Friday, January 01, 2021

Say goodbye to globalization as
 ‘The Age of Disorder’ is coming
– Deutsche Bank

Get short URL

© Getty Images / Ig0rZh

The four-decade era of globalization may be coming to an end, and we could be entering “The Age of Disorder,” which will reshape both economies and politics, Deutsche Bank analysts have said in a new research note.

One of the key characteristics of the new era will be the reversal of unfettered globalization, a team of analysts led by strategist Jim Reid predicted. While we saw “the best combined asset price growth of any era in history, with equity and bond returns very strong across the board” since 1980, “the Age of Disorder” is likely to break this trend.

Deteriorating US-China relations is another theme (out of eight) that will define the next distinct era of modern times, “which is hastened, but not caused by, the pandemic.” The analysts note that the Chinese economy will be closing the gap with the US and could finally outperform it by the end of the 
decade.

“A clash of cultures and interests therefore beckons, especially as China grows closer to being the largest economy in the world,” the report says.

Fortunately, this economic standoff is unlikely to trigger a real military conflict between the two states, as usually happens when a rising power tries to challenge the ruling one. Economic war – with tariffs, sanctions, and attacks in the technology sphere – will go on instead, the analysts believe. No matter who wins the 2020 presidential election in the US, the rift between the two superpowers will grow.

Global economy won’t return to pre-pandemic levels ‘for a long time’ – Deutsche Bank

While the coronavirus crisis has already put the European economy at a crossroads, Deutsche Bank says that the next decade may become “a make-or-break decade for Europe.” Among other factors defining the future are higher debt and helicopter money (distributing cash to the public) becoming mainstream – policies which are likely to spike inflation.

Inequality may even get worse in the post-Covid-19 world, before a backlash and reversal takes place, the bank says. Inequality is closely connected with the intergenerational gap, but the analysts expect that the number of younger voters will exceed those born before 1980 by the end of the decade. This could lead to major policy changes in many spheres – from taxes to climate.

“Such a shift in the balance of power could include a harsher inheritance tax regime, less income protection for pensioners, more property taxes, along with greater income and corporates taxes... and all-round more redistributive policies,” the Deutsche Bank report said.

Finally, the next 10 years will show whether the exponential rise of the value of tech companies was worth it. The bank says that they will either start a technology revolution or prove to be the second dot-com bubble.


10 Sep, 2020 
China to overtake US as world's largest consumer market 'very soon'

Get short URL

FILE PHOTO: A street outside of a shopping mall complex in Beijing, China 
© AFP / Nicolas Asfouri

China's consumer goods market is rapidly catching up with the US and is poised to become the world's largest in the near future, according to a top Chinese economic planning agency official.

"China's retail sales for the first time surpassed 40 trillion yuan in 2019, an increase of more than 42 percent from 2015. It will overtake the United States to become the top consumer goods market very soon," deputy chief of the National Development and Reform Commission, Lian Weiliang, said at the China Reform Forum, as quoted by Chinese media.

China’s Singles’ Day sales hit record $115 BILLION as economy recovers from Covid-19

He added that the Chinese economy should take advantage of its "super-large market" to build a "high-quality market system in five years."

While the official did not offer any particular timeframe within which the two consumer markets would trade places, state-run Global Times newspaper noted in an article that it could happen this year.

China will be the only major economy to see growth this year as world braces for long recovery from Covid-19 crisis – IMF

The pandemic has crippled retail sales around the globe in the past 12 months, with consumers remaining cautious about their spending amid a crisis that has left millions without jobs. In October, retail sales in both the US and China missed growth expectations, but the latter posted bigger gains. Retail sales grew 4.3 percent in China, while the US saw 0.3 percent growth.

Retail sales were expected to pick up amid big holiday sales in November. This year's Black Friday has already set another record with consumer spending reaching $9 billion. Meanwhile, Cyber Monday is poised to become the biggest online shopping day in US history, with anticipated sales of up to $12.7 billion. However, both events are far behind China's Single's Day, which generated $115 billion on two giant online platforms Alibaba and JD.com.

China was just about $200 billion behind US consumer spending in 2019 before the coronavirus crisis hit, according to Wang Yiming, former deputy director of the Development Research Center of the State Council. He also noted that the predicted shift could occur as early as this year.

