Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Frustrated with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s halfhearted attempt to get serious on crime, a decades-long Democrat state lawmaker says he will vote for her Republican challenger in the upcoming election.

“The No.1, No.2 and No.3 issues for New Yorkers are crime, crime, crime,” Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat who had served as an assemblyman in the New York State Legislature for 35 years until 2018, told The Epoch Times’ sister media NTD News after the last and only debate before the Nov. 8 gubernatorial race.

During the hour-long debate on Tuesday night, Hochul faced off with Rep Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and took on topics including the economy, abortion, and COVID vaccine mandates. But the most heated exchange took place when Zeldin charged Hochul with failing to address rampant subway crimes and hate crimes targeting Jewish and Asian communities.

Hochul, who ascended to the governorship after former Governor Andrew Cuomo resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal, fired back by accusing the Long Island Republican of trying to “keep people scared” about crimes more than they should, while insisting that her criminal justice policies are “making a difference.”

“Anyone who commits a crime under our laws, especially with the change they made to bail, has consequences. I don’t know why that’s so important to you,” the Democrat incumbent said at one point.

Hochul’s response, Hikind said, shows that she “has no clue” whatsoever as to what concerns New Yorkers the most.

“There’s a 40 percent decrease in the number of people using the New York City subway system. That’s crazy,” he told NTD News. “I don’t blame people. They’re afraid. They’re concerned. They see the things that are happening on the subway system and in the streets of New York.”

“Hochul has no clue, and I think it was very clear last night,” Hikind continued, adding that he was “dumbfounded” about whether Hochul has a plan for the future at all. He also pointed to the fact that the governor didn’t start campaigning on the issue of crime until very recently when polls showed Zeldin steadily narrowing her lead.

In a campaign ad launched last week, Hochul highlighted her opponent’s ties to President Donald Trump. The ad features footage of Trump at an April 2022 event at his Mar-a-Lago home saying, “Lee fought for me very, very hard.” It also shows Trump giving Zeldin a supportive tap on the shoulder.

“Zeldin voted with Trump, too—nearly 90 percent of the time, against tougher gun laws, for extreme anti-abortion laws,” the narrator says in an ominous voice. “Zeldin even voted to overturn the 2020 election to keep Trump in power.”

Read more here…

The Island of Hawaii is on high alert as earthquake swarms continue around the world’s largest active volcano, Mauna Loa. Scientists are worried about an eruption but not sure if one is imminent as magma churns underneath, generating dozens of quakes daily, according to AP News. 

US Geological Survey’s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory said Mauna Loa has been in a state of “heightened unrest” since mid-month due to daily earthquake swarms jumped from 10-20 per day to 40-50 per day. 

“Scientists believe more earthquakes are occurring because more magma is flowing into Mauna Loa’s summit reservoir system from the hot spot under the earth’s surface that feeds molten rock to Hawaii’s volcanoes,” AP said.

Hawaii’s civil defense agency held a meeting earlier this week to educate residents on preparing for a possible eruption. 

“Not to panic everybody, but they have to be aware of that you live on the slopes of Mauna Loa. There’s a potential for some kind of lava disaster,” said Talmadge Magno, Hawaii County Civil Defense administrator.

Mauna Loa is about half of the Hawaii Island landmass. So any eruption would immediately impact residents. There are about 200,000 people on the island. It last erupted in 1984, and lava flows took out homes in under two hours. 

USGS data shows hundreds of quakes have rattled the island in the last 30 days. 

USGS has placed Mauna Loa under “yellow advisory,” ― signifying residents need to be prepared. 

“We would hope if Mauna Loa rocks that we would have … days so that folks can be evacuated and notified,” Dr. Andria Ellis, a geophysicist at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, told Hawaii News Now. 

Even though an eruption doesn’t appear imminent, the rumblings underground suggest caution at what may be coming, “and at this point in time, like we always say, it’s better to be prepared and be ready,” said Luke Meyers, administrator of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

Authored by John Murawski via RealClear Wire,

As California, New York, and other states move to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, public officials routinely echo the Biden administration’s claim that electric vehicles are a “zero emissions” solution that can significantly mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Car and energy experts, however, say there is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle: For now and the foreseeable future, the energy required to manufacture and power electric cars will leave a sizable carbon footprint. In some cases hybrids can be cleaner alternatives in states that depend on coal to generate electricity, and some suggest that it may be too rash to write off all internal combustion vehicles just yet. 

“I have a friend who drives a Kia he’s had for about 15 years,” said Ashley Nunes, a research fellow at Harvard Law School.

“He called me and said, ‘Hey, I’m thinking of buying a Tesla. What do you think?’” 

“I said, ‘If you care about the environment, keep the Kia,’” Nunes said. 

Nunes’ advice points to the subtle complexities and numerous variables that challenge the reassuringly simple yet overstated promise of electric vehicles. Few dispute that the complete transition to EVs powered by cleaner electricity from renewable energy sources will have a less dire environmental impact than today’s gas-powered automotive fleet. But that low-carbon landscape exists on a distant horizon that’s booby-trapped with obstacles and popular misconceptions. 

