Lessons from Wisconsin's controversial wolf hunt

A gray wolf pictured in Wisconsin in the winter. Lynn Bystrom/iStock/Getty Images

Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
Sat, March 6, 2021

Wisconsin's image took a hit recently when 216 wolves were killed during a three-day Badger State hunt — a toll that was 82% over the hunt's quota.

Time was in this country when that result would have been celebrated, if not rewarded. The first North American bounty on wolves, after all, was established in the 1600s, soon after the Mayflower landed. A whole lot of wolf killing followed, and by the 1970s, Minnesota was pretty much the Lower 48's last haven for the gray wolf, or canis lupus.

Yet in the last half-century the wolf has recovered, not only in numbers — as its ranks have been reintroduced in multiple U.S. locations where its populations had been extirpated — but in its public image.

Many Americans today, particularly those living in cities, consider the wolf to be nearly sacrosanct. Contributing to this rebranding have been the wolf's widely admired role as a consummate apex predator and a newfound appreciation of the wolf's place in various ecosystems.

Given this increase in popularity, controversy was guaranteed when a highly unusual combination of events, including a lawsuit by an out-of-state hunting group, forced the Wisconsin DNR to hold a February wolf hunt it had not anticipated.

The fact that in Wisconsin hounds and other running dogs can be used to hunt wolves — the only state that allows this practice —has amplified the post-hunt outcry that still resonates nationwide.

To better understand the hunt, let's take a look at a few of its salient details:

• First, true as it is that some people's image of these animals has changed, wolves are still wolves. Just as in the past, in order to live, they kill. In the Midwest, deer most often are their victims, but wolves also kill livestock and occasionally dogs and other pets. Also, wolves are territorial, and left unchecked they will continually disperse to establish new packs in new territories. For these reasons and others, many people who live among wolves consider them unwelcome neighbors.

• As the accompanying map shows, the Wisconsin DNR set a quota of 17 harvested wolves in Zone 6, which essentially covers the southern half of the state. Hunters instead killed 40 wolves in this zone. Where exactly wolves were killed in Zone 6 hasn't been reported by the DNR. But the fact that so many wolves could be killed there, and also in Zone 5, where 31 wolves were taken by hunters, speaks to a key variation between Wisconsin and Minnesota, namely that, due to different wolf-protection classifications governing the two states before the federal government returned wolf management to the states in January, Minnesota had federal wolf-control officers charged, essentially, with keeping wolves out of the southern and western parts of the state. Wisconsin didn't have a similar cadre of officers, thus, in part, its more expansive southern range of wolves.

• Critical facets of the hunt were outside the Wisconsin DNR's control. Its biologists, for example, recommended the hunting-permit pool be limited to 10 times the hunt's proposed non-tribal quota of 119 animals (81 licenses were reserved for the state's tribes), or 1,190 hunters. Instead, the state's Natural Resources Board, which sets policy for the DNR, required the DNR to issue 20 times the number of available non-tribal permits, or 2,380 (of which the DNR ultimately sold about 65%.)

• Using dogs to hunt bears and other game in Wisconsin is a long-standing tradition, and groups such as the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association wield considerable political power in the Wisconsin Legislature.

• Wisconsin's three previous (recent) regulated wolf hunts, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, were held in fall and ended in late December — periods during which good tracking snow wasn't guaranteed. By contrast, fresh snow fell on the recent hunt's first and second days, providing critical advantages to houndsmen whose hunting methods include driving back roads until they "cut" fresh wolf tracks crossing into the woods. Then they free up to six dogs (the legal limit) to run (theoretically) the wolf toward waiting hunters.

• Timing of the recent hunt played to the houndsmen's advantage (86% of harvested wolves were killed by hunters with dogs) in other ways, also. One was that Wisconsin's coyote season was still open, and many coyote-hunting houndsmen had their dogs legged up and in prime condition. Another was that by Wisconsin state law, 24-hour notice must be given by the DNR to shut down a season. Consequently, even when it became apparent to the DNR that its quotas were likely to be met — or exceeded — triggering a season shutdown, the hunt could continue for another 24 hours.

• Adding to this, if social media can be believed, houndsmen were encouraging one another not to report their kills right away — they're not required to until 24 hours after a hunt ends — thereby ensuring the longest possible hunt.

• Finally, for better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint, while the number of dogs sent in pursuit of a wolf (or bear or coyote) in Wisconsin is limited to six, there are no limits to the number of hunters or backup teams of dogs that can be used to aid a licensed hunter. So if one group of six dogs gets tired running a wolf, they can be replaced by another team (at least theoretically; not every houndsman owns or has access to multiple teams of dogs). Additionally, instead of one or two hunters hoping to get a shot at a wolf that, for example, is pushed into an open field, six, eight or even 10 or more rifle-toting friends can help the licensed houndsman.


