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)

Rich nations under pressure over climate finance at COP29 talks

Pressure mounted on wealthy nations Wednesday to put a figure on the table as time runs out at COP29 to strike a deal on climate assistance for poorer countries.


Issued on: 20/11/2024 
By:  FRANCE 24
Developing nations say rich historic polluters have a duty to help them face the challenges caused by the climate crisis. © Laurent Thomet, AFP


At the UN COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations have still not revealed how much they are ready to provide the developing world to fight climate change. UN agencies have said that developing nations, not counting China, will need $1 trillion a year by the end of the decade to meet the challenges caused by the climate crisis.

"We need a figure," said Adonia Ayebare, chair of the G77+China group of developing nations.

"Then the rest will follow. But we need a headline," the Ugandan negotiator told reporters.

Developing nations, from islands imperilled by rising seas to drought-afflicted states, contribute the least to global warming but have called for $1.3 trillion annually to prepare for its impacts.


They say rich historic polluters have a duty to help, and are clamouring for an existing commitment of $100 billion a year to be increased many times over at COP29.
 
Read more  How lending-based climate finance is pushing poor countries deeper into debt

Talks have gone around in circles for over a week but a slimmed-down draft is expected to land in the early hours of Thursday, ensuring a sleepless night for negotiators.

"I'm sure we will have some long days and hours ahead of us ... This will be a very steep climb," EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told reporters.

Colombian Environment Minister Susana Muhamad said it was difficult to speed things up "when there's nothing to negotiate".

"The concern is that at this moment, nobody is putting a figure on the table," Muhamad said.

Rich countries on the hook for climate finance, including the European Union and United States, say they cannot show their hand until they know what they are agreeing to.

"Otherwise ... you will have a shopping basket with a price, but you don't know exactly what is in there," said Hoekstra.

"We don't just want to pluck a number from the sky," echoed Germany's climate envoy Jennifer Morgan.
China role

Developing countries, excluding China, will need $1 trillion a year in foreign assistance by 2030 to wean off fossil fuels and adapt to worsening disasters.

This number rises to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, according to an expert economic assessment commissioned by the United Nations.

But many of the nations obligated to pay face political and fiscal pressures, and insist they cannot cover this cost on their balance sheets alone.

Developing countries want public grants from governments – not loans or private capital – to make up the majority of the new finance goal under negotiation.

Three figures – $440 billion, $600 billion and $900 billion – had been floated, said Australian climate minister Chris Bowen, one of the envoys leading the finance negotiations.

Delegates from several countries told AFP these numbers were not proposed by developed nations themselves.

"Many parties told us they need to see certain building blocks in place before they can put forward their suggested number," Bowen told COP29 delegates.

Chief among these is a demand for emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia, which have grown wealthy yet remain classified as developing nations, to chip into the pot.

"There are countries out in the world that have an income level that is close to or above the poorest European countries, and we think that it's only fair to ask them to contribute," Danish climate minister Lars Aagaard told AFP.
'Receding hope'

Bowen said some countries had drawn a "red line" over the type of money that could be included in any deal, insisting it come "from a wide range of sources and instruments".

Bolivia's chief negotiator, Diego Pacheco, said there was a "steadily receding hope of getting an ambitious" deal and cited $200 billion as one number in circulation.

"Only 200 billion," he told the conference. "This is unfathomable, we cannot accept this."

The lead negotiator of COP29 hosts Azerbaijan, Yalchin Rafiyev, urged countries to "pick up the pace".

"Let us embrace the spirit of collaboration, compromise and determination to ensure that we leave this conference with outcomes that make a real difference," he said.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and Reuters)

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

by Binoy Kampmark / November 19th, 2024

COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than the hosting country, Azerbaijan, is a petrostate indifferent to the issue of emissions and scornful of ecological preachers.  It has seen its natural gas supply grow by 128% between 2000 and 2021.  Between 2006 and 2021, gas exports rose by a monumental 29,290%.  A dizzying 95% of the country’s exports are made up of oil and gas, with much of its wealth failing to trickle down to the rest of the populace.

