LyrArc Article Gist
By taking action in Venezuela in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people (and similar action in the long run interests of the Iranian people to dedicate most of the resources for development and increase share of oil revenues without discounting and removing sanctions ill effects on economy and quality of life) major new changes can improve quality of life in the world.  Venezuelan production which was 3 million barrels a day has declined to 900,000 without US investment and technological upgrades. With US investment this can be increased to put additional oil supplies on the market lost in the war with Iran and smaller traffic through the Straits of Hormuz. Venezuelan crude is best suited to US refineries which frees up shale oil for export to meet needs of India and Europe. China which had hyper growth through massive oil consumption would reduce its growth rate and its impact on climate change as it adjusts to the loss of 3 million barrels a day it no longer gets from Iran. Slower growth rate in China is good for the climate as it is the hyper growth of China that put the most pressure on climate even as Europe and the US had cut  fossil fuels consumption over the last decade. China made 2 coal plants a week and 95% of all new global coal construction in 2023. India needs additional oil supplies as it increases its growth rate from a much lower point of development (and electricity poverty) than China. By simply settling for normal development compared to hyper development targets( China has reached a point of Oil Fairness Percentage where each country gets to use the same percentage of oil as its population is as a percentage of world population- the number being about 17% for China for both, with the number being 18% for India and it having a shortfall of 12% based on its oil consumption being only 6% of the world total). China can reduce oil and coal consumption reducing pressure on oil prices and absorbing most of the impact from the loss of Iranian oil. China and Russia + (old Soviet territory) Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, make up about 40% of the world's territorial landmass, would be large beneficiaries with improved climatic conditions from burning less coal. They are now highly developed countries and do not need hyper growth which requires China to build 2 coal plants a week and consume excessive amounts of crude oil and coal based on artificially set targets that make no sense by destroying the climate when no child in China lacks electricity to read. Marathon Philipps Valero with over half a million barrels of refining capacity for heavy Venezuelan crude can now put this to use using the imports by US of lower priced (by $9 to Brent crude) Venezuelan crude oil. In a few months of 2025 US has imported 280,000 barrels a day of Venezuelan crude in February 2026 alone some of it going to the large Valero refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. American oil refiners make larger margins using the Venezuelan crude than they make on light crude from shale oil producers in the US. What this does is to increase the supply of crude and refined oil products on the market as the light crude get shipped overseas to India and Europe- including countries like Spain which took in 100,000 barrels a day of shale crude from US in February 2026. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Japan will become the first country to issue climate bonds to finance action against climate change. This will bring in private capital. Japan will issue $5 billion in climate bonds (800 billion yen). A total of 20 trillion yen of climate bonds, sovereign debt securities, will be issued.

LyrArc Article Gist
What we bring is scale, says Teskey, co-founder of Brookfield Asset Management, which has set a target of $25 billion for 2 private funds for climate action. $10 billion has been raised and it continues fundraising. $2 billion from the UAE for energy transition fund and $1 billion for emerging markets transition. Additional fund raising will take place for emerging markets fund. Across all its funds Brookfield says it has raised $100 billion for investment in renewable power and energy transition projects. The demand for renewable power comes from cities and companies looking for cleaner ways of powering everything from data centers to manufacturing. It also comes from regulations on climate and from generous incentives offered by governments. The demand for renewable power from corporates, says Connor Teskey of Brookfield, is simply overwhelming. Teskey and Mark Carney, the former head of the central banks of UK and Canada and the point man on climate for the UN, are co-founders.   Total global energy transition investment was $1.8 trillion in 2023, a 17% increase from 2022, and yet this is nowhere near the needed investment of $4.8 trillion for climate goals needed annually for 2024 to 2030. Lyrarc.com will track these investments in its Climate Change Action part of the site. Brookfield is looking at cutting emissions in what is a broader strategy. whih means it will invest in fossil fuel projects where it can significantly cut emissions. This includes cement and steel makers.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Looking long term at climate change actions that need to be taken European oil companies are likely to turn the current problem into an opportunity. This includes Shell, BP, Total. Prof. Michael Grubb of the University College, London, says the current oil crisis will only accelerate European oil companies investments into renewables and electric vehicle infrastructure.

