Connect with us

Published

on

Shanton Alcaraz from the Salvation Army Northwest Division gives bottled water to Eddy Norby who lives in an RV and invites him to their nearby cooling center for food and beverages during a heat wave in Seattle, Washington, U.S., June 27, 2021.

Karen Ducey | Reuters

Multnomah County in Oregon is suing oil and gas companies Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and related organizations for the damages caused by the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. Multnomah County said these and other fossil fuel companies and entities operating in the region are significantly responsible for causing and worsening the deadly heat event.

“The combined historical carbon pollution from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products was a substantial factor in causing and exacerbating the heat dome, which smothered the County’s residents for several days,” Multnomah County alleges, according to a written statement released Thursday.

The lawsuit is filed against Anadarko Petroleum (acquired by Occidental Petroleum in 2019), American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum, McKinsey & Company, Motiva, Occidental Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Shell, Space Age Fuel, Total Specialties USA, Valero Energy and Western States Petroleum Association.

Multnomah County is seeking $50 million in actual damages, $1.5 billion in future damages, and an estimated $50 billion for an abatement fund to “weatherproof” the city, its infrastructure and public health services in preparation for future extreme weather events.

Starting on June 25, 2021, Multnomah County had three consecutive days where the heat reached 108, 112 and 116 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. Each of those days was about 40 degrees above the regional average and were the hottest days in the County’s recorded history.

The heat event is called a heat dome which is a weather event caused by a high-pressure system that in this case prevented cooler maritime winds to blow and also prevented clouds from forming.

The heat caused the deaths of 69 people, and property damage and was a draw on taxpayer resources, Multnomah County says.

Multiple climate scientists researched the cause of the heat dome and all said that the event was caused by excessive carbon dioxide emissions released by the burning of fossil fuels, the plaintiff says.

“The heat dome that cost so much life and loss was not a natural weather event. It did not just happen because life can be cruel, nor can it be rationalized as simply a mystery of God’s will,” the lawsuit reads. “Rather, the heat dome was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ decision to sell as many fossil fuel products over the last six decades as they could and to lie to the County, the public, and the scientific community about the catastrophic harm that pollution from those products into the Earth’s and the County’s atmosphere would cause.”

Jessica Vega Pederson, the chair of Multnomah County, is seeking to protect the residents of the county she represents.

“This lawsuit is about accountability and fairness, and I believe the people of Multnomah County deserve both. These businesses knew their products were unsafe and harmful, and they lied about it,” Pederson said in a written statement announcing the lawsuit. “They have profited massively from their lies and left the rest of us to suffer the consequences and pay for the damages. We say enough is enough.”

The case is being brought by three law firms with expertise in catastrophic harm litigation: Worthington & Caron PC, Simon Greenstone Panatier PC, and Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants committed negligence and fraud and created a public nuisance.

Bill Forte from North Sky Communications works on a fiber optic line during a heat wave gripping the Pacific Northwest in Lake Forest Park, Washington, U.S., June 26, 2021.

Karen Ducey | Reuters

“There are no new laws or novel theories being asserted here. We contend that the Defendants broke long-standing ones, and we will prove it to a jury,” Jeffrey Simon, a partner at Simon Greenstone Panatier, said in a statement. 

The case is using new and expert climate science, according to Roger Worthington, a partner at Worthington & Caron.

“We will show that the normal use of fossil fuel products over time has imposed massive external, unpriced and untraded social, economic and environmental costs on the County. We will show that they were aware of this price, and instead of fully informing the public, they deceived us. And we will ask a jury to decide if it is fair to hold the polluters accountable for these avoidable and rising costs,” Worthington said in a written statement.

“We are confident that, once we show what the fossil fuel companies knew about global warming and when, and what they did to deny, delay and deceive the public, the jury will not let the fossil fuel companies get away with their reckless misconduct,” Worthington said.

Defendants say a court case won’t help

Exxon says the lawsuit is unproductive.

