Monday, January 05, 2026

Climate change is quietly rewriting the world’s nitrogen cycle, with high stakes for food and the environment

Biochar Editorial Office, Shenyang Agricultural University

image:
Impacts of climate change on global terrestrial nitrogen cycles
view more
Credit: Miao Zheng, Qin Huang, Jinglan Cui & Baojing Gu

Climate change is not only warming the planet and disrupting rainfall, it is also quietly rewiring the way nitrogen moves through the world’s croplands, forests, and grasslands. This hidden shift in the global nitrogen cycle carries major consequences for food security, water quality, biodiversity, and climate policy.

Nitrogen is a basic building block of proteins and DNA, and healthy terrestrial ecosystems depend on a steady but balanced flow of nitrogen through soils, plants, and microbes. When that balance is disturbed, harvests can fall, rivers can turn green with algae, and more greenhouse gases can escape into the atmosphere.

“In a warming world, nitrogen is becoming a make or break factor for both food security and environmental health,” said lead author Miao Zheng of Zhejiang University. “Our study shows that climate change is reshaping nitrogen cycles in ways that can either support sustainable development or push ecosystems beyond critical thresholds.”

What the study did

The new review pulls together 30 years of field experiments and global model simulations to examine how three key climate forces affect nitrogen: rising carbon dioxide, higher temperatures, and shifting rainfall patterns. It compares their impacts across croplands, forests, and grasslands worldwide, and links these changes to human goals such as ending hunger and protecting clean water.

By translating hundreds of site level studies into a global picture, the authors quantify how nitrogen inputs, plant uptake, harvest, losses, and long term storage respond under different climate conditions. They also highlight large regional inequalities, showing that some areas may gain productivity while others face deepening risks of crop failure and pollution.

When higher CO₂ helps and hurts

The review finds that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide can act like a double edged sword for nitrogen. On one side, higher CO₂ tends to boost plant growth and crop yields by around 10 to 27 percent in forests and grasslands, and about 21 percent for major crops such as wheat, rice, maize, and soybean.

At the same time, plants often dilute their nitrogen content under high CO₂, which can lower the protein quality of grains and leaves. “More calories do not automatically mean better nutrition,” said co author Baojing Gu. “We may be harvesting more biomass but with less nitrogen per unit, which matters for both human diets and livestock feed.”

Warming drives losses and inequality

Rising temperatures tell a more troubling story, especially for agriculture. The study shows that warming generally reduces yields in key crops, with maize particularly vulnerable in tropical and arid regions, while also accelerating losses of reactive nitrogen compounds to the air and water.

Warmer conditions stimulate soil microbes, speeding the breakdown of organic matter and increasing emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen oxides, as well as nitrate leaching into groundwater and rivers. These losses can worsen air pollution, fuel climate warming, and degrade water quality, while disproportionately harming developing regions in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Too little or too much rain

Changes in rainfall patterns further complicate the picture. In dry regions, modest increases in precipitation can strongly boost plant growth and nitrogen uptake, while in wetter regions, droughts can cause large drops in productivity and nitrogen harvest.

The review reports that decreased rainfall tends to suppress microbial activity and reduce many nitrogen losses, effectively trapping more nitrogen in soils. In contrast, heavy and frequent rainfall can flush nitrate into waterways and enhance gaseous nitrogen emissions, raising the risk of algal blooms and greenhouse gas release.

A call for integrated nitrogen management

Overall, the study concludes that climate change is amplifying spatial inequalities in how nitrogen cycles operate and in who bears the risks. Regions already facing food insecurity and weak environmental protections are likely to experience the most damaging combinations of yield loss, nutrient stress, and pollution.

To respond, the authors call for integrated nitrogen management that links fertilizer practices, water management, climate policy, and biodiversity goals. Promising examples include pairing rainwater harvesting with organic amendments in African smallholder systems, and planting nitrogen fixing tree species in tropical forests to maintain natural nitrogen inputs.

“We need to move beyond treating nitrogen as just a farm input and start governing it as a global commons,” said Zheng. “If we manage nitrogen wisely under climate change, we can support zero hunger, protect clean water, and limit greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.”

The authors argue that nitrogen must be more fully integrated into international climate and sustainability frameworks, including the Paris Agreement and national climate pledges. With climate change accelerating, they stress that coordinated global action on nitrogen is essential to keep both people and ecosystems within safe operating limits.

===

Journal Reference: Zheng M, Huang Q, Cui J, Gu B. 2025. Impacts of climate change on global terrestrial nitrogen cycles. Nitrogen Cycling 1: e012

https://www.maxapress.com/article/doi/10.48130/nc-0025-0012

===

About Nitrogen Cycling:
Nitrogen Cycling (e-ISSN 3069-8111) is a multidisciplinary platform for communicating advances in fundamental and applied research on the nitrogen cycle. It is dedicated to serving as an innovative, efficient, and professional platform for researchers in the field of nitrogen cycling worldwide to deliver findings from this rapidly expanding field of science.

