Doctors in England launch longest strike in NHS history

Agence France-Presse
January 3, 2024 

Junior doctors in England have staged successive strikes over pay and conditions 

(Daniel LEAL/AFP)

Hospital doctors in England on Wednesday began their longest consecutive strike in the seven-decade history of Britain's National Health Service (NHS).

Junior doctors -- those below consultant level -- started a six-day walkout, in a major escalation of their long-running pay dispute with the UK government.

The industrial action comes at one of the busiest times of the year for the state-funded NHS, when it faces increased pressure from winter respiratory illnesses.

It also quickly follows a three-day strike held by doctors just before Christmas.

The NHS said the latest stoppage, which could see up to half of the medical workforce on picket lines, would have "a significant impact on almost all routine care".

"This January could be one of the most difficult starts to the year the NHS has ever faced," said its national medical director, Stephen Powis.

The strike is due to end at 0700 GMT next Tuesday.

The British Medical Association (BMA) announced the walkout in December after a breakdown in talks with the government.

The union said junior doctors have been offered a 3.0-percent rise on top of the average 8.8-percent increase they were given earlier this year.

It rejected the offer because the cash would be split unevenly across different doctor grades and would "still amount to pay cuts for many doctors".


Junior doctors have gone on strike at least seven times since March.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and hospital leaders have criticized the action.

- 'Significant' -


Health policy is a devolved matter for the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the UK government overseeing England.

Junior doctors in Wales are due to walk out for 72 hours from January 15.

Those in Northern Ireland have voted for potential strike action.


Their Scottish counterparts have struck a deal with the government in Edinburgh.

The NHS typically sees a rise in the number of people in hospital in the two weeks after Christmas, due to people delaying seeking treatment in order to spend the festive season with loved ones.

The service is already facing huge backlogs in waiting times for appointments and surgery, blamed on treatment postponement during Covid but also years of under-funding.


Julian Hartley, the chief executive of NHS Providers which represents hospital groups in England, said the effect of the strikes on patients would be "significant".

"The vast majority of planned operations, appointments, and so on, will have to be stood down," he told BBC television.

Consultants will cover for junior doctors and emergency and urgent care such as maternity and intensive care services will be operating.


But there are fears that Covid, flu and other seasonal conditions could also hit staffing.

"We're deeply concerned about the kind of impact over the coming days," said Hartley.

New Massachusetts 'Tax the Rich' law raises $1.5 billion for free school lunch and more

Julia Conley, Common Dreams
January 3, 2024 

Kids eating Lunch

A new "millionaire's tax" in Massachusetts was expected to generate $1 billion in revenue last year to help pay for public education, infrastructure, and early childcare programs, but projections were a bit off, according to a fresh state analysis.

The state Department of Revenue estimated late last week that the Fair Share Amendment, which requires people with incomes over $1 million, to pay a 4% annual surtax, will add $1.5 billion to state coffers this fiscal year, which ends in June—surpassing expectations.

Universal free school meals, much-needed improvements to an aging public transportation system, and tuition-free education for community college students are just some of the programs Massachusetts' wealthiest residents have helped pay for after voters approved the law in 2022 amid growing calls across the United States to tax the 
The video player is currently playing an ad.

The amendment was narrowly passed via a statewide ballot initiative in 2022 despite claims by opponents that it would force wealthy residents and businesses to leave the state.

The state analysis of the law shows that requiring wealthy households to pay more in taxes to contribute to the greater good has overall benefits for the state, said observers including Jonathan Cohn, political director for Progressive Massachusetts.

"The Fair Share Amendment has had a great first year. Looking forward to many more!" said the organization.

According to Fair Share, which advocated for the passage of the referendum in 2022, $150 million of the new revenue has been allocated to expanding green infrastructure and other construction projects in schools, while it cost the state's richest taxpayers just $69 million to fund free school meals for every child in Massachusetts, "saving families hundreds of dollars."

More than $205 million is being spent to upgrade, repair, and maintain the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority system, and $150 million is going toward bridge and road repairs. Expanded access to high-quality childcare and pre-kindergarten is being paid for with just $70.5 million, and $50 million is going toward tuition-free community college.