Wang warned, however, that domestic consumption in China is still under pressure, while high household debt and a widening income gap could create additional challenges.

With the worst of the coronavirus crisis seemingly over for China, the world's second-largest economy is set to be one of a few to avoid contraction this year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects China's economy to grow 1.9 percent in 2020, while the US economy is set to shrink by 4.3 percent. The US may also see another contraction in the first quarter of 2021, some analysts have warned.


1 Dec, 2020 RT










Moderna Vaccine Phase III Trial Results Released In New England Journal Of Medicine

Daily Review of Covid-19 Research and Policy
by Doctors on the Frontlines

Friday January 1, 2021

The phase III randomized double-blinded multi-center trial of the Moderna vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has now been published.The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers, randomly assigned to receive either two doses of the vaccine 28 days apart or a placebo injection. None of the study subjects who received the vaccine developed severe covid-19 (needing hospitalization). Among volunteers who received the mRNA vaccine, only 11 out of 15,210 developed covid-19, versus 185 out of 15,210 in the placebo group. This means that the vaccine was 94.1 percent effective in preventing covid-19 illness (though we do not know whether infections were prevented). Severe illness was only detected among test subjects in the placebo group, another promising sign. Subjects older than 65 years and those who had evidence of previous coronavirus infection also fared similarly.

Of note, an assessment of outcome 14 days after the first dose indicates early effectiveness. However, we do not yet know whether one dose would provide long-lasting immunity, which means that for now, the two-dose strategy must be continued. Data given to the FDA earlier this month suggested that one dose provided 92 percent efficacy compared to placebo, but only out to 28 days. Much longer follow-up is needed on this aspect in particular.

Side effects have been a closely watched area. Soreness or pain at the injection site was equally frequent in those who received the vaccine and those who received the placebo. Those who received the vaccine were more likely to report fever and generally feeling ill. No severe adverse events were reported in either group.

The Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273) is a lipid nanoparticle that contains mRNA that encodes the virus's spike protein. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were developed using a novel strategy, using mRNA instead of a weakened, killed, or gutted virus, which are the usual mechanisms of action for vaccines in use for a variety of other diseases. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines include the genetic code for just one part of SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein. Once injected, the human cells create that single viral protein (but not the 28 other proteins that would be needed for a complete and infectious viral particle) which is then recognized as "unusual" by our own immune systems. That our bodies "know" to turn around and make antibodies to a protein that it just manufactured itself is one of the remarkable achievements of our own immune systems. The rationale is that including part of the virus might limit side effects such as rash, fever without reducing effectiveness. Also, using mRNA instead of DNA eliminates the chance of the viral genetic material being incorporated into a person's own DNA.

These results demonstrate that the Moderna vaccine is safe to administer and effective at preventing covid-19 serious enough to require hospitalization. It cannot assess for adverse events that occur more rarely than in 1 in 15,000 patients nor does the study speak to whether the vaccine reduces other complications such as an increased risk of blood clots in the lungs or persistent neurologic or psychiatric changes. The study did not analyze if there was a difference in vaccine efficacy for different strains of SARS-CoV-2, though experts believe that there is little cause to worry that it would not be effective against new strains such as the B.1.1.7 mutant which has now been detected in the US.


POLICY BRIEFING


Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy As Public Health Experts Consider A Vaccine Mandate. Schools Will Be A Major Battleground

Vaccine hesitancy is already a well-documented and closely studied phenomenon, mostly encountered in the world of pediatrics. But in anticipation of more widespread covid-19 vaccination rollouts and the exploration of a possible vaccine mandate, a discussion of the logistics is now more relevant than ever. Ground zero for the brewing controversies: schools. It is certain that no matter how safe and effective these vaccines turn out to be, some parents will desire exemptions. The deadly American trope of pitting individual autonomy against public health is poised to play out yet again, with higher stakes than ever before.

With multiple SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now available, a recent viewpoint in JAMA explored how adults might respond to a vaccine mandate. Hesitancy already exists for the covid-19 vaccine: 39 percent of Americans intending to wait on getting it, and 15 percent saying they wouldn't take it at all (though that number has fallen steadily from 50 percent last summer). Given the current climate, and the fact that the vaccines are only approved via emergency use authorization, passing a mandate would be difficult. Before that could happen, a full biologics license application approval would have to be obtained through the US Food and Drug Administration. Mandates for emergency use authorized vaccines would have no legal standing.

Requiring a vaccine for millions of Americans who expect protection of their individual liberties is daunting. The JAMA viewpoint explores what a mandate might look like for specific populations, starting with places the mandates already exist—schools. All states require vaccination to enter schools, but medical exemptions are permitted. The troubling aspect for healthcare professionals is that many states allow for religious exemption and a few also allow exemption for philosophical reasons, though rules have tightened in recent years. Predictably, the areas with less stringent policies are where outbreaks of preventable disease occur. Given a national desire to return to in-person classroom learning, it is likely the covid-19 vaccine will eventually be added to the list of required childhood vaccinations. But aside from an FDA approval, more testing in pediatric populations will be needed. Pediatric organizations have been vocal in calling for these trials.

While healthcare workers are required to get the influenza vaccine (or wear a mask for the duration of flu season), given the stresses of the pandemic and the available shots, it may be a while before they are required to get the covid-19 vaccine. Healthcare institutions are working to track vaccine hesitancy within their clinics and hospitals. Currently, many healthcare workers have expressed enthusiasm for the vaccines, heralding vaccination as a necessary step to return to pre-pandemic normalcy and hoping the general public will be reassured by their example.

Businesses are another area of interest, particularly in instances where in-person work, or vulnerability of clients comes into question. Our hope is that exemption policies will be strict.

Immunizations have a long and excellent record of safely saving lives. Vaccine mandates may become a key and necessary tool in restoring life-as-we-once-knew-it. Vaccine hesitancy will need to be overcome by having trusted medical professionals discuss the benefits and address their patients' concerns. While a mandate may be needed, targeted and thoughtful education from within communities would be more helpful in getting the public to accept vaccines as the pandemic-defeating innovations that they may turn out to be.


HORARY ASTROLOGY FOR CASINO CAPITALI$M

THIS WEEK WATCH TSLA, TSLA & TSLA

We projected at least a 10-15% correction 

ala Facebook’s entry into the S&P

666 PIVOT S 630 S2 550 R1 696

HORARY ASTROLOGY; ASK A QUESTION GET AN ANWSER

CRIMINAL CRYPTO CAPITALI$M
Binance to delist Ripple’s XRP cryptocurrency due to SEC lawsuit














BY DUNCAN RILEY

Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by volume, today announced that it will delist Ripple Labs Inc.’s XRP cryptocurrency following a lawsuit filed against Ripple by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security.

The announcement comes after Coinbase Inc. announced on Dec. 28 that it was also planning to suspend XRP trading in light of the SEC lawsuit again Ripple.

The SEC filing, which targets both Ripple and two of its executives — Christian Larson, the company’s co-founder and executive chairman of its board and former chief executive officer, and Bradley Garlinghouse, the company’s current CEO — alleges that XRP is an unregistered security.

Specifically, the SEC claims that Ripple raised capital to finance the company’s business beginning in 2013 through the sale of unregistered securities, XRP tokens, to investors in the U.S. and worldwide. The SEC alleges Ripple distributed billions of XRP in exchange for noncash considerations such as labor and market-making services, which is the key to its complaint.

Offering cryptocurrency is not illegal when the purpose is to provide a digital currency for trading, but per the Securities Act of 1933, any offer that involves funds being raised for a company must be registered as a security.

Binance said in a support article that its support for XRP will end on Jan. 13. While support for XRP including trading and deposits will be suspended, Binance users will still be able to withdraw XRP holdings from their Binance wallets.

Ripple continues to deny the allegations strongly. “XRP is a currency and does not have to be registered as an investment contract,” Garlinghouse previously said. “In fact, the Justice Department and the Treasury’s FinCEN already determined that XRP is a virtual currency in 2015 and other G20 regulators have done the same. No other country has classified XRP as a security.”

Coinbase and Binance are not alone in looking to delist XRP. According to Pyments.com, Bittrex and Crypto.com have also announced that they will delist XRP in light of the SEC lawsuit. Bittrex will delist XRP on Jan. 15, while Crypto.com will delist the cryptocurrency on Jan. 19.