DOI

10.48130/nc-0025-0012

Method of Research

Literature review

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Impacts of climate change on global terrestrial nitrogen cycles

Generic Ozempic production an ‘exciting time for Canada,’ doctor says

ByTammy Ibrahimpoor
Published: January 05, 2026

Dr. Sue Pedersen says patience should discuss with their doctor ‘on a case by case basis’ as to whether they should use the generic or brand name medication.

A Canadian endocrinologist says the country is entering a pivotal moment for access to diabetes and weight-loss drugs as generic versions of Ozempic move closer to pharmacy shelves.

“It’s a really exciting time for Canada,” said Dr. Sue Pedersen, a Calgary-based endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist, in an interview with CTV News Channel Saturday.

“The medication is going to become cheaper for a lot of people who currently can’t afford to pay for the brand name, Ozempic, which is for diabetes, or Wegovy, which is for weight loss.”

Drug companies in Canada are allowed to make lower-priced generic versions of Ozempic starting this week.Canada clears generic Ozempic production, but pharmacies won’t stock it immediately

As of Dec. 29, Health Canada had received nine submissions seeking approval to make semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, the brand-name diabetes and weight-loss drugs manufactured by Novo Nordisk.

Canada is the only country where Novo Nordisk allowed the patent for its semaglutide drugs to expire, clearing the way for generic manufacturers to seek approval.

Pedersen said Health Canada’s review process means patients can expect comparable products once generics are authorized, though individual responses may vary.

“Health Canada approves generic medication if they’re satisfied that they have similar effectiveness and safety as the brand name,” she said.

“So, it should work similarly to the brand that said, we do see when generics become available for with the history of many other drugs in Canada, sometimes people don’t respond as well to generic versions.”

Price remains one of the biggest unknowns as production ramps up this week.

“As soon as the generic medications become available in pharmacies, we do expect that they will be cheaper immediately. Now how cheap? We don’t know,” Pedersen said.

She also pointed to uncertainty around how generic semaglutide will be dispensed, including whether patients will be able to manage doses the same way they do with brand-name pens.

Pedersen said broader access to diabetes and weight-loss drugs could make a meaningful difference, but warned medication alone is not a cure-all.

“We still have one in three Canadian adults living with obesity, and if you look at overweight and obesity together, two out of three Canadian adults fall in that group,” she said.

“It’s not just about obesity medication, but also lifestyle change support, psychological support, and access to bariatric surgery.”

With files from The Canadian Press
Tammy Ibrahimpoor
CTVNews.ca National Digital Producer

Why does Ottawa want to regulate Canadian stablecoins?

By Joshua Santos
January 05, 2026

Adam Garetson, leader of Blockchain & Digital Assets Group at Gowling WLG, joins BNN Bloomberg to provide a lookahead to crypto in Canada heading into 2026.

Stablecoins have become increasingly popular over the years, drawing the attention of the federal government to regulate them in Canada.

Cryptocurrency groups called on the government to simplify the rules to make it easier to launch Canadian dollar-linked stablecoins in the New Year.

Proposed stablecoin rules, expected in the Spring 2026 session, will introduce asset management requirements intended to bolster domestic financial sovereignty and counter foreign digital currency influence.
What is a stablecoin?

Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency token built on a blockchain network, designed to maintain a steady value redeemable for a pegged flat currency, such as a Canadian or American dollar, on a 1:1 basis. The backing of a dollar ensures their stable value.

The Circle website arranged on a smartphone in New York, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025. Circle Internet Financial Ltd.'s USDC stablecoin has gained back all of the market value it lost after the collapse in crypto prices following the failure of FTX. Photographer: Gabby Jones/Bloomberg (Gabby Jones/Bloomberg)

Ottawa said it aims to foster a domestic, Canadian dollar-backed stablecoin ecosystem to counter the import of foreign currencies.

“It really is designed to be the equivalent of holding cash at the end of the day, just digitally, on a blockchain, on the computer,” Adam Garetson, partner of blockchain and fintech at Gowling WLG told BNN Bloomberg.

Unlike volatile assets like Bitcoin, stablecoins are centralized, issued and managed by companies or issuers like Tether and Circle and designed for everyday transactions.
Why do stablecoins matter?

Stablecoins bridge the gap between traditional and digital finance. They act as primary on-ramps and off-ramps for the crypto ecosystem, according to a report from Mastercard.

International transfers can be settled within minutes at minimal costs, 24/7, offering an efficient alternative to slow, expensive traditional wire transfers, according to TD Economics.Latest updates on crypto news here

Mastercard said efficiency and accessibility promote financial inclusion for the world’s unbanked populations, requiring only an internet connection and a digital wallet to access global financial services.
Why is regulation being called for?

The Bank of Canada and cryptocurrency industry groups say the main concern for Ottawa is the potential impact on Canadian monetary sovereignty and financial stability, particularly as financial markets see an increase of U.S. backed digital currencies.

“Large firms like Shopify moved quickly to accept USDC,” Vass Bednar, managing director of the Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy told BNN Bloomberg in an interview. “When our most valuable company is transacting through stablecoin, the policy environment here needs to recognize that innovation.”

The cryptocurrency groups warn if U.S. backed stablecoins become common in Canadian transactions, Canada could lose influence over it’s own currency and monetary policy.

