Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      US celebrates ‘win’ as Britain looks to push China out of nuclear energy sites

      by

      Washington is celebrating the UK’s effort to push a Chinese company out of a sensitive nuclear power project, according to people familiar with US engagement on the issue. The US, long an opponent of the UK’s energy ties with China, considers London’s plans to require Chinese energy giant, CGN to give up its 20 per cent stake in the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk a long-fought-for diplomatic win. The British government’s discomfort with China’s grip on its energy sector has grown in recent months. Meanwhile, the Biden administration launched a fresh drive to protect energy infrastructure from attacks, including cyberattacks, earlier this year. This plan was created specifically with adversaries Russia and China, and their cyber-hostility in mind, according to a person briefed on the plan.It comes as the UK has sought to further cement its close security ties with Washington, via the tripartite nuclear submarine deal with the US and Australia termed ‘Aukus’ in recent weeks. The agreement is part of the wider effort to “preserve security and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” prime minister Boris Johnson said in a statement earlier this month which avoided a direct reference to China. The US has also been examining the energy security of its NATO allies, and their respective dependence on China and Russia. Now, an effort to take control of the CGN stake by the British government is viewed as a pay-off for Washington, after it lobbied London over China’s ties to Britain’s sensitive nuclear energy infrastructure.“It’s a win for sure, for the US, and for the UK. Serious threats posed by some countries to energy security seem to be getting the right attention,” one of the same people familiar with US energy security policy said.Britain is weighing taking hold of CGN’s 20 per cent stake in the £20 billion Sizewell C nuclear plant project. The government may then sell the stake to institutional investors, or float it on the stock market, according to a person familiar with the government’s thinking. EDF, which holds the remaining share of the Sizewell project and Hinkley point C, declined to comment. CGN did not respond to a request for comment.There is no official figure which captures the full extent of Chinese ownership of British assets within the energy sector, in part because it is hard to determine the extent of the regime’s use of intermediaries. However, China’s hold over a range of parts of the UK’s energy infrastructure is considerable. The Chinese state holds an interest in UK gas distributor, Cadent Gas, via its sovereign wealth fund after the Chinese Investment Corporation led a consortium to buy the network from National Grid. State-backed Chinese companies also own stakes in British oil and gas companies, and renewable energy sites, including windfarms.CGN is also involved in building the Hinkley Point C site in Somerset alongwith French energy company EDF, offering nearly a third of the investment in the site. Washington was troubled by both the Sizewell and Hinkley projects, but most concerned about plans for a plant in Bradwell-on-Sea in Essex which could use China’s own nuclear reactor technology, rather than following more familiar European technology. The same people familiar with US energy engagement expect China to be cut from the Bradwell-on-Sea project. A government spokesperson said: “CGN is a valued partner at Hinkley Point C and a shareholder in Sizewell C up until the point of the government’s Final Investment Decision. Negotiations are ongoing and no final decision has been taken.”The government, which said it believes nuclear power is a crucial part of the energy mix as the UK moves seeks to reduce its carbon emissions, is expected to put forward new legislation on how to fund big nuclear energy projects going forward.The favoured approach is a regulated asset base (RAB) route, whereby investors can collect money from consumers via energy bills during construction of a power plant.A representative for the US government did not offer a comment ahead of publication. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Petrol crisis deepens as panic-buying leaves at least half of local stations out of supplies

