Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

Design lovers have come to appreciate the practical, environmental and style advantages of vintage furnishings, said Anna Brockway, co-founder and president of Chairish. Vintage has proven to be the antidote to the supply chain snarl and rising inflation rates."

SAN FRANCISCO (PRWEB) May 11, 2022

Chairish, the leading online destination for chic and unique home furnishings, today announced the results of its annual Interior Designer Survey. With over 2,000 respondents, the survey results indicate a transformational shift in designer buying habits towards vintage home furnishings.

Seventy percent of designers surveyed said they are buying more vintage products today than they were at the same time in 2021. The popularity of vintage exploded in the past year with 98% of designers using vintage furniture and art in their projects, according to the survey. Of particular note is the insatiable vintage habit among designers in the Southeastern U.S., with 80% of local designers reporting they are buying more vintage today than a year ago. This is an especially influential trend given the population growth that took place in the region over the past two years.

Designers also revealed that 45% of a typical residential design project budget (which averages $270,000 in scope) now goes toward vintage furnishings and decor.

Demand for vintage furniture is booming for practical reasons, including vintages immunity to current supply chain woes and inflationary pressure, its sustainability benefits, and the stylish appeal of unique pieces. Designers report that by using vintage they can deliver their clients a one-of-a-kind look that isnt replicated elsewhere and do so on time and on budget.

When asked why they shop vintage over newly made:

I always start with vintage in my designs and build from there, said Zo Feldman, an interior designer based in Washington D.C. Buying pieces from the past that can never be re-created and are unique is special, and coincidentally, sustainable.

In 2020, supply chain issues in the broader home segment slowed the manufacturing and delivery of new goods and delays are continuing into 2022. By virtue of being already manufactured, vintage goods have not suffered these delays. In addition, consumers today are faced with inflation reaching a four-decade high. While prices on newly made goods have risen significantly, vintage pricing has stayed consistent, providing a much needed refuge from inflationary pricing.

Design lovers have come to appreciate the practical, environmental and style advantages of vintage furnishings, said Anna Brockway, co-founder and president of Chairish. Vintage has proven to be the stylish antidote to the supply chain snarl and rising inflation rates impacting the home furnishings industry right now.

Survey respondents ranked Chairish as the best source for home furnishings and art, earning the highest score of any resource in the last five years. Chairish is also accelerating faster in favorability among competitors including other marketplaces, design centers, industry events, and social media.

About Chairish Founded in 2013, Chairish is the leading emporium where designers and tastemakers shop for exceptional home furnishings and art. Named the #1 cant live without decorating app that will change the way you shop for furniture online by Architectural Digest, Chairish delights millions of shoppers with its expert curation of exclusive and diverse inventory, refreshing shopping experience and award-winning customer care. As a marketplace, Chairish is committed to building a more sustainable home industry thats kinder to the planet and supports the circular economy through the buying and reselling of vintage and antique pieces. Entrepreneur lists Chairish as one of the best entrepreneurial companies in America'' and USA Today readers named Chairish the "best place to shop online for furniture and home decor." Chairish has raised funding from investors such as Tritium Partners, Altos Ventures Ltd, Azure Capital and OReilly AlphaTech Ventures. Chairish Inc. is the San Francisco-based parent company of Chairish.com and Pamono.com.

Share article on social media or email:

Visit link:

Chairish's Annual Designer Survey Finds 70% of Interior Designers Are Buying More Vintage Today Than a Year Ago - PR Web

The Honourable Andrew Furey, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Honourable Andrew Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, today announced the establishment of an expert panel to recommend potential approaches for the government to ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls assets, as recommended by the Muskrat Falls Commission of Inquiry.

Premier Furey, Minister Parsons and Jennifer Williams, President of NL Hydro, will be available to media in-person at the Media Centre, East Block, Confederation Building, at 1:00 p.m. The availability will be live-streamed on the Government of Newfoundland and Labradors Facebook page. Masks and physical distancing will be required for attendees.

Members of the 2041 panel are: Karl Smith (Chair), Rexanne Crawford, Jim Feehan, David Hay, Rick Hendricks, Dr. Linda Inkpen, Heather Jacobs, Dr. Nick Mercer, Jane Rowe, David Vardy, Jennifer Williams and Peter Woodward. See biographies in Backgrounder below. The Innu Nation, Nunatsiavut Government, and NunatuKavut Community Council were each invited to appoint an expert to serve on the panel. The Innu Nation chose Rick Hendricks, the Nunatsiavut Government chose Rexanne Crawford, and the NunatuKavut Community Councils appointee is Dr. Nick Mercer.

The panel has a mandate to recommend potential approaches for the government to ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls assets, the 5,428 megawatt generating station and associated transmission facilities in Labrador, including future upgrades and expansion to the facility (the Assets), given the expiry of the current contract in 2041. The Panel will educate the public and government on the current contracts implications for Newfoundland and Labrador. See the Terms of Reference in the Backgrounder below.

Should any matters arise concerning the terms of the Upper Churchill Redress Agreement, process accommodations will be made to respect Innu Nations commercial sensitivities.

Under the 1969 Upper Churchill Contract, Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation committed to selling Hydro-Qubec the vast majority of the power from the 5,428 megawatt Churchill Falls generating station for 70 years after first power in 1971. That contract will expire in 2041.

The Churchill Falls facility is owned by CF(L)Co and that corporation is owned 65.8 per cent by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and 34.2 per cent by Hydro-Qubec.

QuotesAlthough the expiry of the Upper Churchill contract in 2041 is 19 years in the future, it is a short period of time in terms of the utility planning horizon and to determine the best approach to ensure maximum benefits. I thank the members of the expert panel for committing of their time and expertise to advise on what will be a critical moment in our provinces future.Honourable Andrew FureyPremier of Newfoundland and Labrador

The establishment of an expert panel was a recommendation of the Muskrat Falls commission of Inquiry. It is important to start planning now to ensure that the province is able to maximize long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls generating station and other potential generation sites on the Churchill River in preparation for 2041.Honourable Andrew ParsonsMinister of Industry, Energy and Technology

As we look to the future and the expiry of the Upper Churchill contract in 2041, it is important that we bring together the right mix of people to examine the contract and prepare for negotiations. I commend the Premier and his government for establishing this expert panel and I am proud to be a member of the team.Karl SmithChair, 2041 Panel

30

Media contactsMeghan McCabeOffice of the Premier709-729-3960meghanmccabe@gov.nl.ca

Eric HumberIndustry, Energy and Technology709-729-5777, 725-9655erichumber@gov.nl.ca

BACKGROUNDER

Biographies of Panel Members

Karl Smith (Chair)Over the last three decades, Mr. Smith served in a number of progressively responsible roles within the Fortis Group of Companies, including Chief Financial Officer Fortis Inc. (1999-2003), President and CEO Newfoundland Power (2004-2007), President and CEO Fortis Alberta (2007-2014), and Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer Fortis Inc. (2014-2018).

Mr. Smith graduated from Memorial University in 1981 with a degree in Commerce, and following retirement has assumed a role as Chair of the Universitys Faculty of Business Administration Advisory Board.

Mr. Smith is a former Chair of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (2014-2016), past Chair of the Canadian Electricity Association, and a retired member of the Chartered Professional Accountants Association (NL Branch). Mr. Smith currently serves on the Boards of Junior Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador, Young Adult Cancer Canada, and Genesis Centre. He is also a Director of the Canadian Standards Association and co-Chair of the 2025 Canada Games Host Society.

Rexanne CrawfordRexanne Crawford, CPA, CA, of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL, is the Deputy Minister with the Nunatsiavut Governments Department of Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology.

She graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1997 from Mount Allison University and a Bachelor of Business Administration from Memorial University in 2001. Ms. Crawford was first employed by Deloitte in St. Johns in the audit and assurance practice and went on to obtain the Chartered Accounting designation. In 2011, she returned home to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, accepting the position of Deputy Minister with the Nunatsiavut Governments Department of Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology.

Ms. Crawford is an active volunteer, giving freely of her time to advance education, sport and recreation in the community.

Jim FeehanDr. Jim Feehan is an honorary research professor at Memorial University. Originally from St. Johns, he is a graduate of MUN in economics and mathematics. He holds advanced degrees in economics from the London School of Economics and Carleton University. He has been a visiting professor at the University of Western Ontario, Carleton Universitys School of International Affairs, and the National University-Kiev in Ukraine.

Dr. Feehan has an international reputation in public finance and the economics of public investment, having published in academic journals in those areas. In 2003 and 2004 he was involved in a major international collaboration project dealing with public infrastructure, which was sponsored by the Economic Research Institute of Japans Cabinet Office. As well, he is a recognized expert on Canadian fiscal federalism.

Professor Feehan has also worked on public policy in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has published academic research on many provincial issues such as interprovincial trade, Churchill Falls, the health-care cost of smoking, sales taxes, Muskrat Falls, offshore oil development, fiscal federalism, municipal governance, and electricity policy.

Dr. Feehan was research advisor to the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada and served on various advisory bodies including the Primary Care Advisory Committee and the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee. For nine years he was the editor of the journal, Newfoundland and Labrador Studies, and is a former Director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research at MUN.

David HayDavid Hay is the Managing Director of Delgatie Incorporated (his own consulting firm). He is the former Vice-Chair and Managing Director of CIBC World Markets Inc., from 2010-2015. From 2004 until 2010, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of New Brunswick Power Corporation. Prior to that Mr. Hay was Senior Vice-President and Director with Merrill Lynch Canada and Managing Director of European mergers and acquisitions with Merrill Lynch International based in London, England. Mr. Hay spent the early part of his career as a practicing lawyer and taught at both the University of Toronto and University of New Brunswick. Mr. Hay was a Law Clerk to the Chief Justice of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario from 1981 until 1982. Mr. Hay currently sits on the boards of Hydro One Limited, EPCOR Utilities Inc., and the Council of Clean and Reliable Energy. Prior directorships include Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, where he was Vice Chair, and Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited (AEGIS). Mr. Hay also chaired both the Beaverbrook Art Gallery and SHAD Canada.

Mr. Hay holds a Bachelor of Laws from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toronto (Victoria College). He is a Fellow of the Ivey Energy and Policy Institute with the University of Western Ontario and holds an ICD.D certification from the Institute of Corporate Directors.

