Apprehension in Malawi as government sends workers to Israel amid Gaza war

Opposition leader Kondwani Nankhumwa questions the secrecy of the deal and describes it as ‘an evil transaction’.

A Malawian tea factory worker offloads harvested tea leaves at the Makandi Tea Estate factory in Thyolo, southern Malawi

 [File: Gianluigi Guercia/AFP]

By Charles Pensulo
Published On 1 Dec 2023

Blantyre, Malawi – The departure of hundreds of Malawians to Israel to work as farm labourers has sparked a debate within the Southern African country, which is looking to raise much-needed foreign currency amid a cash crunch.

On November 25, the first tranche of 221 workers left for Israel. Subsequent flights are expected in the days to come, according to a statement from the Ministry of Labour, which did not mention numbers

Details about the programme were first made public on November 23 by Kondwani Nankhumwa, leader of the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party as he spoke in parliament, questioning the secrecy of the deal and describing it as “an evil transaction”.

“[The] government has gone into such an agreement with Israeli companies when it is fully aware that there is war. No sane parent can send his or her child to work in a country that is at war,” Nankhumwa told journalists after.

The move comes after months of Malawi facing a forex shortage that has disrupted businesses and led to the scarcity of essential commodities like fuel. The country is also experiencing a cost-of-living crisis further exacerbated by the central bank devaluating the national currency, the kwacha, by 44 percent “to counter supply-demand imbalances”.

In November, President Lazarus Chakwera suspended foreign travel for government officials – the latest drastic measure to conserve funds in the country.

The recent move is, therefore another attempt by the government to create jobs for its youthful population – half of Malawi’s 19 million people are 18 or below – and generate foreign exchange. According to the authorities, only 9 percent of its 20 million people are formally employed.

In November, the IMF pumped in $174m into the country as an extended credit facility. That same month, the government of Israel gave out a $60m aid package to Malawi to prop up its economy

.

A worker sews together a bale of purchased tobacco at the Lilongwe Auction Floors in the Lilongwe, Malawi 

[File: Amos Gumulira/AFP] (AFP)

A new chapter

That aid and the dispatch of workers mark a new chapter in diplomatic ties between Malawi and Israel, which date back to the 1960s. For decades, Israel sent doctors and agricultural experts to Malawi. Malawis have also gone to Israel to study agriculture, which remains a major source of revenue for the country.
Advertisement

During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Organisation of African Unity, the forerunner of the African Union, severed ties with Israel. Only four African countries remained steadfast. Malawi was one of them.

In 2021, a year after taking office, Chakwera hinted that Malawi would strengthen relations by opening an embassy in Jerusalem. It has not done so yet.

This year, Israel gave aid through its development agency IsraAID to Malawi and neighbouring Mozambique in the wake of Cyclone Freddy, which pummelled both countries.

Government officials said the move to send workers to Israel is mutually beneficial for both countries, even if many details remain unclear.

The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has said 30,000 to 40,000 workers have left the country’s farms since the October 7 attacks by Hamas on southern Israel. Half of them are Palestinians, whom Israel has barred from entering from the occupied West Bank. Consequently, it has been on the hunt for up to 5,000 workers from elsewhere, including from its loyal ally Malawi.
Advertisement

Authorities from the two countries have made assurances that the recruits will not be involved in warfare. But commentators are nevertheless questioning the timing and wondering if Malawi can repatriate its citizens if anything goes wrong as the war continues.

“Everybody, including Thailand, is pulling out their people from Israel,” Victor Chipofya, a political science lecturer at Blantyre International University, told Al Jazeera by telephone. “How come Malawi is the only country taking our people to Israel? Those are the questions that we’re supposed to be asking ourselves.”

Thai workers account for one of the largest migrant groups in Israel. As many as 30,000 of them were employed on farms in the country at the time of the Hamas attack. At least 32 Thais were taken captive on October 7, and many remain trapped within the Gaza Strip and Israel.

An unknown number of Malawians may also be trapped in Gaza.