      by

      More than half of all non-motorway petrol stations have run dry after a weekend of panic-buying by spooked motorists, forcing ministers to consider putting the army on notice to drive tankers to forecourts.The government has suspended competition laws to allow fuel companies to co-ordinate deliveries, and Boris Johnson is set to decide on Monday whether to send in soldiers to ease the crisis.The Petrol Retailers Association reported alarming shortages among its independent members as oil giant BP warned that almost a third of its sites had no supplies.Government pleas for drivers to stop filling their cars “when they don’t need it” fell on deaf ears as long queues formed at forecourts, operators rationed supplies – and police were called to one scuffle in London.With Christmas just three months away, shoppers were also warned of turkey shortages, while toy sellers report delays and higher prices shipping goods into Brexit Britain.Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng announced at 9pm on Sunday that petrol firms are temporarily exempt from the Competition Act 1998. Officials said the “Downstream Oil Protocol” would make it easier for firms to share information and prioritise delivery of fuel to parts of the country most in need.Brian Madderson, the PRA’s chairman, revealed a survey of its members, who make up the majority of the UK’s 8,000-odd petrol stations.“They serve the main roads, the rural areas, the urban roads, and anywhere between 50 per cent and 90 per cent of their forecourts are currently dry – and those that aren’t dry are partly dry and running out soon,” he told the BBC.“One of them mentioned to me that yesterday they had a 500 per cent increase in demand compared to a week ago, which is quite extraordinary.”BP, which operates 1,200 petrol stations, said: “With the intense demand seen over the past two days, we estimate that around 30 per cent of sites in this network do not currently have either of the main grades of fuel.”Earlier, Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, sparked anger when he claimed industy leaders were responsible for the chaos, despite the government having admitted to a lack of lorry drivers. He was accused of a “disgraceful attack” on hard-pressed hauliers and of “shamefully passing the buck” for the queues.The row blew up after The Mail on Sunday quoted a government source claiming the Road Haulage Association (RHA) is “entirely responsible for this panic and chaos”.The transport secretary backed the claim, saying: “There was a meeting which took place about 10 days ago, a private meeting, in which one of the haulage associations decided to leak the details to media.“And that has created, as we have seen, quite a large degree of concern as people naturally react to those things.”Calling the leak “irresponsible”, Mr Shapps told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “The good news is there is plenty of fuel. The bad news is, if everyone carries on buying it when they don’t need it, then we will continue to have queues.”But the RHA hit back quickly, pointing out its managing director Rod McKenzie had not even been at the meeting where a BP executive had discussed stock levels.“He was not, as the government source claimed, “aware of the comments” and certainly did not “weaponise” them in subsequent TV interviews,” a statement said.“Indeed he repeatedly stressed the need not to panic buy and that there were adequate fuel stocks.“The RHA believes this disgraceful attack on a member of its staff is an attempt to divert attention away from their recent handling of the driver shortage crisis.”Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat business spokesperson, said: “Grant Shapps is shamefully passing the buck for the government’s own failures.“The Conservatives have repeatedly ignored calls from businesses to address the shortage of drivers. It is a bit rich for ministers to now blame the public and the road haulage industry for the mess we find ourselves in.”Mr Shapps’s comments came after the announcement of emergency visas for foreign lorry drivers to come to the UK to ease the crisis was dismissed as a damp squib.As expected, the offer will be made to 5,000 HGV drivers – plus 5,500 poultry workers – but the visas will run out on Christmas Eve, triggering criticism they are too little, too late.Keir Starmer suggested 100,000 foreign drivers are needed – the RHA estimate of the shortfall – saying: “We are going to have to do that. We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need.”The Labour leader said: “I’m astonished the government, knowing the situation, is not acting today. The prime minister needs to say today what he is going to do.”Meanwhile, a poultry association said big firms have already scaled back production of turkeys for the festive season, because they would not have enough staff to for more orders.Kate Martin, chairwoman of the Traditional Farm Fresh Turkey Association, said: “It’s looking like there is a national shortage of turkeys when we’re talking about supermarket shelves, rather than buying direct from your farm.”Footage circulated on social media showed two men in helmets tussling with each other at a petrol station in north London, before the police were called to the scene.A man was arrested on suspicion of assault and taken into custody, but no injuries were reported. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Automakers could be required to install technology to detect drunk drivers