The broadly described West, as stated by President Ilham Aliyev in his opening address to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was in no position to be lecturing his country about cutting back on the use of fossil fuels.  They were, he grandly claimed, “a gift from God”.  In this, he should have surprised no one.  In April 2024, he declared that, as a leader of a country “which is rich in fossil fuels, of course, we will defend the right of these countries to continue investments and to continue production.”

A few days later, Aliyev played the other side of the climate change divide, suggesting at a meeting with island leaders that France and the Netherlands had been responsible for “brutally” suppressing the “voices” of communities in such overseas territories as Mayotte and Curaçao concerned with climate change.  (Aliyev himself is no stranger to suppressing, with dedicated brutality, voices of dissent within his own country.)  This proved too much for France’s Ecological Transition Minister, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, who cancelled her planned attendance to the summit while attacking Baku for “instrumentalising the fight against climate change for its undignified personal agenda.”

On the second day of the summit, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, tried to turn the attention of delegates to the urgent matter at hand.  “The sound you hear is the ticking clock – we are in the final countdown to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and time is not on our side.”  Others, however, heard the sound of money changing hands, with the fossil fuel industry lurking, fangs and pens at the ready, presided over by the good offices of a petrostate.

In the background lie assessments of gloomy inevitability.  The Climate Change Tracker’s November 2024 briefing notes this year was one characterised by “minimal progress, with almost no new national climate change targets (NDCs) or net zero pledges even though government have agreed to (urgently) strengthen their 2030 targets and to align them with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.”

As easy as it is to rage against the opportunistic Aliyev, who crudely blends environmentalism with ethnic cleansing, few attending the summit in Baku come with clean hands.  As with previous COP events, Baku offers another enormous event of emitters and emission, featuring tens of thousands of officials, advisors and minders bloviating in conference.  That said, the 67,000 registrants at this conference is somewhat lower compared with the 83,000 who descended on Dubai at COP28.

The plane tracking website FlightRadar24 noted that 65 private jets landed in the Azerbaijani capital prior to the summit, prompting Alethea Warrington, the head of energy, aviation and heat at Possible, a climate action charity, to tut with heavy disapproval: “Travelling by private jet is a horrendous waste of the world’s scarce remaining carbon budget, with each journey producing more emissions in a few hours than the average person around the world emits in an entire year.”

COP29 is also another opportunity to strike deals that have little to do with reducing emissions and everything to do with advancing the interests of lobby groups and companies in the energy market, much of it of a fossil fuel nature.  In the spirit of Dubai, COP29 is set to follow in the footsteps of the wily Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who chaired COP28 in Dubai.  Prior to the arrival of the chatterati of climate change last year, the Sultan was shown in leaked briefing documents to the BBC and the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) to be an avid enthusiast for advancing the business of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc).  It was hard to avoid the glaring fact that Al Jaber is also the CEO of Adnoc.

The documents in question involve over 150 pages of briefings prepared by the COP28 team for meetings with Jaber and various interested parties held between July and October this year.  They point to plans to raise matters of commercial interest with as many as 30 countries.  The CCR confirms “that on at least one occasion a nation followed up on commercial discussions brought up in a meeting with Al Jaber; a source with knowledge of discussions also told CCR that Adnoc’s business interests were allegedly raised during a meeting with another country.”

The COP29 chairman, Samir Nuriyev, had already put out feelers as early as March this year that a “fair approach” was needed when approaching countries abundant with oil and natural gas, notably in light of their purported environmental policies.  He went so far as to argue that Azerbaijan was an ideal interlocutor between the Global South and Global North.  His colleague and chief executive of the COP29 team, Elnur Soltanov, showed exactly how that process would work in a secret recording ahead of the conference in which he discusses “investment opportunities” in the state oil and gas company with a person posing as a potential investor.  (The person in question purported to be representing a fictitious Hong Kong investment firm with a sharp line in energy.)  “We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed,” Soltanov insists.  “We will have a certain amount of oil and gas being produced, perhaps forever.”

In many ways, the Baku gathering has all the hallmarks of a criminal syndicate meeting, held under more open conditions.  Fair play, then, to the Azerbaijani hosts for working out the climate change racket, taking the lead from Dubai last year.  Aliyev and company noted months in advance that this was less a case of being a theatre of the absurd than a forum for business.  And so, it is proving to be.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

The Planet Under Threat of Breakdown

by Robert Hunziker / November 19th, 2024

There’s a new trend in the world that’s working against the planet, you know, the one you’re standing on. This new trend, over the past year or so, spells “thumbs down” for planet Earth. It’s a disheartening, and fraught with danger, change in attitude, dismissing commitments, left and right.

