The Pentagon Just Can’t Pass An Audit – OpEd

 December 1, 2023

By Lindsay Koshgarian

The Pentagon just failed its audit — again. For the sixth time in a row, the agency that accounts for half the money Congress approves each year can’t figure out what it did with all that money.

For a brief recap, the Pentagon has never passed an audit. Until 2018, it had never even completed one.

Since then, the Pentagon has done an audit every year and given itself a participation prize each time. Yet despite this year’s triumphant press release — titled “DOD Makes Incremental Progress Towards Clean Audit” — it has failed every time.

In its most recent audit, the Pentagon was able to account for just half of its $3.8 trillion in assets (including equipment, facilities, etc). That means $1.9 trillion is unaccounted for — more than the entire budget Congress agreed to for the current fiscal year.

No other federal agency could get away with this. There would be congressional hearings. There would be demands to remove agency leaders, or to defund those agencies. Every other major federal agency has passed an audit, proving that it knows where taxpayer dollars it is entrusted with are going.

Yet Congress is poised to approve another $840 billion for the Pentagon despite its failures.

In fact, by my count Congress has approved $3.9 trillion in Pentagon spending since the first ailed audit in 2018. Tens of billions have gone through the Pentagon to fund wars in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and now Israel. Accountability for those “assets” — including weapons and equipment — is also in question.

At this point, lawmakers surely know those funds may never be accounted for. And year after year, half of the Pentagon budgetgoes to corporate weapons contractors and other corporations who profiteer from this lack of accountability.

There is an entity whose job it is to prevent this sort of abuse: Congress. With each failure at the Pentagon, Congress is failing, too. Every year that members of Congress vote to boost Pentagon spending with no strings attached, they choose to spend untold billions on weapons and war with no accountability.

Meanwhile, all those other agencies that have passed their audits could put those funds to much better use serving the public. Too many Americans are struggling to afford necessities like housing, heat, health care, and child care, and meanwhile our country is grappling with homelessness, the opioid epidemic, and increasingly common catastrophic weather events.

With another government shutdown debate looming in early 2024, you’ll hear lawmakers say we need to cut those already inadequate investments in working families. But if they’re worried about spending, they should start with the agency that has somehow lost track of nearly $2 trillion worth of publicly funded resources.

This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

The Pentagon. Photo credit: DOD

Lindsay Koshgarian

Federal budgeting expert Lindsay Kosgharian directs

the National Priorities Project (NPP) 

ING: Consumer not ready to change what they eat to help the environment

By ING December 1, 2023

By wasting less food and eating less meat and dairy, consumers can help to slow down climate change. However, consumers in the EU have barely changed their diets. Emission reduction targets give food companies a reason to encourage consumers to change, but without regulation, the economic incentive to move to a more climate-friendly diet remains weak.

Why changing the way we eat can be a big win for the climate.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the food system is responsible for 21% to 37% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we all need to eat. But changing the way food is produced and what food is consumed can reduce the negative impact on the climate. Action is clearly needed and at COP28 this year, this subject will be addressed for the first time, with discussions centred on the changes needed to limit the rise in global temperatures to between 1.5 and 2 degrees.

While European consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues connected to food, changing actual behaviour remains challenging. That’s why in this article we take a look at how food manufacturers and retailers can influence consumers and what incentives they have to do so.

Consumers and scientists not aligned on most effective ways to make diets more sustainable.

European consumers can do many things to make their diets more sustainable. When we asked about the best approach, German consumers said that ‘eating more local products’ was the most effective route followed by reducing food waste. Dutch and Belgian consumers consider reducing food waste to be the most effective measure. The importance of reducing food waste is also aligned with the view of experts (see for example UN, IPCC). However, consumers tend to give less weight to reducing their consumption of meat and dairy. This is a surprising result since shifting towards a more plant-rich and less animal-rich diet is often considered by scientists and public institutions to be the most effective way for Europeans to reduce the climate impact of their diet.

Meat and dairy consumption largely unchanged.

Meat and dairy are a cornerstone of European diets, providing the majority of our protein and a range of other nutrients. But animal products like beef also account for a disproportionately large share of all food-related greenhouse gas emissions. Meat and dairy companies are very aware of this and are increasingly adopting net zero targets for their own operations and their supply chains in 2050. Yet for the time being, lowering consumption can be another route for consumers to reduce the climate impact of their diet, which also carries health benefits. While there is a certain level of willingness among consumers to reduce meat intake, actual meat consumption per capita in the EU has been fairly stable since the 1990s.

Less beef and pork, more poultry.

Still, there are changes in the type of meat that Europeans eat. Beef and pork consumption in the EU has dropped by 2.5% (beef) and -10% (pork) per capita in the past decade. Poultry consumption is growing (+16.5%) and poultry has a much lower environmental footprint compared to other types of meat. Because of this composition effect, the carbon footprint of a single European person's meat consumption is about 3% lower compared to 10 years ago. Nonetheless, total livestock-related emissions in the EU have been flat since 2010 because improvements in terms of carbon intensity per kilogram have been offset by increases in total production.

Meat consumption in Germany drops.

Meat consumption data for several countries shows only slight changes during the last decade. The downward trend in Germany since 2018 stands out. This might be explained by a combination of factors such as sustainability considerations, health reasons, inflation, improved availability of alternatives, negative media coverage and demographic changes (meat consumption per capita is generally lower among the elderly and people with a non-western background). However, these factors are not unique to Germany and we should point out that meat remains very popular, including in Germany.

