Latest news with #PhillipMorris
The Advertiser
a day ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Why a fossil fuel-free COP could put Australia's bid over the edge
When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet.
The Spinoff
6 days ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
30 things I learned from 30 hours of Regulatory Standards Bill hearings
It's pretty confusing on the surface, but if you had 30 hours to spare, you would have learnt a lot about the Regulatory Standards Bill from its week in the select committee. The finance and expenditure committee's hearings on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) came to a close on Friday, following four days, 30 hours, 208 submissions and a whole load of takes. Submissions spanned perspectives from the environment and energy sectors to individuals living with disabilities or in poverty. It's a contentious bill whose name and purpose tends to return puzzled looks, because really, what does it all mean? There's been much to say about the public perception of the bill and its many vocal opponents from its architect, deputy prime minister David Seymour. There's been 'so much misinformation' despite it simply setting out a framework for better regulations, Seymour reckoned on Monday, though his accusations of the bill's opponents having some kind of 'derangement syndrome' haven't really been helpful, either. Meanwhile, opponents have been campaigning against the bill with the same ferocity shown in the lead up to the justice committee's hearings on the Treaty principles bill earlier this year. While the emphasis on property and individual rights have raised immediate alarm bells, there's also a lot of interpretation about what the bill could do, like giving corporations the power to take the government or the little guy to court when they believe their property rights have been impeded on. Realistically, the truth is somewhere in between. Because elements of the RSB are so vague – its scope, its principles and its purpose – it's hard to tell what Aotearoa will look like after the bill comes into full force on July 1, 2026. Ideally, this select committee process will take into account the concerns shared by submitters, and shape the bill into something we can visualise a little better. Until then, here's everything that I learnt about the bill and its submitters from these hearings: If oral submissions are anything to go by, most of the public opposes this bill. But there's also a decent chunk sitting on the fence because, yeah, Aotearoa does need improved regulations, but there's sufficient doubt that the RSB will actually achieve this. Subpart 5 of the RSB clarifies that the bill does not impose legal rights nor does it require compliance. Despite this, many submitters who opposed the bill feared it could give large corporations too much power in the court room, like in the case of Phillip Morris (tobacco) v the Australian government over plain packaging legislation. There is a genuine argument that the longer this bill stays in statute, the more influence it could gain over time, and the more likely certain courts may look to its principles as guidelines. There's often a lot of dissonance between the way the courts have interpreted the law and how parliament interprets it. If a Phillip Morris v Australia situation played out in Aotearoa because of the RSB, parliament could just draft an amendment to make the bill's legal restrictions tighter. And Seymour can very easily claim no blame for what the courts have done. But there's also the potential of the RSB becoming like the Bill of Rights Act, which is a part of our unwritten constitution but is more-so quasi-constitutional: it's not entrenched in law, but it's been around long enough – and has enough influence – to impact on the law-making process. There is a genuine case for including the Treaty in the bill. Seymour and the man who dreamt up the bill's blueprint, Dr Bryce Wilkinson, both claim there's nothing in the bill that wouldn't uphold Māori rights, but it's a bit deeper than that – the principles of responsible regulation just don't align with a te ao Māori worldview. The principles of responsible regulations do need a broader appeal if we want legislation that will actually improve our regulations, not a law that will be chucked out when the next Labour government is elected. Only applying the bill's principles to primary legislation will make this palaver far less of a headache. Treating everyone as 'equal' under the law is actually not a great way of helping our most vulnerable communities. Essentially everything in your life is regulated, from the air you breathe to the clothes you wear and the home you return to every night and what you're eating when you get there. Maybe this is a pretty juvenile thing to realise at the ripe age of 25, but it's also not something the layman often thinks about. Regulations aren't necessarily a bad thing, either – they can keep us alive. Certain industries, such as the energy sector, are set to benefit a lot more from the RSB than others. Much of what the proposed regulatory standards board will do is already covered by the regulatory review committee. The Clerk of the House can submit on bills, though this typically only happens once or twice a year, and in the form of written questions. When deputy clerk Suze Jones showed up to the RSB hearing on Wednesday, Labour's Deborah Russell (who joined parliament in 2017) claimed it was the first time she had seen the Clerk submit to the select committee in person. Geoffrey Palmer likes to be punctual – he showed up an hour early for his submission. Russell has a PhD in political theory. And is familiar with Jean Rousseau. Donna Huata, founding member of the Act Party, has some shame about what the party has become. Most submitters show up just before their allotted speaking time and leave right after, but there was one submitter who stayed for hours to hear multiple perspectives: Tex Edwards, of Monopoly Watch NZ. Trickle down economics is like pissing on people and telling them it's rain. Ministers aren't supposed to attend select committees unless they're invited, which is why you can't really blame Seymour for not showing up. But, it makes a big difference to a submitter to have the committee actually show up. Holding the RSB hearings in a non-sitting week meant the MPs were all back in their electorates and listening on Zoom, and this didn't go down smoothly with a few submitters who hoped they could make their case face-to-face. You probably won't get a heads up that no one's in the room if you're showing up to parliament to submit, either. The online discourse around this bill is already having real life implications, with lawyer Tania Waikato needing a security escort to make her submission at parliament. The select committee can play pretty fast and loose with allotted speaking times, like cutting some submissions short, or letting others stretch past their allotted time, as was allowed for the NZ Initiative. Even our politicians forget to turn the mute button off/on. It's not just you. The administrative staff who run these hearings are very lovely people. They didn't have to answer stupid questions from journalists (or a single journalist, aka me) but they did anyway. It's possible for something to have the potential to be both really good, and really bad.