In the meantime, the growing efforts by governments in this country and abroad to ban people from buying a transportation technology that has shaped modern society for the past century is prompting some electric car advocates to warn against using best-case scenarios to promote unrealistic expectations about the practicalities, costs, and payoffs of EVs. 

Adding up the environmental costs and benefits of electric cars requires complex computer modeling to calculate an EV’s lifetime carbon footprint, which depends on a host of assumptions and inputs. The cradle-to-grave analysis must factor in industrial processing, refining, manufacturing, recycling, and electricity generation. The upshot: More greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture of EVs than by the drilling, refining, smelting, and assembly for gas-powered cars, which means it can take several years of driving an EV before there is any benefit to the climate. 

The linchpin of the EV revolution is California’s 100% ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars, SUVs, and light trucks, which is scheduled to go into full effect in 2035 and expected to be adopted by other states. California’s mandate includes a phased-in ban on the sale of new hybrids, which only recently were considered technological marvels. California will restrict the sale of plug-in hybrids to just 20% of total EV sales, a significant cap for low-emissions vehicles that are nearly as popular with environmentally conscious California consumers as all-electric EVs. 

Within the past several years, General Motors, Volvo, and other major car makers have vowed to zero out gas-powered cars, amid a growing consensus of European nations, and with China, India, and Canada announcing plans to restrict or ban the sale of cars with gas tanks. 

But public demand is lagging, and until that changes, governments will have to incentivize consumers to buy electric cars. Currently EVs appeal to a narrow demographic: affluent, educated, coastal, and liberal, with the highest enthusiasm among 35- to 45-year-olds, according to research by James Archsmith, who researches energy and environmental economics at the University of Maryland, and his co-authors. Their research concludes that under some scenarios, achieving a 50% market share for EVs in 2035 would require paying subsidies in excess of $30,000 per electric car, totaling in the trillions of dollars, and that achieving more modest penetration targets could cost public treasuries in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car. 

One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits. 

With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants. 

The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.” 

To address this disquieting dependency on a foreign power, the United States and other nations are seeking to break China’s near-monopoly on battery production. The Inflation Reduction Act states that under a phase-in starting in 2024, EVs with battery components or critical minerals sourced from “a foreign entity of concern,” which includes China, can’t qualify for the maximum allowable tax credit of $7,500. The United States is pumping in more than $100 billion to create an entire industry in this country. Just last week, President Biden announced the American Battery Materials Initiative, awarding more than $2.8 billion for 20 battery manufacturing and processing plants to develop and produce domestic lithium, graphite, nickel, silicon oxide, plus critical components and facilities. 

Over time, a typical EV will catch up and outperform gas-powered cars on greenhouse gas reductions, because electric cars are cleaner to drive. But the amount of mileage that must be driven for the EV to break even on CO2 emissions depends on a host of assumptions and variables. Some researchers say that the EV’s emissions benefits are vastly overstated – by 600%, according to one study – because the variables used for comparison make an EV look better on paper than it performs in real-life situations. 

All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.” 

As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important. 

Zeb Hallock, president of Tesla Owners Club of NC Triangle in Raleigh, said in an email exchange that he and his wife both drive Teslas, a Model S that replaced a Nissan 350Z in 2014 and a Model 3 that replaced a Toyota Prius in 2018. The Hallocks’ Teslas are charged at home at a cost that he estimates is equivalent to paying 47 cents for a gallon of gasoline. He said by email that the public supercharger network “in some areas of the country can rival the cost of gasoline,” but this is not a concern because the Hallocks do most of their charging at home. 

When asked about the greenhouse gas deficit of electric cars, Hallock speculated that most EV owners believe the carbon footprint of an EV is minimal and they don’t think much about it. “A small number of owners don’t care at all about environmental benefits and purchased a Tesla for the superior performance and the fact that it’s American made and uses cheap domestic fuel,” he said. 

EVs: Centerpiece of the Agenda

But in the universe of climate activism, purported environmental benefits make EVs the international centerpiece of meeting the 2015 Paris Climate Accords to limit the rise of global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with preindustrial levels. Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States, accounting for more than a quarter of all CO2 emissions, and more than half of those emissions come from passenger cars, pickup trucks and SUVs that are now being slated for replacement by electric vehicles. 

EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are “decarbonized” and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050. 

But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country. 

“They’re making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what’s going to happen.” 

Weaning the country to an alternative power source is an experiment that will pose a host of logistical and environmental challenges. One challenge will be installing nearly 1.2 million public and 28 private public charging stations by 2030 to accommodate the explosion of EVs to more than 48 million vehicles projected in eight years, according to McKinsey & Co. That projection would be partly covered by the 500,000 public chargers funded by $7.5 billion in the recently passed federal Inflation Reduction Act. It could also require building power plants and renewable generating projects at a truly colossal scale, not factored into EVs’ carbon footprint. One estimate places the demand at 1,700 terawatt-hours per year, or 41% of the U.S. electrical generating capacity, to meet a surge in use if there’s a complete transition and the United States has 350 million electric cars.  