 

Less milk but more cheese.

EU dairy consumption per capita has gone up during the last decade but seems to have stabilised more recently. Again there are shifts within the category. Consumption of liquid milk has dropped quite significantly in volume terms, for example by 8% in Germany and 12% in the Netherlands over the past 10 years. But at the same time, consumers have started to eat more dairy products, including cheese, which is supportive for milk demand since it requires about eight litres of milk to produce a kilogram of cheese.

For consumers, milk has proven to be one of the easiest animal products to substitute. There are more and more suitable alternatives available and the price gap between milk and plant-based alternatives has become smaller. However, for cheese, which is the favourite animal product for many, substitution has proven to be much harder.

 

Food waste decreasing, but further declines needed.

Reducing food waste provides another big opportunity to lower the environmental impact of food production and consumption. It’s estimated that almost 60 million tonnes of food waste is generated annually in the EU, with over half occurring within households. Trend data is scarce, but food waste data for Spain and the Netherlands hint at a declining trend. The extraordinary increase in food prices might give households a stronger financial incentive to reduce food waste, but in general, moral considerations (“waste is wrong”) mainly influence our behaviour. Since the EU Commission has proposed that member states should reduce household food waste by 30% in 2030 compared to 2020, it's very likely that additional actions, such as awareness campaigns and tools that enable consumers to change their routines, will be taken. For food companies, a reduction in household food waste aligns with the UN’s sustainable development goals and could help them lower some of their scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Sales of food products with sustainable logos are booming,  Across Europe, the market for food and drink products with sustainable certification is booming. In the Netherlands for example, sales of certified food products have more than doubled in the past five years. They also increased by 50% in the UK between 2016 and 2021. Such certification generally signals that more attention is paid to the environment, labour conditions or animal welfare during production. So it’s not a given that certified products also have a smaller carbon footprint than products without a logo. Certified products are present in every food category, but German, Dutch and Belgian consumers in our survey mainly expressed a higher willingness to pay more for sustainable meat, fruit and vegetables.

But many consumers are not willing to pay a premium.

The sales growth of certified food products indicates that food manufacturers and retailers are succeeding in steering part of consumer spending towards more sustainable products. It is important to note that certified products are not on everyone’s shopping list. For many people, sustainable food needs to be affordable in the first place. Almost one third of all German and half of all Dutch and Belgian consumers in our survey said they were not willing to pay more for sustainable food products in any category. This can be either because they can’t afford to pay extra, don’t trust these claims or don’t see the benefits.

 

Many consumers tend not to trust sustainability claims on food products.

The increase of (inter)national sustainability-related labels and claims on food products has also attracted criticism. A study from the EU Commission found that 40% of claims on all products, including food, were entirely unsubstantiated. The EU Commission is working on stricter regulation which helps consumers to separate the wheat from the chaff. Our research shows that currently about one in five Spanish and Polish consumers don't trust sustainability claims on food while consumers in Germany and the Netherlands are even more sceptical.

 

Regulation: tougher on food waste and greenwashing, but hesitant on consumption taxes  Because of the share of the food system within total emissions and the far-reaching European ambitions on climate action (the 55% reduction target for the whole economy in 2030 and a recommendation for a 90% reduction target in 2040) it’s very likely that policymakers will closely look at all their instruments to make sure that there is a business case for a rapid reduction in food-related emissions.

Which options do policymakers have? Taxes and levies to deliver external effects These can be targeted at producers or consumers. The EU already has an emission trading system for carbon-intensive sectors and this might be extended to agriculture. Proposals for consumption taxes on certain food products like meat have shown that it can be a challenge to garner public support. Still, it’s not unthinkable that some countries introduce some form of taxation and recent scientific research on meat taxes argues that support can be raised by proper design.

Regulations and norms to raise standards Livestock farmers across the EU face additional (national) environmental regulations that drive up production costs and eventually drive up prices of animal products. The proposed EU targets on food waste and the proposal for the green claims directive are other examples of regulation.

Campaigns to raise awareness among consumers and companies Governments can raise awareness about sustainable diets and the benefits of reducing food waste by initiating campaigns and public-private partnerships.

Subsidies and compensation to stimulate change Governments can provide public funding for R&D, such as research into novel protein sources or carbon sequestration in farmland. For example, Denmark, a large meat and dairy producer and exporter, recently published its national action plan for plant-based foods.

How food manufacturers can take advantage of the need for more sustainable diets.

The growth in food products with sustainable logos shows that there are certain aspects of sustainability that consumers value. However, data on meat and dairy consumption shows that consumers often refrain from taking more drastic steps to green their diets. Meanwhile, for retailers, emission reduction targets provide a stronger strategic incentive to get consumers to change. Retailers increasingly consider the carbon footprint of food products an important metric and food manufacturers can do several things to take advantage of this trend.

It starts with establishing the environmental footprint of their products. Besides helping to determine actions to further reduce emissions, this data can also help food makers stand out from their competitors if they do better than the industry average. Furthermore, we expect that calls for a shift between animal- and plant-based categories will continue to influence market dynamics in Europe. Food manufacturers and retailers can do their part by developing and improving plant-based alternatives. But a more profound structural change in the consumption of animal products also depends on the effective use of policy instruments.

