Could Trump 2.0 End the American Century?

ITS ALREADY ENDED

IT WAS LAST CENTURY 

Trump’s second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership.



Alfred W. Mccoy
Nov 20, 2024

TomDispatch

Some 15 years ago, on December 5, 2010, a historian writing for TomDispatch made a prediction that may yet prove prescient. Rejecting the consensus of that moment that U.S. global hegemony would persist to 2040 or 2050, he argued that “the demise of the United States as the global superpower could come... in 2025, just 15 years from now.”

To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the United States, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But, that historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Now that a “far-right patriot,” one Donald J. Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion.
Making the Original Prediction

Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, of course, that historian was me.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of American decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. The presidency of Barack Obama was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. was on track for a decade of dynamic growth—the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring, and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization, and its democratic governance still the global norm.

Looking forward, leading historians of empire agreed that America would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, for instance, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance”—but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While America’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”

Writing in a similar vein in The New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the U.S. was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries.

When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires, particularly those of Britain, France, and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.

By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening, and corporate bailouts were booming—all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary Americans, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of America’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.

Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating U.S. global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population, and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), fully confident, according to two Beltway insiders, that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”

Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment—think Germany versus Great Britain in World War I—fully expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”

Just a year after that, China’s president, Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power through what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.

In the following decade, the U.S.-China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.”
The Global Rise of the Strongman

Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.

At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy—forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies, and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).

By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the U.S. and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million American jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the U.S. and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.

Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections—in Russia (2000), Israel (2009), Hungary (2010), China (2012), Turkey (2014), the Philippines (2016), the U.S. (2016), Brazil (2018), Italy (2022), the Netherlands (2023), Indonesia (2024), and the U.S. again (2024).

Set aside their incendiary us-versus-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro ravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, Recep Erdogan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison.
Prospects for Donald Trump’s Second Term

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent reelection, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.

In the globalized world America made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy.

Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the U.S. will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5°C until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029, the year Trump finishes his second term.

On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that American-made products will be ever less competitive.

To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petrol-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the U.S. auto industry uncompetitive, at home and abroad.

Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic-foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling American farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs, while dramatically raising the cost of consumer goods for Americans, stoking inflation, and slowing consumer spending.

Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukraine’s president] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”

Just two days after the November election, according toThe Washington Post, Trump reputedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call, “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, The Wall Street Journalreported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator (should Trump actually appoint one) might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French president Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses; and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency.
America’s Allies

Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for U.S. global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is arguably the most powerful military alliance in all of modern history.

Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the U.S. into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.

Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” French President Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the American presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the Biden administration strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so American power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he toldThe Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because China’s President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, for 80 years the fulcrum of its global imperial posture, pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to America’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies.
A Silent U.S. Recessional

Adding up the likely impact of Donald Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe, and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Alfred W. Mccoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".
Full Bio >

G20

Biden becomes first US president to visit Amazon as Trump signals climate policy shift


Joe Biden became the first US president to visit the Amazon on Sunday, flying over drought-hit regions and fire-damaged rainforests, in a bid to highlight climate change's toll on the vital ecosystem. His visit to Latin America comes as the incoming Trump administration signals reduced US climate commitments.


Issued on: 18/11/2024 
By: NEWS WIRES
Video by: FRANCE 24

00:54

US President Joe Biden walks with Henrique Pereira, Director of the National Institute for Research in the Amazon, as he tours the Museu da Amazonia in Manaus, Brazil on November 17, 2024. © Leah Millis, Reuters




Joe Biden toured the drought-shrunken waters of the Amazon River’s greatest tributary Sunday as the first sitting American president to set foot in the legendary rainforest, while the incoming Trump administration seems poised to scale back the US commitment to combating climate change.

The massive Amazon region, which is about the size of Australia, stores huge amounts of the world’s carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that drives climate change when it's released into the atmosphere. But development is rapidly depleting the world's largest tropical rainforest, and rivers are drying up.

Flying over a stretch of the Amazon in a helicopter, Biden saw severe erosion, ships grounded in the Negro River tributary, and fire damage. He also passed over a wildlife refuge and the expansive waters where the Negro River joins the Amazon. He was joined by Carlos Nobre, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and expert on how climate change is harming the Amazon.

Biden met indigenous leaders — introducing his daughter and granddaughter to them — and visited a museum at the gateway to the Amazon as he looks to highlight his commitment to the preservation of the region. Three indigenous women shook maracas as part of a welcoming ceremony.

Read more  Macron and Lula announce €1 billion investment plan for the Amazon

“I’m proud to become the first sitting president to visit the Amazon,” Biden said before he signing a US proclamation designating Nov. 17 as International Conservation Day.

His administration announced plans last year for a $500 million contribution to the Amazon Fund, the most significant international cooperation effort to preserve the rainforest, primarily financed by Norway.

So far, the US government said it has provided $50 million, and the White House announced Sunday an additional $50 million contribution to the fund.

“It’s significant for a sitting president to visit the Amazon. ... This shows a personal commitment from the president,” said Suely Araújo, former head of the Brazilian environmental protection agency and public policy coordinator with the nonprofit Climate Observatory. “That said, we can’t expect concrete results from this visit."