Rick HendricksRichard M. (Rick) Hendriks is the Director of Camerado Energy. Rick has 20 years of technical, environmental, regulatory and policy knowledge and experience of the electricity sector in Canada. He provides management consulting, strategic planning, analytical, research, negotiation, and consultation services to clients. Rick works with organizational leadership to envision, implement and achieve strategic, economic and environmental objectives. Trained in engineering, science and social science, he brings an analytical, structured and comprehensive approach to understanding, engaging and explaining the opportunities and risks of energy policies, plans and projects. An experienced negotiator, facilitator and educator, Rick supports clients seeking to build partnerships, to understand the implications of proposed projects and policies, to resolve historic disputes, and to intervene in regulatory processes to change the course of development.

Linda InkpenDr. Linda Inkpen served as Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador since September 2014 and retired in November 2021. Dr. Inkpen graduated from Memorial University in 1969, 1970, 1972, and 1974 with degrees in Science, Education, Medical Science, and Medicine. She was chair of the board for Fortis Properties, is a past chair of Newfoundland Power, and was a director of the parent company, Fortis Inc. until 2010. Dr. Inkpen was President of Cabot College (now College of the North Atlantic) from 1987 to 1993, has been a lay member of the Newfoundland Law Society, and worked in many volunteer capacities.

Dr. Inkpen was a member of The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and a member of the Prime Ministers Roundtable on Science and Technology. She has been the recipient of many awards and honours, most notably Memorial Universitys Alumna of the Year Award, the Order of Canada, the Queens Jubilee Medal, the Queens Diamond Jubilee Medal, and Honorary Degrees from Memorial University and Mount Saint Vincent University. Dr. Inkpen currently serves as the Honourary Lieutenant Colonel, 1stBattalion, Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

Heather M. JacobsHeather M. Jacobs, QC is currently Special Advisor to the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Ms. Jacobs served as Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice and Public Safety on three occasions from 2015 to 2022. Prior to that time, Ms. Jacobs also served as Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Justice and Public Safety for nine years, managed the Government Services Unit within the Civil Division of the Department of Justice for four years, and served as a solicitor in the Civil Division for 13 years. Ms.Jacobs received her Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) from Memorial University in 1984 and Bachelor of Laws degree from York University (Osgoode Hall) in 1987. Ms.Jacobs was appointed Queens Counsel in 2015 and has been a practicing member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador since 1988. She has served as a member of the Nalcor Board (as government appointee) and sat independently in 2018. She has also served as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador and a member of the Board of the RNC Foundation.

Dr. Nick MercerDr. Nick Mercer is a settler-researcher, who holds a Ph.D. in Geography and Environmental Management from the University of Waterloo, as well as a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts in Environmental Policy from Memorial University. Dr. Mercers research expertise includes renewable energy policy, the sustainability of off-grid energy systems, and participatory approaches to local planning.

Dr. Mercer lives in western Newfoundland. He holds a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowship within Dalhousie Universitys School for Resource and Environmental Studies and provides formal support to communities in Labrador in their pursuit of energy security and autonomy. Dr. Mercer works at the intersection of clean energy and community, ensuring that local rights, knowledge systems, and priorities are at the forefront of energy transitions.

Jane RoweJane Rowe serves as the Vice Chair, Investments at Ontario Teachers Pension Plan effective October 2020, and sits on the board of Cadillac Fairview, its real estate subsidiary. Previously she served as the Executive Managing Director and head of Ontario Teachers Equities department. Prior to joining Ontario Teachers, she held senior roles at Scotiabank, including Scotia Merchant Capital Corporation, the banks Canadian private equity fund, was President and CEO of RoyNat Capital Inc., Scotiabanks wholly owned mid-market merchant bank, and was President and CEO of Scotia Mortgage Corporation. Outside of Ontario Teachers, Ms. Rowe is a director for TD Bank Group and Enbridge Inc.

Ms. Rowe received a B.Comm. (Honours) from Memorial University, her MBA from York Universitys Schulich School of Business, and ICD.D certification from the Institute of Corporate Directors. She is an Advisory Board Member of Memorial Universitys School of Business, served on the Board of Governors at York University, and served as a Trustee for the United Way of Greater Toronto.

David VardyDavid Vardy served in a number of executive positions in the Provincial Government, including Deputy Minister of the Planning and Priorities Secretariat from 1975-1978, Clerk of the Executive Council from 1978-1985, President of the Marine Institute, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Chair of the Public Utilities Commission. He is a former Director of the Public Policy Research Centre and currently an Associate of the Harris Centre at Memorial University. Mr. Vardy has received the Lieutenant Governors Award for Excellence in Public Administration awarded by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, the Gold Medal Award from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Mr. Vardy was one of the founding members of the Muskrat Falls Concerned Citizens Coalition and recently was a member of the Premiers Economic Recovery Team.

He holds a B.A. (Honours Economics) and a B. Comm.from Memorial, an M. A. in Economics from the University of Toronto and an M. A. in Economics from Princeton University, as well as an Honorary Doctorate from Memorial. He has finished all the requirements for a Ph.D. in Economics at Princeton University except for completion of the dissertation.

Jennifer WilliamsJennifer Williams was appointed President of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in February 2019 and assumed additional responsibility as interim CEO for Nalcor June 2021. Jennifer is now acting as President and CEO of NL Hydro. Prior to 2019, Jennifer had served as Vice President, Production, with NL Hydro since August 2016.Earlier positions include General Manager, Hydro Production, as well as Manager, Regulatory Engineering. Jennifer joined NL Hydro in 2014, having previously worked with both Newfoundland Power and the St. Johns International Airport Authority. A Memorial University graduate, Jennifer has a Bachelor of Civil Engineering and is a member and former member of the Board of Directors of the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador (PEGNL). Jennifer was awarded the Fellow of Engineers Canada in 2016 and was elected as a Fellow to the Canadian Academy of Engineering in 2020.

Peter WoodwardPeter Woodward is President and CEO of Woodward Group of Companies; President, Labrador Motors Limited; and President, Markland Realty Limited. Mr. Woodward serves as Director of: The Shaw Group, Emera, Newfoundland Employers Council & Battle Harbour Trust; and is past Director of AIMS. Mr. Woodward has previously served as chair of Labrador Health Corporation, Chair of Labrador College, Chair of Premiers Advisory Council. He has also previously served on the Board of Fishery Products International and on the Board of Newfoundland Power. Mr. Woodward graduated from Bachelor of Commerce, Co-op program at Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1981.

Churchill River Management Expert PanelTerms of Reference

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (CFLCo), a subsidiary of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH), entered into a long-term power contract with Hydro-Quebec

(HQ) in May 1969 (the Power Contract). The Power Contract provided for the development and subsequent sale of large amount of power produced at the Churchill Falls plant to HQ. The original agreement expired in 2016, but the automatic renewal clause extended the contract for an additional 25 years. CFLCo is also party to a Water

Management Agreement with Muskrat Falls Corporation (MFCo) in accordance with provincial legislation to coordinate the most efficient generation of power at both Churchill Falls and Muskrat Falls.

The Power Contract and the Shareholders Agreement expire on August 31, 2041.

Although that date is 20 years in the future, it is a short period of time in terms of the utility planning horizon and to plan for the role of this 5,428 MW asset in the provinces electricity system, to determine the best approach to ensure maximum benefits from the asset and other potential generation sites on the Churchill River.

On November 20, 2017 Government established a Commission of Inquiry (the Inquiry) respecting the Muskrat Falls Project (MFP), appointing Justice Richard D. LeBlanc as the sole Commissioner. Commissioner LeBlanc delivered his final report to Government on March 5, 2020. Recommendation 7 of the Inquiry report pertains to the Churchill Falls power contract expiring in 2041 as follows:

In preparation for 2041, government should appoint an expert panel with a mandate to determine the best approach to be taken by the Province in its attempt to ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls generating station and other potential generation sites on the Churchill River.

This panel should be properly funded, non-political and include experts who are best able to assist government in preparing for the negotiations with

Qubec. The panel should be required to report its progress to Cabinet on a regular basis.

Furthermore, the Premiers Economic Recovery Team final report recommended that the Province, Package the Churchill River resources as a single opportunity, including

Muskrat Falls, Gull Island, and the 2041 contract on the Upper Churchill, and seek federal government and private sector partners to maximize the economic value and its renewable energy potential.

At this time, the Province is seeking to convene an expert panel to fulfil its commitment to act on this recommendation of the Muskrat Falls Commission of Inquiry.

The Expert Panel shall consist of up to twelve members.

The panel will include members with professional accreditation and/or significant expertise in areas such as finance, law, engineering, economics and other categories of experience directly relevant to mandate and objectives of the Expert Panel.

Innu Nation, Nunatsiavut Government, and NunatuKavut Community Council may each appoint its own expert to serve on the Expert Panel.

The Chair would be selected by the Province from amongst the members of the Expert Panel.

The Expert Panel will be supported by Cabinet Secretariat and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

The Panel has a mandate to recommend potential approaches for the government to

ensure maximum long-term benefits from the Churchill Falls assets, the 5,428-megawatt generating station and associated transmission facilities in Labrador, including future upgrades and expansion to the facility (the Assets), given the expiry of the current contract in 2041. The Panel will educate the public and government on the current contracts implications for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Falls Power Contract, current operation and ownership of the Churchill Falls

Generating station by:

a) Reviewing the current contractual, financial and legislative arrangements for the 1969 Churchill Falls Contract between CFLCo and HQ.

b) Reviewing the potential alternative contractual, financial and legislative considerations for CFLCo and the Asset post-2041.

c) Reviewing the current and projected revenue streams to the Province from CFLCo, and what options the Province may have to increase such revenue (including the export sale of recall power and infrastructure upgrades to increase available power for export).

a) Advice on the development of a strategy for engagement with HQ for power export and/or sale.

b) Advice on the identification of opportunities to market energy from this asset for export to consumers in eastern Canada and the Northeastern US (through traditional transmission).

c) Advice on the identification of opportunities to market energy from this asset to companies that want to establish operations inside the province for local consumption (such as development of green steel).

d) Advice on the identification of opportunities to market energy from this asset to companies that want to establish operations inside the province for alternate export (such as hydrogen).

e) Advice on direction to NLH to begin engagement in potential markets.