A significant driver for the push of Canadian backed stablecoins is international development and corporate action, Bednar said. The U.S. introduced the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a law designed to enforce the use and support of the U.S. dollar as a stablecoin.

“I think the biggest prompt to our expedited policy response was the general threat to monetary sovereignty through the GENIUS Act,” said Bednar.
Proposed rules for stablecoins issuers

Budget 2025 will bring legislation to establish rules for stablecoin issuers with Bill C-15. The rules will require genuine support of the digital assets and deal with issues of risk management, information privacy and national security.

“The Stablecoin Act governs issuers,” said Gareston. “It governs the issuance, creation and redemption of stable coins. So effectively an investor could go to an issuer, an actual creator of the stablecoin, and give them cash for stable coins.”

Circle said in January it filed a draft registration statement to go public with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Photographer: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images (Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Photographer:Jakub Porzycki/NurP)

An investor could then use the currency on digital financial markets such as Kraken or Coinbase and trade on the market. Issuers of the coin, however, cannot generate interest on supported dollars.

Garetson helps public and private businesses navigate a complex legal and commercial environment around finance and tech sectors. He does not have a timeline for when the act will be enforced but advises businesses to begin preparing now by aligning with governance, compliance and operational systems.

Bednar meanwhile expects it will pass early next year as opposing parties back it.

“It is anticipated that the Conservative party is supportive of this legislation, meaning it could be passed in the Spring 2026 session,” said Bednar.

The draft law includes a strict ban on issuers paying interest or yield on stablecoins. Further, federal, provincial securities laws still apply.

“Canadians expect regulatory environments to reflect and anticipate the realities of today, and not be in constant catch-up mode,” said Bednar. “Trump’s GENIUS Act was the kick in the pants we needed.”

The Act mandates stablecoin issuers use qualified custodians to hold reserves, ensuring assets are backed, separate from the issuer’s own funds, and protected from bankruptcy. Custodians are typically regulated financial institutions that safeguard reserve assets reporting to the central bank or regulator. Bednar wonders who can qualify as a custodian.

“Legislation is silent about who can act as a qualified custodian, and where, geographically, reserve assets must be held,” said Bednar.

Joshua Santos
Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca

U.S. designs for Venezuelan oil industry put pressure on Canadian oil stocks

ByThe Canadian Press
Updated: January 05, 2026

Shares in Canada’s biggest oilsands producers came under pressure Monday after the U.S. military captured the Venezuelan leader and President Donald Trump announced plans to put that country’s oil industry into the hands of American companies.

Cenovus Energy Inc. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. were each down about five per cent and Suncor Energy Inc. dropped 1.4 per cent. Enbridge Inc., which operates a vast cross-border oil pipeline network that it plans to expand, and South Bow Corp., whose Keystone system ships crude to the U.S., each fell around three per cent.

Overall, the TSX energy subindex was down more than three per cent.

Refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast are set up to process heavy crude like that produced in Alberta’s oilsands and in Venezuela. But U.S. sanctions on the South American country have meant virtually none of its supplies go to the U.S. market today.

“If those restrictions were lifted, then Canada may have more competition right away in terms of Venezuelan oil that now technically can access the U.S. Gulf Coast,” said Jackie Forrest, executive director of the ARC Energy Research Institute.

But Forrest said any discounts on Canadian heavy oil prices would be “modest” — in the US$2 to US$3 per barrel range — so the market reaction Monday “seems a bit overdone.”

Canada sends about 400,000 barrels a day of crude to the world’s largest refining complex on the Gulf Coast, a relatively small portion of the roughly four million barrels a day of oil Canada supplies to the U.S. overall. Most currently goes to refineries in the Midwest region, which is deeply integrated with pipeline networks originating in Alberta, like Enbridge’s Mainline and South Bow’s Keystone.

There are ways to offset some of that pricing pressure by exporting crude abroad, via the Gulf Coast or from the Trans Mountain pipeline on the West Coast, Forrest added.

Not much has changed in oil markets near-term and it could be months or even years before the fate of sanctions and Venezuela’s production shakes out, said Dane Gregoris, managing director of Enverus’s oil and gas research group.

“Political changes happen quickly, but industrial changes happen very slowly,” he said.

But he said there’s a “reasonable case to be made” for investors to reduce their exposure to Canadian energy names under the assumption that more heavy oil may eventually flow to the U.S. market and weigh on Canadian prices.

“I think that’s why you’re seeing a broad sell-off of oil and gas equities today,” he said. “Some of that seems a little bit overstated or kind of snap reaction.”

Up until 2000, Canada and Venezuela each sent about the same amount to the U.S., but Venezeula’s exports have since dwindled to virtually nothing while the Canadian share has grown, Derek Holt, head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank wrote in a report Monday.

It’s clear Trump wants to take control of Venezuela’s oil reserves — 300 billion barrels or about 17 per cent of the world’s total, Holt wrote.

“It’s a hostile takeover in the global energy sector, the only difference being that guns were used instead of shareholder tactics.”

But he cautioned against leaping to the conclusion “that this will unleash a torrent of new supply on world markets with effects that allegedly include snowing under Canada’s oil industry.”

