More stories

  • in

    What Exxon Knew, but Concealed, About Climate Change

    More from our inbox:The U.S. Embassy in IsraelPaying Off Our DebtsWhy Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Election Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsDarren Woods, ExxonMobil’s C.E.O., appeared before the House Oversight Committee via video link in 2021.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Exxon Scientists Saw Global Warming, as Oil Giant Cast Doubt, Study Says” (Business, Jan. 13):Exxon knew that its fuels would contribute to overheating the planet, yet it chose to deceive the public. It’s the very definition of fraud. Fossil fuel interests and their political allies are carrying out a fraud on humanity. They enjoy massive profits while their products are causing disease, death and disruption around the world.More than eight million people die annually from fossil fuel pollution. Societies are burdened by billions of dollars in damages from climate-fueled heat waves, wildfires, droughts, floods and sea rise.How can we hold them accountable? Many cities and states have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies seeking damages.We citizens can demand congressional action to end fossil fuel subsidies, enact carbon pricing to make the polluters pay, subsidize clean energy, speed electrification, reform the permitting process for renewable energy, and sequester carbon through healthier forests and better agricultural practices.Robert TaylorSanta Barbara, Calif.To the Editor:The revelation that Exxon scientists in the 1970s correctly projected the long-term climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, while publicly claiming ignorance, is both unsurprising and infuriating. Rising profits beat rising sea levels every time.Communities on the front lines of the climate crisis have long felt the environmental, economic and health consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. It stands to reason that scientists employed by big polluters would reach the same conclusions.When lead paint and tobacco companies were found to have known the negative health effects of their products, but spent decades concealing them, a public reckoning — with significant monetary damages — followed. It is long past time for the fossil fuel industry to face the same kind of accountability.Zellnor Y. MyrieBrooklynThe writer is a New York State senator for the 20th District.To the Editor:It is indeed unfortunate that Exxon was not forthcoming about its studies and its scientifically accurate projections of global warming. We can use this information to vilify Exxon Mobil, and certainly it deserves criticism, or we can use the information to acknowledge that a great deal of untapped expertise resides in the private energy industry that can be harnessed to address climate change.It would be highly productive if the federal government worked with energy corporations, where so much energy expertise resides, helping them make the socially beneficial decisions that are required to move toward nonpolluting and climate-friendly sources of energy.The government could help fund research and provide economic assistance to construct new infrastructure, which would ease the monetary challenges in transitions.Make the oil and energy industry part of the solution, as opposed to the problem.Ken LefkowitzMedford, N.J.The writer is a former employee of PECO Energy, an electric and gas utility.To the Editor:Thank you for this article, but this is not news. We have known for some time that the oil companies have been deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding global warming, when they knew better.The Union of Concerned Scientists published “The Climate Deception Dossiers” in 2015. This document is a compilation of evidence that the oil companies knew what greenhouse gases would do to the Earth.In addition, the magazine Scientific American published an article in 2015 that stated that Exxon knew about global warming in 1977.Joseph MilsteinBrookline, Mass.The U.S. Embassy in IsraelThe lot in Jerusalem that is a candidate for a new U.S. embassy.Ofir Berman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Don’t Build the Jerusalem Embassy Here,” by Rashid Khalidi (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 17):Dr. Khalidi’s view of international law, history and politics demands a response.When the British withdrew from Palestine in 1948, the Jewish organizations had embraced the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending partition into predominantly Jewish and Arab states. Arabs rejected the recommendation and attacked. If there was a “nakba” (catastrophe), it was of their making.Second, Israel did not wake up one day and decide to march into East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Egypt, Syria and Jordan engaged in armed aggression in 1967 with the stated objective of pushing the Jews into the sea. Israel exercised its inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.There is not an international right of return law. That argument is an excuse for destroying Israel as a Jewish state.Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem recognized the location of Israel’s capital and sent an important signal to those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Real peace between Israel and the Palestinians will happen when both sides recognize a need to compromise.Nicholas RostowNew YorkThe writer is a former legal adviser to the National Security Council and general counsel and senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Paying Off Our DebtsThe Treasury Department is using so-called extraordinary measures to allow the federal government to keep paying its bills.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Hits Debt Cap, Heightening Risk of Economic Pain” (front page, Jan. 20):If the debt limit is not raised, then the U.S. will be unable to make payments to some of its creditors, employees and entitlement programs that it is legally obligated to make.How nifty! My wife and I have a mortgage and a car loan. We have decided that our personal debt level is too high. So, we plan to send our bank a letter today saying that we will no longer make our mortgage or car payments.On second thought, scratch that. I know what our bank would say. And it would be right.If we need to reduce our debt as a nation, then — like my wife and me — let’s do it by reducing future spending commitments, not by failing to make current payments that we have already legally committed ourselves to make.Craig DuncanIthaca, N.Y.Why Use Real Guns on Movie Sets?Alec Baldwin on set of the film “Rust” in near Santa Fe, N.M., after the death of the cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021.Agence France-Presse, via Santa Fe County Sheriff’s OfficeTo the Editor:Re “Baldwin to Face Pair of Charges in Movie Death” (front page, Jan. 20):Why do actors need to use real guns? They use fake props for everything else!If we can send people to the moon and create self-driving cars, you would think that we could create realistic-looking guns, instead of real ones, that actors could use in movies and theaters.If they had done that on the set of “Rust,” the western that Alec Baldwin was filming, no one would have died. It’s a simple solution to prevent anything like this from happening again.Ellen EttingerNew YorkElection Deniers Wasting Taxpayer FundsA ballot cast for former President Donald J. Trump that was part of the county’s recount.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Despite Recount of 2020 Ballots, County’s Deniers Cling to Doubts” (front page, Jan. 16):Sensible taxpayers have the right to ask why their tax funds and the time of civil servants are spent on a request for an additional recount or audit of a verified and certified vote absent any evidence of fraud or irregularity.Where no reasonable probable cause exists for any such recount or audit, then any re-examination should be completely at the expense and time of the party that initiated it, especially when these beliefs are conjured up by conspiratorial fantasies or motivated by bad faith.Government officials and civil servants need to be free to focus on the needs of all, and not just the aims of a divisive and selfish minority.Jim CochranDallas More