The investments are "only possible because the voters passed this constitutional amendment and we created this new tax," Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the Raise Up MA Coalition, toldWBUR.

"The money is going where it was promised," he added. "Those are fundamental investments in our economy that are needed to make sure it works for everyone."

Farnitano toldMassLive that revenues from the Fair Share Amendment are expected to increase as much as $2 billion by the time the 2025 budget goes into effect.

“Over the past few months, we've seen the impact, and that will only grow," he said.

An overall decline in other state revenue shows that the public spending would be impossible without the Fair Share Amendment, Farnitano told WBUR.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll found in September 2021 that 74% of Americans agreed with the statement, "The wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes," and a Gallup survey found in August 2022, three months before the Massachusetts law was passed, that 52% of respondents believed the U.S. government should "redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," while 47% disagreed.

The Economic Incentive: Blocking Israel’s Supply Chain

by Binoy Kampmark / January 2nd, 2024

If demography is destiny, as Auguste Comte tells us, then economics must be current, pinching reality.  The Israel-Gaza conflict is invigorating a global protest movement against the state of Israel which is seeing various manifestations.  From an economic standpoint, Israel can be seen as vulnerable in terms of global supply lines, potentially at the mercy of sanctions and complete isolation.  Both imports and exports are of concern.

Israel, however, has been spared any toothy sanctions regime over its conduct in Gaza.  If anything, the Biden administration in Washington has been brightly enthusiastic in sending more shells to the Israeli Defence Forces, despite Congressional reservations and some grumbling within the Democratic Party.  This has made such figures as Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, who has a long-standing association with the health system in Gaza, wonder why the wealthy states of the West exempt Israel from financial chastisement while economically punishing other powers, such as Russia, without reservation.  “Where are the sanctions against the war crimes of Israel?” he asks.  “Where are the sanctions against the occupation of Palestine?  Where are the sanctions against these abhorrent attacks on civilian healthcare in Gaza?”

The retaliatory initiative has tended to be left to protests at the community level, typified by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement created in 2005.  The war in Gaza, however, has resulted in a broader efflorescence of interest.  Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems have become specific targets of international protest. On December 21, a global coalition of groups under the umbrella of Progressive International took a day of action against the country’s largest arms company, drawing attention to the tentacular nature of the enterprise in the US, UK, Europe, Brazil and Australia.

Restricting the docking of Israeli shipping at ports, notably from ZIM Integrated Shipping Services, has also presented an opportunity to the protest movement.  Actions have been organised as far afield as Australia where “Block the Boat” measures have taken place.  During the early evening of November 8, several hundred protesters flocked to the entrance of Melbourne’s international container terminal.  On catching sight of a ZIM-branded shipping container, the protestors staged a blockade lasting till the morning of the next day.  A similar action was repeated in Sydney on November 11, involving several hundred protestors holding the line on the shores of Port Botany and delaying the arrival of a ZIM vessel.

The assessments that followed the protest were mixed.  Zacharias Szumer, writing in Jacobin, admits that such blockades, on their own, “are unlikely to cause a major dint in ZIM’s bottom line.”  That said, he is confident enough to see it as part of a globalised effort which “can cumulatively make a difference.”

Then came the sceptical voices who felt that these actions fell dramatically short of substance and effect, a product of righteous, ineffectual tokenism.  An anonymous contribution to the New Socialist, purporting to be from one of the protestors, went so far as to call the “Block the Boat” strategy misguided, since it never actually entailed blocking vessels.  The promotional materials for the events “indicated that the purpose was actually to say somebody should ‘Block the Boats’, and to ‘call for’ a boycott – a message addressed to ZIM and Albanese.”  The writer, clearly agitated, also took issue with the choice of locations (they “weren’t conducive to disruption”) and the “suspiciously rigid, and convenient” timing of the rallies.

Short of these efforts, it is precisely the absence of responses at the highest levels that has precipitated a more global reaction that is upending the order of things.  Beyond the protests of activists, community groups, and the more generally outraged come the more direct, state-sponsored measures that have rattled financiers, the carriers and the operators.  The crisis in the Red Sea, for instance, where Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels (Ansar Allah), are putting the brakes on international shipping, is the stellar example.  While the measure initially began on November 14 to target Israeli-affiliated merchant shipping, largescale operators have not been spared.  “Unlike previous piracy related events in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden this is a sophisticated military threat and requires a very sophisticated response,” states a briefing note from Inchcape Shipping Services.

