How many times have we said this before? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) new report, its sixth since 1990, is a “wake-up call.”
The report, authored by more than 200 scientists from across the globe and based on more than 14,000 individual studies, is a comprehensive synthesis of the latest science on the changing state of our climate system. It concludes that it is “unequivocal” that climate change is being caused by human activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Yet, California, a state known for its progressive climate stance, just approved 40,000 new oil wells in Kern County, an area already littered with tens of thousands existing wells and among the most polluted regions in the state.
The IPCC reports that now, decades after scientists’ first warnings, our actions have pushed our climate into an “unprecedented” state. The increase in temperature measured since 1970, when I was a young teenager, is faster than for any other 50-year period going back at least 2000 years.
”It finds that virtually every child on the planet is exposed to at least one climate or environmental hazard right now.”
Adriana Calderón, Farzana Faruk Jhumu, Eric Njuguna and me write in NYT as @UNICEF publish their Children’s Climate Risk Index.https://t.co/J1fc9ZCLMW
The IPCC’s report provides graphic descriptions of the human, ecological, and financial costs that we are already paying for climate driven heat waves, droughts, floods, and fires, and which will be worse in the future. According to the report, these types of climate and weather extremes are already affecting every inhabited region of the globe. As I write this, my drought-parched state, California, is burning again, with the Dixie fire consuming nearly 600,000 acres (almost 900 square miles!), destroying whole towns, and forcing thousands to evacuate.
And the IPCC sounds an urgent call for action, warning that we have very little time left if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and avoid the worst, most catastrophic, and irreversible impacts of climate change. Global temperatures have already risen by an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.
Reading the report, it is painfully clear that, by our ongoing societal failure to act on our knowledge to slow and reverse climate change, we are not only bringing disasters down upon ourselves, we are jeopardizing our children’s future.
This basically sums up our current situation. The “code red” IPCC report came out a week ago. Since then not one politician has been held accountable. Not one politician has been asked how they are going to act in line with this. 1/4 (Graph by @Peters_Glen ) pic.twitter.com/1r4vljDzJw
But the report also tells us that there is hope and a path — a very slim and very challenging path — for us to reduce our carbon pollution enough to limit global warming to that critical 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold.
We know, and in fact we have known for decades what we need to do: replace coal, oil, and gas with clean energy alternatives for electricity, transportation, industry, and buildings; change the ways we use land and produce food to protect and regenerate the natural systems, like forests and wetlands, that absorb carbon dioxide; and, because climate impacts are already upon us, we need to change how and where we build, work, and live to adapt to survive our changing climate.
All of these changes are well understood and feasible, some are already in progress, and most of them will provide social and environmental benefits beyond their positive climate effects, like improved health from less air pollution. So why are we failing?
One simplistic answer is that change is hard and often slow because the societies and systems in which we live have the tendency for inertia. At a time when we need different and difficult decisions, by governments, by industries and businesses, by the finance and investment sector, by communities, and by individuals, we are instead intentionally framing and grounding our expectations, planning, and decisions in the context of the status quo, the way things are and have been and in pursuit of short-term outcomes.
And so, informed by the IPCC report, motivated by our own self-interest, and inspired by our moral and ethical responsibilities to our children and future generations, here is one approach that we can take to help guide and facilitate those different and difficult decisions. Rather than making decisions based on the status quo, we could instead evaluate our options and make decisions based on the future and what we want that future to be. For every proposal for a new oil well, pipeline or power plant, or for an expanded highway, urban development, or logging plan, we should be asking “Is this project consistent with the characteristics and constraints of a world in which we meet our climate goal and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius?” If it’s not, we shouldn’t do it.
“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.”
This quote is perhaps overused by many of us in the environmental community, but it has always been one of my favorites. It resonates with my deep personal connection with nature, my training as a biologist, and my commitment to apply my professional efforts and talents to better protect our planet. But, with each passing year, as I have watched with joy and pride the next generation of my family grow to adulthood, it feels gloomier and more ominous, an accusation rather than inspirational rallying cry.
The new IPCC report is telling us — again — that we are trashing the planet we have borrowed from our children. We know we are doing it, we know what we need to do to stop it, and we don’t have much time left before the damage becomes catastrophic and irreversible. We are all responsible. We all have the responsibility to act. Most importantly (and most impactfully), policymakers at all levels of government, but especially those in Washington, must take decisive steps to confront the climate crisis. Not next year: now. And that means Congress should advance President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, which weds an equitable recovery from the pandemic-drive downturn with the climate action we need now.