5. MeetingsPanel meetings will be held on a monthly basis, with additional engagement as required.

2022 05 1112:00 pm

View original post here:

Expert Panel on Churchill Falls 2041 Announced; Premier Furey and Minister Parsons Available to the Media - News Releases - Government of Newfoundland...

The World Bank summarisesSri Lankas economic woes this way: Sri Lankas macroeconomic challenges are linked to years of high fiscal deficits, driven primarily by low revenue collection, and erosion of export competitiveness due to a restrictive trade regime and weak investment climate. The description could fit many other economies, including Malaysias, which is why the crisis has invited many commentaries on the parallels and prospects for these countries.

Sri Lanka has witnessed years of fiscal deficits and yet a populist government has promised and delivered tax cuts. It has an economy whose production structure remains largely the same. Sri Lankas economic problems are captured by two numbers its twin deficits in fiscal and current accounts, which means the country has been spending more than what it earned, and its production of tradable goods and services were inadequate to make up for the shortages. All of these meant that it has been an economy that has been borrowing and because there have not been surpluses in the economy, it has been borrowing externally, which added another dimension of risk.

The Covid pandemic broke the already broken economy, which depended largely on tourism and remittances from Sri Lankans abroad to bring in foreign exchange. When those two pipelines stopped flowing, the economy convulsed. There was simply no money to pay for imports and to service existing loans, which then resulted in defaults. And as the currency weakened and shortages occurred, inflation soared and a vicious cycle ensued. The misery from this economic collapse is far worse than that of Covid-19. It is far more pervasive.

For all its advantages when it gained independence, its economy never really developed beyond what made it economically useful to the British producing tea and minerals. India is the neighbour with 1.38 billion people to the countrys 23 million and yet they lived separate economic lives. That has its origins in how history unfolded between them but they have not been able to go beyond that juncture, and this lack of economic integration has been especially bad for Sri Lanka. The potential to leverage such a neighbour to grow its tradable sector was never exploited. It went on to do the same things while also failing to attract other investors. When things became desperately bad, the government embarked on some harebrained schemes that worsened conditions.

It was politics that is defined by the incendiary combination of race and religion that held back and eventually caused the economic crisis in Sri Lanka. Here, we see parallels. There are always the intertwining interests of economic and political elites anywhere, but when power is concentrated among the few in the presence of weakened institutions, it is both corrupting and debilitating. One would have thought such powers would enable difficult decisions to be taken, but that is rarely the case. Political interests would typically be driven by self-preservation and self-perpetuation; they are rarely altruistic. Political survival can be at the expense of almost anything, including things that are bad economically or divisive socially.

If Sri Lanka was largely a case of bad politics creating bad economics, Venezuela is arguably a case of bad economics resulting in bad politics. Venezuela still has the worlds largest oil reserves in the world. This manna from heaven is a natural endowment, potentially good for the country in the long run, but one that has to be managed carefully for that to be true and avoid the resource curse the failure of many economies to benefit fully from this natural endowment. The hydrocarbon economy is still the dominant part of the global economy so oil riches are still riches. Oil-rich states are still producing oil and despite the cyclical prices, are making money.

The jury is still out on whether predominantly oil-producing countries have successfully hedged against the day when oil runs out or for when the demand for it dwindles but Venezuela, the country with the largest oil reserves, is the only such country that has gone bankrupt. Venezuela went through the Sri Lankan experience much earlier.

Governance is always problematic in economies that are dominated by extractive natural resources such as oil and gas and all types of minerals. One can extend that argument to large-scale plantations as well; they are extractive in a different sense, and plantations involve large tracts of land and access to such lands, like access to mining tracts, involves the state and therefore political lobbying of some sort. Oil and mining companies take care of the government who are supposed to take care of the people.

Whichever way the natural resources are extracted or cultivated, and how revenues flow from these activities into the treasury, it is the case that the accountability on the government is markedly different if revenues that flow into the treasury were taxes paid by the populace instead. The issue of taxation without representation is exactly about how taxpayers money is spent. A citizenry that largely does not pay taxes still expects things from the government but does not hold government accountable for how it raises revenues and how they are spent.

These dynamics create bad politics as the citizenry view the government as custodians instead of elected managers and caretakers of their collective interests. The Venezuelan experience shows how politics became dominated by the military or some strongman which, despite the oil wealth, left a huge part of the population behind. That eventually gave rise to populist politics that led to the election of leaders who spent the wealth that oil created without investing in any new productive capacities an unsustainable path waiting to collapse regardless of the intentions. This was where Venezuela found itself: a major oil-producing and exporting economy that validated the resource curse.

While Malaysia is not exactly Sri Lanka or Venezuela, it shares parallels with both countries. Developments in the last two decades or so are eerily similar. While the fiscal deficits have persisted for over two decades in Malaysia, the current account, while still in surplus, is barely a surplus. We are also seeing the same paralysis in taking corrective action in an environment that is increasingly divisive, all the while on a gentle glide downwards.

A key element in Malaysias political economy is rents. The resource-based industries and the plantation sector, and one can also include property development in that group, are all defined by rents. Any enterprise that depends crucially on state approval contains rents. Even the governments so-called distributive policies are effectively about distribution of rents in the forms of quotas, permits, licences or contracts. Where there are rents, there are all kinds of rent-seeking activities which are totally unproductive economic activities at the aggregate level, but worthwhile enterprises at the micro level. These competitions for rents are not just wasteful and distort resource allocation, thereby creating inefficiencies everywhere, they are corrupting and undermine the rule of law, which explains why investors shy away from such jurisdictions.

The failure of the distributive policies all these decades to address inequality or create a vibrant commercial class are ample proof that they do not work. They benefit the already able, winners in the lobbying game, and waste a lot of resources. Beyond that, these policies inhibit the growth of new businesses. The farmers who cultivate state land to develop produce that is competitive, despite the lack of any security of tenure, will always lose out to the lobbyist for a property developer.

The rentier culture is anti-competitive and inhibits innovation and risk-taking, which goes a long way to explain the problems Malaysia is facing in creating new sources of economic growth. As was the case for Venezuela, it was never about the lack of resources whether to aid the needy or develop the economy. There were just inefficiencies, wastage and leakages. That is why we spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure and have bigger traffic jams and floods.

I have written in an earlier essay cautioning how the normalisation of monetary policy in developed economies in the post-Covid era, made a whole lot more complicated by the Russia-Ukraine war, will pose serious challenges to the Malaysian economy. We are not where Sri Lanka was before its default, but we see the tell-tale signs: a weakening ringgit, rising inflation, increasing costs of financing the fiscal deficits and elements of fiscal populism in spite of declining revenues. We have seen an economy unable to create decent paying jobs. This year will be another challenging year and the coming months will be quite telling.

Some have argued that the solution is a strong government, something I disagree with. It will just be exploited to win votes or suppress dissent. We need an effective government to provide the basic services and protect our rights and liberties, and a government that is not in the way of things. Avoiding the fates of Sri Lanka or Venezuela requires less, not more government to obtain good economics in spite of bad politics.

Dr Nungsari A Radhi is an economist

Visit link:

My Say: Bad politics and bad economics - The Edge Markets MY

With central banks aggressively raising interest rates and the word recession suddenly on a lot of lips, everyone is nervously looking at every statistical release for signs that the economy has started to dip.

You dont need to look all that hard. It has. Frankly, it has run out of room to go any other direction.

Recent data suggest that the wave of economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession has already crested. Fast-rising interest rates may be applying the brakes on an economy that has begun to decelerate anyway.

On the other hand, if central bank rate hikes signal that the party is coming to an end, they do so at a time when the punch bowl is full. Its a long way to go before a slowdown from the peak of an economic cycle starts to look like a recession.

Recession worries widespread as interest rates rise: poll

Its time for central bankers to wield the blunt tool of raising interest rates

Consider last Fridays employment report from Statistics Canada. Jobs grew a puny 15,000 in April, which, given margins of error, amounts to a statistical goose egg. This marked the first month since the recovery from the recession began that the labour market truly stalled, without any new wave of the virus or increase of public-health restrictions to blame.

Economists viewed the number not so much with alarm as resignation. The unemployment rate is the lowest on modern record, and businesses have been widely reporting acute labour shortages for months. The supply of available labour has effectively run dry.

Meanwhile, Canadas housing market has taken a decided turn, as the Bank of Canadas rate hikes have had an almost instant numbing effect. National home sales fell more than 5 per cent in March from the previous month, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association; preliminary figures for April indicate 20-per-cent-plus slumps in the long-booming major markets of Toronto and Vancouver.

The speed and severity of the sales drop suggest that the countrys housing market was ripe for a downturn, just waiting for a catalyst. With the Bank of Canada expected to raise rates considerably higher still over the next few months, housing could continue to slow for a while.

In both cases, these elements of the economy were giving off clear signs of being strained to their limits. A slowdown is not only inevitable, but healthy, and levels of activity remain elevated even with the pullback. Nevertheless, a slowing of hiring, and of residential real estate, implies deceleration of two of the most important drivers of Canadas growth during the recovery from the COVID-19 recession. Their retreat is a pretty good indication that the economy, having already reached the limits of its capacity, is headed into the downside of the economic cycle.

In the United States, meanwhile, some economists argue that the descent was under way long before the Fed jumped into rate increases with both feet last week. The U.S. government recently estimated that the economy contracted at an annualized pace of 1.4 per cent in the first quarter of 2022. Economist David Rosenberg, of Toronto-based Rosenberg Research and Associates Inc., points out that since October, when U.S. real GDP peaked, the economy is down at a 2.4-per-cent annualized rate.

Sbastien McMahon, senior economist at Industrial Alliance Investment Management, says there is mounting evidence that high inflation is eroding U.S. consumer demand.

Inflation is now pushing real (inflation adjusted) U.S. disposable income on a downward trajectory, meaning that purchasing power is contracting, he said in an e-mail last week.