The disruptions are significant, given that 30 percent of all container ship traffic passes through the Bab al-Mandab Strait off the coast of Yemen, the point where both the Red Sea and Indian Ocean meet.  The actions and threats by the Houthis have seen various oil and gas companies reroute their tankers. Decisions are even being made to suspend shipping through that route in favour of the safer, though costlier and longer route via the Cape of Good Hope.  Insurance premiums are also on the rise.

The Egyptians are also raising fees for those using the Suez Canal for the new year.  In an October announcement, the SCA promised an increase of between 5-15%, effective from January 15, 2024.  The measure is applicable to a fairly comprehensive list of vessel categories, including crude oil tankers, petroleum product tankers, liquefied petroleum gas carriers, containerships and cruise ships.

On December 20, Malaysia, as if heeding the “Block the Boat” protests, announced that it would be preventing Israeli-flagged cargo ships from docking at the country’s ports.  Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced the decision in a statement, with a specific reference to ZIM.  “The Malaysian government decided to block and disallow the Israeli-based shipping company ZIM from docking at any Malaysian port.”  Such sanctions were “a response to Israel’s actions that ignore basic humanitarian principles and violate international law through the ongoing massacre and brutality against Palestinians.”

Malaysia also announced, in addition to barring ships using the Israeli flag from docking in the country, the banning of “any ship on its way to Israel from loading cargo in Malaysian ports.”

Blockade, barring, embargo, constriction – all these measures are familiar to the Israeli security establishment as it seeks to strangle and pulverize the Gaza Strip.  While closing ports to Israeli shipping is modest in comparison to starving and strafing an entire population, it is fittingly reciprocal and warranted.  The Israel campaign against Gaza, and Palestinians more generally, is no longer a local, contained affair.

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 Distortion of Science

To support the globalist's Climate Change agenda

by Robert Malone / January 2nd, 2024

Starting in the mid-20th century, companies began distorting and manpulating science to favor specific commercial interests.

Big tobacco is both the developer and the poster child of this strategy. When strong evidence that smoking caused lung cancer emerged in the 1950s, the tobacco industry began a campaign to obscure this fact.

The Unmaking of Science

The tobacco industry scientific disinformation campaign sought to disrupt and delay further studies, as well as to cast scientific doubt on the link between cigarette smoking and harms. This campaign lasted for almost 50 years, and was extremely successful… until it wasn’t. This tobacco industry’s strategic brilliance lay in the use of a marketing and advertising campaign (otherwise known as propaganda) to create scientific uncertainty and sow doubts in the minds of the general public. This, combined with legislative “lobbying” and strategic campaign “donations” undermined public health efforts and regulatory interventions to inform the public about the harms of smoking and the regulation of tobacco products.

Disrupting normative science has become a de rigueur component of the pharmaceutical industry business model. A new pharmaceutical product is not based on need, it is based on market size and profitability. When new data threatens the market of a pharmaceutical product, then that pharma company will try to sprout the seeds of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof. For instance, clinical trials can be easily coopted to meet specified end-points positive for the drug products. Other ways to manipulate a clinical trial include manipulating the dosing schedule and amounts. As these practices have been exposed, people no longer trust the science. Fast forward to the present, and the entire industry of evidence-based (and academic) medicine is now suspect due to the malfeasance of certain pharma players. In the case of COVID-19, Pharma propaganda and cooptation practices have now compromised the regulatory bodies controlling the pharma product licensing and deeply damaged global public confidence in those agencies.

We all know what climate change is. The truth is that the UN, most globalists and a wide range of world leaders” blame human activities for climate change. Whether or not climate change is real or that human activities are enhancing climate change is not important to this discussion. That is a subject for another day.

Most climate change scientists receive funding from the government. So they must comply with the government edict and policy position that human activity-caused climate change is an existential threat to both humankind and global ecosystems. When these “scientists” publish studies supporting the thesis that human activities cause climate change, they are more likely to receive more grant monies and therefore more publications- and therefore to be academically promoted (or at least to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of modern academe). Those who produce a counter narrative from the government approved one soon find themselves without funding, tenure, without jobs, unable to publish and unable to procure additional grants and contracts. It is a dead-end career wise. The system has been rigged.