That power demand will be acutely felt in California, where, just days after the California Air Resources Board decreed the phaseout of internal-combustion cars, the state narrowly averted rolling blackouts during a record heat wave and the California Independent System Operator urged residents to cut back power usage by, among other things, avoiding charging their electric cars during times of peak energy demand. RealClearInvestigations has reported that California’s grid is straining under the load, while The New York Times reported that California faces “the threat of rolling blackouts for years to come,” a consequence of the state’s increasing reliance on solar power and wind farms that make for unpredictable electricity production and render California dependent on importing emergency electricity from neighboring states.

“To think that we are going to completely eliminate these by far dominant sources of energy and transportation services in our economy in the next 13 years is a fairy tale,” said Rapson, who has authored papers challenging optimistic projections. 

“They want to articulate a vision of hope and ambition that is pushing society towards a solution to climate change,” Rapson said. “That vision is going to run into massive constraints.” 

Rapson, who believes the state’s unrealistic goals will still advance EV adoption even if they fall short of their targets, said the California Air Resources Board regulations come with a huge loophole: In their current form they don’t prevent the buying and selling of used cars, and they don’t prevent California residents from buying a new gasoline car in another state. The rules could be modified in future years to make it costly to register new cars bought out of state, but in their current form they create an escape valve for citizens who resist electric cars. 

Even in the trendsetting auto market of California, which accounts for 40% of all EV purchases in this country, EVs accounted for only 12.5% of all car sales last year, and represent less than 2% of all the cars in the state, indicating that gasoline automobiles remain more popular. Banning the sale of new gas-powered cars “will likely be a boon to that industry and to used-car dealers in the state,” predicts James Sallee, an energy economist at UC-Berkeley. 

He predicts that California’s mandate will only make gasoline vehicles more valuable, as people hold on to them and extend their lifetimes through care and maintenance, the unintended consequence of government policy making something scarce. 

California Air Resources Board regulations would fine automakers $20,000 for each combustion engine car sold in violation of the restrictions, but residents could get around the EV mandate by buying used gasoline cars in the state and new gasoline cars out of state, unless California tightens its regulations to disincentivize its residents from buying the cars they prefer to own. 

“As currently constructed,” Sallee wrote, “California residents would be free to import ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles from out of state, even after the mandate is fully phased in.” 

Despite the skeptical outlook of some EV researchers, the general tone of EV advocates is marked by enthusiasm and optimism. According to David Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Transportation Program, the motives of EV critics are often tainted: “Some of the opposition will come from auto companies that want to delay the transition to electric vehicles, but others will be from fossil fuel interests or climate deniers.” 

In his blog, Reichmuth noted: “The important thing is that you know that this is familiar and worn-out disinformation, designed to sow doubt and confusion.” 

“There’s some questions about how quickly can we get there, and there’s a lot of details that will get worked out,” Reichmuth said in phone interview. 

“But if you look at the big picture – if the [auto] industry says that’s where we’re going, if the climate science says that’s where we need to go, and you look at other countries around the world that are going in the same direction, too – it does seem really likely that we can make this work.” 

Despite the obstacles, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that California’s new EV regulations will result in about half the cars in the state in 2035 being “zero-emission” models, increasing to nearly 90% of cars on California roads by 2045. 

The Union’s analysis undercuts its claim of zero emissions. Running the numbers on the mileage it takes for an EV to become cleaner than a new gasoline sedan in terms of burning off its CO2 deficit and pulling ahead in greenhouse gas reductions, the organization determined this summer that an EV’s break-even point is 21,300 miles, or 22 months, based on average annual driving. For pickup trucks, the EV pickup pulls ahead at 17,500 miles, or 17 months, when compared to the average new gasoline pickup truck. 

Those calculations are consistent with a Wall Street Journal analysis conducted last year by University of Toronto researchers, who determined that a 2021 Tesla Model 3, with an 82 kWh battery, would have to drive 20,600 miles to break even on greenhouse gas emissions with a 2021 Toyota RAV4 with a 30 mpg rating. 

Reuters conducted a similar analysis and got much more favorable results. Reuters last year concluded that a Tesla Model 3 would need to drive just 13,500 miles to exceed the CO2 emissions benefits of a Toyota Corolla. The Reuters analysis crunched the numbers on a Tesla with a 54 kWh battery, considerably smaller than the Tesla power pack in the WSJ analysis, producing less greenhouse gas emissions during mining, processing, and assembly. Still, Reuters noted that in countries like China and Poland, where coal is the primary energy source used to generate electricity, the same Tesla 3 with the smaller battery would have to be driven 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity with the Corolla, showing how much difference a power grid’s fuel mix can make. 

Not all studies are that kind to EVs. Some automakers, such as Swedish manufacturers Volvo and Polestar, have run their own numbers based on what they call conservative, precautionary estimates that suggest the payback period even under ideal conditions – 100% renewable wind energy – would be much longer: about 30,000 miles of driving. The payback would be closer to 70,000 miles in parts of the world where the power plant energy mix includes dirty fossil fuels. The expected lifespan of the Swedish cars in these studies is about 125,000 miles, which means that some drivers will reap greenhouse gas benefits for only half their electric vehicle’s expected usage. 

One of the least understood factors that determine an EV’s greenhouse gas benefits is the alternative vehicle to which the EV is compared. Some researchers have noted that this “reference vehicle” is often a hypothetical car that gives the EV an illusory advantage. 

