Browsing: Business

Oil and gas barons who donated millions of dollars to the Trump campaign are on the cusp of cashing in on the administration’s support for energy-guzzling data centers – and a slew of unprecedented environmental rollbacks.Energy Transfer, the oil and gas transport company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, has received requests to power 70 new data centers – a 75% rise since Trump took office, according to a new investigation by the advocacy nonprofit Oil Change International (OCI) and the Guardian.The fossil-fuel gold rush threatens to unleash massive amounts of pollution and greenhouse gases while undermining the renewable energy industry.“Given Energy Transfer’s extensive natural gas infrastructure, we continue to believe that we are in the best position to capitalize on the anticipated rise in natural gas demand,” the company told investors in February.The positive shareholder forecast came as Energy Transfer’s legal team were in a North Dakota court suing Greenpeace, claiming the environmental group had orchestrated the Standing Rock Indigenous-led protests – in what has been widely condemned as an attack on free speech by advocates and experts.Energy Transfer, among the largest pipeline companies in the US, was the 13th-biggest corporate funder of Trump’s Make America Great Again Super Pac last year, according to OpenSecrets, donating $5m, while executive chair Kelcy Warren has been a major Republican donor since 2016.View image in fullscreenThe firm is part of the powerful fracked-gas industry set to use its influence on Trump and the Republican party to make billions in profits from cryptocurrency mining, AI and other data centers – which look likely to proliferate rapidly amid a slew of new incentives and regulatory rollbacks.Data centers may have expanded regardless of last year’s election winner, but Trump’s victory means a much bigger and faster expansion – and a prioritization of fossil fuel over cleaner types of energy.“The words that have replaced ‘energy transition’ are ‘AI’ and ‘data centers’,” Mike Sommers, from the powerful lobby group the American Petroleum Institute (API), recently said. “We’re transitioning from the energy transition to the energy reality … we’re going to need a lot more oil and gas.”Energy Transfer’s first AI deal was announced the day before its investor meeting in February – a long-term agreement with CloudBurst to provide up to 450,000 cubic feet per day of fossil gas to their flagship AI-focused data center development in San Marcos, Texas. Burning this gas for electricity will generate 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per day – the equivalent of 2.4 average US coal plants, according to the EPA greenhouse calculator, or 2.1m cars driven for one year.“This project represents our first commercial arrangement to supply natural gas directly to a data center site, and it will not be the last,” the company told investors, who reacted favourably to the deal, with Energy Transfer’s share price rising 2.1% after it was announced.“In aggregate, we have now received requests for potential connections to approximately 62 power plants that we do not currently serve in 13 states … In addition, we have now received requests from over 70 prospective data centers in 12 states,” investors were told by executives, outlining how the company is benefiting from the Trump data center and AI boom.Energy Transfer slide shown to investorsView image in fullscreenEarlier this month, a jury with known ties to the fossil-fuel industry found in favor of Energy Transfer and ordered Greenpeace to pay the $65bn oil and gas company $660m in damages – an unprecedented figure that could bankrupt Greenpeace US and chill environmental activism. Greenpeace has said it will appeal.Energy Transfer is not the only fossil-fuel firm ready to benefit from the expected boom in AI and cryptocurrencies. The Guardian/OCI investigation illustrates how the US fracked-gas industry in particular looks set to use its influence on Trump and the GOP to expand operations and make billions in profits from powering data centers – while dumping huge amounts of additional planet-warming gases and other toxins into the atmosphere.The expected gas bonanza comes amid growing climate breakdown, including a slew of deadly and costly disasters in the US in recent months, such as the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene in southern Appalachia. More than 150 “unprecedented” climate disasters struck around the world in 2024 – the hottest-ever year on record.The crypto industry was last year’s biggest corporate campaign donor for the White House and Congress – and the candidates it backed won big, including Trump. But even before the latest push, US authorities believed that crypto mining was responsible for up to 2.3% of the nation’s total electricity demand – roughly equivalent to the state of West Virginia.According to investment bank Goldman Sachs, the data-center-and-AI boom means that US power demand is “likely to experience growth not seen in a generation”. And this demand for energy, largely fuelled by fracked gas, is set to soar under Trump, who embraced cryptocurrencies during the campaign, posting on his Truth Social platform last summer that Bitcoin mining would “help us be ENERGY DOMINANT!!!”View image in fullscreenTrump is now betting big on AI, too, signing several executive orders since taking office to slash regulation. This includes one on his first day to roll back safety-testing rules for AI used by the government, followed by another order three days later revoking existing policies “that act as barriers to American AI innovation”. Trump also announced private-sector investment of up to $500bn to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence, aiming to outpace rivals.In recent weeks, Meta, Google, OpenAI and other tech companies have lobbied the Trump administration for more AI tax breaks and incentives, to block state laws and for access to federal data to develop the technology – as well as for easier access to energy sources for their computing demands.Tech companies “are really emboldened by the Trump administration, and even issues like safety and responsible AI have disappeared completely from their concerns”, Laura Caroli, a senior fellow at the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-profit thinktank, told the New York Times.Rachel Rose Jackson, director of climate research and policy at Corporate Accountability, said: “This investigation is a harrowing illustration of just how out of touch with reality this government is with the facts of climate science – and highlights the treacherous relationship between big tech and fossil fuels.