“Suits like these continue to waste time, resources and do nothing to address climate change,” a spokesperson for Exxon told CNBC. “This action has no impact on our intention to invest billions of dollars to leading the way in a thoughtful energy transition that takes the world to net zero carbon emissions.”

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group for the oil and gas industry, defended its constituents’ work making energy available to consumers and, like Exxon, called the lawsuit unproductive.

“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for API, told CNBC in a statement. “This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless lawsuits against our industry is nothing more than a distraction from important issues and an enormous waste of taxpayer resources. Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system.”

Legal counsel for Chevron called the lawsuit unproductive and unconstitutional.

“Addressing the challenge of global climate change requires a coordinated policy response. These lawsuits are counterproductive distractions from advancing international policy solutions,” Theodore Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, told CNBC in a statement. “The federal Constitution bars these novel, baseless claims that target one industry and group of companies engaged in lawful activity that provides tremendous benefits to society.”

People sleep at a cooling shelter set up during an unprecedented heat wave in Portland, Oregon, U.S. June 27, 2021.

Maranie Staab | Reuters

Shell said it is working toward a low-carbon future and does not see a lawsuit as productive.

“The Shell Group’s position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We agree that action is needed now on climate change, and we fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future. As we supply vital energy the world needs today, we continue to reduce our emissions and help customers reduce theirs,” a Shell spokesperson told CNBC.

“Addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach. We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress,” Shell said.

ConocoPhillips and the Western States Petroleum Association told CNBC they don’t comment on active litigation.

BP, Motiva, Occidental Petroleum, Space Age Fuel, Valero Energy, Total Specialties USA, Marathon Petroleum, Peabody Energy, the Koch Industries, and McKinsey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Europe faces a growing heat wave crisis — and lack of air conditioning

Continue Reading

Technology

India is betting $18 billion to build a chip powerhouse. Here’s what it means

Published

on

By

India is betting  billion to build a chip powerhouse. Here’s what it means

A robotic machine manufactures a semiconductor chip at a stall to show investors during The Advantage Assam 2.0 Investment Summit in Guwahati, India, on Feb. 25, 2025.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

India wants to become a global chip major, but the odds are steep: competition is fierce, and India is a late entrant in the race to make the most advanced chips.

In 2022, when the U.S. restricted exports of its advanced AI chips to China to curb Beijing’s access to cutting-edge technology, a global race for semiconductor self-reliance began.

For India, it offered an opportunity: the country wants to reduce dependence on imports, secure chips for strategic sectors, and capture a bigger share of the global electronics market shifting away from China.

India is one of the world’s largest consumers of electronics, but it has no local chip industry and plays a minimal role in the global supply chain. New Delhi’s “Semiconductor Mission” aims to change that.

The ambition is bold. It wants to create a full supply chain — from design to fabrication, testing and packaging — on Indian soil.

As of this month, the country has approved 10 semiconductor projects with total investment of 1.6 trillion rupees ($18.2 billion). These include two semiconductor fabrication plants, and multiple testing and packing factories.

India also has a pool of engineering talent that is already employed by global chip design companies.

Yet progress so far has been uneven, and neither the investments nor talent pool is enough to make India’s chip ambitions a reality, say experts.

“India needs more than a few fabs or ATP facilities (i.e., more than a few “shiny objects.”) It needs a dynamic and deep and long-term ecosystem,” said Stephen Ezell, vice president for global innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a science and technology policy think tank.

Ezell says that leading semiconductor manufacturers consider “as many as 500 discrete factors” before they set up multi-billion-dollar fab investments. These include talent, tax, trade, technology policies, labor rates and laws and customs policies — all areas where India has work to do.

New Delhi’s policy push

In May, the Indian government added a new element to its chip ambition: a scheme to support electronic component manufacturing, addressing a critical bottleneck.

Until now, chipmakers had no local demand for their product as there are hardly any electronic component manufacturing companies, such as phone camera companies, in India.