Siam Blockchain suggests that XRP may just be the beginning when it comes to the SEC targeting so-called “stable coins” or similar tokens, noting that Tether and USDT may also be targeted soon.

At a time where bitcoin continues to hit record highs, XRP investors have been hit hard. After having traded as high as 68.43 cents in November, XRP was trading at 20.814 cents as of 8:45 p.m. EST.


Coinbase sued by US California federal court for illegal XRP sales

CRYPTOS | Dec 30 2020, 

Following the SEC's lawsuit against Ripple, Coinbase has been sued by the California federal court for illegal XRP sales.

Coinbase has recently applied to conduct an IPO and which could be affected by the lawsuit.

The United States District Court Northern District of California has filed a lawsuit against Coinbase for the violation of the unfair competition law, alleging the exchange was selling XRP which is an unregistered security, and taking commissions from the sales. 

The main idea behind the lawsuit is that Coinbase somehow knew that XRP was not a commodity and falsely represented it as such. However, considering that the SEC has just sued Ripple to clarify this exact question, it's hard to understand how Coinbase would know beforehand. 

Additionally, the complaint states that Coinbase knew about XRP being a security because of his technological integration into XRP's nodes. It also accuses Coinbase of being unfair because selling XRP securities allowed the exchange to gain a competitive advantage over other exchanges that only sold commodities. 

Anderson Kill partner Stephen Palley thinks the lawsuit will most likely fail as he sees a couple of issues with it. Palley stated that it is not a huge risk to Coinbase compared to SEC enforcement.
'That Terrifies Me': Trump Rule Allows Natural Gas Transport By Rail In Dense

Dec 29, 2020
Heard on All Things Considered
SUSAN PHILLIPS

Vanessa Keegan, her boyfriend and 3-year-old son live a block from where rail cars will carry liquefied natural gas to an export facility on the Delaware River. Emma Lee/WHYY


In an effort to boost natural gas exports, the Trump administration has reversed longstanding federal policy and approved transport of gas by rail anywhere in the country. Opposition has come from Hollywood stars, state attorneys general and local residents who worry about the danger this poses. But plans are moving ahead for a New Jersey project that calls for one of the longest such transport routes in the country: 200 miles through densely populated areas of the East Coast.

The gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale would first be sent by pipeline to a new liquefaction plant in the rural northeast part of the state. Refrigeration units would chill it to negative-260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it becomes liquid and easier to ship. The part of the plan that scares a lot of people is the next step — transporting the gas by truck or rail down the busy I-95 corridor to a planned export terminal along the Delaware River in Gloucester County, New Jersey.

"That terrifies me," says Vanessa Keegan, who lives nearby with her family, including her three-year-old son Theo. She points to where rail cars full of highly flammable liquefied natural gas — or LNG — would roll about a block and a half away from her house. "That train track that you could skip on down to in about a minute and a half."

A daycare center sits right next to the gate of the planned export terminal.

Pipelines are the more common way to move gas long distances, but battles over them have delayed or even scrapped some projects. Trucks are also allowed to transport LNG. But using rail cars in densely populated areas had been limited until the new rule took effect in August.

Even before that, Delaware River Partners, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, which has ties to President Trump, secured a special federal permit to move the LNG by rail. It allows two 100-car trains to transport the gas each day.



Homes next to train tracks in Gibbstown, NJ, where up to 200 rail cars a day will be allowed to carry liquefied natural gas to an export terminal.Emma Lee/WHYY

In this rust-belt region of New Jersey the project does have support, including from building trade unions and powerful state lawmakers. State Assemblyman John Burzichelli says his grandfather worked at a shuttered DuPont dynamite plant that will house the planned LNG export terminal.

"That site will create jobs as it once did, contribute to the tax base as it once did, and be an important economic driver for people to make a living and feed their families," says Burzichelli.

He says safety issues should be addressed, but that rail cars carry much more hazardous materials through the region every day. "The history of moving this stuff is pretty sound," he says.

The new rule does require rail cars to be built with a thicker outer tank than is mandated for other hazardous cryogenic liquids like ethylene and ethane. (Although it's unclear if that applies to projects like this one, greenlighted earlier through a special permit.)