SEE
Hunters in Wisconsin launched an onslaught against the wolf population killing 216 in less than 3 days (yahoo.com)

Bitcoin's Most Profitable Use: the $600 Billion Overseas Remittance Business?LINKED

By SHOBHIT SETH

 Updated Mar 6, 2021

Though leading cryptocurrency bitcoin is facing crackdowns by various governments across the globe, it's experiencing a surge in the overseas remittance market.

Instead of being used as a currency, bitcoin is increasingly being used as a medium for global money transfers. It allows the user to do away with the high costs charged by traditional banks and money transfer services.

Many people around the world regularly send money to their families and loved ones living far away in their respective native countries. The latest report by the World Bank projects that global remittances topped $596 billion in 2017, of which $450 billion was sent to developing nations.

India is expected to retain the top spot among remittance recipients, with a projected figure of $65 billion, while China ($63 billion), the Philippines ($33 billion), Mexico ($31 billion), and Nigeria ($22 billion) hold the next spots on the list. (For more, see Three Things to Know About the Remittance Economy.)

Standard Method

The traditional model of remittance works as follows.

An individual working in the U.S. may remit a dollar amount to his/home home country in Asia or Africa, for example. He/she walks into a shop called a Money Transfer Operator (MTO), hands over cash at the available exchange rate, and then the MTO starts the process to send the money to the destination country. The MTO charges for its services.

In reality, the MTO is only acting as a frontend agent. The operator has to use the service, software, and system that are actually provided by a bigger remittance software provider (RSP), like Western Union (WU) or Moneygram. Due to a lack of financial capacity and availability of software systems, the MTO may only receive a fraction of the charges it takes from the customer, as the bulk is pocketed by the RSP. Additionally, MTO may also need to pay other regular charges for installation, subscription, and system maintenance.

For the end user, this increases the overall cost for the transfer, as the MTO and the RSP try to pocket the maximum fees. Additionally, there is a lack of transparency in the exchange rates offered to the end customer, who takes another beating in the form of unfavorable rates.

How Does Bitcoin-Based Remittance Work?

Bitspark, a bitcoin remittance company based in Hong Kong, is offering services to send money to countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. It offers a cloud-hosted solution for MTOs in developing nations that works seamlessly with little to no banking infrastructure.

Through a simple internet connection and free software/app running on a suitable device, MTOs are able to send and receive a customer’s money without any additional overhead fees for installation, maintenance, and subscription charges. All the details of the transactions, including the customer’s KYC (Know Your Customer) and other anti-money laundering necessities, are stored in a secure and low-cost database, which may also be a blockchain.

The businesses simply make an estimate of the amount of money needed for a day or for a particular remittance, purchase equivalent bitcoins in advance, and immediately sell them for the fiat currency in the receiving nation. The business is almost free of any risk as it does not hold the virtual currency tokens for a long period of time, and customers' transactions are performed within minutes. 

Big Savings on Transfer Costs

The benefits are overall lower costs to the end customer, quicker global money transfers within minutes, no additional costs to the MTOs, a higher share of commission for their agency role, and safe and secure regulatory-compliant business mechanism.

The Bitspark user is not required to have any knowledge about the underlying blockchain technology, as the easy-to-use interface offers simple steps to processing the money transfer within a few seconds.

Bitspark also launched its Sendy mobile app, which works as a mobile wallet as well as a MTO locater. After completing suitable verification, any Sendy user can start working as a top-up agent and can earn commissions for any top-ups he/she facilitates for the other users.

Startups offering a platform for bitcoin-based remittance services are mushrooming. Another similar service, Rebit, offers money payments to the Philippines mainly from Canada, Japan and South Korea, and is planning to expand to the Middle East. Bloom, Payphil, and coins.ph are other players operating in the Asian region using a similar model.

The Bottom Line

Essentially, such businesses do not directly deal with the remitting customers. Instead, they provide an alternative backend system that works on bitcoin transactions. Traditional remittance providers are trying to fend away emerging competition.

The Economic Times reports that “the giants Western Union and Moneygram, which dominate the current market, are testing Ripple's XRP, a cryptocurrency smaller and more centralised than bitcoin.” (See also, How Tech Companies are Disrupting the Untapped Remittance Market.)

Investing in cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings ("ICOs") is highly risky and speculative, and this article is not a recommendation by Investopedia or the writer to invest in cryptocurrencies or ICOs. Since each individual's situation is unique, a qualified professional should always be consulted before making any financial decisions. Investopedia makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or timeliness of the information contained herein. As of the date this article was written, the author owns no cryptocurrencies.

Private Insurance Wins in Democrats' First Try at Expanding Health Coverage


FILE - In this Nov. 24, 2020, file photo, registered nurse Chrissie Burkhiser cleans an emergency room suite after treating a COVID-19 patient at Scotland County Hospital in Memphis, Mo. The U.S. has seen a dramatic turnaround since December and January, when hospitals were teeming with patients after holiday gatherings and pandemic fatigue caused a surge in cases and deaths.