Bloomberg
03-04-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Stock Movers: Apple, Phillip Morris, RH
On this episode of Stock Movers: - Apple (APPL) shares fell as the iPhone maker is finding itself squarely in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump's new tariffs, even after a years long effort to insulate the iPhone maker from trade wars and supply chain disruptions. A long list of levies unveiled by the White House are poised to hit the company especially hard, triggering its worst stock rout in five years. The new tariffs will reach 34% for China. That would bring the total rate on Chinese goods to 54%, threatening to roil an Apple supply chain that still has the Asian country at its heart. - Phillip Morris (PM) stock hit a record high as investors look for places to hide after President Donald Trump's new wave of tariffs sent global markets lower. - RH (RH) shares tumbled on Thursday after the luxury home furnishing company's annual revenue growth forecast trailed Wall Street expectations. Its fourth-quarter sales and profit also missed the average estimates. Analysts note that new round of tariffs add 'significantly more uncertainty,' with BofA and Citi downgrading the stock.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Family of man who died after £12,000 weight loss surgery to sue healthcare firm
The family of a man who died aged 48 after £12,500 gastric sleeve surgery are suing the private healthcare firm which treated him. Musician, actor, businessman and author Phillip Morris, from Newport, died following the weight loss surgery which he had at St Anthony's Hospital in Surrey, which is run by Spire Healthcare. Father-of-one Phillip attended the Cheam hospital for the surgery hoping to get down from 22 stone to 15 stone, which he was told, with a healthy diet and exercise, would change his life. Phillip had been due to have the surgery on the NHS at St George's Hospital in Tooting in 2020, but he forgot to take his insulin on the morning of one of his visits to St George's, which affected his glucose levels and delayed treatment. When the time came around to return to the hospital for the procedure the UK was in lockdown and all elective procedures on the NHS had stopped. Doctor Omar Khan, a bariatric surgeon who works at St George's and privately at St Anthony's, asked Phillip if he'd consider going private instead. READ MORE: Rugby player broke woman's jaw when she slapped him for repeatedly sexually assaulting her in bar READ MORE: Three teenagers killed when young driver 'lost control of car and hit tree' Phillip's weight had been causing issues with his eyes, known as diabetic retinopathy, which he knew would be helped by the surgery. He therefore opted to go private, agreeing to the £12,500 fee. 'Phillip was told the Spire St Anthony's was as safe as St George's and he'd have one-to-one care,' Phillip's wife Dana Morris recalled. 'If I knew then what I know now I'd have said 'Let's just wait until the pandemic clears and limit the risks.' But Phillip was worried about losing his eyesight. He also desperately wanted to be able to act again. Phillip had been wielding huge swords around the stage as Macduff in Macbeth as well as many other productions which required a lot of physical activity. That was his true nature. He also talked about extensive travel and we'd spoken about going to Antarctica.' But following the surgery in December 2021 he was in so much pain he was struggling to talk and breathe and he died from a lack of oxygen four days later. After a four-day inquest at Croydon Coroners' Court in February last year coroner Sarah Ormond-Walshe returned a narrative conclusion, saying Phillip's death was avoidable had certain vital steps been taken. She concluded that he probably would have survived had a carbon dioxide monitor, which is a breathing recording tool, been correctly used by hospital staff. Staff also didn't take Phillip's blood as ordered by his surgeon on December 9, 2021, the inquest heard. A year on, and without 'substantial' compensation she believes she's owed, Dana said: 'It was a critical error that began a spiral of events which we have no doubt ultimately led to Phillip's death. When Phillip's condition became significantly worse a scan was undertaken and this was reported as showing a likely leak from the site of the surgery. Those treating him dismissed the scan results. 'A lack of timely monitoring of Phillip led to their failure to promptly recognise a number of complications including infection, acute kidney injury and subsequent confusion and agitation along with breathing difficulties. Phillip was then allowed to exit the intensive care unit without the oxygen he desperately needed and leave the building in the middle of a cold winter night in just a hospital gown.' The inquest also heard how the carbon dioxide monitor which could have saved Phillip's life had not been checked and staff did not know how to make it work. Phillip died on December 10, 2021. In her summing up Ms Ormond-Walshe said that 'on the balance of probabilities it is likely Mr Morris would have survived' if staff had used a carbon dioxide monitor effectively. At the time Spire said it accepted the findings and had taken action to address them. But this week Dana has claimed she has still not received a 'substantial' compensation package from Spire. She said the package she has been offered was less than one per cent of what she believes she is owed. She alleged Spire was reluctant to accept full liability and agree to a financial settlement which she said had caused her and her son Orson Morris, who is 15, 'further unnecessary grief'. 