Content Disclaimer: This publication has been prepared by ING solely for information purposes irrespective of a particular user's means, financial situation or investment objectives. The information does not constitute investment recommendation, and nor is it investment, legal or tax advice or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any financial instrument. Read more

 

Surging U.S. Oil Production Brings Down Prices and Raises Climate Fears

American oil production is hitting record levels, delivering economic and foreign policy benefits but putting environmental goals further out of reach.

U.S. oil producers are cranking out a record 13.2 million barrels a day, more than Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Credit...Meridith Kohut for The New York Times

By Clifford Krauss

The New York Times
Clifford Krauss, who is based in Houston, has covered energy since 2006.
Dec. 1, 2023, 9:38 a.m. ET
Sign up for Your Places: Global Update. All the latest news for any part of the world you select. Get it sent to your inbox.


American oil fields are gushing again.

Only three years after U.S. oil production collapsed during the pandemic, energy companies are cranking out a record 13.2 million barrels a day, more than Russia or Saudi Arabia. The flow of oil has grown by roughly 800,000 barrels a day since early 2022 and analysts expect the industry to add another 500,000 barrels a day next year.

The United States Is Producing Historic Levels of Crude Oil

Rate of U.S. crude oil production over time


Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

By The New York Times


The surge in output has helped push down gasoline prices, which have fallen by close to $2 a gallon since the summer of 2022 and are now back to levels that prevailed in 2021. It has also provided the Biden administration with substantial leverage in its dealings with oil-exporting foes like Russia, Venezuela and Iran while reducing its need to cajole more friendly countries like Saudi Arabia to temper prices.

But the comeback in U.S. oil production poses big risks, too. More supply and lower prices could increase demand for fossil fuels at a time when the world leaders, who are meeting in Dubai, are straining to reach agreements that would accelerate the fight against climate change. Most scientists say the world is far from achieving the goals necessary to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming, which is caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal.

“We’re achieving energy security and reducing inflation by leveraging high-emitting, carbon-intensive oil production,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab at New York University. “We’re going to need to address that conflict.”

The United States now exports roughly four million barrels a day, more than any member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries except Saudi Arabia. On balance, the United States still imports more than it exports because domestic demand exceeds supply and many American refineries can more easily refine the heavier oil produced in Canada and Latin America than the lighter crude that oozes out of the shale fields of New Mexico, North Dakota and Texas.

Nearly every extra barrel of American crude produced is being exported, mostly to Europe and Asia, where supplies are tight. In addition, the natural gas that bubbles up with oil has also led to record exports of gas and helped to lower prices for that fuel and for electricity, much of which is produced at gas-fired power plants in the United States.

The surge in U.S. production has helped to end the energy crisis that gripped Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 — at least for now. European countries have replaced much of the gas they were buying from Russia with gas from the United States, Qatar and other exporters. They have also reduced their use of natural gas, a phenomenon that was helped by a mild winter last year.

“There is a foreign policy dividend in keeping a lid on oil prices,” said David Goldwyn, who was a leading energy diplomat in the Obama administration.

Not long ago the U.S. oil industry was in deep trouble. It suffered repeated busts since 2015, culminating in a collapse of prices during the pandemic. Investors fled. Exxon Mobil was kicked out of the Dow Jones industrial average, and some European oil companies announced plans to pivot from fossil fuels to renewables more quickly.

With concerns over climate change growing, Joe Biden, during his 2020 campaign, promised to stop drilling on federal lands and federal waters offshore. He also pledged to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and electric cars to drastically reduce the emissions responsible for climate change.

But as president, Mr. Biden has taken a much different tack. While he has supported green energy and battery-powered cars, he has also hectored oil companies to increase production in an effort to drive down prices for consumers. He has approved a large drilling project in Alaska over the objections of environmentalists and a small number of offshore oil and gas permits.

Mr. Biden has been under pressure from some Democrats to trumpet gains in oil production as a way of reaching out to voters who are leery of high gas prices. He has yet to do so — but his administration has not complained about the production, either.

John Kirby, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said the administration was committed to keeping energy prices low.

Our business reporters. Times journalists are not allowed to have any direct financial stake in companies they cover.

“The president is going to keep focusing, as he has been, on a healthy global market that’s properly balanced and that can continue to bring the price of gasoline down here in the United States,” Mr. Kirby said.

The pandemic took a heavy toll on U.S. oil production, which fell from 13 million barrels a day at the end of 2019 to just over 11 million barrels a day a year later. Dozens of oil companies went out of business, and the number of rigs in use fell from 800 to 350 in 2020 as tens of thousands of field workers lost their jobs.

Most of the new U.S. oil production is coming from the Permian Basin, which straddles Texas and New Mexico. There are also some new projects and expansions in Alaska and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

This week the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.25 a gallon.

Credit...Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times

“It’s the mother of all comeback stories,” said Robert McNally, who was a senior energy adviser under President George W. Bush. “The last couple of years have shown that you should never bet against the U.S. oil sector.”

The bonanza has helped American consumers. This week the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.25 a gallon, 25 cents below what it cost a year earlier and nearly $1.80 below the record price set in June 2022, according to AAA.