Ray Mentzer, a chemical engineer at Purdue University, spent his career working on LNG projects for Exxon Mobil. He says the specially designed containers that transport hydrocarbons have a good safety record. But he says transporting the gas through densely populated areas increases the risk if there's a leak.

"It's not flammable until it's vaporized, but it's going to be vaporized pretty darn quickly and then it's going to seek an ignition source," he says. "Believe me, it will find an ignition source pretty darn readily."


The developers of the New Jersey export project — New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners — did not respond to multiple requests for an interview, and would not confirm details of their plans.

Rail companies lobbied for the rule and downplay the potential for accidents.

Earlier this year, Ian Jefferies, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, told NPR "the track record speaks for itself: 99.99% of all hazmat moved by rail reaches its destination without any incident whatsoever." He also said industry uses "risk-based routing analysis to ensure that railroads are using the lowest risk routes."

Fifteen state Attorneys General, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, have challenged the move saying it put people's lives at risk.

"We're going to court because our families expect our government to put their safety first, not put them in harm's way," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement. Becerra is now president-elect Joe Biden's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary.

Despite joining that suit, New Jersey recently signed off on construction of a dock for the LNG export project, although N.J. Governor Phil Murphy says the state "will explore all avenues within its authority to prevent the use of this dock for LNG transport."

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has challenged a number of state and federal permits for the project, saying a thorough Environmental Impact Statement was never done.

"The Biden Administration could step in and set a policy that this project, and all other LNG export projects, require comprehensive environmental review," says the network's deputy director Tracy Carluccio.

Standing on her porch along the route to the planned export terminal, Vanessa Keegan worries that transporting LNG by rail is untested. "If an accident happens," she says, "we don't get to show up the next day and say, 'Look, I told you so.'"

She also thinks fossil fuel projects like this should be abandoned in favor of renewables like wind or solar.

In fact, if the export facility gets built, none of the gas traveling through the area will go to power New Jersey homes. The state is planning a large offshore wind farm to help reach its goal of using all clean energy by 2050.

After Decades-Long Push, It's Not Clear Who Will Bid In Arctic Refuge Oil Lease Sale

January 1, 202O ALASKA NPR

A polar bear with cubs in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2014.Barcroft Media/Barcroft Media via Getty Images


Just two weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, the Trump administration is trying to lock-in oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with a hastily scheduled and controversial lease sale.

The event, January 6, marks a major moment in a 40-year fight over whether to develop the northernmost slice of the refuge's coastal plain, home to migrating caribou, birds and polar bears.

Biden, as well as his pick for Interior Secretary — Rep. Deb Haaland — oppose drilling in the refuge. The hand-off of drilling rights to the highest bidders could make it more difficult to reverse course.

But despite the high stakes, uncertainty looms over how much oil is actually trapped under the million acres of tundra up for leasing, and how much industry interest there is to go find it.

'We don't know very much about this area'

The data on what's under the coastal plain is decades old.

"We don't know very much about this area," says David Houseknecht, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. Oil seeps and rock formations seem promising, but he says the agency hasn't estimated the coastal plain's oil potential since the late 1990s.
Article continues after sponsor message



Back then, it relied on seismic testing from a decade prior, technology that's now outdated. It found that anywhere from about 4 to 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil could lie beneath the federal lands. That's a whole lot of oil, but also "a very large range of uncertainty," Houseknecht says. "The seismic data that we have are quite old, low resolution and a sparse grid."

The other challenge, he says: There's no data from actual wells in the refuge.

Just one exploratory well has been drilled in the coastal plain, on Alaska Native land in the 1980s, and the results are a closely-guarded secret.

Mark Myers, a former commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, is among only a few people who have seen the well results outside of the oil companies that paid for it.


ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COLLABORATIVE
As Oil Drilling Nears In Arctic Refuge, 2 Alaska Villages See Different Futures

"I signed a confidentiality agreement, and it didn't have an end date on it," he says with a small laugh. "I can't comment on it, in terms of what I saw."

A New York Times investigation based on interviews and legal documents suggested the results were not promising.