“To our knowledge, there is not an awareness of the importance of these modeling choices, despite the large implied emission abatement differences,” UC-Davis energy economist Rapson and colleague Erich Muehlegger wrote in a recent paper. They contend that the EV is typically compared to the U.S. “fleet average,” a statistical composite that averages out the fuel efficiency of all cars purchased in a given year, including SUVs and pickup trucks. 

But that’s not what happens in real life. Rapson and Muehlegger found that Californians who took advantage of financial incentives to buy Teslas would likely have bought plug-in hybrids or conventional hybrids without the incentive, not an average car or a gas guzzler, and comparing a Tesla to the average car skews the results. They contend that as a result of the sloppy comparison, the CO2 benefits of Teslas are overestimated by 600% in California. That overestimate would be considerably higher in parts of the country where the EVs are charged with less clean electricity derived from a higher mix of fossil fuels. 

Cleaner Gasoline Cars

The cleaner the car that the EV is replacing, the longer it takes the EV to catch up on CO2 emissions, and the existing gas car in the garage can be optimal because a new gas car comes with a carbon footprint from metals processing and manufacturing. 

That’s why Nunes, the Harvard Law fellow, advised his friend to keep his Kia. Nunes was comparing the greenhouse gas effects of a new Tesla to a 15-year-old Kia that’s driven only about 4,000 miles a year, and concluded that at that rate it would take his friend more than a decade to burn off the Tesla’s carbon footprint. 

According to research by Nunes and others, many EV owners use their electric car as a secondary vehicle, logging fewer miles and requiring more time to break even on CO2 emissions. Comparing four different scenarios, he concluded that the requisite break-even mileage for an EV with an 85 kWh battery is either 28,069 miles or 68,160 miles, and it would take the EV owner between 2.73 and 10.49 years to drive that distance, depending on a variety of circumstances. In all of Nunes’ scenarios, the alternative to buying an EV was either buying a new gasoline car or driving the old gas car. 

Another major factor is the CO2 level of the electricity used to power EVs. The U.S. Department of Energy concludes that hybrids are actually cleaner than EVs in six states, but the key to that analysis is that it’s based on combining all the energy sources – such as natural gas, hydropower, wind farms – used to make electricity in those states. Another way of assessing the environmental impact of EVs is to look at the extra demand EVs put on a regional power grid, requiring power generation that comes primarily from fossil fuels. From this perspective, assuming more coal-fired and natural gas-burning electricity added to the grid, hybrids would generate less CO2 than EVs in several dozen states, according to a recent study.   

“It’s long past the time to retire the phrase ‘zero emissions,’” said Tristan Burton, a computational mathematician who co-authored that study. “If you market something as a zero emissions vehicle, then people out there will think it’s really zero emissions.” 

email: jmurawski@realclearinvestigations.com

Twitter: @johnmurawski

By Felicity Bradstock of OilPrice.com

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia announced plans to dedicate an $80 billion fund to develop the Neom megaproject, aimed at establishing a futuristic living space in the northwest of the country. This forms part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to diversify the national economy and make the country less reliant on its oil revenues. Saudi Arabia plans to develop Neom as a mega clean-energy city on a plot of land the size of Belgium. The space is expected to eventually become self-sufficient and provide a return on investment of between 13 and 14 percent. It will have no cars, roads, or greenhouse gas emissions and will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, with 95 percent of the land being preserved for nature. 

Bin Salman suggested that funds could increase to up to $106 billion if required, with the state investing most of the funds. Neom is expected to be one of the most complex construction developments in the world. Phase one will require $160 billion in funding, with the additional investment being provided through an initial public offering (IPO). 

The much-talked-about Neom project will see the 10 regions developed in the northwest of Saudi Arabia. The most ambitious project is called ‘The Line’, two parallel skyscrapers aimed at housing 9 million people, a 170-kilometre building that juts into the Red Sea but is just 200 metres wide. What it lacks in width it makes up for in height at a staggering 500 metres tall, complete with a mirrored facade. If successful, this structure will be a major feat of engineering. The development will also include Oxagon, an industrial city with a manufacturing hub centred around tech industries, to be built on the sea and the mountainous region of Trojena. Neom will include a residential area, an industrial city, and a mountain tourism destination. 

The Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, said, “The designs revealed today for the city’s vertically layered communities will challenge the traditional flat, horizontal cities and create a model for nature preservation and enhanced human livability. The Line will tackle the challenges facing humanity in urban life today and will shine a light on alternative ways to live.”  Foundations for The Line superstructure are already being laid, but many architects are doubtful the building will ever be completed due to the major engineering hurdles. Others question the potential for the project to become net-zero in its lifetime, as pledged by the Saudi government, due to the high carbon emissions expected to be released during its construction. But these criticisms are not dampening Saudi Arabia’s high hopes for the project. 

Antoni Vives, chief urban planning officer at Neom, believes the development is, so far, going to plan. Vives stated: “I want to be clear about this — Neom is a complex, bold, and highly ambitious undertaking and is most certainly not an easy one to deliver… “But we are making strong progress, and it’s exciting to see the vision come to life.” The most recent budget for the project has soared to $500 billion, part of Saudi Arabia’s National Transformation Plan in 2016, valued at $1.1 trillion.

