Davos free-trade champions fret over war, climate


By AFP
January 19, 2024

Trade tensions took centre stage on the final day of the World Economic Forum - Copyright AFP Punit PARANJPE
Sophie ESTIENNE

After Covid and the war in Ukraine, free-trade boosters in Davos fretted over a new bout of turmoil in global supply chains due to rising geopolitical frictions.

The Israel-Hamas conflict, Yemeni rebel attacking ships in the Red Sea and tensions over Taiwan weighed on political and business elites at the five-day meeting of the World Economic Forum, which wrapped up Friday.

“There are geopolitical dynamics that are on our minds with respect to obviously the potential disruption of supply chains,” Francesco Ceccato, CEO of Barclays Europe, told AFP on the sidelines of the WEF.

“We thought we had normalised those after Covid. Clearly, that’s a little bit more precarious after … what is happening every day in the Red Sea,” he said.

Before Hamas’s attack on Israel in October, the World Trade Organization had forecast global trade growth of 3.3 percent, an improvement from 0.8 percent in 2023.

But WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala told the forum this week that she was now “less optimistic” about world trade in 2024 due to “worsening geopolitical tensions”.

She added, however, that it would be “much better than what we saw in 2023. Unless a major war breaks out, then all bets are off.”

– Disruptions for ‘few months’ –

The Red Sea route carries about 12 percent of global maritime trade, but the attacks have prompted many companies to take a massive and costly detour around the southern tip of Africa.

Iran-backed Huthi rebels in Yemen say they are targetting Israel-linked ships in protest over the war in Gaza.

US and UK military forces have launched a series of strikes against rebel sites in Yemen.

The Huthis have “changed global trade and global shipping costs,” said Karen Harris, an economist at the consulting firm Bain & Co.

Vincent Clerc, the CEO of Danish shipping giant Maersk, said the the conflict will probably disrupt supply chains “for a few months at least. Hopefully less, but it could be also longer because it’s so unpredictable”.

Automakers Tesla and Volvo were forced to temporarily suspend some production in Europe due to a shortage of parts.

Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, told the Davos conference that shipments of liquefied natural gas “will be affected” by the Red Sea tensions.

– Taiwan tensions –

There are concerns along other major trade routes.

Taiwan’s presidential election last weekend renewed US-China tensions over the democratic island, which China considers a part of its territory that must be brought back under its control, by force if necessary.

Speaking in Davos, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recalled that a huge amount of commerce flows through the Taiwan Strait.

“If that were to be disrupted, it would affect the entire planet. And it’s about the last thing we need, especially coming back from Covid,” Blinken said.

Taiwan itself is a major producer of semiconductors, the microchips that are vital for a range of products from smartphones to cars.

“Any disruption in the flow of that product is going to be, again, a watch item or a concern,” Ceccato said.

– Green an tech trade spats –

Microchips are already at the heart of a trade spat between Washington and Beijing as the United States has tightened export curbs on the technology over national security concerns.

China is also squabbling with the European Union over the bloc’s probe into Chinese electric car subsidies.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang took the podium on Wednesday to slam what he called “discriminatory” trade measures on green and tech trade.

Europe is also concerned about the huge subsidies for clean technologies in the United States under the Inflation Reduction Act.

But German Finance Minister Christian Lindner warned the EU against following in the Americans’ footsteps.

“We have to avoid a subsidy race,” Lindner told Friday’s panel.

– Panama drought –

On top of geopolitical tensions, climate change has also played tricks on global trade.

A drought and water shortages linked to the El Nino weather phenomenon reduced ship traffic through the Panama Canal.

“We have more sources of disruptions,” said Tobias Meyer, CEO of German logistics group DHL.

“It’s more likely that two, three, four of these events somehow accumulate. And that leads then in the system of transport to certain bottlenecks,” he said.

Harris said each disruption “simply reinforces the return on investment for near-shoring, re-shoring” — the act of bringing production home or closer instead of relying on factories across the world.

Millionaires and Billionaires to Davos Elites: 'We Must Be Taxed More'

"Even millionaires and billionaires like me are saying it's time," said Abigail Disney. "The elites gathering in Davos must take this crisis seriously."


Participants wait for a session at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland on January 16, 2024.
(Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS
Jan 17, 2024

Survey results released Tuesday as corporate CEOs, top government officials, and other global elites gathered in Davos, Switzerland show that nearly three-quarters of millionaires in G20 countries support higher taxes on extreme wealth, which they view as an increasingly dire threat to democracy.

The poll was conducted by the London-based firm Survation on behalf of the Patriotic Millionaires, an advocacy group that campaigns for a more progressive tax system. The survey, which polled over 2,300 millionaires in G20 nations, found that 74% "support higher taxes on wealth to help address the cost-of-living crisis and improve public services."

More than 70% of the respondents said they believe wealth "helps buy political influence" and a majority see extreme concentrations of wealth at the very top as corrosive to democracy. According to an Oxfam analysis released earlier this week, the world's billionaires have gotten $3.3 trillion richer since 2020 as 5 billion people across the globe have lost ground, struggling to get by as wages fail to keep up with inflation.

"We, the very richest, are sick and tired of inaction, so it's hardly surprising that working people, at the sharp end of our rigged economies, have lost all patience," said Guy Singh-Watson, a British entrepreneur and member of Patriotic Millionaires U.K.



The poll was released as 260 millionaires and billionaires signed a letter imploring the dozens of world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos to raise taxes on rich people like them, warning that a continued failure to "address the dramatic rise of income inequality" would be "catastrophic for society."

"Every moment of delay entrenches the dangerous economic status quo, threatens our democratic norms, and passes the buck to our children and grandchildren. Not only do we want to be taxed more but we believe we must be taxed more," the letter reads. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members. Our future is one of tax pride, or economic shame. That's the choice."

