Showing posts sorted by date for query BIOFUELS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query BIOFUELS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Drill Baby Drill Returns as G20 Drops Fossil Fuel Phase-Out from Final Draft

The G20 just fumbled the fossil fuel debate. Or did it?

Rio’s final G20 statement dropped any explicit call to phase out oil, gas, and coal. Instead, it offered vague applause for the UAE Consensus from COP28. This wasn’t an oversight. It was a decision.

At COP28, 200 countries agreed to phase out fossil fuels by 2050. The G7 doubled down earlier this year. COP29 in Baku was supposed to build on this. Then Rio happened.

Now, G20 leaders are dodging the hard part. No one should be shocked. The idea that “inexperienced aides” missed the memo on the importance of banning fossil fuels? Please. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Here’s the dynamic: COP talks big. G20 delivers (or doesn’t). COP says, “let’s save the planet.” G20 says, “who’s paying for it?” This time, they didn’t even fake enthusiasm.

Some are calling Rio a win, pointing to the G20’s promise to scale up climate finance “from billions to trillions.” But this comes wrapped in vague promises, with no details on timelines or mechanisms. Critics are already calling it hollow rhetoric, masking the absence of real action on fossil fuels.

Trump’s reelection played its part. His pro-oil stance and “drill, baby, drill” battle cry have reshaped global climate diplomacy—all without being armed with more than mere words and a healthy show of voter support. G20 leaders were always going to tread lightly. The political reality now favors fossil fuels, and that was reflected in Rio’s final language—or lack of it.

The implications are huge. Without G20 backing, COP29 is hanging by a thread. Negotiators in Baku are scrambling. Pro-oil nations like Azerbaijan are seizing the moment. Argentina didn’t even bother to show up.

Blame is flying everywhere. Some point fingers at Brazil’s leadership for mishandling the language. Others blame a fractured G7. But blaming bureaucratic missteps misses the point. This was never about incompetence. It was about priorities.

The G20 has spoken—just not in words. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere fast. The tide hasn’t just turned; it’s gone out completely. Anyone surprised by this wasn’t paying attention.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com


Why Big Oil Is Scaling Back Renewables Investment


- Nov 19, 2024

Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots.


While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments.




Europe’s biggest oil and gas companies have changed their approach to energy supply twice over the past five years.

First came the ambitions to become major players in the renewables sector and goals to reduce oil and gas production by the end of the decade. That was in 2019 and early 2020 when Big Oil firms were racing to announce major shifts in strategy toward conventional and green energy.

This strategy held for about two years until the energy market shocks from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the financial shocks of soaring inflation and rising interest rates upended everything again.

Poor Returns, Soaring Costs


Big Oil’s returns in the renewables business were slim, at best, even before the 2022 energy and inflation shocks. Following these shocks, the soaring costs made investments unprofitable, and the European majors Shell, BP, and Equinor took millions of U.S. dollars in impairments on European and U.S. projects in 2023.

Meanwhile, oil and gas production and trading were reaping high returns, and the majors’ profits skyrocketed to all-time highs. European oil and gas giants saw their valuation gap widen to the U.S. peers, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

To shore up share prices and close that gap with the U.S. giants, BP and Shell changed tack and returned to their roots—the core business of pumping and trading conventional energy, which they see (again) as crucial to delivering to consumers while the world moves forward with the energy transition.

Scaling Back Renewables

While the majors aren’t abandoning all the renewable projects they embarked on in 2020 and 2021, they have started to scale back investments and are streamlining these on developments and energy solutions that they see as profitable.

France’s TotalEnergies is the outlier in the group, as it has continued to focus on growing renewable energy capacity and power generation through acquisitions and joint ventures globally.

But the others—Shell, BP, and Equinor—have all reviewed or are reviewing their involvement in clean energy solutions.

BP, for example, said in June that it was scaling back plans for the development of new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel biofuels projects at its existing sites, pausing planning for two potential projects while continuing to assess three for progression.

“This is aligned with bp’s drive to simplify its portfolio, focusing on value and returns,” the UK-based supermajor said.

Weeks later, the other UK-based giant, Shell, said it was pausing on-site construction work at a biofuels plant in Rotterdam amid weak market conditions, taking a $780-million impairment charge for the second quarter for this.


The pause at the 820,000 tons-a-year biofuels facility at the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Rotterdam in the Netherlands was needed “to address project delivery and ensure future competitiveness given current market conditions,” the company said.

Shell has also sold its retail home energy businesses in the UK and Germany.

In the summer of 2023, the supermajor unveiled its new strategy to continue investing in oil and gas production and selectively pour capital into renewable energy solutions, angering climate activists and some institutional investors.

Shell’s CEO Wael Sawan has said that reducing global oil and gas production would be “dangerous and irresponsible” as the world still needs those hydrocarbons.

Earlier this year, Shell reaffirmed its ambitions to be a net-zero energy business by 2050 but eased its carbon intensity target for 2030 as it has shifted away from clean power sales to retail customers.

Most recently, on the Q3 2024 earnings call, CEO Sawan said, commenting on the company’s focus on its core business, “We start from the perspective of believing that oil and gas have a critical role in the energy transition for a long time to come.”

“We fundamentally believe that this energy transition is going to be a multi-decadal journey,” Sawan added.

“We fundamentally believe that you’re going to require multiple energy forms to be able to navigate the energy transition and we do see that the energy system will start to see more uncertainty and more volatility in the context of geopolitical changes, demand supply cycles and the like, of course the intermittency of renewables as well.”

BP, for its part, is reportedly scrapping a previous target to reduce its oil and gas production by the end of the decade.

The company is also reportedly considering a potential sale of a minority stake in its offshore wind business in a move to reduce spending on project developments in the sector.

In the Q3 results release, CEO Murray Auchincloss said “In oil and gas, we see the potential to grow through the decade with a focus on value over volume.”

“We also have a deep belief in the opportunity afforded by the energy transition,” Auchincloss added.