Venezuelan production peaked at 3.5 million barrels a day in 1998, and it now churns out less than a third of that, with most going to China. Holt said he doubts a U.S. intervention will lead to a swift return to its glory days.

“Its energy and broader infrastructure lay in shambles. Political uncertainty is off the charts. American hubris thinks it can restore order and run the country with a compliant local administration,” he wrote, noting past forays into Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, the United States’ own production has been crowding out imports and the world is awash in supply, putting pressure on global prices. The price of West Texas Intermediate crude, the key U.S. light oil benchmark, saw a bump on Monday, but it was still below the US$60 per barrel mark and about 20 per cent lower than it was at this time last year.

“What do you think unleashing three billion barrels of reserves in Venezuela would do to world oil prices relative to production break-evens? U.S. Big Oil isn’t that dumb,” Holt wrote, adding that domestic and Canadian infrastructure is also well established in the U.S. market.

“Nevertheless, the prudent thing for Canada to do would be to act with a greater sense of urgency in terms of building capacity to export oil to Asia (arguably ditto for Mexico),” Holt wrote.

It could take five to 10 years for Venezuela to meaningfully ramp up its production if it were to get a stable government and attract investment, Forrest said. But long term, it makes sense for Canada to send more of its oil to Asia, Forrest said.

“Hopefully it increases our motivation,” she said. “We need new outlets for our crude oil to diversify our export markets to protect us from threats like this.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 5, 2026.

Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press.

Alberta’s Danielle Smith says Maduro capture outlines urgency of West Coast pipeline

ByThe Canadian Press
Published: January 05, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, signs an MOU with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary,Thursday, Nov. 27, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh (Jeff McIntosh)

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says the American capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro underlines the urgency of building oil pipelines to export Canadian oil to new markets.

U.S. President Donald Trump sent political shock waves around the world with the weekend military raid, saying Washington aimed to seize the South American country’s oil reserves for American companies to exploit.Download our app to get Edmonton alerts on your device

“Recent events surrounding Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro emphasize the importance that we expedite the development of pipelines to diversify our oil export markets,” said Smith in a Monday statement.

That includes a new pipeline to British Columbia’s West Coast to reach markets in Asia, she said.

In November, Smith signed an agreement with Prime Minister Mark Carney paving the way to a potential Indigenous co-owned bitumen pipeline and to claw back environmental policies standing in the way, including the B.C. tanker ban.

The deal aims for Alberta and Ottawa to agree on an industrial carbon price by April 1 and sets a July 1 deadline for a pipeline proposal to Ottawa’s Major Projects Office.

Smith said her government is continuing its work to submit that application and expects the federal government to move forward “with urgency.”

“Alberta supports building pipelines in all directions to get our product to market and we look forward to continuing to work with provincial and federal partners to advance these projects,” Smith said.

The premier’s comments echo that of many commentators and industry experts who argued Trump’s military strike bolsters Alberta’s case for building more export capacity with a pipeline to the Pacific.

On Monday, shares in Canada’s biggest oilsands producers came under pressure, with the TSX energy subindex down more than three per cent.

RELATED STORIES
:‘Very happy, very hopeful’: Venezuelans in Edmonton celebrate Maduro’s capture

Live updates: Venezuelan VP sworn in as interim president, Maduro pleads not
guilty in U.S. court

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 5, 2026.

Lisa Johnson, The Canadian Press

US Attack on Venezuela Highlights Our Oil Addiction

Hopefully, the sociopolitical reaction to the US invasion of Venezuela will, instead of deepening our oil dependency, actually contribute to our recovery.

People participate in a ‘No War on Venezuela’ protest in the rain on January 3, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. The United States invaded Venezuela with a “large-scale strike” this morning and President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured by Special Forces and taken to the United States, according to President Trump who also announced that “we will run the country”.
(Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

Rick Steiner
Jan 05, 2026

Common Dreams

The Trump administration’s extraordinary, illegal attack on Venezuela was always about oil, and now the whole world knows that Mr. Trump lied all along about his real interest in Venezuela. This was not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, but was about increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on—oil.

As such, this seems a good time to reexamine our nation’s destructive addiction to oil.

The first step in recovering from addiction is to tell the truth—admit the addiction, acknowledge its consequences. Yet this is something we still seem unwilling to do with our addiction to oil. Addicts would rather stay high than confront their addiction and commit to recovery.

The truth about oil is that while there are benefits—jobs, energy, government revenue, etc.—there are also enormous long-term risks, impacts and costs. And while government and industry extol the benefits of oil, they remain unwilling to tell the truth about its costs or to aggressively pursue sustainable alternatives.

Some costs are obvious. Oil spills, such as the 1989 Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, are easily recognizable disasters that attract widespread public condemnation. Many oil-producing areas of the world, such as the Niger Delta, the Caspian Sea, Siberia and the Amazon, continue to suffer from decades of chronic oil spills.

Indeed, the age of oil is ending, but the hard-core oil addicts in government and industry remain unwilling to concede the fact or to embrace a sustainable energy future. Clearly, a lot of damage can and will occur in the waning years of oil.