      by

      Automotive industryAutomakers could be required to install technology to detect drunk driversCars would be prevented from starting if the operator is impaired – but some critics worry about who could access the data Edward Helmore in New YorkFri 17 Sep 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Fri 17 Sep 2021 06.02 EDTCar manufacturers would be required to include technology to monitor whether US drivers are impaired by alcohol and to disable the vehicle from operating under a proposal contained in the infrastructure bill awaiting a Senate vote.While advocates say the proposal could save thousands of lives, the move has some critics worried it could cross ethical boundaries and raise civil rights issues.The proposal is to develop technology that can passively monitor a driver to detect impairment or passively detect blood alcohol levels and prevent operation of a vehicle if impairment is detected or if levels are too high. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that drunk-driving is involved in 10,000 deaths a year in the US, one person every 52 minutes, and US police departments arrest about 1 million people a year for alcohol-impaired driving.According to the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which represents the world’s leading automakers, the first product equipped with new alcohol detection technology will be available for open licensing in commercial vehicles later this year.The technology will automatically detect when a driver is intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08% – the legal limit in all 50 states except Utah – and then immobilize the car.Partly funded by the federal government through the NHTSA, the technology centers on sensors that could measure alcohol in the air around the driver, or a sensor in the start button or driving wheel to measure blood alcohol content in capillaries in a driver’s finger.But the NHTSA has warned that any monitoring system will have to be “seamless, accurate and precise, and unobtrusive to the sober driver”.If the proposal in the infrastructure bill becomes law it will mandate that “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.”Within three years of its becoming law, the Department of Transportation would be required to sign off on accepted technology. Carmakers would have a further three years to comply. The transportation secretary, however, can extend the timeframe of approval for up to a decade if requirements are “reasonable, practicable, and appropriate”.According to reports, the agency is keen to avoid a repeat of seatbelt technology in 1970s that was designed to prevent a car from starting unless they were buckled but frequently malfunctioned, stranding drivers.The technology emerged after a panel of auto industry representatives and safety advocates convened by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Madd) was formed to encourage and support the development of passive technology to prevent drunk-driving. Citing a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Madd estimates that more than 9,000 lives a year could be saved if drunk-driving prevention tech were installed on all new cars.The Center for Automotive Research (Car) has said that the challenge for the auto industry is to come up with something that is affordable and functions efficiently enough to be installed in millions of new vehicles.“I don’t think that will be as easy as people might think,” Car’s chief executive, Carla Bailo, told NBC News. An impaired-driver sensor, Bailo added, was likely to be expensive and would have to be especially effective because “people will try to cheat”.But the technology also raises ethical questions about surveillance, even if that surveillance is in service of reducing a social problem that costs $44bn in economic costs and $210bn in comprehensive societal costs, according to a 2010 study.Madd does not support punitive measures, including breath-testing devices attached to an ignition interlock that some convicted drunk drivers are required to use before starting their vehicles, but advocates instead that anti-drunk-driving measures should be integrated in vehicle systems.“If we have the cure, why wouldn’t we use it?” said Stephanie Manning, Madd’s chief government affairs officer. “Victims and survivors of drunk-driving tell us this technology is part of their healing, and that’s what they have been telling members of Congress.”Manning points out that the auto industry has invested billions in autonomous vehicles, and alcohol detection technology is just one type of driver-distraction technology that the Department of Transportation needs to consider.“The technology we favor is the one that stops impaired drivers from using their vehicles as weapons on the road,” Manning said. “The industry has the technology that knows what a drunk driver looks like. The question is, at what point does the car need to take over to prevent somebody from being killed or seriously injured?”But the technology raises serious ethical and data privacy questions, including how to ensure collected data doesn’t end up in the hands of law enforcement or insurance companies.Wolf Schäfer, professor of technology and society at the Stony Brook University, said: “It’s a policy question that has ethical implications. Cars are increasingly pre-programmed and that brings up questions of responsibility for the actions of the car. Is it the programmer? The manufacturer? The person who bought the car?“Many people accept that one shouldn’t drive drunk and if you do, you commit an infraction. But in this situation the car becomes supervisor of your conduct. So ethics-wise, one could get away with that. But should this be reported to authorities presents grave ethical problems,” Schäfer said. “The privacy issues are real because sensors collect data, and what happens to this data is a question that’s all over the place, not just with cars.”The American Civil Liberties Union said it was “still evaluating the proposal”.TopicsAutomotive industryUS politicsAlcoholnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      Food shortages ‘permanent’ and shoppers will never again enjoy full choice of items, Britons warned