And by the way, this is nothing new. Back in the day, during the “war on drugs, if a researcher who had funding by the NIH’s NIDA (National Institute of Drug Addiction) published an article or wrote an annual NIH grant report showing benefits to using recreational drugs, that would be a career ending move, as funding would not be renewed and new funding would never materialize. Remember, the NIH peer review system only triages grants, it does not actually chose who receives grant money. The administrative state at NIH does that! And anything that went against the war on drugs was considered a war on the government. Funding denied. This little truthbomb was conveyed to me – word of mouth- many years ago by a researcher and Professor who specialized in drug addiction research. Nothing printed, all heresy. Because that is how the system works. A whisper campaign. A whiff of a message on the wind.

The ends justify the means.

The new wrinkle in what has now happened with corrupted climate change activism/propaganda/”science” is that the manipulation of research is crossing disciplines. No longer satisfied with oppressing climate change scientists, climate change narrative enforcers have moved into the nutritional sciences. This trend of crossing disciplines portends death for the overall independence of any scientific endeavors. A creeping corruption into adjacent disciplines. Because climate change activists, world leaders, research institutions, universities and governments are distorting another branch of science outside of climate science. They are using the bio-sciences, specifically nutrition science, to support the climate change agenda. It is another whole-of-government response to the crisis, just like with COVID-19.

Just like with the tobacco industry’s scientific disinformation campaign, they are distorting health research to make the case that eating meat is dangerous to humans. Normal standards for publication have been set aside. The propaganda is thick and easily spotted.

As the NIH is now funding researchers to find associations between climate change and health, it is pretty clear that those whose research is set-up to find such associations will be funded. Hence, once again, the system is rigged to support the climate change narrative.

The standard approach for nutritional research is based on a food-frequency and portion questionnaire – usually kept as a diary. The nutrient intake from this observational data set is then associated with disease incidence. Randomized interventional clinical trials are not done due to expense and bioethical considerations.

The problem is that the confounding variables in such studies are hard to control. Do obese people eat more, so would their intake of meat be more or less in proportion to dietary calories? What do they eat in combination? What about culture norms, combined with genetic drivers of disease? Age? Geo-considerations? The list of confounding variables is almost never ending. Garbage in, garbage out.

We have all witnessed how these studies get used to promulgate one point of view or another.

It’s not just within the context of red meat. The same thing happens over and over. We get dietary recommendations put together by expert committees and the data are reviewed. But when subsequent, so-called systematic reviews of specific recommendations take place, the data don’t meet reliability standards…

Yes, available information is mostly based on studies of association rather than causation, using methods that fall short of proving chronic disease effects, especially in view of the crucial dietary measurement issues. The whole gestalt produces reports that seem very uncertain in terms of the standards that are applied elsewhere in the scientific community for reliable evidence. (Dr. Ross Prentice, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

Some recent “peer reviewed” academic publications on climate change and diet:

---

---

---

---

Enter climate change regulations, laws and goals – such as those found in UN Agenda 2030. Enter globalists determined to buy up farm-land to control prices, agriculture and eating trends. Enter politics into our food supplies and even the science of nutrition What a mess.

Below are some of the more outlandish claims being made in the name of climate science and nutrition. The United Nations’s World Food Program writes:

The climate crisis is one of the leading causes of the steep rise in global hunger. Climate shocks destroy lives, crops and livelihoods, and undermine people’s ability to feed themselves. Hunger will spiral out of control if the world fails to take immediate climate action.

Note that “Climate shocks” have always existed and will always exist. The existence of readily observed (and easily propagandized) human tragedies associated with hurricanes, fires and droughts are embedded throughout the entire archaeological record of human existence. This is nothing new in either written human history or prehistory. This does not equate to a pressing existential human crisis.

In fact, reviewing the evidence of calories and protein available reveals a very different trend. Over time, per capita caloric and protein supplies have increased almost across the board.

The prevalence of undernourishment is the leading indicator of food availability. The chart below shows that the world still has a significant issue with poverty and food stability, but it is not increasing. If anything, people are better nourished in countries with extreme poverty than they were 20 years ago.