“Not only are fossil-fuel corporations literally fueling the ramp-up of AI data centers, but big tech works with fossil-fuel corporations to use AI to discover and extract oil that should never see the light of day.”The gas industry – like the tech and crypto industries – is now set to reap the benefits of the data-center expansion.EQT Corporation, a leading fracked-gas producer and pipeline company and another major Trump donor, recently told investors that data centers are becoming the “cornerstone of natural gas bull case” – in other words, the cornerstone of fossil gas expansion and shareholder profits.In February, EQT, which is worth $32bn, told investors that the company was ideally placed to take advantage of a forecasted 10-18bn-cubic-feet increase in gas demand from AI, crypto, EVs and other data centers by 2030. This is a huge amount of extra fossil gas, which even at EQT’s lower forecast would generate as much carbon dioxide as 52 coal plants or 46.5m passenger cars over a year, according to the EPA calculator.Said EQT: “We’ll see those opportunities across the country – but we’ll also see those largely in our backyard as well, especially given the proximity to the data center demand that’s taking place.”Slide shown to EQT investorsView image in fullscreenThe Mountain Valley pipeline (MVP), a joint venture in which the gas giant is the controlling shareholder and operator, provides “unique access” to the US south-east region, which is home to “burgeoning data center demand”, investors were also told.The MVP, which stretches 300 miles (482km) from north-western West Virginia to southern Virginia and was pushed through by the Biden administration in 2023 despite court orders and environmental regulators blocking construction, looks set to boost the data-center boom – and EQT profits. “MVP capacity and long-term sales to the region’s largest utilities mean EQT’s natural gas can underpin power generation to support data-center build-out,” investors were told.A couple of days after the investor call, CEO Toby Rice told CNBC’s influential investor-focused Mad Money TV show, “we firmly believe that natural gas is going to take the lion’s share of power demand to meet this growing AI demand need”.View image in fullscreen“We need to unleash American energy,” added Rice, who has been lobbying politicians in Washington about the need to expand American fracked gas. “Build, baby, build. Thank goodness this administration will let this happen. It could not have happened at a more critical time in the face of this AI boom that is taking place.”There are already almost 5,400 data centers in the US, 70% more than the next 10 largest markets combined, including China. They not only guzzle electricity, but also water. One large data center can consume as much as 5 million gallons of water per day, the equivalent to a town of up to 50,000 people.EQT made a $250,000 donation to the Republican Senate Leadership Fund just days after Biden announced he would pause liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits in January 2024. The Super Pac’s one stated goal is to build a Republican majority that will “defend America from Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats’ destructive far-left agenda”.EQT boss Rice personally donated more than $100,000 to Republican Pacs and candidates in the last election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.Rice was also among a crew of 20 oil and gas executives at the infamous meeting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last April, in which he asked for donations of $1bn, which included fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil and Chevron and the influential lobby group the API.But the meeting also included smaller but increasingly powerful fracking companies drilling and/or exporting gas, which have revitalized the American fossil energy scene over the last two decades. It was organized by the fracking boss Harold Hamm, who for years has helped craft Republican energy policies. Hamm, who picked cotton barefoot as a child before making billions from fracking, runs Continental Resources, among the US’s largest fracked-gas companies.Also in attendance was longtime oil industry ally Doug Burgum, then governor of North Dakota, who was appointed secretary of the interior in Trump’s new administration. After the meeting, it was reported by the Washington Post that the oil and gas executives discussed how to try to meet Trump’s request for $1bn to help fund his election campaign. In return, Trump promised to roll back environmental regulations, auction off more oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters, reverse pollution standards for new cars, and end drilling restrictions in the Alaskan Arctic, among other vows.The alleged “quid pro quo” event was later investigated by a group of high-ranking Democratic lawmakers including Sheldon Whitehouse, then the Senate finance committee chair, and Jamie Raskin from the congressional committee on oversight and accountability. “Such an obvious policies-for-money transaction reeks of cronyism and corruption,” they found.A second fossil-fuel fundraiser for Trump was organised the following month, in May 2024, by Warren of Energy Transfer, Vicki Hollub from Occidental Petroleum, and Hamm, who has been called Trump’s energy whisperer. The event, which took place at a luxurious hotel in Houston where guests had to hand over their phones, was sponsored by Trump’s Make America Great Again Pac.Hamm’s company, Continental Resources, donated $1m to the Maga Super Pac in April last year, the month after Hamm donated $614,000 to the Trump 47 Committee.Many of those present at Trump’s fundraising events last April and May already had long-term funding relationships with the Republicans. Continental Resources and Energy Transfer are in the top 20 funders of Maga, according to OpenSecrets.According to one analysis, big oil spent $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress – including pouring $96m into Trump’s re-election campaign and affiliated political action committees.Big oil winsDoug Burgum and Harold Hamm were back at Mar-a-Lago to celebrate Trump’s November election victory. Shortly after Trump declared an energy emergency on his first day back in the White House in January, Mike Sommers, head of the API, said: “American energy was on the ballot and American energy won.”The API spent just over $13m in campaign donations and lobbying during the 2024 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.Speaking at Davos just days after Trump’s inauguration, EQT’s Rice said: “Our lives are going to get easier. Donald Trump is a very welcome change.”The following month, during an Energy Transfer investor call, co-chief executive officer Thomas E Long, said: “My goodness, how wonderful is life after this election. When we have a president and an administration that love this country, that fully recognizes how blessed we are … and we have a businessman that built his career on trading, doing deals, negotiating, employing, creating numerous jobs throughout all the businesses that he’s been associated with.