Latest news with #CenteronGlobalEnergyPolicy
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
02-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Lack of new US sanctions allows Russia to replenish its war chest
Since President Trump returned to office in January, the United States has issued no new sanctions against Russia related to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In some cases, the administration has eased restrictions. And without new ones, analysts say, existing measures lose their force. The result has created an opening for new dummy companies to funnel funds and critical components to Russia, including computer chips and military equipment that would otherwise be cut off to the Kremlin, trade and corporate records show. Sanctions became the center point of the Western-led effort to isolate the country after it invaded Ukraine in 2022. The effort evolved into an international game of cat-and-mouse, as evasion schemes regularly sprang up around the world. During his presidency, Joseph R. Biden Jr. imposed thousands of so-called maintenance sanctions targeting new schemes. But this year, those actions have come to a standstill, according to a New York Times analysis of restrictions on trade, financial transactions and other activities connected to Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin. 'Trump's approach to economic statecraft is to impose pressure and get leverage and try to get the best deal possible,' said Edward Fishman, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. 'For whatever reason, with Russia, he doesn't want to have any leverage over Putin.' The Biden administration placed, on average, over 170 new sanctions a month on entities linked to Russia from 2022 to 2024. The targets included oil and weapons production, tech procurement and banking. In total, the Biden administration imposed more than 6,200 blocks on individuals, companies, vessels and aircraft linked to Russia. In Biden's final weeks in office, the United States ramped up pressure even further, issuing nearly three times the monthly average, according to a Times analysis of data from the Treasury Department. The effects of that pressure are already beginning to erode. A Times review of trade records, online listings and corporate filings identified more than 130 companies in mainland China and Hong Kong that are advertising immediate sales of restricted computer chips to Russia. None of the companies is under sanctions. One of these firms, HK GST Limited, advertises chips essential to Russian cruise missiles, including the Kh-101, which was recently used in a strike on Kyiv that killed 10 civilians. The firm was incorporated in Hong Kong nine months ago, and its website was set up in February. An analysis of website hosting data, domain ownership, code patterns and contact details links the company to a network of four similar electronics distributors, including Singaporean-based ChipsX and Carbon Fiber Global, a high-performance drone part manufacturer based in China. All of these companies were set up within the last three years. Several companies in the network have sent restricted components to Russia in violation of U.S. export controls, trade data, online listings and corporate registration records show. A representative for Carbon Fiber Global denied that the company or ChipsX had sold restricted goods to Russia but declined to address questions about other companies in the network. For sanctions to work, 'you need to keep running just to stay still,' said Elina Ribakova, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. She added that, without 'continuous maintenance' of restrictions, Russia's workarounds could take hold, including the establishment of shadowy companies like HK GST Limited and ChipsX. The United States' abrupt shift on sanctions underscores Mr. Trump's hands-off approach toward Russia, even as fighting has escalated in the region. Since the start of the year, Russia has intensified its campaign in Ukraine, launching waves of drone and missile attacks that have left scores dead and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure. Analysts say the Kremlin has been quick to seize on growing American disengagement to press its advantage on the battlefield. Mr. Trump's relative inaction has drawn criticism from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who argue that the administration is undermining the Western effort to confront Russian aggression. In a statement, a White House spokesperson said Mr. Trump was urging leaders from Russia and Ukraine 'to stop the killing while keeping all options on the table.' The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment. The president has used sanctions aggressively elsewhere, the data shows. Mr. Trump has imposed more than 280 new restrictions on Iran in the past six months, targeting people involved in terror financing. He has also penalized judges at the International Criminal Court for investigating potential Israeli war crimes. And he has used sanctions to crack down on narcotics trafficking and cyber-criminal groups. By contrast, the Trump administration has eased some restrictions on Russia. In April, the Treasury Department, which is responsible for administering and enforcing sanctions, quietly lifted limits that had been placed on Karina Rotenberg, the wife of a Russian oligarch. Ms. Rotenberg's husband, Boris, made a fortune in construction and energy, and as a childhood friend of Mr. Putin's he has been a central figure in the Russian president's inner circle for decades. The announcement, buried at the bottom of a routine bulletin published in April, provided no explanation for Ms. Rotenberg's removal from the sanctions list. It was an unusual deletion. Ms. Rotenberg, an American citizen, was among the first Russian nationals to face sanctions after the Russian invasion. The Rotenbergs did not respond to requests for comment. The Treasury Department declined to comment on the move, and instead referred questions to the State Department. A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that the delisting was 'independent from our ongoing efforts to advance a negotiated end to the war,' but that the department was 'unable to comment on the specifics of this delisting.' In February, the Justice Department shuttered the KleptoCapture task force, a unit formed in 2022 to identify and seize assets belonging to Russian oligarchs around the world who were under sanctions. The task force had coordinated investigations across agencies, leading to high-profile seizures of luxury yachts, real estate and private jets. The Department of Justice recently established a task force with a similar structure to focus on Hamas, according to Andrew Adams, the former head of KleptoCapture. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the closure of the task force. Russia was also notably left off the White House's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which took aim at trade with almost every other country. The United States imported more than $3 billion in Russian goods in 2024, more than it brought in from Greece or Egypt, according to data from the Census Bureau. The tariff omission stood out to experts, especially as Mr. Trump has boasted about the ability of import taxes to bring countries to the bargaining table. He has used tariffs not just as a trade tool but as 'a form of sanction,' according to Mr. Fishman. Together, these actions signal that the United States is now more willing to tolerate Russia's war and less interested in cracking down, said Maria Shagina, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The American pullback has left the European Union to take the lead on imposing sanctions on Russia. E.U. restrictions so far have been far less comprehensive overall, especially when it comes to companies and individuals outside Russia who help Moscow sidestep sanctions, according to a Times analysis. These so-called third-country networks are important back channels for the Kremlin to keep its wartime supply chains alive. The number of sanctions issued by the United States to date outnumbers the European Union's more than two to one. But that's beginning to shift, experts say. In the past, the United States led that effort for geopolitical reasons. 'But that has changed dramatically,' said Maximilian Hess, a fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. 'Europe has picked up the slack.' Members of Congress, though, have begun to push for legislative efforts to target Russia. A new bill, co-sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, would impose sweeping new restrictions. The legislation includes a 500 percent tariff on any country that continues buying Russian energy, including China and India. The bill has broad bipartisan support, though its critics argue that it could upend global trade and ensnare allies in Europe. Mr. Blumenthal, who recently returned from Kyiv, said Ukrainian officials were growing increasingly anxious for U.S. support. In an interview, he argued that the sanctions would give the United States a chance to level the playing field. 'The Ukrainians are outnumbered, they're outgunned,' he said. 'We have the opportunity to correct that imbalance.'
Calgary Herald
16-06-2025
- Business
- Calgary Herald
Varcoe: Oil prices 'to spike higher' as conflict in Middle East casts shadow over G7 energy security talks
Article content Energy markets will also be closely watching to see any signs of potential disruption to Iranian oil supplies, as the country exports about 1.5 million barrels per day. Article content 'Until you really get time to look at the end game here, prices are likely to rise. I don't see it going above $100, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely,' Robert Johnston, senior director of research at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said Sunday. Article content 'The G7 was going to be more focused on Russia, and the U.S. trade agenda and other priorities. They will have to deal with the oil side now.' Article content Analysts say events will make the G7 countries look more intently at how to ensure there's ample access to energy if something disrupts the flow of oil or LNG exports from the countries in the Middle East. Article content Article content 'Even after the Russian invasion, we have not taken energy security seriously — as seriously as we need to,' said Richard Masson, an executive fellow with the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy. Article content 'It's just one more indication that the world is a dangerous place and energy security matters.' Article content Article content Even if Israel and Iran end hostilities within a few weeks, Tehran is unlikely to be a 'reliable supplier of oil to the world for a long time' and it may be difficult for oil shipping firms to obtain insurance to move oil through the Strait of Hormuz, said Masson, a former vice-president of risk management for Nexen Energy. Article content Heading into the summit, U.S. President Donald Trump frequently called on his domestic oil and gas industry to 'drill, baby, drill' and promoted the idea of energy dominance. Article content However, a U.S. EIA report last week — issued before the latest conflict — projected American oil production will dip slightly next year from record levels of 13.5 million bpd, due to expectations of excess supply and weakening prices. Article content Article content The tricky part for the G7 will be to find common ground between the group on what energy security is and how to best reach it, because the idea 'means different things to different people,' said Robert Johnston, incoming director of energy and natural resources at the U of C's School of Public Policy. Article content 'Can Carney put together a common view between the U.S., which sort of sees more supply growth as the answer to the energy security question, versus the Europeans, and to some extent, Canada and Japan, that want supply growth, but also more decarbonization?' he said. Article content And the biggest potential risk the markets will look for in the coming days is a possible attack on tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, damage to Iranian oil-exporting infrastructure, or an attack of onshore oil facilities, such as refining and petrochemical infrastructure in the region, Johnston added.
Economist
15-05-2025
- Business
- Economist
Lessons from the US-China trade war
America and China have agreed to a 90-day truce of their month-long trade war, but the economic uncertainty has not yet ended. Beyond tariffs, the spat had begun spilling over into other areas, with China imposing a ban on the export of critical minerals designed to hobble American industries. Could global supply chains and financial systems be weaponised in a similar way? If so, could such actions further fragment the global economy to everyone's detriment? And what would stop economic warfare escalating into full-blown military conflicts? Hosts: Mike Bird and Ethan Wu. Guests: Edward Fishman of the Center on Global Energy Policy and Columbia University, and author of 'Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare'; and Dan Wang, research fellow at Stanford's Hoover History Lab and author of 'Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer th e Future'.