 (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

Sarah Kliff
Sat, March 6, 2021

Democrats spent much of the 2020 presidential primary debating the best way to expand public health insurance. They sparred over whether to enroll everyone in public coverage — the preferred policy of Sen. Bernie Sanders — or to give everyone a choice to do so, the public option plan that President Joe Biden supports.

The candidates repeatedly proposed a future in which private insurers play a diminished role in the U.S. health system — or no role at all.

But the first major legislation of the Biden administration, if it passes in the Senate, moves in the opposite direction: It proposes spending billions to expand private health insurance coverage to millions more Americans.

The American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package that the House passed last week, would increase government subsidies to health insurers for covering recently laid-off workers and those who purchase their own coverage.

The new subsidies do not preclude future legislation that could make public plans more available. Some congressional aides say they are already laying groundwork for the inclusion of a public option plan in a legislative package expected later this year. And the stimulus package does introduce an incentive for states to expand public coverage through Medicaid, though it is unclear whether any states will take it up.

The decision to start with subsidizing private insurance shows how it can often be the path of least resistance when legislators want to expand coverage. The changes can slot neatly into a preexisting system and tend to garner support from the health care sector (which benefits).

“The politics of expanding public coverage in a way that would shift people to public insurance gets tricky really fast,” said Karyn Schwartz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “There are very concrete losers: the providers who would see their payments go down.”

Private health plans cover 176 million Americans, outnumbering the combined enrollment of Medicare and Medicaid. The stimulus plan would probably increase private insurance sign-ups by a few million people with the new subsidies it provides to those buying their plans.

The American Rescue Plan spends $34 billion expanding the Affordable Care Act subsidies for two years. The changes would make upper-middle-income Americans newly eligible for financial help to buy plans on the Obamacare marketplaces and would increase the subsidies already going to lower-income enrollees.

The stimulus package also subsidizes private health insurance premiums for newly unemployed workers. They typically have the opportunity to purchase their former employers’ health benefits through a federal program called COBRA, which can often be prohibitively expensive because the employer is no longer paying a share of the worker’s premium.

The legislation that the House passed would cover 85% of COBRA premiums through September. The Senate plans to bump up the amount to 100%, meaning the government would pay the full cost of premiums. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the more generous Senate version will cost $35 billion.

There is not yet an estimate of how many people would gain coverage under the Senate plan, but the Congressional Budget Office did estimate that the original House version would reach 2.2 million former workers.

These policies have moved forward easily and with little opposition. The health care industry has generally supported the changes because private health plans typically pay higher prices to doctors and hospitals. Democrats who support expanding public coverage generally describe these changes as low-hanging fruit — the changes they could accomplish quickly to expand coverage.

But some progressives have questioned the decision to route patients into private health plans, which will cost the government more because of the high prices they pay for care.

“I don’t think this was the most efficient way to do this,” said Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic congresswoman from Washington state, who is the lead sponsor of the House’s Medicare for All bill. She proposed legislation that would have allowed unemployed Americans to transition to Medicare rather than staying on their former employers’ plans.

This did not move forward. Nor has a plan from Sens. Tim Kaine and Michael Bennet to create a version of Medicare, which they call “Medicare X,” available to all Americans.

In recent years, Democrats have increasingly embraced the idea of a large expansion of public health benefits. The public option would give all Americans the option to sign up for a Medicare-like plan, and a Medicare for All program would move everyone to a government health plan.

Polling shows public support for each idea also going up, with the public option tending to rank more favorably than Medicare for All.

Those types of public coverage expansions tend to be politically divisive in Washington. They often draw fierce opposition from the health care industry for the same reason supporters like the policy: They would be disruptive and significantly reduce fees paid to hospitals and doctors.

A Kaiser Family Foundation report this week estimated that total health spending for those with private insurance would decline by $350 billion in a year if those private plans paid claims at Medicare rates.

“You can’t take $350 billion from a system and expect it to look exactly the same,” said Schwartz, an author of the report. “Every time I drive past a hospital, I see a big construction project. You’d probably see less of that.”

In coming years, Democrats will probably confront more decisions about how to expand coverage. The new Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of 2022, setting up a figurative cliff in which premiums would go back up if Congress did not act.

Democrats could use the moment to make those changes permanent, further solidifying the role of private health insurance. If enrollees find themselves satisfied with their increasingly subsidized plans — if they perceive the coverage as more affordable because the government pays a bigger share of the tab — the urgency to expand public coverage may lessen.

“Sometimes the path of least resistance is self-reinforcing,” said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale who helped develop the public option plan supported by Biden.

But legislators could find themselves balking at the price tag. Making the subsidy permanent would most likely cost hundreds of billions. That could push the party to think about the cheaper but more politically challenging route of expanding public plans.