“What an incredible excitement we have around this administration and what it’s going to do to mitigate just overwhelming regulation on all these assets, to streamline regulations.”So far, dozens of environmental regulations have been slashed, either by executive order or EPA rollbacks, including the end to Biden’s 2024 pause on LNG exports and new rules for cleaner exhausts from tailpipes – industry requests shared by Hamm with the New York Times last May.This includes plans to roll back 31 key environmental rules – on everything from clean air to clean water and climate change – announced on a single day in March by Trump’s EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, who has been accused of endangering the lives of millions of Americans.Trump’s funders and backers are especially going to benefit from Trump’s policies to restrict regulations in the AI sector as part of an attempt to outpace China to become the global leader. The US is currently home to just more than half the mega data centers in the world. And with Goldman Sachs suggesting $1tn will be spent on AI data centers in the next few years, a lot is up for grabs.Artificial intelligence and the data centers used to feed the computing power will require huge amounts of energy, with the US government projecting that data-center demand will triple the domestic electricity demand within the next three years. A recent paper by Harvard Law School notes that utilities are now prioritising supplying data centers at the expense of American consumers, who face price rises.View image in fullscreenDays after the election, it was reported that oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron were jumping into the race to power AI data centers. Yet the fracking industry, including Energy Transfer and EQT, appear to consider themselves best placed to benefit from Trump’s pro-AI-and-data-center growth strategy.When Trump announced last November that Burgum would be the new secretary of the interior and chair of the newly formed National Energy Dominance Council, he said Burgum’s work would be key to winning “the battle for AI superiority, which is key to national security and our nation’s prosperity”.At his confirmation hearing, Burgum repeated the same message, claiming that without more fossil fuels, “we’re going to lose the AI arms race to China”.“In his first term, President Trump unleashed American energy while reducing carbon emissions to historic lows, proving that we can both restore American greatness and advance environmental stewardship. President Trump is committed to replacing unclean foreign energy with the liquid gold under our feet while ridding our environment of dangerous toxins,” said Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson.EQT, Energy Transfer, Continental Resources and the API were contacted for comment but did not respond.“The most absurd part of this whole saga is that everyone who looks at it without a vested interest concludes that if we have to build data centers fast, it makes far, far more sense – economic and environmental – to use renewable energy,” said environmentalist Bill McKibben, founder of the non-profits 350.org and Third Act.“But just as they shamelessly used the war in Ukraine, the gas industry is now using this moment to try and lock in their climate-killing business. And they’ve purchased enough friends in high places to make it a real possibility.”Andy Rowell is a UK-based investigative reporter and contributing editor to Oil Change International

Global stocks have fallen sharply and the US dollar hit a six-month low after Donald Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs against the US’s global trade partners in a move that is expected to upend supply chains and cause economic turmoil.European markets were down across the board on Thursday after a sharp sell-off across Asia and US futures signalled similar falls when Wall Street opens.In London, the FTSE 100 fell 1.5%, Germany’s Dax was down 2.3% and France’s CAC was off 2.5%.The dollar sank nearly 2% against a basket of foreign currencies including the pound, which was up more than a cent and a half at $1.3148. Deutsche Bank sent a note warning clients to “beware a dollar confidence crisis”.City of London investors raised bets on interest rate cuts by central banks, as policymakers try to fend off a global recession. The money markets are now pricing in a 92% chance that the European Central Bank cuts eurozone interest rates at its meeting later this month, up from 80% on Wednesday.The chances of a Bank of England rate cut in early May have also risen, to 77%.It followed a major sell-off in Asia where trading partners were hit with some of the highest tariff rises above the baseline 10% applied to imports from all countries selling goods to the US.Overnight, Japan’s Nikkei and Topix fell 3.3% and 3.5%, respectively after the US president applied a 24% tariff on the country. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was down 1.9%, while the stock market in Vietnam – which was hit with 46% tariffs – tumbled 6.7%.US futures also suffered, with the Dow futures pointing at losses of 2.7% and the broader S&P 500 futures falling about 3.4%. The tech-focused Nasdaq index was down 3.8% pre-market.Futures for Nasdaq were the hardest hit of the three main markets, down 3.5%, with constituents such as Apple – which still has large exposure to China – plunging 7%. Nike took a similar dive of 7.3%, the AI chip maker Nvidia dropped 5.6% and Tesla tanked more than 8%.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAdam Hetts, a portfolio manager at Janus Henderson Investors, said markets were unlikely to calm down anytime soon.“Eye-watering tariffs on a country-by-country basis scream ‘negotiation tactic’, which will keep markets on edge for the foreseeable future,” he said. “Fortunately, this means there’s substantial room for lower tariffs from here, albeit with a 10% baseline in place.”“We’ve seen the administration have a surprisingly high tolerance for market pain, now the big question is how much tolerance it has for true economic pain as negotiations unfold.”Oil prices also fell, with a barrel of Brent crude down 5.8% at $70.61 amid fears that sweeping tariffs would trigger a global recession, dampening energy demand.Meanwhile, investors flocked to “safe” assets, such as gold, for which prices reached a record high of $3,167.50 overnight.Tony Sycamore, an IG market analyst, said: “The tariff rates unveiled this morning far exceed baseline expectations, and if they aren’t negotiated down promptly, expectations for a recession in the US will rise dramatically.”