"There is a clear social, economic, ecological, intergenerational, and democratic need to address extreme economic inequality."

Abigail Disney, an American documentary filmmaker and letter signatory, said in a statement that "throughout history, pitchforks were the inevitable consequence of extreme discontent, but today, the masses are turning to populism, which is on the rise throughout the world."

"We already know the solution to protect our institutions and stabilize our country: it's taxing extreme wealth," said Disney. "What we lack is the political fortitude to do it. Even millionaires and billionaires like me are saying it's time. The elites gathering in Davos must take this crisis seriously."

A report published Tuesday by the Patriotic Millionaires and allied organizations argues that "the extreme economic conditions of our age are at the heart of the world's overlapping and compounding crises," pointing to the outsized carbon footprints of the ultrawealthy and the ongoing acceleration of inequality.

The report notes that top income tax rates have fallen globally in recent decades, dropping from 58% in 1980 to 42% in recent years across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

"There is a clear social, economic, ecological, intergenerational, and democratic need to address extreme economic inequality," the report says. "And yet political leaders have failed to take action on the simplest of solutions: raising taxes on the ultra-rich. This is a political choice."

Jamie Dimon Groveling Before Trump Exemplifies How Fascism Takes Root

At a time in American history when the most influential leaders of America need to stand up loudly and clearly for the rule of law, for democracy, for decency, and against Donald Trump, Dimon is leading the charge in the opposite direction.


“Take a step back, be honest. He was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues,” Dimon.
(Photo: Ludovic Marin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

ROBERT REICH
Jan 20, 2024

Robertreich.Substack.Com


On Wednesday, speaking from the World Economic Forum’s confab in Davos, Switzerland, Jamie Dimon — chair and CEO of the largest and most profitable bank in the United States and one of the most influential CEOs in the world — heaped praise on Donald Trump’s policies while president.“Take a step back, be honest. He was kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues,” said Dimon.

What?

Mr. Dimon, take a step back, be honest.

Kind of right about NATO? Trump wanted the U.S. to withdraw from NATO — and may get his way if he becomes president again. This would open Europe further to Putin’s aggression.

Kind of right on immigration? Even the conservative CATO Institute found that Trump reduced legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Trump refused to grant legal status to children of immigrants born in the United States or who grew up in the U.S. He banned Muslims from America, and when the Muslim ban was found to be unconstitutional, banned people from Muslim countries. He fueled the flames of nativism by describing poorer nations as “shit holes” and has used Nazi terms to describe foreigners as “poisoning the blood” of Americans.

Grew the economy quite well? In fact, under Trump the economy lost 2.9 million jobs. Even before the pandemic, job growth was slower than it has been under Biden. The unemployment rate increased by 1.6 percentage points to 6.3%. The international trade deficit Trump promised to reduce went up. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services in 2020 was the highest since 2008 and increased 40.5% from 2016. The number of Americans lacking health insurance rose by 3 million. The federal debt held by the public went up, from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion.

Tax reform worked? Trump’s tax cut conferred most of its benefits on big corporations and the rich, while enlarging the budget deficit. Giant banks and financial services companies got huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.

If not for the Trump cuts — along with the Bush tax cuts and their extensions—federal revenues would keep pace with federal spending indefinitely, and the ratio of the debt to the national economy would be declining. Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57% of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90% of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded. Eventually, the tax cuts are projected to grow to more than 100% of the increase.

Right about China? As the Brookings Institution found, Trump’s China policy only made China less restrained in pursuit of its ambitions. Confrontation has intensified, areas of cooperation have vanished, and the capacity of both countries to solve problems or manage competing interests has atrophied.

Oh, and then there are the pesky matters of Trump’s seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election, facing 91 criminal indictments, causing America to be more divided than at any time since the Civil War, lying every time he opens his mouth, and planning to use the Justice Department for “vengeance” against his political enemies if elected again.

Why is Jamie Dimon — the most influential CEO in America — spouting these lies in favor of Trump?

Because he thinks Trump has a good chance of becoming president, and Dimon wants to be in his good graces.

Asked which candidate would be better for his business, Dimon said, “I have to be prepared for both. I will be prepared for both. We will deal with both.”

Dimon knows that his support for Nikki Haley irked Trump.

“Highly overrated Globalist Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMORGAN, is quietly pushing another non-MAGA person, Nikki Haley, for President,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social in late November. “I’ve never been a big Jamie Dimon fan, but had to live with this guy when he came begging to the White House. I guess I don’t have to live with him anymore, and that’s a really good thing.”

So now, Dimon — like Republican lawmakers across America, like other leaders of American institutions — feels it necessary to cave into the integrity-crushing intimidation of a Trump administration, and lick Trump’s backside.

And when Dimon does this, you can bet many other CEOs and financial leaders will now follow his example.

At a time in American history when the most influential leaders of America need to stand up loudly and clearly for the rule of law, for democracy, for decency, and against Donald Trump, Dimon is leading the charge in the opposite direction.

This is how fascism takes root and spreads, friends.

© 2021 robertreich.substack.com

ROBERT REICH is the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

'Spitting on the Constitution': Expert says Trump's immunity bid goes against America

M.L. Nestel
January 19, 2024

President Donald Trump hugs flag (Twitter)

Trump's purportedly treating the Constitution like a spittoon.

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal appearing on "The Last Word" with Ali Velshi on Friday hammered the 45th president's theory that as POTUS he can do anything he wants and remain untouchable.

"We have had 46 presidents — no one has claimed absolute immunity from the criminal law," Katyal said. "And now Donald Trump comes along and does so."


He continued:

"He is spitting on our Constitution. He is spitting on our rule of law. And I cannot think of a more disqualifying statement from a candidate for the high office..."