A figurative Planet Support Switch has been turned off by several key players. Proof of this agnostic attitude is found in every meeting of nations of the world over the past couple of years. They are turning their noses up on prior commitments. This is a new attitude. And it’s happening as climate change has turned into an ogre of destruction that’s impossible to ignore, featured on nightly news programs with automobiles tumbling as if children’s toys in torrential rivers of city streets (Paiporta).

Meanwhile, COP29, the UN Conference of the Parties on climate change, Nov 11^th-22^nd, is being held in oil-rich Azerbaijan. Such a strange coincidence: UN climate meetings have become an outgrowth of oil producer largess. After all, they do have spectacular venues, hmm. Gotta wonder what they’ll do to stave off all-time record heat, caused by fossil fuel emissions, Co2? The paradox is devastatingly inescapable.

A key data point exposes the challenge COP29 faces: Annual CO2 released into the atmosphere, 37.4 billion metric tons in 2023 vs. 9 billion metric tons in 1960.

According to Dr. Patrick McGuire, of the University of Reading and National Centre for Atmospheric Science: “The new Global Carbon Budget reveals a disturbing reality – global fossil CO2 emissions continue to climb, reaching 37.4 billion tonnes in 2024. Despite clear evidence of accelerating climate impacts, we’re still moving in the wrong direction. The need for rapid decarbonization has never been more urgent.” (Source: “Fossil Fuel Co2 Emissions Increase Again in 2024,” University of Reading, November 13, 2024)

Also, of more than passing interest at COP29, according to Victoria Cuming, head of global policy at BloombergNEF: “Donald Trump’s dramatic victory in the US election will drip poison into the climate talks.” (Source: Bloomberg Green Daily: COP29 Climate Money Fight)

The planet is losing key support. Yet, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to figure out the planet has already gone ballistic with (1) rampant wildfires (2) torrential rains (3) massive destructive floods (4) brutal scorching droughts (5) pounding hailstorms (6) frightening thunder/lighting all unprecedented and all on a regular schedule nowadays. There are no more once-in-100-year storms; they’re every other year.

Recent talks on protecting nature at the UN Biodiversity Conference d/d October 21-November 1st in Colombia collapsed when nations could not agree on key goals. This was the 16^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It was a disaster: “Talks were overshadowed by a lack of progress on implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the landmark ‘Paris Agreement for nature’ deal made at COP15 in Montreal in 2022.” (Source: Carbon Brief Nov. 2, 2024) By summit’s end, only 44 out of 196 parties had come up with a new biodiversity plan. This is pitiful.

As for Net Zero prospects to halt global warming, forget it!

At the G20 summit September 9-10 countries demanded rolling back promises to cut back burning oil, coal, and gas (Source: “G20 Countries Turning Backs on Fossil Fuel Pledge, Say Campaigners,” The Guardian, Sept. 10, 2024).

“Over the last few months, we’ve seen everyone from major corporations to countries backpedaling on climate commitments made in the recent months and years. Despite growing, urgent evidence that climate change continues to accelerate, this is no real surprise.” (Source: Countries Are Rolling Back Their Climate Commitments, Climatebase, October 7, 2024)

Global corporations from Ford to J.P. Morgan Chase are all rolling back their commitments to climate change, which is all deeply intertwined with what played out ahead of COP29, now playing before bemused Middle Eastern oligarchs.

“Instead of indicating that the money required to green the economy is ready to flow, industry leaders now say their first priority is delivering financial returns for clients—and that means energy-transition investments will only be undertaken if they’re considered profitable,” (Source: “Wall Street Wants You to Know Profit Comes Before Net Zero,” Bloomberg, September 18, 2024.)

The bankers are pointing their fingers at the politicians and governments, who have been largely unwilling to make significant headway in fighting climate change globally.