The American oil industry is now dominated by hydraulic fracturing of shale, a process that splits hard rock with pressurized water and chemicals. Shale wells are highly productive for only a couple of years, so a decline in drilling brings a quick, sharp decline in output. Conversely, a rapid return of drilling ignites a spurt of production.

Technological advances have enabled producers to drill faster with new rigs designed for the shale fields of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and North Dakota. Robotics and software improvements have cut costs, while lateral wells have been lengthened to expose more rock for fracture.

But price is what drives investment and production. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, oil prices climbed past $100 a barrel.

The biggest companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron decided not to significantly increase drilling, fearing a price collapse. Instead, the companies spent billions of dollars buying back shares and handing out dividends.

By late 2022, however, smaller public companies and hundreds of privately owned firms began ramping up operations. Many small companies were bought by larger firms, which also spurred more production.

“The independents were back close to prepandemic activity,” said Raoul LeBlanc, a vice president at S&P Global Commodity Insights. “And the privates just went crazy.”

Mr. LeBlanc said the investments made during the second half of last year were now bearing fruit. He predicted that American production could rise to 13.7 million barrels a day by the end of 2024, unless there is a deep recession and prices drop below $65 a barrel, around $10 lower than the current price.

“I am very surprised by how much we have produced this year,” said Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, a major producer in the Permian Basin that is being acquired by Exxon Mobil. He predicted that the country could produce 15 million barrels a day in five years.

Production is also growing in Canada, Guyana, Brazil and Norway.

Mr. Sheffield said “the big question” is how Saudi Arabia might respond if production in the United States and other countries continues to rise.

As the leader of OPEC Plus, a group of 23 oil-producing countries, which together produce nearly half the world’s oil, Saudi Arabia could pressure its allies to maintain production levels, as it did in 2014, rather than cut them to push down prices and cripple the soaring American shale production. That decision set up years of price swings that soured many Wall Street investors on the oil industry.

Investors have recently grown more fond of oil and the stocks of Exxon, Chevron and other companies are up a lot over the last two years. But that could be changing. The price of oil has been falling recently and is down by more than 15 percent since the summer.

Mr. Sheffield said the drastic swings in energy prices was a main reason investors were wary of his industry. “The reason for the lack of investor interest is the volatility of our business,” he said. “Discipline is not out the window but we need to solve this volatility issue and I don’t know when we are going to solve it.”

Jim Tankersley contributed reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.


Clifford Krauss reports on the energy industry, focusing on the transition to renewable resources in a warming world. More about Clifford Krauss

COP28 UN climate gathering hijacked for fossil fuel agenda

December 1, 2023 

BY BLAKE SKYLAR

Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., speaks during the World Government Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Feb 14, 2023. | AP

This year, a united dream of a cleaner, cooler planet is being threatened by Big Oil and Gas. COP28, arguably the UN and the world’s most important environmental summit, has been “comprehensively captured by the fossil fuel lobby to serve its vested interests,” Amnesty International cautioned. Internal notes leaked by a whistleblower have vindicated their warning.

The 2023 UN Climate Change Conference is being held in Expo City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) between Nov. 30th and Dec. 12th. An intergovernmental initiative to limit global temperature rises and curb the ramifications of climate change, this year’s summit is controversial enough given the UAE’s penchant for gas and oil expansion, but recent records have been exposed that prove the COP28 team plans to exploit the conference to further that very agenda.

COP28 President Al Jaber happens to also be CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), which has recently conferred with many government and business leaders, aiming to use COP28 to ramp up ADNOC’s gas and oil exports.

The plans run utterly counterintuitive to the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is to reduce the earth’s warming to just 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial age temperatures. To that end, greenhouse emissions would need to be capped before 2025 at the latest, and decline 43 percent by 2030.

Amidst the struggle to achieve this, there have been previous controversies at the hands of fossil fuel proponents, such as former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s push in 2018 to double-count carbon credits, something that would have jeopardized the integrity and potential success of the agreement’s guidelines. What will be done in Dubai, however, makes that agenda pale in comparison.

Though it is not yet clear how many COP28 meetings Al Jaber has had with foreign governments, briefings uncovered by the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) – and seen by the BBC – indicate he discussed commercial interests with over 30 nations. An anonymous whistleblower for the CCR verified the authenticity of the plans, which Professor Michael Jacobs, a climate politics expert at Sheffield University, called, “breathtakingly hypocritical.”

“The UAE,” he remarked, “is the custodian of a United Nations process aimed at reducing global emissions. And yet, in the very same meetings where it’s apparently trying to pursue that goal, it’s actually trying to do side deals which will increase global emissions.”

Further meeting records and internal emails uncovered by the CCR show there is very little delineation between COP28 matters and the aims of ADNOC. COP28 team staffers have noted Al Jaber’s policy that talking points from ADNOC always be included in summit discussion.

Leaks contradict denials

The team has denied the allegations, but the leaks contradict such claims, as do discussion points from meetings with officials from Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Venezuela, which attempt to justify the plans with ADNOC’s claim that “there is no conflict between sustainable development of natural resources and its commitment to climate change.”

Other countries involved in Al Jaber’s talking points include Mozambique, Canada, and Australia, which would see “liquified natural gas” opportunities evaluated. Colombia, meanwhile, would find ready support from ADNOC for its own fossil fuel developments, documents indicated. Talking points for other countries included China, Germany, and Egypt.

