permanent jobs are related to manufacturing, including an expected 2,000 at Maxeon’s planned plant in New Mexico.Economists and executives said that surge was largely due to public subsidies that flipped the economics of the solar industry in favor of domestic production.Mr. Aschenbrenner said Maxeon’s cost of domestic solar manufacturing would fall roughly 10 percent, just through a new manufacturing tax credit in the climate law that targets the production of both solar cells and solar modules. That is enough to offset the higher wage and construction costs of American factories, he said.The law also includes credits for customers, like homeowners and utilities, that install solar panels and begin generating electricity from them. If the customer buys panels that are sourced from the United States, like the ones Maxeon is planning, the value of that credit grows 10 percent.Those incentives could be enough to build an American industry that, within a matter of years, could be large and efficient enough to compete with China even without subsidies, Mr. Aschenbrenner said.Others are more skeptical. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy, estimate that nearly half the solar module capacity announced by 2026 will not materialize, given that some manufacturers announce long-term plans to gauge feasibility and interest.The recent embrace of subsidies and tariffs by politicians of both parties also irks some economists, who say that while such programs can save or create jobs, they do so at an extremely high cost.A 2021 study by the Peterson Institute of International Economics of past industrial policy programs found that the Obama administration’s 2009 investment in Solyndra, a solar company that ultimately went bankrupt, cost taxpayers about $216,000 for each job created, more than four times prevailing industry wages. Other programs were even more expensive.REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, entered into a deal with QCells to supply that company’s planned U.S. plants.Megan Varner/Reuters“With certain kinds of technology, you can subsidize and protect your way to having factories,” said Scott Lincicome, who studies trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “The question is always about at what cost?”In addition to the costs incurred to taxpayers, protections for the U.S. industry are making solar products more expensive in the United States than in other countries, Mr. Lincicome said. That slows the adoption of solar technology, in contrast to climate goals.Trends in the global solar industry have often been closely linked with government action. The industry started booming over a decade ago when Germany and Japan began offering subsidies for solar power.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones. Since 2011, China has invested more than $50 billion in the sector, ultimately capturing more than 80 percent of the global share of every stage in the manufacturing process, according to the International Energy Agency.Tariffs also shaped the industry’s evolution. The United States imposed levies on Chinese solar products in 2012. The next year, China retaliated with tariffs of up to 57 percent on U.S. polysilicon, a raw material for solar panels.That proved to be the death knell for the factory that REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, was operating in Washington State, said Chuck Sutton, the company’s vice president of global sales and marketing. With few companies still standing outside China, REC Silicon “basically didn’t have any customers left,” he said.REC Silicon worked with the Trump administration to get China to commit to buying more American polysilicon as part of a 2019 trade deal. But China never followed through on those purchases.The turnaround for REC Silicon came, Mr. Sutton said, with the new tax credits this year. The manufacturer entered into a deal with QCells to supply its polysilicon to QCells’ planned U.S. plants. The deal allowed REC Silicon to reopen its Washington site, Mr. Sutton said.To compete with China, the industry needed “a whole-of-government approach,” Mr. Card of Suniva said, that included both tariffs and tax credits for domestic manufacturing.“They are not opposing forces,” he said. “They work together and make each other stronger.” 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

  • 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