dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

No Deal Yet on Extending Ukraine Grain Deal

Reuters May 11, 2023

ISTANBUL/UNITED NATIONS, May 11 (Reuters) – Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the United Nations discussed on Thursday U.N. proposals to extend a deal allowing the safe Black Sea export of Ukraine grain, which Moscow has threatened to quit on May 18 over obstacles to its grain and fertilizer exports.

The U.N. and Turkey brokered the Black Sea agreement in July last year to help tackle a global food crisis that has been worsened by Moscow’s war in Ukraine. At the same time, the U.N. agreed to help Moscow facilitate its own agricultural shipments.

The meeting of senior officials in Istanbul on Thursday appeared to end without Russian agreement to extend the Black Sea deal. The Kremlin said earlier on Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin could speak with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan at short notice if needed regarding an extension of the deal, but there were no such plans at present.

“The meeting discussed the recent proposals by the United Nations, namely the resumption of the Togliatti-Odesa ammonia pipeline, the longer extension of the deal, improvements at the Joint Coordination Centre for stable operations and exports, as well as other issues raised by the parties,” the U.N. said.

“The parties presented their views and agreed to engage with those elements going forward,” the U.N. said in a statement.

RUSSIAN DEMANDS

Turkey’s Defence Ministry said progress was made in the talks on the Black Sea grain deal and that the parties agreed to continue four-way technical meetings on the deal. On Wednesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said he thought the deal could be extended for at least two more months.

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov said after the talks on Thursday that the grain deal should be extended for a longer period and expanded. He said the talks would continue online.

Russia has issued a list of demands regarding its own agricultural exports that it wants met before it agrees to an extension of the deal. Those include restarting a pipeline that delivers Russian ammonia to a Ukrainian Black Sea port, which the U.N. has been pushing for.

While those Russian exports are not subject to Western sanctions imposed following the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow says restrictions on payments, logistics and insurance are a barrier to shipments.

“Let me be clear, Russia is exporting just fine. It is exporting grain and fertilizer at the same levels, if not higher, than before the full scale invasion (of Ukraine),” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield told reporters.

Another key Russian demand is returning access to the SWIFT payment system for the Russian Agricultural Bank, known as Rosselkhozbank, which was cut off by the European Union in June over Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

As an alternative the United Nations proposed other banks could help process payments. Reuters has reported that JPMorgan JPM.N has processed the first payments for the Russian Agricultural Bank and could process dozens more, however Moscow has said this is not a long term fix.

‘WEAPONIZING FOOD’

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin, speaking to Russian media in Istanbul, said on Thursday that if Russia’s demands remained unresolved, then the Black Sea deal would “cease its existence.” He specifically cited SWIFT access.

Some 30 million metric tonnes of grain and foodstuffs has been exported from Ukraine under the deal, including nearly 600,000 metric tonnes of grain in World Food Programme vessels for aid operations in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Yemen, the United Nations has said.

Officials from Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the U.N. make up a Joint Coordination Centre (JCC) in Istanbul, which implements the Black Sea export deal. They authorize and inspect ships. No new vessels have been authorized by the JCC since Thursday.

In an excerpt of a letter seen by Reuters last month, Russia told its JCC counterparts that it will not approve any new vessels to take part in the Black Sea deal unless the transits will be done by May 18 – “the expected date of … closure.”

“This is Russia once again weaponizing food,” Thomas-Greenfield said on Thursday. “They’re holding vulnerable and hungry people in Africa, the Middle East and around the world hostage.”

(Additional reporting by Pavel Polityuk in Kyiv, Ali Kucukgocmen and Huseyin Hayatsever in Ankara; Reuters staff; Writing by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Frances Kerry and Daniel Wallis)

https://gcaptain.com/no-deal-yet-on-extending-ukraine-grain-deal/

Without Waterways Biden’s Climate Plan Will Waste Trillions

John Konrad May 7, 2023

by John Konrad (gCaptain OpEd) With a staggering 15,000+ miles of navigable waterways, it’s critical to note that river barges can carry over ten times the cargo of trucks while producing a mere tenth of the carbon emissions per ton mile. America’s waterways are an untapped goldmine in the fight against climate change. Yet, the Biden Administration has shockingly spent less than 1% of the colossal $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Act on the single most carbon-efficient mode of transportation. This glaring oversight begs the question: is this administration serious about meeting climate goals? Or are there other motivations at play?

