News of the Day:
U.S. oil lease pause will not hit states’ income near term, official says
Reuters, April 27, 2021
Revenues disbursed to states from federal oil and gas leasing are not expected to decline significantly in the near term due to the Biden administration’s pause and review of the program, an official said on Tuesday.
Nada Culver, deputy director of policy and programs for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, told a Senate committee that no timeline had been set for completing the review, which froze new oil and gas leasing while officials study the program’s benefits to taxpayers and environmental impacts.
The pause, which is opposed by oil-producing states including Wyoming and Louisiana and the drilling industry, is widely seen as a first step to delivering on U.S. President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to end new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters to fight climate change. Around a quarter of the nation’s oil and gas comes from wells drilled on federal lands.
Nevertheless, most revenues to states come from existing production operations, Culver said, rather than the new leasing the administration paused earlier this year.
“We have thousands of permits available for drilling and millions of acres of land that can be developed right now,” Culver said before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee at a hearing on the oil and gas leasing program.
Also at the hearing, the committee heard from oil and gas industry players and Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon, who said the undetermined pause would kill jobs and cut revenues his state needs to fund schools and other government programs.
“We see no end in sight,” Gordon said.
The BLM has not decided if it will hold oil and gas lease sales scheduled for the third quarter of this year, Culver said. The agency canceled lease sales in the first and second quarters as part of its program review.
OIL:
Goldman forecasts the biggest jump in oil demand ever
Pippa Stevens, CNBC April 28, 2021
Goldman Sachs is forecasting the largest jump in oil demand on record as the world opens up again amid the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.
The firm is raising its outlook on oil based on this expected upswing in demand, noting that “the magnitude of the coming change in the volume of demand — a change which supply cannot match — must not be understated.”
GAS:
All of liquified natural gas from Russia’s Arctic for next 20 years sold in advance – Novatek
RT, April 28, 2021
Russia’s energy giant Novatek said on Wednesday it has inked 20-year agreements with the shareholders of its Arctic LNG 2 project on the sale and purchase of the entire volume of liquified natural gas.
The LNG sales from the plant’s first liquefaction train are planned to commence in 2023, according to the company.
The agreements “provide for LNG supplies from Arctic LNG 2 on FOB Murmansk and FOB Kamchatka basis with pricing formulas linked to international oil and gas benchmarks. The LNG offtake volumes are set in proportion to the respective participants’ ownership stakes in the project,” Novatek said.
The company’s chairman of the management board, Leonid Mikhelson, said that “The long-term offtake agreements between Arctic LNG 2 and its participants ensure the future revenue stream from LNG sales and de-risks the project. This represents one of the most important milestones in attracting the project’s external financing that will be completed in 2021.”
Mikhelson said earlier that the Arctic LNG 2 plant is 39% complete and will be launched as planned.
Arctic LNG 2 envisages constructing three LNG liquefaction trains of 6.6 million tons per annum each, as well as cumulative gas condensate production capacity of 1.6 million tons per annum. The total LNG capacity of the three liquefaction trains will be 19.8 million tons. The first train of Arctic LNG 2 is 53% ready and is scheduled to start operations in two years.
Novatek owns the majority stake (60%) in the project, with minority stakes held by foreign companies. The list of foreign investors includes French oil and gas company Total (10%), Chinese firms CNPC (10%) and CNOOC (10%), and the Japanese consortium of Mitsui and JOGMEC (10%).
The project utilizes an innovative construction concept using gravity-based structure platforms to reduce overall capital cost and minimize the project’s environmental footprint in the Arctic zone of Russia, according to Novatek.
MINING:
Caught between rare earths and Chinese dominance — Part 1: The story behind everything no one is telling you
Jamil Hijazi, James Kennedy, April 22, 2021
This is a four-part article series on the reality of how and why China retains its dominance in the Rare Earth (RE) industry. Part one investigates how China built its multi-commodity monopolies across the technological spectrum. Part two provides a brief historical overview on what China learned from its Rare Earth monopoly. Part three looks at how China turned Rare Earth metals, alloys & magnets into ‘utility goods’ for its domestic economy. The final part of this article series explores how China’s current monopolistic strategy feeds on the ‘Free Market’ actions of its adversaries and explores a possible solution to overcome Chinese global control in Rare Earths.
Read Part 2 here, Part 3 here and Part 4 here
During his first press conference, President Biden vowed that he would not allow China to become the world’s leading country: “That’s not going to happen on my watch, because the United States is going to continue to grow and expand.” What are these large growth markets that Biden sees the U.S. leading in? According to this Administration, these growth markets are Green-Technologies such as Electric Vehicles (EVs), Wind, Solar and other net-zero carbon technologies.
