Competing Archives - Occasional Digest

MONEY

Oil Vs. Renewables: Competing Visions Of Global Power

While the US pursues fossil fuel dominance, China is looking to lead the way on renewables. Which model of energy security will the rest of the world follow?

Aside from regime change, a central goal of President Donald Trump’s military actions in Venezuela and against Iran has been to reinforce the US as a dominant petroleum producer while curtailing federal support for alternative energy. The war in the Middle East has already injected new uncertainty into global energy markets — with strikes on Iranian infrastructure driving oil prices higher and disrupting flows through the Strait of Hormuz — and may prompt some countries to rethink their dependence on fossil fuels even as short-term demand spikes.

In sharp contrast, China is intent on advancing its lead in renewable technology, even as it meets massive domestic demand for coal and oil. These divergent national approaches set up a fundamental global contest: Will fossil fuel dominance or renewable leadership define the future of energy security?

As these two superpowers intensify their competition for economic and geopolitical dominance, the world’s climate future and investment flows will largely hinge on which energy model—oil or renewables—proves most viable. The global energy landscape risks a clear split: one path leading to enduring fossil-fuel dependence, the other to a renewable-powered world.

As a November report by the Washington, DC-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it, “Nearly 10 years after the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new energy investment paradigm is taking shape” that is likely to influence, if not determine, government and industry policy decisions on energy security, affordability, and competitiveness.

**Ray Cai**, associate fellow and CSIS author

At this point, the CSIS report notes, the paradigm shows fragmentation, volatility, and scarcity, even as state intervention rises. Its author, associate fellow Ray Cai, writes: “A widening bifurcation between hydrocarbon and low-emission value chains—in part accelerated by strategic competition between the US and China—is already reshaping global energy investment flows.”

This bifurcation, as Cai describes, is a world of “two tracks.” One track features economies with secure, affordable access to fossil fuels. Most countries are net importers, while exporters are few. As a result, the US has become a significant oil and LNG producer and exporter. According to Cai, this shift also reinforces the country’s retreat from its postwar role as “facilitator and guarantor of global trade.”

On the other track, he continues, economies are turning to electrification and renewables. Nearly 90% of energy generation capital expenditure in the Global South in 2024 was allocated to low-emission sources, about double the share from 10 years ago. “Driving this shift is China,” says Cai, noting that the nation has led global supply chain and manufacturing investment both at home and abroad.

Much of the globe, including China, is adopting what Martin Pasqualetti, an Arizona State University professor and author of several books on energy geography, calls “an all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy, pursuing all power sources, including oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and wind.

Meanwhile, the US under the Trump administration has ended subsidies for electric vehicles and other alternative-fuel applications as it seeks to boost fossil fuel production and exports. Yet this emphasis risks squandering its many competitive advantages across other energy sources, including alternatives, according to a September report by JPMorgan Chase.

“North America has a significant strategic advantage in energy because of the sheer number of energy resources it has a competitive advantage in—fossil fuels, solar, geothermal, and wind,” the authors noted, adding that if the US fully takes advantage of all those energy resources, it will be unrivaled in what they call “the New Energy Security Age.” But they point out, “recent policy shifts from Washington are creating uncertainty for America’s offshore wind ambitions—which can be a key strategic advantage for the US alongside fossil fuels, geothermal, and nuclear.”

Cai agrees that recent US policy shifts are creating uncertainty for investors in alternatives, telling Global Finance in an interview that “policy pullbacks and regulatory obstruction can raise financing costs, slow project timelines, and erode competitiveness for US firms.”

Navigating The Valley Of Death

Pasqualetti says moving from fossil fuels to renewables means passing through a “valley of death,” a period when returns must prove profitable before funding runs out. Sometimes these investments rely on government subsidies until they can become profitable at scale. He notes that the “valley” has narrowed sharply as the prices of renewables have dropped. “We’re not going to make conversion quickly,” he says, “but we’ve been making it faster than expected.”

