More stories

  • in

    Venezuela celebra elecciones para el Esequibo, territorio de otro país

    La mayoría de los países y los habitantes de esta región están de acuerdo: pertenece a Guyana. El presidente de Venezuela Nicolás Maduro convocó elecciones para este territorio rico en petróleo.El domingo, Venezuela tiene previsto celebrar elecciones a gobernador y legisladores para representar al Esequibo, un territorio escasamente poblado y rico en petróleo.Pero hay un problema. El Esequibo está reconocido internacionalmente como parte de Guyana, el país vecino, no de Venezuela.La mayoría de los países y las 125.000 personas que viven en el Esequibo están de acuerdo: pertenece a Guyana, nación de unos 800.000 habitantes, y no a Venezuela, de unos 28 millones.Al convocar elecciones legislativas y regionales el domingo, incluidas las del Esequibo, el presidente autocrático de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, según los analistas, pretende legitimar su gobierno en el extranjero y también dentro de su nación, profundamente insatisfecha, donde, al parecer, la lealtad de los militares se está resquebrajando.El año pasado, Maduro declaró la victoria en las elecciones presidenciales, pero no aportó ninguna prueba que respaldara su afirmación. En su lugar, los escrutinios recogidos por los observadores electorales mostraron que su oponente había ganado de forma aplastante. Muchos países, incluido Estados Unidos, no reconocieron a Maduro como vencedor.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Senate Republicans Kill California’s Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

    In 50 years, California’s authority to set environmental rules that are tougher than national standards had never been challenged by Congress. Until now.The Senate on Thursday blocked California’s landmark plan to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles, setting up a legal battle that could shape the electric car market in the United States.The 51-44 vote was a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a “nuclear” option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy.The repeal deals a blow to California’s ambition of accelerating the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. But the consequences will ripple across the country. That’s because 11 other states intended to follow California’s plan and stop selling new gas-powered cars by 2035. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.The resolution, which had already been approved by the House, now goes to President Trump’s desk. Mr. Trump, who opposes clean energy and has taken particular umbrage at California’s efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels, is expected to sign it into law.California leaders have promised to challenge the Senate vote and try to restore the ban.“This Senate vote is illegal,” said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China.“California’s auto policy was allowed under permission granted by the Biden administration. The 1970 Clean Air Act specifies that California can receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact clean air standards that are tougher than federal limits because the state has historically had the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards under certain circumstances.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    EU Plans New Sanctions on Russia in Push for Ukraine Cease-fire

    The European Union has now targeted Moscow’s fleet of covert oil tankers and plans more restrictions, as the Trump administration’s approach to the war shifts.European Union defense and foreign ministers approved a new package of sanctions on Russia on Tuesday, targeting covert oil exports, days after the top E.U. official announced plans for a further set of even tougher restrictions.The point is to intensify Russia’s economic pain — and by doing so, to prod President Vladimir V. Putin toward peace talks to end the war in Ukraine. The push comes as questions mount about how the United States will approach future sanctions.After a call between President Trump and Mr. Putin on Monday, the White House backed off its demand that Russia declare an immediate cease-fire. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said at a news conference that it was unclear whether the United States would join with Europe in stepping up sanctions.E.U. nations have imposed extensive sanctions on Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The ones they approved on Tuesday are the 17th set. These take aim at Russia’s so-called shadow fleet — old tanker ships that Moscow uses to covertly transport and sell its oil around the world.Officials are already discussing an 18th package. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the E.U. executive arm, said last week that officials could go after gas pipelines, hit banks and push to further crimp Russia’s global energy sales.“It takes two to want peace, and it takes only one to want war,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said on Tuesday. “In order to make Russia want peace, also, we need to put more pressure on Russia.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    What’s the Cost to Society of Pollution? Trump Says Zero.

    The Trump administration has directed agencies to stop estimating the economic impact of climate change when developing policies and regulations.The White House has ordered federal agencies to stop considering the economic damage caused by climate change when writing regulations, except in cases where it is “plainly required” by law.The directive effectively shelves a powerful tool that has been used for more than two decades by the federal government to weigh the costs and benefits of a particular policy or regulation.The Biden administration had used the tool to strengthen limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, factories and oil refineries.Known as the “social cost of carbon,” the metric reflects the estimated damage from global warming, including wildfires, floods and droughts. It affixes a cost to the economy from one ton of carbon dioxide pollution, the main greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.When considering a regulation or policy to limit carbon pollution, policymakers have weighed the cost to an industry of meeting that requirement against the economic impact of that pollution on society.During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The first Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under the Biden administration, the cost was adjusted for inflation and jumped to $190 per ton.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Oil Prices Slide Further on Plans to Increase Supply