Plans to overhaul England, Wales and Scotland’s electricity market risk piling an extra £3bn on to household energy bills every year until the 2040s, according to the government’s own clean power adviser.New research has found that moving ahead with a plan to divide the national electricity market into different pricing zones could drive up the cost of building new windfarms as the government aims for a renewable energy boom before the end of the decade.Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, hopes to double Great Britain’s onshore wind capacity, triple solar and quadruple offshore wind farms to help create a clean power system by 2030.But uncertainty over the plans for “postcode electricity pricing” could mean that developers of renewable energy demand higher subsidies to offset the risk, according to the research, which could raise household energy bills or even delay clean energy investments.The report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) warned that an upcoming auction for renewable energy subsidy contracts could clear at £20 per megawatt-hour higher than expected if the zonal market plans were adopted.The independent centre, which is backed by government funding, said that the higher cost of the 15-year contracts, which are paid for through energy bills, could wipe out any benefits of the scheme.The report was co-authored by Prof Rob Gross, a UKERC director who was recently appointed to the government’s clean power 2030 advisory commission. It was quietly published weeks before the government is expected to make a decision on the scheme.The proposal has proved divisive in the industry because it would mean zones with an abundance of electricity generation relative to local demand would have lower market prices, while areas with higher demand and scant power supplies would face higher prices.An opinion poll commission by Renewable UK, which represents major renewables developers, found that 58% of people in England and Wales opposed zonal pricing, while only 14% were supportive of it.The survey of 3,000 adults found almost two-thirds of the public saw the policy as unfair, whereas only 16% thought it would be a fair system. Almost three-quarters said the government should instead prioritise reducing energy costs for all parts of the country at a flat rate.Those in favour of zonal energy markets argue that the different pricing signals would encourage high energy users – such as datacentres and factories – into areas of the country with plentiful energy supplies and lower costs such as the North of England and Scotland.This would cut the amount of grid infrastructure needed to carry power to the south of the country, and prevent windfarms from being paid to turn off when renewable energy threatens to overwhelm the grid.However, clean energy companies preparing to spend billions on building new wind and solar farms are concerned that the changes could make projects planned for remote areas of the country less profitable and put investments in clean energy at risk.“The key question is not whether zonal pricing has benefits, but whether the time to introduce it is now,” said Gross.“The 2030 clean power mission is an exceptionally bold endeavour that requires coordinated action across government and industry to mobilise an unprecedented pace of investment in generation assets and transmission capacity. Our analysis focuses on the risks for market participants if government tries to bring in zonal pricing at the same time. These are substantial and there is no straightforward plan B,” he said.

Donald Trump’s tariff plan could undermine the Brexit deal between the EU and the UK for trading arrangements in Northern Ireland, a highly sensitive agreement designed to maintain the 1998 peace pact.As part of the president’s attempt to spur on a “rebirth” of the US, Trump has imposed a two-tier tariff rate on the island of Ireland – with a 20% tax on exports from the republic but a 10% rate on the UK including Northern Ireland.A former EU commissioner has questioned whether Trump thought through his plan’s effect on the peace process brokered by the US almost 30 years ago.Although it could put Northern Ireland at an advantage over the Republic of Ireland for exports such as whisky and dairy produce, a political problem could arise if the EU retaliates with like-for-like tariffs of 20% on US imports.Under the Windsor framework, the EU tariffs will apply in Northern Ireland, creating a manufacturing price difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for any important components from the US.Stephen Kelly, the head of the campaigning group Manufacturing NI, said: “If the UK does not reciprocate or do the same thing as the EU we are at a disadvantage. Companies that buy materials in Belfast from the US will pay more than their counterparts in Bolton.”Mairead McGuinness, Ireland’s former EU commissioner, told RTÉ: “I’m questioning and wondering if this is well thought through from the US side? The US has always been a friend of the island of Ireland, and peace on this Ireland and stability.“It certainly causes some difficulties. And rather than jump to a conclusion, I think we will have to look at this very carefully … this was not part of the discussions and thought processes when the Windsor framework was being negotiated. I mean, 10% isn’t good for Northern Ireland either; 20% isn’t good for us. Divisions like this aren’t helpful.”The US was one of the key brokers of the Good Friday agreement in 1998 and is, by law, a co-guarantor of the peace process.The role had been held dearly by previous US presidents, including Joe Biden, who visited Belfast in 2023 for the 25th anniversary of the peace accord.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionKelly said the supply chains were “complex” and the level of detailed knowledge needed by officials to deal with a trade war in Northern Ireland had disappeared since Brexit.“When we were going through all of this in Brexit, issues like customs codes and checks, the government departments had teams of people who understood what all of this meant. But they have all been stood down,” he said.The separate tariffs on steel and aluminium added to the complexity and cost for businesses in Northern Ireland involved in aircraft-wing and wind-turbine blade manufacturing in Northern Ireland, he said.There was relief in the pharmaceutical industry in the republic, but the uncertainty over the tariffs on inward investment had led to a 30-50% decline in capital infrastructure spend in the first quarter of the year, Michael Lohan the chief executive of the Industrial Development Agency, the government’s foreign inward investment agency, told RTÉ.

The president displayed the top of his list from a podium in the White House Rose Garden, and later published a longer version. Note that the “tariffs charged to the USA” in Trump’s formulation include “trade barriers” so don’t necessarily align with the tariffs published by countries concerned.