'It is a year since a coroner ruled Phillip would have survived had vital steps been taken by their staff and yet still our nightmare continues due to their inability to agree to compensate us (fully) for their failings,' she said. 'We did not want to take legal action but we have now been left with no other option than to take action against them at the High Court to seek a resolution. Phillip's death has left a huge hole in the heart of the family - one that will never be filled. His loss has also left us with a great financial burden. Both I and Orson deal with the daily effects that his death has caused. Spire's inability to conclude this matter is just continuing our nightmare - one we feel they contributed to and they are prolonging.' The family's lawyers have filed a claim at the High Court alleging negligent treatment on the part of Spire and some of the doctors who treated Phillip and are seeking further compensation. A spokesperson for Spire Healthcare said: "Due to ongoing legal proceedings we are unable to comment on specific details. We apologise for the distress caused by Phillip's death and can confirm that Ms Morris' claims are being responded to through the appropriate legal channels." A popular and key figure within the arts in Wales, Phillip was a founder member of the Wales Art Review, and from 2012 to 2016 was the organisation's managing director. Following his passing, many within the arts sector paid tribute to him. His friend Gary Raymond wrote that he was 'at his best when working on something that would mean something to people'. Dana said Phillip had been 'very well' before he went in for surgery. Despite being 22 stone he'd been cycling on an exercise bike on the morning of the operation, he'd filled the fridge full of nutritious food ready for his return home, expected to be two days later, and he'd booked festive theatre trips with Dana and Orson. He'd also been looking forward to watching Orson perform a solo of Suo Gan, which Phillip had taught him. 'Phillip was extremely positive and looking forward to life after surgery,' Dana remembered. 'He had a student who had had gastric sleeve surgery and he supported her on that journey and he'd learned from her. She was sharing her journey with him and he found it had totally changed her life. "I really want to make sure if there's anything we've learned from this experience that it's shared so anyone considering having surgery or a procedure at any private hospital knows the questions to ask or at the very least some of the risks so they can find out if the hospital is trying to mitigate those risks. I still think the surgery is a life-changing and life-improving surgery if it's conducted in the right way."
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Kraft Heinz Exhibits a Concerning Trend of Divestitures and Contraction
In 1985 with the goal of diversifying its product portfolio; Phillip Morris Cos, the world's leading tobacco company now known as The Altria Group, (:MO) acquired General Foods agreeing to pay the newly acquired company's stockholders $5.8 billion dollars in cash at $120 per share. Brands under General Foods at the time of acquisition included staples such as: Birds Eye Frosted Foods, Oscar Mayer, Jell-O, Pop-Rocks, Cool Whip, the leading cereal brand; Post, Maxwell House, Kool-Aid, and more. The deal allowed for General Foods to operate as its own company under the Phillip Morris umbrella. Upon the announcement of the acquisition shares of General Foods rose from $6.25 per shares to $117 on the NYSE Chicago Exchange before trading was ultimately closed. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Signs with KHC. Just a few years later in 1988 Phillip Morris would continue growing its food segment through its acquisition of Kraft Foods paying shareholders $106 a share in a deal valued at $13.1 billion. Like with General Foods, the deal would allow Kraft Foods to operate independently of Phillip Morris. Notable Kraft brands at the time of acquisition included: Kraft Singles, Velveeta, Kraft Mayo, Miracle Whip, Capri Sun, and Philadelphia Cream Cheese. In 1989 Kraft Foods and General Foods under Phillip Morris would merge and become Kraft General Foods, Inc. In 1995 Kraft General Foods reorganized into a singular operating company and was renamed to Kraft Foods, Inc. 5 Years later in the year 2000, Phillip Morris would acquire Nabisco for $55 a