Houseknecht says geologists don't know more about the coastal plain's oil potential because it wasn't until late 2017 that Congress decided to allow drilling there, after decades of debate.

In recent years, he says, USGS had the 1980s seismic data commercially reanalyzed and planned to use it for a new oil assessment. But after the opening of the refuge three years ago the Interior Department called off the work without providing a reason why.


Bidding could be "fairly lukewarm"

As for who will bid in the lease sale, that's another mystery.

Oil and gas companies aren't talking about their plans publicly, which isn't surprising, says Kara Moriarty, head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group.

"Participation in lease sales is one of the most competitive and secretive things between companies," she says.

Bidding has already taken place, but Moriarty says she doesn't expect to know more until the federal government unseals companies' bids during the January 6 event, which will be streamed online.

Oil industry analyst Rowena Gunn, with the research firm Wood Mackenzie, believes enthusiasm could be "fairly lukewarm."

Controversy is one reason.

"It wouldn't necessarily be good PR for them to be seen as drilling in the Arctic, or drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas," she says.

Environmental organizations and some tribal groups have been lobbying oil companies, banks and other financial institutions to stay away from developing the refuge. A number of major banks say they won't fund oil projects in the Arctic.

Opponents have also filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block drilling. They've raised concerns about its impacts on Indigenous people, the global climate, and wildlife, including the caribou that give birth in the coastal plain and the polar bears that den there. Even if leases are sold, legal experts say it's possible that courts could later cancel them.

ENVIRONMENT
2020 May Be The Hottest Year On Record. Here's The Damage It Did

In response to concerns about wildlife, as well as oil industry interest, the Bureau of Land Management recently removed nearly a third of the original 1.6 million acres from the sale. Geologist Houseknect says those areas do not have high potential for oil.

'Very little capital for exploration'

Supporters of drilling the refuge, including many Alaska politicians, argue that it's good for the economy and jobs.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski worked with the White House to open the coastal plain to drilling as part of Trump's massive 2017 tax bill. The idea was to create revenue to offset tax cuts, so the legislation directed the federal government to carry out two oil and gas lease sales by 2024.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the leasing program could generate a windfall of $1.8 billion over a decade, to be split between Alaska and the federal government.

Critics of the sale, including the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, say they expect the dollar-figure to be much lower.

"For right now, this absolutely seems to make no fiscal sense," says Autumn Hanna, vice president of the group. "We don't need the oil. Why would we be going into such hard-to-access, sensitive places where the costs of exploration and development are so high?"

Myers, the former Alaska commissioner, agrees development costs could dampen interest.

It's already more expensive to drill in the Arctic compared to, say, Texas. On top of that, he says, oil prices are still relatively low after an oil-price war and the coronavirus pandemic hit the industry hard.

"The prices have fallen down to a level that leaves very little capital for exploration in these companies," Myers says. "So that's one of the biggest negatives."

But perhaps the greatest uncertainty is the changing administration.

President-elect Biden says he opposes drilling in the refuge, and that he'll take steps to permanently protect it, though he hasn't said how.

POLITICS
With Biden's Boost, 2 Obama Veterans Are 'Ready To Run' Climate Efforts

It's possible his administration could delay the environmental permitting process for companies that buy leases from the Trump administration. Or a Biden administration could try to buy the leases back.

Citing concerns about limited industry interest, Alaska politicians have lobbied for the state to step in. The board of a state-owned economic development corporation recently voted to bid up to $20 million at the lease sale.

The idea is the corporation could operate as a backstop, to submit minimum bids on the tracts and secure drilling rights in case no one else makes any offers. Then, at some point, it could partner with oil companies to do the actual drilling.

If any leases are bought and finalized, it will be just the start of a long process. Industry analysts say it would take at least a decade to actually pump oil out of Alaska's Arctic refuge.
Wall Street to ditch three Chinese telecom titans after Trump’s blacklisting
1 Jan, 2021 
Get short URL

FILE PHOTO: The boot on the statue of George Washington across from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) © Reuters / Andrew Kelly

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the largest bourse in the world, has started delisting proceedings for three Chinese telecom providers targeted by the Trump administration over their alleged military ties.