According to an editorial by Morning Star, a daily newspaper in Britain, these kinds of actions are “as predictable as they are symbolic. Predictable because why else would this despotic Gulf monarchy, whose huge wealth is entirely derived from its vast oil reserves, seek to host COP28 except to greenwash an economic model utterly dependent on continuing fossil fuel extraction?

“Symbolic because the UAE’s disgraceful conduct is not out of tune with the wider approach of Western governments which hand management of a ‘just transition’ to the very corporations that profit most from the status quo.”

Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace International policy coordinator, commented, “If the allegations are true, this is a real scandal. The climate summit leader should be focused on advancing climate solutions impartially, not backroom deals that are fueling the crisis. This is exactly the kind of conflict of interest we feared when the CEO of an oil company was appointed to the role. COP is an opportunity to secure our survival, not to strike business deals that fuel the crisis.”

An investigation in early November by Agence France-Presse (AFP) further uncovered an “energy transition narrative” drafted for the COP28 team by consulting firm McKinsey & Company; it outlines a reduction in oil use by only half over the next 25 years. “On average, 40-50 millions of barrels per day of oil are still expected to be utilized by 2050,” the uncovered document stated. The McKinsey energy scenario, said AFP, “reads as if it was written by the oil industry for the oil industry.”

A former consultant for the firm revealed to AFP that McKinsey “serves the world’s largest polluters,” putting it completely at odds with the mission of COP28. “The firm is best understood as possibly the most powerful oil and gas consulting firm on the planet posturing as a sustainability firm, advising polluting clients on any opportunity to preserve the status quo.”

Meanwhile, further documents were later attained by the CCR that are just as scandalous; they revealed that UAE bedfellow Saudi Arabia’s plans for an Oil Development Sustainability Programme (ODSP), which involved fossil fuel collaboration with African and Asian nations, as well. The CCR said: “The investigation obtained detailed information on plans to drive up the use of fossil fuel-powered cars, buses, and planes in Africa and elsewhere, as rich countries increasingly switch to clean energy.

Wants to accelerate supersonic air travel

“The ODSP plans to accelerate the development of supersonic air travel, which it notes uses three times more jet fuel than conventional planes, and partner with a carmaker to produce a cheap combustion engine vehicle. Further plans promote power ships, which use polluting heavy fuel oil or gas to provide electricity to coastal communities.”

Mohammed Adow, head of PowerShift Africa, remarked, “The Saudi government is like a drug dealer trying to get Africa hooked on its harmful product. The rest of the world is weaning itself off dirty and polluting fossil fuels and Saudi Arabia is getting desperate for more customers and is turning its sights on Africa. It’s repulsive.”

Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, leader of that country’s Green Party, stated that we must “actually take stock of what we have achieved and the targets we set ourselves. We have to get out of fossil fuels, we have to dramatically reduce emissions. It is no longer about visions. It is about finally delivering on the pledges we made.”

Bill McKibben, environmentalist and leader of 350.org, concluded, “It’s difficult to imagine anything more systemically evil than this spate of bids by the oil companies and oil countries to keep wrecking the planet; it’s akin to the way that tobacco companies, facing legal losses in the U.S., pivoted to expand their markets in Asia instead. But this time the second-hand smoke is going to kill us all.”

We hope you appreciated this article. At People’s World, we believe news and information should be free and accessible to all, but we need your help. Our journalism is free of corporate influence and paywalls because we are totally reader-supported. Only you, our readers and supporters, make this possible. 

CONTRIBUTOR

Blake Skylar

Blake is a writer and production manager, responsible for the daily assembly of the People's World home page. He has earned awards from the IWPA and ILCA, and his articles have appeared in publications such as Workday Minnesota, EcoWatch, and Earth First News. He has covered issues including the BP oil spill in New Orleans and the 2015 U.N. Climate Conference in Paris.

He lives in Pennsylvania with his girlfriend and their cats. He enjoys wine, books, music, and nature. In his spare time, he reviews music, creates artwork, and is working on several books and digital comics.

Why COP28 has already failed

Perspectives
Marta Schaaf & Kristine Beckerle
29 Nov, 2023

Repressive laws, a climate of fear & imprisoned domestic dissidents – all of which characterise COP28 host country UAE – can serve no purpose other than to support defenders of the status quo, write Marta Schaaf & Kristine Beckerle.

The UN chief urged world leaders to take decisive action to tackle ever-worsening climate change at the COP28 summit in Dubai. [GETTY]

To avert catastrophic climate change, an active and empowered civil society is necessary. The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai is almost certain to provide further proof that we will fail if we rely on large, powerful institutions such as governments and multinational corporations.

Fossil-fuel companies have known about their contributions to climate change since the 1970s, yet they continue to drill and expand their operations. While governments have paid lip service to the problem by adopting the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris climate agreement, the latest Production Gap Report shows how little these commitments mean in practice. Between now and 2030, output in the top 20 fossil-fuel-producing countries will be more than double the amount consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius.

Self-regulation by governments and fossil-fuel companies is woefully insufficient, not least because governments and fossil-fuel companies are often one and the same. For too long, both have sought to appease public concerns with greenwashing campaigns and the promise of future silver-bullet technologies such as carbon capture and storage. And when some segment of the public is not pacified by such ploys, many of these same governments and companies have been all too willing to resort to quashing freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.