Which way the party goes could depend on whether Democrats continue to hold a majority in both chambers of Congress and if the caucus can unite around expanding public coverage in the same way it has around increased spending on private plans.

“It’s revealing that they’re sunsetting the expansion of subsidies and not dealing with the longer-term challenge of, how do you finance this?” Hacker said. “Their plan to bolster the ACA is the path of least resistance, but it’s a path that only takes you so far.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2021 The New York Times Company

Europe’s Vaccine Missteps Alarm Stock Investors Around the World

Ksenia Galouchko and Michael Msika
Sat, March 6, 2021












(Bloomberg) -- Europe’s vaccine blunders are alarming some of the world’s top investors, who see economic growth imperiled by a slow pace of business reopenings.

While the region’s stocks are riding the global rally and faring well against the selloff in U.S. big tech, prolonged lockdowns threaten the economic recovery. Investors are taking notice. European equity funds have recorded three weeks of outflows, with Bank of America Corp. and BlackRock Investment Institute warning that the continued virus outbreak could hurt trading strategies in the single-currency bloc.

“The Europeans desperately need to accelerate the pace of their vaccine rollout if they want to get a handle on the virus,” said Seema Shah, the London-based chief strategist at Principal Global Investors Ltd., which manages $544 billion. “Bureaucracy and confused messaging from governments has weighed on the process.”


Principal prefers U.S. equities over Europe, citing President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill as economic fuel. Europe’s recovery fund “pales in comparison,” she said.

Plagued by political infighting, supply disruptions and public resistance, continental Europe is far behind in distributing the vaccine. The EU has administered 8 doses per 100 people, compared with 33 for the U.K. and 25 for the U.S., according to Bloomberg’s Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker. A delay of one to two months in reopening could cost the EU economy between 50 billion and 100 billion euros in lost output, according to calculations by Bloomberg Economics.

“At the risk of sounding like doomsdayers, we unfortunately have to repeat that the sluggish pace of vaccination continues to jeopardize the recovery in the eurozone,” wrote Peter Vanden Houte, chief economist at ING Belgium SA in Brussels.

There is some progress. In Germany, the infection rate in people over the age of 80 has plummeted by about 80% since late December as doctors prioritize giving shots to the elderly. Thanks to new supply pacts and increased production, the EU may be able to vaccinate 75% of its adult population by the end of August, about two months earlier than previously forecast, according to London-based research firm Airfinity Ltd.

In the eyes of investors, that could still be too late. “These are the critical summer months,” wrote Bank of America strategists including Athanasios Vamvakidis. “Losing a second tourist season is a risk for the EU.”

The bank expects the euro to weaken to $1.15 by year-end from a current level of $1.19, citing “American exceptionalism” as the driving force. The U.S. is vaccinating people faster and its total fiscal support is up to six times greater than the EU’s recovery fund. Plus, American shoppers have saved more money to spend after the pandemic, Bank of America strategists said.

The rally has left European stocks looking expensive relative to the U.K., and by some measures stocks are already pricing in a full recovery. The Euro Stoxx 50 index is trading at 18 times estimated earnings, compared with 14 times for the FTSE 100.

The Stoxx 600 Travel and Leisure Index is near pre-pandemic levels, despite depressed earnings and warnings that business travel won’t return anytime soon. Deutsche Lufthansa AG said it could take until the middle of the decade for business to fully recover.

“Valuations are very high,” said Miguel Angel Garcia, chief investment officer at Diaphanum Valores in Madrid. “We have reduced our exposure to European equities recently and are currently underweight.”

Of course, there’s a bull case for some sectors, even in a slow growth environment. Banks are the third-biggest industry weighting in the Stoxx 600 and stand to profit from rising bonds yields and booming markets for IPOs.

“At a security level, we are finding plenty of opportunities,” said Suzanne Hutchins, a portfolio manager at Newton Investment Management. On an index basis, “European equities are more challenged.”

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

What Biden's moves on oil leasing mean for Permian Basin production


Ben Geman
Fri, March 5, 2021

President Biden's freeze on new federal lands oil leases will deter Permian Basin output to a limited degree but will also push development from the New Mexico side of the basin to Texas, per a new Dallas Fed forecast.

Why it matters: It's an attempt to gauge the impact of emerging federal policies in the country's most prolific shale basin.

The big picture: The recently imposed leasing moratorium, combined with slower approvals of permits on existing acreage, would lower projected oil output compared to what's expected without those policies.

Check out the "hybrid" above, which shows Permian production in 2025 around 200,000 barrels per day less than the "reference" case.

That's hardly nothing, but not huge compared to the millions of barrels per day produced in the Permian.

They also modeled aggressive restrictions that bars new drilling permits on existing leases ("restrictive" above), which lowers projected recovery from the pandemic decline even more.