The economic view for Canada looks somewhat brighter, as the war in Ukraine has further elevated already high prices for oil and commodities, giving Canadas substantial resource sector a lift. Nevertheless, with the United States accounting for three-quarters of Canadian exports, Canadas economy is heavily exposed to any U.S. slowdown. At any rate, Canadas exports to the U.S. soared 25 per cent over the past two quarters suggesting that the export sector may be another part of the economy poised for a slowing of unsustainable growth.

The economy has had a great run indeed, a remarkable run, given the severity and uncertainty of the COVID-19 recession but were looking over the edge of the peak. From here, the risks to the downside are not only unavoidable, theyre now visible. That came into focus in last weeks sell-off in the stock market which, as portfolios shrink in this adjustment of thinking, presents yet another drag on demand and growth.

Any time the economic cycle turns downward, theres some danger that it ends in recession. Thats exacerbated when monetary policy is leaning hard into the descent, as it is now.

But lets remember and this is the Bank of Canadas key argument this isnt an economic shock up-ending an economy in mid-expansion. We really are going into this from the top, from a position of considerable strength. The economy can decline a lot from this point while still maintaining healthy levels of activity, employment and growth. Thats certainly the hope, as the bank devotes its attention to shutting down inflation.

The one factor that could carry both the Canadian and U.S. economies through this is the huge glut of household savings that have built up over the pandemic. Those savings could sustain consumer demand even as employment gains wane, borrowing costs rise and inflation nibbles away at real incomes.

But the key drivers that have propelled consumption up until now booming employment, surging housing wealth, rising stock markets look unlikely to do so for much longer, if at all. Without them, inflation and rising borrowing costs will be pretty high hurdles for consumer demand to clear, even with those savings to draw upon.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion: As interest rates rise, the economy may already be descending from its peak - The Globe and Mail

Should large shareholders divest from high-emitting industries? Experts in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investments believe this approach is not the most effective means of addressing the climate crisis. Instead of fossil fuel divestment, they posit that investors can make a significant impact through engagement, as their financial power can influence boardrooms to adopt more socially responsible business practices.

Within the first months of 2022, the world has already been hit by a range of environmental disasters resulting in financial losses, injuries, and even casualties. These are not isolated events, however. The percentage of the global population susceptible to natural hazards has steadily increased over the years and will continue to grow unless adequate climate preventive action is taken. Covid-19 and climate change have created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has disproportionately affected the most vulnerable groups of society. This has exposed and exacerbated socio-economic disparities within and between countries, highlighting the need for greater integration of environmental and sustainability strategies globally. Since 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the universal blueprint for achieving sustainable economic and social development for the period running up until 2030. Their implementation is the responsibility of both governments and the private sector.

As the major players in production and industry, businesses are morally obliged to actively participate in the fight against climate change. Tackling the worlds social and environmental challenges requires undertaking initiatives of a scale that only the business community can achieve. In the past few years, the private sector has shown more willingness to take accountability for its impact on the environment, recognising that a more sustainable world could also benefit its business operations. A large majority of the worlds business executives are concerned about climate change, and a significant percentage are already facing such challenges in their organisations; nearly 30% of executives are experiencing the operational impact of climate-related disasters, and more than a quarter report encountering resource scarcity. Despite corporate setbacks from the pandemic and the subsequent economic downturn, the significance of this newfound commitment to sustainability is expected to grow exponentially in the following years.

Moreover, younger generations are dramatically transforming the workplace. The fight against climate change is characterised by a clear generational divide: young Millennials and the Generation Z are at the forefront of the sustainability movement, and their voices are expected to become more prominent as they enter the workforce. Furthermore, the disruptive force of the pandemic is acting as a pivot point for societal transformation. Covid-19 resulted in an economy-wide shock not seen in many generations. The business community has begun to fear that the environmental crisis will have a similarly wide-ranging macroeconomic effect, but of greater proportions.

Today, companies must demonstrate their commitment to climate action under mounting pressure from numerous stakeholders. Among these, investors hold a great deal of influence over organisations business conduct. Once a secondary concern, sustainability is now deeply integrated into investing criteria. The growing investor interest in ESG factors places intense focus and scrutiny on ESG metrics and methodologies which can provide insight into a companys emissions, as well as its climate risk mitigation abilities and renewable energy strategies. Concurrently, ESG ratings present various shortcomings, such as high levels of inconsistency across rating providers. This is partially a consequence of a lack of clarity and transparency concerning the methodologies used, highlighting the need for data standardisation. Despite obvious barriers to objectivity, studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between receiving a good rating on material sustainability issues and achieving high financial performance.

You might also like: What is the Future of Sustainability Reporting?

With that being said, should investors redirect their trillions away from hard-to-abate sectors? Among responsible investors, there is an ongoing ethical dilemma regarding how to address their financial interests in high-emitting corporations: remaining engaged and engendering change behind closed doors; or divesting their financial holdings to exert pressure on company reputation and balance sheets.

BlackRock, the worlds largest asset manager, pledged in 2020 to eliminate companies that generate more than 25% of their revenues from thermal coal production from its active investment portfolio. The financial firms decision, initially praised by climate activists, was later vehemently criticised as it only pertained to a fraction of the coal industry.

In the eyes of Kaitlyn Allen, fossil fuel divestment is not the right answer for achieving zero-emission. Allen serves as the Vice President of ESG at ClimeCo, a global sustainability company advancing the low-carbon future with market-based solutions, and has extensive expertise in ESG investing and corporate sustainability communications strategy. According to her ,divesting out of hard-to-abate companies is not the most effective means of addressing the climate crisis. Instead, she strongly believes that it is necessary to engage with high-emitting industries, as they represent the biggest obstacle to net-zero. These industries are in fact responsible for a significant proportion of global emissions; their successful decarbonisation would represent an enormous step toward bending the emissions curve downward.

Allen says that high emitting and fossil fuel divestment leads to environmentally conscious investors losing their voice within corporate policy-crafting, whereas through active engagement, they have the critical opportunity to shift company behaviour. By selling off their share, she explains, they will not shift the needle towards net-zero emissions. The perspectives of academics researching business and management seem to accord with Allens view. A study conducted by two business professors from the University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School and Stanford Graduate School of Business demonstrates that ESG divestitures from what they refer to as dirty companies do not have enough impact on the cost of capital to affect any meaningful business decisions. In order to drive real change, investors should retain their stake and exercise their control rights, demanding companies take necessary action on social and environmental issues. Likewise, research published by professors at the universities of Trento, Harvard, and Chicago argues that in terms of pressuring companies to act in a socially responsible manner, engagement is more effective than divesting. Kaitlyn asserts that in addition to being proven inefficient, fossil fuel divestment may result in shares being acquired by investors that do not care about the environment.

The business community has finally realised their exposure to climate risks, recognising their responsibility in ensuring the most carbon-intensive industries make the transition needed to cap global warming. Investors have the power and the resources to drive this change and actively contribute to climate action. Finally, greater transparency in the ESG regulatory environment will positively influence the perceived legitimacy and adoption of climate finance initiatives. Investing in environmentally conscious companies aimed at supporting mitigation and adaptation actions, as well as ensuring the worlds largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take the necessary step towards emission reduction, are essential in reaching a net-zero outcome.

See the original post:

Fossil Fuel Divestment Versus Engagement on the Road to Net-Zero - EARTH.ORG

The Peoples Republic of Chinas emergence as a global power is rooted in the rapid development of a sovereign innovation infrastructure, one that allows China to compete in high-technology races with the United States. Chinas build-up of its innovation infrastructure is complemented by another process: an intensifying cooperation with the Russian Federation in security, trade, energy supplies, artificial intelligence, 5G, space research, and biotechnology. Moscow and Beijing have a complicated history of interactions. Previously, China and the Soviet Union were isolated from the world market of technology, and after the Sino-Soviet relationship worsened, they were also isolated from each other. However, today, in light of deteriorating relations with the United States, strategic alignment emerges. The U.S. and the European Unions decoupling from business with China and imposing economic sanctions on Russia push the two countries to examine the potential of their strategic cooperation more closely.[1]

China and Russia are very different in terms of their innovation performance. China has an ascending trajectory and has already advanced to self-sufficient manufacturing of sophisticated intermediate goods.[2] It is well integrated into global innovation networks, while Russia is not. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has been sliding down a descending trajectory.[3] It became a natural resource exporter heavily dependent on imports of foreign technology.

Regardless of these differences, Beijing and Moscow are actively developing a joint innovation infrastructure. The two countries declared 2020 and 2021 the Cross Years of Russian and Chinese scientific, technical, and innovation cooperation.[4] China demonstrated its ability in launching and managing large-scale projects and leads in Sino-Russian partnerships. Most of the infrastructure projects take place under the auspices of the Belt and Road Initiative.[5] For example, one of its institutes is Russia-China Investment Fund, a private equity fund established jointly by the Russian Direct Investment Fund and China Investment Corporation, which equally committed USD 2 billion.[6]

Lomonosov Moscow State University (left) and Tsinghua University Campus (right). (Adobe Stock)

The purpose of building this type of infrastructure is to accelerate Sino-Russian partnerships in science and technology and facilitate technology transfer. In 2020, the two countries announced the construction of the first Sino-Russian Innovation Complex, a joint venture of Tus-Holdings, Russian Direct Investment Fund, Tsinghua University, and Lomonosov Moscow State University. The purpose of this Innovation Complex is to prepare for future joint research and development centers, university labs for basic research, and science parks. This project followed the establishment in 2016 of the first Sino-Russian university founded by Beijing Institute of Technology, Shenzhen Municipal Peoples Government, and Lomonosov Moscow State University.[7] The new universitys mission is to to nurture talents for the Belt and Road Initiative.[8] Few joint research centers, for instance, in computational mathematics and cybernetics, were launched, and there are plans to open other centers in chemistry and materials, biology, and space science.[9]

In addition, the Russia-China Investment Fund, in partnership with Tus-Holdings, supports the construction of the Sino-Russian High-Tech Innovation Park at the Skolkovo Innovation Centre. According to the press release, Tus-Holdings is considering the possibility to create a network of innovation facilities in Russia by building new technology parks in other areas of the country.[10] Another science and technology park within Lomonosov Moscow State University is anticipated and is expected to become a platform for innovative cooperation between scientific and technological workers and scientific and technological enterprises of the two countries.[11]

These projects are recent, and at the moment, it is unclear whether they would be successful in spurring actual innovation in the near future. What is clear, though, is that their proliferation in the last few years signals the commitment to closer and long-term integration of the Russian and Chinese innovation systems. Such integration is incremental and might take decades. In the words of Tus-Holdings Chairman Jiwu Wang, the companys vision is an ecosystem of innovative cooperation in science and technology between China and Russia . . . and deepening economic integration between the two countries [emphasis added].[12]

(sputnikvaccine.com)

Chinese-Russian technological alignment has been particularly apparent in the sector of biotechnology. Broadly, biotechnology refers to the manipulation of living organisms or their compounds to produce new products or services. Biotechnology is perceived to be a key strategic technology for industrial growth and is distinguished from other technological sectors for its capacity to alter the means of production across a variety of industrial sectors.[13] Examples of the sectors include pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and food processing, and extend to dual-use technologies.