*Note the COVIDcrisis has most likely exacerbated extreme poverty and undernourishment, but those results for the 2021-2023 years are not (yet?) available.

Despite clear and compelling evidence that climate change is not impacting on food availability or undernutrition, websites, news stories and research literature all make tenuous assertions about how the climate change “crisis” is causing starvation.

These are from the front search page on google for “climate change starvation”:

But the actual data documents something different.

This is not to say that that the poorest nations in the world don’t have issues with famine, they do. It is an issue, but not a climate change issue. It is a gross distortion of available data and any objective scientific analysis of those data to assert otherwise.

The best way to stop famine is to ensure that countries have adequate energy and resources to grow their own food supply, and have a domestic manufacturing base. That means independent energy sources.

If the United Nations and the wealthy globalists at the WEF truly want to help nations with high poverty and famine rates <and reduce our immigration pressure>, they would help them secure stable energy sources. They would help them develop their natural gas and other hydrocarbon projects. Then they could truly feed themselves. They could attain independence.

Famine is not a climate change issue, it is an energy issue. Apples and oranges. This is not “scientific”. Rather, it is yet more weaponized fearporn being used as a Trojan horse to advance hidden political and economic objectives and agendas of political movements, large corporations and non-governmental organizations.

Facts matter.

Robert W Malone MD, MS is president of the Malone Institute whose mission is to bring back integrity to the biological sciences and medicine. The Malone Institute supports and conducts research, education, and informational activities. Contact: info@maloneinstitute.org. Read other articles by Robert, or visit Robert's website.

 

Global Banks Pledge Massive Investments in Sustainable Projects

By Felicity Bradstock - Dec 31, 2023

• The World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank Group have announced substantial increases in funding for climate mitigation and adaptation projects.
• 
  
• These banks aim to become key players in supporting the green transition in Asia-Pacific and Latin America, with funding directed towards innovative climate technologies and renewable energy.
• 
  
• Commitments include creating regulatory frameworks to attract private investment, pausing debt repayment during climate disasters, and establishing common approaches for reporting climate results.
• 
  

Several regional development banks are responding to mounting pressure to provide climate financing to support the development of the green economy of low-income regions. This year, both the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank Group announced major climate investments aimed at the growth of renewable energy capacity in developing regions of the world. This is further supported by recent efforts but the World Bank Group.

Since the first COP climate summit two years ago, COP26 held in Glasgow, development banks have been facing increasing pressure to fund green energy and tech projects in much-overlooked parts of the world. And at COP28, several announcements suggested that the banks have responded to this demand. The World Bank Group announced at the summit that it was increasing its climate target to give 45 percent of its annual financing to climate-related projects in the next fiscal year. This provides around an additional $9 billion in funding for green projects, aimed principally at climate mitigation and adaptation. 

In October, The Asian Development Bank (ADB) announced it planned to lend an additional $100 billion over the next 10 years. It expects to lend around $36 billion a year, marking a 40 percent increase in lending. In 2022, the ADB lent an estimated $20.5 billion for climate-related development. The bank’s plan to “relax” rules on loans is not expected to affect its AAA credit rating. Woochong Um, managing director general at ADB, stated “We looked at it and without jeopardizing our AAA we can optimize our capital adequacy framework, and be able to raise more resources to lend to the countries.” He added, “The development needs are huge and we need to make sure that we are equipped to provide financing.” 

While the ADB’s lending will continue to be centred around poverty, it hopes to boost the amount of financing it provides for climate work. The ADB said that it hopes to become the climate bank of Asia and the Pacific by increasing its spending on mitigation, adaptation, and climate resilience. Significant funding will go towards new climate-related technologies and exploring cleaner transportation and weather-resistant crops. It believes that this funding goes hand in hand with the bank’s aims to alleviate poverty in the region. To attract more private funding, the ADB plans to support the creation of regulatory frameworks in countries across the region, to reduce risk and make the investment environment more attractive.