    U.S. oil prices fell to around $56 a barrel after the OPEC Plus cartel said it would bring more oil to market.Oil prices resumed their downward slide after the OPEC Plus cartel of oil producers said over the weekend that it would pump more oil, despite concerns that President Trump’s trade war will curb demand.The U.S. benchmark oil price fell to around $56 a barrel, from $58 on Friday. For many companies, the steady decline means it will not be profitable to drill wells in the United States despite Mr. Trump’s calls for increased production.Prices were last around this level in early April, just before Mr. Trump said he would pause reciprocal tariffs on most countries for 90 days. That announcement led to rallies in both the stock market and the oil market, though oil prices have since waned.That is partly because OPEC Plus is raising output at the same time that economists are warning that higher tariffs on most American trading partners will slow global economic growth and potentially cause a recession in the United States.The eight countries that make up the OPEC Plus cartel said on Saturday that they would further ramp up production in June.Lower commodity prices are causing some companies to pull back. There are about 9 percent fewer rigs drilling wells in the Permian Basin, the top U.S. oil field, than there were this time last year, when oil was trading near $80 a barrel, according to Baker Hughes.On Friday, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the two largest U.S. oil and gas companies, reported their lowest first-quarter earnings in years. Those financial results reflect the market before Mr. Trump further escalated tariffs on China in early April.“It is clear that this uncertainty is weighing on economic forecasts, causing significant volatility and raising the prospects of slower growth,” Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, told analysts. More

  • in

    Why OPEC Plus Is Increasing Oil Supplies Despite Falling Prices

    The group agreed to raise output in June, a sign that Saudi Arabia and its allies appear to be weary of cutting output and may be trying to appease President Trump, who has pushed for lower prices.Oil prices are falling. Economists are cutting forecasts for global economic growth. Oil giants are reporting lower profits.But on Saturday, eight countries that belong to the oil cartel known as OPEC Plus said they would add about 411,000 barrels of oil a day in June. The move, which follows a similar step by the group to increase oil production at their April meeting, is a major shift in policy that will ripple through the wider energy industry, hitting profits of oil companies and forcing cutbacks.The group said in a statement that the market was “healthy” and noted that oil inventories remained low.Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC Plus, is signaling that it is reluctant to hold back millions of barrels a day of oil that it could produce, especially when other members of the group, like Kazakhstan and Iraq, are not observing their agreed-upon production ceilings.“The view from Saudi Arabia, in particular, is that they no longer want to be the ones carrying the heaviest burden if other countries in the group are not showing sufficient commitment to doing their part,” said Richard Bronze, the head of geopolitics at Energy Aspects, a London research firm.Demand for oil has not weakened significantly. Oil consumption increased by 1.2 million barrels a day in the first quarter of 2025, the most since 2023, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. Analysts there and elsewhere, though, are cutting their forecasts for demand in anticipation of disruption from global trade tensions, which has already slammed prices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    House Votes to Block California Plan to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars in 2035

    Republicans, joined by a handful of Democrats, voted to eliminate California’s electric vehicle policy, which had been adopted by 11 other states.The House on Thursday voted to bar California from imposing its landmark ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, the first step in an effort by the Republican majority to stop a state policy designed to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.The 246-to-164 vote came a day after Republicans, joined by a few Democrats, voted to block California from requiring dealers in the state to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission, medium and heavy-duty trucks over time. And, lawmakers also voted on Wednesday to stop a state effort to reduce California’s levels of smog.All three policies were implemented under permissions granted to California by the Biden administration. They pose an extraordinary challenge to California’s longstanding authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to set pollution standards that are more strict than federal limits.And the legality of the congressional action is in dispute. Two authorities, the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office, have ruled that Congress cannot revoke the waivers.California leaders condemned the actions and promised a battle.Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the move “lawless” and an attack on states’ rights. “Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again,” Governor Newsom said in a statement.“Clean air didn’t used to be political,” he said, adding, “The only thing that’s changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Chevron Must Pay $745 Million for Coastal Damages, Louisiana Jury Rules

    The verdict will likely influence similar lawsuits against other oil companies over coastal damage in the state.A jury in Louisiana has ruled that Chevron must pay a parish government about $745 million to help restore wetlands that the jury said the energy company had harmed for decades.The verdict, which was reached on Friday, is likely to influence similar lawsuits filed by other parishes, or counties, in the state against other energy giants and their possible settlement negotiations.The lawsuit, filed by Plaquemines Parish, is one of at least 40 that coastal parishes have filed against fossil fuel companies since 2013.The lawsuit contended that Texaco — which Chevron bought in 2000 — violated state law for decades by failing to apply for coastal permits, and by not removing oil and gas equipment when it stopped using an oil field in Breton Sound, which is southeast of New Orleans.A state regulation in 1980 required companies operating in wetlands to restore “as near as practicable to their original condition” any canals that they dredged, wells that they drilled or wastewater that they dumped into marshes.Oil industry infrastructure in coastal waters in Plaquemines Parish, La.William Widmer for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More