Threat level: Restrictions have a much bigger future effect in New Mexico, which produces far less than the Texas side but is still a key source of revenues for the state.

Half of New Mexico's Permian production is on federal lands, while in Texas production occurs on state and private lands.


Under the leasing freeze combined with slower permit approvals, New Mexico's production in 2025 is 400,000 barrels per day lower than in the reference case.


"With an expected shift in drilling from federal acreage, employment moves across state borders from New Mexico to Texas."

The intrigue: While the Biden administration has frozen new federal lands leasing, it has not moved to end permitting on existing tracts.


Interior officials say large numbers are still going out the door despite tighter scrutiny.

Of note: Their analysis is based on WTI at $50 per barrel, which is well below current levels, so the production estimates should be considered conservative.
Charted: Visualizing New Mexico's oil future

Data: Kayrros, WellDatabase, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Chart: Will Chase/Axios

This chart from the Dallas Fed analysis looks at New Mexico's projected Permian output under the leasing freeze and hypothetical permitting ban.

By the numbers: In the fiscal year ending in mid-2020, New Mexico received $2.6 billion from industry fees, royalties and taxes.


Over $800 million came from the state's cut of revenues from federal acreage, the analysis notes.


Under the leasing freeze case, production keeps returning from the pandemic decline this year, dips a bit in 2022, and then stabilizes and "preserves state royalty and tax revenue closer to current levels."


If permitting ended as well, much more revenue would be at risk.

Firm behind Keystone pipeline hires Biden-linked lobbyists



Lachlan Markay
Fri, March 5, 2021


The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline broadened its advocacy team with Biden-linked lobbyists in January, public records show.

Why it matters: The K Street hires weren't enough to save the pipeline, which President Biden effectively canceled during his first days in office. But they could help ensure similar projects don't meet the same fate.

What's new: TransCanada Pipelines, TC Energy's principal operating subsidiary, retained a former senior Biden aide to lobby for the company in January.

The company hired Putala Strategies and its eponymous principal, Christopher Putala, a former senior aide when Biden was in the Senate.


Putala's lobbying registration filing, posted publicly on Thursday, said he will work on "matters concerning energy policy, including pipelines, storage facilities and power generation origination."


Putala was officially hired Jan. 20 — the day his former boss was inaugurated as president.

Five days earlier, TC Energy had hired another prominent lobbyist: the brother of Biden White House counselor Steve Ricchetti.


Jeff Ricchetti's firm said it would work on "legislative issues affecting energy infrastructure, the safe and efficient transportation of natural gas and liquids energy, renewable electricity policy and alternative fuel sources like renewable natural gas and hydrogen."


Ricchetti's hire was first reported this week by Bloomberg.

What they're saying: In a statement to Axios, TC Energy spokesperson Marc Palazzo described the new lobbying hires as an extension of both Ricchetti's and Putala's prior advisory work.


"Chris Putala and Jeff Ricchetti have advised our company for the better part of a year and are part of a diverse team of advisors that provide strategic advice and counsel on a wide range of issues,” Palazzo said.

Between the lines: In spite of those early Biden-era hires, the president rolled back U.S. government approval for Keystone XL during his first days in office, a move hailed by environmental policy advocates who'd campaigned against it for years.


Keystone XL may be dead, but TC Energy has a history of developing cross-border pipelines, and said in January it has "a robust portfolio of other similarly high-quality opportunities under development."


Its Biden-connected lobbying team could help ensure it can at least make its case to the White House more effectively in the future.


No company — particularly in the energy space — wants to land at the center of a political firestorm. Lobbyists with the ear of the president and senior staff could allow a company to open channels of communication with top policymakers before the political or public relations campaigns take over.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to include comments from TC Energy

Fracking gas is too risky for our climate future

Katie Rock, Opinion contributor
Sat, March 6, 2021

Last month’s polar vortex and other extreme weather events from the past year in Iowa and nationally have shown us the risks of continuing to rely on fossil fuels. As fuel lines froze, large volumes of gas and coal power plants were not able to operate during extreme cold putting millions at risk. Massive power outages caused millions of people, from here in Iowa down to Texas, to survive against the raw elements.

Some suffered and died due to hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning, or fires caused by burning their own belongings for warmth. While some renewables were also forced offline, clean energy was largely more reliable than fossil fuels during this crisis.

Extreme weather and natural disasters show us time and again the need for a comprehensive shift to a clean, reliable energy system that keeps us healthy and does not worsen our climate crisis. We should reject claims that renewable energy is less reliable than our dependence on fossil fuels. Our energy grid needs critical infrastructure updates to continue to expand clean energy as the effects of climate change accelerate.


It is time to take a hard look at how to build a more resilient electricity system in Iowa. These moments of extremes are happening more often and reveal how vulnerability leads to injustice. Increasing investment in local distributed energy could have helped prevent the blackouts that affected over 5 million people across the U.S. We can start by adding on-site solar and storage to our most critical community spaces — hospitals, schools, and essential businesses — to offer support and shelter for times of crisis.