  • in

    Oil Prices Rise as the West Imposes a Cap on Russian Crude

    Energy traders pushed crude prices higher on Monday following Europe’s embargo of seaborne Russian crude and a price cap by Group of 7 nations went into effect.Will Russia find buyers for its crude?Sergei Karpukhin/ReutersOil prices climb despite efforts to cap Russian exports Crude oil prices rose this morning after a whirlwind of events that could drastically alter the supply and pricing of energy this winter.An E.U. embargo on Russia’s seaborne oil imports went into effect on Monday, following a decision on Sunday by OPEC producers and Russia to keep production quotas unchanged. Those developments, together with an agreement on Friday by Group of 7 nations to impose a $60 price cap on Russian crude and the emergence of more signs that China is easing its Covid restrictions, set off a modest buying spree among energy traders.By 6 a.m. Eastern, Brent crude, the global benchmark, climbed 2.7 percent, topping $87 per barrel, and West Texas Intermediate was above $82 a barrel.Crude prices have whipsawed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, rocketing above $100 per barrel in the spring, only to fall over the summer on fears of a global recession. A slowdown in China in particular had capped demand, but prices have remained volatile.Analysts have been scrutinizing fallout from the oil price cap, a move designed to punish Russia for the war in Ukraine — but also meant to avoid significant distortions in the energy markets that would force consumers and businesses to pay even higher prices for fuel.Unsurprisingly, Moscow said this weekend that it wouldn’t accept the Western price cap, and that it would cut sales to countries that participate in the arrangement. How much of an effect that will have is unclear: Even before Monday, European countries have systematically reduced their Russian crude purchases since the start of the war in Ukraine — only for China to step in and buy more oil, often at a discount. But in recent weeks, China has paused some purchases as it waited for details of the price cap to be announced.Helima Croft, the head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, warned in an investor note this weekend that prices could be even more volatile in the weeks ahead as traders watch for signs that Russia could fully cut off oil exports to former trading partners in retaliation for the price cap.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Chinese cities ease zero-Covid restrictions. Shenzhen and Shanghai were the latest big cities to scrap requirements like testing before traveling on public transport, following widespread protests against Beijing’s tough pandemic rules. Shares in Hong Kong and Shanghai jumped amid investor hopes of a broader easing of Chinese Covid restrictions, though analysts warned such a move would take time.Lachlan Murdoch is set to testify in a Fox News lawsuit on Monday. The C.E.O. of Fox will be deposed as part of a lawsuit against the network by Dominion Voting Systems. He is the highest-ranking executive to be ensnared in the lawsuit, in which Dominion argues it was defamed by Fox News anchors repeatedly amplifying false claims about the company’s voting machines in the 2020 election.Wall Street banks weigh cutting bonuses. Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase may cut bonus pools for investment bankers by as much as 30 percent, Bloomberg reports, amid a steep drop in M.& A. activity. That follows plans by Goldman Sachs to cut bonuses for its traders, even though their division posted strong results.Credit Suisse’s investment bank spinoff reportedly draws big new backers. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and a merchant bank run by the former Barclays C.E.O. Bob Diamond may invest in CS First Boston, which is set to be spun off from Credit Suisse, The Wall Street Journal reports. The spinoff is a key part of the Swiss bank’s planned revamp.Delta reaches a nearly $8 billion pay-raise deal with pilots. The agreement in principle would raise pilots’ pay by 31 percent over four years, as well as include a one-time payout. If finalized, the agreement will set a baseline for other airlines in their negotiations with pilots.Crypto’s false calm If this is the crypto apocalypse, investors see a buying opportunity. The price of Bitcoin is up nearly 7 percent, or almost $1,200, in the past week, to just under $17,400.But that market calm does not mean the crypto contagion is contained. The fallout from the collapse last month of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto exchange, FTX, has spread to other firms, setting off a wave of layoffs, lawsuits and investigations. Shareholders of Silvergate, the U.S. bank that processed payments and money transfers for FTX, sued the bank for negligence, calling the exchange a Ponzi scheme.Meanwhile, customers of Gemini, the crypto exchange owned by the Winklevoss twins, are owed as much as $900 million from Genesis, the crypto lender that has faced severe financial distress since FTX’s collapse, according to The Financial Times. And ByBit, a major crypto exchange, announced this weekend that it would cut 30 percent of its staff, the latest firm to cut its head count as digital asset prices sink.Here’s what else is happening in crypto:Mr. Bankman-Fried said on Sunday that he would be willing to testify before the House Financial Services Committee. The catch: S.B.F., as he is known, probably won’t be ready to speak with lawmakers in time for Dec. 13 hearings into the implosion of FTX.Mr. Bankman-Fried’s media tour shows no signs of slowing down. He told The Financial Times that he regretted giving Alameda Research, the trading affiliate of FTX, favorable borrowing limits.S.B.F.’s father, the Stanford law professor Joseph Bankman, has canceled a class he was set to teach next year. Bankman did work for FTX’s philanthropic efforts and is helping with his son’s legal defense.FTX’s bankruptcy has international regulators, including those in Cyprus, Turkey and the Bahamas, squabbling over the company’s assets, potentially complicating which customers get repaid and how much.Andrew Vara, the U.S. bankruptcy trustee for FTX’s case, called on the Delaware court to appoint an independent examiner into the exchange’s sudden collapse, saying there is substantial evidence to suggest that misconduct and fraud were involved.Even though calls for investigations are intensifying, that doesn’t mean Bankman-Fried’s arrest is imminent.On the light side: S.B.F., an eager player of the League of Legends video game, has been getting shade from the likes of Elon Musk and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for being a mediocre player.Have normal times returned to Twitter? Elon Musk is still running Twitter, so naturally, there is still plenty of drama around the social network — notably in the billionaire owner’s decision to actively promote the release of internal documents about executives’ 2020 decision to restrict tweets linking to a news report about Hunter Biden.Despite that, it appears that some major advertisers are slowly returning to Twitter’s platform, after many hit pause following Musk’s promise to revamp how the site moderates user content.Amazon plans to resume buying ads on Twitter, to the tune of $100 million a year, according to Zoë Schiffer of Platformer. Although the e-commerce giant, unlike others, had not quit its ad spending altogether since Musk’s takeover, it had paused some of its campaigns.Meanwhile, Mr. Musk said in a live audio event on Twitter over the weekend that Apple had “fully resumed” ad spending on the social network. The iPhone maker has long been one of the biggest ad purchasers on Twitter. Last week, Mr. Musk said that he had resolved a feud with Apple, chalking up the disagreements to a misunderstanding.That’s a rare bit of welcome news for Twitter’s business. The Times reported last week that the company had rapidly cut revenue projections, as U.S. ad sales continued to come in well below internal expectations. Advertisers have been alarmed by Mr. Musk’s pledges to lessen restrictions on user content, as well as a botched rollout of revamped verification badges that briefly let paying subscribers impersonate brands. Automakers like G.M. have also been concerned that Twitter could share their ad data with the Musk-owned Tesla, a key rival.Mr. Musk introduced a new bit of drama into Twitter over the weekend, when he touted the release of the so-called Twitter Files. The independent journalist Matt Taibbi — who famously called Goldman Sachs a “vampire squid” — published internal documents showing executives’ deliberations about how to handle dissemination of a New York Post story based on files from a laptop stolen from Hunter Biden.The move rankled some former Twitter executives, including the company’s former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, who said publicizing unredacted documents was “fundamentally unacceptable.” (Musk later conceded, “I think we should have excluded some email addresses.”)“It’s like a cake that was dropped on the table and it looks more or less fine, but inside it’s all blown up.” — Vladislav Inozemtsev, the Washington-based director of the Center for Post-Industrial Studies, a Russian research group, on the state of the Russian economy following sanctions and an exodus of Western firms.The week ahead Politics, inflation data and a trickle of earnings reports will be in focus this week. Here’s what to look for:Tomorrow: A key Senate seat is up for grabs in the Georgia runoff election. Early-voting tallies have smashed state records.Wednesday: New data on the health of the world’s two largest economies will be published, with U.S. consumer credit and China trade data scheduled for release.Thursday: Costco and Broadcom release quarterly results.Friday: The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index and Producer Price Index data are set to come out. China will also release a fresh batch of inflation data.THE SPEED READ DealsOne of the Democratic commissioners at the F.T.C. reportedly favors a less-confrontational approach to Microsoft’s $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard, potentially undercutting efforts to block the deal. (New York Post)The private equity firm CVC is said to be weighing options, including a sale, of the computer accessories maker Razer, less than a year after buying the business. (Bloomberg)Assa Abloy will sell its Emtek and Yale security brands to Fortune Brands Home & Security for $800 million. (Reuters)PolicyMeta faces a trio of E.U. privacy fines that could exceed $2 billion, a record. (Politico)The European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, said that Europe needed to overhaul its public investment rules so its firms could better compete against American counterparts who receive Inflation Reduction Act funding. (FT)New Zealand plans to force Meta’s Facebook and Google to pay news publishers for the content hosted on their platforms, taking a cue from Australia and Canada. (WSJ)Best of the restIt’s not just Big Tech: Big media companies are cutting jobs, too. (WSJ)“Goblin mode,” an Elon Musk favorite, was named Oxford Languages’ 2022 word of the year. (NYT)Activision Blizzard game testers unanimously voted to form a union. (Reuters)“The 4-day week: does it actually work?” (FT)We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    As Venezuelan Antagonists Talk, the U.S. Softens Its Stance