She doubts that a “single penny” will go to the Amazon Fund once Donald Trump is back in the White House.

The incoming Trump administration is highly unlikely to prioritize the Amazon or anything related to climate change. The Republican president-elect already said he would again pull out of the Paris agreement, a global pact forged to avert the threat of catastrophic climate change, after Biden recommitted to the accord.

Deforestation fell in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest by 30.6 percent in the year-to-year period beginning in August 2023, according to the National Institute for Space Research (INPE). © Mauro Pimentel, AFP

Trump has cast climate change as a “hoax” and said he will eliminate energy efficiency regulations by the Biden administration.

Still, the Biden White House on Sunday announced a series of new efforts aimed at bolstering the Amazon and stemming the impact of climate change.

Among the actions is the launch of a finance coalition that looks to spur at least $10 billion in public and private investment for land restoration and eco-friendly economic projects by 2030, and a $37.5 million loan to an organization to support the large-scale planting of native tree species on degraded grasslands in Brazil.

Biden also plans to highlight that the US is on track to reach $11 billion in spending on international climate financing in 2024, a sixfold increase from when he started his term.

The Amazon is home to Indigenous communities and 10% of Earth’s biodiversity. It also regulates moisture across South America. About two-thirds of the Amazon lies within Brazil, and scientists say its devastation poses a catastrophic threat to the planet.

The forest has been suffering two years of historic drought that have dried up waterways, isolated thousands of riverine communities and hindered riverine dwellers’ ability to fish. It's also made way for wildfires that have burned an area larger than Switzerland and choked cities near and far with smoke.

When Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office last year, he signaled a shift in environmental policy from his predecessor, far-right Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro prioritised agribusiness expansion over forest protection and weakened environmental agencies, prompting deforestation to surge to a 15-year high.

Lula has pledged “zero deforestation” by 2030, though his term runs through the end of 2026. Forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon dropped by 30.6% in the 12 months through July from a year earlier, bringing deforestation to its lowest level in nine years, according to official data released last week.

In that 12-month span, the Amazon lost 6,288 square kilometers (2,428 square miles), roughly the size of the US state of Delaware. But that data fails to capture the surge of destruction this year, which will only be included in next year’s reading.

Despite the success in curbing Amazon deforestation, Lula’s government has been criticized by environmentalists for backing projects that could harm the region, such as paving a highway that cuts from an old-growth area and could encourage logging, oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River and building a railway to transport soy to Amazonian ports.

While Biden is the first sitting president in the Amazon, former President Theodore Roosevelt traveled to the region with the help of the American Museum of Natural History following his 1912 loss to Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt, joined by his son and naturalists, traversed roughly 15,000 miles, when the former president fell ill with malaria and suffered a serious leg infection after a boat accident.

Biden is making the Amazon visit as part of a six-day trip to South America, the first to the continent of his presidency. He traveled from Lima, Peru, where he took part in the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

After his stop in Manaus, he was heading to Rio de Janeiro for this year's Group of 20 leaders summit.

(AP)

High-paying jobs in Canadian tech, and the rise of pay transparency

By Abigail Gamble
DIGITAL JOURNAL
November 20, 2024

Liz Elliot, Product Market Leader at Mercer, speaks during Innovation Week in Calgary. - Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

Yes, tech layoffs are continuing in 2024, but as Stephanie Hollingshead, CEO of TAP Network says, they’re more targeted than the mass layoffs we’ve seen over the last couple years.

Despite layoffs in the tech sector there’s still high demand for critical skills as tech employers and non-traditional tech companies vie for the same talent.

Hollingshead was speaking at Calgary Innovation Week where she shared current trends in tech compensation alongside Liz Elliot, Product Market Leader at Mercer.

The pair offered insights based on October research produced by Mercer on behalf of TAP Network on the evolving landscape of pay, perks and workplace practices in Canadian tech.

Another big-picture trend Hollingshead shared was that voluntary turnover (people choosing to leave their jobs) is down from 13% to 9% on average.

“This is the lowest I’ve seen in six or seven years,” she said, adding that this reflects a cautious workforce staying put amid fewer job opportunities and lingering economic uncertainty.

Despite these challenges, Calgary’s tech ecosystem is booming.

Between 2018 and 2023, Hollingshead said the city experienced a 78% growth in tech jobs, making it the fastest-growing tech market in North America.

Alberta also surpassed British Columbia for the first time in venture capital investment, “drawing a total of $383 million across 41 deals versus $288 million across 43 deals for BC,” she shared, highlighting the province’s increasing prominence in the Canadian tech landscape.Stephanie Hollingshead, CEO of TAP Network, speaks during Innovation Week in Calgary. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal
Emerging roles to keep an eye on

The job market in tech has shifted focus a little, with high-demand roles (as evidenced by their increase in pay) emerging in unexpected areas.

Elliot highlighted that mechanical engineers, particularly at entry and intermediate levels, have seen significant pay growth. Demand generation managers and growth marketing roles are also climbing in compensation as the industry emphasizes customer acquisition and market expansion.