Around a month later, the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) announced an increase in funding to Latin America and the Caribbean to $150 billion over the next decade. This would help the bank achieve three times the amount of financing it had previously earmarked for climate projects, putting it on track to meet the G20’s recommendation. The President of the IDB, Ilan Goldfajn, stated “We are placing action on climate and nature at the centre of the IDB Group… This means increasing direct and mobilized climate financing for Latin America and the Caribbean, expanding our work on global public goods, such as the Amazon, catalysing private-sector engagement and developing new financial instruments so we can mobilize more capital toward climate action.” 

The IDB is the main source of long-term development financing in the region and is committed to meeting its climate mitigation and adaptation goals. The Latin America and the Caribbean region is home to the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s primary carbon sinks, as well as vast green energy resources. With greater financing, the region could be propelled to become a major green energy and tech hub, helping to alleviate the burden of climate change and supporting a global green transition. 

Five multinational development banks (MDBs) have now pledged to include clauses in their agreements and contracts to pause debt repayment in the case of a climate disaster, following pressure from international bodies and governments. Further, MDBs recently released a joint statement stating their commitment to establishing a common approach for reporting climate results. This will be achieved through country-level cooperation to harmonise climate indicators. They will also develop a programme to be provided via the World Bank to support countries in the development of long-term climate and development strategies and to attract private climate funding. EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a statement “This joint statement from the world’s multilateral development banks makes it clear that we have heard the calls to step up and that we have the means to deliver. Crucially, we have agreed to further strengthen our cooperation to support countries and the private sector to accelerate a green and just transition and build resilience.” 

In response to mounting pressure from state governments and other official actors, several development banks have announced an increase in climate funding, aimed mainly at climate mitigation and adaptation. This funding is expected to help greater private funding to low-income regions that could be key to achieving a global green transition. Investments in green energy and technologies are also expected to spur economic growth at the national level for several countries around the globe. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Chinese Carmakers Launch Sodium-Ion Battery-Powered EVs

By Tom Kool - Jan 01, 2024

• JAC Yiwei EV features sodium-ion batteries with an energy density of 120 Wh/kg and a rapid recharge capability.
• 
  
• Sodium-ion batteries are more cost-effective due to the abundance of raw materials and potential for lower production costs.
• 
  
• The launch signals a significant shift in EV battery technology, potentially positioning Chinese EV manufacturers like BYD to lead the global market.

Two Chinese state-owned carmakers have launched electric vehicles (EVs) powered by sodium-ion batteries, considered an alternative to the conventional  lithium-ion batteries used in most EVs, Caixin Global reports. 

Yiwei, a new EV subsidiary of JAC Group and backed by Volkswagen, debuted the first sodium-ion battery-powered electric car on Wednesday. 

Back in 2021, Volkswagen invested 1 billion euros in JAC Group for a 50% stake with the giant German automaker before full control of management of the EV joint venture with a 75% stake. 

The newly-launched JAC Yiwei EV features sodium-ion cylindrical cells from HiNa Battery and will use a honey-comb battery structure by JAC’s UE module tech. JAC’s UE is similar to BYD’s popular Blade battery, which is used in Ford, Toyota and Kia EVs, and is also comparable to CATL’s CTP (cell-to-pack) technology. 

The sodium-ion-battery features 25 kWh of capacity and 120 Wh/kg of energy density. 

According to the manufacturer, the electric hatchback could recharge from 10% to 80% in 20 minutes with 3C to 4C charging. In comparison,  Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) current Model 3 battery comes with an energy density of about 260 Wh/kg;  Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive has a 57.5 kWh usable battery capacity, topping out at 75 kWh for both the Model 3 Long Range and Model 3 Performance.

Deliveries of the sodium battery-powered EV are expected to kick off next month.

One of the biggest advantages of sodium-Ion batteries is that they rely on abundant and cheap raw materials. Although Li-ion batteries now average $151/kWh, about 80% cheaper compared to a decade ago, analysts contend that the cost must fall further to below $100/kWh for EVs to achieve cost parity with fossil fuel vehicles. 

This is a primary driver for the increasing competitiveness of Chinese EVs, which rely on LFP (lithium-ion phosphate) batteries costing a third less than similar NMC (lithium nickel manganese cobalt) batteries. 

Cost factors have poised China’s BYD to overtake Tesla as the world’s biggest EV manufacturer in 2024, according to InsideEVs.