Biotechnology is a strategic sector for China. The Made in China 2025 Initiative sets the goal of manufacturing high-tech products, including innovative medicines.[14] The plan introduced targets for Chinese pharmaceutical firms to advance in biotechnology innovation and increase exports.[15] About half of all industrial parks in China focus on the development of pharmaceuticals.[16] By 2018, China established 111 biotechnology science parks.[17] Although China still lags behind the U.S. in biotechnology innovation, analysts concede that it is rapidly progressing and closing this gap.[18] So far, Chinas efforts have concentrated on creating the necessary infrastructure for biotechnology development.

In turn, Russia has rich natural resources, but over 80% of biotech products are imported, and Russias share in the global market of biotech products is below 0.1%.[19] Russian biotech is a sector that experienced massive brain drain after the break-up of the Soviet Union, with many scientists leaving for Western countries and Israel.[20] The persistent challenge for the Russian biotechnology industry, including the biopharmaceutical industry, is its critical dependency on imports. Between 1992 and 2014, the production of substances (active pharmaceutical ingredients) decreased by a factor of 20.[21] According to the Ministry of Industrial Policy of Russia, in 2015, the country imported 95% of active pharmaceutical ingredients required to produce finished pharmaceuticals.[22] In 2018, the share of foreign medicines on the Russian market constituted 70.2% by value and 39.4% by volume. In 2019, foreign medicines generated USD 19.6 billion in income, which was about 70% of the Russian pharmaceutical market.[23] By some accounts, this sum is larger than what Russia earns from its arms export.[24] Pharmaceutical imports exceed exports by 14 times.[25] By all formal indicators in life-science research and biotechnology, such as gross domestic product (GDP) expenditure on R&D, patents, and journal publications, Russia lags behind the United States, China, France, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and India.[26]

Yet, Russia sees biotechnology as a priority area for its future.[27] The first post-Soviet strategic document in this area was enacted in 2012 and entitled the State Coordination Program for the Development of Biotechnology in the Russian Federation until 2020 (BIO 2020). Around USD 18 million was invested in the development of biotechnology, with 22% directed to biomedicine and biopharmaceuticals research.[28] The results of the program are considered limited, except for some improvement in vaccine and monoclonal antibodies research.[29] The state programs in the pharmaceutical industry appear to be more specific and thus more practical.

For example, the State Program for the Development of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Industry until 2020 (PHARMA 2020), published in 2014, attempted to reduce Russias dependency on foreign medical technologies. Sanctions put added pressure on import substitution in this area.[30] As a result of this program, 50 new industrial sites were built, 130 new medicines entered the market (9 of which were classified as innovative), and 8 scientific-research centers of pre-clinical development were built or reconstructed.[31] In addition, PHARMA 2020 launched several biopharmaceutical projects, including those of Biocad and Generium,[32] some of the largest producers of the Sputnik V vaccine.[33]

Moscow approved PHARMA 2030 in December 2021. The main difference between PHARMA 2020 and PHARMA 2030 is a call for an upgrade from import substitution to an innovative model of production. In nine years, Russia aims to double the production of local medicines and medical equipment and increase their export. The program foresees investment in infrastructure to allow for deepening cooperation between production, science, and education.[34]

According to data from the Eurasian Economic Commission, Russias innovative companies include few active players: Generium, ChemRar, Biocad, and Pharmapark.[35] ChemRar, a high-tech center in the Moscow region, hosts a handful companies benefiting from its infrastructure and scientific-research institute. One of the objectives of the center is conducting R&D for its partners especially around innovative antibiotics. In 2020, ChemRar, with the help of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), developed a specific medicine for anti-coronavirus treatment, Avifavir, which is currently supplied to 15 countries.[36] Avifavir is based on a known substance Favipiravir, originally developed in Japan to treat influenza, but ChemRar conducted clinical trials to confirm its effectiveness in treating COVID-19 specifically. Pharmapark, another Moscow-based company, is Russias top producer of the active pharmaceutical ingredient interferon alfa-2b and covers 80% of local demand of Russian producers of finished pharmaceuticals. Some of these companies are becoming instrumental in Sino-Russian biotech partnership.

When it comes to breakthroughs, what is notable about the Russian biopharma industry is the persistent Soviet legacy of production being subordinated to research institutes. By estimates, about 30 universities, mostly in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, have programs in biotechnology, and about 50 institutes of the Russian Academy of Science conduct biology research.[37] Consider the Russian COVID-19 vaccines as an example. The Sputnik V vaccine came out from the Gamaleya Institute, a state-owned research institute, not from industry. The Novosibirsk-based state-owned scientific center, Vektor State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, developed the EpiVacCorona vaccine.[38] Similarly, state-owned Chumakov Scientific Center for Research and Development of Immune-and-Biological Products of Russian Academy of Sciences developed the KoviVac vaccine.[39]

(sputnikvaccine.com)

Arguably, Russias weak point is not in the development of biopharmaceutical innovation but in scaling-up of production. In the biotechnology sector, innovative projects are financially supported through Russian development institutes, such as Skolkovo, Russian Venture Company, and Rusnano.[40] Often, their resources only suffice for the development stage but not for substantially increasing production. For the latter, the Russian Foreign Direct Investment Fund plays a bigger role, but it would be limited without help from its international partners. This is where Chinas resources find a good application.

Notwithstanding the respective limitations of national biotech industries, Russia and Chinas cooperation has recently intensified and involved the use of the joint innovation infrastructure projects mentioned above. For example, Russian company Biocad,[41] together with Chinese manufacturer Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding (SPH), created a joint venture, SPH Biocad, based in China. SPH Biocad will commercialize Biocads portfolio of medicines (e.g., oncology and autoimmune treatment) in the Chinese market.[42] The joint venture received USD 400 million in funding, in which SPH holds 50.1% and Biocad 49.9%.[43] The long-term plan is to turn the joint venture from a generic producer into an innovative player.[44]

Another example of the use of the joint innovation infrastructure to advance biopharmaceutical cooperation is the Russia-China Investment Fund. In 2020, it invested in the creation of the Russian pharmaceutical holding Binnopharm Group.[45] In the same year, Binnopharm Group joined a group of companies involved in the production of the Sputnik V vaccine. With consolidated assets, Binnopharm Group became one of the top three largest pharmaceutical manufacturers in Russia and now owns the portfolio of over 450 registered medicines, the most among Russian companies.[46] Binnopharm Group plans to establish a new R&D center in Krasnogorsk (Moscow region) by integrating R&D centers of the enterprises that were merged and invest USD 33 million in the development of 100 new medicines by 2025.[47] The impact on biopharmaceutical innovation of this merger is yet to be seen. Evidently though, China has been behind the major projects aiming to help Russia create and improve the necessary infrastructure for the development of biopharmaceuticals industry. Infrastructure for innovation-based industries, such as biotechnology, is a key pillar, and Chinas kind of investment in Russia is aimed to develop and upgrade the necessary innovation capabilities.

In addition to joint investments, China and Russia have launched bilateral research projects. The countries agreed to establish a joint laboratory for research on COVID-19. The National Fund of Natural Sciences of China and the Russian Fund of Fundamental Research will supervise the project.[48] In a similar vein, the Russian Vektor State Research Centre of Virology and Biotechnology have cooperated with the Ministry of Science and Technology of China on projects related to the human avian influenza (bird flu).[49] The exchange of vaccine technology and declarations to combine efforts in coronavirus research accelerated the formation of the institutional links between the Chinese and Russian innovation systems, especially in the biotechnology sector. It signals the countries commitment to an enduring innovation partnership.[50]

The processes addressed in this paper have been unfolding before the war in Ukraine. Western decoupling from China and Russia has been pushing the two countries towards deepening their cooperation. The accelerating Sino-Russian innovation cooperation projects confirm this assumption. While it can be premature to assess the levels of joint biopharmaceutical innovation, the implications of Chinas engagement with the Russian biotech are not trivial. The nature of this engagement goes beyond investment projects, aiming to strengthen the institutional links between research organizations, manufacturers, and sovereign funds of the two nations. After February 24, 2022, Western sanctions and companies fleeing Russia will force Moscow to seek deeper cooperation with China in high-tech sectors. Russian biotech is not a self-sufficient industry and requires international partnerships to develop. But Russia is now limited in who it can partner with. Given the past trajectory of joint innovation partnership, naturally, China is now Russias ultimate bet when it comes to biotechnology development. Russian biotech future is in Chinas hands. There are not currently signs that China will change its favorable position towards Russia; hence, Sino-Russian innovation partnerships will likely intensify.

[1] Samuel Bendett and Elsa Kania, A New Sino-Russian High-Tech Partnership, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, October 2019, https://www.aspi.org.au/report/new-sino-russian-high-tech-partnership.

[2] Richard E. Baldwin, The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016), p. 294.

[3] For more details, see, Svitlana Lebedenko, Russian Innovation in the Era of Patent Globalization, IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 53, no. 2 (2022): pp. 173-193.

[4] Desheng Cao, China, Russia Enhance Links in Sci-Tech Innovation, China Daily, November 2021, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202111/27/WS61a16e3ea310cdd39bc77dbd.html.

[5] A long-term project announced by the General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2013 and envisioned to be completed by 2049.

[6] Russia-China Investment Fund, http://rcif.com/. See also: Belt and Road Initiative, BRI Institutions, https://www.beltroad-initiative.com/institutions-and-mechanisms/.