But the true cost of oil goes far beyond the obvious damage from spills. More gradual, less visible costs of oil include ecological habitat degradation from exploration, production and pipelines; health costs from breathing polluted air; urban sprawl, traffic congestion and deadly accidents in all major cities; and seemingly endless wars fought to secure oil supplies, costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

Climate change from carbon emissions is incurring enormous present and future costs—storm damage, drought, wildfires, lost agricultural productivity, infrastructure damage, climate refugees, disease, forest decline, marine ecosystem collapse, species extinction and lost ecosystem services—already exceeding $1 trillion a year.

Wherever it is produced, there arises a “sociopolitical toxicity” of oil—a significant distortion of economic, social and political systems. Rather than the prosperity promised, oil discoveries around the world often become more curse than blessing, causing social dysfunction, assimilation of indigenous cultures, inflation, decline in traditional exports, corruption, crime and unsustainable growth.

In oil-producing regions of the world—including the US and the states of Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, and North Dakota—governments are “captured” and controlled by oil interests ensuring policies to limit regulation, lower taxation, and to favor increased oil production and demand over development of sustainable low-carbon alternatives. In Alaska, 50 years of oil has distorted and corrupted many elements of government and society, including the state university system and the media.

The addictive power of oil was recognized as early as 1939, when Saudi Arabia’s King Abdul Aziz joked: “Do you know what they will find when they reach Mars? They will find Americans out there in the desert hunting for oil.”

Former Venezuelan oil minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso, a founder of OPEC and once a true believer in the promise of oil, thought differently after he saw the corruption, greed, waste, debt, and decay it caused, and came to call oil “the devil’s excrement.”

Today, the world uses more than 100 million barrels of oil a day, with the US alone accounting for over 20 million barrels per day. We have already pumped and burned over one trillion barrels, and there may be another trillion barrels of recoverable “conventional” oil left, along with several trillion barrels in unconventional reserves such as tar sands and oil shale formations.

But if we want anything resembling a sustainable future, we simply have to leave most of this oil buried right where it is in the ground and seabed, as the global atmosphere and biosphere cannot handle much more additional carbon without becoming dangerously unstable.

Yet the oil pushers see trillions of dollars just waiting to be dug up and are anxious to get to it regardless of the consequences. There seems no end to their greed and disregard for our planetary environment and common future.

As with any addiction, when the easy stuff is gone and supplies tighten, hard-core addicts become desperate and willing to take more risk to secure the next fix, such as fracking, drilling in the Arctic and deep ocean basin, and invading oil-rich countries.

President George W. Bush stunned the world in his 2006 State of the Union speech, admitting that “we have a serious problem, America is addicted to oil,” yet his administration did virtually nothing to wean us from our oil addiction.

Despite candidate Obama’s promise to end “the tyranny of oil,” and that if he was elected, “the rise of the oceans will begin to slow,” as President, Mr. Obama boasted that “We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some.” US oil production steadily increased throughout the Obama presidency.

And although President Joe Biden repeatedly declared his intention to transition the nation away from fossil fuels in order to combat climate change, US oil production reached record levels during his administration.

The seas continue to rise, and the tyranny of oil continues.

Governments encourage fossil fuel addiction with annual subsidies of some $7 trillion globally, including $760 billion per year in the US in subsidies, tax breaks, and “unpriced externalities.” So much for the “free-market.” These government fossil fuel subsidies artificially depress prices and encourage overconsumption; compete with government spending on health care, education and social services; and keep alternative energy “uncompetitive” – just as the oil pushers want.

Studies have estimated that for every gallon of gasoline we buy at the pump, we are actually paying as much as $14 a gallon in additional “hidden” costs. Yet, we continue to ignore these hidden costs, paying some indirectly through income taxes, while deferring most to future generations. We are tricking ourselves into using “cheap and easy” oil as fast as we can pump it out of the ground.

The 2010 Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling allowed oil companies and others to pour unlimited funds into oil-friendly candidates and issues, without public disclosure. And millions have been spent on a strategic disinformation campaign (by government and industry) to deceive the public about the real costs of oil.

Clearly, the oil pushers are running the show.

Perhaps the most pernicious cost of oil is that it fueled a dangerous, unsustainable expansion of the ecological footprint of human civilization. With access to artificially “cheap and easy” oil over the past century, human population quadrupled and resource consumption increased many times more, now significantly exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity. Without access to fossil carbon, humanity almost certainly would have evolved on a more sustainable trajectory. But by not accounting for its true cost, oil has allowed us to dig ourselves deeper into a dangerous, unsustainable hole. The environmental debt we are accruing is far larger and more consequential than our national financial debt.

The sooner we get to the far side of our troubled oil addiction, the better chance we have at a sustainable future.

It’s high time we kicked the oil habit. The full “social cost of carbon” has been estimated at $50 to $200 per ton of CO2, and with global emissions now exceeding 40 billion tons per year, this would amount to $2 trillion to $8 trillion in total damages annually. When we account for these very real costs, sustainable alternatives become competitive and we make more rational choices.

Government needs to correct this self-destructive dynamic by eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies, reducing emissions through regulation, instituting a carbon tax to capture the long-term “hidden” cost of carbon, and applying the former subsidies and carbon tax revenues to support the low-carbon energy transition.

As Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a former Saudi Arabian oil minister, once famously said, “The stone age did not end for lack of stones, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”

Indeed, the age of oil is ending, but the hard-core oil addicts in government and industry remain unwilling to concede the fact or to embrace a sustainable energy future. Clearly, a lot of damage can and will occur in the waning years of oil.

Hopefully, the sociopolitical reaction to the US invasion of Venezuela will, instead of deepening our oil dependency, actually contribute to our recovery.

The sooner we get to the far side of our troubled oil addiction, the better chance we have at a sustainable future. Then, like most recovering addicts, we will wonder why we didn’t get clean sooner.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Rick Steiner
Rick Steiner is a conservation biologist in Anchorage, retired professor with the University of Alaska, and author of Oasis Earth: Planet in Peril (available as a free download here: https://www.oasis-earth.com/oasis-earth-planet-in-peril).
Full Bio >

Why oil-rich Venezuela pumps under 1% of global crude and can Trump push it?

Venezuela holds nearly 20% of the world's proven oil reserves, but pumps less than a percent of global crude. After capturing its leader, Trump is now promising that US companies will revive production. Can he unlock the world's largest oil reserves?

Maduro's policies accelerated Venezuela's oil collapse. Trump now aims to reverse the decline by bringing US companies in to revive production. (Images: AP/Unsplash/Getty)

India Today News Desk
New Delhi,

Jan 5, 2026
Written By: Sushim Mukul

Venezuela, the country Donald Trump once claimed would be ruled by the US after its leader Nicolas Maduro was captured in deadly airstrikes, holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. This alone explains the keen interest of the world’s most powerful leader in the South American nation. What makes the situation even more striking is that, despite sitting atop the largest proven reserves, Venezuela produces just about one million barrels of oil a day, roughly 0.8% of global crude output. This is where Trump’s so-called “big plan” enters the picture

Trump unleashed airstrikes on Venezuela in an operation dubbed Operation Absolute Resolve, leaving over 40 people dead. On January 3, elite US Delta Force commandos captured Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife from their heavily guarded bedroom inside a military base in Caracas. While Washington said the operation stemmed from long-standing drug-trafficking charges, experts believe the move was driven just as much by Caracas’ most prized asset, oil.

Venezuela holds an estimated 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, nearly 20% of the global total, more than Saudi Arabia. Yet it produces barely one million barrels per day (bpd). This gap is the result of decades of political mismanagement, corruption, chronic underinvestment, US sanctions, and the technical complexity of extracting Venezuela's extra-heavy crude.

US President Donald Trump has since Maduro's capture announced plans to seize control of Venezuela's oil reserves. He said American companies would be invited to invest billions to revive the shattered industry and potentially redirect crude supplies to refineries in the US. The move aligns with Washington's and Trump's long-standing interest in Venezuelan energy resources. It is an interest that intensified after sanctions were imposed on Caracas in 2019.

According to news agency Reuters, Washington believes a production increase of Venezuelan crude to 2 million bpd by 2030 could shave $4 per barrel off global oil prices.

So what lies behind the mismatch between oil reserves and production? And with Washington now laying out plans to get Venezuelan crude flowing, is such a revival economically feasible? How long would it take, how many dollars would it consume?

HOW VENEZUELA'S OIL PRODUCTION WENT DOWN SINCE 1990s?

Venezuela's oil output collapsed from a peak of 3.5 million bpd in the late 1990s to around 956,000 bpd in October 2025, before inching up to 1.142 million bpd in November, according to data by Trading Economics, a Lisbon-based global economic data platform. The decline fuelled a broader economic implosion in Venezuela marked by hyperinflation, state collapse, and one of the largest migration crises in the world.

Most of the Venezuelan oil lies in the Orinoco Belt. It is home to vast extra-heavy crude deposits. The extra-heavy oil is difficult to extract because of its high viscosity. It requires costly technologies, imported diluents, and specialised refineries. So, systemic failures have left much of this potential stranded.

WHAT BROUGHT DOOM ON VENEZUELA'S ENERGY SECTOR

The rot began under the rule of Maduro's mentor and former president, Hugo Chavez. After a 2002 strike at the state oil firm PDVSA, Chavez fired nearly 18,000 skilled workers.

In 2007, his government forced foreign companies out through nationalisation. This replaced professional management with politically loyal appointees, according to a report in Forbes.

Revenue that should have been invested was diverted to fund social programmes. Corruption flourished and infrastructure decayed. The oil drilling rigs rusted, Venezuelan refineries ran at barely 20% capacity during the rule of Chavez.

Under Maduro, matters worsened. Debt defaults further scared away investors, which halved production. It isolated the PDVSA from global capital markets, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

US SANCTIONS, CORRUPTION, MISMANAGEMENT WORSENED SITUATION

The US sanctions imposed in 2019 barred American companies from dealing with PDVSA. This cut Venezuela off from crucial technology, markets, and the diluents needed to process heavy crude.