The problem is that China not only controls many of the critical materials necessary to produce these products but also tends to be the market leader in these industries. For example, China is by far the largest producer of EVs in the world – clocking in at close to 50% while the United States (US) is about one-third the market share of China. Adding insult to injury, nearly half of the EVs in the world are in China, with just over 20% in the US Regardless, you cannot make an EV without a battery and China makes most of the batteries. According to multiple sources, China accounts for 70% of all EV battery production in the world. China produces more than 60% of the world’s cathodes and 80% of anodes for batteries and intends to boost its market share at every point in the value chain. In fact, of the 143 lithium-ion battery plants in the pipeline to 2029, 107 are based in China.
POLITICS:
Biden proposes tax hikes for high-income Americans
Naomi Jagoda, The Hill, April 28, 2021
President Biden on Wednesday proposed tax increases for high-income individuals — including increases to the top income tax rate and capital gains tax rate — as a way to pay for his new plan focused on education and childcare.
Biden’s American Families Plan calls for $1 trillion in spending as well as $800 billion in tax cuts for low- and middle-income households. The White House said that the families plan, when combined with an infrastructure proposal Biden released last month, would be fully paid for over 15 years.
Biden is calling for the top individual income tax rate to be raised from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, its level before the enactment of former President Trump‘s 2017 tax-cut law. The White House said in a fact sheet that this increase would only apply to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income.
The president’s plan also proposes raising the capital gains rate from 20 percent to 39.6 percent for taxpayers making over $1 million. A White House official said the $1 million threshold would be the same for both single and married tax filers.
The proposal to raise capital gains taxes drew criticism from Republicans and the business community even before Biden’s plan was officially released. White House economic adviser Brian Deese defended it during a press briefing Monday, saying the tax increase would only impact about 500,000 households.
Biden’s plan calls for ending a tax preference known as “stepped-up basis” that allows people to pass investments down to heirs without the investments being taxed at the time of their death. The plan would ensure that family-owned farms and businesses wouldn’t be taxed if they are transferred to heirs who still run the businesses.
Additionally, the plan would end the carried interest tax break that benefits investment-fund managers, and it would make permanent a limitation on the amount of excess business losses that could be deducted in a given year. The president’s plan also calls for making sure that a 3.8 percent Medicare tax applies consistently to those making more than $400,000.
In addition to calling for tax increases for the wealthy, Biden also seeks to pay for his families plan through increased IRS enforcement to ensure that wealthy people pay the taxes that they owe.
It’s unclear to what extent legislation based on Biden’s plan will include these tax proposals. No Republicans are expected to support such legislation, which means that nearly every congressional Democrat will have to vote for it for it to pass.
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Beefing over beef is a distraction the climate movement can’t afford
Justine Calma, The Verge, April 28, 2021
You don’t always make friends with salad.
Lately, it seems like forgoing red meat has become an unfortunate proxy for environmental credentials. Epicurious, for example, just announced that it will no longer publish articles or recipes with beef in a decision it calls, “not anti-beef but rather pro-planet.” And then there are headlines like “Why do some green activists eat meat?”
Meat-eating, meanwhile, has become a sort of symbol for climate denial. There are Twitter wars swirling around whether Biden’s climate ambitions will infringe on Americans’ right to eat burgers (his actual climate proposals would not).
But diet shouldn’t be a political scorecard for how down you are for the planet. Shaming people over what they eat — particularly for girls, immigrants, and people who don’t fit the unfairly skinny box of beauty standards — is nothing new. We don’t need to add one more minefield.
Focusing heavily on individual responsibility to save the planet can also be a big distraction from the actual systemic change needed to tackle the global climate crisis. What’s more, it can alienate people who do care about climate change but might not have as many options when it comes to what they eat.
Livestock are responsible for a hefty 14.5 percent chunk of global greenhouse gas emissions. Meat industries have taken efforts to obscure the connection between meat and climate change. So, these industries should be held accountable for the damage they do to the planet we call home. As a media outlet and respected food institution, Epicurious does have some power and responsibility to do just that by leaving beef behind.
Most individuals don’t carry the same weight on their shoulders, especially if you live in a neighborhood where fresh produce or meat alternatives feel out of reach. Taking on the climate crisis is a battle against structural barriers and systemic failures. It’s about confronting power, not people’s dinner choices.
Having the alternatives easily available to be able to give up beef, for example, might require some level of privilege. Up to 54 million people in the US — more than 17 percent of the US population — live in low-income census tracts without a grocery store nearby. If you’re in one of these food deserts, a hot dog from a gas station or a burger from McDonald’s might just be what’s at hand.