''The government has continued its repression in the run-up to COP28. It has cut off communication between many prisoners and their families, prosecuted Emiratis who have been deported back to the country after seeking refuge abroad, and rejected the UN’s calls to release prisoners of conscience.''

Only through collective action, advocacy, and civil-society participation in policymaking will governments be forced to do what it takes to phase out fossil fuels, support the transition to renewable energy, and protect human rights in a world of increasingly extreme weather and drought. But civil society cannot thrive without civic space – public fora where citizens can jointly criticize and pressure the most powerful, without fear or suppression. And at COP28, outside the protected confines of the UN’s “blue zone,” there will be virtually no civic space at all.

Dubai is one of the most expensive cities in the world, which means that lodging, food, and other expenses will be prohibitively costly for most people, especially the disadvantaged and marginalised who are most affected by the climate crisis. Moreover, it is illegal in the United Arab Emirates even to criticise the government, or to say anything deemed to “harm the public interest,” and foreigners are sometimes detained for comments made while in the country. Minor signs of dissent during the 2011 Arab Spring were quickly and forcibly repressed. To this day, scores of human-rights activists and dissidents remain arbitrarily detained, including 60 members of the “UAE-94,” who were tried en masse in 2013. Four years later, the UAE imprisoned Ahmed Mansoor, the only remaining Emirati working publicly to defend human rights in the country.

The government has continued its repression in the run-up to COP28. It has cut off communication between many prisoners and their families, prosecuted Emiratis who have been deported back to the country after seeking refuge abroad, and rejected the UN’s calls to release prisoners of conscience.

The UAE is also infamous for its use of unlawful electronic surveillance. Mansoor is just one of many human-rights defenders who has been targeted with spyware developed by cybersurveillance companies such as NSO Group and Hacking Team.

Such abuses are more than sufficient to create a climate of fear among activists hoping to attend COP28. While the UAE promises to make “space available for climate activists to assemble peacefully and make their voices heard,” it remains to be seen what this will look like in practice. What risks might activists still face if they speak out about the UAE’s abysmal rights record or failure to phase out fossil fuels? We do not know, because the UNFCCC secretariat and the UAE have not even disclosed the Host Country Agreement – the bare-minimum standard of transparency for any COP.

Of course, the UAE is hardly alone in its hostile attitude toward civil society. Around the world, countries are cracking down on protesters, misapplying current law to stifle climate dissent, and enacting new legislation to criminaliSe protest – often at the behest of powerful fossil-fuel companies. Some of these laws target climate activists directly, indicating that summits like annual climate-change COPs are of particular concern to repressive governments.

RELATED

COP28: Libya must learn the climate justice lessons of Derna

Perspectives

Malak Altaeb

Despite 2023 being another year of record-setting heat and rainfall events, COP28 is unlikely to produce any meaningful outcome. That is as unjust as it is tragic. The people who suffer the most from climate change are not heads of state or fossil-fuel executives. In the UAE and around the world, those bearing the brunt of the crisis are often the same people facing discrimination, marginalisation, and a lack of basic protection from their governments.

Since it is their futures that will be discussed at COP28, their engagement, activism, and demands for accountability are essential. It is through civil society that we will expose greenwashing and achieve the solutions that have long been promised. International conferences to discuss an existential global threat will generate meaningful results only if everyone is free to criticize, gather, and peacefully demonstrate. Repressive laws, a climate of fear, and imprisoned domestic dissidents can serve no purpose other than to support defenders of the status quo.

Marta Schaaf is Director of the Program on Climate, Economic and Social Justice, and Corporate Accountability at Amnesty International.

Kristine Beckerle is Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Adviser for Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Regional Office.

This article originally appeared on Project Syndicate.

World Bank to operate ‘loss and damage’ climate fund

By AFP
December 1, 2023

Copyright AFP FADEL SENNA

The World Bank will “operate” an ambitious new climate change fund, but donors and recipients will likely control how the money is actually spent, the head of the development lender said Friday.

More than $400 million has been pledged initially to the new “loss and damage” fund for countries impacted by climate change since it was approved by nations attending the UN’s COP 28 climate summit in Dubai on Thursday.

The amount so far falls well short of the $100 billion developing nations say are needed to meet the costs of changing climate, but more pledges are expected in coming days.

“The reality is the bank is currently not planning to play the role of allocating the money,” World Bank President Ajay Banga told an event at the summit in Dubai.

“That will be done by a governing board that needs to be created, that should have representation from the donor countries as well as the recipient countries,” he added.

The World Bank will play a more limited role, managing the day-to-day operations of the fund, Banga explained.

“Our job is like a trustee: We run it, we operate it, we hope to make sure the money goes the right places — because we know how to do that,” he said, adding that the fund was still in its early stages.

The loss and damage fund has been hailed as a positive start to this year’s COP summit in the United Arab Emirates, which has been billed as the largest summit to date, with more than 140 world leaders due to speak on Friday and Saturday.

Climate finance has been a key sticking point, with wealthy nations most responsible for emissions not delivering on promises to support the vulnerable states who are worst affected but least responsible for global warming.

On Friday, Banga said the new loss and damage fund would initially look to help finance “technical assistance and analytics,” for countries impacted by climate change.