Katyal was reacting to how former President Donald Trump, at 2 a.m. on Thursday, posted on Truth Social an all-caps screed demanding that he's deserving of "total immunity" from criminal prosecution even if he "crossed the line" by committing crimes.

"A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION," the former president wrote. "ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT 'CROSS THE LINE' MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY."

But Katyal is clearly calling the attempt bush league.

"The argument is just not weird it's constitutionally absurd and totally ahistorical," he said. "One of the great traditions that America has had, and what we fought the Revolution about, is the idea that the king can do wrong, that he doesn't have immunity, that you can go after the highest leaders of our government.

"Our entire Constitution is structured around that principle."

Watch the interview below or click the link.

Trump's broadsides in 2018 were met with veritable silence at Fed, transcripts show

2024/01/12


By Howard Schneider and Michael S. Derby

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the surface, Donald Trump's blistering comments about the Federal Reserve beginning in 2018 seemed a grand breach of protocol for a U.S. president, with the businessman-turned-politician railing against a "loco" central bank he thought was undermining his economic policies with interest rate increases.

Inside the Fed, however, an institution designed to be insulated from direct political influence, Trump's insults in interviews and social media posts landed with nary a whisper among policymakers, according to newly released transcripts of the U.S. central bank's eight policy meetings in 2018, a year that marked the leadership change from former Chair Janet Yellen to current chief Jerome Powell, who was handpicked by Trump.

Powell, at least in the official record of the Fed's meetings released on Friday, never uttered Trump's name, and neither did any of the Fed governors and reserve bank presidents charged with navigating what proved a surprisingly turbulent year for monetary policymakers.

The economy overall was moving along well with strong growth and low unemployment.

But the new trade policies of the Trump administration, including tariffs and curbs on trade with China, had introduced a wealth of unknowns into the monetary policy debate, including the possibility of higher inflation and growth fueled by tax cuts that figured into the Fed's gradual rate increases.

By the time of the Fed's Nov. 7-8, 2018 meeting, financial conditions had grown notably tighter, especially in the aftermath of an interview Powell had given to the Public Broadcasting Service a month earlier that stoked a sell-off in stocks and a sharp widening in credit spreads on corporate bonds.

Simon Potter, who was at the time the head of the New York Fed's markets operations, noted how the Powell interview - in which he said the Fed's policy rate was "a long way" from neutral, or the point at which it was neither stimulative nor restrictive - was seen by markets as a turning point.

The "notable rise in Treasury yields" that day, Potter said, "precipitated a subsequent reassessment of equity valuations. The move in yields was attributed in part to better-than-expected economic data as well as comments by Chairman Powell that were seen as suggesting a potentially more restrictive monetary policy path and a higher neutral rate."

"Financial conditions" were mentioned 22 times at that meeting, notably more than at either of the two previous policy gatherings, and key Fed officials, such as Richard Clarida, then the Fed's vice chair, took stock of a situation in terms that have echoed the central bank's current deliberations on whether to call time on a tightening cycle.

Clarida mentioned rising bond-yield "term premiums" and posited there was a historic case for the bond market doing "some of the Fed's job for it" - topics that have been bandied about by current central bank officials. He also described an economy not unlike the present one - with faster-than-trend growth expected soon to cool, a job market at or near full employment and risks of "excess-demand-driven" inflation seen as likely to fade and augur for a change in policymakers' outlook.

POSSIBLE REUNION

At the Dec. 18-19 meeting that year, policymakers boosted the Fed's benchmark overnight interest rate to the 2.25%-2.50% range, in what would prove to be the final increase of that hiking cycle.

"With growth expected to decline to closer to trend next year, we can afford to be patient about further policy firming, especially in an environment in which inflation is still muted," Powell told his colleagues. The Fed leader described an economy where the data had been strong but sentiment was weak, while noting upside inflation risks had declined and the risks of tighter financial conditions had risen.

While that debate included extensive staff analysis of how new international trade frictions and administration policies were influencing the economy, that was the only apparent avenue through which Trump entered the discourse.

There was only one direct reference to Trump's running commentary about the Fed, and that was to document that it was having no influence.

At the July 31-Aug. 1 meeting, Fed staff discussed how "recent comments by President Trump" had influenced the views of market participants about monetary policy, and found in a survey that investors felt the president "would have no material effect on the (rate-setting Federal Open Market) Committee's reaction function."

Though U.S. presidents typically take a hands-off attitude towards the Fed, Trump's frustration over Powell and the central bank mounted during his four years in the White House. He would eventually call Powell an enemy of the U.S., comparing him to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and saying the Fed chief was among his worst appointments.

Trump, who is favored to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is running even with President Joe Biden at the outset of the race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week.

Should the former president win the Nov. 5 election and return to the White House next year, it will mark a reunion of sorts. Powell's current term lasts through May of 2026, 16 months after the next presidential inauguration.

(Reporting by Howard Schneider; Editing by Paul Simao)

© Reuters

Lithuania broke human rights laws in case tied to CIA detention program, European court rules

2024/01/16


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lithuania broke European human rights laws by allowing the CIA to subject an alleged 9/11 suspect to "inhuman treatment" in a secret interrogation center in the Baltic country, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, the court said Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi raised multiple complaints of torture, ill treatment and unacknowledged detention in 2005-2006 when he was held at a secret facility in Lithuania run by the CIA. Al-Hawsawi is now held in Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of being a facilitator and financial manager of al Qaeda.

While held in Lithuania, he experienced an extremely harsh detention regime, according to the press release, including solitary confinement, the continuous use of leg shackles and exposure to noise and light.

"The cumulative effects of such a detention regime had amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of the Convention, which the Lithuanian authorities had enabled by cooperating with the CIA," the release said.