The climate crisis is on track to destroy capitalism, a top insurer has warned, with the vast cost of extreme weather impacts leaving the financial sector unable to operate.The world is fast approaching temperature levels where insurers will no longer be able to offer cover for many climate risks, said Günther Thallinger, on the board of Allianz SE, one of the world’s biggest insurance companies. He said that without insurance, which is already being pulled in some places, many other financial services become unviable, from mortgages to investments.Global carbon emissions are still rising and current policies will result in a rise in global temperature between 2.2C and 3.4C above pre-industrial levels. The damage at 3C will be so great that governments will be unable to provide financial bailouts and it will be impossible to adapt to many climate impacts, said Thallinger, who is also the chair of the German company’s investment board and was previously CEO of Allianz Investment Management.The core business of the insurance industry is risk management and it has long taken the dangers of global heating very seriously. In recent reports, Aviva said extreme weather damages for the decade to 2023 hit $2tn, while GallagherRE said the figure was $400bn in 2024. Zurich said it was “essential” to hit net zero by 2050.Thallinger said: “The good news is we already have the technologies to switch from fossil combustion to zero-emission energy. The only thing missing is speed and scale. This is about saving the conditions under which markets, finance, and civilisation itself can continue to operate.”Nick Robins, the chair of the Just Transition Finance Lab at the London School of Economics, said: “This devastating analysis from a global insurance leader sets out not just the financial but also the civilisational threat posed by climate change. It needs to be the basis for renewed action, particularly in the countries of the global south.”“The insurance sector is a canary in the coalmine when it comes to climate impacts,” said Janos Pasztor, former UN assistant secretary-general for climate change.The argument set out by Thallinger in a LinkedIn post begins with the increasingly severe damage being caused by the climate crisis: “Heat and water destroy capital. Flooded homes lose value. Overheated cities become uninhabitable. Entire asset classes are degrading in real time.”“We are fast approaching temperature levels – 1.5C, 2C, 3C – where insurers will no longer be able to offer coverage for many of these risks,” he said. “The math breaks down: the premiums required exceed what people or companies can pay. This is already happening. Entire regions are becoming uninsurable.” He cited companies ending home insurance in California due to wildfires.Thallinger said it was a systemic risk “threatening the very foundation of the financial sector”, because a lack of insurance means other financial services become unavailable: “This is a climate-induced credit crunch.”“This applies not only to housing, but to infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and industry,” he said. “The economic value of entire regions – coastal, arid, wildfire-prone – will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNo governments will realistically be able to cover the damage when multiple high-cost events happen in rapid succession, as climate models predict, Thallinger said. Australia’s disaster recovery spending has already increased sevenfold between 2017 and 2023, he noted.The idea that billions of people can just adapt to worsening climate impacts is a “false comfort”, he said: “There is no way to ‘adapt’ to temperatures beyond human tolerance … Whole cities built on flood plains cannot simply pick up and move uphill.”At 3C of global heating, climate damage cannot be insured against, covered by governments, or adapted to, Thallinger said: “That means no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability. The financial sector as we know it ceases to function. And with it, capitalism as we know it ceases to be viable.”The only solution was to cut fossil fuel burning, or capture the emissions, he said, with everything else being a delay or distraction. He said capitalism must solve the crisis, starting with putting its sustainability goals on the same level as financial goals.Many financial institutions have moved away from climate action after the election of the US president, Donald Trump, who has called such action a “green scam”. Thallinger said in February: “The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of transformation and adaptation. If we succeed in our transition, we will enjoy a more efficient, competitive economy [and] a higher quality of life.”

The £3.6bn takeover of Royal Mail’s parent company will be completed this month, nearly a year after it was first agreed, as the Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský cleared the final regulatory hurdles standing in the way.International Distribution Services (IDS), the owner of the 508-year-old Royal Mail, said on Thursday the deal “may become or be declared unconditional” by 30 April, after a delay due to issues in Romania.The most pressing issue, UK government approval, was clinched in December after a state review of national security laws.However, Křetínský’s company had warned in March that the deal might not be finalised until the second quarter of this year due to regulatory issues relating to foreign direct investment in Romania.But in a triumph for the billionaire known as the “Czech sphinx”, Křetínský’s EP Group confirmed on Thursday that “all of the regulatory and anti-trust conditions in relation to the offer were satisfied”.View image in fullscreenThe deal will mean Royal Mail will be controlled by an overseas owner for the first time in its history, which can be traced as far back as 1516 under Henry VIII.The takeover comes with a number of conditions from the UK government, including that it will retain a “golden share” in IDS, which means any changes to Royal Mail’s ownership, tax residency or headquarters will need its approval. The UK owns golden shares in companies that are regarded as crucial to its security, including the weapons manufacturers BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.The takeover had been called in for a review in August on national security grounds, because Royal Mail’s letter delivery still plays a crucial – albeit diminishing – role in the country’s communications infrastructure.The Royal Mail brand will also be protected for as long as EP owns the company.EP Group has also agreed to retain the universal service obligation, which guarantees a first-class postal service to anywhere in the UK for a fixed price six days a week, while Křetínský is in control. IDS has suggested second-class post could be reduced to every other weekday.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe government has blocked Royal Mail from making dividend payouts, or other similar payments to its owners, unless the company meets financial targets and has improved its postal delivery performance.Dividends and asset sales will also be blocked if they put the universal service at risk.Royal Mail is the latest British asset to be snapped up by Křetínský, who already owns 27% of West Ham United football club and 10% of the Sainsbury’s supermarket chain. He also holds stakes in several retailers including the US department store Macy’s, the trainer retailer Foot Locker, and the German retailer turned wholesaler Metro.Meanwhile, Křetínský’s EP Group, Royal Mail’s new owner, primarily runs coal, gas and power generation operations.

Donald Trump’s announcement that the US will put tariffs on goods from around the world, including a 10% charge on UK imports, has signalled the start of a global trade war.Although the UK faces a lower tariff than many other countries, for UK consumers there could still be some fallout. How it all plays out remains unclear.Prices in the UKView image in fullscreenAs it stands, the UK has not announced any retaliatory tariffs, so no US imports will leap in price. But if the government does decide to respond in kind, the prices of goods we buy in from the US could go up. The tariffs will be paid by the importing company but could be passed on to consumers (this becomes more likely where there is not a big profit margin). Such a situation would lead to inflation.Importers could decide to source products from countries without tariffs instead, which might hold down inflation. If there is a surplus of that stock – perhaps, the country supplying the goods also attracts US tariffs and so stops selling exporting there – prices could even come down.Part of the US trade complaint concerns the VAT applied in the UK to imported goods. However, VAT is not a tariff – it is charged on goods and services regardless of where they were produced – and is unlikely to be changed by the government as a result of Trump’s announcement. If it was, US goods would have an advantage over domestically produced items. (Tax Policy Associates has a good explanation of how it works in a supply chain.)Pensions and investmentsView image in fullscreenThe falls in stock markets around the world could have a big impact on your finances. Even if you do not invest in funds or stocks directly, your pension is likely to hold some of these assets unless you are very close to retirement.Many UK investors hold money in US shares – either directly or via funds – and will already have seen a fall in the value of their US investments. Other stock markets have dropped as trading has begun this morning, including the UK’s.Further falls will reduce the value of any investments you hold, which will be bad news if you need to cash them in before the markets have a chance to recover.If you are paying into a regular investment plan that buys into a fund, the money you are putting into the market now will buy you more units in the fund while the market is down. If and when there is a recovery, your monthly investment will be worth more than when the market is riding high.Tom Stevenson, an investment director at the fund management company Fidelity International, said: “It may sound counterintuitive but staying invested throughout times of volatility is the best strategy. When markets hit rocky waters, jumping in and out should be avoided, otherwise you run the risk of missing out on unexpected opportunities that might arise from market corrections.”Stevenson said it was “incredibly difficult” to predict how the stock market was going to behave. “Taking a long-term approach and remaining invested in spite of highs or lows is more likely to get you the outcome you want.”MortgagesView image in fullscreenLast month, when the Bank of England announced it was holding interest rates at 4.5% it said it thought rates were “on a gradually declining path”, but that there was “a lot of economic uncertainty at the moment”. That uncertainty included the threat of tariffs.Previously, forecasters had anticipated four rate cuts this year. We have seen one so far.An economic slowdown could force the Bank to consider cutting rates more quickly than had been expected as a way to stimulate the UK economy. This morning, the money markets had moved to suggest a cut in May is priced in. Mortgage rates are likely to fall if the markets anticipate more cuts over the next couple of years.JobsView image in fullscreenThe biggest threat from tariffs could be to jobs, with industries that export a lot to the US taking a hit as American consumers turn to products produced domestically, where they can.Carmakers are likely to be hit the hardest as they face a higher tariff of 25%. The IPPR thinktank has suggested more than 25,000 direct jobs in the car manufacturing industry could be at risk as exports to the US fall, with employees at Jaguar Land Rover and the Cowley Mini factory considered most vulnerable.There are rules on redundancies that companies must follow. To qualify for statutory redundancy pay you need to have been with your employer for at least two years.

Developing nations in south-east Asia, including wartorn and earthquake-hit Myanmar, and several African nations are among the trading partners facing the highest tariffs set by Donald Trump.Upending decades of US trade policy and threatening to unleash a global trade war, the US president announced a raft of tariffs on Wednesday that he said were designed to stop the US economy from being “cheated”.“This is one of the most important days, in my opinion, in American history,” said Trump on Wednesday. “It’s our declaration of economic independence.”He hailed the moment as “liberation day”, but the tariffs are likely to be met with loud protests from some of the world’s weakest economies. One expert said Trump was likely to be targeting countries that received investment from China, regardless of the situation in that country. Chinese manufacturers have previously relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia not only due to lower operating costs, but also to avoid tariffs.The tariffs come as many countries in south-east Asia are already grappling with the fallout from the cuts to USAID, which provides humanitarian assistance to a region vulnerable to natural disasters and support for pro-democracy activists battling repressive regimes.Cambodia, a developing economy where 17.8% of the population live below the poverty line, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), is the worst-hit country in the region with a tariff rate of 49%. More than half of the country’s factories are reportedly Chinese-owned, with the countries exports dominated by garments and footwear.Next worse-hit is the landlocked south-east Asian nation of Laos, a country heavily bombed by the US during the cold war, with 48%. According to the ADB, Laos has a poverty rate of 18.3%.Not far behind is Vietnam with 46% and Myanmar, a nation reeling from a devastating earthquake on Friday, and years of civil war following a 2021 military coup, with 44%.Indonesia, the biggest economy in south-east Asia, faces a 32% tariff rate, while Thailand, the second-largest, has been hit with a rate of 36%.Major US rival and trading partner China has been hit with a 34% reciprocal tariff, on top of the 20% levy already imposed.Dr Siwage Dharma Negara, a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said the tariffs on south-east Asian nations were intended to hurt China.“The administration thinks that by targeting these countries they can target Chinese investment in countries like Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia. By targeting their products maybe it will affect Chinese exports and the economy,” he said.“The real target is China but the real impact on those countries will be quite significant because this investment creates jobs and export revenue.”Tariffs on countries such as Indonesia, he said, would be counterproductive for the US, and the detail of how they would be applied remained unclear.“Some garments and footwear [companies] are American brands like Nike, or Adidas, US companies that have factories in Indonesia. Will they face the same tariffs as well?” he said.Stephen Olson, a former US trade negotiator, said countries in south-east Asia would be forced to reconsider their relationships with Washington. “A closer tilt towards China could be the result. It’s hard to have constructive, productive relations with a country that has just dropped a ton of bricks on your head,” said Olson, a visiting senior fellow at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.“The world’s largest importer has now essentially hung a sign on its border saying ‘closed for business’,” he added. “We are now faced with two plausible scenarios: Either the impacted trade partners hold firm and retaliate in the hope that Trump will be forced to back down, or they look to cut deals with Trump in order to avoid the tariffs. It is unlikely that either scenario will end well.”Other nations among the hardest hit are several nations in Africa, including Lesotho – a country that Trump claimed “nobody has ever heard of” – with 50%, Madagascar with 47% and Botswana with 37%. Lesotho, a small mountainous kingdom surrounded by South Africa, has the second-highest level of HIV infection of the world, with almost one in four adults HIV-positive.In south Asia, Sri Lanka is facing a 44% tariff. In Europe, Serbia faces a 37% rate.In addition to the reciprocal tariffs on a few dozen countries, Trump will impose a 10% universal tariff on all imported goods. That tariff will go into effect on 5 April, while the reciprocal tariffs will begin on 9 April.The US president has justified the changes by saying they are retribution for countries that have long “cheated” America, and the levies will bring jobs back to the US.But economists have warned the sweeping changes will raise costs, threaten jobs, slow growth and isolate the US from a system of global trade it pioneered, and furthered over several decades.“This is how you sabotage the world’s economic engine while claiming to supercharge it,” said Nigel Green, the CEO of global financial advisory deVere Group.“The reality is stark: these tariffs will push prices higher on thousands of everyday goods – from phones to food – and that will fuel inflation at a time when it is already uncomfortably persistent.”