This WSJ report points out that Shell, BP and Exxon have provided the advanced technology that makes production from challenging assets such as in the Arctic possible. With the withdrawal of this technology production increases will be limited and higher methane gas emissions are likely overall from Europe's eastern region. Exxon is likely to invest more in natural gas projects as it makes its withdrawal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Eminent climate ecologist Nicholas Stern says India's commitment by 2070 demonstrates real leadership from Mr. Modi of India.The Guardian says India's commitment to net zero emissions by 2070 is realistic considering that it is decades away from its peak in economic growth and energy consumption compared to US or even China. Energy consumption is expected to grow faster than any other country in the next few years. India's population is also expected to pass that of China as the largest in the world. The Guardian says climate experts who did the modeling have said this was the most realistic scenario for India - to achieve net zero emissions by 2070. This also means India's peak energy emissions will be reached by 2030. Eminent climate ecologist Nicholas Stern says - "This was a very significant moment for the summit. This action might mean India's annual natural greenhouse gas emissions could peak by 2030. This demonstrates real leadership from a country whose emissions per capita are about one third of the global average."  Also significant is Mr. Modi's pledge to deliver on 5 commitments 1. 50% of India's power to be generated by renewable energy by 2030. 2. Increase of 500 gigawatts of renewable energy including solar by 2030. 3. Reducing carbon emissions by 1 billion tons by 2030. 4. Reduce carbon intensity of the economy by 45% by 2030. This relates to how efficiently energy is used to generate 1 unit of economic GDP. With 1.3 billion people India is the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide- at about 3 billion tons- after the US and China. In growth terms this means India is going to grow very differently from the way China did in 2000-2020 with its many highly polluting industrial plants. The head of the US Renewable Energy Agency Mr.Birol says in a BBC intervew that the cement and steel plants alone of China have more emissions than the whole of the European Union's total emissions. Much of this comes from old plants and old technologies with surplus production of steel from what is now a bygone era of excess, inefficiency and chaotic growth. India plans to bring climate change emissions and energy efficiency through renewables into its Gat Shakti master plan for the country's economic.development. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report on Danish wind energy company Orsted, looks at the journey of the largest developer of wind energy in the world from a company sending natural gas from North Sea to Europe to a joint developer with Denmark's Vestas of offshore wind farms. Last year Orsted, pronounced Ehrr-sted in Danish for the O and named after a Danish scientist, decided to invest $57 billion in offshore wind farms by 2027. It was not easy and the path required a bold vision and bold action to invest in wind energy for the long term even as debt piled up from losses in natural gas competing with coal, climate change committments were not yet strong, subsidies were required to make wind energy competitive, and debt was piling up. It would take a decade of hard work and technological innovation to produce wind energy that could outcompete coal and natural gas on cost without subsidies. The year is 2009 with the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The predecessor company to Orsted was losing money in natural gas with lower cost coal energy generation in Europe at the time. Yet the mood was changing governments were willing to invest in renewables. In 2012 a new CEO Paulsen did a review of 12 businesses of this Danish energy company and decided wind energy was the only one with long term prospects. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference created new awareness for the need to come up with a long term solution for energy that has no negative health effects and is renewable. That Conference set a goal of 20% for renewable energy by 2020 in the total mix for Europe up from 14%. Paulsen saw an opportunity in the crisis at the company then called Danish Oil and Natural Gas. The new company was called Orsted and the old divisions in fossil energy were sold to invest in wind farms offshore. The way Paulsen saw the situation was that the company had to take radical action whether it wanted to do so or not. By 2012 Danish pension funds were investing in large offshore wind farms of Orsted, taking a stake of as much as 50% in the Nysted wind farm. The Danish government which owned 80% of Orsted thought its projects were risky. Hard work with Vestas which builds the turbines in Denmark paid off in developing a huge new turbine that would bring costs down 65% comparing 2020 with 2012.  In 2018 the European Union was spending about 92 billion euros or $112 billion on energy subsidies including to wind farms. Britain also heavily subsidized offshore wind farms such as Hornsea 1 at about $198 a megawatt hour for 15 years double the electricity price in recent years. Windy conditions and shallow waters in the North Sea were favorable. Technology was being developed with Vestas which would reduce the cost each year. By 2016 Orsted was listed in Copenhagen. The remaining oil and gas business was then sold for $1 billion. The returns are less in wind than coal and natural gas- about 7-8% a year but the big thing is that there is certainty in this compared to coal and natural gas which are volatile and uncertain. The lesson companies are learning in renewables is that with solar and wind technology can. bring down costs, a lot of hard work and creative work lies ahead, that crisis can be turned into opportunity for companies that can be focussed enough to produce results. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India and China agree to a legally binding deal on climate change and emissions that would be drafted by 2015, and take effect in 2020. This would bring them in line with or symmetrical with the U.S. and European countries for controlling emissions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Its time for trains says Stuart Braun in DW.com, with all the flight cancellations and hardships of plane travel these days. Don't forget he says that trains make up only a tiny 0.4% of the total transport carbon emissions in European Union- planes produce 10 times that- and provide a better alternative to flying. 