Researchers inside the semiconductor fabrication lab at the Centre for Nano Science and Engineering, at the Indian Institute of Science, in Bangalore.

Manjunath Kiran | Afp | Getty Images

But the new policy offers financial support to companies producing active and passive electronic components, creating a potential domestic buyer-supplier base that chip manufacturers can plug into.

In 2022, the country also pivoted from its strategy of providing superior incentives to fabrication units making chips of 28nm or less. When it comes to chips, the smaller the size, the higher the performance with improved energy efficiency. These chips can be used in new technologies like advanced AI and quantum computing by packing more transistors into the same space.

But this approach wasn’t helping India develop its nascent semiconductor industry, so New Delhi now covers 50% of the project costs of all fabrication units, regardless of chip size, and of chip testing and packing units.

Fab companies from Taiwan and the U.K., and semiconductor packaging companies from the U.S. and South Korea have all shown interest in aiding India’s semiconductor ambitions.

“The Indian government has doled out generous incentives to attract semiconductor manufacturers to India,” said Ezell, but he stressed that “those sorts of investments aren’t sustainable forever.”

The long road

The biggest chip project in India currently is the 910-billion-rupee ($11 billion) semiconductor fabrication plant being built in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state of Gujarat by Tata Electronics, in partnership with Taiwan’s Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp.

The unit will make chips for power management integrated circuits, display drivers, microcontrollers and high-performance computing logic, Tata Electronics said, which can be used in AI, automotive, computing and data storage industries.

The U.K.’s Clas-SiC Wafer Fab has also tied up with India’s SiCSem to set up the country’s first commercial compound fab in the eastern state of Odisha.

These compound semiconductors can be used in missiles, defence equipment, electric vehicles, consumer appliances and solar power inverters, according to a government press release.

“The coming 3-4 years is pivotal for advancing India’s semiconductor goals,” said Sujay Shetty, managing director of semiconductor at PwC India.

Establishing operational silicon fabrication facilities and overcoming technical and infrastructural hurdles that extend beyond incentives will be a key milestone, according to Shetty.

Opportunities beyond fab

NEW DELHI, INDIA – MAY 14: Union Minister of Railways, Information and Broadcasting, Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw briefing the media on Cabinet decisions at National Media Centre on May 14, 2025 in New Delhi, India.

Hindustan Times | Hindustan Times | Getty Images

Last week, Indian minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, who was in Bengaluru to inaugurate a new office of semiconductor design firm ARM, said the British company will design the “most advanced chips used in AI servers, drones, mobile phone chips of 2 nm” from the south Indian city.

But experts say the role of local talent is likely to be limited to non-core design testing and validation, as the core intellectual property for chip designs is often held in locations like the U.S. or Singapore, where established IP regimes support such activities.

“India has sufficient talent in design space, because unlike semiconductor manufacturing and testing that has come up in the last 2 years, design has been there since 1990s,” said Jayanth BR, a recruiter with over 15 years of experience in hiring for global semiconductor companies in India.

He said global companies usually outsource “block-level” design validation work to India.

Going beyond this is something India’s government will need to solve if it wants to fulfil its semiconductor ambitions.

“India may consider updating its IP laws to address new forms of IP, like digital content and software. Of course, improving enforcement mechanisms will go a long way in protecting IP rights,” says Sajai Singh, a partner at Mumbai-based JSA Advocates & Solicitors.

“Our competition is with countries like the U.S., Europe, and Taiwan, which not only have strong IP laws, but also a more established ecosystem for chip design.”

Continue Reading

Technology

‘We need the smartest people’: Nvidia, OpenAI CEOs react to Trump’s H-1B visa fee

Published

on

By

'We need the smartest people': Nvidia, OpenAI CEOs react to Trump's H-1B visa fee

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang attends the “Winning the AI Race” Summit in Washington D.C., U.S., July 23, 2025.

Kent Nishimura | Reuters

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Monday commented on President Donald Trump’s decision to increase the cost of hiring overseas workers on visas.