    Negotiations between the Venezuelan government and opposition could lead to an easing of the country’s protracted crisis.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — A rare meeting between leaders of Venezuela’s bitterly divided government and opposition is expected to result in two major agreements meant to ease the country’s complex political and humanitarian crisis.The meeting partly reflects the economic ripple effects of Russia’s Ukraine invasion, which has reduced global oil supplies and pushed the United States to reconsider its restrictions on energy companies operating in Venezuela.If all goes as planned, the talks, scheduled for Saturday, will lead to an agreement to transfer up to $3 billion in Venezuelan government funds frozen overseas into a humanitarian program administered by the United Nations — a concession by President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, who has long denied the scope of the suffering that has unfolded under his tenure. At the same time, the United States is expected to approve a license request by Chevron Corp. to expand operations in Venezuela, according to three people familiar with the deal. The agreement could represent an important step toward allowing Venezuela to re-enter the international oil market, something Mr. Maduro desperately needs to improve the economy.U.S. State Department officials have publicly applauded the return to negotiations between the two parties, after an earlier effort was cut off by the Maduro government last year. But a Biden administration official familiar with the talks said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela “is contingent on if the parties actually announce specific commitments to support the people of Venezuela.”The official requested anonymity to be able to speak freely about the matter.For years, Chevron and other oil companies have been prevented from large-scale operations in Venezuela by U.S. sanctions designed to starve Mr. Maduro’s government.President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela speaking in Caracas earlier this month.Federico Parra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFollowing the expected accord, other companies are likely to press the United States to further lift Venezuela-related restrictions, including sanctions that ban entities in India and elsewhere from importing Venezuelan oil, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Rice University’s Latin America Energy Program.The United States is likely to tie such actions to further concessions by Mr. Maduro. But if it does lift the sanctions, that would be an economic “game changer” for Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Mr. Monaldi added.“My concern,” he said of the expected Chevron license, “is that the U.S. seems to be giving a lot for very little.”A Chevron spokesman would not comment on the expected agreement.The meeting between the Venezuelan government and opposition leaders, held in Mexico, is the outcome of more than a year of conversations between the two sides about how to address the country’s economic, political and humanitarian crisis, which dates to at least 2014.But the talks also are part of a larger softening of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, which many analysts say is related to a growing global need for non-Russian oil sources. Venezuela is believed to hold the largest oil reserves of any country.The United States is a supporter of the Venezuela dialogue, not a participant.The Biden administration official said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela was not a response to energy prices. “This is about the regime taking the steps needed to support the restoration of democracy in Venezuela,” the person said.Any new license would be time-limited and would prevent Venezuela from receiving profits from the oil sales by Chevron, the official added, explaining that the Biden administration “would retain the authority to amend or revoke authorizations should the Maduro regime fail to negotiate in good faith.”For years, the Trump administration tried to weaken Mr. Maduro through sanctions and isolation, recognizing the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president and pulling Washington’s top diplomats out of Caracas.The Biden administration has opted for more engagement.In June, the American ambassador to Venezuela, James Story, who is now based in neighboring Colombia, flew to Caracas to meet with government and opposition leaders. In October, the United States granted clemency to two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife in exchange for seven Americans held captive in Venezuela. The nephews had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for conspiring to smuggle cocaine.The Venezuelan opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, speaking in Caracas on Monday.Miguel Gutierrez/EPA, via ShutterstockIt would take years for Venezuela’s neglected oil infrastructure to have an impact on the global market. But with no sign that tensions between Russia and the West could ease soon, some leaders believe the wait could be worth it.“I think energy was one of the things that made it possible, perhaps politically, for Biden to take the rather bold step of communicating directly” with Mr. Maduro’s government, said Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who has lived in Venezuela for more than two decades.But he cautioned that the American softening on Venezuela predated the war in Ukraine.“Energy is a factor” in the strategy shift, he said, but “it’s not the only factor.”Venezuela was once among the most affluent countries in Latin America, its economy buoyed by oil. But mismanagement and corruption by leaders claiming socialist ideals plunged the economy into disarray, while Mr. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, gutted its democratic institutions.The situation has prompted the largest cross-border migration crisis in the Western Hemisphere, with more than 7 million Venezuelans — a quarter of the population — fleeing, according to the United Nations. Recently, a record number of Venezuelans have arrived at the U.S. border, most of them trekking through a harrowing jungle called the Darién Gap to get there.The talks in Mexico are supposed to be part of a series of meetings between the Venezuelan government and opposition. Much of the opposition hopes that political concessions will be next on the agenda.Mr. Maduro is focused on getting American sanctions lifted, which would help him improve the economy — and perhaps win a presidential election already slated for 2024.The Venezuelan opposition has long said its goal is to push Mr. Maduro to set free and fair conditions that would give them the opportunity to oust in him in that election.Mr. Guaidó recently called that vote “the door to democracy, freedom and the reunion of the family.”Lining up to vote during regional elections in Caracas last November.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesIn the past, Mr. Maduro has controlled the vote by banning many opposition figures from political participation, jailing others and co-opting many political parties. He holds elections to project a veneer of legitimacy.Speaking on state television about the Mexico talks this week, Mr. Maduro said he wanted to make it clear: “Nobody is going to impose anything on us, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.”The United States still recognizes Mr. Guaidó as the country’s president, though his global influence has fallen significantly after a bid to support him failed to oust Mr. Maduro.Mr. Monaldi, the energy expert, said the Chevron deal was not merely symbolic — within two years, the company could be pumping more than 200,000 barrels a day in Venezuela, adding to the approximately 765,000 barrels pumped daily today, according to Argus, an industry monitor.For the United States and for the opposition, the talks are a gamble.On the one hand, simply getting Mr. Maduro to negotiate is a victory, and the $3 billion humanitarian deal could be a major step toward alleviating suffering.On the other hand, said Mr. Gunson, the aid and the Chevron deal could improve economic conditions, lifting Mr. Maduro’s popularity.Still, he hasn’t given an inch on the political front.“That’s why there’s so much nail biting for the people in the administration who are pushing this policy,” said Mr. Gunson. “Because if Maduro essentially says, ‘Thank you very much,’ and doesn’t offer any concessions, then they’re going to look pretty foolish.”Isayen Herrera contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Clifford Krauss from Houston. More