Gulf Power construction workers install a solar panel at the Blue Indigo Solar Energy Center in Jackson County on Jan 7, 2020.

It should be clear now that generating more power from out-of-state gas in Iowa is a risky deal. Building more of the same will not fix this problem. It will only make it worse. Fracking gas generates high rates of emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. When methane emissions from leaky, unregulated fracking wells are included, gas power is as bad as coal for our planet. Plus, as methane degrades in our atmosphere, it just becomes carbon dioxide. And that does not even include the contamination and depletion of our water supply from fracking.

Pollen season is expanding: If your allergies are more severe, more expensive and last longer, blame climate change

Gas also poses risks financially. We know that more than 80% of large gas plants built today will become uneconomical due to the falling costs of energy by 2035, much like coal plants are today. In Iowa we have seen old coal plants shift to gas only to be demolished ahead of schedule. Roughly 80% of Iowa’s remaining coal fleet is over 40 years old. Iowa can continue to lead on clean energy by retiring coal power, replacing it with clean energy, and saying no to new gas plants. As more coal plants come offline this decade, they must be replaced with clean sources including wind, solar, storage, energy efficiency and demand response tools.

Sen. Capito: Bipartisan transportation bill can propel American economy forward

Wind, solar and batteries are the lowest cost options for energy, and costs continue to decline. We don’t need gas as a "bridge fuel." We are already on our way with wind and solar in Iowa, but we need more investments in clean energy and a clean grid to complete the transition. The Iowa Legislature should reject new state incentives for new gas infrastructure currently under consideration. A course correction to avoid the worst effects of climate change should include cutting fossil fuel use not only from electric power supply, but in buildings, transportation. and manufacturing supply chains.

The extreme cold in 2019 was followed by a "Bomb Cyclone" that melted all our existing snow in days resulting in multibillion-dollar flood damage throughout the state, from which we are still recovering. We need to recognize that these new terms for unprecedented weather conditions are becoming our new normal. Climate change is the greatest challenge of our lifetimes. We owe the legacy of a clean, carbon-free energy transition to future generations.

Katie Rock is campaign representative with Iowa Beyond Coal. This column originally appeared in the Des Moines Register.


This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Climate change answer can't include gas; it's too risky

The oil industry says it might support a carbon tax – here's why that could be good for producers and the public alike


David Schoenbrod, Professor of Law, New York Law School and Richard Schmalensee, Professor Emeritus, Member of National Bureau of Economic Research Board of Directors, MIT Sloan School of Management

Fri, March 5, 2021, 

Regulations have an accountability problem. AP Photo/Gregory Bull

The oil industry’s lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, suggested in a new draft statement that it might support Congress putting a price on carbon emissions to combat climate change, even though oil and gas are major sources of those greenhouse gas emissions.

An industry calling for a tax on the use of its products sounds as bizarre as “man bites dog.” Yet, there’s a reason for the oil industry to consider that shift.

With the election of President Joe Biden and rising public concern about climate change, Washington seems increasingly likely to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The industry and many economists and regulatory experts, ourselves included, believe it would be better for the oil industry – and for consumers – if that action were taxation rather than regulation.


The American Petroleum Institute emphasized that trade-off in its draft statement, first reported in the Wall Street Journal on March 1. The statement says “API supports economy-wide carbon pricing as the primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions while helping keep energy affordable, instead of mandates or prescriptive regulatory action.”
Regulations versus taxation

There are a few ways to set a price on carbon. The most straightforward is a carbon tax. The price is designed to reflect all the harm done by greenhouse gas emissions, such as the impact of heat waves on public health.

A tax on carbon emissions would likely be imposed on firms that produce oil, gas, coal and anything else whose use results in carbon emissions. While companies would be taxed, they would pass those costs on to consumers.

The tax gives everyone incentives to reduce their contributions to carbon emissions by, for instance, fixing leaky windows, buying an electric vehicle or making a factory more efficient. In addition, the revenue from the carbon tax could be rebated to consumers in a variety of ways. Thus, if the tax is high enough, everyone from the biggest corporation to the most modest homeowner would have a strong incentive to search out the most cost-effective ways to cut carbon emissions.

In contrast, regulations put federal agencies in charge of deciding how best to reduce emissions. Regulators in Washington often know far less than individual factory owners, homeowners and others how to cut those factories’ and homes’ emissions most cost-effectively and thus reduce the cost of the tax for those people. Regulation comes with procedural requirements that impose paperwork expenses and delays on businesses, too.