At 93-95 Victoria Street, Westminster, a blue plaque marks a piece of London history: the first ever branch of Pret a Manger opened on this spot on 22 July 1986. Nearly 40 years later, it is still going strong.It’s a nice story – but it’s not the whole story. Look closer and the plaque states that the first Pret sandwich shop opened “near here”. In fact, it was down the road, at 75b, now a branch of Toni & Guy. Except … that wasn’t the first shop, either. The original Pret opened two years earlier and five miles to the north, in Hampstead. It went bust after a year and the founder, Jeffrey Hyman, sold the name, branding and logo to Julian Metcalfe and Sinclair Beecham, who reopened in Westminster.That rocky beginning has been airbrushed from company history. Does it matter? Well, maybe. Pret is skilled at putting a neat spin on complex realities.Fast-forward to 2025 and London is packed with Prets. I meet Jack Chesher, the author of London: The Hidden Corners for Curious Wanderers, for a stroll through the City. As a historian, Chesher knows a lot about London’s early coffee houses; as a walking guide, he has witnessed first-hand the proliferation of Pret.I see my first Prets of the day when I get on the tube at Finsbury Park, one near each entrance. I get out at Moorgate and immediately see another. I do a quick search on my phone – 20 Prets pop up on the map, all within a few minutes’ walk. I’m not surprised: there are 274 branches in London, far more than in any other city. Manchester has 14, Birmingham 10, Edinburgh nine; a handful of cities have six, including Glasgow, Leeds, Bristol and Oxford. This is in contrast to, say, Greggs, which has just 42 branches in London and many more in northern England and Scotland. Tamsyn Halm, the editor of OOH (Out of Home) magazine, says: “Pret has become synonymous with the capital. If you go to London, you need to go to Pret.”Chesher and I meet at Leadenhall Market, which stands at what was once the centre of Roman London. There is no Pret in the market itself, but I spot one just outside, on Gracechurch Street. We head down an alley to the site of London’s first coffee house – now the Jamaica Wine House – which opened in 1652. Coffee houses quickly took off, says Chesher. It wasn’t about the coffee, which was described as a “syrup of soot and the essence of old shoes”, but the atmosphere. “These were buzzy, social spaces, where anyone from dockers to lawyers could go to read the newspapers and debate the issues of the day. They were known as penny universities.”It’s a far cry from a typical Pret, where customers grab a coffee to go, or sit with a sandwich at their laptops, headphones in. Christopher Yap, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London, thinks this is a peculiarly British phenomenon. “The work-food culture prioritises a particular form of eating,” he says. A 2023 survey of 35,000 workers across 26 countries found that the average lunch break in the UK is just 33 minutes and almost half of employees eat lunch alone. “We don’t have a culture of eating communally. This puts us in contrast with other European countries,” says Yap.What are all these harried, lonely Londoners buying from Pret? The latte (£3.80) is the bestseller and the top-selling foods are all baguettes: chicken caesar bacon, tuna mayo and cucumber, and cheddar and pickle. (I’m partial to a soy flat white and an avocado, olive and tomato baguette myself.) After criticism over rising prices, Pret made some cuts last year. That cheese and pickle baguette is down from £4.99 to £3.99, for example, and filter coffee is just 99p. Halm says: “This makes Pret a bit different to the crowd. No one else on the high street is giving away anything for less than a pound.”Prices within London can vary, however – it is more expensive to eat in, while branches at airports or train stations are usually pricier than the high street. A £3.99 tuna baguette will set you back £4.50 in a “transport hub”. A spokesperson for Pret says: “This is due to higher rents and labour costs for those shops, as they usually require different working hours or higher security checks.”View image in fullscreenAs we wander through the City, we pass many other coffee-and-sandwich chains, but none appear with such regularity as Pret. Once my eye is attuned to its pub-style hanging sign – a white star on a maroon background – I start seeing it everywhere. We head down Fleet Street and Chesher points out one of London’s oldest pubs, Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese (rebuilt in 1667 after the Great Fire). Right next to it? Pret. We continue on to the Strand and stop at Twinings, the oldest tea shop (opened 1706). The former bank next door? You guessed it – Pret.How does a sandwich shop afford such prime real estate? Pret, unsurprisingly, stopped being a two-man operation long ago. McDonald’s bought a 33% stake in the company in 2001. The fast food giant sold its stake to the private equity firm Bridgepoint Capital in 2008, which became the majority shareholder. Bridgepoint, in turn, sold Pret to JAB Holdings, a Luxembourg-based investment fund belonging to Germany’s billionaire Reimann family, in 2018 for a reported £1.5bn. All 12,000 Pret employees received a £1,000 payout. (In an interview last year, the CEO, Pano Christou, said staff are paid more than the London Living Wage, including bonuses.)After losses during the pandemic, Pret returned to profitability in 2022. UK sales in 2023 were up 18% year on year; the latest global figures, from the first half of 2024, show a 10% increase, to £569m. “After Covid, Pret has been on an extreme mission to grow,” says Halm. Its locations – on high streets, by offices, in train stations, at airports – make it very accessible. “Yes, the high street might look samey, but that’s how you establish quality,” she says. “People want premium options that are reliably good.”View image in fullscreenChris Young, the coordinator of the Real Bread Campaign, is more sceptical: “Chains can plug a gap in a high street, although typically they don’t go to a failing high street. It’s like the Starbucks effect in the 90s – it would target successful cafes and put them out of business.” Chains have economies of scale to undercut small businesses, he says, and huge marketing power. “People are drawn to big shiny things and start ignoring the local independent that’s been there for years.” But chains don’t necessarily benefit