shares in a deal totaling $14.9 billion. Nabisco's brand portfolio at the time of acquisition included a multitude of snack brands such as: Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, Fig Newtons, Wheat Thins, Planters, Ritz Crackers, Honey Maid Grahams, and others. Phillip Morris would then merge Nabisco into Kraft Foods, making Kraft Foods into a global super brand within the foods sector, second only to Nestle. (:NSRGY) Source: Kraft Foods, Inc 2006 Annual Report. In 2003 Phillip Morris Cos. was renamed to The Atria Group, (:MO) though it remained the parent company of Phillip Morris International, Phillip Morris USA, and Phillip Morris Capital Corporation and Kraft Foods, Inc. Kraft Foods, more than ever before, would go on to continue dominating grocery and snack shelves across the US throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2006 Atria Group in their 2005 Annual Report would reveal that their food segment had accounted for about 35% of the yearly revenue while their tobacco segment had accounted for about 65% of its revenues. Source: Altria Group 2005 Annual Report Kraft Foods between 1989 and 2006 under the watchful eye of its parent company, The Altria Group, was given a free ticket to expansion as the parent aggressively acquired and merged companies into Kraft Foods. This enabled Kraft to grow from being just a simple Cheese and Dairy company to being a major competitor in the snack and grocery sector, with its Snack Segment contributing to most of the growth as seen in Kraft's 2006 Annual Report. Though Kraft contributed to a significant portion of Altria's revenue through its food segment, the 2005 report made it clear that Altria's tobacco segment greatly outperformed it and that's when discussions of a spin-off Kraft Foods began. The spin-off would commence on March of 2007 and was done so that The Altria Group could focus more on their higher performing tobacco segment and thus the newly organized Kraft Foods, Inc was formed and listed on the stock market under ticker symbol: KFT. After Kraft Was spun-off from its parent in 2007 we would start to see cracks form in its foundation during the same year when the company sold it's breakfast cereals division (Post), to Ralcorp, the largest US private label food manufacture, for $2.6 billion. Ralcorp would then face multiple hostile bids from ConAgra (:CAG) to take over the company, Ralcorp repeatedly denied them. Ralcorp in 2011, seeing imminent threat of a ConAgra takeover decided to spinoff their Post cereal unit into separate company: Post Holdings, (:POST) which went on to become publicly traded in 2012. After Post was spun-off ConAgra would acquire Ralcorp for $5 billion making ConAgra, (:CAG) the largest private-label food manufacturer in the North America. As for Post Holdings, (:POST) the company would go on to dramatically increase its operating income, increasing at a consistent pace from losing $0.455b in Q3, 2014 to making $0.875 billion in Q4, 2022. Meanwhile Kraft which would later Merge with HJ Heinz in 2015 to form Kraft Heinz (:KHC) would see an overall drop in Net Income dropping from a peak of $11 billion in Q1, 2018 to a tough of negative $11 billion in Q2, 2019 only for it to marginally recover to around $1.2-$3 billion in the quarters following. However the current trajectory of their incomes seems to curving downwards again with (:POST) curving upwards not to mention Post Has had a much more consistent trend in Net Income versus Kraft Heinz (:KHC) which has been volatile and quite frankly unstable during the same period: Source: Dialing back to 2010, Kraft Foods, Inc sold off its frozen pizza division to Nestle for $3.7 billion, the assets of this sale included the frozen pizza brands: DiGiorno, Tombstone, California Pizza Kitchen, and Delissio, therefore selling off its throne of being the leader in frozen pizzas to its bigger competitor, Nestle. Just a few years after selling off its Post cereal unit and its frozen Pizza unit, Kraft Foods, inc on October 1, 2012 completed a spin-off from Kraft Foods Group, Inc, taking most of the Snack and Nabisco division with it and renamed itself Mondelez International, Inc and trades under the ticker (:MDLZ). The KFT ticker was retired and the Kraft Foods Group began trading under the ticker KRFT. For every 1 share of MDLZ owned, shareholders received 0.33 shares in KRFT in addition receiving to cash to cover any fractional shares of KRFT. Kraft Foods Group was left with only it's Grocery segment after the spinoff and it can very much be implied that the newly formed Mondelez maintained most of the essence that allowed Kraft Foods to dominate store shelves while the newly formed Kraft Foods Group was just failing shell of its former greatness, this reality seems to have been baked into the companies' market caps as MDLZ, following the spinoff traded from a low of $58.27 billion in 2018 to a high of $105.63 billion in 2023. Source: Meanwhile following Kraft Food Group's merger with HJ Heinz, Kraft Heinz (NASDAQ:KHC) would lose