On the other hand, oil is proving less profitable for producers at its recent price of around $60 a barrel. Experts estimate that the “heavy” oil that characterizes Venezuela’s hefty reserves may cost at least $80 a barrel to extract and process for sale. So Pasqualetti finds the Trump administration’s plans to take over its petroleum industry puzzling. “If you increase our domestic supply, increase production, capture Venezuelan ghost ships and sell the oil on the market,” he asks, “won’t that just drive the price down?”

Cai noted in the interview that while the Trump administration has signaled its clear intent to advance the US fossil fuel and mining industries, “industry stakeholders remain constrained by market fundamentals and capital discipline.” He continued, “Producers and investors alike have shown limited appetite for aggressive expansion due to soft demand expectations and oversupply conditions in global markets.”

Cai doubts the Trump administration will see its stated policy goal materialize quickly, if at all. “Heightened geopolitical risk resulting from further military action may increase volatility and suppress near-term investment,” he said in the interview.

In contrast, China is forging ahead on all fronts, as the JPMorgan report notes: “For the foreseeable future, Beijing will continue to deploy an energy strategy that seeks to dominate … global renewable energy innovation, exports, and markets while still relying on sources like coal at home to power China’s industrial and technological rise.”

If China is hedging its bets, much of the rest of the world is as well. JPMorgan notes that India and Brazil, along with China and others, are forming new energy alliances and setting their own standards based on competitive advantages in natural resources, shifts toward energy self-sufficiency away from fossil fuels, and technological exports. “Strategic energy independence actions are strengthening to reduce geopolitical exposure to former trade partners,” the authors note.

India, the world’s most populous nation, is especially active in pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels. Renewables account for 89% of India’s newly installed power capacity, with the majority being solar.

Despite holding the third-largest oil reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, Iran aims to get two-thirds of its power from natural gas over the next five to seven years. Pasqualetti says, “They want to move to renewables as fast as they can.” Of course, Tehran’s plans are in question now that it is under attack by the US and Israel. And the regime faced Western sanctions and popular unrest even before war broke out in the region.

Imports Versus Exports

To better understand global energy trends, Richard Bronze, co-founder of Energy Aspects, an energy consultancy based in London, says it’s helpful to distinguish between countries’ domestic and international policies. Bronze describes China’s “pragmatic” energy strategy, for example, as embracing both fossil fuels and alternatives for domestic purposes and exporting large quantities of green technology while resisting international climate agreements. He says this reflects China’s reliance on fossil fuels to power domestic consumption and on green technology to power exports.

Similarly, he says Saudi Arabia is successfully diversifying its economy. Reliance on oil for government revenues has fallen from almost 90% in 2014 to 60% in 2024. While the country aims to be less of a “petro state,” shifting power generation from oil to natural gas and solar, it still sees itself as “the last man standing” in oil exports before the global shift to renewables.

Bronze sees the world as three groups, not just two tracks: One group is pursuing alternatives, including Europe and India. A second “all-of-the-above” group includes China and Saudi Arabia. The third focuses on fossil fuels and nuclear power, as in the US and Russia.
While the third group may oppose transitioning to renewable energy, Bronze says this strategy has short-term geostrategic logic for the Trump administration.

In effect, Trump’s policy aims to counter Chinese influence everywhere. This includes discouraging imports of Chinese technology and products, affecting alternative energy and high-tech exports such as rare-earth minerals. This may explain the recent, though apparently abandoned, interest in acquiring Greenland, which has significant reserves.

And of course, the Trump administration is “championing a domestic oil industry,” as Bronze puts it. In sum, by using petroleum to counter China’s exports of alternatives, US policy reflects what he calls “a somewhat coherent political thesis.”

Still, he notes that the transition to renewables is inevitable if you accept the premise that a sustainable environment requires moving away from fossil fuels. “All the science says it’s necessary if we’re going to keep a livable world,” he asserts.

Cai sees energy geopolitics differently. Rather than countering China’s advantage in alternatives, he contends that the central motivation of recent US moves is to reinforce US comparative strengths, particularly in fossil energy, in service of what he terms the administration’s “hemispheric security ambitions,” as outlined in its recent National Security Strategy.

Regardless, Bronze notes that a change in US administrations may be accompanied by a shift in energy policy. “We saw a handbrake turn” away from the Biden administration’s policy by his successor, Bronze observes, suggesting a similar turn is possible, if not likely, in the future.