In a fiery exchange that set Twitter ablaze, garnering over 7.2 million views and catching the eye of Elon Musk, the issue of climate change investment has been thrust into the center of public discourse. In the viral video, Republican Senator John Neely Kennedy locks horns with Biden’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, David Turk, in a high-stakes debate over the staggering sums required to meet 2050 targets. In the end, Turk could not quantify the eventual cost or answer how much spending $50 Trillion to solve the problem would reduce global temperatures. Although the adversaries concur on the need for carbon neutrality, their heated exchange calls into question the United States’ genuine commitment and the full cost of the Biden Administration’s green energy plans.

Global warming is the largest scam in human history. pic.twitter.com/NDxwVbBPMG

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 5, 2023

Scrutinizing the allocation of these trillions of dollars casts doubt on green intentions. While the ostensible progressiveness of electrifying roads and curbing aviation’s carbon footprint might be alluring, it falls woefully short of the transformative potential that investment in the world’s most energy-efficient mode of transportation—our inland and near coastal waterways—could deliver. Climate activists in the Biden Administration claim we have no time to wait yet the United States is frittering any opportunity to leverage its extensive network of rivers, canals, and coastlines, which, if properly harnessed, could propel the nation toward carbon neutrality in a cost-effective and efficient fashion. This leads to the question: is the Biden Administration serious about reducing carbon, or are other factors at play?

Could current green energy plans be designed to sink, rather than boost, the economy? Is there a better, science based, alternative that this Administration refuses to explore?

In an era where the climate crisis weighs heavily on global consciousness, the United States harbors a golden opportunity within its own borders—its vast network of waterways. River barges and ferries, boasting ten times the capacity of trucks and emitting a mere tenth of carbon emissions per ton-mile, present a formidable solution. These waterways primarily run North/South, parallel to the most congested highways. Yet, America’s unparalleled waterway system languishes, neglected and underfunded. Our barge and ferry fleet grows old and sparse, while our extensive network of rivers, canals, intercostals, sounds, and seas pleads for infrastructure investment. As the Biden administration pursues ambitious 2050 CO2 targets, it’s high time to shift our focus and resources toward waterway transportation – a remarkably efficient and eco-friendly mode of transportation that has long been hiding in plain sight.

Spending up to $50 Trillion – or even an additional $1 Trillion – on carbon reduction without including waterways is untenable and unserious.

Waterways Left Behind

Spanning over 15,000 miles – with the option to add thousands of additional miles via investment – America’s navigable waterways, encompassing rivers, canals, and coastal routes, hold enormous potential for goods transportation. Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) has spent a paltry sum of under $1 billion on waterways under Biden, leaving its potential untapped. Even when money is spent on ports – like the EPA’s $4 Billion Clean Ports Program to electrify drayage – is often spent on port trucks and rail not the most carbon-efficient transportation means itself.

Even more shocking than the dearth of federal maritime earmarks is the federal employee count. It is critically important to note that The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and MARAD are sister organizations in the DOT yet the one that administers the least carbon-friendly means of transportation – the FAA – has over 45,000 employees while the one that administers and advocates for the most energy-efficient transportation – MARAD – has only about 800.

'Carbon Reduction Or Votes?

The disparity in leadership focus is startling as well. Pete Buttigieg frequently shares updates about roadways and aviation, yet often goes weeks without mentioning MARAD. Meanwhile, MARAD’s top official, Commandant Ann Phillips, is virtually a ghost.

Science proves that waterway transport is the most carbon efficient but does it pull in voters? With the Biden Administration ignoring waterway development we cannot help but question whether the DOT is genuinely committed to reducing carbon emissions, or if their primary concern lies in addressing transportation issues visible to the voting public. Voters may not often encounter barges, but they certainly spend considerable time in airports and on roads where Buttigieg spends the majority of his time and taxpayer money.

More:

https://gcaptain.com/bidens-climate-plan-wastes-trillions/

Looks to me like more are starting to see the scam