[7] About the University: Brief, Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, https://en.smbu.edu.cn/About_the_University/Brief.htm.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Development Plan, Shenzhen MSU-BIT University, https://en.smbu.edu.cn/info/1035/1258.htm.

[10] Russian Direct Investment Fund, RCIF and Tus-Holdings expand comprehensive cooperation in the technology & innovation sector, September 11, 2018, https://rdif.ru/Eng_fullNews/3412/.

[11] RDIF, RCIF and Tus-Holdings agree to jointly establish innovation center at Lomonosov Moscow State University, April 26, 2019, https://rdif.ru/Eng_fullNews/4050/.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Susan Bartholomew, National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System, in Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, ed. Charles Edquist and Maureen McKelvey, I (Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2000), pp. 444-445.

[14] Rolf Schmid and Xin Xiong, Biotech in China Innovation, Politics, and Economics (Singapore: Jenny Stanford Publishing, 2021), p. 285.

[15] Adolfo Arranz, Made in China 2025: Beijing Bets on Biotech, South China Morning Post, October 2018, https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/2167415/china-2025-biotech/index.html?src=social.

[16] Chinas Biotech Parks Leveraging the Ecosystem for Success (Deloitte, May 2021), p. 2, https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/life-sciences-and-healthcare/articles/pr-china-biotech-parks-leveraging-the-ecosystem-for-success.html.

[17] Ibid.

[18] For indicators and comparative statistics, see, Robert D. Atkinson, Chinas Biopharmaceutical Strategy: Challenge or Complement to U.S. Industry Competitiveness? (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, August 2019), https://itif.org/publications/2019/08/12/chinas-biopharmaceutical-strategy-challenge-or-complement-us-industry.

[19] Anna Grebenyuk and Nikolai Ravin, The Long-Term Development of Russian Biotech Sector, Foresight 19, no. 5 (September 2017): pp. 491, 498.

[20] Gigi Kwik Gronvall and Brittany Bland, Life-Science Research and Biosecurity Concerns in the Russian Federation, The Nonproliferation Review, February 2021, pp. 3-4.

[21] Vladimir V. Moiseev, State Policy of Economic Development of Modern Russia (2000-2016) (translation by author) (Moscow: Direkt-Media, 2017), p. 297.

[22] Information on the Results of Analysis of the State and Development of the Biotechnology Industry of Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union Working Materials (Translation by Author), (Moscow: Eurasian Economic Commission, Department of Industrial Policy, 2015), p. 27.

[23] Balakin, Ayginin, and Ivashenko, Russian Pharmaceutical Industry until 2030: Analytic Overview (Translation by Author), p. 38.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Aleksandr V. Evstratov, Main Tendencies and Ways of Development of the Pharmaceutical Market in the Russian Federation (translation by author) (Volgograd: VolgGTU, 2018), p. 18.

[26] Gronvall and Bland, p. 8.

[27] Ibid, p. 4.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Arthur Boyarov, Alina Osmakova, and Vladimir Popov, Bioeconomy in Russia: Today and Tomorrow, New Biotechnology 60 (January 2021), p. 36.

[31] K.V. Balakin, A.A. Ayginin, and A.A. Ivashenko, Russian Pharmaceutical Industry until 2030: Analytic Overview (Translation by Author) (Dolgoprudny: Biopharmaceutical Claster Severnyi, 2021), pp. 42-43.

[32] Boyarov, Osmakova, and Popov, Bioeconomy in Russia, p. 37.

[33] Russian company plans to produce 5-6 mln doses of Sputnik V per month in June-July, Tass, April 6, 2021, https://tass.com/economy/1274415; and The Sputnik V Manufacturer Will Produce 20 Million Doses of Vaccine Per Month (translation by author), Generium, June 5, 2016, https://www.generium.ru/about/press_center/Media_about_us/proizvoditel-sputnika-v-s-iyulya-nachnet-vypuskat-20-mln-doz-vaktsiny-v-mesyats/.

[34] Balakin, Ayginin, and Ivashenko, p. 43.

[35] Information on the Results of Analysis of the State and Development of the Biotechnology Industry of Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union Working Materials (Translation by Author), pp. 28-30.

[36] Russias Avifavir Coronavirus Drug Registered in Indonesia, Russian Direct Investment Fund, March 2021, https://rdif.ru/Eng_fullNews/6644/.

[37] Overview of the Biotechnology Market in Russia and of its Prospects of Development (translation by author) (Frost & Sullivan, 2014), p. 21.

[38] By December 2020, Vektor has also developed a vaccine against HIV and conducted the first phase of clinical trials. Balakin, Ayginin, and Ivashenko, Russian Pharmaceutical Industry until 2030: Analytic Overview (Translation by Author), pp. 41-42.

[39] Pharmaceutical Market of Russia 2020 (Translation by Author) (Moscow: DSM Group, 2020), p. 117.

[40] Overview of the Biotechnology Market in Russia and of its Prospects of Development (translation by author), p. 17.

[41] Biocad is a scientific-production company in the Moscow region with the focus on urology, gynecology, oncology, and neurology products.

[42] Ben Hargreaves, China and Russia Collaborate to Create Biologics Joint Venture, Bio-Pharma Reporter, October 2, 2019, https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Article/2019/10/02/China-and-Russia-collaborate-to-create-biologics-JV.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] The Russian pharmaceutical company Alium was founded in 1994 on the basis of the Research Centre of Applied Microbiology. In 2019, it was acquired by JSC AFK Sistema. In 2020, all the pharmaceutical assets of the JSC AFK Sistema, including Alium, were merged in Binnopharm Group. See, Binnopharm Croup, https://binnopharmgroup.ru/.

[46] Morgan Lewis Advises the Russia-China Investment Fund (RCIF) on Creation of Pharmaceutical Holding, Chambers and Partners, February 2021, https://chambers.com/articles/morgan-lewis-advises-the-russia-china-investment-fund-rcif-on-creation-of-pharmaceutical-holding.

[47] Russias Binnopharm Group Hopes to Launch up to 100 New Drugs in Comin, ThePharmaLetter, September 2021, https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/russia-s-binnopharm-group-hopes-to-launch-up-to-100-new-drugs-in-coming-years.

[48] Ibid.

[49] International Cooperation (Translation by Author), Russian Centre for Virology and Biotechnology Vektor, http://www.vector.nsc.ru/mejdunarodnoe-sotrudnichestvo/.

[50] See, for instance, a declaration of Xi Jinping on deepening the cooperation with Russia on vaccine development. Xi Eyes Deeper Vaccine Cooperation with Russia, Xinhuanet, August 2021, http://www.news.cn/english/2021-08/25/c_1310148390.htm.

Go here to see the original:

The Rise of Sino-Russian Biotech Cooperation - Foreign Policy Research Institute

SANGDONG, South Korea, May 9 (Reuters) - Blue tungsten winking from the walls of abandoned mine shafts, in a town that's seen better days, could be a catalyst for South Korea's bid to break China's dominance of critical minerals and stake its claim to the raw materials of the future.

The mine in Sangdong, 180 km southeast of Seoul, is being brought back from the dead to extract the rare metal that's found fresh value in the digital age in technologies ranging from phones and chips to electric vehicles and missiles.

"Why reopen it now after 30 years? Because it means sovereignty over natural resources," said Lee Dong-seob, vice president of mine owner Almonty Korea Tungsten Corp.

Register

"Resources have become weapons and strategic assets."

Sangdong is one of at least 30 critical mineral mines or processing plants globally that have been launched or reopened outside China over the last four years, according to a Reuters review of projects announced by governments and companies. These include projects developing lithium in Australia, rare earths in the United States and tungsten in Britain.

The scale of the plans illustrates the pressure felt by countries across the world to secure supplies of critical minerals regarded as essential for the green energy transition, from lithium in EV batteries to magnesium in laptops and neodymium found in wind turbines.

Overall demand for such rare minerals is expected to increase four-fold by 2040, the International Energy Agency said last year. For those used in electric vehicles and battery storage, demand is projected to grow 30-fold, it added.

Many countries view their minerals drive as a matter of national security because China controls the mining, processing or refining of many of these resources.

The Asian powerhouse is the largest supplier of critical minerals to the United States and Europe, according to a study by the China Geological Survey in 2019. Of the 35 minerals the United States has classified as critical, China is the largest supplier of 13, including rare earth elements essential for clean-energy technologies, the study found. China is the largest source of 21 key minerals for the European Union, such as antimony used in batteries, it said.

"In the critical raw material restaurant, China is sitting eating its dessert, and the rest of the world is in the taxi reading the menu," said Julian Kettle, senior vice president for metals and mining at consultancy Wood MacKenzie.

The stakes are particularly high for South Korea, home of major chipmakers like Samsung Electronics. The country is the world's largest consumer of tungsten per capita and relies on China for 95% of its imports of the metal, which is prized for its unrivalled strength and its resistance to heat.

China controls over 80% of global tungsten supplies, according to CRU Group, London-based commodity analysts.

The mine at Sangdong, a once bustling town of 30,000 residents that's now home to just 1,000, holds one of the world's largest tungsten deposits and could produce 10% of global supply when it opens next year, according to its owner.

Lewis Black, CEO of Almonty Korea's Canadian-based parent Almonty Industries, told Reuters that it planned to offer about half of the operation's processed output to the domestic market in South Korea as an alternative to Chinese supply.

"It's easy to buy from China and China is the largest trading partner of South Korea but they know they're over-dependent," Black said. "You have to have a plan B right now."

Sangdong's tungsten, discovered in 1916 during the Japanese colonial era, was once a backbone of the South Korean economy, accounting for 70% of the country's export earnings in the 1960s when it was largely used in metal-cutting tools.

The mine was closed in 1994 due to cheaper supply of the mineral from China, which made it commercially unviable, but now Almonty is betting that demand, and prices will continue to rise driven by the digital and green revolutions as well as a growing desire by countries to diversify their supply sources.

European prices of 88.5% minimum paratungstate - the key raw material ingredient in tungsten products are trading around $346 per tonne, up more than 25% from a year ago and close to their highest levels in five years, according to pricing agency Asian Metal.

The Sangdong mine is being modernised, with vast tunnels being dug underground, while work has also started on a tungsten crushing and grinding plant.