Norway’s Equinor is reviewing its renewables business, although it continues to bet big on offshore wind in the long term, evident in the recent acquisition of 9.8% in Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore wind farm developer.

Equinor has time to wait for a better investment climate in some of the offshore wind opportunities, chief financial officer Torgrim Reitan told analysts on the Q3 earnings call.

“It will come, but for the time being, we are doing some changes organizationally to focus on business development activity, to reduce our cost levels and set ourselves up for playing this in the long run as such.”

“There is very high inflation within the renewable business and there are clear bottlenecks in the supply chains,” Reitan noted.

By Tsvetana Parakova for Oilprice.com

Friday, November 15, 2024

Eco-friendly biomass pretreatment method yields efficient biofuels and adsorbents



A new biomass densification technique promises cost-effective bioethanol production and dye wastewater treatment



Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts

A New Biomass Densification Technique Promises Cost-Effective Bioethanol Production and Dye Wastewater Treatment 

image: 

Eco-Friendly Biomass Pretreatment Method Yields Efficient Biofuels and Adsorbents

view more 

Credit: School of Environmental and Biological Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China




As global demand for sustainable energy solutions increases, bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass is gaining traction. However, traditional methods face limitations due to high processing costs and waste issues. A recent study led by Xinchuan Yuan, published in the Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts, presents an innovative biomass pretreatment method that not only improves bioethanol production efficiency but also utilizes biomass residues as bio-adsorbents for wastewater treatment, potentially transforming the industry.

 

Producing bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass is essential for developing sustainable fuels. However, existing pretreatment methods often involve high sugar loss and require intensive solid-liquid separation, adding to production costs. This study introduces a densification pretreatment approach that uses sulfuric acid and metal salts under mild autoclave conditions, which reduces energy requirements and operational costs.

 

The researchers employed a combination of sulfuric acid and metal salts, specifically FeCl₃ and ZnCl₂, for pretreatment at 121°C. This process, called densified lignocellulosic biomass with sulfuric acid and metal salts (DLCA(SA-MS)), allows biomass loading as high as 400 kg/m³, a substantial increase over typical levels. The DLCA(SA-MS) biomass achieved over 95% sugar retention and 90% enzymatic sugar conversion, reaching a high fermentable sugar concentration of 212.3 g/L. This advancement could increase bioethanol yields, meeting growing energy needs sustainably.

 

Beyond bioethanol, the study also addresses the environmental impact of lignocellulosic residue. After bioethanol extraction, DLCA(SA-MS) residues were processed into bio-adsorbents. These bio-adsorbents exhibited strong adsorption properties for dyes like methyl orange and methylene blue, which are common pollutants in textile wastewater. The bio-adsorbents achieved removal rates of over 90% for methyl orange and 80% for methylene blue, offering an effective and eco-friendly solution for industrial wastewater treatment.

 

The DLCA(SA-MS) pretreatment method demonstrates significant potential in industrial applications by increasing bioethanol production efficiency and providing a sustainable approach to managing biomass residues. With its dual benefits—enhanced biofuel yields and dye wastewater treatment—this method aligns well with current environmental goals and economic pressures for sustainable biorefinery operations.

This new approach marks an important step toward full-component utilization of lignocellulosic biomass, reducing production costs, and improving environmental outcomes. Future research will focus on scaling up the process and further refining pretreatment conditions to maximize benefits.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobab.2024.09.004

Funding:

This research received support from the School of Environmental and Biological Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, and other institutional sponsors.

Citation:

Yuan, X., Shen, G., Huo, J., Chen, S., Shen, W., Zhang, C., & Jin, M. (2024). Enhanced biomass densification pretreatment using binary chemicals for efficient lignocellulosic valorization. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts, 9, 548–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobab.2024.09.004

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

LISBON CONFERENCE

Tech’s green wave hits choppy waters



By AFP
November 13, 2024

Tech ambitions include producing sustainable jet fuel out of the carbon dioxide in the air - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP Daniel Boczarski
Joseph BOYLE

Tech entrepreneurs have spent years selling the dream that we can save the planet without changing our ways, but the current focus of innovation is dividing experts and investors.

The tech industry loves splashy world-saving ideas and spends billions on the hunt for new energy sources, often clashing with calls from activists and experts simply to use less energy.

The Web Summit in Lisbon this week, one of Europe’s biggest tech events, gave top billing to a Californian firm called Twelve that claims to be able to make sustainable jet fuel out of the carbon dioxide in the air.

“In a lot of ways we’re mimicking trees and plants,” Twelve cofounder Etosha Cave told the audience, describing a process that takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and converts it into fuel.

Cave painted a picture of a future where her company’s tech could power long-haul flights and even help exploit mineral wealth on Mars — a utopian vision that has helped her firm raise some $650 million.

The interviewer on stage with Cave told her it “sounds like magic”.

Climate expert Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at the University of Lancaster in the UK, told AFP that world-changing claims about sustainable fuel or new energy sources needed to be viewed sceptically.

“Everyone’s looking for a silver bullet that would mean we wouldn’t have to do anything difficult,” he said.

More broadly, the green wave in tech is entering a tricky period.

While Twelve and other major startups are attracting massive investment, Bloomberg recently reported that funding for climate tech was on track to fall 50 percent this year compared with last year.



– Big losses –



And climate tech has long been subject to the whims of politics and global economic trends.

The current green wave is the second this century.

The first — now called Clean Tech 1.0 — was fostered by US politician Al Gore, whose calls for funding were met with an estimated $25 billion of investments.

The period ended in 2011 after the global financial crisis ended cheap loans and China ramped up its solar panel output, wiping out most US startups and roughly half of investors’ cash.

But those investments were not wasted.

They led to an era of inexpensive solar and wind power and laid the foundations for the electric vehicle revolution.

Clean Tech 2.0 began around 2018 as companies and governments committed to net-zero carbon targets laid out by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

However, the US has re-elected Donald Trump as president with support from many leaders in the tech industry.

