LyrArc Article Gist
Sanae Takaichi press conference with DJT at White House March 19 2026- there is no mention of Japanese help with clearing Straits of Hormuz. US Japan relations after the meeting of Takaichi and DJT at the White House appear to be in good shape. Japan will invest $73 billion in US investment projects in 2026 as part of the $550 billion commitment made at the time of the US Japan trade deal in 2025 under the previous LDP prime minister. Takaichi is coming with strong support in Japan after winning a landslide victory in the general election. Japan's main concern is the belligerent North Korea and China's posture in Asia as it relates to Taiwan. Agreements were reached on critical issues- to develop alternative supplies of critical minerals, to rebuild the shipbuilding industry which US and Japan had given up after dominating it for most of the 20th century. This is critical to ensure open navigation on the oceans of the world. Agreements on high tech and AI, and agreement to purchase Alaskan oil to cut Japan's 90% dependence on volatile Middle East supplies. Japan has managed Middle East supply by keeping over 254 days of inventory but this looks to be very risky as Germany learned from its dependence on Russian oil which went in the wrong direction under Merkel. Japan has released about 18% of its total reserve amount of the 254 days inventory (146 days in national reserves and 101 days in private mandated reserves). It uses 3.14 million barrels a day in 2026 down from 5.8 million barrels a day in 1996, using about half today through conservation and using renewable energy showing the potential for the US and Europe. Germany has cut oil consumption by a third in comparison from 2.9 mbd in 1996 to 2.0 in 2026. And the US remains stagnant with oil demand highest in 2005 at 20.5 mbd and 20 years later at 20.5 mbd mainly because 14mbd or 70% goes to cars and trucks on the road for 347 million people over continental spaces (compared to 297 million in 2005) for a reduction of oil use of 15%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EIA says half of the benefit of higher fuel efficiency standards for Automobiles 2010-2020 in US was lost because of SUV's and the incentivizing of SUV's in the 2006 CAFE standards have made things worse. The first SUV's came in the 1980's. By 2004 SUV's made up half of car sales and by 2025 outsold cars 2 to 1. What if we took all SUV's and large cars off the roads, or even some of these SUV's by deincentivizing of SUV's in the US CAFE corporate fuel efficiency standards? What would be the savings in crude oil and in carbon footprint? Would it be about the same as releasing an additional 400 million barrels of oil into the markets in addition to the 400 million barrels that are now released through EIA and member countries? This New Yorker essay touches on this idea. During the Iran war the volatile Middle East as a source of oil supplies is a major problem for countries. Some are rationing supplies and in one country 40 million children are not going to school for 2 weeks starting this week because of the sources of oil are so precarious, government offices will only have half of the employees, the rest working from home (almost like Covid pandemic). Many other countries face that situation. The International Energy Agency recently reported that, if “SUVs were an individual country, they would rank sixth in the world for absolute emissions in 2021, emitting over 900 million tonnes of CO2.” The agency says governments must redesign their CAFE standards and their policies so that it would reduce S.U.V. sales, tax gas guzzling vehicles. EIA cites governments in the EU doing this- “Some governments have already started introducing relevant measures, such as France and Germany, which have put a tax on large and high-emissions cars.” Within SUV's also there is an opportunity to reduce the size and make more efficient space utilization designs. Small savings also add up. One has to realize that the current freedom to use energy freely in places like the US with self sufficiency in oil comes with a sense of responsibility for using it wisely so that it can be exported to cut the trade deficit, precisely what the president is doing with India, to cut a trade deficit of $58 billion before it gets to $100 billion. Section 301 is already in place for investigations by the US of 18 countries for a new basis to use tariffs after the Supreme Court decision. A similar approach is taken with EU for hundreds of billions of reductions in trade deficit that will only strengthen the US dollar and the US economy in the long run , and be good for stock markets and jobs as it reduces oil prices and increases the manufacturing capacity/cost for the Nation. Europe, India and China can do the same. Remember that in 2010 SUV's made up 17% of total world sales, and by 2025 SUV's made up 46% of world vehicle sales. This would create another 400 million barrels for the oil markets, which would triple what was released through EIA  this week to 1.2 billion barrels and this would create 120 days of supply replacement for the 10 million b/d lost from Straits of Hormuz, and effectively end the Iran War as it would be clear that prices can be kept low even in the $50's. Essentially buying time till the SU can get more production in Venezuela and other parts of the world to replace much of the Middle Eastern oil that is ending up in a quagmire. This is the best way for the US and Europe, India, China to ensure jobs growth, economic growth with low cost crude oil in the $50 range and ensure much of the poorer countries like Egypt and Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have access to oil at prices they can afford and eliminate poverty. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