Asked for comment, the Lithuanian embassy in Washington pointed to an article published by the Baltic News Service quoting Lithuania's Justice Ministry as saying Lithuania would comply with the court's decision to award Hawsawi 100,000 Euros ($108,750) in compensation.

The chamber held unanimously that there had been violations of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation because of Lithuania's failure to effectively investigate al-Hawsawi's allegations "and because of its complicity in the CIA secret detainee programme."

It also held that there were violations to articles relating to the rights to a fair trial and life, as well as abolition of the death penalty, according to the press release, because Lithuania assisted al-Hawsawi's "transfer from its territory in spite of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty."

The release said the chamber held there also have been violations to right to liberty and security, right to respect for private life and right to an effective remedy.

The court said it gained key information from a U.S. Senate panel report from 2014 that said the CIA's interrogation of al Qaeda terrorism suspects in secret prisons was more brutal than policymakers were told and in some cases amounted to torture that failed to generate effective intelligence.

“While not commenting on the specific case, I’d note that CIA’s detention and interrogation program ended in 2009," a CIA spokesperson said.

The Guantanamo detention center in Cuba was established by Republican President George W. Bush in 2002 to house foreign terrorism suspects following the 2001 hijacked plane attacks on New York and the Pentagon that killed about 3,000 people. Its population grew to a peak of about 800 inmates before it started to shrink.

It came to symbolize the excesses of the U.S. "war on terror" because of harsh interrogation methods that critics have said amounted to torture.

($1 = 0.9195 euros)

(Reporting by Jonathan Landay and Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Bill Berkrot)



© Reuters

GENOCIDE

Ethnic killings in one Sudan city left up to 15,000 dead - UN report

2024/01/20


By Michelle Nichols and Maggie Michael

UNITED NATIONS/CAIRO (Reuters) -Between 10,000 and 15,000 people were killed in one city in Sudan's West Darfur region last year in ethnic violence by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied Arab militia, according to a United Nations report seen by Reuters on Friday.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council, independent U.N. sanctions monitors attributed the toll in El Geneina to intelligence sources and contrasted it with the U.N. estimate that about 12,000 people have been killed across Sudan since war erupted on April 15, 2023, between the Sudanese army and the RSF.

The monitors also described as "credible" accusations that the United Arab Emirates had provided military support to the RSF "several times per week" via Amdjarass in northern Chad. A top Sudanese general accused the UAE in November of backing the RSF war effort.

In a letter to the monitors, the UAE said 122 flights had delivered humanitarian aid to Amdjarass to help Sudanese fleeing the war. On Saturday, a UAE official told Reuters that it extended an invitation to the UN monitors to visit a field hospital in Amdjarass "to learn firsthand about the humanitarian efforts undertaken by the UAE to help alleviate suffering caused by the current conflict".

The United Nations says about 500,000 people have fled Sudan into eastern Chad, several hundred kilometres south of Amdjarass.

Between April and June last year El Geneina experienced "intense violence," the monitors wrote, accusing the RSF and allies of targeting the ethnic African Masalit tribe in attacks that "may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity".

The RSF has previously denied the accusations and said any of its soldiers found to be involved would face justice. The RSF did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Reuters.

"The attacks were planned, coordinated, and executed by RSF and their allied Arab militias," the sanctions monitors wrote in their annual report to the 15-member Security Council.

'SHOT TO THE HEAD'

Reuters last year chronicled the ethnically targeted violence committed in West Darfur. In hundreds of interviews with Reuters, survivors described horrific scenes of bloodletting in El Geneina and on the 30-km (18-mile) route from the city to the border with Chad as people fled.

The monitors' report included similar accounts. They said that between June 14 and 17, some 12,000 people fled El Geneina on foot for Adre in Chad. The Masalit were the majority in El Geneina until the attacks forced their mass exodus.

"When reaching RSF checkpoints women and men were separated, harassed, searched, robbed, and physically assaulted. RSF and allied militias indiscriminately shot hundreds of people in the legs to prevent them from fleeing," the monitors said.

"Young men were particularly targeted and interrogated about their ethnicity. If identified as Masalit, many were summarily executed with a shot to the head. Women were physically and sexually assaulted. Indiscriminate shootings also injured and killed women and children," according to the report.

Everyone who spoke to the monitors mentioned "many dead bodies along the road, including those of women, children and young men." The monitors also reported "widespread" conflict-related sexual violence committed by RSF and allied militia.

NEW FIREPOWER

The monitors said the RSF takeover of most of Darfur relied on three lines of support - Arab allied communities, dynamic and complex financial networks, and new military supply lines running through Chad, Libya, and South Sudan.

The U.N. missions for Chad, Libya and South Sudan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"Complex financial networks established by RSF before and during the war enabled it to acquire weapons, pay salaries, fund media campaigns, lobby, and buy the support of other political and armed groups," wrote the monitors, adding that the RSF used proceeds from its pre-war gold business to create a network of as many as 50 companies in several industries.

Since the war started "most of the gold which was previously exported to UAE, was now smuggled to Egypt," the monitors said.

The new firepower acquired by the RSF "had a massive impact on the balance of forces, both in Darfur and other regions of Sudan," the report found.

The RSF has recently made military gains, taking control of Wad Madani, one of Sudan's major cities, and consolidating its grip on the western region of Darfur.

On Saturday, a UAE official reiterated denials that the country has been involved in military support to any of Sudan's rival parties.

"The UAE has stressed that it is not supplying arms and ammunition to any of the warring parties, and does not take sides in the current conflict," the unnamed official said in a written statement to Reuters.

In December the United States formally determined that warring parties in Sudan committed war crimes and that the RSF and allied militias had also committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The war has left nearly half of Sudan's 49 million people needing aid, while more than 7.5 million people have fled their homes - making Sudan the biggest displacement crisis globally - and hunger is rising.