more than two-thirds of its market cap between May 30, 2017 and March 30, 2020 dropping from $112.27 billion to $30.23 billion with the majority of this decline happening rapidly and well before the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic hit the markets in 2020. Since then shares of KHC have attempted a recovery, rising to a peak of $54.21 billion in May of 2022 but it has since gone back on the decline and is on a trajectory to trade at an all-time low market cap, currently sitting at $34.47 billion as of January 2025. Source: In 2015, HJ Heinz under the ownership of 3G Capital and Berkshire Hathaway, (NYSE:BRK.A) merged with the Kraft Foods Group, creating the newly merged Kraft Heinz Group, (NASDAQ:KHC) the structure of this merger left Kraft shareholders with 49% stake in the new company while 3G Capital and the Warren Buffet owned- Berkshire Hathaway retained a 51% stake in the company. Along with this, Kraft shareholders were paid a special cash dividend of $16.50 per share paid for by the owners of HJ Heinz (3G Capital and Berkshire Hathaway.) The merger valued Kraft at $46 billion dollars and likely a merger that the Heinz owners greatly overpaid for given the fact that Kraft Food Group had under gone so much divestiture and spin-offs leading to the deal. It is in my opinion that the owners of Heinz greatly underestimated these factors and were instead fixated on the kind of company Kraft was prior to splitting off from Altria in 2007, rather than taking into account all of the negative aspects that happen with Kraft after the split between 2007 and 2015. HJ Heinz likely would have been much better off merging with snacks focused Mondelez as that was the better performing side of the company, though it is unclear if Mondelez would have accepted such an offer given their independent success. I think that shareholders of Kraft Heinz noticed this dynamic only after the merger which is why we see the rapid declines in KHC begin in 2017 and end with it losing over two-thirds of its value by 2020. Even as a newly merged company Kraft Heinz continues the trend of selling off Kraft's segments, with the most recent one being in Q1 of 2021 when Kraft Heinz announced the selling of its entire nuts segment to Hormel Foods (:HRL) in a cash transaction for $3.35 billion, the assets included in the sale were most of the products sold under the Planters brand, including single variety and mixed nuts, trail mix, Nut-rition products, Cheez Balls, Cheez curls, and the Corn Nuts branded products. On May 13, 2024 Kraft Heinz then announced that it was exploring the sale of its Oscar Mayer segment, looking for anywhere between $3-$5 billion. Following the merger KHC's Total Assets almost immediately jumped up to a peak of around $121 billion in 2015 but it has since steadily declined now sitting at around $88.57 billion in 2024, representing around a 27% decrease in asset value since the merger. Source: What's worse is that Kraft Heinz's Cash Balance has been on the decline since 2019 and now remains at the lows just around a billion dollars. Source: Above we can see Kraft Heinz's Cash Balance fall from $5.5 Billion down to $1 billion over a 3 year period; I find this concerning given the fact that KHC's Net Income remains relatively low and starting to fall again. If this trend continues the company may seek to raise cash in other ways either by raising debt, diluting its shareholders, or doing what it always has done in the past and sell off more of its intellectual properties. Lastly to add to the uncertainty, KHC's Debt to EBITDA sits at a ratio of 5.12x putting is almost 3 times above that of the industry median of 2.05x: Source: KHC's Net Debts currently sit at $19.25 billion, that adds up to be more than half of the company's present market cap of $34.4 billion. Source: This puts KHC's ratios at the top of the list in terms of indebtedness when compared to its closest peers in the industry: Source: Lastly, KHC's PE ratio sits at 25.68x, peaking at 138.03 over the past 10 years ranking it worse than 68.04% of 1386 companies within the same industry. Source: KHC's High Debt's paired with Falling Net Incomes, Sticky Debts, Falling Total Asset Value, and Divesting Tendencies makes me question why investors would want to pay 25.68x earnings for and share of the company especially when its peers like Hormel Foods and General Mills can potentially provide 2-3 times as much value with much less exposure to debt risks. Source: KHC has been rejected from the 0.618 Fibonacci Retrace 3 times and has since formed a Bearish Head and Shoulders pattern along with a trend of making slightly lower highs on each rejection following the head, before then finding support around the same low. Upon making a third lower high the price action has broken below the supportive low and looks to be staging a breakdown to the 0.886 level down at around $17.94 which should bring the PE/Ratio down to a fairer valuation of around 15x This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