After the disputed election of 2024, more restrictions were imposed in 2024. This choked off any scope of recovery. Venezuela increasingly relied on shadow tanker fleets and informal networks to sell its oil to China and Iran. However, inefficiencies, corruption and discounts ate into revenues, according to the US Department of Treasury.

Now, with Maduro out and Trump signalling that American companies will move in to get Venezuela's oil flowing again, the question is how long it would take to unlock production in a country that holds nearly 20% of the world's proven reserves, and whether such an effort would be economically feasible at all?

REVIVING VENEZUELA'S OIL SECTOR IS NO CAKE WALK

Experts estimate that restoring Venezuela's oil industry to 3 million bpd could take at least 10 to 20 years and require $50-100 billion in investment, according to a report in UK-based The Guardian.

Infrastructure across Venezuela's oil sector will have to be rebuilt, skilled workers brought back, and legal and regulatory frameworks rewritten. Short-term gains are possible, with output potentially rising to 1.5 million barrels per day within two to three years if sanctions are lifted and US firms assume operational control. However, sustained recovery will depend on restructuring of debts, legal certainty, and long-term political stability.

Trump has claimed that American companies are willing to invest billions of dollars upfront, with costs to be recovered through oil sales.

However, according to a report in The Guardian, American companies have remained non-committal. Its report noted that the statements from ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips stopped short of confirming Trump's investment plans.

"My hunch is that if President Trump said this publicly, probably there was already an agreement with the US companies," geopolitical expert Jorge Leon, told The Guardian.

With global crude prices hovering between 50 and 60 dollars a barrel and impending political risks, returns are likely to be slow and uncertain, according to a report by news agency Reuters. So, for now, until Venezuelan crude starts to flow as Trump has hoped, the Latin American nation remains the ultimate oil paradox. It's sitting on immense wealth but unable to pump its way out of economic collapse.

- Ends

How Washington's Control of Venezuelan Oil Could Reshape China's Energy Supply

By City A.M - Jan 05, 2026

The FTSE 100 saw an early rally driven by defense and metal stocks, including Babcock, BAE Systems, and gold miners, in reaction to the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
The US plans to install its own oil majors to repair and run Venezuela's vast oil infrastructure, a move that analysts predict will force China to pay higher rates for its crucial heavy crude supply.
The Labour government, led by Keir Starmer, adopted a cautious stance on the US's operation, refusing to condemn it as a breach of international law despite pressure from party backbenchers and opposition groups.

The FTSE 100 kicked off the new year on the front foot with a morning rally after the fallout from the United States’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro sent a batch of City stocks on the march.

London’s blue-chip index sprung up towards the 10,000 points mark as markets opening before giving up some gains to land 0.2 per cent higher at near 9,970.

Leading the pack was defence and metal stocks after President Donald Trump’s strike on Venezuela – and openess to further escalation with other nations – sent jitters across markets.

Gold miners Endeavour Mining and Fresnillo were among top risers with gains of over four per cent, which comes after the price of the “safe haven” asset jumped 2.2 per cent in early trading to $4,424 an ounce.

Meanwhile, defence stocks were benefiting from the rising tensions with shares in blue-chip giant Babcock netting an all-time high at 1,329p after a 4.4 per cent rally. BAE Systems was up 4.5 per cent and Rolls-Royce 2.3 per cent.

It comes after Trump refused to rule out military action in Colombia telling reported in Sunday it “sounds good to [him]” whilst also doubling down on previous suggestions the US “need” Greenland and is considering an offensive on Cuba.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to make a statement to MPs following the US’ operation to lay out the government’s formal response.

Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG, told City AM the slow influx of corporate news for the New Year was “more than compensated” by the fallout in Venezuela.

US could dictate China’s oil supply

On Saturday, Trump announced the capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, who is set to appear in US Federal Court in New York. Trump has clamped down on Venezuela following accusations of the nation dumping its prisoners into the US and failing to stop the flow of fentanyl into the country.

But oil has also remained a central piece to the conflict with Venezuela holding the world’s largest estimated oil reserves, though the country’s output remains at a fraction of capacity due to decades of mismanagement.

Trump has said the US plans to “run” Venezuela and insert its own oil majors to the country to control and ramp up its oil production.

“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” the President said.

The US’ Energy Information Administration estimates Venezuela has near 303bn barrels worth of crude – near 20 per cent of the world’s resource – but exports just 900,000 per day with China acting as the biggest customer.

Bejing has urged the US to “stop toppling” the Venezuelan government with the top diplomat of China accusing the White House as behaving like a “world judge”.

Despite the rising tensions, oil prices have remained subdued in the fallout.

Brent crude dropped near 1.3 per cent despite Trump’s pledge to pump billions into the oil-rich nation to fix infrastructure.

Analysts expect China to be forced to pay higher rates for oil, should the US maintain control of Venezuelan production.

Jordan Rochester, an analyst at Mizuho Bank, said: “By controlling Venezuela, the US doesn’t need to own the oil; it just needs a hand on the tap.

“This shapes global energy flows and decides whether China gets cheap heavy crude or has to pay market rates elsewhere.”

How is the UK government reacting?