Meanwhile, stating the obvious, which cannot be emphasized enough, climate warning signs have never been stronger than this year. Just for starters, a 2–3-foot sea level rise hangs by a cryosphere thread at the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica. If it goes down for the count, and there’s reason to think it’ll happen during current generations, all bets are off for 8 of the world’s 10 largest megacities, nestled along coastlines. This is but one of several tipping points at the edge, and tipping. The protagonist is fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide (CO2) which makes up around 76% of total greenhouse gas emissions, making it the primary greenhouse gas responsible for the majority of climate change impacts.

And it is a fool’s errand that carbon capture/sequester will save the day; it’s too slow too unwieldy too expensive too inefficient takes too long and overwhelmed by the task at hand, sans super-duper-effective technology. “Despite its long history, carbon capture is a problematic technology. A new IEEFA study reviewed the capacity and performance of 13 flagship projects and found that 10 of the 13 failed or underperformed against their designed capacities, mostly by large margins.” (Source: “Carbon Capture Has a Long History of Failure,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1, 2022)

Losing key support for the planet couldn’t come at a worse time. According to Perilous Times on Planet Earth: 2024 The State of the Climate Report, 25 of 35 planetary vital signs are at record extremes. Two-thirds with record-extremes is viewed by climate scientists as a clear mandate for a planet “on the edge.”

Alas, losing key support because of “concern over profits” is nonsensical and trivial at best, thinking small, not big. A report by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research contradicts that notion and exposes the silliness behind focus on “profit over planet,” to wit: “The analysis of data from 1,500 regions over the past 30 years showed that 30 percent have managed to lower their carbon emissions while continuing to thrive economically.” (Source: Green Growth: 30 percent of regions worldwide achieve economic growth while reducing carbon emissions, Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research, Oct. 29, 2024)

Beyond the insanity of profits at the expense of mitigation efforts for the planet, which exposes the underbelly of high-end capitalism, some good news: According to some climate experts, Trump’s re-election and his statements that green energy is a scam, and the likelihood that he withdraws the US from UN Climate agreements might drive a new sense of unity, even building a coalition that actually does something positive to stop fossil fuel emissions to support a parched planet. It’s possible, but here in America Wall Street prefers profits over planet. Umm, honestly, shouldn’t that be reversed?

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert.

How District Heating Can Transform Urban Energy Landscapes

By Felicity Bradstock - Nov 19, 2024

District heating is a proven, efficient, and cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions from buildings and industries.

Several cities worldwide are implementing innovative district heating projects using diverse heat sources such as waste heat, geothermal energy, and even body heat.

The widespread adoption of district heating networks can play a significant role in achieving global decarbonization goals and transitioning to a sustainable energy future.



As governments worldwide invest heavily in a green transition, both the public and private sectors are exploring alternative options for heating that do not rely on fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the operations of buildings account for 30 percent of global final energy consumption and 26 percent of global energy-related emissions. Therefore, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels for heating and power in residential and commercial buildings will significantly support decarbonisation efforts. One method being used to provide clean heat to buildings is district heating, which is being increasingly used in big cities and densely populated areas.

District heating, also known as heat networks, involves generating heat in a centralised location and then distributing it to residences, businesses, and industry in a local area. District heating networks are efficient, low-cost and often low-carbon, meaning they offer a promising alternative to fossil-fuel-powered heating options. However, most areas that could benefit from the development of district heating networks have yet to tap into the heat source.

In 2022, district heating production accounted for around 9 percent of the world’s heating need in buildings and industry, and many of the projects continued to rely on fossil fuels. To support decarbonisation efforts, governments must, therefore, encourage the uptake of bioenergy, solar thermal, large-scale heat pumps, and geothermal technologies.

Several countries have already developed district heating networks and others are looking to do the same. In Hamburg, the government developed a network powered by the Borsigstrassee waste incineration plant (MVB) in the east of the city. Waste heat from the MVB is fed straight into the district heating network. The project has the potential to supply 35,000 households in Hamburg with heat and reduce emissions by 104,000 tonnes of CO2 annually.

In Belgium, the city of Antwerp hopes to become the first to connect its buildings to a sustainable heating network by the end of the decade. The City of Antwerp is working with the global design and consultancy organisation Arcadis to produce a roadmap for the implementation of a district heating network programme that draws residual heat from industrial businesses to buildings in the city via an underground network. They hope to connect 35,000 homes to the network by 2030.


Sweden is taking an even more low-carbon approach to district heating by using body heat to reduce its conventional energy use. The government has created a network to transfer heat from Stockholm Central Station – which around 250,000 people pass through every day – to the nearby 17-story Kungsbrohuset building, to reduce energy consumption. Similarly, the Mall of America, in Minnesota, United States, does not use a central heating system and instead maintains its 21oC year-round temperature using passive solar power through 1.2 miles of skylights, with heat generated from lighting and body heat.

Now, the U.K. has big plans to develop a district heating network in London. The government announced plans to heat around 1,000 buildings, including the Houses of Parliament and the National Gallery, using low-carbon heat sourced from the River Thames, London Underground, and sewer networks. This is part of a plan to develop seven heat network zones with almost $6.4 million of public funding. The project will use a network of pipes to carry excess heat from underground to power hot water and central heating systems in London.

The $1.27 billion initiative will be carried out by heating specialists Hemiko and Vital Energi and is expected to reduce carbon emissions by as much as 75,000 tonnes a year. At present, district heat networks contribute just 3 percent of the U.K.’s heating needs. However, they could supply as much as one-fifth of the country’s heating, according to estimates by the Committee on Climate Change.

Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Minister for Energy Consumers, stated, “Taking waste heat from the River Thames and London Underground to heat such iconic places as the Houses of Parliament and the National Portrait Gallery is a really exciting example of what lies ahead on our journey to low-cost, low-carbon heating. Fahnbulleh added, “This project will help support hundreds of jobs and make bold new strides towards boosting our energy security.”

A report published in February by the global engineering company Danfoss estimated that in the EU alone, excess heat was equal to 2,860 TWh annually, which could almost meet the EU’s total energy demand for heat and hot water. This suggests that the development of widescale district heat networks could massively reduce heat waste and help decarbonise residential and commercial heating. Supermarkets, transport networks, data centres, and commercial buildings are constantly releasing waste heat, yet few companies are doing anything to capture and use this heat. There is huge potential for the development of district heat networks in cities around the world, which would reduce the need for gas and electric heating and help the buildings sector decarbonise by sustainably reusing waste heat.


By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Activists at U.N. Climate Talks Push Rich Countries to Pay for Green Transition

By Asad Rehman, Amy Goodman

November 19, 2024

Source: Democracy Now!

We are broadcasting live from the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, which has entered its second and final week, and already there is frustration over a lack of progress on the key issue of financing the energy transition and climate adaptation in Global South countries. Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want and lead spokesperson for the Climate Justice Coalition, says this year’s summit is supposed to be “the finance COP” and calls for about $5 trillion a year in financing, but “rich, developed countries are putting pennies on the table.” He also addresses the overwhelming presence of industry lobbyists at the annual summits and calls from some activists to boycott the talks. “If we, as civil society, weren’t here also holding the feet of Global North governments to the fire, we would see much worse outcomes than we are seeing already,” says Rehman.

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’re broadcasting live from the United Nations climate summit here in Baku, Azerbaijan, which has entered its second and final week. There’s already frustration over a lack of progress on the key issue of financing the energy transition and climate adaptation in Global South countries. This comes after last year’s climate summit, COP28 in Dubai, where world leaders agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, after past summits just called for restrictions.

We just heard voices of protest. Now we’re joined by one of those people, Asad Rehman. He’s executive director of War on Want and lead spokesperson for the Climate Justice Coalition.

Well, another COP, another interview with you, Asad.

ASAD REHMAN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re here in Azerbaijan, a leading petrostate in the world, following last year’s COP summit in another petrostate, in the United Arab Emirates. Can you talk about, for people who aren’t familiar with these U.N. gatherings, the significance of this, what you expect to come out of it, and what you’re seeing actually happen through this last week?