Trump — an avowed climate-change denier whose campaigning slogan on fossil fuels was “dig baby dig” — withdrew the US from the agreement in his first term and analysts believe he will do the same again.

And the global fight against climate change is still fraught, with national leaders meeting for the UN’s COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan this week divided on the idea of phasing out fossil fuels, the main driver of global warming.



– ‘Severe reservations’ –



All this leaves climate tech in a precarious moment, and startups without world-saving narratives are scrambling to get funding from a smaller pot.

Web Summit hosted dozens of them, hawking everything from blockchain-backed “virtual power plants” to smart widgets for stopping household leaks.

While some experts are cynical about the utility of these “shark tank” style events, Elisabeth Gilmore, a professor of environmental engineering at Carleton University in Canada, said she had no problem with young entrepreneurs making big claims.

“These innovations should be eyebrow-raising,” she told AFP.

She said events like the Web Summit could focus minds, but cautioned that entrepreneurs must look beyond the profit motive and make products that help communities.

Berners-Lee questioned whether some of the most eye-catching ideas could be as good as they sounded.

“If these are real solutions that are ready to go, if they’re as good as they look, they would be scaling up like crazy,” he said.

Sustainable jet fuel, he said, was one of the toughest nuts to crack and would need major breakthroughs in storage and power usage.

Cave conceded on stage that Twelve needed “utility-level” renewables as well as power from the grid for her firm’s plants, though she said it used far less land and energy than biofuels.

More broadly, Berners-Lee questioned whether the search for new power sources should even be an aim for humanity.

“I would have severe reservations about giving humanity an unlimited energy supply beyond carbon — we’re causing enough damage with the energy we’ve already got,” he said.


RENEWABLES CANCEL CULTURE

Alberta bets on natural gas and carbon capture for data centre boom


By Chris Hogg
November 13, 2024


Nate Glubish, Alberta's Minister of Technology and Innovation of Alberta, sits down with Digital Journal's Chris Hogg. - Photo by Jennifer Friesen, Digital Journal

“I’ve talked to all the major players, and they all have a plan on ESG, they all care about their environmental commitments, but they are also realists,” said Alberta’s Minister of Technology and Innovation, Nate Glubish. “They all know you cannot run a data centre on renewables. It is not physically possible.”

In an interview with Digital Journal during Calgary’s Innovation Week, Glubish spoke about Alberta’s ambitious push to attract data centre investments.

The province sees data centres as essential infrastructure for the digital age and is positioning itself to be a global hub, with its unique ability to supply reliable, high-capacity power for these energy-intensive facilities.
Why data centres matter, and why Alberta wants them

Data centres are the backbone of everything we do today. They store everything from company files to social media content, and they handle billions of daily transactions across the world.

The expansion of AI, cloud computing, and streaming services has only intensified demand.

Alberta wants to be a top choice for these projects, seizing an opportunity to diversify its economy and leverage its abundant energy resources.

Alberta’s edge, the minister said, is its vast energy potential and investor-friendly policies.

According to Glubish, the province’s regulatory system allows for faster approvals, especially for “off-grid, behind-the-fence” infrastructure, which is critical for data centres that can’t risk power interruptions.

Off-grid, behind-the-fence infrastructure refers to energy solutions where data centres are powered independently of the public electricity grid. These facilities generate their own power on-site or nearby using dedicated power sources such as natural gas or other localized energy infrastructure.

This setup allows for greater control, reliability, and often quicker regulatory approval since it doesn’t require extensive connection to or dependence on the larger, public energy grid.

Another big selling point for the province is its weather — Alberta’s cooler climate makes it attractive for data centre operations.

Data centres generate intense heat and require constant cooling to maintain optimal operating temperatures, which is one of their largest operational costs. Alberta’s naturally colder weather helps offset some of these cooling demands, reducing energy consumption and operational expenses for companies.

This climate benefit, combined with the province’s competitive energy strategy, makes Alberta an appealing location for data centres seeking both reliability and efficiency in their infrastructure.
Data centres’ constant need for power

Data centres run continuously to support the uninterrupted flow of digital information.

Even brief outages can disrupt financial markets, healthcare records, and cloud services for millions.

For data centres, base load power — the kind that can be relied on at all times — is essential.

While renewable energy is part of Alberta’s plan, it isn’t enough to meet data centres’ immediate demands, Glubish said.

The province’s natural gas resources, coupled with carbon capture, allow Alberta to provide a cleaner, reliable energy source now, Glubish said.

Nuclear power is also an option, and so is coal.

Coal is on its way out in Canada because of its high greenhouse gas emissions, and while nuclear energy offers a much cleaner option, it will take 10 to 15 years to build, Glubish says, noting that many of the big tech companies plan to look at building small modular reactors in the future.

“Natural gas is the only way to get this up at scale, and Alberta’s positioned extraordinarily well to supply significant natural gas-fired power plants,” he said. “The good news is that we also have the world’s leading expertise in carbon capture and utilization and storage. For a fraction of the cost of building nuclear, you can get net-zero natural gas.”
The reality of renewable energy for data centres

Glubish acknowledges Alberta’s dual commitment to data centre growth and environmental stewardship.

While renewable projects are a priority, Glubish is clear: they aren’t currently feasible for data centres at scale.

THIS IS THE USUAL RENEWABLE REJECTION ARGUEMENT THAT IS FALSE


Wind and solar power fluctuate based on weather and time of day, making them insufficient to meet the non-stop energy needs of data centres.

BATTERY STORAGE OF POWER SOLVES THAT


In 2023, the Alberta government temporarily halted approvals for large-scale renewable projects to address concerns related to land use, end-of-life reclamation, and effects on agricultural land. This moratorium was lifted in 2024, but with added regulations to restrict the placement of new projects in certain areas, including agricultural lands.

This land-use debate has become a major consideration in discussions around powering new data centres.

Glubish noted that Alberta’s approach isn’t a rejection of renewables — it’s a prioritization of energy solutions that work right now while keeping future goals in view.


Alberta is courting Big Tech to the province

eStruxture Data Centers, a Canadian company, announced a significant investment in Alberta in October of 2024, indicating it planned to build a 90-megawatt data centre in Rocky View County, just north of Calgary.

This $750 million investment is set to be the largest data centre in Alberta, focusing on AI, cloud technologies, and high-capacity computing.

The Alberta government has also been actively courting U.S. tech firms to establish data centres in the province.

In September 2024, Glubish visited Silicon Valley to promote the province’s advantages, including its cold climate and abundant energy resources.

As data centres multiply globally, Alberta is making a clear statement: it’s ready to support this demand with the energy stability and strategic planning these projects require.
Follow and subscribe:

Digital Journal is the official media partner of Innovation Week YYC. Here’s how you can follow:  
See all Innovation Week coverage



Saturday, November 09, 2024

 

UC Santa Cruz chemists discover new process to make biodiesel production easier, less energy intensive




University of California - Santa Cruz
UC Santa Cruz chemist with biodiesel product 

image: 

Kevin Lofgren in the lab holding a flask containing the pure biodiesel product made with the process described in the journal Energy & Fuels.

view more 

Credit: UC Santa Cruz




UC Santa Cruz chemists have discovered a new way to produce biodiesel from waste oil that both simplifies the process and requires relatively mild heat. This discovery has the potential to make the alternative fuel source much more appealing to the massive industrial sectors that are the backbone of the nation’s economy.

In 2022, the U.S. transportation sector alone used about 3 million barrels of diesel per day, accounting for about 75% of total consumption of the fuel in this country. That same year, diesel use accounted for about 10% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. 

While some companies have turned towards electric vehicles to reduce their carbon footprint, the vast majority of fleets still run on diesel—in part, because biodiesel production is difficult, energy intensive, and so, has slowed adoption. Of all the energy sources used by the U.S. transportation sector in 2022, biofuels accounted for just 6%.

In their study, published on October 3 in the American Chemical Society journal Energy & Fuels, lead author Kevin Lofgren details a new way to turn used vegetable oil into biodiesel that involves sodium tetramethoxyborate (NaB(OMe)4). This chemical, used to make the active ingredient that reacts with oil to make biodiesel, is considered unique because it allows the biofuel to be easily separated from the byproducts of production—by simply pouring them off. 

Another benefit is the resulting byproduct can be used to regenerate the most expensive ingredient in the production process. And last but not least, the reaction can be completed in under an hour at temperatures as low as 40°C (104°F)—saving energy and money.

“I always wanted to work on biodiesel,” said Lofgren, a Ph.D. student in chemistry at UC Santa Cruz. “I started exploring this new material that we made to see if it could attack the fats in oil to help catalyze biodiesel, and it all flowed from there.”

While individual consumers increasingly turn to solar and electric energy to power their homes and vehicles, America’s huge industrial sectors still rely on diesel fuel. Lofgren pointed out that the majority of the trucks, trains, and boats that ship goods around the world currently run on diesel engines and won’t be electrified any time soon.

Meanwhile, the researchers point out, biodiesel is a carbon-neutral fuel that is available today and approved to power these vehicles without the need for engine modifications.

Reducing the energy needed to make biofuel

Some of the current methods for making biodiesel produce soap as a byproduct, which makes purifying the fuel difficult and results in less actual product. Other approaches rely on palm oil, which require clearing trees in rainforests to make room for monoculture palm tree plantations. These methods are also energy intensive, requiring extremely high temperatures and pressures. The technique detailed in this study can produce biodiesel at a temperature lower than that required to boil water.

“To make energy takes a lot of energy,” said co-author Scott Oliver, professor of chemistry and biochemistry. “Our method uses waste oil and mild heating, compared to current petroleum refineries that are energy consuming and pollution causing.”

According to the researchers, the method they discovered turns about 85% of used vegetable oil into biodiesel and passes almost all industry standards for use as fuel in heavy machinery and transportation vehicles. The exception was water content, though, it was only slightly higher than the acceptable value. The researchers expect that once this process is scaled up, the water content will be within acceptable levels.

“This new method is special because it is simple and affordable. It has the bonus of being able to regenerate the starting material,” Lofgren said. “It's already low-cost enough to make it competitive. But if you can buy the most expensive ingredient once and then regenerate it, it would be more cost efficient in the long run.”

“Everybody needs energy—every farm, food production plant, and transportation vehicle depend on it,” Oliver said. “This could really impact people. This process can be done at just above room temperature and it's reusable. You don't need to have a refinery; you can potentially use this method on a farm.”

Bakthan Singaram, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UC Santa Cruz, is co-corresponding author of the paper, “Borate Pathway to FAMEs at Near-Ambient Conditions from Used Oil,” which is funded by an Innovation Catalyst Grant, Climate Action Solutions Program.

Monday, October 28, 2024

Could seaweed farms become the next generation of mines?

Amanda Stutt | October 25, 2024

Seaweed farming in Kodiak, Alaska. Image credit: Rachelle Hacmac.

Blue Evolution, a California-based regenerative ocean farming company, announced Thursday it has merged with Blu3, a company specializing in regenerative ocean technologies.


The move, Blue Evolution said, creates a combined entity that will leverage enhanced R&D capabilities to drive innovation and commercialize new seaweed-based products across multiple sectors – agriculture, biomaterials – and critical minerals.

In December of last year, the US Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) first announced its selection of scientific teams to explore the feasibility of extracting critical minerals from ocean macroalgae.

In July this year, Blue Evolution announced a groundbreaking advancement in sustainable biomining after it partnered with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Virginia Tech to develop a revolutionary method for sustainably extracting critical minerals and rare earth elements from seaweed.

The company operates seaweed farms in California and Alaska, and this month finalized a joint venture with the Māori Iwi Tribe to scale regenerative seaweed farming in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

From biofuels to rare earths

Blue Evolution CEO Beau Perry has been working with ARPA-E since 2017, first on large-scale systems for cultivation of seaweed for biofuels in Kodiak, Alaska, testing new hardware to grow seaweed in abundance, sustainably and economically.

Alaska is unparalleled in the US in terms of seaweed farming because of its size, environmental conditions and infrastructure. Perry noted both the state and the public are much more receptive to seaweed farming than to mining projects.

“It’s a relatively new industry. In post-war Japan, the coastal seaweed the Japanese had harvested for a long time was kind of destroyed…A British woman had closed the life cycle on nori in the early 50s. Seaweed farming was fairly new as a major agricultural sector, but now we grow, globally, 30 million tons of it,” Perry told MINING.com in an interview.

More than half of it is grown in China, but also Japan, Korea, Philippines and Indonesia.

The United States only entered the market ten years ago, and Perry said the US has grown a couple thousand tons so far.

Of over 10,000 species of seaweed worldwide, 300 species have been commercialized. Blue Evolution is working with six different species – four that they are growing in Alaska. Perry said seaweed has the potential to enter multiple markets because of its sustainability.

“It soaks up a lot more carbon than any terrestrial biomass per area, and it really only needs sunlight and seawater,” he said.

“We were looking [at] how to render biofuels from seaweed. PNNL was doing very in-depth content analyses of different samples of different species from different locations in our farmer network. We worked with different farmers that we’ve helped set up in Alaska, including the first ever commercial farm in Kodiak.”

Blue Evolution Kodiak kelp harvest, Alaska. Image credit: Rachelle Hacmac.

The team started to find some unusual levels of minerals designated as in the strategic interest of US economic development and national security, but Perry said what got the Department of Energy’s attention was the rare earths.

The discovery is a positive development for a nascent North American rare earths market and taps into the broader issue of the glaring lack of domestic production. China has a near monopoly on mining and refining the group of 17 metals that are crucial to the development of smart electronic devices and wind turbines, and which are notoriously difficult to extract and expensive to process.

“This was sort of a beautiful accident, and it’s all a function of what’s in the water where the seaweed is growing,” Perry said.

“They’re a prolific sponge – they soak up nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon and a lot of minerals, and so in this first pass at the content analysis, we got a certain set of signals around REEs and precious metals, like rhodium, palladium and scandium.”

Each species of seaweed is metabolically prone to take up a certain set of minerals, and Perry noted some are really fascinating.

“We’ve seen sort of peaks and flat lines from different locations around the globe, and now we’re starting to fill in the puzzle of which seaweed could grow where to get what minerals,” he said.

“It’s clear that each one is taking up some combination of precious minerals, REEs and these other strategic minerals.”

The team has preliminary data and is working to understand which species, where, how they are grown, and determining scalable extraction methods.

“There’s kind of this matrix of ‘what am I growing the seaweed for?’ I think critical minerals past a certain scale will always be part of that based on what we’re seeing,” Perry said. “ In certain locations, that might be the primary one if we find a species that really soaks this stuff up. We’re talking parts per million, and even parts per billion as a baseline. It’s perfectly standard in mining.”
Doubling seaweed value

Perry said the company is forging ahead with a “very critical mineral centric expedition” to find if there are places to focus on critical minerals and develop farms that are primarily oriented towards producing them.

“It’s possible that the critical minerals are disruptive to seaweed farming economics generally. They could double the value of the biomass,” he said.

“If I were to grow at a level where … at a significant scale relative to that market, the amount of critical minerals that will be running through our supply chain will be significant. In some cases, maybe fundamentally changing the supply picture for specific critical minerals.”

“There are some tricks that we’re going to explore to really enhance the amount of rare earths per ton of biomass. It’s taking these things up all the time.

There are ways to coax maybe orders of magnitude more than we’re finding by accident, not really trying. We can do things at the genetic level, selecting for strains that are going to bioaccumulate more of a given target critical mineral.”

The goal, Perry said, is to really understand what’s possible from an extraction standpoint.

“There’s a certain amount of critical minerals that are economically recoverable from a site, but around it are a million years of sediment that the seaweed will be sort of steeped in, like a sponge. And that yield should actually increase over time, given that the baseline of those minerals should stay the same pretty much over a long period of time. And we’re going to get better at getting the seaweed to accumulate them and getting them out.”

When you think about a seaweed farm as a mine, it’s unlikely to run out anytime soon,” Perry said. “It will be replenished constantly by the ocean. So that, I think, from a mining perspective is pretty radical – I don’t need to spend $100 million to maybe break ground on a mine in 20 years.”
BRICS Rejects Global Climate Action

All the details from the Kazan Declaration
October 28, 2024
Source: Planet Critical


Sovereigntwas the theme of this year’s BRICS Summit, the 16th annual conference of major oil producing and rapidly developing countries. BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—are now fielding membership applications from all over the majority world, including one NATO member: Turkey.

The alliance is now undeniably formidable, hosted in the heart of Moscow by the supposedly isolated Putin who looked anything but. Western economists and policy-makers have shrugged off the goals of BRICS, including de-dollarization, as merely ideological noise, thinking the resource-holding group would splinter either in their relationships or at least under the pressure of Western hegemony. This, of course, is because neoclassical economists mistake wealth for the result of political power and innovation, not energy exploitation. With immense resources for energy production and exploitation within their own borders, BRICS can readily challenge that Western hegemony which depends on them to survive.

The only thing keeping resource-rich nations in line has been the USD. As the world’s reserve currency, nations have been forced to scramble to attain USD in order to trade with other nations. This has granted the USA enormous power to make the world order according to how it sees fit, which is now being directly challenged by BRICS who propose to facilitate trade in nations’ own currencies. I wrote about this in depth a few months ago and, despite the conference held last week, there has been little news on that front. What was striking about the conference, and the Kazan Declaration (read the original document or my highlighted version here) was the extent to which BRICS have been busy creating other parallel infrastructures and institutions in response to Western dominance over global trade and policy, from the creation of scientific journals to an online trading platform for grain.1

Yet, behind each of these collaborations is a continued affirmation of national sovereignty, a boast in response to the iron grip with which the USA has ruled the world. National sovereignty is of course important, but the Kazan Declaration should also serve as a warning that, in a BRICS world order, international scientific agreement will come second to national jurisdiction when it comes to climate and environment. What begins as a series of nuanced statements in the document, such as stressing the importance of “honouring” the Paris Agreement (a misleading statement in itself given we have overshot 1.5 degrees already) but also the differentiated responsibilities “in the light of different national circumstances”, becomes an outright rejection of global emergency measures or sacrifices2: “We oppose unilateral measures introduced under the pretext of climate and environmental concerns and reiterate our commitment to enhancing coordination on these issues.”3

BRICS states they are committed to a just energy transition but use the shield of national sovereignty to avoid defining what that transition looks like—ensuring each member can continue extracting and consuming whatever fuel source they so choose under the guise of intra-border sustainability.

“We reiterate the need to take into account national circumstances, including climate and natural conditions, the structure of national economy and energy mix as well as the specific circumstances of those developing countries whose economies heavily depend on income or consumption of fossil fuels and related energy-intensive products to achieve just energy transitions.”4

Whilst the second half of the above sentence would not be out of place in an article on degrowth, it only serves to obfuscate that the first half is a permissive clause for developed countries to continue using fossil fuels if they deem said fuels are inherent to the structure of their economy and energy mix. For the moment, almost every country in the world is inherently fossil-fuelled, and thus this misleading statement provides a carte blanche for the continued extraction and exploitation of these fuels.

The real kicker is the very next sentence which openly states the BRICS countries are committed to the continued use of fossil fuels “with [carbon] removal technologies”. The document then lists other energy sources which will be used, from nuclear to biofuels, and includes natural gas on that list. This is alarming because natural gas—methane gas—is a fossil fuel primarily used for heating and which studies have shown to pollute more emissions than coal, yet adding it in addition to “fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies” suggests that BRICS is attempting both to position natural gas as a transition fuel (following in the footsteps of the Western hegemony they’re so desperate to leave behind) and that its use will not fall under the same mandate of deploying “removal technologies” to mitigate its emissions.

Alarmingly, this entire paragraph is framed as the principle of “technological neutrality” and that any and all energy mixes can thus be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: “We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.”5

Unsurprisingly, then, for a group keen on extracting fossil fuels well into the future, they declare the wild assertion that policies such as carbon taxes and due diligence requirements are punitive and discriminatory:

“We reject unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures, that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), due diligence requirements, taxes and other measures and reconfirm our full support for the call in COP28 related to avoidance of unilateral trade measures based on climate or environment.”6

Now, I understand that the USA has been a ferociously hostile and unapologetically dominant world power which has mowed down lives, cities, nations, democracy for its own gain. Nonetheless, this Declaration makes me want to bang my head against my desk because it is yet another grand affirmation of our political leaders’ inability to lead, surely a key tenet of their position. Yes, the USA has a well documented history of weaponising just about any institution, policy, or even crisis to advance its political agenda—and is undoubtedly doing the same with regards to the eco-crisis—and so it is unsurprising that nations who now have the power and networks to insulate themselves from such behaviour will do so. However, national sovereignty must not take precedence over scientific acumen. In prioritising protectionism, the BRICS countries have missed the opportunity to create a politics for the new world they’re determined to midwife; their offer is one of hierarchy—of world order—which, in truth, is nothing new.

We are once again faced with another iteration of the same old story, this time with different players. The whole point of the eco-crisis is we need to change the board we’re playing on—or even admit that this is not a game. Citizens all around the world are eagerly looking for reassurance and leadership in this time of crisis, hence the rise of authoritarian and fascistic father figures. BRICS could have secured their place in history as leaders by listening to their citizens concerns and deploying genuine, emergency collaborative efforts to ramp down fossil fuels, ramp up decarbonisation, redistribute power and wealth, invest in equitable development, and choke off the USA’s power by reducing the amount of money flowing through its markets. Instead of using their network to seed a radical shift towards the future, they’re hiding behind their network to bulwark any American aggression towards self-fortification.

And what will that aggression look like? Trump has said he will put a 100% tariff on any country that de-dollarizes because “that will be a hit to our country just like losing a war.” America doesn’t like to lose, Trump even less so. If neither of these power blocs assert real leadership to navigate us into a changing world we are all set to lose.


1 BRICS Health Journal, BRICS Economics Bulletin, BRICS Grain Exchange

2 Kazan Declaration, paragraph 15

3 Kazan Declaration, paragraph 85

4 Kazan Declaration, paragraph 81

5 Kazan Declaration, paragraph 81

6 Kazan Declaration, paragraph 83

Rachel Donald  is a climate corruption journalist investigating what keeps the world in crisis—and what to do about it. She writes for Planet: Critical on substack.

BRICS Breakthrough? Economists Richard Wolff & Patrick Bond on Growing Alliance, Challenge to U.S.



October 26, 2024
Source: Democracy Now!


Will the BRICS economic and political alliance change the world’s U.S.-centered balance of power? As the annual BRICS summit wraps up in Russia, we host a debate between American economist Richard Wolff and South African sociologist Patrick Bond over the significance of the conference. This year, the nine BRICS countries invited 13 new “partner states” into their alliance, which Wolff calls “historic” and “a serious economic competitor to the United States and its role in the world.” Bond, on the other hand, argues that BRICS should be considered a “subimperial” formation, which expands and legitimates the existing world economic system rather than truly disrupting it.



Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We end today’s show with the summit of BRICS nations that concluded Thursday in the Russian city of Kazan as President Putin made a comeback to the global stage, hosting 36 world leaders and representatives from countries including China, India, South Africa, Iran, even Palestine. Israel’s war on Gaza took center stage, with many heads of states demanding an immediate ceasefire. Putin also faced direct calls at the summit from some of Russia’s most important allies for Moscow to end the war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the BRICS coalition, which was founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, officially added 13 new nations to the alliance as partner countries, including Bolivia, Cuba, Nigeria and Turkey.

For more, we’re joined by two guests. Here in New York, Richard Wolff, professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs at The New School, founder of Democracy at Work, author of several books, including, most recently, Understanding Capitalism. And in Johannesburg, South Africa, we’re joined by the political economist Patrick Bond, distinguished professor and director of the Centre for Social Change at the University of Johannesburg, his recent CounterPunch article headlined “Rising Dangers of Imperial and Sub-Imperial Partnering.”

We’re going to begin with you, Patrick. Talk about the significance of this BRICS summit.

PATRICK BOND: I must quickly say thank you for having me. But also, in 10 or 11 days, you may know whether the great teams at Democracy at Work and Democracy Now! need to be in exile because democracy won’t be allowed. And you’ll come to Johannesburg, and we’ll have a very fine site for your production systems. It’s a great address here at the moment.

And I think the fact that we had the BRICS summit just 14 months ago — I was chatting and debating with Vijay Prashad, along with my colleague Trevor Ngwane. And it means that in the current period, where the de-dollarization rhetoric coming up to this BRICS, because Russia hosting it and being shut out of the SWIFT system, having $600-and-some billion seized illegally by the Western banks, and not getting loans, even from the BRICS New Development Bank, suffering sanctions, that meant a lot of attention has been on whether Vladimir Putin and his team can generate a de-dollarization strategy. Unfortunately — and fortunately, that didn’t transpire.

And then, since we’ve just come out of the Israeli genocide story, not using genocide in the Kazan Declaration on Wednesday night, not calling for sanctions, even though the United Nations General Assembly effectively did last month, and not acknowledging that nine out of the 10 BRICS countries have very profitable relationships, like South Africa, number one coal exporter to Israel, and China and India having companies that run the Haifa Port, you could turn those off and really put pressure on Israel if they really had the guts. But we see them talking left, walking right.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Richard Wolff, your takeaway from this BRICS summit? How historic was it?

RICHARD WOLFF: In my judgment, and even though Patrick is right about a number of his criticisms, this is a historic turning point. I cannot overstress it. Here we have, for the first time in a century, a serious economic competitor to the United States and its role in the world. We’ve never seen this before in the lifetimes you, me and the people watching this program and listening to it. Here are a group of countries that together have a larger GDP, a greater production, than the G7, the United States and its allies. We haven’t had that before. And the gap between them is growing. The economic growth of the United States this year, by the IMF, is scheduled to be 2.8%; in China, 4.8%; in India, 7%. So, they are growing faster than we are. They’ve been doing it for decades. It is a new economic world. And as an economist and an American, I am aghast that our presidential election isn’t putting that front and forward.

This is a new world. Everybody else in the world is adjusting to this reality. The American Empire and our system is in a decline relative to what the BRICS are about. Are there problems among them? For sure. Do they have their faults? Absolutely. This is not good and bad, but it is a radical alteration. And if we continue as a nation to pretend it isn’t happening or it isn’t important, we will continue to make big strategic mistakes, not the least of which is to bring us into a war kind of situation that people are already sensing might be in the air.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, for his comments at the BRICS summit.


PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] We are in touch with the leadership of Iran, in a very close contact. We see our role in creating conditions to settling the situation by finding mutual compromises. I think it is possible.

AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Bond, your response, the Russia-Iranian alliance, and also the latest news that North Korea is sending soldiers to Russia, perhaps to fight in Ukraine?

PATRICK BOND: Well, those conflicts, Russia-Ukraine, are just so tragic, since some several hundred thousand Ukrainian working-class people, and maybe 100,000 Russians, have been killed in what is a power grab, that I think goes outside my line of argument that it’s a subimperial — it’s a rogue subimperial, the way Janet Yellen’s rogue imperial grab of all those assets could be described.

But, you know, if I come back to where Richard was saying that this is an alternative, it’s something new, it’s a real challenge, I must fight you on that, my old friend, because I think there’s not an anti-imperial, but a subimperial, not against, but within. Just think of the global value chain, my phone that has the cobalt from child labor in China, in Chinese mines in the eastern DRC, then coming back into a Western phone. And these are the sorts of relationships we really have to be restructuring, not just a sort of shifting of the deck chairs on a global capitalist Titanic, certainly as the multilateral system expands. Next month, there will be, you know, a G20. Last year in Delhi, the African Union was added. As it expands to have more legitimacy, without changing the IMF and the World Bank and the WTO in any substantive way, the BRICS are playing a greater role, I think, in amplifying the worst aspects.

Just as one final example, 51% of global emissions come from these 10 countries, but they only produce 29% of GDP. What it means is, BRICS next month go to Azerbaijan for COP29. I’m sure Democracy Now!, as usual, will go there and do cutting-edge analysis. You’ll find that the BRICS and the West are tightly allied against the rest of us.

AMY GOODMAN: Last word goes to Richard Wolff.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yeah, history does not happen in a morality play. You’re not going to have the bad disappear and replaced by the good. It’s never worked that way. What you have to have is an analysis of what’s actually going on. And the unanimity, the dominance of the United States is over. And the whole world is trying to figure out, every company in the world, every country: How do you navigate a new international order? The United States is pretending that, as a nation, it doesn’t have to worry about this. And I’m afraid Patrick’s remarks will lead people to think, “Well, there’s problems on their side, too” — which there are, but that misses the larger historical phenomena. This is the first serious economic competition this country has faced, and the consequences of that will be overwhelming to us.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us, Richard Wolff, economics professor, visiting professor at The New School, and Patrick Bond, professor at the University of Johannesburg.


Patrick Bond is a political economist, political ecologist and scholar of social mobilisation. From 2020-21 he was Professor at the Western Cape School of Government and from 2015-2019 was a Distinguished Professor of Political Economy at the University of the Witwatersrand School of Governance. From 2004 through mid-2016, he was Senior Professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal School of Built Environment and Development Studies and was also Director of the Centre for Civil Society. He has held visiting posts at a dozen universities and presented lectures at more than 100 others.


BRICS Is Mounting A Challenge To The US-Led World Order — But For Whom?

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa held a summit to counter the unipolar power of the US and Europe.

October 26, 2024
Source: Truthout



The recently concluded 2024 BRICS (an acronym for the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kazan and attended by scores of Global South leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, was the largest diplomatic forum in Russia since Putin ordered troops into Ukraine in 2022. With 36 countries attending, and more than 20 of them represented by heads of state, the three-day BRICS bloc of developing economies summit showed that Russia is anything but isolated on the global stage. The meeting highlighted the current geopolitical situation, the sanctions imposed by the United States on China, Russia and Iran, which all participants condemned as “unlawful,” and the need for an alternative payment system. The promotion and development of alternative financial instruments to gain greater independence from the dollar is perhaps the most important concern of the BRICS grouping. Yet no concrete resolutions were made at the 2024 BRICS summit.

Still, there is much more to be read into the 2024 BRICS summit than a big diplomatic win for Putin over Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, which is how most of the mainstream corporate media opted to frame the summit. First, since Putin’s rise to power, multipolarity has been a central focus of Russia’s foreign policy agenda, as it is seen as a counterweight to the global hegemony of the U.S. and its allies. Beijing’s emphasis under the leadership of Xi Jinping is also on building a multipolar world. And more and more countries in the Global South are looking to geopolitical alliances to escape influence and economic dependence on the United States and Europe.

BRICS countries say they seek to provide an alternative to the Western-led world order as they believe it is unfair, inequitable and exploitative. And the grouping has been gaining in strength, size and significance. It is estimated that BRICS countries account for 35 percent of the world economy and 45 percent of the population. In fact, not only have the BRICS countries’ share in world GDP overtaken that of G7, but the world economy relies increasingly on the emerging economies to drive expansion, according to the IMF.

At the present time, the BRICS includes 10 countries — Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates — but more than 30 countries have expressed interest in joining, including NATO-member Turkey.

This development speaks volumes of the rising Global South discontent with the U.S.-dominated international order and of the increasing realization on the part of so many people across the non-Western world that Washington has no interest in peace, fairness and justice, and that the U.S. is in fact edging back toward a unipolar world. That said, we need however to distinguish the discontent of the Global South population with the dominance of the United States from the grievances that the ruling classes of these nations express about the current world order, as their own self-preservation is what is of paramount importance to them.

There is little doubt that the Biden administration’s hawkish line on Russia, waging a proxy war in Ukraine, seeking NATO’s expansion, pursuing the strategic encirclement of China with the building of defense alliances in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand) and backing Israel’s constant use of brute force in the Middle East while “shielding Netanyahu against the reach of international justice,” as historian Adam Tooze aptly put it in a recent op-ed in the Guardian, are all part of a U.S. bid to reassert unipolar global hegemony.

The U.S. is on decline, but it won’t go down without a fight. Too much has been invested in a Western-dominated world order, and the U.S. still possesses the world’s top military. Revealing the mindset of political leaders in Washington D.C., from both parties, to be sure, Kamala Harris said during her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that “as commander-in-chief, I will ensure that America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

The question here is whether BRICS can usurp the U.S.-led world order. To do so, the BRICS nations would have to overcome the challenges of economic integration and deepen financial cooperation. Undoubtedly, greater collaboration and stronger coordination among BRICS countries are both possible and have in fact seen significant progress over the years. The share of global trade among the group’s current members more than doubled, to 40 percent, from 2002 through 2022.

However, becoming a global economic integration project, with a common currency, which is the kind of necessary step BRICS would have to take to truly go toe-to-toe with the U.S., is simply not in the cards at the present juncture or even in the foreseeable future.

Indicative of the difficulties surrounding the vision of a global economic integration project, so far only Brazilian President Lula has come out in open support for the creation of a common currency for trade and investment between BRICS economies. Putin, for example, is in favor of switching trade between member states away from the dollar to national currencies. But even if a common BRICS currency was to be created, there is no guarantee that it would replace the U.S. dollar. Even the euro has not succeeded in supplanting the dollar although a common BRICS currency would surely weaken the power of U.S. sanctions, which, interestingly enough, have gained more prominence as a tool of U.S. foreign policy during the last couple of decades.

Finally, given the huge differences in the form of governance that exists among BRICS member states (China is a one-party state with a mixed economy; India is a competitive-authoritarian hybrid; Iran is a theocracy; United Arab Emirates is a monarchy) there is no realistic prospect of BRICS turning into a political and security alliance against a U.S.-led NATO. Perhaps this explains the position of leaders like India’s Modi, who stated at the recently held summit of emerging economies that BRICS must not be seen as anti-West or even as an alternative to global organizations. A few days ahead of the summit, even Putin himself asserted that the BRICS grouping is not “anti-West,” but just “non-West.”

Be that as it may, Chinese President Xi Jinping is absolutely spot-on when he said at the 2024 BRICS summit that “the world is undergoing a major change that has not been seen in a century and the international situation is changing and chaotic.” Both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin seem to be firm in their convictions that the world must shift toward multipolarity, although the belief that multipolarity in a capitalist universe will deliver a fairer and safer world is simply not true, as history has shown. At the same time, they appear to be fully aware of the ugly fact that the U.S. will try to remain at the top of the global power hierarchy by any means necessary.

Indeed, to take one very recent example, how could international law and justice prevail when the U.S. labels the charges of the International Criminal Court against Israeli leaders “shameful” and “outrageous” but justifies similar charges against Putin? It is such hypocrisy and the plundering of international order by Western states, with the U.S. at the helm, that have led many leaders in the Global South calling for a new form of multilateral cooperation. For many of those nations, creating an alternative world order may indeed be a necessary step for their very survival. Whether such a vision will materialize or not, only time will tell.


CJ Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He has published scores of books and over one thousand articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021).