The Labour government has taken a coy line on the US’s involvement in Venezuela despite pressure from party backbenchers and opposition groups.

Keir Starmer emphasised the UK was not involved in the strikes on Friday night while saying he would “shed no tears” over the end of Maduro’s time as president.

Starmer and other government ministers including chief secretary to the prime minister Darren Jones refused to say whether the operation to capture Maduro represented a breach of international law.

Starmer added he was a “lifelong advocate of international law” and would seek to gather more information before making a full comment. Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to address parliament by the end of the day on the matter.

Labour MPs Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, and Richard Burgon are among those who have called for Starmer to stand up to Trump, along with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.

The Conservatives also said it would wait for “full facts” on the operation and hope to see Venezuelans “enjoy democratic norms and freedoms”.

Reform UK’s Nigel Farage said that while the capture broke international law, it could “make China and Russia think twice” about taking on global powers.

By City AM

Trump administration did not consult U.S. oil majors on Venezuela, oil execs say, meetings now planned

By Reuters
January 05, 2026

WASHINGTON/HOUSTON — U.S. President President Donald administration did not initially consult with oil companies Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, or Chevron Corp about Venezuela before or after U.S. forces captured the country’s President Nicolas Maduro, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, but meetings are now planned for later this week.

Trump asserted aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he had spoken to all of the U.S. oil companies “before and after” Maduro’s capture about his plans for investing in the country.

U.S. oil executives are expected to meet with the Trump administration this week, one of the sources said.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal to this point,” the source said on Monday.

The early and conflicting accounts demonstrate how it will likely be an uphill battle to revitalize Venezuela’s oil industry. While Trump has said that American oil firms are prepared to invest billions of dollars in the country, only Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron have the scale and capacity to operate its complex oil fields, the source said.

The three other sources also said the three companies had no prior knowledge about the U.S. operation to seize Maduro, and had held no conversations with the Trump administration about investing there as of Sunday.

The sources asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Chevron is the only American major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields that produce heavy crude used by U.S. Gulf Coast and other refineries.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalized nearly two decades ago by former President Hugo Chavez.

Trump said hours after Maduro’s capture on Saturday that he expects the biggest U.S. oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production.

But those plans will be hindered by lack of infrastructure that will require many years and heavy investment, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term U.S. policy, the executive said.

“I don’t think you’re going to see any company other than Chevron, who’s already there, you know, commit to developing this resource,” said one of the executives.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports around 150,000 bpd of crude from Venezuela to the U.S. Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully maneuver with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw and Sheila Dang; Writing by Richard Valdmanis; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Anna Driver)

The high cost of recovery: Trump administration demands immediate capital injection from Conoco and Exxon

By Reuters
Updated: January 05, 2026

State of Canada’s oil sector after U.S. takeover of Venezuela

HOUSTON — White House and State Department officials have told U.S. oil executives in recent weeks that they would need to return to Venezuela quickly and invest significant capital in the country to revive the damaged oil industry if they wanted compensation for assets expropriated by Venezuela two decades ago, according to two people familiar with the outreach.

In the 2000s, Venezuela expropriated the assets of some international oil companies that declined to give state-run oil company PDVSA increased operational control, as demanded by late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

U.S. oil major Chevron was among companies that negotiated to stay in the country and form joint ventures with state-run PDVSA, while rivals Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left and filed for arbitration.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday that American companies were prepared to return to Venezuela and spend billions to reactivate the struggling oil sector, just hours after President Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by U.S. forces.

In the recent U.S. administration discussions with oil executives in the scenario that Maduro was out of power, officials have said that U.S. oil companies would need to front the investment money themselves to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry. That would be one of the preconditions for them eventually recovering debts from the expropriations.

That would be a costly investment for firms such as ConocoPhillips, the sources said. Conoco for years has tried to recover some US$12 billion from the Chavez-era nationalization of its Venezuela assets. Exxon Mobil also filed international arbitration cases, trying to recover $1.65 billion.

Trump began making public reference to the Venezuelan expropriations when he ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers last month.
Conditions for a return

Whether or not the companies return would depend on how executives, boards and shareholders evaluate the risk of renewed investment in Venezuela, the sources said.

“ConocoPhillips is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability. It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” a company spokesperson said in emailed comments to Reuters on Saturday. The company reiterated the statement on Sunday when asked about discussions with administration officials for this story.

Exxon did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters on Sunday.

Politico first reported on the recent discussions on Saturday.

Even if companies do agree to return to the country, it could be years before there is a meaningful boost to oil output. The South American country has one of the largest estimated reserves in the world, but production has plummeted over past decades amid mismanagement, lack of investment and U.S. sanctions.

Besides uncertainty surrounding the contract framework for any operations there, companies considering a return would also need to deal with security concerns, poor infrastructure, questions about the legality of the U.S. operation to capture Maduro and the possibility of long-term political instability, analysts have told Reuters.

Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, produced as much as 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s, which at the time represented over 7 per cent of global oil output. Production fell below 2 million bpd during the 2010s and averaged around 1.1 million bpd last year, or just one per cent of global production.

(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Writing by Nathan Crooks. Editing by Simon Webb and Chizu Nomiyama )

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment