New Articles

U.S. States Most Dependent on Fossil Fuels

fossil fuels

U.S. States Most Dependent on Fossil Fuels

With the effects of global climate change becoming increasingly apparent, policymakers across the U.S. are moving to reduce the nation’s reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels.

At the beginning of his term, President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, and in April, the Biden Administration announced aggressive new greenhouse gas reduction goals, including an overall aim to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas pollution to half of 2005 levels by 2030. Meanwhile, nearly 40 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards to facilitate a transition away from fossil fuels for energy production to renewables.

Despite these efforts, however, fossil fuel consumption remains deeply entrenched in the U.S. economy, and it could take years to transition away from fossil fuels as the country’s primary energy source.

Petroleum remains the leading source of energy in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of energy consumed. Energy consumption from natural gas expanded over the last decade as the rise of hydraulic fracturing made it less costly to extract. Most of that growth has come at the expense of coal, which represented 22.7% of the energy consumed in 2008 but just 13.1% a decade later. And while nuclear has held steady and renewables have continued to grow with improved technology and greater scale, fossil fuels still represent more than 80% of total energy consumption in the U.S. each year.

One example of the difficulties of shifting away from fossil fuels is consumers’ relationship to gasoline and car travel. Recently, gasoline prices have been on the rise again: prices dropped sharply in 2020, as many travelers and commuters stayed off the roads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, with many public health restrictions being relaxed as cases decline and more people get vaccinated, prices have topped $3 per gallon nationally for the first time since 2014. But despite what the laws of supply and demand might suggest, rising prices do not strongly affect driver behavior: research shows they tend to purchase the same amount of gasoline regardless of how much it costs. Instead, breaking drivers’ reliance on fossil fuels will depend on auto manufacturers providing more hybrid and electric options, whether by choice or by policy, like California’s zero-emission vehicle regulations.

State-level data reinforces that there is a long way to go before the transition away from fossil fuels is complete. Every single U.S. state derives at least 50% of its energy from fossil fuels, and a total of nine states derive more than 90% of their energy from fossil fuels. Among the most dependent are small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, which import most of their energy from elsewhere, and states with rich stores of fossil fuels, like Alaska, West Virginia, and Kentucky. At the other end of the spectrum are states like Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which rely more on nuclear and renewables like hydroelectric power and derive less than 60% of their energy from fossil fuels.

To find the states most dependent on fossil fuels, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage of total primary energy consumption from coal, natural gas, and petroleum in 2018 (the most recent available data). Researchers also calculated the percentage of total primary energy consumption derived from renewable sources, as well as the largest fossil fuel source.

Here are the states most dependent on fossil fuels.

State Rank Percentage of energy derived from fossil fuels Percentage of energy derived from renewables Total energy consumed from fossil fuels (trillion BTU) Total energy consumed from renewables (trillion BTU) Largest fossil fuel source

 

Delaware     1     96.4% 3.6% 213.1 8.0 Petroleum
Alaska     2     95.9% 4.1% 584.8 25.0 Natural Gas
West Virginia     3     95.4% 4.6% 1,103.3 53.7 Coal
Rhode Island     4     95.0% 5.0% 189.1 10.0 Natural Gas
Kentucky     5     94.1% 5.9% 1,616.5 102.1 Coal
Wyoming     6     93.5% 6.5% 793.2 54.9 Coal
Indiana     7     93.4% 6.6% 2,617.2 185.9 Coal
Utah     8     93.1% 6.9% 830.0 61.3 Petroleum
Louisiana     9     92.1% 3.7% 3,895.5 155.0 Petroleum
Texas     10     89.9% 7.1% 12,752.3 1,009.0 Petroleum
Ohio     11     89.7% 4.7% 3,040.2 158.6 Natural Gas
Hawaii     12     89.4% 10.6% 261.8 31.1 Petroleum
Colorado     13     88.8% 11.2% 1,305.1 164.6 Natural Gas
Mississippi     14     88.2% 6.1% 1,116.6 76.8 Natural Gas
Missouri     15     88.0% 5.9% 1,608.7 108.5 Coal
United States     –     80.5% 11.2% 81,238.0 11,281.6 Petroleum

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-fossil-fuels/

energy exports

U.S. States that Export the Most Energy

The energy economy in the United States has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years, reducing reliance on some traditional fuel sources while bringing others to the forefront.

The main factors driving this shift have been the increased use of natural gas and renewable energy. The emergence of fracking has reduced the costs of natural gas extraction and led to a boom in domestic production over the past couple of decades. Simultaneously, new innovations in renewable energy sources like solar and wind power have reduced costs and made these alternatives more viable at scale. With the adoption of natural gas and renewables, production and consumption of formerly predominant sources like oil and coal have leveled off or declined.

This transition has also shifted the U.S. political economy around energy. Nationally, political figures have called for U.S. energy independence from imported foreign fuel resources for years, hoping to reduce reliance on other nations in the event of geopolitical conflicts. Because of the U.S.’s increased production of domestic energy sources, the country has made rapid progress toward that goal in recent years.

In 2019, the United States was a net exporter of energy for the first time since 1957, meaning that it produced more energy than it consumed. With a sharp increase in production over the past twenty years, production has begun to catch up with consumption and exports with imports. The nation’s net imports of coal and coke, natural gas, and petroleum have all fallen below zero, leaving only crude oil as a major fuel import—and even imports in that category are showing a decline.

Within the U.S., states have different levels of production and consumption affecting their import and export levels as well. While some states—especially those who produce coal in large numbers—have suffered in the transition between fuels, others have dramatically increased their energy production. As a result, these states are now producing far more energy on a per capita basis than peer states are.

This is particularly true for two of the states at the front of the natural gas boom, Wyoming and North Dakota. These states lead the nation in both total energy production on a per capita basis, a function of both their high levels of production and their low populations.

Interestingly, Wyoming and North Dakota are among the nation’s leaders in per capita energy consumption levels as well. One of the reasons is that extracting and refining fuel is itself an energy-intensive process—which is why some of the other leading states for energy consumption per capita are also major fuel producers, like Alaska and Louisiana.

Despite their high consumption levels, leading states Wyoming and North Dakota nonetheless have the highest net energy exports per capita, followed by other major energy producers like West Virginia, New Mexico, and Alaska. To find these locations, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Electric Power Annual Report and ranked states based on their net energy exports per capita—calculated as the difference between per capita production and consumption.

Here are the states that export the most energy.

State Rank Net energy exports per capita (million Btu) Total energy production per capita (million Btu) Total energy consumption per capita (million Btu) Net energy exports (trillion Btu) Total energy production (trillion Btu) Total energy consumption (trillion Btu)

 

Wyoming     1     12,368.3 13,335.4 967.1 7,158.3 7,718.0 559.7
North Dakota     2     4,677.5 5,549.4 871.9 3,564.6 4,229.0 664.4
West Virginia     3     2,200.0 2,661.6 461.6 3,942.7 4,770.0 827.3
New Mexico     4     1,301.0 1,636.8 335.8 2,727.9 3,432.0 704.1
Alaska     5     1,099.3 1,928.8 829.5 804.2 1,411.0 606.8
Oklahoma     6     800.4 1,233.5 433.1 3,167.2 4,881.0 1,713.8
Montana     7     522.5 932.8 410.3 558.5 997.0 438.5
Pennsylvania     8     392.5 702.0 309.5 5,024.8 8,987.0 3,962.2
Colorado     9     370.0 635.9 265.9 2,130.8 3,662.0 1,531.2
Texas     10     206.2 704.3 498.1 5,978.2 20,421.0 14,442.8
United States*     2.7 307.8 305.2 873.0 101,038.0 100,165.0

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-export-most-energy/

biogas

Biogas Market – Tremendous Potential of Landfill Gas will Fuel the Adoption of Renewable Energy

Biogas consumption has gained steady momentum due to the growing development of biogas plants in rural areas, as they are known to be a free source of renewable energy. Besides providing energy, biogas plants help in the improvement of public hygiene, curbing pollution, and recycling of waste materials. The biogas produced can be used to generate electricity and act as a substitute for gasoline and other fuels.

Rising environmental concerns regarding climate change and the steadily depleting natural resources has forced an extensive use of biogas products worldwide, propelling biogas market trends and the emergence of compatible technologies. Using this renewable energy source curbs the release of methane into the atmosphere and reduces the dependency on fossil fuels.

Mitigating the effects of emissions from transportation

After having used every potential biogas in the U.S., the total methane emissions reduced will be equal to the yearly emission of around 800,000 to 11 million passenger vehicles. Moreover, anaerobic digestion can be advantageous to both climate and the local economies. Developing about 13,500 biogas systems in the U.S. would lead to adding more than 335,000 temporary jobs in construction as well as 23,000 permanent jobs.