  • in

    How the Price of Gas Became America’s Most Important Political Issue

    President Biden knows the political power of the price of gasoline.About two weeks ago, fearing what an uptick in gas prices might do to Democrats at the ballot box in the midterms, Mr. Biden announced the release of 15 million barrels from the United States’ emergency petroleum stockpile in an effort to drive down prices. A gallon now costs $3.78 on average compared with $5.03 five months ago, but that is still higher than what Americans want to pay.To show he means business, Mr. Biden went a step further this week, calling on Congress to consider a windfall profits tax on oil companies, which are reaping record gains since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a spike in oil prices. “It’s time for these companies to stop war profiteering,” Mr. Biden said.As he contemplates whether these measures will be enough to save his party on Tuesday, he seems to be recalling the early days of his political career. Mr. Biden entered the Senate in 1973, at the age of 30, just as the energy crisis of the 1970s was changing life as Americans had known it. In October of that year, in response to America’s support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, OPEC’s Arab members imposed an embargo on the United States, sending prices soaring by more than sevenfold.To understand the consequences of this price hike, the young senator from Delaware hitched a ride on a 47,000-pound big rig hauling hollow-shell pipe for a 15-hour, 536-mile journey through five states. After talking to hundreds of angry truckers at a stop in Shiloh, Ohio, Mr. Biden was sympathetic. The winter storm he had just driven through was, he said, “nothing compared to the snow job truck drivers I met believe the government is handing them.”The energy situation would spell political trouble for President Richard Nixon, already deeply wounded by Watergate, as Americans blamed elected officials for their troubles. Millions of Americans were waiting in lines to fill up their tanks and feeling the pinch of higher prices on their family budgets. “What is worse than ‘Watergate’ and all the various charges against the president? Answer — the gas crisis in Bergen County,” a suburban New Jersey man wrote to his senator. “We the American People are tired of the lack of competent and effective leadership,” the Concerned Citizens of Maryland told Mr. Nixon.Jimmy Carter, then the governor of Georgia, accused his predecessors of “gross mismanagement” as he ran for president seeking to quell the energy crisis. But after his 1976 election, Mr. Carter wasn’t so lucky: A second oil shock struck in 1979, this one triggered by unrest in Iran. Prices soared again, up more than 1,000 percent since the start of the decade. “I’ll give it to you straight,” Mr. Carter said in 1979. “Each one of us will have to use less oil and pay more for it.”There was a “panic at the pumps,” as a New York service station representative called it at the time, leading to gas riots, violence, economic chaos and more. Long lines lasted for hours and soaring prices broke the dollar-a-gallon barrier, resulting in a sense of defeat and national decay. Americans are being “crucified on the cross of inflation,” a group of Chicago truckers said. “People are freaking out,” the California Energy Commission’s chairman said. No one came in for more blame than Mr. Carter. “Energy affects the life of every goddamn American, and most of them are mad at us,” a White House aide told Newsweek. “Energy is our Vietnam,” another official said.In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Mr. Carter — the first Democratic president of Mr. Biden’s political career — in a landslide.By the end of the 1970s, the price of a gallon of gasoline had become one of the most explosive issues in American political life. It still is. When presidents see gas prices tick up, they inevitably get a sick feeling in their stomachs. Rising gas prices tend to correlate with a decline in presidential approval ratings, which in turn erodes support for the incumbent party at the polls.In times of economic instability, gas prices are the most visible and easily understandable gauge of how the nation is faring: Outsize placards on every street corner and at every rest stop are a constant reminder for many citizens that times are tough, neon signs that shine projections of pocketbook pain down to the thousandth of a decimal. You don’t need to know much about macroeconomics or public policy to know that you’re being squeezed.America lives under the shadow of King Oil because our lives are organized around our cars and our cars run on gasoline.The roots of this dependence go back to before the 1970s oil shocks, to the postwar years when America’s economy boomed, thanks to cheap and plentiful gas. The country was building a massive system of interstate highways made possible by the 1956 Interstate Highway Act; developers erected single-family suburban homes that required a car trip just to pick up a pint of milk; the government failed to invest in mass transit. Gas stations competed with giveaways and free windshield washings. The drive-in movie theater and the drive-through restaurant had become icons of American culture. Cars grew and grew in size until they became living rooms on wheels. With their tail fins, luxurious interiors and powerful engines, cars were the embodiment of American freedom.Until they weren’t. “The great American ride is ending,” the title character in “Rabbit Is Rich,” John Updike’s iconic novel of late-’70s America, thinks to himself as he surveys his car lot. Instead of singing about the open road, Johnny Cash made commercials, paid for by oil companies, about the need to “drive slow and save gas.”Gas lines in Midtown Manhattan in May 1979.