The structure is expected to be out of this world, with flying taxis, and a high-speed rail network with an end-to-end transit time of just 20 minutes. Planners also expect to see robotic avatars and holograms in its future. In addition to its ambitions to be a trailblazer in several new technologies, the Saudi government has also put connectivity at the centre of the Neom development. Located on the Red Sea, it is expected to form a major trade hub, with 13 percent of the world’s trade passing through the waters at present. Further, 40 percent of the world’s population currently live within a six-hour flight of the region, making it easily accessible. 

In terms of renewable power, ENOWA, a subsidiary company of Neom will be tasked with developing sustainable energy and water systems in the region. The firm will oversee the development of a green hydrogen production plant as well as desalination plants for the provision of sustainable water, according to the Saudi Press Agency. ENOWA will work with ACWA Power and the U.S. chemical company Air Products to develop Neom’s green hydrogen capacity. Neom is expected to be powered entirely by renewable energy once completed. Although the country has been criticised for ‘greenwashing’ by proposing ambitious green energy targets with no clear strategy to achieve them, as well as using its renewable energy successes to distract from its human rights issues.

Saudi Arabia has broken ground on its ambitious Neom development, the first of its kind worldwide, with the potential to provide a prototype for other sustainable megastructures. However, many experts across several industries are questioning whether the superstructure and renewable energy goals are realistic and whether the project will actually come to fruition. 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via The Libertarian Institute, 

China on Thursday responded to a US call for the resumption of military communication channels that Beijing suspended in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) visiting Taiwan in August.

Tan Kefei, a spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry, said that the US was responsible for the channels being suspended and that Washington must respect China’s concerns for them to be resumed.

“If the US side wants to improve military communication between China and the US, then it should match words with deeds, demonstrate its sincerity, and earnestly respect China’s interests and major concerns, and remove the negative factors that impede the development of ties between the two militaries,” Tan said, according to The South China Morning Post.

After Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, China called off three separate dialogues with the US military, but other lines of communication remain open. Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke with his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, and the two military leaders agreed communication was important.

Austin has said the Pentagon is working to reestablish the channels that were suspended. But at the same time, the US is looking to significantly increase support for Taiwan despite Beijing’s warnings over the issue. Tan said that the US needs to understand China’s “red lines.”

The Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman further explained: 

“Everything happens for a reason,” Tan told a monthly press conference in Beijing, adding that the suspension of the dialogues was China’s response in “safeguarding national sovereignty and dignity” against “malicious provocation” by the US.

With an increased US military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan, less communication between the two militaries increases the risk of an accident. And with US-China relations at their lowest point in decades, an accident could potentially spiral into a conflict.

* * *

Russian President Putin in a major Thursday speech called Taiwan “part of China”…

Taiwan is an inherent part of the People’s Republic of China. This is the position we have & it remains unchanged. All positive gestures such as visits to Taiwan by US highest dignitaries are seen in Russia as nothing but provocation: Russian President Vladimir Putin pic.twitter.com/5lR7zeeAvs

— ANI (@ANI) October 27, 2022

Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

Measures of global central-bank tightness and inflation show that both are peaking.

It might not seem like it after today’s upside surprises in European inflation data, but global inflation is probably in the process of peaking. The pandemic led to an unprecedented synchronised supply and demand shock, with inflation rising everywhere. However, a synchronised shock is also likely to lead to a synchronised cooling — we seem to be on the cusp of this now.

The Global CPI Diffusion Index captures the percentage of countries around the world where inflation is in an uptrend. This index is at its maximum, a level it has only reached twice before, in 1974 and 2008. On both occasions it rapidly fell after reaching this level, with Global CPI (the median year-on-year CPI of countries around the world) following suit.

Peak global inflation is meeting peak central-bank hawkishness. 

There have been intimations from the Fed that it is looking to slow the pace of hikes and soon pause (or stop) raising rates, while the central banks of Australia, Canada and Europe are beginning to err slightly more dovishly.

My Advanced Global Financial Tightness Indicator uses interest-rate futures markets to gauge global monetary conditions over the next six months. After rising relentlessly over the last 18 months, it now looks to be rolling over, implying that peak global hawkishness is here or very close. US yields should continue to fall, especially as a US recession becomes apparent.

Like any assessment there are risks.

Inflation is proving to be more sticky than most expect. But it only needs to become less sticky to allow central banks to ease back on their hawkishness.

This does not mean they will become dovish overnight, but it does signal an inflection point.

Bonds should find it easier to rally than sell off in this environment, while stocks will be stuck in a bear market until we see a clear upturn in excess liquidity. That’s not likely until peak global hawkishness morphs into unequivocal global dovishness.

Even if this is peak global inflation, though, that doesn’t mean it’s beaten, nor that we won’t see another peak in global hawkishness.

Countries are likely to be battling elevated inflation for years; this will be a long game. Financial assets will struggle, and sustainable real returns will continue to be elusive until inflation is returned to a low and stable regime.

As a red wave splashes all across the Sunshine State, Democratic organizational and individual donors have essentially waved a white flag of surrender, reports Politico. 