 

Record Declines in Grain Prices May Ease Global Food Crisis

By ZeroHedge - Jan 02, 2024

• Corn futures fell 31%, and wheat contracts decreased 21%, the largest drop since 2013.
• 
  
• The decline in grain prices is attributed to bumper crops in Brazil, the U.S., and Russia, along with expectations of reduced costs for staple foods and animal feed.
• 
  
• Despite the decline in global food prices, there's still uncertainty about the pace of price reductions and its impact on preventing food riots in emerging markets.
• 
  

Despite the El Nino-related weather disturbances affecting key agricultural areas globally and the disruptions in the Black Sea stemming from the war in Ukraine, there is encouraging data suggesting further easing in food inflation in the new year. This development comes amid the soaring risks of food riots in emerging markets, as the weakening of EM currencies against the dollar has made staple foods increasingly more expensive for poorer populations worldwide. 

Bloomberg data shows corn and wheat prices have recorded their largest annual declines in a decade. This is primarily because of bumper crops in key ag regions and might lead to further easing of food inflation into the first half of 2024. 

Corn futures on the Chicago Board of Trade plunged 31% this year, and wheat contracts fell 21% - the largest annual declines since 2013. Soybeans were down 15%. This led the Bloomberg Grains Spot Subindex to slide 22.8%. This is good news for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization World Food Price Index, which has already come off record highs. 

"The rout was driven by bumper crops in key crop suppliers Brazil, US and Russia following years of disruptions caused by extreme weather, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's war in Ukraine that pushed prices to record highs in 2022," Bloomberg wrote in a note, adding, "Lower prices for staple grains could bring down the cost of bread and make it less expensive to feed livestock, dairy herds and even biofuels. Analysts are anticipating even lower prices for corn and soybeans in 2024, while wheat is expected to rebound amid tighter supplies." 

However, there is still uncertainty about whether global food prices will decrease swiftly enough to prevent food riots in EM countries. The current food price levels are comparable to those that sparked the Arab Spring riots in the Middle East in 2010.

Sara Menker, founder and CEO of Gro Intelligence, warned last month in an interview with Bloomberg TV on the sidelines of Bloomberg's New Economy Forum in Singapore that the current food crisis surpassed the one in 2007-08. She explained this is mostly because of elevated crop prices and steep declines in local currencies against the dollar. 

By Zerohedge.com

 BIDENOMICS

U.S. Gasoline Prices Begin Falling Again

By Julianne Geiger - Jan 02, 2024,

• Gasbuddy: U.S. average gasoline prices have retreated to $3.06 per gallon on Monday.
• 
  
• The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States is now down 12.6 cents per gallon compared to a year ago.
• 
  
• The price of the U.S. crude oil benchmark WTI was trading down on Tuesday at $71.51 per barrel, a $0.14 slide on the day.

Join Our Community

The last week of the year may have seen gasoline prices rise for U.S. drivers, but the new year has kicked off another price slide, GasBuddy said on Tuesday morning.

U.S. average gasoline prices have retreated to $3.06 per gallon on Monday, according to GasBuddy data. This is a 1.6-cent decline from a week ago today. GasBuddy data is based on 12 million individual price reports from more than 150,000 gas stations across the United States.

The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States is now down 12.6 cents per gallon compared to a year ago.

“After a brief hiatus, the national average has moved off its recent high, again falling closer to the $3 per gallon mark, setting up a potential second attempt at slipping below $2.99 for the first time since 2021,” GasBuddy’s head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan said. “While gas prices have risen in some areas, such as California after refinery snags emerged, other states have returned to declines. Illinois is one such example, falling below $3 per gallon for the first time since 2021. The Great Lakes and Gulf Coast offer some of the nation’s lowest gas prices, with the window of opportunity holding for the next few weeks to potentially re-test some of the levels seen a few weeks ago. The good news continues for average diesel prices, which slipped below $4 per gallon again and stand at their lowest level since the summer.”

According to AAA data, the national average cost for a gallon of gasoline is $3.104, compared to $3.216 per gallon a year ago, and $3.247 per gallon a month ago.

The price of the U.S. crude oil benchmark WTI was trading down on Tuesday at $71.51 per barrel, a $0.14 slide on the day, compared to $76.93 a year ago today.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com