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesAppeals to conservation went unheeded. Americans refused to consume less; we resisted developing new forms of energy. As a result, the nation was running in place. Americans wanted everything to be the same.By the time Mr. Reagan left office in 1989, there were over 30 million more cars on the road than there had been at the start of the energy crisis in 1973. And in spite of calls for energy independence, America got more and more of its oil from the Persian Gulf. It was not a surprise, then, that President George H.W. Bush, himself an oilman, launched a military operation in 1991, Operation Desert Storm, in response to Saddam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait. “We cannot allow any tyrant to practice economic blackmail,” he said.President Bill Clinton’s term did little to wean America off its oil addiction. During his administration, S.U.V.s, which were not subject to fuel efficiency standards, were coming to dominate the market. No wonder that in 2000, as gas prices spurted up, in advance of the election, Mr. Clinton released oil from the strategic reserve, a fail-safe created in the 1970s. His solution to higher prices was to flood the market with product rather than to stem demand, hoping to bolster the electoral prospects of Al Gore, his vice president and a passionate environmentalist.That story has continued to play out. In 2008, congressional Republicans attempted to lay the blame for record-high prices on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling it the “Pelosi Premium.” The strategy failed, given the collapse of the economy when George W. Bush was in the White House. But the effort reflected the political reality of prices at the pump, still the case today. The question is: How long can this last?Mr. Biden has watched as his party’s political fortunes have been driven by the ups and downs of energy prices since the early 1970s. Over those nearly 50 years he has undoubtedly discovered the tension at the heart of this: While politicians live and die in the short term, it’s only long-term policies that can offer an enduring solution.Gas prices are down now, but are they down enough to help his party next week? And will they stay down ahead of the 2024 presidential election? Those questions are most likely on the top of Mr. Biden’s mind.In 1981, when Mr. Reagan, soon after taking office, used his executive authority to get rid of the price controls on oil that had come into effect during the crisis, Mr. Biden objected. “We must continue to fight for more responsible energy economic policy,” he wrote in an op-ed. By that he meant a “permanent” windfall tax on oil companies, which at the time were reaping record profits. The taxes would pay for relief from the “excessive costs” of energy.In the 1970s, Democrats thought the oil hikes that followed war and revolution in the Middle East required an equally drastic political response: price controls, rationing and corporate profit caps. Today, with OPEC price hawks taking advantage of another war, polls suggest that Mr. Biden would see enormous political and electoral dividends by imposing temporary price and profit controls on the industry. Some economists, like the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, agree.So, too, do many members of Congress. “We know that big oil companies are exploiting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to drive up prices at the pump for American families,” Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a Democrat, recently told me. “This sort of profiteering is unacceptable and we need to put a stop to it. A windfall profits tax would help us take on corporate power and deliver relief directly to families.”Now Mr. Biden is listening to the lessons of his long career. His release from the strategic petroleum reserve comes after a similar move nearly a year ago, followed up by a failed effort to get OPEC to increase its production and the jawboning of oil companies. “You should not be using your profits to buy back stock or for dividends,” the president said. “Not now. Not while a war is raging.” Instead, he said, “Bring down the price you charge at the pump.” Or else — as he told the companies this week.But just as he is trying to ease Americans’ pain, he also recognizes that the permanent solution comes from weaning ourselves off fossil fuels from foreign powers, like Russia and Saudi Arabia, that see oil as a geopolitical weapon. Even a young Joe Biden understood this: In the weeks after the 1973 Arab embargo, he was one of five senators who voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and instead supported funding mass transit.What was never really on the table was using less gas and driving fewer cars. President Carter tried to solve the energy crisis, in part, with a famous prime-time speech asking the United States to change its wasteful, self-indulgent ways, as Americans were waiting in gas lines. It was a colossal failure. The installation of solar panels on the White House roof, when Mr. Carter promised that 20 percent of all energy would come from the sun and other renewable sources by 2000, also fell flat.Mr. Biden knows this. That’s why he has worked hard to make renewable alternatives a reality with the Inflation Reduction Act, a climate bill investing historic amounts into a green transition. And as much as he, like so many presidents, champions himself as a “car guy” who loves his 1967 Corvette Stingray, he has also celebrated recent pushes like Ford’s to phase out combustion engines.But those changes take time. Just as they have since the 1970s, voters want relief and they want it now. In 1973, Mr. Biden said his constituents felt that “the federal government isn’t listening.” Nearly half a century later, as Americans take to the polls, Mr. Biden wants them to know “who is standing with them and who is only looking out for their own bottom line.”Even as Mr. Biden might get minimal short-term benefits from his energy and climate policies — and minimal relief in gas prices in the near future — history may look back on his record as a turning point, when America didn’t just start ending its gas addiction but went further into alternatives that began making our country and our politics less in thrall to King Oil.Meg Jacobs teaches history and public affairs at Princeton and is the author of “Pocketbook Politics: Economic Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America” and “Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Biden Accuses Oil Companies of ‘War Profiteering’ and Threatens Windfall Tax