The report draws on conversations with more than dozen Democratic operatives, but nothing speaks more clearly about the dire situation for Democrats than the numbers: 

• “The Democratic Governors Association spent just $685,000 this election cycle. It gave $14 million to Florida in the past two governor races.
• Big outside donor money has almost completely dried up. New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg contributed only $1.5 million to Democrats this cycle. He vowed $100 million to Florida in 2020.
• Democrats have collectively raised $29 million in the four non-federal statewide races. Republicans raised nearly $200 million.” — Politico

Voter registration is a huge story too. In 2018, Democrats held a 263,269-voter lead. Just four years later, Republicans outnumber Democrats by 292,533 — a 556,000-voter swing into the red.  And they’re turning out. While Democrats traditionally dominate early voting, Florida Republicans this week overtook Democrats in 2022 voting, and were up nearly 27,000 on Thursday.  

Perhaps most strikingly of all, some Republicans think they can not only carry the long-time Democratic stronghold of Miami-Dade County, but perhaps dominate it. If so, it would seemingly cement the GOP’s hold on statewide offices and Florida’s prized 30 electoral votes.  

It’s not just Republicans who are bracing for a stunning flip of Miami-Dade, where 60% of voters are Latino. “I think Ron DeSantis will win Miami-Dade County,” South Florida-based Democratic consultant Evan Ross tells Politico. 

To fully appreciate what a sea change a GOP victory in Miami-Dade would be, consider that Governor Ron DeSantis lost it by 20 points in 2018, and Trump was crushed by 30 points in his 2016 Florida victory.    

In the Senate contest, Republican incumbent Marco Rubio is up 7 points statewide in recent polls, though one has him leading Democrat Val Demings by 11. Of 28 U.S. House of Representatives districts, Republicans are currently on pace to win upwards of 20 or more. 

However, the GOP’s state-wide strength starts with DeSantis, who’s expected to win easily. Currently up by a dozen to 14 points, he built a strong national profile by defying public health “experts” and blazing a trail out of lockdown-and-vaccine-mandate dystopia, which many other governors then followed. He’s also made attention-getting moves against liberal agendas in classrooms and has gleefully joined other governors in shipping immigrants to northern cities and towns — most notably, Martha’s Vineyard.  

DeSantis has leveraged his profile to the tune of more than $150 million in campaign contributions. That’s enabled him to spend more than 10 times as much on general election ads as Democrat challenger Charlie Crist. 

Emblematic of Democrats across the country, Crist also has a major enthusiasm problem: A survey of Miami-Dade voters found only 57% of Democrats like Crist, compared to 93% of Republicans who approve of DeSantis. 

“The only thing that might give Charlie Crist a chance of becoming governor would be DeSantis aggressively campaigning for him over the next two weeks,” South Florida-based Democrat Ross tells Politico. “Translation: It’s over. And it’s going to be ugly.”

By John Paul Hampstead of FreightWaves

The trans-Pacific trade lane connecting the world’s most important countries is a pillar of the global economy. But now it’s becoming an epicenter of supply chain, financial and geopolitical risk. 

During the pandemic, ocean container spot rates rocketed upward from approximately $1,000 per 40-foot container to nearly $20,000 last fall before plunging again to $2,720 last week.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials staged visits to Taiwan and took action to further separate the Chinese and American semiconductor sectors. This potent combination of economic, political and military issues will make trans-Pacific business complicated for years to come. 

China’s zero-COVID policies and recent tensions over Taiwan have accelerated this confrontation, which could lead to further decoupling between the U.S. and China. But the fundamental issues will likely persist beyond present crises. 

The American media coverage of President Xi Jinping’s address to the 20th Communist Party Congress in Beijing last week took note of Xi’s pessimistic tone, warning party members to prepare China for confrontation and crisis. Politico’s Phelim Kine called Xi’s view of U.S.-China relations “increasingly bleak.” Bret Stephens played into the rivalry, writing a cynical op-ed in The New York Times sarcastically thanking Xi for running his country so poorly as to make the United States seem good by contrast. 

Counter-signaling Xi’s message of a Chinese “national rejuvenation,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was at the same time giving speeches at Stanford University in a tour carefully packaged around a national-strength-through-technology theme. Blinken visited the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory then spoke at a Hoover Institute event with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is now the Hoover Institute director. Most strikingly, Blinken said China was “determined to pursue reunification [with Taiwan] on a much faster timeline” — a statement that made headlines.

Blinken’s visit to Stanford seems to be part of a general effort from the Biden administration to nationalize technology policy and shape the technology industry into an asset that could be useful in a China conflict. Blinken announced his creation of the State Department’s Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy in April. In August, President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which will spend $280 billion on U.S. semiconductor infrastructure. 

China’s zero-COVID policy fighting losing battle

But before we give too much thought to strategic industrial policy, we should recognize the most immediate impact to supply chains and the trans-Pacific trade that the Chinese president’s third term will have: the continuation of Xi’s signature zero-COVID policy for the foreseeable future.

China’s draconian surveillance and control regime of tests, quarantines and lockdowns — enabled by a collaboration between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China technology companies — seemed to work well enough for a year. Xi’s policy held down infection rates and kept the economy pointed up and to the right. 

But when the Omicron variant’s greater infectiousness overwhelmed mask and vaccine protections, China kept forcefully applying lockdowns, massively disrupting both its own economy and trans-Pacific trade in general.

Although the Chinese state adapted its tactics on a case-by-case basis — the 2022 lockdown of Shanghai, for instance, kept critical infrastructure like the container terminals operating in ways that the 2021 lockdown of Yantian did not, for example — the governance mechanism was the same. Centralized algorithms looked for signals in endless oceans of public health, location and social media data. As a result, recommended policy actions were increasingly ineffectual and mismatched to realities on the ground. 

Tokyo-based freelance writer Dylan Levi King explored the deep roots of this data-driven, centralized electronic command and control system in a recent article for Palladium Magazine called “The Genealogy of Chinese Cybernetics.” King reconstructs the career of Qian Xuesan, author of “Engineering Cybernetics” (1954), from Pasadena, California, to Beijing and his role in building the computer systems and algorithmic models that justified China’s “Great Leap Forward” and the one-child policy. 

As King wrote, the implementation of these policies fell far short of the dream of optimized, electronic, frictionless command and control: “Political attempts at cybernetic planning — both in China and elsewhere — have never overcome the problem of limited sensors and weak effectors.” Though he doesn’t refer specifically to the pandemic, the unintended consequences of a zero-COVID policy, including food shortages, real estate insolvency and bank runs seem to validate it as a further example of this governance style’s inadequacy. 

The consensus of the international financial community, as Bloomberg’s John Authers wrote, is that China’s zero-COVID policy under Omicron has been a disaster casting a pall over the global economy. The Hang Sen Index, which measures the health of the Hong Kong stock market and its largest companies, is down 46% since its Feb. 19, 2021, peak. It is threatening to dip below its 30-year support level. Zero-COVID has created downstream supply chain issues with widespread, long-lasting and unpredictable effects on the earnings of U.S. and European companies, from automakers to big-box retailers.

US-China relations have weakened for more than decade

But whether or not Xi rolls back his zero-COVID policy or not, the future of the trans-Pacific is troubled. 

All signs point to escalating confrontation between the United States and China over Taiwan, but the seemingly cheery relationship between the two giants has been shifting — sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly — for years, dating back to the Obama administration.

Recall that one of the reasons given for former President Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was to enable the “pivot to Asia,” the continent that Obama identified as the future center of gravity of the global economy in terms of population and gross domestic product. These weren’t just words. Obama moved 2,500 Marines into northern Australia and designed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with smaller regional powers meant to isolate China. 

Former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which eventually escalated into a medium-sized trade war with China and a series of smaller skirmishes with Canada and the European Union, set off panicked behavior by U.S. importers that roiled the trans-Pacific. Companies accelerated the timelines on their purchase orders, “pulling forward” shipments that were originally scheduled to arrive after new tariffs took effect in order to avoid paying the duties. A logjam of volume increased rates, reduced schedule reliability, congested ports and filled warehouses, especially in Southern California. 

In summer 2018, when the pull-forward effects were felt, the U.S. truckload market was still on fire, having been catalyzed by Hurricane Harvey the previous year and the ELD mandate’s tightening effect on capacity. The unpredictable volumes coming out of some of the country’s most important freight markets undoubtedly kept truckload rates higher for longer before the market ultimately began rolling over in October.

Expect more military activity

Although Trump sometimes styled his protectionist tariffs as merely the pragmatic bargaining chips of a consummate dealmaker looking out for the American people, his military moves revealed a deeper, strategic understanding of the trans-Pacific. His administration, for example, emphasized the U.S. Navy’s ability to secure vital trade routes. Navy patrols in heavily trafficked areas and freedom of navigation exercises increased, placing additional pressure on those operations to perform. 

When the Navy looked sloppy, heads rolled. In summer 2017, the U.S. Seventh Fleet, a forward-deployed and based in Yokosuka, Japan, and centered on the USS Ronald Reagan’s carrier strike group, suffered two accidents. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with a commercial vessel in July off the coast of Yokosuka. The next month, another Arleigh Burke, the USS John McCain, collided with a commercial vessel near the Strait of Malacca off Singapore. Between the two accidents, 17 American sailors were killed.

Trump’s chief of naval operations, Adm. John Richardson, responded by effectively purging the Seventh Fleet and the larger U.S. Pacific Fleet. The Navy fired or retired the destroyer commanders and executive officers, as well as commander of the Seventh Fleet, Adm. Joseph Aucoin. Then Richardson told Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the Pacific Fleet (of which the Seventh is a part), that he wouldn’t be considered for promotion to the Indo-Pacific Command, so Swift announced his retirement.

The point had been made: U.S. Navy leaders were personally responsible for keeping up with the heavier demands made on security operations in vital trans-Pacific trade lanes. 

Beginning in the Obama administration and continuing through the Trump and Biden administrations, the United States has exhibited a growing awareness of the trans-Pacific as not only a trade conduit but also a theater for competition and perhaps conflict. Diplomatic, economic, technological and military steps have been taken that suggest the United States is exploring how it can maintain its interests in the Pacific region without China’s cooperation or consent. The most recent flare-ups are the kind of incidental accelerants that were bound to occur during this more gradual paradigm shift in U.S.-China relations.