      by

      Food shortages in supermarkets and restaurants are “permanent” and shoppers will never again enjoy a full choice of items, an industry boss has told Britons.In an extraordinary warning, the head of the Food and Drink Federation said staff shortages – triggered by a combination of Covid and Brexit – had killed off the “just-in-time” delivery model.“I don’t think it will work again, I think we will see we are now in for permanent shortages,” Ian Wright said.But Downing Street rejected the claim of a broken system and, in a potential hostage to fortune, predicted the shortages will be over by the festive season.Pressed on whether the shortages will ease to allow people to enjoy a “normal Christmas”, Boris Johnson’s spokesman told The Independent: “I believe so, yes.”The clash came as the government rebuffs calls to loosen post-Brexit immigration rules – to attract more HGV drivers, for example – insisting businesses must stop relying on EU workers.But the hit to trade from leaving the EU and the pandemic was laid bare by new figures revealing trade with the bloc plunged in July, with exports £1.7bn lower than in July 2018 and imports down £3bn.Worryingly, the UK is on course to fall out of Germany’s top 10 trading partners for the first time in 70 years, data issued by the German government revealed.“The UK’s loss of importance in foreign trade is the logical consequence of Brexit. These are probably lasting effects,” said Gabriel Felbermayr, the president of the Institute for the World Economy.In the UK, McDonald’s, Greggs, the Co-op and Ikea are just some of the big retailers that have struggled to supply products to their customers in recent weeks.The CBI business group has warned the labour shortages behind the gaps on shelves and restaurant menus could last up to two years, without urgent government action.The Food and Drink Federation stepped up that pressure when Mr Wright told a think tank event: “It’s going to get worse, and it’s not going to get better after getting worse any time soon.”He then added: “The result of the labour shortages is that the just-in-time system that has sustained supermarkets, convenience stores and restaurants – so the food has arrived on shelf or in the kitchen, just when you need it – is no longer working.”But the prime minister’s spokesman rejected the warning, saying: “We don’t recognise those claims.“We have got highly resilient food supply chains which have coped extremely well in the face of challenges and we believe that will remain the case.”Nevertheless, the fear of creating a bigger crisis is expected to see the government shelve full post-Brexit import controls on imports from the EU, for a second time.The food and drink industry is short of around half a million workers, Mr Wright said, meaning it is short of about 1 in 8 of the total number of people it needs in its workforce.The dearth was partly the result of EU nationals leaving the UK, as a result of both the pandemic and of Brexit.The lack of lorry drivers was partly caused by them moving to online retailers and starting to deliver for Amazon and Tesco – to get better hours and pay, he said.The latest ONS trade figures were seen as a possible indication that the UK is losing its overall competitiveness, within Europe.In July, total exports of goods exports to the EU plunged by £900m – while, at the same time, exports to non-EU countries increased by £700m. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      UK set to drop from Germany’s top 10 trading partners

      by

      The UK is on course to lose its status as one of Germany’s top 10 trading partners for the first time since 1950, official German statistics suggest.In the first six months of this year, German imports of British goods drop by nearly 11 per cent, according to data from the Federal Statistics Office.Britain left the EU’s single market, which allows frictionless trade and the free movement of people between member states, at the end of 2020. But even before this, Germany had already begun to reduce ties with the UK.Before the 2016 referendum, the UK was Germany’s fourth most important trader. By the end of this year, Britain is projected to be in the 11th spot.A December 2020 survey showed one in five German companies were reorganising supply chains in order to source goods from EU suppliers instead of British ones.“More and more small and medium-sized companies are ceasing to trade (in Britain) because of these (Brexit-related) hurdles,” Michael Schmidt, President of the British Chamber of Commerce in Germany, told Reuters.The decline in the first half of 2021 was driven by pull-forward effects before new barriers, such as customs controls, kicked in in January.“Many companies anticipated the problems… so they decided to pull forward imports by increasing stocks,” Mr Schmidt said.In particular, the agriculture and pharmaceutical sectors were particularly hit hard. The data shows German imports of British agricultural products fell by more than 80 per cent in the first six months, while imports of pharmaceutical products nearly halved.“Many small companies simply can’t afford the extra burden of keeping up to date and complying with all the kicked-in customs rules such as health certificates for cheese and other fresh products,” Mr Schmidt said.In contrast, German goods exports to Britain rose by 2.6 per cent. Mr Schmidt said the new trade realities had harmed British companies more than German ones.“In Britain, the picture is different. For many small British firms, Brexit meant losing access to their most important export market… It’s like shooting yourself in the foot. And this explains why German imports from Britain are in free-fall now.””The UK’s loss of importance in foreign trade is the logical consequence of Brexit. These are probably lasting effects,” Gabriel Felbermayr, President of the Kiel-based Institute for the World Economy (IfW), told Reuters.Additional reporting by Reuters More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Infrastructure: The Key to the China Challenge

      by

      China has been recognized by Washington as the major rival to the United States in nearly every field. However, this isn’t the first time an Asian country has posed a threat to America’s economic dominance. In the mid-1980s, Japan built up a massive trade surplus with the United States, igniting a fierce backlash from both Republicans and Democrats over how it acquired US technology — often by theft, according to US officials — and how Tokyo used the government’s deep influence to push its companies into a dominant global position.

      But there was no nefarious scheme. In reality, Japan had made significant investments in its own education and infrastructure, allowing it to produce high-quality goods that American customers desired. In the case of China, American businesses and investors are covertly profiting by operating low-wage factories and selling technologies to their “partners” in China. American banks and venture capitalists are also active in China, funding agreements. Furthermore, with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s infrastructure investment extends far beyond its own borders.