After being present on the US market for nearly two decades, the securities of China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom Hong Kong will be suspended from trading between January 7 and January 11, the exchange announced in a statement. While the proceedings are already in progress with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the issuers still can appeal the decision, it added.

ALSO ON RT.COMChinese firms raised almost $12 billion through IPOs on US exchanges this year

The trio are dominating China’s mobile business and are at the forefront of the 5G networks rollout in the country. However, they do not have a significant presence in the US stock market, according to Bloomberg. All of them are listed on the Hong Kong exchange, which has been competing with Wall Street for IPOs. 


Removal from US stock markets won't halt investments in blacklisted Chinese companies, Beijing says

The NYSE cited an executive order issued by the Trump administration that barred US investors from investing in firms it claims are affiliated with the Chinese military. For the same reason, some securities of other Chinese corporations mainly involved in manufacturing and construction were dropped from indexes on Nasdaq and from those compiled by MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Global Indices and British FTSE Russell.

The move, even by such a major stock exchange, is not expected to become a significant blow for the three firms, with Beijing earlier saying that de-listings will not stop foreign investment inflows to its companies.

Despite inking the first phase of their trade deal a year ago, tensions between the US and China kept escalating in 2020. The order, cited by index providers and the NYSE, was signed by US President Donald Trump in November. The document barred US investors from funding more than 30 Chinese firms it deemed “Communist Chinese military companies.”

Beijing had previously called on Washington to stop the arbitrary suppression of investments into Chinese businesses. It also said the US government had been “viciously slandering” China’s military-civilian integration, and vowed to protect the interests of its companies.
Largest study of Asia's rivers may help predict changes in region's water cycle: Scientists


The findings have important implications for water management and power production

 By PTI January 01, 2021


'Mega-droughts' of the past have often simultaneously hit sites that are currently home to power production along Asian rivers, says the largest study of the continent's river systems which may help predict long term changes in the region's water cycle.

The study, published in the journal Water Resources Research, noted that the findings have important implications for water management and power production, especially when a country's economy depends on multiple river basins.

"Our records show that 'mega-droughts' have hit multiple power production sites simultaneously, so we can now use this information to design a grid that is less vulnerable during extreme events," said study co-author Stefano Galelli from Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD).

According to the research, rivers in Asia behave in a coherent pattern, with droughts stretching as far as from the Godavari in India to the Mekong in Southeast Asia, explained study first author Nguyen Tan Thai Hung from SUTD.

As the region is home to many populous river basins which provide water, energy, and food for more than three billion people, the scientists said it is crucial to understand past climate patterns in the Asian Monsoon region in order to better predict long term changes in the water cycle and its impact on the water supply.

Following two years of analysing tree rings to reconstruct the courses of streams in the continent, the scientists produced data on 813 years (from 1200 to 2012) of annual river discharge at 62 stations in 41 rivers flowing through 16 countries, including India.

The researchers also obtained data from a previously published study of an extensive network of tree ring data sites in Asia and prehistoric drought record called the Monsoon Asia Drought Atlas (MADA).

Based on an analysis of the underlying tree ring data, the scientists extracted the most important climate signals that influence river discharge in the continent.

While earlier research had already found that droughts in Asian rivers are influenced by temperatures of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans, the new study revealed that this ocean-river connection is not constant over time.

According to the researchers, rivers in Asia were much less influenced by the oceans in the first half of the 20th century compared to the 50 years before, and 50 years after that period.

"This research is of great importance to policy makers -- we need to know where and why river discharge changed during the past millennium to make big decisions on water-dependent infrastructure," Galelli added.
Ranked: the environmental impact of five different soft drink containers

People are increasingly aware of the harm plastic waste causes to wildlife, and many would avoid buying single-use plastics if they could help it. But are the alternatives to plastic much better?

Let’s look at one example – fizzy drinks. You might assume that plastic bottles are the least green option, but is that always the case?

To find out, we compared five different types of pressurised drinks containers. We tested their environmental impact according to a range of criteria, including how each contributes to climate change and the pollution each produces during manufacture, use and disposal.

Here they are, ranked from worst to best.

Read news coverage based on evidence, not alarm.Get newsletter
Fifth place: glass bottles

It might come as a surprise, but glass bottles actually ranked last in our analysis. You might instinctively reach for a glass bottle to avoid buying a plastic alternative, but glass takes more resources and energy to produce. Glass making involves mining raw materials such as silica sand and dolomite, and that can release pollution which, when inhaled, can cause the lung condition silicosis.

High temperatures are also needed to melt these materials, a process overwhelmingly powered by fossil fuels. During production, the glass itself releases carbon dioxide.

Our analysis found that glass bottle production used the most natural resources, due to the sheer amount of material used. A one-litre glass bottle can weigh up to 800g, while a similar plastic bottle weighs around 40g. That extra weight means vehicles transporting glass bottles consume more fossil fuels to deliver the same amount of liquid. For these reasons, we found that glass bottles have about a 95% bigger contribution to global warming than aluminium cans.
More weight means more emissions. Makushin Alexey/Shutterstock

Fourth place: recycled glass bottles

If a regular glass bottle is the worst, then surely those made from 100% recycled glass are much better, right? Unfortunately, no.

Some energy is saved in recycling rather than extracting, processing and transporting raw materials. But recycling glass still uses a lot of energy because of the high temperatures needed to melt it. More energy means more greenhouse gas emissions, and during the process, the glass may release carbon dioxide again.

In the UK, the recycling rate for glass is 67.6%. This would need to improve for glass bottle production to be self-sufficient by recycling alone.
Third place: plastic bottles

In third place is the plastic bottle. Plastic has ideal qualities for containing drinks. It’s strong, resistant to chemicals (so the ingredients in your drink don’t degrade the plastic), and it’s lightweight, meaning more can be transported on less emissions. That gave plastic a significantly lower impact on global warming than glass in our analysis.

But the effects of plastic waste globally are well documented. Glass and aluminium don’t break up into harmful microparticles like plastic does.

Plastic recycling requires less energy due to the lower temperatures involved in melting the raw material. But plastic, unlike glass or aluminium, cannot be endlessly recycled. Each time it’s recycled, the chains of molecules that make up plastics are shortened. All plastic reaches a point when it can no longer be recycled and so becomes destined either for landfill, incineration or the environment.
Second place: aluminium cans

In second place are aluminium cans. We found that they contribute less to global warming than glass and plastic because making them consumes less energy and resources. Cans are lighter than glass and aren’t made from fossil fuels either, like plastic.

Because of the processes involved in making them, cans also contribute less to environmental problems like acid rain and oxygen-free zones in the ocean. That’s because creating glass and plastic requires more electricity, and so it generates more sulphur dioxide pollution on average – a leading cause of acid rain. Making glass and plastic, and extracting the materials to make them (particularly soda ash for glass production), also releases more phosphates into the environment, which can overload rivers and coastal seas and deplete oxygen from the water.

But aluminium has its own environmental impacts. Making it involves refining bauxite ore, and mining bauxite can pollute water in the countries it’s sourced, including Australia, Malaysia and India. Rivers and sediment contaminated with heavy metals threaten the health of people and wildlife near mines.
Bauxite exists in the topsoil of some tropical and subtropical countries.

First place: recycled aluminium cans

Recycled aluminium cans were the least environmentally damaging single-use container we looked at. Aluminium can be constantly recycled with no change in properties. Recycling an aluminium can saves 95% of the energy used to make a new can and no new material needs to be mined or transported.

But aluminium isn’t always recycled. The UK’s recycling rate for aluminium packaging is just 52%. This must be drastically improved to make recycling the main supply of new cans.

Even if some of these containers are better than others, all of them have an environmental impact. The best option would be to phase out single-use packaging entirely, and introduce a system of reusing containers. Think self-serve drinks machines in local shops, where you could fill a bottle that you bring from home, or bottle return and reuse schemes.

Reducing waste and reusing materials, where possible, should come before recycling something. By reusing bottles, we reduce the amount of single-use packaging that needs to be created, reducing waste and a whole host of global environmental problems.


November 17, 2020


Authors
Ian Williams
Professor of Applied Environmental Science, University of Southampton
Ian Williams receives funding from EPSRC and EU Horizon2020.
Alice Brock
PhD Candidate in Environmental Science, University of Southampton
Disclosure statement
Alice Brock receives funding from ESRC.