Meanwhile, traditional roles like software developers are no longer at the forefront of pay growth but remain essential in the broader tech landscape, she said. Emerging roles like machine learning developers and research scientists have also grown in demand, reflecting the sector’s continued focus on innovation.

Calgary Innovation Week runs from Nov. 13-21, 2024. — Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal
Will pay transparency be a key part of the future of hiring in tech?

“We’re seeing tech companies really leading other industries in developing a global pay transparency strategy,” said Hollingshead.

She revealed that 52% of Canadian tech companies now voluntarily include salary ranges on job postings nationally.

Companies are taking a proactive approach because it simplifies hiring and improves transparency, she explained.

However, only 10% of companies disclose pay ranges internally, which Hollingshead flagged as a potential gap. Employees are increasingly aware of external market rates, making internal communication on pay more important than ever.

Liz Elliot, Product Market Leader at Mercer, speaks during Innovation Week in Calgary. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

Pay differences and the remote work ripple effect

Remote work is affecting how companies approach pay, but regional differences remain. Toronto and Vancouver are Canada’s top-paying cities for tech roles, with Calgary following close behind in third place.

Elliot explained that Calgary’s competitive compensation is partially influenced by its energy sector, which raises pay rates across industries.

“When energy does well, so does everyone else,” she noted, pointing to how Calgary’s booming tech market benefits from its proximity to resource-driven industries.

The shift toward remote work has prompted many companies to rethink their compensation strategies.

According to Elliot, while 45% of organizations have adopted a national approach to pay — offering the same salaries regardless of where employees live — 26% use geographic pay differentials to balance costs and attract talent in high-demand regions.

She highlighted the challenges companies face in making these decisions, especially when hiring in areas with limited local talent data. It’s not just about the role; location and industry dynamics are big influences on how salaries are structured, Elliot explained.

Stephanie Hollingshead, CEO of TAP Network, speaks during Innovation Week in Calgary. – Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal
Incentives and benefits: More than just a paycheque

Incentives have become a critical tool for retaining talent in tech.

Elliot said 74% of tech companies now offer short-term incentives tied to performance, while 54% have long-term incentive programs, such as stock options.

These benefits, however, resonate differently across demographics.

Younger employees often prioritize immediate compensation over equity, while older professionals may value long-term rewards.

Perks are evolving as well.

Flexible work arrangements are now the norm (and expected), but Hollingshead pointed to the rising adoption of family leave top-up programs, which have increased by 9% this year.

RRSP matching has also gained traction, with 57% of companies now offering this benefit.

“We’re seeing the industry maturing,” Hollingshead noted, comparing today’s offerings to earlier years when such benefits were rare.
Hybrid work remains a competitive advantage

Finally, unsurprisingly, hybrid work continues to be a defining feature of tech workplaces.

The survey showed that 85% of tech companies operate hybrid models, while only 1% require employees to work in-office full-time (14% are fully remote).

Hollingshead noted that flexibility remains a significant draw for employees, with many companies leveraging it as a competitive advantage.

It’s a way to increase engagement and attract talent, she explained, contrasting the tech sector’s approach with recent mandates from larger corporations like Telus and Amazon to bring workers back to the office.

Canada Post, union sit down with mediator, but still ‘far apart’ as strike drags on

By Christopher Reynolds, 

The Canadian Press

November 19, 2024 

Pedro Antunes, Conference board of Canada, talks to us and give his take on the postal strike and the potential hit to the economy.

Canada Post and the postal workers union found slivers of consensus Tuesday amid talks with a special mediator, but “a lot of ground” remains between them on the key concerns as a countrywide strike entered its fifth day.

“On smaller issues, we were able to find some progress,” said Canada Post spokesman Jon Hamilton in a phone interview.

“The special mediator has helped facilitate those discussions. So we’re going to continue to be at it. We’re committed to getting collective agreements,” he said, adding that arbitration is off the table for now.

“There’s still a lot of ground to cover.”

With deliveries at a standstill, the Crown corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers continue to bargain over a pair of contracts — one for rural and suburban mail carriers that was discussed Monday, the other for urban carriers that was under the microscope on Tuesday.

The union said progress was made due in part to the presence of Ottawa’s top mediator, appointed to the task last week. Peter Simpson, director general of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, spent the start of the week at a hotel in Ottawa shuttling between the parties’ conference rooms in a back-and-forth of proposals and potential concessions.

“After 12 months of discussions, the employer finally began to move on the pressing issues. Resolving these issues could pave the way to agreements,” union president Jan Simpson said in an update to members Tuesday.

“The urban unit will find out if there is movement on their side.”

About 55,000 employees represented by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers walked off the job on Friday, shutting down operations and halting deliveries as the busy holiday season kicks off.

The union has called for a cumulative wage hike of 24 per cent over four years, while Canada Post has offered an 11.5 per cent increase.

Other wedge issues include job security, benefits and contract work for parcel delivery on weekends.

Negotiations between Canada Post and its unionized employees began in November 2023.

The talks come as the federal delivery service faces an unprecedented financial crisis.