    The president has been eager to redirect public anger over gas prices as Democrats try to keep power in Congress in the midterm elections.WASHINGTON — President Biden threatened on Monday to seek a new windfall profits tax on major oil and gas companies unless they ramp up production to curb the price of gasoline at the pump, an escalation of his battle with the energy industry just a week before the midterm elections.The president lashed out against the giant firms as several of them reported the latest surge in profits, which he called an “outrageous” bonanza stemming from Russia’s war on Ukraine. He warned them to use the money to expand oil supplies or return it to consumers in the form of price reductions.“If they don’t, they’re going to pay a higher tax on their excess profits and face other restrictions,” Mr. Biden told reporters at the White House. “My team will work with Congress to look at these options that are available to us and others. It’s time for these companies to stop war profiteering, meet their responsibilities to this country, give the American people a break and still do very well.”The president’s embrace of new taxes on the energy industry heartened liberals in his party who have been urging him to take action for months. But it was more of a way to pressure the oil firms than a realistic policy prescription for the short term given that Congress is not even in session and would be even less likely to approve such a measure if Republicans capture one or both houses in next week’s election.Mr. Biden has been eager to redirect public anger over gas prices toward the oil industry and away from himself as Democrats try to overcome historical and popular headwinds to keep power on Capitol Hill. While the price at the pump has fallen significantly since topping out just above $5 a gallon in the summer, it is still much higher than when Mr. Biden took office and contributes to the overall inflation rate, which remains near a four-decade high.The president framed his case against the oil companies in terms that seemed clearly aimed at next week’s vote. “The American people are going to judge who is standing with them and who is only looking out for their own bottom line,” he said. “I know where I stand.”Republicans fired back at the president, faulting him for policies that they say discourage the energy industry from expanding capacity.The State of the WarGrain Deal: After accusing Ukraine of attacking its ships in Crimea, Russia withdrew from an agreement allowing the export of grain from Ukrainian ports. The move jeopardized a rare case of wartime coordination aimed at lowering global food prices and combating hunger.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage over Russia in the southern Kherson region, erasing what had been a critical asset for Moscow.Fears of Escalation: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia repeated the unfounded claim that Ukraine was preparing to explode a so-called dirty bomb, as concerns rose in the West that the Kremlin was seeking a pretext to escalate the war.A Coalition Under Strain: President Biden is facing new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting Ukraine. The alliance has shown signs of fraying with the approach of the U.S. midterm elections and a cold European winter.“Haven’t American families suffered enough from President Biden’s damaging attack on American-made energy?” asked Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. “Desperately trying to salvage the midterm elections, now he’s proposing another dangerous policy that will increase energy prices and energy poverty while making America more vulnerable to foreign countries for our daily energy needs.”The oil industry accused the president of politicking, noting that gas prices have come down by roughly a quarter since summer. “Rather than taking credit for price declines and shifting blame for price increases,” said Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, “the Biden administration should get serious about addressing the supply-and-demand imbalance that has caused higher gas prices and created long-term energy challenges.”Mr. Biden’s statement came just days after the oil giants reported another three months of flush coffers. Exxon Mobil brought in a record of nearly $20 billion in profits for the third quarter of the year, 10 percent higher than the previous quarter and its fourth consecutive quarter of robust earnings. Chevron reported $11.2 billion in profits, just below the record it set the quarter before. The European-based Shell and Total Energies companies similarly reported that profits more than doubled from the same period a year ago.The five biggest oil companies generated more than $50 billion in profits in the second quarter, and the International Energy Agency has reported that total net income for the world’s oil and gas producers will double this year from last to a record $4 trillion. “Today’s high fossil fuel prices have generated an unprecedented windfall for producers,” the agency said.A half-dozen of the largest firms earned more in profit over the past six months than in all of last year and more than two and a half times what they earned in the same quarters of 2021, White House officials said. Mr. Biden said if the industry simply earned the same level of profits it has for 20 years, consumers would pay 50 cents less per gallon.The firms have used their profits in some cases for dividend increases and stock buybacks rather than increased production, which could bring down the price of oil and therefore trim their profits. Exxon Mobil raised its dividend on Friday, citing a commitment to “return excess cash” to shareholders.Mr. Biden has been sensitive to gas prices, an important barometer for the public mood. As the price at the pump hit record highs over the summer, the president’s approval rating slid to new lows, but as gas costs came down over the following three months, his own numbers improved. Likewise, according to polls, the rise and fall of gas prices is directly inverse to public feelings about whether the country is heading down the right or wrong track.Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, is so attentive to the fluctuations that he checks the average price every day and often posts messages on Twitter pointing out when it dips further.“If you are filling your gas tank this weekend, you are seeing one of the cheapest Saturdays of the year,” Mr. Klain tweeted on Saturday. “Gas prices continue to drop nationally,” he added on Monday morning.The current national average of $3.76 a gallon is about three pennies less than it was a month ago and about $1.25 below the June peak, but still far above the $2.39 it was when Mr. Biden took office, according to AAA.The issue flared recently when Saudi Arabia led the OPEC Plus cartel to cut production by up to two million barrels of oil a day just before the midterm elections, a move that Biden administration officials considered a betrayal of a private understanding to increase supplies rather than the other way around.A windfall profits tax would impose an excise levy on the output of domestic oil producers. Congress would establish the tax rate, which could differ between independent producers and the biggest companies. It would be the first windfall profits tax in the United States in more than three decades, but since earlier this year, 15 European countries have proposed or enacted such levies, including Britain, Italy and Spain, according to the Tax Foundation.Urged by President Jimmy Carter, Congress imposed a windfall profits tax in 1980 after a sharp increase in oil prices spurred by an OPEC embargo. Lawmakers were trying to offset large industry tax deductions, including a depletion allowance for older wells with exhausting deposits and an array of deductions for drilling.But domestic production fell and dependence on foreign oil increased, while forecasts of revenue from the windfall tax turned out to be overly optimistic. Congress repealed the tax in 1988 after oil prices fell.Industry executives said Mr. Biden’s proposal to revive the tax would not increase supplies. “It’s a horrible idea, small thinking,” said Patrick Montalban, the president of Montalban Oil and Gas, a producer in North Dakota and Montana. “It’s going to take away from exploration and production of domestic oil and gas. It’s that simple. Total politics.”Democrats who have pressed Mr. Biden to consider such a tax applauded his statement. “It’s time for Congress to stand up to Big Oil and bring relief to consumers, instead of corporate stock buybacks and bonuses,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has introduced windfall profits tax legislation.But some liberals were unhappy that Mr. Biden was using the threat to leverage production increases. “Drilling more won’t lower prices for U.S. consumers,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group. “More investment in oil drilling will deepen our dependence on fossil fuels.”Investments in oil and gas exploration remain 17 percent below the 2019 level and half the level in 2014, when the oil business was enjoying a price boom, according to the International Energy Agency. Few new fields have been discovered in recent years, leading to ever-tightening supplies. And Wall Street has shied away from investing in hydrocarbons because of growing concerns about climate change.American oil production this year is averaging 11.87 million barrels a day, an increase of 4 percent from last year despite urging from the administration that companies drill and produce more. The number of rigs deploying has been increasing this year, although increases have slowed since summer.Shale oil production, which has been the engine of growth over the last decade, is expected to grow to roughly the level before the Covid-19 pandemic caused the 2020 economic downturn and collapse of oil prices.Peter Baker More