“If this gets done well, sometime next year is when you’ll start seeing money actually be put out to help countries on the ground,” he added.

Nuclear power seeks place in clean energy fold at Cop28

More than 40 countries back statement saying 'net zero needs nuclear power'

MOCHOVCE, SLOVAKIA - NOVEMBER 6: A general view shows the cooling towers of the Mochovce nuclear power plant on November 6, 2023 in Mochovce, Slovakia. The key to Slovakia's nuclear strategy, Unit 3 of Slovakia's Mochovce NPP, has achieved 100 per cent power. The power plant is expected to cover 13 percent of the country's electricity needs, making Slovakia self-sufficient, according to the plant's administrator Branislav Strycek, CEO of Slovenske Elektrarne.

 (Photo by Janos Kummer / Getty Images)


Tim Stickings
Dubai
Dec 01, 2023


Live updates: Follow the latest news on Cop28

Nuclear power chiefs pitched fission as an indispensable clean energy source on Friday as they brought a “new momentum” behind the technology to Cop28 in Dubai.

More than 40 countries backed a statement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, saying reactors could help build a “low-carbon bridge to the future” and that “net zero needs nuclear power”.

Their intervention at Cop28 comes with several countries building or planning new nuclear reactors, spurred on by a desire for clean and home-grown power after a period of turmoil on global energy markets.

“Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases when it is produced and contributes to energy security and the stability of the power grid,” said the statement read by IAEA chief Rafael Grossi.

READ MORE

First draft of Cop28 global stocktake hints at tough talks ahead

“The responsible advancement of innovative technologies, including small modular reactors, aims to make nuclear power easier to build, more flexible to deploy and more affordable, which is of particular importance to developing countries.

“To build a low carbon bridge to the future will require that we keep the operating nuclear power plants serving us today.”

The IAEA said the statement was “a further indication of a new momentum for nuclear power as a source of reliable low carbon energy”.

Finland’s Climate and Environment Minister Kai Mykkanen, from one of Europe’s prominent pro-nuclear countries, told The National he hoped to see “technology-neutral” calls to action at Cop28 that do not exclude nuclear.

Negotiators began work on Friday on a joint "global stocktake" text agreeing a way forward on climate action, in which finding consensus on energy is likely to be particularly tricky.

“We are very happy that it seems that at an EU level, but also at a global level, we are starting to have a bit more of a technology-neutral approach also recognising the importance of nuclear,” Mr Mykkanen said.

“It’s totally unrealistic to think that we could phase out fossils and nuclear simultaneously. We need more nuclear in several kinds of solutions.”

The push for more nuclear does not only include new power stations but smaller, windmill-sized reactors that could, for example, provide heat or electricity for a remote area or industrial site.

Opponents of nuclear power object to it being put in the same category as renewables such as wind and solar, because it requires uranium fuel, produces waste and conjures fears of disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Germany closed its last atomic power plant last year because of safety fears.

Pro-nuclear campaigners counter that the wind and sun do not always co-operate and that using fission reactors as an all-weather “baseload” is preferable to coal, oil and gas.

Updated: December 01, 2023, 

 

UN court bars Venezuela from altering Guyana’s control over disputed territory

Mike Corder,
The Associated Pressabout 4 hours ago

• 
  
• 
  

A couple walks in front of a mural of the Venezuelan map with the Essequibo territory included, in Caracas, Venezuela, Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2023. Venezuelans will attempt to decide the future of the Essequibo territory, a large swath of land that is administered and controlled by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela, via a referendum that the Venezuelan government put forth in its latest attempt to claim ownership, saying it was stolen when a north-south border was drawn more than a century ago. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix)

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations’ top court on Friday ordered Venezuela not to take any action that would alter Guyana’s control over a disputed territory, but did not specifically ban it from holding a referendum Sunday on the territory’s future.

Guyana had asked the International Court of Justice to order a halt to parts of the planned referendum. The court verdict did not refer to the referendum, but it ruled that Venezuela must “refrain from taking any action which would modify that situation that currently prevails” in the disputed Essequibo region, which makes up some two-thirds of Guyana.

The legally binding ruling remains in place until a case brought by Guyana against Venezuela on the future of the region is considered by the court.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations' top court is set to announce Friday whether it will order Venezuela to halt parts of a referendum planned for Sunday on the future of a disputed territory that makes up two-thirds of Guyana.

Venezuela does not recognize the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction in the decades-old dispute over the Essequibo region and is expected to press ahead with the referendum regardless of what its judges decide.

At urgent hearings in November, lawyers for Guyana said the vote is designed to pave the way for annexation by Venezuela of the Essequibo — a territory larger than Greece that is rich in oil and minerals. They called on the world court to halt the referendum in its current form.

But Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez defiantly told the court: " Nothing will prevent the referendum scheduled for Dec. 3 from being held.”

Venezuela has always considered Essequibo as its own because the region was within its boundaries during the Spanish colonial period, and it has long disputed the border decided by international arbitrators in 1899, when Guyana was still a British colony.

President Nicolás Maduro and his allies are encouraging voters to answer “yes” to all the questions in Sunday's referendum, one of which proposes creating a Venezuelan state in the Essequibo territory and granting Venezuelan citizenship to the area’s current and future residents.

After years of fruitless mediation, Guyana went to the world court in 2018, asking judges to rule that the 1899 border decision is valid and binding. Venezuela argues that a 1966 agreement to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the original arbitration.