In the first half of 2024, Canada Post lost nearly a half-billion dollars. It has reported $3 billion in losses since 2018, as Canadians sent fewer letters while competitors gobbled up even more of the parcel market.

Households received seven letters a week on average in 2006, but only two per week last year, according to Canada Post’s latest annual report, which dubbed the trend “the Great Mail Decline.”

Both the union and the Crown corporation have put forward service expansion around parcels as a way to boost revenue, but they differ on how to go about it. The union says full-time employees should deliver package shipments on weekends, while Canada Post hopes to hire contract workers.


“What’s needed there is a new, flexible delivery model that allows us to provide parcel service on weekends and provide prices that are more competitive than the other services that Canadians are looking for when they’re shopping online,” Hamilton said.

According to last year’s annual report, the postal service’s share of the parcel market eroded from 62 per cent before the COVID-19 pandemic to 29 per cent last year, as Amazon and other competitors seized on skyrocketing demand for next-day doorstep deliveries.

On top of weekend work and wage bumps to make up for inflation, the union is seeking higher short-term disability payouts and ten paid sick days per year. It also wants to include corporate vehicles for rural and suburban mail carriers as well as paid meals and breaks.

“Unlike Canada Post’s proposals, our demands offer real solutions: fair wages, health and safety, the right to retire with dignity and expansion of services at the public post office,” said lead negotiator François Senneville in a statement earlier this month.

Amid the sudden halt of Canada Post deliveries — government benefit cheques are among the few exceptions — business has shot up at other shipping outfits.

“We have seen a double-digit increase in volumes week over week as we continue to meet the needs of Canadians at this busy time,” said Purolator — majority-owned by Canada Post — in an email.

FedEx has implemented a “contingency plan” to manage higher volumes, said spokesman James Anderson.

The last postal work stoppage took place starting in late October 2018, when employees carried out rotating strikes lasting 31 days.

Previous postal strikes held in 2011 and 2018 ended when the federal government passed legislation sending employees back to work.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 19, 2024.

 

OPG wraps up Darlington 1 refurbishment early

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Refurbishment activities have been completed five months ahead of schedule at the third of four nuclear units to undergo the process at the Ontario Power Generation plant, which will soon be reconnected to the grid.

The turbine hall at Darlington 1 (Image: OPG)

The 875 MWe unit was taken offline for refurbishment in February 2022, following units 2 and 3, which completed refurbishment in 2020 and 2023, as part of a 10-year CAD12.8 billion (about USD9.7 billion) mega-project to refurbish all four Candu units at the site. The final unit undergoing refurbishment, unit 4, is currently in the reactor rebuilding phase, and is on schedule to be completed by the end of 2026.

Separately, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced it has removed the fourth and final regulatory hold point for the Darlington 1 refurbishment, allowing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to exceed 35% full operating power for the refurbished reactor and proceed with normal operations. Hold points are mandatory checkpoints where CNSC approval is required before the licensee can move on to the next stage of the process to return the unit to operation.

The refurbishment will allow the units to continue generating electricity for a further 30 years. In addition, unit 1 will become the first Darlington reactor to produce cobalt-60, a vital radioisotope whose uses include sterilising single-use medical devices, such as syringes, implants, and surgical instruments. About half of the global supply of the isotope is produced in Ontario's Candu reactors.

"With the refurbishment of another unit, OPG, our employees, and our project partners continue to demonstrate that we can execute major nuclear projects not only on time, but ahead of time, and with a clear commitment to quality," OPG President and CEO Ken Hartwick said. "This latest milestone reflects our decade of preparation and planning, as well as our dedication to quality and innovation, and the hard work of our entire project team, vendors, skilled trades, and energy professionals."

"Ontario needs more electricity - 75% more by 2050 - to power new homes, historic new investments and an electrifying economy," the province's Minister of Energy and Electrification Stephen Lecce said. "Delivering this massive clean energy project five months ahead of schedule is a testament to the incredible knowledge and skill of Ontario workers and positions us for success as we build out our plan to meet the soaring energy demand over the next 25 years."

According to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, the Darlington refurbishment project and the subsequent 30 years of station operation are expected to generate a total of CAD90 billion in economic benefits for Ontario and create 14,200 jobs per year.

Norway SMR options to be explored with X-energy

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Norsk Kjernekraft has signed a memorandum of understanding with high-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed nuclear reactor developer X-energy to explore the deployment of small modular reactors in Norway.

A conceptual rendering from earlier this year of how a data centre with an SMR power plant and a green electrolysis factory might look (Image: Norsk Kjernekraft)

The memorandum of understanding also encompasses DL Energy and DL E&C, from South Korea's DL Group, who signed a collaboration agreement with Norsk Kjernekraft in August. The Norwegian company said the aim was to combine the Korean firm's expertise and experience in building nuclear power facilities with the US-based X-energy's reactor technology.