  • in

    Biden Faces New Challenges With Coalition on Ukraine Support

    The domestic and international consensus has shown signs of fraying as midterm elections loom in the United States and Europeans face the prospect of a cold winter.WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that it sees no current prospects for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, even as President Biden faces new challenges keeping together the bipartisan, multinational coalition supporting the effort to drive out Russian invaders.The domestic and international consensus that Mr. Biden has struggled to build has shown signs of fraying in recent days with the approach of midterm elections and a cold European winter. But Mr. Biden’s advisers have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia remains committed to force and that Ukrainian leaders are unwilling to give ground following recent battlefield victories.“Neither side is in a position to sit down and negotiate,” John F. Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, told reporters on Wednesday. “Putin is clearly continuing to prosecute this war in a brutal, violent way,” he said, while the Ukrainians given their momentum “are not in a position where they want to negotiate.”Mr. Kirby emphasized that the Americans will defer to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine while trying to strengthen his position in any negotiations that may eventually occur. “If and when it comes to the table,” Mr. Kirby said, Mr. Zelensky “gets to determine when that is; he gets to determine what success looks like, and he gets to determine what or what he is not willing to negotiate with the Russians.“But we’re just not there yet,” he said.The assessment came a day after a group of House Democratic progressives withdrew a letter to Mr. Biden calling for a revised strategy and broaching the possibility of direct talks with Russia to resolve the conflict. Although the 30 progressives backed off in the face of a backlash within their own party, the restiveness on the left served as a warning sign of fatigue after eight months of war financed in large part by American taxpayer dollars.The emerging erosion of support for the current strategy is more pronounced on the political right. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, positioned to be the new House speaker if Republicans win the House next month as expected, last week threatened to curb future aid to Ukraine, aligning himself with former President Donald J. Trump and the Fox News host Tucker Carlson.On the other side of the ocean, European allies facing the onset of cold weather with Moscow controlling the fuel spigot see the future course of the conflict with Russia in different ways. Some former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe want Russia firmly defeated and its troops driven out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, while countries like Germany, France and Italy believe such a full-scale victory is unrealistic and worry that Washington is not thinking clearly about how the war might end.Even between allies sharing similar views, tensions have risen over energy and defense strategy. President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany met in Paris on Wednesday to discuss their differences over a French-backed European Union cap on natural gas prices that Germany has resisted even as it subsidizes its citizens’ gas bills.Ratcheting up the pressure further, Mr. Putin on Wednesday for the first time personally claimed that Ukraine was preparing to set off a so-called dirty bomb, repeating unsubstantiated assertions made previously by lower-level Russian officials. American officials once again dismissed the contention, calling it a possible pretext for Russia to escalate its attack on Ukraine.As Russian forces conducted an annual military exercise testing nuclear-capable missiles, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on more than 20 Russian and Moldovan individuals and entities reportedly involved in a Russian scheme to interfere in Moldova’s political system.For Mr. Biden, who has built a broad coalition for his approach at home and abroad, the next few weeks could be pivotal. While the Ukrainian war effort still enjoys wide support in the United States, polling suggests some attrition, especially among Republicans.Twenty percent of Americans interviewed by the Pew Research Center last month said the United States is providing too much help to Ukraine, up from 12 percent in May and 7 percent in March. Thirty-two percent of Republicans said too much was being done for Ukraine, compared with 11 percent of Democrats. About 46 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing about the right amount or not enough, while 65 percent of Democrats agreed.“Unfortunately, what we’re seeing I think is Russian far-right propaganda talking points filtering into the U.S. political environment, and knowingly or unknowingly we see U.S. politicians basically using talking points that will do nothing but bring a big smile to Putin’s face,” said Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute for International Leadership and a former Pentagon official under President Barack Obama..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.White House officials said privately that they had nothing to do with the swift retreat of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that proposed negotiations with Russia, but were reassured by the quick reversal. The increasing Republican skepticism, however, means that a midterm election victory by the opposition would raise questions about future aid packages.Even before Mr. McCarthy’s statement promising to resist a “blank check” for Ukraine, 57 Republicans in the House and 11 in the Senate voted against $40 billion in assistance in May and more of the party’s candidates on the campaign trail have expressed resistance to more money for Ukraine.But other Republicans have been steadfast backers of Ukraine, most notably Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party’s leader in the upper chamber who pointedly rebuffed Mr. McCarthy’s no-blank-check comment.“We have enjoyed and continue to enjoy terrific bipartisan support for our approach to Ukraine and the kinds of security assistance that we’re providing, and we’re going to need that support going forward,” Mr. Kirby said. “The president’s not worried about that.”Biden allies said Democrats had proved to be self-correcting when it came to the progressives’ letter but urged the president to explain his strategy to the public and the stakes involved.“This is a difficult and dangerous situation that requires staying power and to some extent sacrifice on the part of the United States,” said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey and a staunch supporter of Ukraine aid. “It’s always important for the president to be making the case to Congress and to the American people that this is in the national interest and the right thing to do.”Still, as the war grinds on, in Europe it feels more and more like an American venture. American contributions of war matériel and money exceed those of all the other allies put together, and American strategy choices are dominant, aided by the brutality of the Russian war, the bravery of the Ukrainian government and military and Mr. Putin’s clear disinterest in negotiations, let alone a Russian withdrawal.In these European countries, there is quiet worry that Ukraine will do so well as to drive Mr. Putin into a desperate gamble of escalation — a worry not unknown in Washington, too. For the Germans and the French, a settlement along the lines that existed before the Feb. 24 invasion would seem quite sufficient — a defeat for Mr. Putin but not a rout. The fear is that too big a loss of face for Russia would push Mr. Putin into using nuclear weapons in some fashion, or a “dirty bomb” conventional explosive with radioactive material that could be blamed on the Ukrainians in order to justify a significant escalation.That is a major reason that Germany and France seem to be carefully calibrating the sophistication of the weapons they send to Ukraine, as Mr. Biden does too. Europe has pretty much run out of Soviet-era weapons to send to Ukraine, and its own stocks, intended for its own defense, are also low, a function of the post-Cold War “peace benefit” that caused military spending to plummet all over the continent, a trend only slowly being reversed in earnest.There is a significant disparity between the flood of arms supplied by the United States, Britain, and Poland and what the rest of Europe is providing, which has raised the persistent question of whether some countries are slow-walking supplies to bring about a shorter war and quicker negotiations.Taken as a whole, the West is providing Ukraine “just enough” weaponry “to survive, not enough to regain territory,” said Ulrich Speck, a German foreign policy analyst. “The idea seems to be that Russia should not win, but also not lose.“What countries send and how slowly they send it tells us a lot about the war aims of Western countries,” he added. “And it becomes even more important now because Ukraine is more dependent on Western arms.”For all of that, Eric S. Edelman, a counselor at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and a former under secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, said the Europeans have stuck together more firmly than many had expected.“Public support remains quite strong,” Mr. Edelman said. “And although there will definitely be negative economic effects — particularly in Germany — the Euros have taken a lot of steps to buffer themselves” by storing energy and diversifying supplies. “Putin,” he said, “may find that he has made a bad bet.”Still, he added, “notwithstanding this generally bullish assessment, one should never underestimate the challenges of coalition maintenance and alliance management.”Peter Baker More