Right now only 7% of passenger transport is by train. A lot needs to be done including making travel seamless across Europe. Banning short haul flights is one way. High speed trains connecting all European cities is another. The 150 busiest flight routes across Europe can be done by trains. Studies show 81 million passengers could shift to trains with high speed rail connections making the time comparable to flying including airport travel and waiting time. Train companies and infrastructure is too nationalistic to meet the challenge of climate change and action is needed immediately.

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
"Defend blue sky and breathe together" says a painting on a brick wall in the coal producing region of Shanxi, northern China. China is finally acting seriously to impose strict environmental rules from the top. Old coal stoves are thrown into a dump as China shifts away from coal stoves to heat homes. So many new homes shifted to natural gas in Shanxi province. population 37 million, that demand overwhelmed natural gas supplies. Results are to be seen in cleaner air in Taiyuan, capital of the province and in Beijing itself.  President Xi's commitment to climate change accord reached in Paris is seen as firm in this report in the NYT. The head of the gas, coal and power markets division of the International Energy Agency, Mr. Peter Fraser, says that even though homes use only 6% of total coal used in China, the effects are disproportionately high because homes do not have any emission reduction mechanisms. Natural gas demand has increased by 16% in 2017 as provincial officials eager to meet the demands issued in Beijing to cut coal emissions even let some homes and schools go without heat in an early winter spell. This extraordinary report shows how in cities in northeastern China the people welcome the change to natural gas and cleaner air. Even in coal country, in cities like Linfen population 4.4 million, the change is seen as people welcome the clean air and officials build natural gas connections to execute the plans issued in Beijing. In Beijing itself Greenpeace estimates show 54% reduction in PM 2.5, harmful particulate matter for breathing by 54%, a startling fact showing Beijing's determination and effectiveness of its actions. Natural gas is more expensive and citizens do not complain in neighboring provinces near Beijing because the state provides adequate subsidies to compensate people. Decrees are being enforced to avoid coal stove use with people knowing they could see action by authorites if reported. Compare this to the problems of crop burning around New Delhi, in Haryana and Punjab provinces, and one can see that centralized control and direction has advantages when used in the right way for a good purpose and supported by people who want to breathe clean air. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US gets the lowest score among the large industrialized nations- way behind Europe- in its record on greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution policies, agricultural policies, smog, and other environment criteria in a survey done jointly by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities. On regional smog the US has a very poor score.

LyrArc Article Gist
Air pollution concerns are leading China's National Development Reform Commission to set a higher goal for cleaner energy. The NDRC plans a 52 gigawatt increase in installed capacity for green energy in 2013, an increase from 36 gigawatts in 2012. This includes 10 gigawatts for solar energy. Clean energy will take up 57% of additions to installed capacity in 2013, compared to 35% in 2010, according to Tian Miao, an energy anayst at NSBO.