The sanctions monitors told the U.N. Security Council that "an excess of mediation tracks, the entrenched positions of the warring parties, and competing regional interests meant that these peace efforts had yet to stop the war, bring political settlement or address the humanitarian crisis."

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols and Maggie Michael; Editing by Don Durfee, Daniel Wallis and Giles Elgood)

© Reuters



Reut

U$A

'Call Your Representative!' House Panel to Take Up Backdoor Attack on Social Security

"This commission is a poison pill designed to slash Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors."

House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) speaks during a hearing on September 20, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS
Jan 17, 2024

Social Security defenders are sounding the alarm ahead of a Thursday House Budget Committee hearing and vote on the Fiscal Commission Act, bipartisan legislation that opponents say is a ploy to fast-track cuts to the popular New Deal program without political accountability.

"This commission is a poison pill designed to slash Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors," Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, said in a statement ahead of Thursday's markup. "The White House has accurately stated that such a commission is a 'death panel for Medicare and Social Security.'"

Altman warned that House Republicans, who have made a so-called fiscal commission a top priority, are "rushing to advance" the Fiscal Commission Act so they can attempt to tie it to must-pass government funding legislation. Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chair of the House Budget Committee, said in late November that appropriations bills are a "likely vehicle" for the fiscal commission.

"Democratic leadership should respond that our earned benefits are non-negotiable, and that they will not accept a commission under any circumstances," said Altman. "Instead, any legislation on Social Security should go through regular order so that Congress can debate it in the sunlight."

Social Security Works is urging members of the public to call their representatives and express opposition to the Fiscal Commission Act ahead of Thursday's committee hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am ET.



Progressive Democrats on the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee are expected to push back forcefully against the commission bill, which is led by Reps. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.), a budget committee member. Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are spearheading a companion measure in the Senate.

Last week, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)—a member of the budget panel—co-led a letter to the House leadership opposing the legislation and arguing that debates over Social Security and Medicare "should be done in the open and not behind closed doors."

"Social Security benefits are already modest—only about $21,384 a year, yet Republicans want to put these hard-earned benefits at risk," Schakowsky said in a statement. "We must expand Social Security benefits, not cut them."

But the bill is likely to get some Democratic support from the budget panel: Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), a committee member, has joined Peters in co-sponsoring the legislation.


"This bill does not deserve a markup or a vote—or, frankly, to see the light of day."

If passed, the Fiscal Commission Act would establish a panel of 16 members selected by Republican and Democratic congressional leaders.

The panel would consist of both lawmakers and individuals from the private sector, and it would have a mandate to craft policy recommendations "designed to balance the budget at the earliest reasonable date" and improve the "long-term fiscal outlook" of the nation's trust fund programs, including Social Security and Medicare, according to a summary from Huizenga's office.

The commission would then vote on whether to advance its recommendations shortly after the 2024 election. If approved by the commission, the proposals would receive expedited consideration in both the House and Senate, with no amendments allowed.

Polling data released last year by Data for Progress showed that a fiscal commission tasked with cutting Social Security and Medicare is overwhelmingly unpopular with U.S. voters, including 78% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans.


Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said ahead of Thursday's markup that "a fiscal commission is designed to give individual members of Congress political cover for cutting Americans' earned benefits."

"Any changes to Social Security and Medicare should go through regular order and not be relegated to a commission unaccountable to the public and rushed through the Congress," said Richtman. "This bill does not deserve a markup or a vote—or, frankly, to see the light of day."

A Vote for a Commission is a Vote to Cut Social Security



Thursday January, 18 202
Social Security Works

WASHINGTON - Today, the House Budget Committee voted to advance the so-called “Fiscal Commission Act of 2023”. Every Republican present voted for the commission.

VIDEO: During the hearing, Social Security Works Executive Director Alex Lawson delivered over half a million petitions opposing the commission. Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX) responded by having Lawson arrested.

The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, in response to the final vote:

“Republicans are plowing ahead with their closed-door commission designed to cut Social Security and Medicare. Many of the Republicans tried to claim that was not their goal, but they tellingly voted down Democratic amendments to rule out cutting those programs and instead require billionaires to pay their fair share.

The vast majority of Democrats on the committee rightfully opposed the commission. Shame on the handful of exceptions: Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). They have stabbed the American people in the back, and undermined President Joe Biden.

The White House has rightfully referred to the commission as a ‘death panel for Medicare and Social Security.’ That is the position of the Democratic Party. Moreover, it is indisputable that Social Security doesn’t add a penny to the deficit.

Despite that, Republicans will now try to claim the mantle of ‘bipartisanship’ for the commission based on receiving a handful of votes from fringe corporate Democrats (one of whom is retiring).

President Biden, Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) should quickly demolish that narrative by slamming the commission. There’s nothing bipartisan about cutting Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors.”

Those opposed to the commission include:Voters, including Republican voters
116 House Democrats led by Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
The White House
Over 100 organizations, including labor unions and advocates for seniors, women, and people with disabilities
AARP
The AFL-CIO
Former staff members of the 1983 Greenspan Commission, including individuals who worked for both Democrats and Republicans

U$A

Manufacturers of 10 Drugs Slated for Medicare Price

Negotiation Spent Billions More on Buybacks, Dividends and Executive Compensation than R&D

WASHINGTON - While the pharmaceutical industry says that the drug price negotiation provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act will harm research and development, a new report by Public Citizen and Protect our Care reveals that the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation spent $10 billion more on stock buybacks, dividends to shareholders, and executive compensation than they spent on research and development in 2022. According to the report, which analyzes SEC filings and company annual reports, manufacturers spent $107 billion on these activities compared to $97 billion on R&D in 2022. What’s more, executive compensation for these companies was approximately half a billion dollars in 2022.