After the war began, Chakwera called for a “cessation of violence by all parties” and the end to military action against known civilian targets in Gaza. He also called for the safety of 300 Malawians in Gaza who are believed to either be residents there or on pilgrimage in Israel. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is yet to confirm if they have since returned home.

When asked about them and the workers who left Malawi last week, a ministry spokesperson directed Al Jazeera to the Labour Ministry, which did not respond.

The Centre for Social Accountability and Transparency, a nonprofit based in Lilongwe, has said it is engaging the National Assembly to address the concerns of Malawians that workers sent to Israel might be at risk of bodily harm or worse.

William Kambwandira, its executive director, described the arrangement as “unfortunate” and akin to modern-day slavery.

“Malawians are interested to know whether this is a government-to-government deal and what are the terms of reference for this deal, including what safety measures have been put in place to protect the young Malawians,” he told Al Jazeera.

The debate continues

Officials of the Malawian and Israeli governments have tried to assuage fears about Malawian citizens getting caught up in the war.

In a statement on November 24, Secretary for Labour Wezi Kayira said the export of working personnel will also involve other countries and not only Israel, but there was no mention of any other countries.

“The safety and security of the youth is paramount,” the statement read. “On the Israel labour export, the youth will work at certified and approved locations which are classified as fit and safe environments.”

The young people will work on farms only and “will not be involved in any other activity”, she said, adding that medical insurance and repatriation arrangements are in place for those involved.

“This program will benefit both individuals and the nation,” the statement added. “A portion of wages will cover living costs in Israel while the remainder will be remitted to personal accounts in Malawi to boost foreign exchange.”

In a recent interview, Michael Lotem, the Israeli ambassador to Kenya, Uganda and Malawi, dismissed the concerns, saying the young people are not going to the Gaza Strip but will work in Israel.

“We will take care of them as much as we are taking care of Israelis,” Totem was quoted as saying in the Malawian daily The Nation. “Of course, we are cautious that we do not have to allow people into certain areas that are targeted by Hamas, especially the borders.”

Reports of the Malawian contingent signing an agreement to indemnify Israel have also surfaced on social media. Al Jazeera could not independently verify this agreement.

“I understand that in this war, thousands of missiles have been and continue to be shot by Israel’s enemy at mostly civilian targets over Israel. I understand that many but not all the missiles are being shot down by anti-missiles systems but that some of the missiles hit their targets and that the hits as well as shrapnel can kill and injure persons [and] there is danger of terror attacks due to the war,” it reads.

In parliaments and across Malawi, the debate continues.

Chipofya has accused the president, a Christian, of having a “soft spot” for Israel like Malawi’s first president, Kamuzu Banda, who also belonged to the ruling Malawi Congress Party.
Advertisement

“I feel that the current administration through Chakwera might be making certain decisions based on religious convictions and not necessarily understanding the political implication that these things may have in the long run,” he said.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

Slovak truckers joining Polish counterparts’ protest against Ukrainian competitors

01.12.2023, 05:52

Photo: Dominika Zarzycka/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Slovak truckers are set to start blocking the country’s border with Ukraine on Friday, pledging an almost total shutdown of the crossing for trucks until the European Union (EU) meets their demands for tougher rules for Ukrainian competitors.

Slovak truckers to block Ukraine crossing, government extends ban on agri productsTVP World: SocietySlovak trucking union UNAS chief Stanislav Skala said his team was ready to block the Vysne Nemecke/Uzhhorod crossing, the sole border point for trucks, from 1400 GMT.

The Slovak haulers are joining Polish truckers who have been blocking several crossings to Ukraine since November 6, redirecting some traffic through Slovakia, causing hundreds of trucks to pile up for kilometers on the approach to the border.

Demands

Polish and Slovak truckers complain that Ukrainian truckers offer cheaper prices for their services and also transport goods within the EU, rather than just between the bloc and Ukraine.

Truckers in both countries demand that the EU reinstate a system of granting a limited number of permits to Ukrainian companies to operate in the bloc and for European truckers to enter Ukraine. The permits were abolished after Russia’s invasion.