The August agreement included a feasibility study of constructing a nuclear power plant at the Mongstad oil refinery in the Austrheim and Alver municipality, with the Norwegian firm aiming for such a plant to be built by the mid-30s if there is "political will". In August Norsk Kjernekraft also submitted a proposal to Norway's Ministry of Energy for an assessment of the potential construction of a power plant based on multiple SMRs in the municipality of Øygarden, west of Bergen. That proposal followed proposals submitted for SMR power plants in Aure and Heim municipalities, as well as Vardø municipality.

Last month internet shopping and web services giant Amazon announced it was taking a stake in X-energy with the goal of deploying up to 5 GW of its small modular reactors in the USA by 2039.

Jonny Hesthammer, CEO of Norsk Kjernekraft, said: "South Korea has extensive experience in the efficient construction and operation of nuclear power plants, while the US has the leading technology. The recent investment by Amazon, one of the world’s largest companies, in X-energy underlines the importance of this agreement. This is simply because it increases the chances of succeeding. While the SMRs to be developed by X-energy are considered fourth generation, the technology is well-proven. Their use of TRISO fuel in the form of tennis ball-sized pebbles means that meltdown is not possible, something that many worry about."

Alistair Black, Senior Director for X-energy, said: "We’re delighted to be working with DL Energy to assess the potential for an Xe-100 advanced small modular reactor project in Southwest Norway for the nuclear development company Norsk Kjernekraft. We have projects under way in the US and could help Norway decarbonise its industrial sector and transport network and meet growing electricity demand from the booming artificial intelligence and cloud computing sectors."

In June, the Norwegian government announced the appointment of a committee to conduct a broad review and assessment of various aspects of a possible future establishment of nuclear power in the country. It must deliver its report by 1 April 2026.

X-energy's Xe-100 is a Generation IV advanced reactor design which X-energy says is based on decades of high temperature gas-cooled reactor operation, research, and development, and is designed to operate as a standard 320 MWe four-pack power plant or scaled in units of 80 MWe. At 200 MWt of 565°C steam, the Xe-100 is suitable for a range of uses and power applications including mining and heavy industry. The Xe-100 uses tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) particle fuel, which has additional safety benefits because it can withstand very high temperatures without melting.

X-energy says its design makes it road-shippable with accelerated construction timelines and more predictable and manageable construction costs, and is well suited to meet the requirements of energy-intensive data centres.

Generator stator arrives at Hinkley Point C

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

The turbine generator stator for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant under construction in Somerset, England, has been delivered from the manufacturing plant in Belfort, France.

The stator arrives at the construction site (Image: EDF Energy)

The stator - measuring 12 metres in length and weighing 450 tonnes - was supplied by EDF subsidiary Arabelle Solutions. It was delivered to the construction site on 17 November following a journey via road, rail and sea.

(Image: EDF Energy)

The stator is a key component of the turbine generator, serving as the stationary portion of an electric generator that converts the rotating magnetic field into electric current.

(Image: EDF Energy)

EDF completed its acquisition of a portion of GE Vernova's nuclear conventional islands technology and services, including its Arabelle steam turbines, in May this year. The transaction included the manufacturing of conventional island equipment for new nuclear power plants as well as related maintenance and upgrade activities for existing nuclear plants outside of the Americas. EDF's acquisition of the business - at that time, known as GE Steam Power - was first announced in early 2022 and the final agreement was signed in the November of that year.

Construction of Hinkley Point C - composed of two EPR pressurised water reactors of 1630 MWe each - began in December 2018, with unit 1 of the plant originally scheduled to start up by the end of 2025, before that was revised to 2027 in May 2022. In January, EDF announced that the "base case" was now for unit 1 being operational in 2030, with the cost revised from GBP26 billion (USD32.8 billion) to between GBP31-34 billion, in 2015 prices.

When complete, the two EPR reactors will produce enough carbon-free electricity for six million homes, and are expected to operate for as long as 80 years.

SMRs to help decarbonise Dutch energy system, study concludes

Monday, 18 November 2024

Small modular reactors could play an important role and contribute to the Dutch energy transition, a joint report by NRG-Pallas and TNO concludes. The study shows that there is room for more than 13 SMRs in 2050.

(Image: NRG-Pallas / TNO)

The study, the partners said, utilises "NRG-Pallas' expertise in innovative reactor technologies and TNO's energy system model OPERA".

Two scenarios drawn up by TNO were used in this study: ADAPT and TRANSFORM. These scenarios are based on different visions of the future for the Dutch energy system. In both visions, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050.

In order to investigate the sensitivity of the results with respect to boundary conditions and assumptions, a few 'what-if' analyses were performed. These what-if analyses examined whether investment in and use of SMRs change when input parameters are varied.

"The results show that SMRs have a role to play in the Dutch energy transition," the study says. "The optimal contribution of SMRs to 2050 was calculated for various assumptions about future society. The results show that two to more than 13 SMRs (of 150 MWe) can be deployed with room for further expansion of this number in 2050."

It adds: "These results are contingent on policy objectives, expected market availability and realisation periods. If constraints on the potential deployment capacity are partially lifted, as is done in some of the what-if analyses, it is observed that there may even be room for more than 27 SMRs (of 150 MWe). This what-if analysis result can be interpreted as a more economically optimal solution, but is obviously conditional on the aforementioned aspects used to define the potential limits for the scenarios being sufficiently adjusted to allow for this to occur.