“The industry tells us that Medicare price negotiations will make it hard to research and develop new drugs. What they leave out is that many are already spending far more to make their executives and shareholders rich than on R&D,” said Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines program director at Public Citizen. “When these corporations complain about the impact of price negotiations on innovation, we should be deeply skeptical.”

Additionally, the report notes that researchers and the Congressional Budget Office conclude there is no connection between a drug’s research and development cost and its future price, and that the current price of drugs reflects what companies believe the market will bear in response to their monopolistic pricing power. Additionally, the United States is an outlier that does little to protect its residents from the unfair pricing power of drug companies – and bringing American policy into alignment with those of other countries, including its high-income peers, would not destroy the incentive to innovate new medicines.

“These findings undermine industry claims that reducing corporate profits in Medicare price negotiation will impact capacity to invest in research and developing new drugs,” said Jishian Ravinthiran, researcher with Public Citizen and lead author of the report. “These companies are not strapped for resources, as they spend massive amounts of money on self-enriching activities.”

The report also reveals that manufacturers of the 10 drugs with the highest annual expenditures by payers in Maryland spent $9 billion more on stock buybacks, dividends, and executive compensation than on research and development expenses in 2022. Seven states, starting with Maryland in 2019, have established Prescription Drug Affordability Boards charged with analyzing the excessive costs of prescription drugs and identifying solutions to medicine inaccessibility. As other states consider creating their own Boards with the authority to limit the price of drug transactions, or consider expanding these Boards’ authority to deliver relief to more residents, they can rely on this report’s finding that industry has ample resources to invest in drug innovation.

At a press conference today, Maryland Healthcare for all will kick off a campaign to pass major legislation in 2024 to expand the authority of the Maryland Prescription Drug Affordability Board and continue the work of bringing down high costs for medications.

Senator Sanders’ HELP Committee Subpoenas Merck, Johnson & Johnson CEOs

“Time’s Up” For Big Pharma Abuses, Says Public Citizen

WASHINGTON - Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions subpoenaed the CEOs of Merck and Johnson & Johnson to testify before a committee hearing on “outrageously high drug prices”. The companies are among the 10 manufacturers of drugs chosen for Medicare price negotiations under the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

While the pharmaceutical industry claims that negotiating with Medicare will harm research and development, a new report by Public Citizen and Protect our Care reveals that the manufacturers of the drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation spent $10 billion more on stock buybacks, dividends to shareholders, and executive compensation than they spent on research and development in 2022.

In response, Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, released the following statement.

“Time’s up for the prescription drug price gougers.

“For too long, Big Pharma executives have behaved as if they are immune from accountability. They take publicly funded research; skyrocket prices to the moon, forcing patients to ration or skip medications they need; and then laugh as the very government that paid for the original research accepts without negotiation their outrageous prices, paying multiples of what other countries pay.

“Merck charges 30 times more for a diabetes drug in the United States than it does in France. Johnson & Johnson charges almost five times more for a blood cancer drug in the United States than it does in Germany.

“Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson is paying out more in stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation than they are spending on research and development, even though R&D is the only claimed rationale for high prices.

“The pharma profiteers know exactly what they are doing. They know how they are forcing rationing. They know they are ripping off the government and taxpayers. And they know they are getting rich.

“What’s different now is that they can no longer escape public accountability. The Merck and Johnson & Johnson CEOs thought they could simply ignore the Senate health committee demand that they testify and justify their practices. Think again.

“The hearings at which they will be forced to testify are another key marker in the process of rationalizing prescription drug pricing policy in the United States. The price negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act were a start. The Biden administration’s announcement of a framework to use its authority to override patent monopolies is another. It’s a new day, Big Pharma. Get used to it.”

Chairman Sanders Announces HELP Committee Votes on Subpoenas for Johnson & Johnson and Merck CEOs

WASHINGTON - At a time when the United States pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), announced today that the committee will, on Wednesday, January 31, hold votes to issue subpoenas for Johnson & Johnson CEO Joaquin Duato and Merck CEO Robert Davis to provide testimony about why their companies charge substantially higher prices for medicne in the U.S. compared to other countries. If authorized, these would be the first subpoenas issued by the HELP Committee since 1981.

Sanders was pleased that Chris Boerner, the CEO of Bristol Myers Squibb, has agreed to testify in the HELP Committee alongside at least one of the other pharmaceutical CEOs.

This follows a majority of senators on the HELP Committee, on November 21, 2023, inviting all three of the pharmaceutical CEOs to a committee hearing to explain why it is that one out of four Americans cannot afford to take the medicine their doctors prescribe while prescription drug companies make billions in profits and pay their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages.

Sanders said: “It is absolutely unacceptable that the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson and Merck have refused an invitation by a majority of members on the HELP Committee to appear before Congress about the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. These CEOs may make tens of millions of dollars in compensation. The pharmaceutical companies they run may make billions in profits. But that does not give them a right to evade congressional oversight. It is time to hold these pharmaceutical companies accountable for charging the American people the highest prices in the world for the medicine they need. As the HELP Committee considers legislation to lower prescription drug prices, it is critical that these CEOs explain how they determine the price of medicine in the United States.”

Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb sell some of the most expensive and widely prescribed drugs in the U.S. relative to the price of those drugs in other countries. For example:Merck sells Januvia, a drug for diabetes, for $6,000 in the U.S. compared to just $900 in Canada and $200 in France. Merck also sells Keytruda, a cancer treatment, for $191,000 in the U.S., but just $89,000 in Germany.

Johnson & Johnson sells Imbruvica, a drug for blood cancer, for $204,000 in the U.S. compared to just $46,000 in the U.K. and $43,000 in Germany. Johnson & Johnson also sells Symtuza, an HIV drug, for $56,000 in the U.S. but just $14,000 in Canada.