Other observers are skeptical that a U-turn by the US is likely anytime soon. As Alice C. Hill, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, told a roundtable discussion last March, “The US is not going to be a player in the international arena on climate. We’ve got this pendulum that swings back and forth, and so it’s very hard to maintain that sort of true north right down the middle.” In an interview with Global Finance, Hill added that given the Trump administration’s policies, “it will be harder for a new administration to turn back, because there will be that much more to unravel.”

The Reign Of Uncertainty

As a result, the only certainty at this point may be uncertainty. The Trump administration’s actions in Iran and Venezuela could produce what Bronze calls “a spectrum of outcomes,” ranging from chaos to the reintegration of oil exports into the market. And while the latter outcome might indeed bring oil prices down further, he says it would also serve the administration’s goal of lowering inflation. At present, however, with oil prices soaring, that goal is in doubt.

If Trump seems isolated in insisting that global warming is a hoax, that view is increasingly shared, to some degree, among right-wing political parties in Europe, Bronze points out. There’s been a real politicization of the energy transition,” he says.

Cai of CSIS agrees, noting that recent electoral results have contributed to policy diversity. As he sees it, the European Union “is moderating from an aggressive decarbonization drive to rebalance for energy security and industrial competitiveness.” In contrast, he adds, “the US has retreated from climate leadership in favor of fossil fuel abundance and trade protectionism. China, on the other hand, has deepened its commitment to renewables manufacturing and exports while maintaining coal capacity.”

Still, most countries accept that renewable energy must eventually replace fossil fuels. Notwithstanding rising opposition in some European circles, the European Union and China recently pledged an expanded partnership, JPMorgan notes, “even as Brussels drives forward on a campaign to diversify its supply chains away from China.” One of the agreements between Beijing and the EU is to accelerate the deployment of global renewable energy.
Pasqualetti contends that US efforts to slow a similar renewable future are misguided. “We’re not going to get out of the oil age because we ran out of oil,” he says.

Cai puts it more even-handedly. “Ultimately, the policy challenge ahead is pragmatic rather than ideological,” he says, noting that it will likely shape global investment flows. “Investors are gravitating toward jurisdictions that can combine strategic clarity with consistent execution.”
By that standard, he argues, neither the US nor China fully qualifies. “Most countries will not replicate either model wholesale,” he tells Global Finance.

“The fracturing of the post-World War II global system is reinforcing divergence in energy pathways shaped by political economy and practical constraints.”

As a result, Cai adds, energy investors—and policymakers elsewhere—now face risks under both regimes. “Heightened policy uncertainty in the US has contributed to capital outflows that have, in some cases, even raised concerns about the dollar’s reserve-currency status,” he says.

China, by contrast, presents what he calls “a different trade-off.” Investors increasingly recognize its structural advantages in renewable manufacturing and supply chains, yet remain wary of geopolitical risk and the broader trajectory of decoupling. He points to Canada’s recent electric-vehicle trade deal with Beijing as an example of how widening rifts between the US and its traditional allies may create new opportunities for China.

How durable or profitable those openings prove remains to be seen. But on current trends, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Hill warns, “the US will isolate itself over the long haul.”

Source link

SHOW BIZ

Channel 4 Handcuffed cast in full with aristocrat and model competing for £100k

Mar 2, 2026 News Desk

Jonathan Ross hosts Channel 4’s new social experiment Handcuffed, where 18 contestants are cuffed together as they compete to win a £100,000 prize

Megan Nisbet Content Editor

16:23, 02 Mar 2026

Handcuffed: Last Pair Standing is the brand new social experiment from Channel 4.

Hosted by Jonathan Ross, the new series sees 18 contestants cuffed together as they compete to win £100,000.

A synopsis for the new Channel 4 series reads: “Could you survive being handcuffed to a total stranger? In a brand new social experiment, Jonathan Ross is challenging 18 brave Brits to do just that, as they compete to win a £100,000 prize.