Regulators can also be subject to pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to do favors for campaign contributors such as, for example, not regulating emissions of favored industries stringently or regulating in ways that protect favored industries from competition. In the 1970s, one of us, David Schoenbrod, was a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney who sued under the Clean Air Act to get the EPA to stop the oil industry from adding lead to gasoline. That experience laid bare the accountability problem: The statute allowed Congress to take credit for protecting health, but lawmakers from both parties lobbied the agency to leave the lead in, and then Congress blamed the agency for failing to protect health.

The upshot, in our view, is that regulation could produce less environmental protection bang for the buck than a carbon tax.

As then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stated in 2008, with regulation, agencies dictate “every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.”
What will Congress do?

On March 2, a new major climate bill was introduced in Congress. It reflects many of Biden’s climate strategies, but it sticks to regulation rather than considering a carbon price.

The CLEAN Future Act, introduced by the ranking Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, directs regulators to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. The centerpiece of the bill is a national clean electricity standard, which focuses narrowly on electricity generation and, we believe, misdefines the climate problem as too little clean electricity rather than too much carbon being emitted from all sources.

The bill’s 981 pages are jam-packed with regulatory mandates and leave plenty of opportunity for legislators to blame regulators for both the failure to achieve the act’s goal and the burdens of trying to do so. Besides, most of the legislators who would vote for such a bill will be out of office long before 2050.

A carbon tax could be passed decades before 2050. Whether it will be set high enough to do the job remains to be seen, but we will know exactly which elected officials to blame or applaud for their attempt to tackle climate change. Government will be transparent, as it and a clean atmosphere should be.

What’s at stake in the choice between taxing carbon and regulating it is not how much we will cut emissions – Congress can set the tax, and thus the reduction in emissions, as high as it wishes. What is at stake is whether the choice of how to cut carbon will be made by the businesses and people who emit it or by regulators, legislators, and lawyers and lobbyists working for business and advocacy organizations.

Read more:
Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary – here’s what she can do about climate change

With the right guiding principles, carbon taxes can work

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: David Schoenbrod, New York Law School and Richard Schmalensee, MIT Sloan School of Management.

David Schoenbrod is a senior fellow of the Niskanen Center and has written extensively about the regulatory process.

Richard Schmalensee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Oil Sands Give OPEC a Boost With Half-Million-Barrel Output Cut

Robert Tuttle

Fri, March 5, 2021

(Bloomberg) -- Major oil sands producers in Western Canada will idle almost half a million barrels a day of production next month, helping tighten global supplies as oil prices surge.

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s plans to conduct 30 days of maintenance at its Horizon oil sands upgrader in April will curtail roughly 250,000 barrels a day of light synthetic crude output, company President Tim McKay said in an interview Thursday. Work on the Horizon upgrader coincides with maintenance at other cites.

Suncor Energy Inc. plans a major overhaul of its U2 crude upgrader, cutting output by 130,000 barrels a day over the entire second quarter. Syncrude Canada Ltd. will curb 70,000 barrels a day during the quarter because of maintenance in a unit.

The supply cuts out of Northern Alberta, following a surprise OPEC+ decision to not increase output next month, could add more support to the recent rally in crude prices. OPEC+ had been debating whether to restore as much as 1.5 million barrels a day of output in April but decided to wait.

The Saudi-led alliance closely monitors other major oil producers as it seeks to manage the entire global market, and surging production in North America was its biggest headache in recent years -- especially from U.S. shale but also from Canada.

“The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, Brazil and other well endowed countries with hydrocarbon reserves -- we need to work with each other, collaboratively,” Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said after the group’s meeting on Thursday.

Read More: Saudis Bet ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Is Over in Push for Pricier Oil

Canada’s contribution to balancing the market with less production, much like slowing output in the U.S., is not a deliberate market-management strategy but significant nonetheless.

Even though the output cuts are short-term, the battered oil-sands industry shouldn’t be a concern for the Saudis in the long run either, judging from McKay’s outlook for the industry.

“I can’t see much growth in the oil sands happening because there is going to be less demand in the future,” he said. “The first step is we have to get our carbon footprint down.”

After years of rising output turned Canada into the world’s fourth-largest crude producer, expansion projects have nearly halted on the heels of two market crashes since 2014.

Adding to its struggles, Canada’s oil industry is being shunned by some investors such as Norway’s $1.3 trillion wealth fund amid concern that the higher carbon emissions associated with oil sands extraction will worsen climate change. These forces help make future growth in the oil sands unlikely, said McKay, whose company is among the largest producers in the country.

Oil sands upgraders turn the heavy bitumen produced in oil sands mines into light synthetic crude that’s similar to benchmarks West Texas Intermediate and Brent. Syncrude Sweet Premium for April gained 60 cents on Thursday to $1.50 a barrel premium to WTI, the strongest price since May, NE2 Group data show.

©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Saudis Bet ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Over in Push for Pricier Oil






Javier Blas, Grant Smith and Salma El Wardany
Fri, March 5, 2021,

(Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia just made a high-stakes wager that the glory days of U.S. shale, which transformed the global energy map in the last decade, are never coming back.