“Boycotts of terrible retailers are a wonderful idea until you realize that they are the only option in some areas,” Mikki Kendall writes in her book, Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot. “Who is being hurt more? The corporation, or the people who rely on it for access to food?” Kendall’s book is broadly about how mainstream feminist groups can marginalize girls and women of color when they fail to recognize other inequities and injustices they face — including food insecurity. Mainstream environmentalism can apply similar lessons to their movement.
“All too often, our culture broadly equates ‘environmentalism’ with personal consumerism. To be ‘good,’ we must convert to 100 percent solar energy, ride an upcycled bike everywhere, stop flying, eat vegan,” writes Mary Annaïse Heglar, a climate justice essayist, in Vox. “All this raises the price of admission to the climate movement to an exorbitant level, often pricing out people of color and other marginalized groups.”
There could, of course, be big gains for people and the planet if there were better access to fresh fruits and vegetables for everyone regardless of identity, income, or where they live. That’s a conversation about empowerment and self-determination, not shame and moral high grounds.
There already are plenty of people who abstain from meat for environmental, cultural, or personal reasons. And if someone does want to reduce their individual carbon footprint, there’s evidence that cutting down on meat is one of the most effective ways to do that. The best way to support people who do want to eat less meat might be to ensure they have access to the foods they actually want. Again, choosing what you eat is easier said than done when you don’t have fresh foods or culturally specific ingredients nearby.
There are even more disparities to consider when it comes to food and the climate crisis. Not everyone is equally responsible for the problem. Researchers have found that the typical diet of
white Americans had higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions compared to that of Black and Latinx Americans.
But again, focusing heavily on individual choice and responsibility to save the planet can be a big distraction. We’re seeing that play out now with the drama over the false story that Joe Biden plans to limit Americans’ red meat consumption to four pounds a year. Biden has never suggested such a meat limit. Instead, he’s proposed dramatically making over the nation’s infrastructure to transition toward clean energy — an actual policy debate with a lot more rhetorical meat to sink your teeth into.
That saga also highlights how much food can be tied to identity, and how shaming someone for their diet tends to divide and disempower people rather than get them to act on climate change. Ultimately, everyone deserves to be at the table if they care about the climate. Refusing someone a seat because they’re not readily abandoning meat hurts more than it helps. Each person might have something different to offer, whether it’s a dish, an idea, or a vote. The solutions make up a potluck — not a prix fixe, one-size-fits-all menu.
Boycotts of terrible retailers are a wonderful idea until you realize that they are the only option in some areas,” Mikki Kendall writes in her book, Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot. “Who is being hurt more? The corporation, or the people who rely on it for access to food?” Kendall’s book is broadly about how mainstream feminist groups can marginalize girls and women of color when they fail to recognize other inequities and injustices they face — including food insecurity. Mainstream environmentalism can apply similar lessons to their movement.
“All too often, our culture broadly equates ‘environmentalism’ with personal consumerism. To be ‘good,’ we must convert to 100 percent solar energy, ride an upcycled bike everywhere, stop flying, eat vegan,” writes Mary Annaïse Heglar, a climate justice essayist, in Vox. “All this raises the price of admission to the climate movement to an exorbitant level, often pricing out people of color and other marginalized groups.”
There could, of course, be big gains for people and the planet if there were better access to fresh fruits and vegetables for everyone regardless of identity, income, or where they live. That’s a conversation about empowerment and self-determination, not shame and moral high grounds.
There already are plenty of people who abstain from meat for environmental, cultural, or personal reasons. And if someone does want to reduce their individual carbon footprint, there’s evidence that cutting down on meat is one of the most effective ways to do that. The best way to support people who do want to eat less meat might be to ensure they have access to the foods they actually want. Again, choosing what you eat is easier said than done when you don’t have fresh foods or culturally specific ingredients nearby.
There are even more disparities to consider when it comes to food and the climate crisis. Not everyone is equally responsible for the problem. Researchers have found that the typical diet of white Americans had higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions compared to that of Black and Latinx Americans.
But again, focusing heavily on individual choice and responsibility to save the planet can be a big distraction. We’re seeing that play out now with the drama over the false story that Joe Biden plans to limit Americans’ red meat consumption to four pounds a year. Biden has never suggested such a meat limit. Instead, he’s proposed dramatically making over the nation’s infrastructure to transition toward clean energy — an actual policy debate with a lot more rhetorical meat to sink your teeth into.
That saga also highlights how much food can be tied to identity, and how shaming someone for their diet tends to divide and disempower people rather than get them to act on climate change. Ultimately, everyone deserves to be at the table if they care about the climate. Refusing someone a seat because they’re not readily abandoning meat hurts more than it helps. Each person might have something different to offer, whether it’s a dish, an idea, or a vote. The solutions make up a potluck — not a prix fixe, one-size-fits-all menu.