So please, let’s all of us wake up and get to work.
The Phillips 66 Company’s Los Angeles Refinery in California.
Bing Guan | Reuters
The oil price outlook is being hit with more bearish forecasts on the back of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping and market-hammering tariff announcements. Businesses and investors worry that a trade war and lower global growth lies ahead.
Goldman Sachs on Thursday reduced its December 2025 forecasts for global and U.S. benchmarks Brent crude and WTI by $5 to $66 and $62 a barrel, respectively, “because the two key downside risks we have flagged are realizing, namely tariff escalation and somewhat higher OPEC+ supply.”
The bank also cut its forecasts for the oil benchmarks in 2025 and 2026, adding that “we no longer forecast a price range, because price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk.” Analysts at S&P Global Market Intelligence predict that in a worst-case scenario, global oil demand growth could be slashed by 500,000 barrels per day.
JPMorgan, for its part, raised its recession odds for the global economy to 60% for this year, up from a previous forecast of 40%.
Markets were therefore stunned when OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude oil — along with its non-OPEC allies that together comprise OPEC+ — chose not only to go ahead with its previously held plans to increase oil production, but also to nearly triple the expected increase figure.
Eight key OPEC+ producers on Thursday agreed to raise combined crude oil output by 411,000 barrels per day, speeding up the pace of their scheduled hikes and pushing down oil prices. The group — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman — was widely expected to implement an increase of just under 140,000 barrels per day next month.
The news pushed oil prices 6% lower.
OPEC+ bullishness and appeasing Trump
Several factors underpin the oil-producing alliance’s decision. One is that the group is bullish on oil demand later in the year, putting it firmly in the minority as investor outlooks sour and fears of a global slowdown worsen.
The eight OPEC+ members behind the production decision cited “the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook” in their statement Thursday, saying that “this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation.”
The statement added that “the gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions.”
Another likely reason for the group’s move has to do with another T-word: the man in the White House, who during his first term in office and from the very start of his second, has loudly demanded that the oil producer group pump more crude to help bring down prices for Americans.
“First of all, this is partly about appeasing Trump,” Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday.
“Trump will be putting pressure on OPEC to reduce oil prices, which reduces global energy prices, to help offset the inflationary impact of his tariffs.”
OPEC officials have denied that the move was made to appease Trump.
Compliance and market share
Meanwhile, as compliance is a major issue for OPEC+ — with countries overproducing crude beyond their quotas, complicating the group’s efforts to control how much supply it allows into the market — the move could be a way to enforce that, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets.
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision.”
Helima Croft
head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision,” Croft wrote in a note published Thursday. She referenced the March 2020 oil price war, when Saudi Arabia flooded the market with supply to tank oil prices and forced Russia back into compliance after Moscow initially refused to curb production to help the alliance stabilize prices. The price war caused Brent crude prices to go as low as $15 a barrel.
The production increases are also “an example of OPEC increasing their market share,” Kavonic said, adding that it “ultimately does come at the expense of the United States [shale] patch,” which U.S. producers likely will not be too thrilled about.
What happens next?
OPEC+ appears confident about the market turning a corner in the coming months on the assumption that oil demand will increase in the summer and the tariff wars will be resolved in the coming months, said Nader Itayim, editorial manager at Argus Media.
“These countries are largely comfortable with the $70, $75 per barrel band,” Itayim said.
What comes next depends on the trajectory of the tariffs and a potential trade war. Oil dropping into the $60 range could force pauses or even a reversal in OPEC+ production increase plans, analysts say – although that is likely to be met with resistance from countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan that have long been itching to increase their oil production for their own revenues.
Whatever happens, the group maintains the flexibility to adapt its plans month by month, Itayim noted.
“If things don’t quite go the way they imagine, all it does take, really, is a phone call.”
More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.
But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.
The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.
Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.
California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.
Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.
In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:
This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.
The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”
The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.
In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:
Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.
In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.
The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”
Tesla Semi Price
When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.
However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.
New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.
The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.
However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.
What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?
Electrek’s Take
As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.
If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.
But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.
After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.
The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.
Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.
If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.
It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.
“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.
“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.
Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.
Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.
BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.
Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.
U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.
Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.
Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.
BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.
‘A more clearly defined break’
“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.
“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.
Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.
“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.