Supply chain chaos to ensue

Apart from overt military encounters, I’ll be watching a few key themes going forward: increased volatility in supply chains, in terms of freight volumes; capacity availability and transportation rates; less visibility into China’s economic activity; and a more diverse, less China-centric trans-Pacific trade.

I expect the U.S.-China rivalry to express itself through gamesmanship in a number of spheres, including technology, international law, diplomacy, trade practices and military posture. The uncertainty and chaos of this changing trans-Pacific paradigm — from decades of decreasing friction and lower costs to a new trend of increasing friction and higher costs — will drive unpredictable and disruptive shipper behavior similar to that seen in 2018, 2020 and 2021. Stockouts will be followed by inventory gluts and vice versa, as importers pay too much to move their goods that are stored too long and arrive too late, compressing gross margins. 

At the same time, outsider observers will likely see less of China’s real economic activity. Last year, China cut off foreign access to automatic identification system (AIS) data, preventing companies from seeing the real-time location of commercial vessels in Chinese waters. Official reports on economic activity coming out of Shanghai during the last COVID lockdown were anything but transparent, and much Western analysis relied on anecdotes and alternative data sources. 

Leland Miller, the CEO of China Beige Book, a firm that tabulates independent Chinese economic data, said last week that the country was undergoing a “paradigm shift” in its governance and economic models that will complicate its further development, including the end of debt-fueled growth. It will be difficult to track this shift accurately, given the unreliability of official data.

Finally, if the U.S. and China decide to pursue a policy of mutual divestment, we should expect a more diverse, less China-centric trans-Pacific trade. There are other exciting economies in the region that the United States is connected to, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Indonesia. Eastbound freight flows may have more widely distributed origins as China’s share diminishes. Ports like South Korea’s Busan, Malaysia’s Port Klang, Taiwan’s Kaohsiung and Japan’s Yokohama could become relatively more important. 

The change in network structure could threaten the stability of the container-ship alliances that control capacity in the trans-Pacific and make the 20,000-plus twenty-foot equivalent unit mega-ships built to serve the largest ports harder to fill and less competitive. Capacity could structurally loosen on what are now the densest lanes, like Shanghai to Los Angeles, while slots could be harder to find on more obscure but growing lanes. The upshot here is that even a prudent trade strategy seeking to de-risk China by sourcing goods in other Asian countries will be exposed to knock-on effects from the challenges the U.S.-China trade is fated to face.

Importers and their transportation providers will need to build links between operations teams and strategic planners so that emerging trends in markets can be identified. Tariffs, embargoes and many other forms of economic warfare are potentially on the table. 

For 20 years, the trans-Pacific was relatively easy, boring and cheap. Now it’s becoming exciting, difficult and expensive — and will probably stay that way for some time to come.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will head to Pennsylvania on Oct. 28 and make a rare joint appearance to campaign on behalf of Senate hopeful John Fetterman, a fellow Democrat, after his rocky debate performance fueled concern inside his party, reports and public records indicate.

Biden and Harris, who rarely appear together, are scheduled to attend the Pennsylvania Democratic Party’s 3rd Annual Independence Dinner on Friday, along with the party’s 2022 candidates, including Fetterman.

Fetterman, who experienced a stroke five months ago, appeared onstage Tuesday to debate rival Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz as the two vie for a key Senate seat.

The impact of the stroke was apparent during the debate as Fetterman used closed-captioning posted above the moderator to help him process the words he heard, which led to occasional awkward pauses.

This combination photo shows Democratic Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (L) and Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz in 2022 photos. (AP Photo)

Fetterman’s shaky performance during the debate fueled concern among some Democrat leaders that his appearance may have been a mistake, especially during the crucial closing days of the contest.

“In retrospect, he probably shouldn’t have debated,” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, told The Associated Press in an interview. “But the key is he is recovering from a stroke.”

“The only way to recover from this,” he added, “is for John to go out in public as much as possible, to be seen, to be interviewed, and do as much as he can to let people know that he’s ready to take office.”

Fetterman is expected to speak at the dinner that’s being headlined by Biden and Harris.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was heard Thursday discussing Fetterman’s debate performance with Biden on a hot mic.

“The debate didn’t hurt us too much in Pennsylvania, so that’s good,” Schumer told Biden during a stop in Syracuse, New York.

“We’re in danger in that seat,” Schumer added.

Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden leave after Biden delivered remarks on COVID-19 response and the vaccination program from the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 13, 2021. (Nicholas Kamm / AFP)

Several Democrat strategists suggested, in remarks to The Hill, that the party hopes the presence of the nation’s two top executives can help Fetterman get over the finish line victorious.

“It’s always helpful to have the two leaders of the party out there in the final push,” one Democrat strategist told the outlet.

Another Democrat strategist, Joel Payne, reinforced that perspective, saying, “There are a few things in politics that have more capital than the bully pulpit of the White House.”

The joint appearance by Biden and Harris shows how much is at stake in the race as Democrats and Republicans vie for control of the 50–50 split upper chamber.

…

Read more here…