European Union plans are for cutting by two thirds current imports of oil and gas from Russia in 2022. The EU's plan is to take down the imports of Russian natural gas from 155 billion cubic meters which represent 40% dependence on natural gas from Russia, the import figure for 2021, down to 100 billion cubic meters. James Henderson, chairman of the gas program and the energy transition research initiative at Oxford Insititute for Energy Studies, looks at how the EU will get this done.  The European Commission's plan is to get 50 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas. New projects for LNG and return to market for supplies that were disrupted earlier would generate 40 billion cubic meters of LNG. Of this 30 billion cubic meters could go to Europe. Another 10 billion cubic meters is expected from Norway, Algeria and Azerbaijan. Some of this by delaying maintenance. Conservation and reduced consumption could deliver savings of 38 billion cubic meters of gas. Of this 20 billion cubic meters would come from new solar and wind energy. Roof top solar and installing new wind energy can save about 4 billion cubic meters of natural gas. This does not include energy saving from industry, particularly Germany, which makes up a significant part of the use of oil and gas. Increased temporary use of coal may be considered and nuclear energy is an option in some countries. These are first step, additional action will be needed to reduce dependence on Russia from the current EU plan of one third reduction in 2022 to two third reduction by the end of the year to demonstrate the EU's resolve in the war in Ukraine. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is what our energy wars, our climate change wars are about in summary. Europe has moved faster than the US, India and China in cutting fossil fuels use over 20 years 2005 to 2025. Europe going from 1525 trillion watt hours to 792- cutting use by half. The US from 2900 to  2553 trillion watt hours just 12%. And China...China tripled its use. This has come at a price as the costs of renewables push up electricity prices beyond what homes and industry can support. UK electricity prices 80% higher than US and half of UK energy users plan to ration its use 2025. Half of electricity costs in UK come from cost and delivery, other half of costs from subsidies of renewables and other. In Germany high electricity costs are hobbling industry and reducing economic growth. Lower electricity prices make the US more attractive than Germany as a place to invest. Another way to look at it- US and Europe cut fossil fuel use by about 1100 trillion watt hours and China increased its use by 4200 trillion watt hours or 4 times what the US and Europe cut in 2024 over 2005. Adding India, Brazil this would be 5-6 times what the US and Europe saved in 2024 over 2005. The "And "strategy of combining reduction in fossil with building renewable capacity is working out compared to dumping fossil in one shove and going all out renewable. There is also the question of equity. China and India argue equity means we should be allowed to use some fossil with renewable for 2.5 billion people's needs. The other side of equity is the US saying the same as "no fossil period" strategy puts the needs of the large part of the population for lower costs of energy  pushed aside as wealthy classes say it is OK. Even when the savings through cuts and sacrifices in US and EU are cut down, cut down by 5-6 fold increase in China, India, Brazil alone. In this kind of climate change war it makes sense not to go with labels such as climate change denial DJT vs China climate change affirming, when China is diluting US-EU climate change entire twenty year savings of 2005-2024 by a factor of 4, 1100 trillion watt hours wiped out by China's 4200 trillion watt hours added. And India, Brazil taking this to a factor of 6. This is why a lot of the discussion with self-righteous indignation becomes less purposeful. What is clear is that every action to cut cost of living in US and EU for large parts of the people is an effort in the right direction as it frees up resources for the fight against climate change, the sense that we are all in the same boat and in the same struggle. The fight against cost of living is part of the long run struggle against climate change. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Climate Reset Berlin, a coalition of climate change action groups, has introduced a referendum that brings forward climate change action goals put off till 2045. The referendum makes 2030 the new target date for 95% reduction in carbon emissions consistent with the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement. Berlin is 80% dependent on fossil fuels for energy needs in 2023. Proponents say there is great potential for wind and solar energy. Opponents say that it is too costly and will take up funds now allocated for childcare and education. The outgoing Greens SPD government of Berlin opposes it, as does the new expected CDU government. The Green senator for Berlin supports it, as do other private groups. Buildings need to be renovated and private transport curbed which would cost billions of dollars. Opponents say this would bankrupt Berlin. Supporters say not enough is being done. If approved it goes into effect immediately. Supporters include the Sustainability Group at Humboldt University, Germany's national cyclists association. They say Berlin has 52 acres of available land in Brandenburg that could be used for wind energy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Merkel's leadership as Germany goes through the economic crisis. There is not much enthusiasm for further reforms among the Social Democrats or the Christian Democrats. Other than raising the retirement age to 67, the mood is not for any changes in that direction. The economy will contract by 6.1% but Merkel's decision is not to go in for a big stimulus under pressure from the US, and instead stay with the status quo combined with help to workers for unemployment benefits and for retention of workers by companies. As elections approach Merkel is considered favorably, and according to a recent poll by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen nearly 60% are satisfied with the grand coalition of the CDU and the SPD, 78% think Ms Merkel has done well as chancellor, and 58% want her to remain on the job. Actually Merkel's popularity is behind the CDU's prospects, the CDU itself is popular among only 35% of voters. Her analytical habits from her training as a physicist show in the way she is governing, which is thoughtful, and connects well with voters. Merkel benefits from the reduction in unemployment. Unemployment fell from around nearly 5 million in 2005 to around 3 million in 2008. The risk is that Merkel's popularity may be affected by an increase in unemployment to 5.1 million from the averaage of 3.3 million in 2008, according to an OECD estimate. Merkel stands behind a German response to the crisis which is to support the priciples of a social-market economy, make unemployment as least painful as possible to the jobless, to keep every job that can be saved in the nonfinancial sector with a 115 billion euro "Germany fund" providing guarantees and credits to companies that are in trouble because of the credit crisis. Stimulus packages of 64 billion euros supported the auto industry with subsidies to car buyers, and subsidies to keep workers intheir jobs. The idea was to come up with a German version of the response to the crisis by balancing the need to respond based on German conditions, and the concerns for inflation and the budget deficit, that is shared by most Germans. THe vision offered by Merkel is that of a physicist daughter of a protestant minister in East Germany, who is low on the rhetoric and good on substance, and willing to make decisions based on careful study and discernment rather than ideology, without sharp swings in any direction. Her vision comes from her days as environment minister, which is quietly pushing Germany into the forefront of countries developing renewable energy, moving ahead in energy efficiency, with anational goal of cutting emissions by 40% by 2020. The other areas are immigration and education, both key to the future of Germany because of the huge demographic change happening there. She has afamily minister Ursula von der Leyden, who introduced "parents pay", a14 month stipend for parents of newborn children linked to salaries, and to to improve daycare by providing places for 35% of children aged three or less by 2013. And Merkel has approved 18 billion euros of additional funding for research and universities. Says Leyden Merkel has made "daycare" an acceptable term in the CDU, and made Germans accept that they are an immigration country. Which tells you that you have to look closely to find the reasons for Merkel's popularity, which does not carry the rhetoric of an Obama, but is just as effective in German conditions. There are deepseated demographic changes going on in German society, which require a cultural change, and change in mindset, such as that for daycare, immigration, and blending the best of the old in the social market economy with the new like the changes in the educational system. The Economist says that in big cities today nearly half of the children under 15 are immigrants or their children and grandchildren, who are more likely to be poorer, unemployed and with less education. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Altmaier is director of the chancellery in Berlin, and is the person closest to Angela Merkel. This report in the Economist points out that Altmaier has played a critical role in steps taken by Merkel- as chief whip in parliament for the CDU during the Greece financial crisis and bailouts, as environment minister implementing the program away from coal based electricity, and in negotiating deals such as the deal with Turkey on refugees, and now with Brexit negotiations. Merkel has asked Altmaier to write her manifesto for the September 2017 election. A member of the CDU's liberal wing, Altmaier is known for being a scholar on German history, especially Bismarck, and a workaholic. Here he is mentioned as a bridge maker for the CDU to the Greens Party and was part of a group of CDU and Green Party politicians who met at an Italian restaurant in Bonn. As the moderates are now dominant in the Greens Party, a CDU coalition with the Greens could be shaped by Altmaier if the election results move in that direction. ...