the local area, he says: “The money spent there is going to go whizzing out to fat-cat shareholders or private equity companies.”What about the jobs created when a chain moves in? “Their food is made in big factories on the edge of town. They create jobs for X number of people in the shop, but they could be better, more skilled jobs,” he says. The spokesperson points out that the Pret Foundation was founded in 1995 to donate unsold food, partner with charities and employ people facing homelessness. They also insist that “freshly handmade food has always been at the heart of what we do … Long before it was the norm, we were making sandwiches, wraps, baguettes and salads from scratch every morning in our on-site kitchens.”In 2018, however, it was reported that Pret’s baguettes were made on an industrial estate in France and frozen for up to a year. Today? “Our baguettes and rye rolls are brought to shops part-frozen and baked in our shop kitchens, which ensures that our customers get a really crisp and crunchy baguette,” says Pret’s spokesperson. “We want to ensure that the bread we use is consistent every day and from shop to shop.”Yap is not surprised. “In order for chains to function, they require a certain homogenisation – more ultra-processed foods (UPFs), additives and preservatives – to provide consistency of products across multiple sites,” he says.Even Pret? “Pret seemed to be doing things differently and better than other companies,” says Young. “The word ‘natural’ was in its logo, across the walls and the food.” In 2016, he contacted the company to ask exactly what was in its food (ingredient lists were not yet mandatory). “It turned out there was a whole list of artificial additives across the range. It was misleading – this was not natural food as anyone would have understood it.” Young complained to the Advertising Standards Agency and Westminster council. “It took 18 months. In the end, the ASA and Westminster agreed. Pret had to take ‘natural’ out of its logo.”View image in fullscreenPret still emphasises its health credentials. As well as sandwiches, it sells soups, salads, fruit and yoghurt pots. The Prets we pass on our walk advertise its “feelgood food”: “Nourish your body, lift your spirits … with fresh, wholesome ingredients.” The company prides itself on being ahead of the curve on healthy eating trends. “We introduced avocado to the high street. Today, avocado is everywhere, but back then it was still a bit of a novelty,” says the spokesperson. “And we were the first to bring an egg and spinach pot to the UK high street.”Does Pret’s food contain UPFs? “We don’t categorise any of our ingredients or products in this way,” says the spokesperson. “We try to reduce the additives we use in our products. We have replaced the emulsifiers in a number of our bread lines (eg our baguettes) with enzymes, but there are a few lines that still contain emulsifiers (eg our wraps). These have a number of functions, including improving the texture of the bread.”Pret always seems to bounce back from bad press. Recently, customers were up in arms over changes to Club Pret, a subscription that gave members up to five free drinks a day and a 20% discount on food for £30 a month. Last September, it changed to five half-price drinks a day for £5 a month.Far more serious were the deaths of two customers who had allergic reactions to Pret products. In 2016, Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, 15, died after eating a baguette that contained sesame, which wasn’t listed on the packaging. In 2017, Celia Marsh, 42, died after eating a flatbread labelled as dairy-free, which contained traces of dairy. Since then, the spokesperson says, Pret has established an industry-leading approach to helping customers with allergies, including developing an allergy plan.View image in fullscreenThe mind-boggling number of branches Chesher and I see on our walk suggests central London may have reached peak Pret – but the outer boroughs certainly haven’t. “For a long time, Pret’s strategy was to follow the skyscraper, but now we’re following the customer,” says the spokesperson. It has opened shops in London suburbs such as Bromley, Sutton and Harrow, often in bigger premises with outdoor seating. “We’re bringing Pret to people when they’re at the office, on the commute, working from home or simply spending time with friends and family.”Chesher sees this “Pretification” of London as part of a wider trend towards homogenisation. We stop off at Simpsons Tavern, London’s oldest chophouse, which opened in 1757 and was controversially closed in 2022 by its Bermuda-based owners, Tavor Holdings (there is a Crowdfunder campaign to reopen it). The boarded-up building is a forlorn sight. Chesher mentions the Prince Charles cinema, a cult venue that is also under threat of closure, and the loss of grassroots music venues. “Property owners prefer to put a Pret or a Leon in there,” he says. “We’re gradually losing these individual places.”Yap goes further. “One of the most concerning things about the way our cities are managed is the loss of genuine public space. The way urban space has been financialised is a deep concern for democracy. If that square metre has value as a shopping destination, the government then sells it off or enters into a partnership.” Recently redeveloped parts of London all have “a certain aesthetic”, he says. Young agrees: “When I want to see local character, colour and food, it’s difficult to do that in certain parts of London now.”After our walk, I head north to the Guardian’s offices in King’s Cross, an area of exactly that kind of redevelopment – much of it classed as the Orwellian-sounding “privately owned public space”. There are four branches of Pret within 10 minutes’ walk of Guardian HQ, one just a few doors away.If you know a part of London that is still missing the maroon sign, you may be either relieved or disappointed to know that the openings may soon dry up. London is no longer Pret’s top priority. Since January 2023, 87% of new openings have been outside the capital and more than half have been outside the UK (£1 in every £4 spent at Pret is now international). In 2023, Pret opened 81 new shops worldwide, including in the US, Canada, India, Greece and Spain. New York has the highest sales after London and the first shops recently opened in Johannesburg and Lisbon.Pret, it seems, has conquered the capital. Next stop? The rest of the world.