There has been a widespread insistence on the use of renewable energy sources leading to the massive penetration of biofuel in the transportation sector. For instance, conventional biofuels held nearly 4% of the total world transport fuel in the year 2016. Numerous biofuel projects have been introduced in countries like India, Thailand, and China. Various nations importing petroleum products are backed by improved policy support for biofuels that are produced domestically and has influenced the market for ethanol and biodiesel.

Widespread production of LFG gas in the United States

Landfills have been considered the third-largest source of methane emissions related to humans in the U.S. These landfills have anaerobic bacteria content similar to a digester which breaks down different organic materials to be able to produce biogas, and in this case, it is called landfill gas (LFG). The LFG gas can be collected and used as a form of energy instead of letting the gas out into the atmosphere.

An average home in the U.S. would use nearly 10,812 kilowatt-hours of electricity every year in 2015, while the LFG projects across the U.S. produce electricity of around 17 billion kilowatt-hours as well as deliver LFG of about 98 billion cubic feet into natural gas pipelines or even to the end-users directly every year.

Favorable government policies to foster the biogas industry

Government policies regarding the use of biogas in numerous developing countries have been the prime factor driving global biogas industry forecasts. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy in India, for instance, will be implementing the National Biogas and Manure Management Program (NBMMP) across every state as well as the Union territories. India had witnessed an installation of nearly 4.75 million biogas plants as of March 31, 2014.

The government had set a target of setting up about 110,000 biogas plants in India which has been considered as the best option for households that have feed material, as it helps them to become self-dependent for cooking gas as well as obtain a highly organic-rich bio-manure.

Similar efforts will also assist households by protecting them from air pollution indoor and also saving the cost of constantly refilling LPG cylinders. The ministry is also known to provide subsidy for biogas plants that suitable are for families, which has resulted in the rise in general awareness regarding the biogas industry and its potential contribution towards environmental upliftment.

Source: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/biogas-market

corruption

The Corruption Index: An In-Depth Look at What it Means & How it Relates to FCPA

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index published annually by Transparency International since 1995 which ranks countries “by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by “expert assessments”  and opinion surveys.

The CPI currently ranks 176 countries “on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt).” Denmark and New Zealand are perceived as the least corrupt countries in the world, ranking consistently high among international financial transparency, while the most perceived corrupt country in the world is Somalia, ranking at 9–10 out of 100 since 2017.

This short video link below provides an overview of the Corruption Perception Index.

One could argue that there could be a direct correlation between the number of FCPA Violations and how high a country ranks on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).  Upon analysis, there is no such correlation and therefore the reliance by Chief Compliance Officers on the CPI as published each year by Transparency International comes into question

Upon further investigation of the survey developers – Transparency International (TI)  based in Berlin Germany, it becomes clearer why the survey cannot be relied on.

The Corruption Perceptions Index has received criticism over the years. The main one stems from the difficulty in measuring corruption, which by definition happens behind the scenes. The Corruption Perceptions Index, therefore, needs to rely on third-party surveys which have been criticized as potentially unreliable. Data can vary widely depending on the public perception of a country, the completeness of the surveys and the methodology used. The second issue is that data cannot be compared from year to year because Transparency International uses different methodologies and samples every year. This makes it difficult to evaluate the result of the new policies.

Another issue is historically been funded since its inception in 1993 by large multinationals – Exxon/ Mobil,  Shell, and Hedge Fund KKR being the largest donors. One cannot help but question the objectivity of the survey with large private donors. TI’s International Board of Directors reacted to this conflict of interest by stripping its US affiliate – Transparency International USA – of its accreditation as the National Chapter in the United States and it was reported by TI Headquarters that  TI-USA came to be seen in the United States as a corporate front group, funded by multinational corporation given the large donor base.

Secondly, the surveys themselves are conducted by organizations such as Freedom House, which have known biases. In August 2019 whistleblower accounts from seven current and former TI Secretariat staff emerged describing a “toxic” workplace culture under the current Managing Director, Patricia Moreira. Reported in The Guardian, the misconduct reported ranged from gagging orders in termination agreements to bullying and harassment of critical internal voices

Although the Corruption Perception Index remains popular with its audience as it is unveiled each year, it becomes more clear after digging deeper into Transparency International why there \’s not a more robust correlation between FCPA Violations as identified by the SEC and DOJ and the faltered Corruption Perception Index.