“The nine pairs will have to cope with being chained to each other 24/7, doing everything – quite literally – just inches apart. If it gets too much, they can uncuff at any time, but if they do they’ll be out of the competition. The last pair standing takes all. Jonathan’s starting the competition as he knows best, in a TV studio with a live audience.

“The competitors represent a complete cross section of British society, and have never met each other before. As the cuffs are locked in position with the duos either side of a special screen, they’ll only discover who they’ve been chained to once the divide goes back.

“In a divided Britain, Jonathan’s hoping living in such close proximity will force these opposites to talk, listen, and maybe even learn from each other. As the pairs set off for each other’s houses, to walk a mile in their partner’s shoes, we focus in on three of the couples.”

Among the participants are Somerset contestants Sir Benjamin Slade, 79, the 7th Baronet of Maunsel, and bus driver Morag, 64. They’re joined by London-based model Bambi, 29, and Suffolk’s millionaire businessman Anthony, 60, reports Somerset Live.

Here’s the complete roster for Handcuffed: Last Pair Standing.

Jo, 39, Manchester

Jo, a plus-size fashion brand owner, describes herself as “loud, mindful and crazy.”

When asked about her biggest concern, Jo admitted: “I’m nervous about the proximity. I’m on the autistic spectrum and being in close proximity to a stranger is going to be quite a challenge for me.”

Reuben, 29, Portsmouth

Reuben, a property developer, characterises himself as “confident, cocky, and disciplined.”

Discussing the toughest part of the experience, Reuben revealed: “The hardest thing about the experience was definitely the speed of walking and the chafe of the cuff after several hours, having my partner slow and drag me down was tedious.”

Sir Benjamin Slade, 79, Somerset

Benjamin, the 7th Baronet of Maunsel, reflected on his experience: “I was surprised by having some challenging and honest conversations about class,” adding: “The hardest thing was having sleep apnoea which means I don’t get any sleep and having to pee 6 times a night.”

George, 60, London

Prison Officer George describes himself as “pragmatic, empathetic, and lively” and joined the show “purely for the spirit of adventure,” which has led him to experiences ranging from topless waitering to skydiving from 15,000ft, and even volunteering as the first Officer in Belmarsh for the High Secure Unit.

Claire, 48, Hampshire

Claire, an “eccentric, persistent, bubbly,” horse trainer from Hampshire, was surprised by her own patience. She admitted: “The level of patience I’ve got. I was surprised! I didn’t think I had it in me. Also, how much of a bubble I live in- I didn’t realise how different other people’s lives are to mine.”

Bambi, 29, London

Model and content creator Bambi described herself as “loud, chill…but also not chill- I’m a bit of a contradiction!” When asked about her biggest worry, Bambi confessed: “The actual intricacies of the day to day; showering, going to the toilet- the basics. Also, as much as I’m a social butterfly and love being around people I like my own space and I do take a lot of time to myself. I think my biggest concern is I’m not going to have that time to relax and unwind and I think that’s going to really get to me.”

Nina, 42, London

Hairdresser Nina characterises herself as “moody, loud and fun,” and found the most challenging aspect of being handcuffed was being paired with someone whose beliefs were “completely opposite” to her own.

Sara, 55, Northhamptonshire

Mum-of-seven Sara describes herself as being “bubbly, annoying and kind.”

Reflecting on the most challenging aspect of her experience, Sara said: “Being involved in something so intense then the sad feeling afterwards when life returns to normal. To be honest looking back it felt like an out-of-body experience.”

Lin, 38, London

Political commentator Lin characterises herself as “Charismatic, opinionated, and a leader.”

Regarding her biggest concern, Lin said: “Going to bed, I’m a really private person, the whole going to bed and showering, I’m apprehensive about how it’s going to work.”

Frank, 27, Derbyshire

Green Party Councillor Frank explained his motivation for joining the programme: “As a politician, I spend every day trying to get someone else to agree with me, but what most elected representatives forget is that genuine understanding comes from putting yourself into the shoes of another and taking the opportunity to truly question yourself. Participating in Handcuffed was the only way for me to grow personally and professionally.”