      The Unintended Economic Impacts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative

      READ MORE

      The BRI is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s hallmark foreign policy initiative and the world’s largest-ever global infrastructure project, funding and developing roads, power plants, ports, railroads, 5G networks and fiber-optic cables all over the world. The BRI was created with the goal of connecting China’s modern coastal cities with the country’s undeveloped heartland and to its Asian neighbors, firmly establishing China’s place at the center of an interlinked globe.

      The program has already surpassed its initial regional corridors and spread across every continent. The expansion of the BRI is worrying because it may make countries more vulnerable to Chinese political coercion while also allowing China to extend its authority more widely. 

      Infrastructure Wars

      US President Joe Biden and other G7 leaders launched a worldwide infrastructure plan, Build Back Better World (B3W), to counterweight China’s BRI during the G7 summit in Cornwall in June. The plan, according to a White House statement, aims to narrow infrastructure need in low and middle-income countries around the world through investment by the private sector, the G7 and its financial partners. The Biden administration also aims to use the plan to complement its domestic infrastructure investment and create more jobs at home to demonstrate US competitiveness abroad.

      The US government deserves credit for prioritizing a response to the BRI and collaborating with the G7 nations to provide an open, responsible and sustainable alternative. However, it seems unlikely that this new attempt would be sufficient to emulate the BRI and rebuild America’s own aging infrastructure, which, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, “is both dangerously overstretched and lagging behind that of its economic competitors, particularly China.”

      On the one hand, it’s unknown if B3W will be equipped with the necessary instruments to compete. The Biden administration has acknowledged that “status quo funding and financing approaches are inadequate,” hinting at a new financial structure but without providing specific details. It remains to be seen if B3W will assist development finance firms to stimulate adequate new private infrastructure investments as well as whether Congress will authorize much-needed extra funding.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Even with more funding, B3W may not be sufficiently ambitious. While the World Bank predicts that an $18-trillion global infrastructure deficit exists, the project will be unable to make real progress until extra resources are allocated to it.

      Also, the United States still lacks an affirmative Asia-Pacific trade policy. To compete with the BRI, the US will need to reach new trade and investment agreements while also bolstering core competitiveness in vital technologies such as 5G. It will also need to devote greater resources to leading the worldwide standards-setting process, as well as training, recruiting and maintaining elite personnel.

      On the other hand, China is often the only country willing to invest in vital infrastructure projects in underdeveloped and developing countries, and, in some cases, China is more competitive than the US as it can move quickly from design to construction. 

      Desire to Invest

      Furthermore, China’s desire to invest is unaffected by a country’s political system, as seen by the fact that it has signed memorandums of understanding with 140 nations, including 18 EU members and several other US allies such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Even the United Kingdom, as a member of the G7, had a 5G expansion deal with Huawei that was canceled owing to security and geopolitical concerns. Nonetheless, the termination procedure will take about two years, during which time the Chinese tech behemoth will continue to run and upgrade the UK’s telecoms infrastructure.

      As a result, the BRI has fueled a rising belief in low and middle-income nations that China is on the rise and the US and its allies are on the decline. The policy consequence for these countries is that their future economic growth is dependent on strong political ties with China. 

      Unlike the US and European governments, which only make up for part of the exporters’ losses, Beijing guarantees the initial capital and repays the profits to the investing companies and banks. In addition, since there is no transfer of power and government in China, there will be virtually no major policy changes, meaning that investors will feel more secure. So far, about 60% of the BRI projects have been funded by the Chinese government and 26% by the private sector. 

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      For far too long, the US reaction to the BRI has been to emphasize its flaws and caution countries against accepting Chinese finance or technology without providing an alternative. Until now, this haphazard reaction has failed to protect American interests. The United States is now presenting a comprehensive, positive agenda for the first time. Transparency, economic, environmental and social sustainability, good governance and high standards are all emphasized in Build Back Better World.

      While providing a credible US-led alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative is desirable, the US must commit adequate financial and leadership resources to the effort. This is a good first step, but Washington must be careful not to create a new paranoia by demonizing economic and geopolitical rivals such as China and Japan to the point where it distorts priorities and leads to increased military spending rather than public investments in education, infrastructure and basic research, all of which are critical to America’s future prosperity and security.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More