By keeping a tight grip on supply at Thursday’s meeting of the OPEC+ alliance of oil producers, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman showed he’s focused on boosting prices -- and confident that this time around it won’t encourage American producers to surge back and steal market share.

“‘Drill, baby, drill’ is gone for ever,” said Prince Abdulaziz, who’s orchestrated the revival of the oil market after last year’s catastrophic collapse.


His swagger comes mixed with a good dose of diplomatic tension: Russia, Saudi Arabia’s most important OPEC+ partner, has tried to convince Riyadh for several months to increase output, fearing that rising oil prices would ultimately awaken rival shale producers. The Saudis are certain the American industry has reformed itself.

If the prince is right, OPEC+ will be able to both push prices higher now and recover market share later without worrying that rivals in Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota will flood the market. But if Riyadh has miscalculated -- and it’s got shale wrong before -- the danger will be lower prices and production down the line.

The Saudis have so far convinced their allies the strategy will work. After a quick virtual meeting on Thursday, OPEC+ agreed to prolong its production cuts, defying expectations of an output hike. Russia, however, secured an exemption for itself and Kazakhstan, and will increase output marginally in April.

Brent crude jumped 5% to a one-year high of almost $68 a barrel after the decision. Front-month futures extended gains on Friday and a raft of banks updated their price forecasts, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which increased its estimates by $5 -- to $75 next quarter and $80 in the following three months.

“This is an incredibly bold move on the part of OPEC+ to extend the oil price rally,” said KPMG Global Energy Sector Leader Regina Mayor.

If history is a guide, however, trouble may be brewing. The OPEC+ coalition, which groups Saudi Arabia, Russia and almost two dozen other oil producers, has in the past underestimated its American rivals, who year after year produced more than most expected. From a low point of less than 7 million barrels a day in 2007, the U.S.’s total petroleum output more than doubled to hit an all-time high of almost 18 million barrels a day by early 2020, forcing the cartel to cede market share.

Risky Move

“This is a risky take,” Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd., said Friday in a Bloomberg Television interview. While U.S. oil companies probably won’t raise output this year, in 2022 “there’s nothing really stopping them, especially the small and mid-cap producers.”

Sen sees prices hitting $70 a barrel as soon as next week, $80 by the end of the year and a possible climb to $100 in 2022.

For now, U.S. total oil output remains constrained, hovering at 16 million barrels due to the impact of last year’s slump, which briefly saw benchmark prices trade below zero.

Under pressure from shareholders, shale producers have promised restraint, putting profits before the growth they relentlessly pursued during the boom years. Although drilling has risen from the lows of 2020, it’s well below previous levels. In addition, President Joe Biden is trying to temper the worst excesses of the industry, including the indiscriminate natural gas flaring that’s a byproduct of shale’s success.

Under a different oil minister, Saudi Arabia attacked shale producers in 2014 and 2015, flooding the market and forcing prices lower -- a strategy that ultimately failed. Prince Abdulaziz is doing the opposite, because oil higher prices will eventually benefit shale producers. Yet, he’s convinced the industry won’t repeat its past excesses.

“Shale companies are now more focused on dividends,” Prince Abdulaziz told Bloomberg News in an interview after the OPEC+ meeting, saying that the kingdom wished the American industry well. “We’ve never had any issue with shale oil. It’s the shale companies which are themselves changing. They have had their fair share of adventure and now they are listening to the call of their shareholders.”

Shale executives agree with him -- at least for now.

“A couple years ago it was ‘drill, baby, drill,’” John Hess, the head of Hess Corp., said in Houston earlier this week. “Now, it’s ‘show me the money.’”

Ryan Lance, the chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, echoed the sentiment: “I hope there’s discipline in the system. The worst thing that can happen right now is U.S. producers start growing rapidly again.”

As the industry cuts spending to pay shareholders fatter dividends, there’s not much left to finance increased production. Even Big Oil is scaling down its ambitions in shale. Exxon Mobil Corp. had been running 55 oil rigs in the Permian basin that straddles West Texas and southeast New Mexico, part of an effort to boost output to 1 million barrels a day by 2025. After tightening its belt, the U.S. oil giant is running just 10 rigs, and has cut its 2025 output target by nearly a third to 700,000 barrels a day.

Yet, there are also signs that higher oil prices may ultimately reactivate the U.S. shale industry. With benchmark West Texas Intermediate now changing hands above $60 a barrel, some companies believe they may be able to both grow and keep shareholders happy. EOG Resources Inc., the largest producer in the Permian, has announced a big spending increase for next year. And others are following suit.

But the reaction of the stock market made Prince Abdulaziz’s case: investors punished EOG for spending more on drilling, marking down its shares relative to more disciplined rivals.

(Updates with comments from Energy Aspects in 10th, 11th paragraphs.)

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.

©2021 Bloomberg L.P.