Bristol Myers Squibb sells Eliquis, a blood thinner, for $6,700 in the U.S. compared to just $900 in Canada and $650 in France.In 2022, Johnson & Johnson made $17.9 billion in profit and its CEO, Joaquin Duato, received $27.6 million in compensation. That same year, Merck made $14.5 billion in profit and its CEO, Robert Davis, made $52.5 million in compensation; while Bristol Myers Squibb made $6.3 billion in profits and its former CEO, Giovanni Caforio, made $41.4 million in compensation.


This Congress, five CEOs have agreed to voluntarily testify in the HELP Committee. Four out of the five were pharmaceutical CEOs including the CEOs of Moderna, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Last year, the CEO of Moderna committed to Chairman Sanders during a HELP Committee hearing that Moderna would set up a patient assistance program so that no one in America would have to pay for their vaccine out of pocket. In a separate HELP Committee hearing last year, the CEO of Eli Lilly committed to Chairman Sanders that his company would not raise prices on existing insulin products.

U$A

Big Agriculture and Big Oil Join Forces to Lobby for Clean Energy Credits

Companies are working to convince policymakers that so-called “renewable natural gas” should get government subsidies.

By David Moore , 

SLUDGE

January 20, 2024

Environmental groups warn that if energy generated from burning biomethane gas qualifies for government subsidies, it could prolong dependence on polluting fossil fuels.SIRCOO / GETTY IMAGES


A gas industry trade association has hired a batch of revolving-door lobbyists as it works to convince policymakers that biomethane gas produced by factory farms should be eligible for renewable energy tax credits.

Environmental groups warn that if energy generated from burning biomethane gas qualifies for government subsidies that are now being developed, it could prop up gas company infrastructure and prolong dependence on polluting fossil fuels.

Last month, trade association the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas hired four lobbyists with the bipartisan lobbying firm Cogent Strategies, according to a Senate disclosure released on January 12. The new hands will lobby on “issues related to sustainable development, deployment and utilization of renewable natural gas.”

Also known as the RNG Coalition, the trade group counts hundreds of member companies, encompassing fossil fuel giants like BP, Chevron, and Shell, as well as gas companies like Air Liquide. Other members include Cargill, the largest U.S. agricultural company by revenue, mammoth utility companies NextEra Energy and Southern Company, and pipeline firms Enbridge and Kinder Morgan.


How Oil Money Turned Louisiana Into the Prison Capital of the World
A series of events in the 1970s led to the state’s penal system becoming intertwined with the swings of its oil economy.
By Lydia Pelot-Hobbs , TRUTHOUT December 22, 2023

The term RNG, also called biomethane, refers to gas from organic matter, composed primarily of methane, that is captured from sources like landfills, sewage treatment plants, and manure pits on farms and processed to higher standards. Industry groups like the RNG Coalition and the American Gas Association promote biomethane as a lower-carbon energy source, one that captures methane emissions and that can be integrated into existing gas systems.

Many climate advocates and energy analysts, however, recommend only a niche role for biomethane in decarbonization, as many of its proposed uses—for electricity generation, hydrogen fuel production, and building heat—can be realized with policies that promote wind and solar power. Burning biomethane releases carbon dioxide and its methane leakage rates could be as high as 15%, according to a new report from advocacy group Food & Water Watch. Researchers at the nonprofit World Resources Institute see a limited role for biomethane in decarbonizing industries where electrification poses challenges, like making fuel for heavy trucking, in contrast to the widespread applications envisioned by industry groups.

Some offices in the Biden administration have charted a path to 100% carbon pollution-free electricity. In May, the Department of Energy’s Office of Policy released a report that laid out “ten key all-of-society actions” that would be needed to achieve a renewably-generated power sector by 2035, including transmission and energy efficiency investments.

One of the new lobbyists for the industry group is Cogent managing director Andrew Kauders, who the firm bills as a veteran Hill leadership staffer. Kauders worked in 2006 as executive director of the House Democratic Caucus, a group that develops political and legislative strategies. During the Clinton administration, Kauders worked as the spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture and with the White House Climate Change Task Force.

Another is the firm’s vice president Taylor McCarty Hoover, who from 2021 into mid-2023, according to her LinkedIn profile, worked as communications director for the House Committee on Agriculture. Prior to that, McCarty Hoover was communications director for the Republican House member who now chairs the Ag Committee, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (Pa.). In the 2022 election cycle, when Republicans retook control of the House, Thompson received the most in donations from the agribusiness sector of any House member, according to OpenSecrets, with nearly a million dollars.
What Counts as Low-Carbon

Climate groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Earthjustice argue that subsidizing biomethane would undermine the goals of clean energy investment, including by incentivizing factory farms that could end up increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Oil and gas companies have been pouring money into biomethane in recent years—and now they’re lobbying to make sure those investments pay off,” said Julie McNamara, deputy policy director with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “One of their key aims is to secure policy frameworks that establish biomethane as a pollution offsetting scheme, thereby enabling a perpetuation of investments in fossil fuel systems while delaying the need for real, direct reductions in fossil fuel use.”

More than $1.6 billion in investment had gone into biomethane projects since 2017, according to research firm AcuComm in a 2022 article. The importance of captured methane to the fossil fuel industry is a relatively new development: Food & Water Watch’s report found that before 2017, the companies BP, Chevron, and Shell had never used the term “biogas” or “renewable natural gas” in their corporate sustainability reports.

Some industry research holds that at most, processed biomethane could replace 16% of fossil gas used, while Canary Media says other studies have found it to be less.