"On the other hand, with delayed introduction of SMRs or no nuclear at all, a carbon neutral energy system in 2050 is possible as well. The exact optimum depends mainly on the future of industry, and more specifically on the future heat demand from activities such as refineries and (bio-)aromatics production, and the degree of electrification in society. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that SMRs are an important option for decarbonisation of the industry by supplying process heat."

An earlier scenario study by TNO showed that in an energy system without new nuclear power plants, the system costs are 1% to 2.5% higher than with nuclear energy. "Although nuclear power plants are initially more expensive than wind turbines and solar panels, the loss of nuclear energy as an energy supply should be compensated for by greater use of more expensive flexibility options, such as energy storage," NRG-Pallas noted.

In April 2023, in its draft Climate Fund for 2024, the Dutch government budgeted funds totalling EUR320 million (USD352 million) for the development of nuclear energy. The funds will be used for the preparation of the operational extension of the existing Borssele nuclear power plant, the construction of two new large reactors, the development of small modular reactors and for nuclear skills development in the Netherlands.

In August 2022, the UK's Rolls-Royce SMR signed an exclusive agreement with ULC-Energy to collaborate on the deployment of Rolls-Royce SMR power plants in the Netherlands. ULC-Energy - established in 2021 and based in Amsterdam - aims to accelerate decarbonisation in the Netherlands by developing nuclear energy projects that efficiently integrate with residential and industrial energy networks in the country.

Chernobyl considered as site for new small modular reactors

Monday, 18 November 2024

The area around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is one of the places being looked at as potential locations for Ukraine's planned future wave of small modular reactors.

The former Chernobyl nuclear power plant is surrounded by an exclusion zone (Image: CHNPP

Representatives of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management and specialists from Ukraine's nuclear energy giant Energoatom, joined Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) officials last month to visit several areas within the exclusion zone and around the plant, CNPP reported. "This was followed by a technical discussion on the suitability of these sites for future SMR construction," it added.

It was the second on-site meeting to "review potential locations for small modular reactors (SMRs) proposed by Chornobyl NPP and discuss land allocation matters".

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant lies about 130 kilometres north of Kiev and about 20 kilometres south of the border with Belarus. Following the 1986 accident, a 30-kilometre exclusion zone was created around it. (Read more: World Nuclear Association's guide to the Chernobyl accident)

Ukraine's big plans for SMRs
 

Ukraine has plans for as many as nine new Westinghouse AP1000 large reactors across the country, as well as developing a programme for SMRs. Progress on its new nuclear has continued amid the on-going war with Russia, which has seen its largest nuclear power plant - Zaporizhzhia NPP - under Russian military control since early March 2022.

Energoatom signed an agreement last year which could pave the way for up to 20 of Holtec's SMRs. It has also been exploring options with a number of other potential SMR providers.

On Saturday at the COP29 UN climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bonnie Jenkins, and Ukraine Minister of Energy Herman Halushchenko announced three project partnerships:

- To build a pilot plant in Ukraine to demonstrate production of clean hydrogen and ammonia "using simulated safe and secure small modular reactor technology". The project is being carried out by a multinational public-private consortium from Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and the USA.
- Project Phoenix funding to help facilitate the transition of Ukraine’s coal-fired power plants to SMR nuclear power plants, carrying out siting and feasibility studies.
- To develop a roadmap and provide technical support to rebuild, modernise, and decarbonise Ukraine’s steel industry with SMRs.  The roadmap will pave the way for using clean electricity, process heat, and hydrogen from SMRs for clean steel manufacturing and production

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (AMSE) said it would be working to support the clean steel programme, with CEO Tom Costabile saying: "Small modular reactors are an important part of the clean energy future, as well as an economic redevelopment opportunity for Ukraine."

Russia places 'tit-for-tat' ban on US uranium exports

Monday, 18 November 2024

Russia has announced restrictions on exports of enriched uranium to the USA. The temporary ban is in response to US restrictions on imports of Russian uranium products which came into force earlier this year.

President Vladimir Putin said in September that Russia would consider placing restrictions on uranium exports (Image: Kremlin)

The Russian government announced the ban on its official website on 15 November as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 of 9 March 2022. It covers exports "to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States". Exemptions will be made for deliveries under one-off licences issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control.

"The decision was made on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 - a ban on the import of Russian uranium products," the Russian government said. "Vladimir Putin instructed to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials in September at a meeting with the Government."

According to the Tass news agency, Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said the ban was legal and the expected "tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities". Deliveries of Russian uranium to countries other than the USA "will continue without changes, on conditions agreed with customers and subject to requirements of national laws", Rosatom said.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Tass that "in cases where it serves our interests, Russia’s Federal Service for Technical and Export Control may decide to exclude certain items from this list of bans", but said the government had assessed the implications and consequences of the "absolutely reciprocal" countermeasures. "But the key point is that this should fully align with our interests and not undermine them. That is the basis for what has been done," he said.