Syria

Civil War in Syria: How Conflict Erodes Trade

Syria has a turbulent history. Numerous nations, factions and leaders have wrestled for control of the country at turns over the last 100 years. The present conflict, a civil war raging for eight years now, has drastically affected Syria’s trade by destroying infrastructure, displacing its productive workforce, and weakening business confidence in the region. The World Bank estimates the current conflict has produced a cumulative loss in Syria’s GDP at $226 billion as of 2017, an amount equal to four times Syria’s GDP in 2010.

Syrian Trade Throughout History

The region now called Syria was home to one of the most ancient civilizations on earth. Evidence of early trade relations dates as far back as 10,000 BC. Many of the greatest human achievements had their origins in the area known as the Cradle of Civilization. Its location on the Silk Road enriched Syria with wealth and strategic importance during the Roman Empire.

Throughout the 20th century, Syria experienced French control, uprisings, nationalization, regional wars, and conflict among rival factions. The economic outlook for Syria seemed to be improving in the 1990s and early 2000s. The World Bank considered it a fast-growing, lower-middle-income country. Syria’s main exports were crude and refined oil and information and communications technologies. Syria also enjoyed a healthy travel and tourism industry.

Impacts of the Civil War

The civil war has either eliminated or drastically reduced all of Syria’s main trading industries, exacerbating the suffering for Syrian civilians. In 2010, exports totaled around $19 billion. By 2016, they had fallen to $555 million. Syria’s ranking as a global exporter fell from 88th in 2011 to 141st in 2015.

Syria trade profile post civil war

Sanctions, Destruction and Displacement

A consequence of the conflict, Syria is subject to numerous sanctions by the United States, Canada, European Union, Arab League and Turkey. These include embargoes on investment, blocks on trade in key industries such as oil, financial services and precious metals, and the freezing of assets. The aim of such sanctions is to pressure Syrian leaders to end the conflict, but average Syrians also suffer the economic fallout.

As in any war, destruction is rampant. Mortar fire and airstrikes have damaged and demolished key infrastructure for trade. Bridges, grain silos, roads and other economically significant assets are strategic targets for both sides. Access to fuel and electricity is limited, denying Syrian businesses the productive factors necessary to produce goods to trade as well as the means to transport them. Schools, food sources and medical buildings have also been targeted. As of 2017, seven percent of housing stock has been destroyed, and 20 percent damaged. Trade necessarily takes a back seat when citizens struggle to have their basic physical needs met.

Given the dire circumstances, over half the country’s pre-war population has been displaced either internally or externally. According to recent estimates, over five million refugees have fled Syria. It’s a human tragedy with immediate and long-term implications. As the workforce collapses, goods are no longer able to be produced, and trade grinds to a halt.

Syria trade exports drop 92%

Distrust, Uncertainty and Disassociation

Businesses are wary to engage in nations experiencing conflict. The Syrian Civil War is complex and associated with a corrupt regime causing suffering for its citizens. International sanctions create a legally uncertain environment. Even if it is possible to engage in trade with Syrian firms, there is no guarantee that in a month or a year it will still be possible — new sanctions may be imposed or the factory producing the goods could be targeted. These risks substantially raise the cost of engaging in trade with Syria.

Adding to Syria’s economic woes is the curtailment of economic development assistance. The World Bank Group ceased all Bank operational activity with Syria at the onset of the war. Previously it provided technical assistance and advisory services on private sector development, human development, social protection and environmental sustainability. Although not directly related to trade, much of this support helps local businesses and the economic health of communities.

Why Trade Matters for Syria

Any kind of conflict can have negative effects on trade, directly by destroying factors of production and dislocating people, and indirectly by causing uncertainty and breaks in connectivity with global supply chains. Reduced trade invariably damages the economy, causing individual suffering which can foment more unrest. Nations become trapped in a vicious cycle.

This seems undoubtedly to be the case in Syria, where the destruction of trade has meant economic suffering that aggravates the humanitarian crisis. The longer conflict persists, the deeper the separation from global society, and the harder it will be to rebuild the economic mechanisms and institutions necessary to increase trade and encourage economic growth.

__________________________________________________________________

Alice Calder

Alice Calder is a graduate research assistant at George Mason University, currently pursuing her MA in Applied Economics. Originally from the UK, where she received her BA in Philosophy and Political Economy from the University of Exeter, living and working internationally sparked her interest in trade issues as well as the intersection of economics and culture.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.