The Hindu
06-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Goyal reiterates India will retaliate against carbon tax
Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal once again warned that India would retaliate with taxes of its own if Europe goes ahead with its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) plan. The CBAM is basically a mechanism through which European countries would impose a carbon tax on select imports. 'If they put in a carbon tax, we will retaliate,' Mr. Goyal said, while speaking at the 2025 Columbia India Energy Dialogue, hosted by Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. 'They will put it on products that will hurt their economy and the retaliation will be on products which will further hurt their economy.' Mr. Goyal has previously — as far back as 2023, for example — also spoken about how India would retaliate to CBAM. 'India has contributed to only 3-3.5% of the carbon emissions,' he said on Tuesday. 'We support 17% of the world population. Yet, if we are going to be asked to contribute at the same level as a European company, I think that is going to be patently unfair, improper and irregular.' However, at a time when India has successfully concluded a Free Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom on Tuesday, Mr. Goyal painted a fairly rosy picture of the trade talks with the U.S. and Europe as well. 'Trade talks with Europe are continuing well and are separate from climate issues,' he said, adding that talks with the U.S. are 'going fabulously well'. India is in talks with both regions to conclude trade agreements with each.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
The US doesn't have a climate policy now — until Washington is back at the global table, world environmental progress will be slow: Noah Kaufman
Noah Kaufman is Senior Research Scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses America's new ecological aims: Q. What is the core of your research? A. I am an economist and focus on energy and climate policy as well as their inter sections with economic policy. For some time now, I've been researching communities around the United States which are heavily dependent on fossil fuels to fund public services and provide jobs. I've been working on viable economic strategies for these communities as the world transitions away from fossil fuels. Q. Can you explain the surprising US turn towards coal though? A. All the rhetoric from the federal government these days is certainly about moving back to fossil fuels — including, as per the recent executive order on this, coal. So far, this is just rhetoric though — actual data in the US shows two decades of declining coal production and use. The biggest reason is economic — we have natural gas and renewables which are much lower-cost and cleaner. This combination — economics with environmental regulations — caused a gradual transition away from coal. There are still cultural drivers though. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like People In Telangana Say Goodbye To Mosquitoes With This Revolutionary Solution Mosquito Eliminator Read More Undo In the Appalachian region, whch encompasses West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, etc., there is a long history of coal being central to local economies, jobs, electricity systems and ways of life. However, those are relatively small pockets — around 25 counties in the country produce 75% of the entire coal in the US. Still, this is a cultural issue which also resonates with President Donald Trump 's base — in his first term too, he announced big measures with fanfare and coal miners standing behind him. However, the data thereafter also shows the decline of coal at a similar pace as under Presidents Obama and then Biden. Yet, coal's centrality in some places can't be downplayed — in certain areas, as coal mines close, elementary schools shut down because tax revenue declines. Live Events Q. Why have you written earlier of oil and gas communities being a 'blind spot' in America's climate policies? A. I was talking then of President Biden's administration which had taken strong steps to spur the energy transition in the US. Regarding coal communities, it was acknowledged that if we continue rapidly decarbonising, coal would decline even more, causing further economic issues. So, the Biden administration took measures to address this, including economic deve-lopment grants for these groups. However, oil and gas communities actually face an 'out of sight, out of mind' situation because they are seen as doing much better than coal — oil and gas production are at an all-time high in the US. We are the leading global producers of both fuels and economically, oil and gas-dependent counties have outperformed the national economy. Most politicians aren't looking into the future of a decarbonised world and thinking of these communities. My research was a call to ensure policies are planned now, so these groups don't end up suffering the same fate as coal communities today. Q. How would you define America's climate policies now? A. At the federal level, the US has no climate policy today — we have some incentives left over from previous legislation, like the Inflation Reduction Act. A. The fate of those is yet to be determined. Congress is controlled by Republicans and they may get rid of these. Federal agencies may not be incentivised to implement them. The department of energy is led by Secretary Chris Wright, formerly CEO of an oil and gas company. Many of President Trump's advisors are heavy supporters of fossil fuels. So, currently, we don't have a broad climate policy at the federal level — what we have are subnational actors, states, regions and companies, at work. Q. How could President Trump's tariff war impact the clean energy transition? A. The main effect will be to raise prices and serve as a drag on economies, including the US — that will slow the energy transition as lowered economic growth means pullbacks in investments. We are already seeing a pullback in wind, solar and battery manufacturing plants. If the US enters a recession, those will deepen. Of course, the Biden administration also placed tariffs on some green technologies from China but that was part of a strategy to build a US solar manufacturing base — that doesn't seem like a goal shared by the Trump administration. Q. Experts suggest an obstructionist US exiting global climate agreements could be positive — how do you analyse that? A. The world could make some progress — everything developed in China is at an entirely different scale now while Europe's always been ahead of the US on climate action. However, the amount and pace of progress will be limited if the world's largest economy — and the greatest historical emitter of greenhouse gases — won't act. If other nations see the US abdicating its climate role — in a situation it is most responsible for making — they might not want to make sacrifices either. Until the US is back at the climate table, I'd keep my expectations for global progress in check. Views expressed are personal