Bob, 70, Yorkshire

Retired soldier Bob, who describes himself as “well-travelled and a musician.”

spoke about the toughest element of the programme: “Not knowing what was coming next and the lack of privacy from always having a camera nearby meant it sometimes felt quite restrictive, and that I maybe wasn’t able to get to know my partner as well as I would have liked.”

Chris, 38, London

Youth worker Chris admits he’s most apprehensive about his “everyday life,” when it comes to taking part in the show. He confessed: “I’m quite particular and I like things a certain way. When I get home, I take off all my clothes put them in the wash basket and put on my house clothes because who just sits on their bed when you’ve just been on the tube? I’ve got a lot of insecurities that I’m still trying to work through: I suffer with lupus so there’s a part of me that’s not comfortable looking at my own self let alone being around another person- it’s very exposing.”

Charlie, 44, West Sussex

Practical Homemaker Charlie describes herself as “determined, kind and strong-minded.”

On what surprised her about her journey, Charlie revealed: “I think learning about my own levels of resilience, to always be open minded and not to judge a book by its cover.”

Rob, 32, Staffordshire

Rob is an adult content creator who characterises himself as “eccentric, straightforward, kind.”

On what surprised him the most about the experience, he shared: “That two people, living two completely different lives worlds apart can become great friends. We put our judgements aside and listened to our hearts.”

Morag, 64, Somerset

School bus driver Morag identifies herself as being “enthusiastic, vegan and hippie.”

On what surprised her the most, Morag admitted: “I was surprised to find myself so emotional, particularly in the first few days.”

Angie, 44, Stourport

Salon proprietor Angie describes herself as “direct, impulsive and wild.”

Reflecting on the most challenging aspect of the experience, Angie explained: “Not having control of what I was doing, where I was going, and that what was in store for us. I became very hyper vigilant, and I went through a process of unwrapping all these things that I didn’t know about myself. I don’t like being told what to do so this was an adjustment for me to hand over control. Being away from my husband was so hard, it’s the first time we have spent that much time apart with zero contact.”

Tilly, 37, North London

Barmaid Tilly is “loud, loving and kind”. She frankly revealed her motivation for joining Handcuffed: “I wanted to win the money… and for the experience, but mainly the money.”

Anthony, 60, Suffolk

Business proprietor Anthony, who characterises himself as “generous, genuine and happy,” shared that the toughest element of the experience was having to reveal so many “deep and repressed” aspects of himself to a complete stranger.

Source link

NEWS TODAY

Beijing Unveils Competing Vision for Gaza After Rejecting US-Led Initiative

Feb 26, 2026 News Desk

China officially announced in late January 2026 its refusal to join the Board of Peace at the “International Peace Council for the Administration of the Gaza Strip.” This council, proposed by the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, is a new international entity launched by the US president as an alternative to traditional UN mechanisms. China confirmed in January 2026 that it had received a formal invitation from the United States to join the “International Peace Council” for Gaza, launched by President “Trump” as a global initiative to resolve the conflict. China’s stance toward this council is characterized by caution and a demand for further details while adhering to its established principles.

The reasons for China’s rejection of the US-sponsored peace council for the Gaza Strip are based on several strategic and legal justifications, the most important of which is the marginalization of the UN’s role by the International Peace Council, sponsored by Washington. Beijing believes that the council seeks to replace the role of the United Nations and the Security Council, and it affirms its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on international law. Regarding China’s criticism of the lack of Palestinian representation within the International Peace Council, China criticized the Council’s charter for failing to mention the Palestinians or respect their will, asserting that any arrangements for the future of Gaza must be based on the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine.” Furthermore, (China’s concerns about “American dominance” over the International Peace Council): Beijing warned that the Council could be a tool for Washington to impose “control” or establish military bases in the Gaza envelope area under the guise of reconstruction. Also, (China’s rejection of the financial membership criteria within the International Peace Council): The Council requires substantial financial contributions (up to one billion dollars for permanent membership), which China views as transforming peace into a “deal” driven by financial power rather than the legal rights of the Palestinians.