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
The Trump administration's early proposal for NAFTA moves away from campaign pledges to completely renegotiate the treaty, instead taking the approach of working to improve the U.S. trade position in relation to Mexico and Canada. It includes seven objectives for tougher rules for labor and the environment favored by Democrats in Congress, and it also has support from Republicans with its effort to update NAFTA for changes in technology and in other areas since the accord was signed during the Clinton administration. The area in which U.S. and Mexican business are wary is one in which the Trump administration still seeks to keep the option of imposing protective tariffs, and a border-adjusted tax to level playing field for differences in taxes, as well as other measures to protect American jobs and interests. Because any renegotiated NAFTA also has to pass both houses of Congress this proposal took into account the different constituencies and interests for this issue. Robert Lighthizer, trade representative under president Reagan is likely to become the next U.S. Trade Representative and lead negotiator. We first profiled Lighthizer in a group in Lyrarc for pointing to the need for a level playing field in trade. As early as 2010 Lighthizer argued in op-ed articles that globalization and trade practices should ensure a level playing field for the U.S., and was covered in Lyrarc. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There are similarities in the Republican and Democratic party platforms in 2016. One area of agreement is in the reinstatement of Glass Steagall Act. That legislation made in the Depression period to separate commercial banking from investment banking was changed  when president Clinton made changes in a deal with Senators Phil Gramm and Jim Leach in 1999. The too big to fail problems of banks and the problems of investment banks during the 2008 financial crisis are attributed to the lack of Glass Steagall protections for financial stability and safety. The result is that in the post 2016 environment banks can expect a tougher regulatory environment. Another are is in trade where both parties are expected to take tougher positions to protect U.S. interests. The Republican platform calls for "better negotiated trade agreemets that put America first."

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial says a smaller Wall Street and growing jobs in other fields will be good for New York as well as good for the country. It says New York politicians should focus on finding new ways for New York to broaden its tax base and get new businesses and new opportunites in fields such as media, advertising, entertainment, health care and tourism. Especially welcome are initiatives such as the science and tech campus of Cornell University promoted by Mayor Bloomberg. Tighter financial rules and higher capital requirements are good for the country and for New York the editorial emphasizes, because they help control reckless banking practices that destroy capital and opportunities for growth elsewhere in the economy. It points to Kevin Rose's Nov. 21, 2011 account in the Times showing a healthy culture shift in New York and the country with the status jobs being seen not at Goldman Sachs but at Google, Apple and Facebook. Rose's account shows that in the last 3 years the number of Wall Street employees of ages 20-34 declined by 25%....

LyrArc Article Gist
Hillary Clinton narrowly loses the Michigan primary to Bernie Sanders in March 2016, as the Sanders campaign focusses on Clinton's support for trade agreements that hurt American workers and lead to loss of manufacturing jobs. About three fifths of voters in the Michigan primary considered this a major issue. Many less educated younger workers see their job prospects diminish and wages drop with free trade that hurts American manufacturing jobs. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement with Mexico, and as a member of the Obama administration Clinton supported the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement, later opposing TPP when she left the cabinet. Sentiment against trade that hurts manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is strongest in midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. This was also a major issue benefitting the Liberals under Justin Trudeau who won in Canada's industrial Ontario province which has suffered hollowing out and loss of manufacturing jobs under the Conservative Harper administration. In the U.S. the issue goes back to the Clinton Administration for two decades. New jobs created by Apple, Google, and other tech companies pale in comparison with the industrial jobs created in another era that benefitted working class families. This issue and high unemployment or under employment, lower wages for working class families, was a major issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Widening wealth disparities, and lack of upward mobility, high tution and healthcare costs for ordinary families, dominated the campaign in the U.S....