The court has ruled the case is admissible and that it has jurisdiction but is expected to take years to reach a final decision. In the meantime, Guyana wants to stop the referendum in its current form.

“The collective decision called for here involves nothing less than the annexation of the territory in dispute in this case. This is a textbook example of annexation,” Paul Reichler, an American lawyer representing Guyana, told judges at last month's hearings.

Mike Corder, The Associated Press

EXXON AGREES WITH GUYANA
Venezuela to vote on oil-rich region controlled by Guyana

Caracas (AFP) – "The Venezuelan sun rises in Essequibo," "Essequibo belongs to Guyana" -- the opposing camps' slogans say it all.

Issued on: 01/12/2023

Guyana says Venezuela's referendum is illegal under international law

 © Federico PARRA / AFP

A decades-old dispute over the oil-rich Essequibo territory reaches a new, potentially escalatory chapter on Sunday as Venezuela holds a referendum regarding the Guyana-controlled region.

Despite pending litigation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over where the two countries' border should lie, Venezuela has decided to ask its citizens' opinion on whether or not it should create a new "state" in Essequibo -- a move Guyana claims would pave the way for its neighbor to "unilaterally and illegally" seize the region.

What's at stake?

The dispute

At 160,000 square-kilometers (62,000 square-miles), Essequibo makes up more than two-thirds of Guyana, which has administered the area for over 100 years.

In Georgetown, English-speaking Guyana's capital, the logo "Essequibo is ours" flashes frequently on TV screens and adorns building walls and banners.

The Guyanese government insists on retaining the border determined in 1899 by an arbitration panel, while claiming Venezuela had agreed with the ruling until it changed its mind in 1962.

Caracas, for its part, claims the Essequibo River to the region's east forms a natural border and had been recognized as such from 1777 when the so-called Captaincy General of Venezuela, an administrative district of colonial Spain, was established.

Venezuela claims the Essequibo river to the region's east forms a natural border 

© Patrick FORT / AFP/File

It also refers to the Geneva Agreement signed in 1966 ahead of Guyana's independence from Britain, which provided for a negotiated settlement on the region's final borders, which never came to pass.
The referendum

The plebiscite -- described as consultative and non-binding -- will pose five questions to Venezuelan voters.

They include whether or not to reject the 1899 decision, which Caracas says was "fraudulently imposed."

Also on the ballot is whether Caracas should reject ICJ jurisdiction over the dispute, and whether or not to grant Venezuelan citizenship to the people -- currently Guyanese -- of a new "Guyana Esequiba State."

It is not a vote on self-determination.

Georgetown however fears that Venezuela will use a majority "yes" vote as a defense to abandon the ICJ proceedings and resort to unilateral measures, including annexing the entire region by force.

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro hopes the vote will yield a 'great consensus: to defend Venezuela' 

© MARCELO GARCIA / AFP

Guyana had filed a urgent application to the ICJ last month to stop the referendum, but a ruling has not been made.

President Nicolas Maduro said Wednesday he expects the vote to yield a "great consensus: to defend Venezuela."

Diplomatic sources told AFP the high-visibility campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum, which comes ahead of presidential elections next year, essentially amounted to propaganda for Maduro on a rare issue transcending political party rivalries in Venezuela.

There was no counter campaign.

Guyana says the vote is a violation of international law, and has received backing from the Caribbean Community (Caricom) and the Organization of American States (OAS).

The real reason?

Some say the real issue is oil, with the dispute intensifying since ExxonMobil's 2015 discovery of crude in Essequibo.

Tiny Guyana has the world's biggest reserves of crude per capita, while economically ailing Venezuela, facing crippling international sanctions, sits on the largest proven reserves overall.

Just last month, Guyana announced a "significant" new oil discovery in Essequibo, adding to estimated reserves of at least 10 billion barrels -- more than Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates.

Guyana had filed a urgent application to the ICJ last month to stop the referendum in Venezuela

 © Federico Parra / AFP/File

At the same time, Georgetown awarded bids to eight companies, foreign and local, to drill for crude.

Maduro reacted by calling his Guyanese counterpart Irfaan Ali a "slave" of US oil giant ExxonMobil, which made the discovery.

Caracas called the referendum after Georgetown started auctioning off oil blocks in Essequibo in August.

Ripe for war?

The Guyanese side has vowed that "Not a blade of grass" will be yielded to Venezuela -- adopting the title of a song by the US pop group Tradewinds about the conflict.

The rhetoric has escalated in recent weeks, with the tone darkening.

Guyana President Irfaan Ali has called for 'common sense' to prevail 

© Keno GEORGE / AFP/File

Venezuela has increased its military presence near the border and Guyana has raised the possibility of allowing foreign military bases to be set up in the area.

Could the dispute turn to war?

"It is one scenario," Josmar Fernandez, a Venezuelan conflict resolution expert, told AFP.

"When one talks of territory one also talks of... nationalist sentiment," she said.

Guyana has warned of a "naked threat of territorial aggression" and Ali has repeatedly called for "common sense" to prevail.

On Thursday, Brazil expressed "concern" about the tensions, and said it was in contact with both parties in search of a "peaceful solution."

© 2023 AFP

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/11/guyana-v-venezuela-intriguing-pleadings.html