US President Joe Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act in May after the bill was passed unanimously by the US Senate. The prohibition came into effect in August, and will last until the end of 2040. Waivers may be granted to allow the import of limited amounts of Russian-origin LEU, under certain circumstances, until 1 January 2028.

US enrichment company Centrus received such a waiver from the US Department of Energy in July, allowing it to import low-enriched uranium from Russia for delivery to US customers in 2024 and 2025. Tenex - a Russian government-owned company - is Centrus' largest supplier of low-enriched uranium for delivery to its US and international customers pursuant to a 2011 contract.

Tenex has now notified Centrus that its general licence to export the material to the USA has been rescinded under the decree, "effective through December 31, 2025", and that it is now required to obtain a specific export licence from the Russian authorities for each of its remaining 2024 shipments to Centrus and for shipments in 2025.

"Tenex has informed Centrus of its plan to seek the necessary export licences, in a timely manner, to allow it to meet its delivery obligations for the pending Centrus orders," Centrus said in a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The US company said it will be in communication with its customers whose pending orders may be affected and is assessing actions to mitigate adverse impacts.

"If TENEX is unable to secure export licences for our pending or future orders, it would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and competitive position," the company said.

According to US Energy Information Administration data, owners and operators of US nuclear power plants purchased a total of 51.6 million pounds U3O8 (19,848 tU) of deliveries from domestic and foreign suppliers in 2023. Most of this came from Canada (27% of total deliveries), Australia (22%) and Kazakhstan (22%): Russian-origin material accounted for 12% of total deliveries. Domestically produced material accounted for 5%. But while US facilities provided 28% of the uranium enrichment services - measured in separative work units, or SWU - purchased by US owners and operators in 2023, 27% came from Russia, more than any other foreign supplier.

World Nuclear News

Liberation Is Not Propaganda

By James Granelli, Raíra Fróes 

November 19, 2024

Source: Africa Is A Country

Image by Africa Is a Country

In the same week known climate denialist and convicted felon Donald Trump was re-elected to the White House, Africa Energy Week took place in Cape Town. Both spin lies, half-truths, and hypocrisy, claiming the benefits of fossil fuels for the poor, a sovereign state, and the key to self-determined development.

The argument against oil and gas due to their carbon emissions and resulting extreme weather across the continent has been regularly made and is now playing out materially in the form of droughts and floods that have wiped out 80 percent of Zimbabwe’s harvest and affected hundreds of thousands in Sudan respectively. However, what is missing is a rebuttal to the industry’s co-option of liberatory language and sustainable development critiques. Co-option is not unique to the African continent. As cases from Brazil show, the appropriation of sovereignty discourse by oil and gas companies never leads to equal benefits and, instead, continues to defend private (and mostly Western) interests.

Africa Energy Week, hosted by the Africa Energy Chamber, was a congregation in the supposed search for solutions to Africa’s energy crises. However, with the number of fossil fuel corporations, speakers from the African Petroleum Producers Organisation (APPO) and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and the number of energy ministers from across the continent, it was clearly a gathering on how to hook the continent on the false promises of oil and gas as transition fuels and argue that the environmental goals of the Global North were standing in the way of Africa’s development.

In his opening address, NJ Ayuk, the Executive Chairman of the African Energy Chamber and a convicted fraudster in the US, remarked on the importance of oil and gas for job creation and the continent’s right to energy sovereignty and economic growth. Disguised in the language of hope for Africa’s liberation and development is a new form of climate denial that appropriates progressive rhetoric in service of fossil fuel companies.

Researcher and activist Dr Alex Lenferna details in a recent publication how the appropriation of progressive causes, such as racial justice, decolonization, and anti-imperialism, was used as propaganda by Shell and Gwede Mantashe, South Africa’s Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, to attack critiques and local opponents to Shell’s seismic surveys on the west coast of the country.

Although not as explicit as Mantashe calling environmental activism “colonialism and apartheid of a special type,” the language of oil and gas giants and their critique of northern interference is used to enable the extraction of Africa’s resources with minimal protest.

Dr Lenferna classifies this language appropriation as propaganda, specifically arguing that it classifies as undermining demagoguery propaganda. He writes: “Echoing colonizers before them, the neocolonial push for oil and gas extraction comes masked as being good for the people who are trying to resist it.” As the propaganda echoes the colonial narratives of “development,” so too do the extractive practices as the profits and products are shipped offshore.

Calling out this appropriation of language is not a disagreement with the progressive claims themselves. Yes, we need energy. Yes, the continent needs to break from the neo-colonial chains imposed by structural adjustment and other “development” initiatives. But implying that oil and gas, an industry drenched in the colonial practices of extraction, destruction, resource appropriation, violence, and racial capitalism, is the way forward is hypocritical and an insult to those who wish and work for African sovereignty on Africa’s terms.

If the industry was genuine in its message on African sovereignty and liberation perhaps they might read the likes of anti-colonial leader Amilcar Cabral, agreeing with his quote: “we can affirm, without fear of contradiction… that, to defend the Earth is the most efficient process to defend Humankind.” However, this may sit uncomfortably with the ecocidal realities of oil extraction in the Niger Delta or plans to build an oil pipeline through national parks in East Africa.