"We should keep running this kind of mine so that new technologies can be handed over to the next generations," said Kang Dong-hoon, a manager in Sangdong, where a "Pride of Korea" sign is displayed on a wall of the mine office.

"We have been lost in the mining industry for 30 years. If we lose this chance, then there will be no more."

Almonty Industries has signed a 15-year deal to sell tungsten to Pennsylvania-based Global Tungsten & Powders, a supplier to the U.S. military, which variously uses the metal in artillery shell tips, rockets and satellite antennae.

Yet there are no guarantees of long-term success for the mining group, which is investing about $100 million in the Sangdong project. Such ventures may still struggle to compete with China and there are concerns among some industry experts that developed countries will not follow through on commitments to diversify supply chains for critical minerals.

Seoul set up an Economic Security Key Items Taskforce after a supply crisis last November when Beijing tightened exports of urea solution, which many South Korean diesel vehicles are required by law to use to cut emissions. Nearly 97% of South Korea's urea came from China at the time and shortages prompted panic-buying at filling stations across the country.

The Korean Mine Rehabilitation and Resources Corporation (KOMIR), a government agency responsible for national resource security, told Reuters it had committed to subsidise about 37% of Sangdong's tunnelling costs and would consider further support to mitigate any potential environmental damage.

Incoming President Yoon Seok-yeol pledged in January to reduce mineral dependence on "a certain country", and last month announced a new resource strategy that will allow the government to share stockpiling information with the private sector.

South Korea is not alone.

The United States, European Union and Japan have all launched or updated national critical mineral supply strategies over the last two years, laying out broad plans to invest in more diversified supply lines to reduce their reliance on China.

Mineral supply chains have also become a feature of diplomatic missions.

Last year, Canada and the European Union launched a strategic partnership on raw materials to reduce dependence on China, while South Korea recently signed collaboration deals with Australia and Indonesia on mineral supply chains.

"Supply-chain diplomacy will be prioritised by many governments in the coming years as accessing critical raw materials for the green and digital transition has become a top priority," said Henning Gloystein, director of energy and climate resources at the Eurasia Group consultancy.

In November, China's top economic planner said it would step up exploration of strategic mineral resources including rare earths, tungsten and copper.

Investment globally of $200 billion in additional mining and smelter capacity is needed to meet critical mineral supply demand by 2030, 10 times what is being committed currently, Kettle said.

Yet projects have faced resistance from communities who don't want a mine or smelter near their homes.

In January, for example, pressure from environmentalists prompted Serbia to revoke Rio Tinto's lithium exploration licence while U.S. President Joe Biden's administration cancelled two leases for Antofagasta's copper and nickel mines in Minnesota. read more

In Sangdong, some residents are doubtful that the mine will improve their lives.

"Many of us in this town didnt believe the mine would really come back," said Kim Kwang-gil, 75, who for decades lived off the tungsten he panned from a stream flowing down from the mine when it operated.

"The mine doesn't need as many people as before, because everything is done by machines."

Register

Reporting by Ju-min Park and Joe Brock; Additional reporting by Beijing Newsroom and Gavin Maguire; Editing by Kevin Krolicki and Pravin Char

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

View original post here:

Kicking the China habit: South Korea hunts tungsten treasure - Reuters

Daisy Stock, who leads the R&D team at Symbrosia, hold a vial of A. taxiformis, a type of seaweed that can help cut down on methane emissions from livestock. Maui Nui Marine Resource Council photos

A Hawaii-based startup company is working to tackle climate change with tiny but mighty seaweed.

By feeding cows, sheep and other farm animals a natural seaweed-based supplement grown sustainably in state, Symbrosia in Kailua-Kona hopes to improve digestion and reduce livestock methane emissions, which are responsible for 10 percent of total greenhouse gases. Its now eyeing trials at ranches across the state this summer, including on Maui.

Weve gotten some pretty positive reactions from the farmers and ranchers weve spoken to in Hawaii and on the Mainland, said Kylie Tuitavuki, member of the Business Development team. A lot of people recognize that methane from livestock is a huge problem with climate change, and so they want to make sure that they are running in a sustainable way trying to produce livestock while also being environmentally friendly.

Researchers and climate change advocates have long mulled how to reduce agricultures impact on the environment, with some turning their attention to cattle diets. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, recently found that using seaweed in beef cattles diets could reduce their methane emissions as much as 82 percent. The drawback, the researchers said, was that there isnt enough in the wild for broad application.

Thats what makes Symbrosias approach unique it doesnt require large-scale harvesting, only a few cells that they can grow via aquaculture at a facility. While in its early stages, the trials are promising.

Kylie Tuitavuki, member of the Symbrosia Business Development team, hopes to partner with Maui ranchers and farmers in combating climate change through using seaweed-based feed.

When the limu kohu supplement, called SeaGraze, is sprinkled into animal feed, it increases growth rates of the livestock and reduces the methane emissions from cows by over 90 percent, Tuitavuki said.

Made from the red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis, the same type used in the UC Davis study), SeaGraze is packed with natural vitamins, minerals and antioxidants for safe animal consumption.

Limu also plays a vital role, traditionally and culturally, in the marine ecosystem, Tuitavuki said, which means this can be a sustainable and energy-efficient food additive source for farmers and ranchers to feed their livestock.

In an industrial and rapidly changing world, its necessary for us to maintain a balance between social development and sustainable life practices, said Tuitavuiki, a University of Hawaii at Manoa graduate student studying the sustainability of indigenous cropping systems and their potential for revitalizing local food production.

Symbrosia is currently the only company doing this type of work in the U.S. and more information about their operations was shared during a Maui Nui Marine Resource Council presentation on Wednesday via Zoom.

Methane from livestock is the main focus and inspiration behind the product because digestion and burps from cows, sheep, goats and others cause roughly 10 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and with the demand for animal products rising, the problem is very pressing, Daisy Stock, who is the research and development manager at Symbrosia.

Methane stays in the atmosphere for only a dozen years, as opposed to carbon dioxides lifespan of a thousand years, but methane heats the planet much more intensely.

If cows alone were a country, they would produce just about as much greenhouse gases as the entire European Union, she said.

Along with changes in weather patterns due to the climate crisis, sea surface temperatures are expected to rise by 1 to 3 degrees Celsius and sea levels up to 2.6 feet in the coming decade. This in turn will impact coral reefs and shellfish, and disrupt natural habitats and food supply.

There is also expected to be a significant decrease in the number of marine plants in warmer waters, reducing the amount of nutrients available along the food chain, Stock said.

Methane emitted today will have about 80 times the global warming effect of CO2 over the next 20 years, said Stock, who used to work in a NASA laboratory studying meteoric materials. In the short term, reducing methane emissions will have a much larger cooling effect than reducing carbon dioxide by the same amount. This is why were so motivated to achieve a drastic reduction in methane emissions this decade.

Stock said that Asparagopsis taxiformis outperformed the other limu tested in a previous 2014 study at James Cook University and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia for reducing the naturally occurring methane in livestock without impacting the fatty acids needed to produce milk, wool and meat.

Additionally, Symbrosia conducted the worlds first commercial asparagopsis trial in 2020 and saw over 75 percent reduction in enteric (intestinal) methane, according to its website.

The main acting ingredient in Symbrosias supplement SeaGraze involves the natural compound found in the seaweed, called bromoform, which blocks the hydrogen from the carbon, reducing methanogens naturally through improved digestion.

Continued research and feed trials have shown that the methane reductions hold up and using the supplement does not have any adverse effects on animal health or the products expected from these animals, Stock said.

To date, the miracle seaweed supplement has reduced over four tons of CO2-equivalent during trials on the Mainland.

Focusing on land-based, zero-waste cultivation using sun and seawater, the Symbrosia team is currently expanding sustainable production at its facility in Kailua-Kona on Hawaii island and plans to have upcoming feed trials this summer at ranches statewide.

Sampling does not require plant removal. To start seed stocks on a larger scale, the team only needs a few cells of seaweed, she said.

We are collecting, cultivating and partnering with ranchers and farmers throughout the Hawaiian Islands, to support local food systems and the local economy while also fighting against climate change, she said.

Seeing that local food systems stepped up and thrived during the COVID-19 pandemic, Tuitavuki said they hope to support Hawaii-owned-and-operated businesses and producers by partnering with them, such as Hana Ranch, Hawaii Cattlemens Council, Maui Cattle Company and Panewa Feed Mill, as well as organizations and institutions like the Hawaii Food Alliance and UH-Hilo.

As we continue to upscale, we want to make sure that were creating a market that values climate smart commodities in a way that promotes environmental justice and uplifts minority-serving institutions and other marginalized groups, Tuitavuki said. Were doing this by partnering with small farmers, ranchers and producers throughout the Hawaiian Islands and throughout the United States.

Though no market prices were provided for the feed additive yet, Stock said that it would be comparable to what farmers and ranchers are already paying for expensive vitamins to support livestock, except the seaweed-based supplement has the additional benefits for the animals health as well as for nutrient-rich manure.

They are also looking into how they could make participating farmers or ranchers eligible for carbon credits in the future.

Currently, though, the feed trials involving the supplements are cost-free to the ranchers.

Its really important to us through all these processes that our research goals are aligned to scale the solution in a way that paves the way for sustainable aquaculture, thriving marine ecosystems and community-oriented growth, Stock said.

For more information or for those interested in testing out the seaweed feed additive, visit symbrosia.co/seagraze.

* Dakota Grossman can be reached at dgrossman@mauinews.com.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

The Hawaii State Energy Office will host two workshops on Maui next week to share information and get community ...

Gov. David Ige has released $247 million for capital improvement projects across the state, including improvements ...

Gov. David Ige will lead a delegation to Japan to encourage and expand travel to Hawaii, the Governors Office ...

State and county emergency management agencies will participate in weeklong exercises to test the states ...

A man was arrested after a vehicle stolen from Kahului Airport was tracked to a Waikapu address Wednesday.Leroy ...