ASAD REHMAN: Well, Amy, the last time we spoke, I think it was in Dubai. The bombs were dropping on Gaza. We, as civil society, were standing in solidarity with our colleagues who were dying in Gaza, and saying, “We must stand up for human rights.” And a year later, of course, we have now the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, countless human rights reports all talking about war crimes, crimes against humanity, a genocide taking place, genocide taking place in Gaza — and, of course, all with impunity and active complicity of some of the most powerful countries in the world — the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union. And the very rules of war — rules of the international rules system, multilateralism is being burnt to the ground. So we came in here with a very heavy heart. Our colleagues are still being killed. We see food being used as a weapon of war. The importance of human rights propelled us to, of course, use this moment to raise our voice and still call for a ceasefire and, of course, call for end to complicity.

But the negotiation themselves, it’s often been called the finance COP. And the reason why it’s called the finance COP is this COP is meant to agree what the next quantum, which is the collective goal of money that is meant to be provided from the Global North to the Global South because of the responsibility of the Global North for causing this crisis — and what that figure will be, what the quality of that money will be. Will it be in public finance, or will it be in debt-created loans? Will it be in private finance? All of these things are being thought out over here in week one and in week two.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to ask why you’re here and why so many thousands of people have come to this climate summit. Prominent climate activist Greta Thunberg announced last week she’s not attending this COP summit over Azerbaijan’s climate and human rights record. She spoke Friday in Yerevan, Armenia.


GRETA THUNBERG: I think we have to stop pretending that conferences like the COP, that currently are not leading to any even close to meaningful climate action that we need — for example, last year, we saw an all-time high of greenhouse gas emissions, and 2024 is set to be the hottest year ever recorded. These COP processes are failing us. … Having these conferences as greenwash platforms for politicians to pretend that they’re taking action, of course, it’s also greenwashing the human rights abuses that these countries are committing. So, it’s both greenwashing and greenwashing the climate action and greenwashing their ethnic cleansing.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Greta Thunberg, the well-known Swedish climate and human rights activist. Asad Rehman, you made a different decision.

ASAD REHMAN: Yes, because I see these spaces as fundamentally being about a question about power. We know that the rich and powerful have got way more power than ordinary people, and this is a contested space. And we have to build our power, make sure our politicians act in our interests, in the interests of the planet, and not of the rich and the elite and big business. And that’s true at national level as in a global level.

But it is important that we’re here, because we’re the ears, eyes and voice of those on the frontlines. Many people come here with the hard evidence to try and influence these negotiations. And knowing the imbalance of power that exists between the richest nations and developing countries, if we, as civil society, weren’t here also holding the feet of Global North governments to the fire, we would see much worse outcomes than we are seeing already.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I wanted to play another clip. This is of Azerbaijan’s minister of ecology and natural resources. Mukhtar Babayev is COP29’s president. Previously, he spent 26 years at the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic, known as SOCAR. Ahead of the summit, the group Global Witness released covert recordings of Azerbaijan’s COP29 chief executive, Elnur Soltanov, promoting possible fossil fuel deals with someone, well, posing as an investor. The fake investor told Soltanov they were considering sponsoring COP29 in exchange for deals with Azerbaijan’s state energy firm SOCAR. This is Soltanov.


ELNUR SOLTANOV: As I said, we have a lot of pipeline infrastructure. We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed. We have a lot of green projects that SOCAR is very interested in. There are a lot of joint ventures that could be established, potential joint ventures. Our SOCAR trading is trading oil and gas all over the world, including in Asia. So, to me, these are the possibilities to explore.

AMY GOODMAN: So, while it’s so critical — again, that was Soltanov thinking he was talking to a fossil fuel exec. In fact, it was someone from Global Witness. But you have at this COP — you could consider them a delegation — the largest delegation here, and that’s of fossil fuel lobbyists. And you have this chief executive making fuel and oil deals while he’s here. So, why do you think you can have an effect, as you talk about the imbalance of power, Asad?

ASAD REHMAN: Well, those very same lobbyists are, of course, affecting our decisions of government at national level as they are at global level. They, of course, want to turn this climate negotiations into a trade fair. They’re coming here to try and strike deals, make bargains and, of course, propose their solutions. You see these lobbyists here calling for carbon capture and storage — unproven, deadly and dangerous technologies — as solutions to the climate crisis.

It’s up to us to be opposing them, to put forward real solutions, to be supporting governments who do want to do the right thing, and say, “We are going to amplify your voice. We’re going to support you. We’re going to raise these issues.” And we’re going to build our movement’s power and make sure we’re making the right call.

