Commodities

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      How the US ban on Russian oil risks splitting the west’s response

      by

      How the US ban on Russian oil risks splitting the west’s responseAnalysis: The lights will not be going out in America but the same cannot be said for the EU, given its energy dependence on Moscow

      Ukraine-Russia war – latest updates
      Joe Biden’s decision to ban imports of Russian oil increases the economic pressure on Vladimir Putin – but it is not without risk.On the face of it, the announcement from the White House looks like a bit of a free hit, given the fact that Russia accounts for just 7% of the oil imported by the world’s biggest economy. Three-fifths of Russia’s oil exports go to the EU, only 8% to the US.Even so, Biden is taking a gamble for three important reasons. The first is that a toughening up of sanctions has given another upward twist to oil prices. American motorists were already paying higher pump prices, even before the latest surge in the cost of Brent crude above $130 a barrel and, as the US president admitted, they will soon be paying even more.Oil prices are up by 70% since the start of the year and there is no sign of them coming down anytime soon. The Oslo-based consultancy Rystad Energy has predicted a complete ban on Russian oil and gas could send crude prices to $200 a barrel. The previous milestone was the $147-a-barrel peak reached in 2008.The second risk is that Biden’s action fractures the western coalition against Putin, which in the first two weeks of the conflict has been solid. While support from the UK (phased in by the end of the year) means the US is not going it alone with its ban, other European countries clearly have misgivings. That is hardly surprising, because the EU gets 40% of its gas and just over a quarter of its oil from Russia.European oil receipts boosting Putin’s war chest by $285m a day, study findsRead moreSo when Biden said the west remained united in its determination to keep the pressure on Russia, that is not strictly true. The EU, as the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, made clear 24 hours before the US ban was announced, is worried about its energy security and has decided not to follow suit, for now at least. There is no risk of the lights going out in the US; the same could not be said of every country in Europe.This dependency on Russian energy creates a third risk, namely that Putin gets in his retaliation first by cutting off supplies. The EU has announced steps to reduce its dependency on Russian oil and gas, and the crisis could well have the effect of speeding up the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, but in the short term the loss of such a big chunk of its energy supply would result in weaker growth and higher inflation.While high energy prices eventually prove self-correcting because they tend to lead to recessions, the damage they can cause is considerable. UK living standards are on course for their biggest one-year fall since modern records began in the mid-1950s, with the war in Ukraine putting at risk the post-pandemic recovery. All of which makes it important that sanctions work quickly. The longer the economic war, the higher the cost.TopicsOilGasCommoditiesUS politicsEuropean UnionEuropeRussiaanalysisReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Oil executives face ‘turning point’ US congressional hearing on climate crisis

      by

      Climate crimesUS CongressOil executives face ‘turning point’ US congressional hearing on climate crisisThe heads of top US oil companies will answer accusations that their firms have spent years lying about the climate crisis Supported byAbout this contentChris McGrealThu 28 Oct 2021 03.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 28 Oct 2021 03.01 EDTThe heads of major oil companies will make a historic appearance before Congress on Thursday to answer accusations that their firms have spent years lying about the climate crisis.For the first time, the top executives from the US’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, as well as Shell, Chevron and BP will be questioned under oath about the industry’s long campaign to discredit and deny the evidence that burning fossil fuels drove global heating.The dirty dozen: meet America’s top climate villainsRead moreA leading critic of the petroleum industry behind the hearing by the House oversight committee, Representative Ro Khanna, said the executives’ testimony has the potential to be as significant as the 1994 congressional hearing at which the heads of the big tobacco companies were confronted with the question of whether they knew nicotine was addictive.They denied it and that lie opened the door to years of litigation which resulted in a $206bn settlement against the cigarette makers.Khanna told the Guardian that the oil company chiefs face a similar moment of reckoning.“They’ve got a very tricky balance. They either have to admit certain wrongdoing or they run the risk of lying under oath. If I were them, I would come in with more of a mea culpa approach and acknowledge what they’ve done wrong,” he said.“It’ll be a turning point for them. It could be the big tobacco moment. We’ve never had a situation where the big oil executives have to answer under oath for their company’s behaviour.”Khanna said that he wanted Americans to take away the message from the hearing that the oil companies “knew they lied” about the climate emergency.The CEOs, who have opted to testify by video, are Darren Woods of Exxon, David Lawler of BP American, Michael Wirth of Chevron and the president of Shell, Gretchen Watkins.The leaders of two powerful lobby groups accused of acting as front organisations for big oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce, will also testify.Khanna said the oil chiefs will be confronted with evidence of a persistent and coordinated cover-up, including documents that have not been made public before.“The documents confirm the misinformation and deception that they’ve engaged in in the past explicitly, and that they continue to engage in through third parties,” he said. “The record is so clear that they will be risking perjuring themselves if they deny the record.”But the hearing will also be a test for whether the oil industry’s critics can back up their claims of a sprawling conspiracy by the fossil fuel companies to block action on the climate emergency – an accusation also made in dozens of lawsuits by US states, municipalities and private organisations.Geoffrey Supran, a research associate at Harvard’s department of history of science and co-author of a groundbreaking study of Exxon’s communications on the climate crisis, said the oil executives are well-practiced at sidestepping responsibility.“This will be a challenging hearing. This is a situation where the historical record is incontrovertible but the climate denial machine has been like a sprawling, well-oiled, well-funded network for decades,” he said. “Given the range of actors and tactics involved, asking the right questions at the right time, having the right documents at your fingertips to pin them into a corner is tricky.”The hearings follow the release of a growing body of evidence that the oil industry knew about and covered up the growing threat from burning fossil fuels for decades. That includes a raft of Exxon documents held at the University of Texas, and uncovered by the Columbia Journalism School and the Los Angeles Times in 2015.In 1979, a study by Exxon’s own scientists concluded that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects” in the coming decades. It called the issue “great and urgent”.Exxon’s response to that and similar warnings was to shut down research into global heating and to go on a public relations offensive to discredit climate science as no more than a theory, and to shift responsibility on to consumers.In 2019, Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University, told a congressional hearing that his climate modelling for Exxon in the 1980s showed that burning fossil fuels was “increasingly having a perceptible influence on Earth’s climate”.Meanwhile the company was pushing a different narrative.“Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this. This was immoral and has greatly set back efforts to address climate change,” said Hoffert.Other oil firms face similar accusations alongside trade groups and thinktanks they funded to deny climate science.This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate storyTopicsUS CongressClimate crimesExxonMobilRoyal Dutch ShellChevronBPOilUS politicsnewsReuse this content More