More here:

Startup looks to seaweed to cut cows' impact on climate - Maui News

To the Editor:

One well-known fact is that oysters are a highly sought-after cuisine up and down the eastern seaboard. The United States oyster industry generates around $214 million annually, North Carolina alone generated $30 million in 2021. What many people do not know is that oysters are a keystone species in the estuary, the health of oysters reflects the overall health of the estuary. Oyster habitats in coastal North Carolina range from deep water reefs in Pamlico Sound to the low patch reefs in the intertidal zone and reefs in the salt marshes along the estuary shorelines. North Carolina is the only state in the United States with both deep water and intertidal zone oyster reefs. However, there is a concern for the survival of the oyster fishery in North Carolina due to increased fishing pressures, increased stock decline due to diseases, poor water quality, and habitat loss.

In January of 2022, many people put in their lease requests for plots of land to grow shellfish in the waters off our coast. However, a number of the requests were denied and there was public opposition based on the premise that oyster aquaculture in the coastal water would ruin the picturesque views of coastal North Carolina. This is a common misconception because there is a lack of education on how oysters are grown, they are not grown above the water in the line of view of anyone. Instead, they are grown using either on-bottom or off-bottom culture. On-bottom culturing of oysters involves cultivating oysters in trays that are placed directly into the sediment, under the water out of view, until they reach market size, then the tray is removed from the ocean floor and the oysters are harvested off the tray. Off-bottom culturing is done by placing the oysters in mesh bags tied to metal tresses, and when they have matured, the bag is removed from the water and the oysters are harvested. In both these methods of oyster farming, it is very unlikely that the systems are easily viewable from outside the water. However, it is important to mention that the metal tresses that the mesh bags are attached to are possibly visible as they will stick out just above the waters surface.

The growing, harvesting, and selling of oysters is a growing, lucrative business in coastal North Carolina. According to Eric Edwards of NC State Universitys Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, farmed oysters generated $14 million in state gross revenue and contributed to the employment of 271 people in 2019. With oyster farming becoming a growing industry, these numbers have only increased and will continue to increase so long as there is a demand for oysters. The expected numbers are that oyster aquaculture will generate $100 million in revenue for North Carolina, while also creating over 1,000 jobs by 2030.

However, oysters dont only generate revenue through the selling of oysters, but they contribute to generating revenue in other marine species industries. In coastal North Carolina, the oyster reefs support the production of crabs and finfish, an industry valued at over $62 million annually. This is because oyster reefs provide a natural habitat for these species, protecting these species from predators and allowing for a greater percentage of survival, which can then be harvested and sold once it reaches market size.

Oysters are filter feeders, meaning they remove harmful pollutants, sediment, and excess algae from the water, with an adult oyster being capable of filtering 15-35 gallons of water a day. Their filtering characteristic is being increasingly needed as coastlines are at an increased [risk] of eutrophication, which is a process that happens when an increase of nutrient runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals enters the waterway, resulting in an increase of algae growth called an algal bloom. Oysters combat this phenomenon by filtering out the excess nutrients and pollution associated with runoff, as well as consuming the algae produced in association with the increase in nutrients. In addition to being natural water filters, they transfer necessary nutrients of plankton in estuaries from the water surface to the bottom where it can then be accessed by juvenile species. Another environmental benefit of oyster reefs is that they provide essential habitat and protection for a diverse number of aquatic species. Not only are species in these habitats used for commercial purposes, but also for recreational use. One healthy oyster reef can provide habitat and protection for over 300 different aquatic animals, including southern flounder, shrimps, clams, and blue crabs, all of which are caught for either commercial or recreational purposes. Oyster aquaculture takes away the pressure and the risk of overharvesting from wild oyster populations.

Oysters are also beneficial in the effort toward slowing down the harmful effects of climate change. Oyster aquaculture produces only 11 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per ton of oysters produced, a value that is drastically smaller than the greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing edible beef, 340 tons per ton of beef produced.

I am no expert on oysters nor do I claim to be, but I am someone who has spent the entirety of their life living on the coast of North Carolina. I have seen first-hand how our town has grown and how our environment and economy are being impacted by this growth. There is a scale of balance between the environment and the economy, where one is increased, the other will fall. The development of homes benefits the economy but has a negative impact on the environment through pollution of the waterways due to runoff. However, oysters are natural filters that filter out the pollution created in the waterways when homes are built and when tourists come through our town. There is a way to balance the scale. A way to keep boosting our economy while also protecting our waterways and environment for many generations to come. Oysters are one of the ways to balance the scale between the environment and the economy.

So, lease the land to grow oysters. Boost the North Carolina economy while also cleaning our waterways. Balance the scale for coastal North Carolina.

Lara Philips

Cape Carteret

READ ABOUT NEWS AND EVENTS HERE.

Read more:

Letter to the Editor Oysters: Good for eating and good for the environment - The Coastland Times | The Coastland Times - The Coastland Times

The global nickel squeeze should turn the world's critical mineral attention on this region, says mining columnist Stan Sudol

The big splash agreement that Elon Musk and his Tesla car company made last week with Brazilian miner Vale should have a ripple effect in the nickel-rich Sudbury basin and across Northern Ontario, according to a Toronto-based mining columnist.

This is a tremendous opportunity to highlight the enormous potential of the Sudbury basin for clean, low-carbon nickel, said Stan Sudol, owner of the Republic of Mining website, who heaped praiseon the Tesla CEO.

Elon is someone who thinks out of the box and by solidifying a secure supply of clean nickel hes ensuring that Tesla continues to be one of the most innovative electric vehicle manufacturers in the world.

On May 6, Tesla and Vale finally confirmed a rumoured deal floating around for months that Canadian-mined and processed nickel from Sudbury and Labrador will be used in the manufacture of Tesla electric vehicle batteries.

Neither company revealed the dollar value or length of the agreement other than it being a multi-year deal.

Two years ago, Musk was urging mining companies to produce more nickel to expedite the transition of the world to electric vehicle transport and clean energy, and to address the coming supply squeeze.

But the global business magnate likely didnt foresee the outbreak of war in Eastern Europe and the skyrocketing price of many mineral commodities in the critical minerals and battery metals sphere.

Sudol said the Ukraine war and trade sanctions against Russia effectively removes 20 per cent of Class 1 nickel also known as nickel sulphide off the global market, a key ingredient used to make electric vehicle (EV) batteries.

Musk and any North American manufacturer dont want to be associated with what can now be termed blood or genocidal nickel, said Sudol.

With nickel-producing countries like Indonesia and thePhilippines increasingly coming under Chinese influence, the emphasis by North American automakers is on securing shorter, domestic supply chains to feed their plants, that leaves Northern Ontario and Canada.

It bodes well for the Sudbury basin and also bodes well for the potential of other nickel discoveries throughout Northern Ontario, said Sudol.

Between the Sudburybasin, the Ring of Fire in the James Bay region, and other mineralized greenstone belts in the northwestern half of this region, Sudol thinks the future of Northern Ontario is extraordinary, because the world is almost depending on this region to help find the nickel, copper and other battery metals to decarbonize.

Nickel, copper, platinum group metals, lithium and graphite are all categorized as critical minerals, as are some of the more obscure elements such as cesium, molybdenum and tungsten. All are key ingredients used in digital devices such as cell phones, batteries for electric vehicles, battery storage, renewable energy and applications in health care, aerospace and the defence industry.

Want to read more stories about business in the North? Subscribe to our newsletter.

Sudol said a high-profile deal like the Tesla-Vale agreement provides an added sweetener for the Ontario government to lure more EV manufacturers to this province.

South of the border, Ontario and Canada are being viewed as major competition to Michigans auto-driven economy due to the federal and provincial governments'critical minerals strategic road map and a willingness to invest in battery plants, retool assembly lines for EV production, and establish related research centres, he said.

But the so-called secret sauce working in Ontarios favour is having the raw mineral material in place to feed the EV sector.

The ace in Ontarios pocket, Sudol said, is the Ring of Fire. The untapped Far North mineral district contains an enormous abundance of many of the critical metals needed to produce batteries for the car makers.

Sudol said that should put more of Northern Ontarios advanced nickel and critical minerals project in play, suggesting there could be more mega-deals deals in the making.

One was already finalized this spring.

Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest used his metals investment arm, Wyloo Metals, to acquire Noront Resources and its major nickel asset in the Ring of Fire.

Thats been the capper, so far, on a slew of Australian investment to stake and acquire mineral properties and mining companies across a broad spectrum of commodities in this region.

And after losing out on Noront, Australias BHP remains on the hunt for Canadian assets after moving its copper and nickel exploration office to Toronto from Chile last year.

When you have the biggest mining company in the world realizing that the future potential for battery metals is Northern Ontario and Canada,then that bodes well for country, Sudol said.

Despite President Joe Bidens call to create a carbon neutral economy, its become increasingly difficult in the U.S. to permit and bring new mines into production, even in traditional mining states, he said.

For example, in January, the U.S. Department of the Interior cancelled two mineral leases for the proposed Twin Metals copper-nickel in northern Minnesota over concerns about its proximity to Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a victory for Indigenous opponents and environmental groups.

Even in a mining district like Nevada, lithium miners are facing an uphill regulatory struggle.

Sudol said thatshould shift the investment focus to more opportunities in the Ring of Fire, into established nickel mining camps like Voiseys Bay, NL,Thompson, MB,and older nickel operations, once shuttered due to plunging commodity prices.

The Sudbury basin is blessed with a polymetallic endowment of copper, cobalt, PGMs, gold and silver as byproduct material from nickel mining, he said.

Sign up for the Sudbury Mining Solutions weekly newsletter here.

Its also a promising time for those in the junior mining space, he said, mentioning privately held Juno Corp.s Ring of Fire assets and Sudbury-based Frontier Lithiums world-class, 40-million-tonne PAK deposit in northwestern Ontario.

Sudol likens todays situation to Northern Ontarios surging resource economy in the post-Second World War era of the 1950s when a thriving U.S. manufacturing base leaned heavily on natural resources excavated and harvested from this region. Many mines and lumber operations were developed and this regions population surged to its highest levels ever.

Were entering a new phase where the decarbonization and electrification of the transport sector is requiring similar huge increases in mining development, and because of the geology of northwestern Ontario, being as rich as it is, there is enormous potential for many, many new mines, not only in Ring of Fire, but toward the Manitoba border," Sudol said.

Weve got a chance to do it over again.

Visit link:

Sudbury, Northern Ontario well positioned to reap the global rewards of the electric vehicle revolution - Northern Ontario Business