  • in

    How Saudi Arabia’s Blowup With Biden Threatens Democrats in 2022

    Democrats and administration officials are furious at the Saudis’ move to cut oil production, seeing it as an attempt to meddle in a U.S. election.Only three months have gone by since President Biden gave Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, the fist bump heard ’round the world.But relations between the United States and the world’s top swing producer have deteriorated markedly since then, precipitated by OPEC’s decision this month to reduce oil production. The Saudis argued that the falling price of crude oil, which had dropped to $80 a barrel, mandated the cut; U.S. officials disagreed.But coming at the height of a U.S. election season characterized by public anger over high gas prices, it looked to many Democrats like a partisan move. The U.S. had asked for a one-month delay, to no avail.The Biden administration was “blindsided by this,” said Steven Cook, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And now the Saudis are dug in.”National security officials insist they weren’t blindsided. But other officials, including John Podesta, the climate czar, were furious. Many saw the move as a Saudi attempt to meddle in a U.S. election, and they viewed the Saudis as reneging on a mutual understanding the two countries had reached after the war in Ukraine took Russian oil off the market. The president said there would be “consequences,” and John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the U.S. would be “re-evaluating our relationship with Saudi Arabia in light of these actions.”Jared Kushner’s front-row seat at an investor meeting in Riyadh this week will probably only heighten Democrats’ suspicions, as will the kingdom’s recent agreement to strengthen energy ties with Beijing. Notably, no U.S. officials were invited to the Riyadh meeting.“The White House has taken this very personally, and for understandable reasons,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He speculated that OPEC might not ultimately cut production by the full two million barrels a day that it said it would; member countries often fail to meet their production quotas anyway.“More important,” Riedel added, “is the symbolism of the president trying to reset U.S.-Saudi relations and the Saudis essentially repudiating him and humiliating him.”Riedel urged the White House to take action before the midterms, possibly by revoking maintenance contracts for Saudi warplanes or by withdrawing the U.S. troops stationed in the kingdom.Many Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, would support a rebuke to Riyadh. Several leaders of key committees have already announced that they will refuse to approve future arms sales without a change in Saudi attitudes.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Florida Governor’s Debate: Gov. Ron DeSantis and Charlie Crist, his Democratic challenger,  had a rowdy exchange on Oct. 24. Here are the main takeaways from their debate.Strategy Change: In the final stretch before the elections, some Democrats are pushing for a new message that acknowledges the economic uncertainty troubling the electorate.Last Dance?: As she races to raise money to hand on to her embattled House majority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in no mood to contemplate a Democratic defeat, much less her legacy.Secretary of State Races: Facing G.O.P. candidates who spread lies about the 2020 election, Democrats are outspending them 57-to-1 on TV ads for their secretary of state candidates. It still may not be enough.But Representative Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from New Jersey who is on the Armed Services Committee, said he “found it a bit puzzling that the administration was pushing this on Congress at a time when Congress was out of session.”The most likely vehicle for congressional action would be an amendment attached to the annual defense authorization bill, which has passed the House but not the Senate. Saudi Arabia, Malinowski said, had become a “partisan actor” in U.S. politics, and it was time to move to punitive actions.“Any move like this would send a very powerful signal to the kingdom that the U.S. is unhappy with the crown prince,” Riedel said, noting that the young Saudi leader “has many enemies inside the kingdom.”None of that has happened yet, however; U.S. officials viewed some of the ideas kicking around Congress as impractical, and thought it was important to consult with both parties.Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said he appreciated that the administration had not acted rashly to punish Saudi Arabia, arguing in favor of a deeper reassessment of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. And if the Saudi decision accelerated U.S. moves toward alternate sources of energy, he added, it might turn out to be a “blessing in disguise.”As for fears that Saudi Arabia might turn to other security partners, such as China, Murphy and others noted the kingdom’s utter reliance on U.S. support for its military. The United States, he said, needed to get out of a situation in which “Saudi Arabia benefits from this deep security relationship, but then knifes us in the back.”A crown prince who ‘much preferred’ TrumpFor the Biden administration and the kingdom, the mutual animosity appears to be personal.The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the crown prince “mocks President Biden in private, making fun of the 79-year-old’s gaffes and questioning his mental acuity” and that he “much preferred former President Donald Trump.”For his part, Biden vowed during the 2020 campaign to make the Saudi government a “pariah” — making his fist bump with the crown prince all the more striking.But the clash with Democrats has also been long in the making. As the U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks showed, Saudi rulers were enraged by the Obama administration’s diplomatic dealings with Iran. And they were further outraged by President Barack Obama’s decision to nudge aside Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, during the Arab Spring.Trump made it a priority to patch up U.S. ties with the Gulf. He visited Riyadh on his first presidential visit abroad — a trip defined by the famous photo of him touching a glowing orb at a counterterrorism conference.And he endorsed a Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, a tiny, iconoclastic Gulf state that was a cheerleader for the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011. A close Trump friend who became the chairman of his inaugural committee, the investor Thomas J. Barrack Jr., is currently on trial on charges that he acted as an undisclosed agent for the United Arab Emirates.The Saudis have underscored their diplomatic hostility to Biden by throwing money at Trump and his family. Kushner’s investment fund has taken on at least $2 billion in Saudi cash. And this weekend, Trump is hosting a Saudi-backed rival to the P.G.A. Tour at his golf course in Balmedie, Scotland — his second such event in recent months.Now, the Gulf nations’ budding relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia has become another flash point.During the Cold War, the United States leaned on Saudi Arabia to ramp up oil production, undermining high-cost Soviet producers in an effort to bankrupt the Kremlin. But in recent years, the Gulf countries have developed cordial ties with Russia.This photograph made available by Russian state media shows President Vladimir Putin meeting with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates, in St. Petersburg.Pavel Bednyakov/SputnikThis month, for instance, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates, made a high-profile visit to Moscow to meet with Putin. Foreign policy analysts saw the move as yet another slap in the face to Biden, who has backed the Ukrainian government with weapons, intelligence and heavy diplomatic support in the face of Russia’s invasion.Part of Biden’s problem in the Gulf, Cook said, is “wanting to have it both ways.”Biden began his term by embracing Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump exited and the Saudis vigorously oppose. He also reversed Trump’s policies on the bloody Saudi-led war in Yemen, blasted the Saudi government for killing the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and talked up the shift away from hydrocarbon-based energy — only to backtrack this summer as gasoline prices squeezed U.S. consumers.“The kingdom and its neighbors view the appeasement of Iran as the foundational error preventing cooperation on many other issues,” said Rob Greenway, a former senior Middle East official on Trump’s National Security Council.In the long run, though, Saudi Arabia might have less leverage than its leaders assume. High oil prices are a momentary annoyance for Americans, but the future of energy is an existential one for Riyadh — and the United States has become a significant producer over the last decade. As Riedel put it, “We don’t need them the way we used to need them.”Malinowski, noting that Saudi Arabia had snapped to attention in 2020 after Trump threatened to pull out U.S. troops, said, “It’s time to act like a superpower, not a supplicant.”What to readOne of this year’s most anticipated debates is tonight in Pennsylvania, where Lt. Gov. John Fetterman will face Mehmet Oz in their pivotal Senate race. Here’s what we’re watching for, and you can follow live updates here.As Republican candidates make crime a central midterm issue, they are running ads against Black candidates that appeal to white fears and resentments — and they are brushing off criticism of such tactics with unabashed defiance, Jonathan Weisman writes.Many political observers trying to forecast the midterms note that as gas prices go up and down, the public’s mood tends to follow. Why, our Upshot team asks, does the cost of fuel have such power over us?The governor’s race in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul was expected to coast to victory, is now too close for Democrats’ comfort, Nicholas Fandos reports.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More