The gas industry’s rush into biomethane projects was spurred by California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), a policy that created lucrative tax credits for fuel produced with power that was deemed “carbon-negative” after being captured from dairy farms. The RNG Coalition also regularly lobbies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture, White House Office, and Congress on the issue of the Renewable Fuel Standard. With 31 states offering subsidies for biomethane projects, oil giants and the RNG Coalition have been touting their plans for “RNG” as a “clean, green” fuel.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in August 2022, established billions of dollars in tax credits to support the production of clean energy, generated with lower greenhouse gas emissions than current methods. According to a blog post by law and lobbying firm Womble Bond Dickinson, the biogas industry “stands to benefit tremendously from the legislation,” in large part because a Section 48 investment tax credit was expanded to include qualified biogas facilities that begin construction before 2025. A much-awaited regulatory proposal that the Internal Revenue Service released last month kicked off a further comment period on the question of how the government will calculate emissions rates around hydrogen fuel produced with RNG energy.
Lobbying for Clean Energy Tax Credits

Since the IRA was signed into law, the RNG Coalition has submitted several regulatory comments to the EPA and the IRS on rules for hydrogen fuel tax incentives. In an August letter, the coalition’s director of federal government affairs, Geoffrey Dietz, urged the EPA administrator to broadly include RNG in its plans to decarbonize the power sector. One section from the letter seeking an expansive definition of energy feedstock used to make hydrogen fuel states, “EPA must make clear that low-GHG [greenhouse gas] hydrogen includes that derived from RNG.” The RNG Coalition’s letter also endorses an accounting method known as “book-and-claim” that would allow companies to purchase carbon-negative offsets from biomethane providers. Many environmental groups have urged the Treasury Department to exclude “book-and-claim” accounting from the tax credit program.

McNamara emphasized that biomethane sources like factory farms bring environmental harms to nearby communities that extend beyond simply capturing methane emitted. “When it comes to policies around the use of biomethane, the very first priority should be avoiding the practices that lead to its creation in the first place, and the second should be avoiding unintentionally incentivizing more of it,” McNamara said.

Dylan Chase, an RNG Coalition spokesperson, told Sludge, “While the urgency of climate change prompts many to frame policy issues from an ‘us versus them’ perspective, RNG Coalition is in fact aligned with most climate and environmental groups on a shared vision of a future far less dependent on fossil fuels. Regrettably, however, RNG’s climate benefits are sometimes overlooked by those advocating for an electrification-and-nothing approach.”

Chase pointed to a 2021 report from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office stating that all projects in the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program are estimated to provide “significant GHG reductions,” though the report states that the estimated reductions “likely are overstated.” Climate and environmental groups recently panned the state’s rules for its double- or triple-counting of offsets, while carbon dioxide from fuel generated is still being released into the atmosphere.

Chase said that the RNG Coalition’s members also include more than 20 universities, dozens of independently-owned biomethane developers, and companies in the energy, food and beverage, and waste management industries.

“Considering that RNG can replace fossil gas anywhere it is used, debate over best end uses may continue, but our industry is focused in the short-term on fighting for policies that incentivize the capture of methane emissions to which everyone in society contributes,” Chase said. “Long-term, as our gas system compresses amid softer demand and widespread electrification, bio-derived methane can also be routed responsibly toward hydrogen and numerous other end uses in hard-to-decarbonize sectors.”

In the regulations now being finalized, a major focus of comment from climate groups is that subsidizing biomethane projects could bolster fossil fuel industry incumbents and waste public funding on polluting infrastructure that leaks methane. McNamara said that the proposed regulations released in December 2023 by the Treasury and IRS look to align with the goals of generating energy free of carbon emissions and scaling up renewable electricity sources.

“In the recently proposed implementation guidance for the clean hydrogen production tax credit, the Biden administration raised numerous questions and concerns about the appropriate treatment of biomethane, including how best to design safeguards to defend against perverse outcomes as well as how best to implement the policy to ensure accuracy of emissions accounting,” McNamara said. “This is a critical step by the administration, rejecting an outright acceptance of fossil fuel industry calls for setting biomethane up as a pollution offset. The key now will be to ensure the administration holds the line as it finalizes the policy in the time ahead.”

The RNG Coalition’s revenue jumped to a new high in 2022, according to its tax return, surpassing $9.9 million. Of the more than $600,000 that the trade association reported spending on lobbying that year, some $370,000 was at the federal level, according to records compiled by OpenSecrets, leaving the remainder at state and other levels of government. In California, the RNG Coalition retains lobbyists at the prominent Sacramento firm Sloat Higgins Jensen, whose other clients include Chevron and utility PG&E.

The coalition’s hires at the end of the year replenished the trade group’s lobbying corps, after a dip in its federal lobbying spending in 2023. Since 2017, one of the RNG Coalition’s lobbyists in D.C. has been Anne Steckel, a principal at Ardent Strategies, who was formerly chief of staff to Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Steckel’s other lobbying clients include the Pilot Flying J chain of gas stations and the industry group Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, whose members include Boeing, American Airlines, and UPS.

Another trade group, the American Biogas Council, is on pace to spend a record high amount on federal lobbying this year, according to OpenSecrets. The group’s leaders include employees of Air Liquide, BP, Cargill, Enbridge, and Shell. The American Gas Association (AGA), a trade group with tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue, ramped up its federal lobbying spending in 2023 over the year before. In several filings last year, the AGA lobbied Congress, the Treasury, and the IRS on the implementation of hydrogen fuel policy and tax credits from the IRA.

DAVID MOORE is a co-founder of Sludge. David previously worked as director of the nonprofit Participatory Politics Foundation, creating free and open-source technology for civic engagement. The Foundation’s flagship website, the congressional transparency resource OpenCongress, received 70 million page views between 2007-2013, with hundreds of thousands of users tracking bills, campaign contributions and votes to follow the money.