In a similar fashion to the economic liberation rhetoric, Ayuk also pointed out that Africa should not compromise its development goals to fall in line with wealthier countries’ environmental standards—another tactic to justify fossil fuel expansion on the continent.

Here we are pointed to the valid critiques of sustainable development that highlight the injustices of the climate crisis and its multilateral solutionism, whereby rich countries dictate the playbook while the Global South suffers.

Even sustainable development conferences on the continent, such as the 2023 African Climate Summit, have offered little hope of change from the status quo—brimming with corporate solutions from the global North, including loans and carbon credit schemes, and relegated civil society voices to the background. These financialised solutions rehash histories of carbon colonialism and sideline local communities dealing with crop failures, flooding, pollution, and intense cyclones.

Likewise, we must also be attentive to green colonialism already unfolding in North Africa, where people are being displaced from the land for solar mega projects that serve European energy use and the current prospectors of green hydrogen, continuing relations of extraction and resource appropriation on the continent.

Notwithstanding these notable critiques of profiteering environmental policy, to claim that oil and gas are aligned with the climate justice critiques is a disservice to Global South activists, communities, and researchers who continue to counter climate solutions that perpetuate resource appropriation and skirt the issue of reparations from colonial plunder. Simply put, oil and gas are not part of the deep and radical Just Transition needed to avert climate catastrophe and ensure African prosperity.

The appropriation of Africa’s right to development subverts real concerns and aspirations about what kind of development we want. The case of TotalEnergies gas exploration in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique is a perfect example of the type of “development” the industry wishes to bring. Displacement, radicalization, war, suppression of the press, human rights violations, thousands killed, and a French corporation eventually pulling out of its “development” plans after leaving a region in chaos. This is by no means the radical, African-led, development that the likes of Kwame Nkrumah and others spoke about in their opposition to neocolonial development in the 1960’s and 70s. The “development” of Cabo Delgado, and many other places on the frontlines of extraction, is not the revolution the fossil fuel industry spins it to be.

Africa Energy Week 2024 had the slogan: “Making energy poverty history by 2030.” Energy poverty is a timely issue on the continent, and it needs solutions and infrastructure that ensure sovereignty as well as security. However, we have seen time and time again that fossil fuels are not aligned with such democratic or riotous principles. Betting on oil and gas, predominantly explored and extracted by foreign companies, for African energy sovereignty is like betting on the colonizer’s cannons to sink its ships. This bet is not unique to the continent and there are lessons to be learned from others in the Global South who have made these fairytales a reality.

Brazil’s Petrobras was founded in 1953 and conceived under the “Oil is ours” slogan – a movement focused on resource and financial sovereignty. The oil company was key to the Brazilian industrialization movement and held a monopoly over oil extractivism for a few decades as a state-owned company.

After decades of toe-dipping in international markets, a neoliberal shift turned it into a mixed capital enterprise in the 1990s, pushing Brazil’s oil economy into the murky waters of profit accumulation. Since then, its scope has expanded to oil, natural gas, and petrol derivatives. Truth be told, great efforts were made to maintain petrol economies outside of the hands of Western giants, but within a highly commodified market escaping its claws is a hard task.

Decades after its birth, Petrobras has been the protagonist of corruption scandals, has failed to meet sustainability goals, and kept profit margins high. Between 2014 and 2015, Operation Car Wash became globally known for its uncovering of one of the world’s largest corruption scandals—the accompanying media coverage was later captured by polarized political discourse, pushing community interests and ecological impacts to the background of the conversation once more.

This neoliberal turn was also felt by the national electricity provider, Eletrobras, where the privatization of service providers marked its lack of commitment to community interests. Although the company strives to be known for its role in expanding the Brazilian electricity grid and bringing affordable power to urban and rural areas alike, recent research shows that over 45% of Brazilian households spend at least half of their income to keep the lights on.

Today, Brazil faces climate disasters almost daily, including soaring deforestation rates, destructive wildfires, droughts, and floods. Ongoing developments may worsen this crisis: Petrobrás is currently expanding plans for deep-sea drilling off the Brazilian equatorial coast, closing in on the Amazon river mouth and dozens of indigenous communities who strongly oppose the project. The dangers of deep-sea extractivism are growing in South Africa; both oil and gas licenses continue to be negotiated in the Orange Basin, their ongoing efforts hard to track. Multinationals continue to pull in and out of contracts, while the majority of South Africans remain out of the loop when it comes to control of the country’s natural resources.

As yet another climate conference begins in the petro-state of Azerbaijan, the lessons from Brazil should be front and center of the Global South delegations displeased with the Global North’s reluctance to pay up for loss and damage while demanding shifts in energy regimes across the South. The fossil fuel industry will continue to spin its “solutions” as anti-imperial and for the people. However, like in Brazil, the industry will never be revolutionary but will forever be tied to a business model that places profit over habitability. We must ask what kind of development we want and need, implementing solutions from and for the continent that improve habitability for all.

James Granelli  is a MPhil candidate with Environmental Humanities South at the University of Cape Town, researching multi-species politics and relations in the Cape Town critical zone.