AMY GOODMAN: So, the theme is financing. I was just talking to a Kenyan journalist who said Africa is faring very badly here. You’re not wearing the regular COP lanyard. You’re wearing one that says “pay up”?

ASAD REHMAN: “Pay up.” Global civil society came together, and we looked at what the true costs of supporting developing countries to be able to grow cleanly, what the cost of adapting to the climate crisis was, how much the damages were already overwhelming countries in the Global South, and we calculated that that is about $5 trillion a year that the Global North would need to provide to the Global South. That’s just a down payment in the overall cost.

And so, we came here and say, “Look, the only way we’re going to be able to transition fairly, cleanly, the only way that people in the Global South will have the same right to live with dignified lives as people in the Global North, if we have finance and technology being provided.” We made the call for $5 trillion. Developing countries came here and said, “At a base level, the lowest number, we must have $1.4 trillion a year.”

Rich, developed countries are putting pennies on the table. They’re not even talking about billions. They’re talking the private sector will provide this finance. “Open your economies to our big corporations. They will be the answer.” And we know they deliver nothing, nothing in terms of climate action. And, of course, their only goal is to make profit.

AMY GOODMAN: Asad Rehman, we want to thank you for being with us, executive director of War on Want, lead spokesperson for the Climate Justice Coalition.

Asad Rehman is executive director of War on Want and lead spokesperson for the Climate Justice Coalition.

 

Malaysia’s MISC and Armada Explore Merger to Form Floating Production Giant

FPSO Marechal Duque de Caxias, MISC's newest FPSO marked its first oil prodcution in October 2024 (MISC)

Published Nov 14, 2024 8:08 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Two of Malaysia’s leading offshore energy and shipping companies announced today, November 14, in a stock exchange that they are commencing merger talks. MISC Berhad and Bumi Armada Berhad signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to explore a prospective merger.

The companies stated that the talks are at an “early stage of evaluation” warning there is no certainty that ongoing discussions will result in an agreement. The MOU is effective for nine months and until either the execution of a definitive agreement or an agreed termination. 

The discussions focus on combining MISC’s Offshore Business with Armada and they anticipate the resulting company would remain a publicly-traded entity on the Malaysian stock exchange.

Explaining the rationale behind the potential merger, the companies highlighted the merged entity would be among the leading floating production businesses globally with the scale, resources, and financial capacity to compete in the growing and capital-intensive offshore floating production segment. The filing notes that the proposed merger would establish a Malaysian-based sector-focused entity that leverages the combined talent pool, project development, and engineering capability, and know-how of both MISC’s offshore business and Bumi Armada.

MISC, which is majority-owned by the Malaysian state energy firm Petronas, notes its history started in 1968 and since then has grown to become one of the global leaders in the transportation of energy in the maritime industry. Describing its offshore business, it calls it one of the world’s largest FPSO/FSO owner and operators with 12 assets, including the first and largest semi-submersible floating production system in Asia. 

At the end of October, MISC reported that the FPSO Marechal Duque de Caxias, one of the largest ultra-deepwater FPSOs in the world, had achieved its first oil. The FPSO is chartered to Brazil’s national oil and gas company, Petrobras on behalf of the Libra Consortium, which developed the Mero unitized field, and has a production capacity of 180,000 barrels of oil per day, storage capacity of 1.4 million barrels, and total gas handling capacity of 440 mmscfd.

Bumi Armada highlights that it has a range of capabilities including field development support, production facilities, installation & operations, pipe-laying, hook-up, and commissioning. Currently, it is operating seven FPSOs as well as one LNG FSCU between Asia, Africa, and Europe and has two construction vessels. The company also recently entered into the upstream sector and is working on developing and carbon capture and storage joint venture with Navigator Gas called Bluestreak CO2. The joint venture is expected to design and implement a value chain of liquid CO2 shuttle tankers capable of loading from and delivering to floating carbon and storage (injection) units, and subsequently injecting CO2 into offshore storage aquifers and/or depleted oil and gas reservoirs.

Combined the two operations would have the opportunity to expand their global role at a time when the market is rapidly evolving. The companies said they would provide updates if they agree on terms and the conditions of the proposed merger.