Trump on Friday announced that he would raise the fee for an H-1B visa to $100,000, leaving companies scrambling. Employers now must have documentation of the payment prior to filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a worker. Applicants will have their petitions restricted for 12 months until the payment is made, according to the White House.

Huang and Altman responded to the changes in an interview with CNBC’s Jon Fortt, where the two executives announced that Nvidia will invest $100 billion in OpenAI as the artificial intelligence lab sets out to build hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of data centers based around the chipmaker’s AI processors.

“We want all the brightest minds to come to the U.S. and remember immigration is the foundation of the American Dream,” Huang said Monday. “We represent the American Dream. And so I think immigration is really important to our company and is really important to our nation’s future, and I’m glad to see President Trump making the moves he’s making.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also expressed a positive outlook on Trump’s changes.

“We need to get the smartest people in the country, and streamlining that process and also sort of outlining financial incentives seems good to me,” Altman said.

The new $100,000 fee would be a seismic shift for U.S. technology and finance sectors, which rely on the H-1B program for highly skilled immigrants, particularly from India and China. Those two countries accounted for 71% and 11.7% of visa holders last year, respectively.

Those who already have H-1B visas and are located outside the U.S. will not be required to pay the fee in order to re-enter. Many employers use H-1B workers to fill the gaps in these highly technical roles that are not found within the American labor supply. 

— CNBC tech reporter Annie Palmer contributed to this report.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and OpenAI leaders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman

Continue Reading

Technology

Here’s everything Trump is changing with H-1B visas

Published

on

By

Here's everything Trump is changing with H-1B visas

President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on September 19, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

President Donald Trump raised the fee for an H-1B visa to $100,000 on Friday, leaving companies scrambling to respond.

With many left wondering whether their careers will remain in tact, here’s a breakdown of the new H-1B fees:

What did Trump change?

As of Sunday, H-1B visa applications will require a $100,000 payment. Previously, visa fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000 per application, depending on the size of the company.

Employers now must have documentation of the payment prior to filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a worker. Applicants will have their petitions restricted for 12 months until the payment is made, according to the White House.

Who does this impact?

The fee will only be applied to new H-1B applicants, not renewals or current visa holders, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The fee will be implemented in the upcoming lottery cycle.

Those who already have H-1B visas and are located outside the U.S. will not be required to pay the fee in order to re-enter.

Leavitt also clarified that the $100,000 is a one-time payment and not an annual charge.

Exceptions can be made to any immigrant whose employment is deemed essential in the national interest by the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the U.S.

Employees with B visas who have start dates prior to October 2026 will also receive additional guidance in order to prevent using those temporary business visas as a workaround for H-1B visas.

Who are these workers and why are they needed?

H-1B visas allows highly skilled foreign professionals to work in specialty occupations that generally require at least a bachelor’s degree to fulfill the role. Jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, usually qualify.

Many employers use H-1B workers to fill the gaps in these highly technical roles that are not found within the American labor supply.

Companies in the tech and finance sectors rely heavily on these specially-skilled immigrants, particularly from India and China, which accounted for 71% and 11.7% of visa holders last year, respectively.

How many H-1B visas does the tech industry use every year?

The current annual cap for H-1B visas is 65,000, along with an additional 20,000 visas for foreign professionals with a master’s degree or doctorate from a U.S. institution. A lottery system is used to select additional petitions if demand exceeds the cap.

Since 2012, about 60% or more of approved H-1B workers had computer-related jobs, according to Pew Research.

Amazon was the top employer for H-1B holders in the fiscal year 2025, sponsoring over 10,000 applicants by the end of June, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Microsoft and Meta had over 5,000 each, while Apple and Google rounded out the top six with over 4,000 approvals.

WATCH: CoreWeave CEO on H-1B visas: Additional fee is ‘sand in the gears’ for access to talent

CoreWeave CEO on H-1B visas: Additional fee is 'sand in the gears' for access to talent

Continue Reading

Trending