“We will block the border and let four trucks through every hour,” Skala told Reuters by telephone while driving toward Vysne Nemecke on Friday.

Military supplies, humanitarian shipments, perishable goods, and animal deliveries will also be able to pass, he said, adding that the blockade would be done in both directions by a few passenger cars, and in coordination with police, and a team of several people guarding the blockade in shifts.

Operators want the EU to reinstate permits and enforce rules allowing Ukrainian companies to ship to and from the EU, but not local carriage within the EU.

The Slovak Transport Ministry said after the meeting with haulers on Wednesday it would relay their demands in Brussels.

Kyiv has said it will not compromise on the question of permits for Ukrainian drivers.

Ukraine says Polish trucker protest on border 'catastrophic'

Kyiv (Ukraine) (AFP) – Ukraine on Friday said that the fallout from a weeks-long protest by Polish truckers on their countries' shared border was "catastrophic", as Slovak hauliers also began blockading crossings with their war-torn neighbour.

Issued on: 01/12/2023 - 

Polish truckers have been blocking major crossings for cargo vehicles with neighbouring war-torn Ukraine since early November © Wojtek Radwanski / AFP/File


Polish truckers have been blocking major crossings for cargo vehicles with Ukraine since early November, demanding the reintroduction of entry permits for their Ukrainian competitors.

"Blocking traffic on the border between Poland and Ukraine: the situation is catastrophic!" Kyiv's rights ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets said in a statement.

"Ukrainian drivers are in such a dire situation that they plan to go on hunger strike if the situation does not improve!"

Huge queues have formed on both sides of the border, with many drivers stuck in their vehicles for days in cold temperatures and with little food.

Kyiv on Friday said that some 2,100 trucks trying to enter Ukraine were blocked on the Polish side.

Lubinets said he had contacted his Polish counterpart Marcin Wiacek but has not yet received a response.

He also said that Kyiv has started to prepare for "the evacuation of drivers from blocked checkpoints on the territory of Poland", without giving details of what that would look like.

He said Ukraine had also started preparing to supply drivers with food, water, medicine and fuel.

At least two rounds of talks between Kyiv and Warsaw, as well as the EU, have failed to end the protest.

"No one has agreed to anything. Please consider this as the official position," Rafal Mekler, a co-leader of the protest, said on social media.

Mekler is also a politician with the far-right Konfederacja party in the Lublin region which borders Ukraine.

Warsaw said this week it would conduct "stepped-up checks" on Ukrainian trucks on roads leading to the border in an effort to placate the protesting hauliers.

The truckers say they have faced unfair competition since the EU permits were scrapped after Russia invaded Ukraine © Damien SIMONART / AFP/File

The truckers say they have faced unfair competition since the EU permits were scrapped after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Poland has taken in over a million Ukrainian refugees since the outbreak of war with Russia.

But relations with Ukraine took a sour turn during Poland's parliamentary election this autumn, when the ruling party increased nationalist rhetoric and became embroiled in spats with Kyiv.
Slovak truckers join protest

As the situation on the Polish border worsened, Slovak truckers mirrored their northern neighbours and also began blockading crossings with Ukraine.

Members of Slovakia's truckers union UNAS were allowing only four trucks per hour to enter Ukraine at the Vysne Nemecke checkpoint.

"We will stay here until steps are taken to limit competition from Ukrainian hauliers," Rastislav Curma, deputy president of UNAS, told AFP.

"We want to support our Polish colleagues," Curma added.

Polish and Slovak road carriers say the scrapping of the permits led to undercutting by Ukrainian competitors, which has taken a serious toll on their earnings.

The Ukrainian border agency on Friday warned of disruptions in cargo traffic at the Vysne Nemecke crossing, but assured that "traffic will not be blocked when entering Slovakia."

"The movement of cars and buses will also not be restricted," it said on social media.

The Slovak protest came after the new government in Bratislava earlier this month blocked a military aid package to Ukraine.

© 2023 AFP

 

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,