At the same time, China is demanding structural clarity regarding the resolution establishing the International Peace Council and its actual feasibility. China, through its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” expressed concern that the resolution establishing the council lacks essential details, particularly concerning its structure, composition, and terms of reference, as well as the nature of the proposed “international stabilization force” in Gaza. Therefore, Beijing insisted on the UN’s authority in this matter, maintaining that any future arrangements for Gaza must be made under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions and with broad participation including Palestinian parties and Arab states. China rejected any “closed” or “unilateral” mechanisms that could marginalize the UN’s role. Furthermore, China categorically emphasized the principle of “Palestinian governance of Gaza,” considering the Gaza Strip an integral part of Palestinian territory. China rejects any plans aimed at imposing external trusteeship or control over its administration, affirming that the principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine” is the foundation for any post-conflict governance. China has supported Arab initiatives on post-war management of the Gaza Strip, explicitly endorsing reconstruction and peace plans proposed by Egypt and other Arab states, deeming them consistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people. China firmly adheres to the two-state solution, maintaining that any peace efforts must ultimately lead to a two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Therefore, the motives behind China’s rejection of the American request to join the International Peace Council on Gaza can be summarized as follows: China’s insistence on upholding the international legitimacy of the United Nations and its deep suspicions regarding the security and political objectives behind the council’s formation and Washington’s enthusiasm for it. The main reasons for China’s rejection of the International Peace Council on Gaza are China’s desire to protect the UN system. Beijing believes the proposed council seeks to replace or marginalize the role of the United Nations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry affirmed its commitment to an international system centered on the United Nations and based on its Charter and international law, rejecting any “alternative frameworks” outside of this scope. (Ambiguity in structure and tasks): The Chinese representative to the United Nations, “Fu Cong,” criticized the draft resolution concerning the council (Resolution 2803) for its lack of clear details regarding its structure, composition, and criteria for participation, describing it as “worrying.” In addition to China’s security concerns regarding the Gaza issue: Chinese intelligence reports indicate that one of the hidden objectives of the Washington-sponsored International Peace Council in Gaza is to destroy Hamas tunnels under the guise of “reconstruction,” which Beijing considers a “provocative and extremely dangerous” foreign military intervention. Furthermore, (China rejects American unilateralism in dealing with regional and global issues): China views the American International Peace Council initiative in Gaza as part of Washington’s attempts to impose “unilateralism” and exacerbate confrontation between blocs, which contradicts the “Global Governance Initiative” championed by Chinese President “Xi Jinping. ”.

Herein lies China’s alternative vision to the American initiative to form the International Peace Council: China, in its alternative to joining the Council, calls for the activation of the two-state solution as the only way to guarantee lasting peace in the Middle East and the implementation of the Beijing Declaration to support Palestinian national unity and strengthen the legitimacy of the Palestinian state. (UN Reform): Instead of creating parallel initiatives, Beijing calls for making the Security Council more responsive to the expectations of the world’s people on its 80th anniversary.

China proposes a different vision for managing the Gaza and Middle East issues, based on the following pillars: (Security Council Authority): This involves full adherence to UN Security Council resolutions as the sole basis for international legitimacy in Gaza. The Chinese call for (the principle of self-governance in the Gaza Strip): This involves China’s insistence that post-war administration of Gaza must be in the hands of the Palestinians themselves, rejecting any plans for forced displacement or external trusteeship. The Chinese call for a broad international peace conference on Gaza: Beijing calls for a more inclusive and credible international peace conference under UN auspices, with the aim of concretely implementing the two-state solution within a defined timeframe. With China prioritizing land routes over sea routes or temporary docks, as proposed by the US, China rejects maritime alternatives or “temporary docks” as substitutes for land corridors, viewing them as attempts to circumvent international obligations regarding humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip.

From the preceding analysis, we understand that China considers itself a “positive stabilizing force” seeking to end the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip through comprehensive dialogue, in contrast to what it describes as the “unilateral” US approach, which it believes could deepen regional divisions. In short, while China does not reject participation in international dialogue on Gaza, it stipulates that the international peace council, sponsored by Washington, should be an instrument for strengthening international legitimacy, not a replacement for it, while preserving full Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza.

Source link

Oil Vs. Renewables: Competing Visions Of Global Power