Biden threatens ‘consequences’ for Saudi Arabia after OPEC cut, but his options are limited
US President Joe Biden and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman arrive for the family photo during the Jeddah Security and Development Summit (GCC+3) at a hotel in Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coastal city of Jeddah on July 16, 2022.
Mandel Ngan | Afp | Getty Images
President Joe Biden is angry at Saudi Arabia for its decision to slash oil production along with its OPEC allies against U.S. wishes, and he’s made no secret of it.
With the global economy on a knife-edge and energy prices high, Washington sees the kingdom’s move – which it made in coordination with Russia and other oil-producing states – as a snub and a blatant display of siding with Moscow.
The oil producer group in early October announced its largest supply cut since 2020, to the tune of 2 million barrels per day from November, which its members say is designed to spur a recovery in crude prices to counter a potential fall in demand.
For this, Biden said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that there would be “consequences.” He did not go into further detail as to what those consequences might be.
But what are the Biden administration’s options, and could they backfire?
Weapons and anti-trust laws
The Saudi-U.S. relationship was founded, broadly speaking, on the principle of energy for security. Washington has since the 1940s provided billions of dollars in military and security aid to Saudi Arabia. But in recent years, and particularly since the Obama administration began making diplomatic inroads with Iran, Riyadh feels that the U.S. commitment to its security has waned.
“The truth is, neither side has been holding up their end of the bargain for nearly 10 years now,” Michael Stephens, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told CNBC.
“And what you’re seeing, I think, are permanent fractures in the relationship that are based on the fact that neither side really sees as much strategic benefit in the other as they did 20 years ago,” Stephens said, adding that Saudi Arabia’s OPEC oil production cut “is a reflection of that.”
The potential “consequences” Washington can put into action include cutting its military support to the Saudi kingdom, and going after OPEC with U.S. laws.
A file photo of cannisters containing Patriot missiles to intercept missiles fired at Saudi Arabia or its neighboring countries.
Greg Mathieson | Mai | The LIFE Images Collection | Getty Images
Indeed, just one day before Biden’s comments, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, demanded that the U.S. immediately halt all cooperation with Saudi Arabia — including weapons sales.
“The United States must immediately freeze all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including any arms sales and security cooperation beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests,” Menendez said in a statement.
In an earlier interview with CNBC, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, asked, “What’s the point of looking the other way when the Saudis chop up journalists and repress political speech inside Saudi Arabia if when the chips are down, the Saudis effectively choose the Russians over the U.S.?”
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., weighed in, demanding in a tweet that, “If Saudi Arabia, one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, wants to partner with Russia to jack up US gas prices, it can get Putin to defend its monarchy. We must pull all US troops out of Saudi Arabia, stop selling them weapons & end its price-fixing oil cartel.”
Beyond withholding military aid, there are legal channels the U.S. government can pursue.
One is the NOPEC bill, which stands for No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels. This would classify OPEC as a cartel and subject its members to anti-trust legislation.
Something long discussed by lawmakers, the bill is designed to protect U.S. consumers and businesses from artificial oil spikes.
It passed a Senate committee in early May and hasn’t yet been signed into law, but could expose OPEC countries and partners to lawsuits for coordinating supply cuts that raise global crude prices.
The bill would still need to be passed by the full Senate and House and signed into law by the president to go into effect. OPEC ministers have previously criticized the NOPEC bill, warning it would bring greater chaos to energy markets.
Consequences for the U.S. – and for crude prices
The decision by OPEC+ – which constitutes OPEC and its non-OPEC allies like Russia – to cut its output “underscores the extent to which the Biden administration has lost its ability to influence Saudi OPEC+ policy,” said Torbjorn Soltvedt, principal MENA analyst at risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft.
“The White House has few good options despite Biden’s warning of ‘consequences’ after the cut,” he said, noting U.S. lawmakers’ threats of anti-trust legislation and removal of U.S. military assets from Saudi Arabia.
While both courses of action would send a clear message, this could backfire for both the U.S. and for crude prices.
“Both of these options would threaten to break already fraught relations, which in turn would put even greater upward pressure on oil and fuel prices,” Soltvedt said.
“In short, a breakdown in U.S.-Saudi relations would mean a higher Middle East risk premium for the global oil market and higher oil and fuel prices,” he explained. “This is the opposite of what the White House is trying to achieve ahead of midterm elections in November.”
It’s also key to note that the 2 million barrel per day cut will not in fact be as big as that headline figure; several member states have already been far short of their individual production ceilings, and Iraq for instance has indicated it will be producing more than its assigned quota.
Still, many American politicians have long been out of patience with the nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, especially as U.S. imports of Saudi oil have shrunk over the years and more than 80% of the Middle East’s crude exports now go to Asia.
This has made a growing number of U.S. lawmakers question, Soltvedt said, “why the American navy should underwrite the security of Middle Eastern oil exports when those barrels are increasingly going East rather than West.”
— CNBC’s Sam Meredith contributed to this report.
Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.
It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.
Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
- You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
- You lose the adaptive air suspension
- No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
- Textile seats instead of vegan leather
- Fewer speakers
- No rear screen for the backseat
- No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway