Energy

Sean and Heidi Cripe will never forget the call from their son’s high school saying Davis was being taken to the emergency room.

“He chugged an energy drink — like, just trying to be cool,” said Sean Cripe, recounting the day nearly a decade ago.

The teen’s heart soon fell out of rhythm and he died. While such deaths are rare, doctors across the country have warned for years that energy drinks contain high levels of caffeine that can seriously harm children, causing problems such as abnormal heartbeats, increased heart rate, sleep disturbances, dehydration, agitation, high blood pressure and seizures.

A newly formed coalition of doctors is highlighting these risks in the wake of a sponsorship deal between Monster Energy and the Big 12 Conference college athletic organization. The group has asked conference leaders to pause the sponsorship and the NCAA to review energy drink marketing to youths in general, citing the deaths of three children including Davis, a 16-year-old from South Carolina.

The doctors stress that they’re not just concerned about Monster but all energy drinks and any similar partnerships.

“Kids are going to see energy drinks now promoted by the universities and the athletes that they admire and want to emulate,” said Dr. Matthew Nelson, an Idaho cardiologist involved with the effort. “The kids will think of them as sports drinks, which they’re not.”

Too much caffeine can harm kids in many ways

Various medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, say children and teens should avoid energy drinks altogether. Yet many are not. According to the latest results of the federally funded Monitoring the Future survey, run by the University of Michigan, 23% of 12th-graders, 20% of 10th-graders and 18% of eighth-graders reported consuming energy drinks daily.

Depending on the product, caffeine content can range from 80 to 300 mg per serving. By comparison, a typical 8-ounce coffee contains about 80 to 100 mg and some sodas contain 50 mg or less. Overall, the pediatrics academy recommends children ages 12 to 18 limit caffeine to 100 mg a day. Younger kids are discouraged from consuming any caffeine.

Caffeine and other stimulants increase heart rate and the reactivity of the nervous system — basically “how fast things go in the body, which can create an overload of the system,” said Dr. Tamara Hannon, an Indiana pediatrician who chairs the academy’s nutrition committee.

She likened it to running a blender until the motor heats up too much. “The same thing can happen when you deliver stimulants to people,” she said. “The heart can wear out, the nervous system can go haywire and you can have really serious consequences.”

Mixing different types of caffeine can be risky

Children with preexisting conditions such as high blood pressure are at especially high risk, Hannon said, but even healthy children who get too much of a stimulant can have serious problems. That includes young athletes.

Another consideration: Kids often drink various types of caffeinated beverages. That was the case with Davis Cripe, who died in 2017. According to the coroner at the time, Davis had no prior heart condition and drank a Mountain Dew and a latte from McDonald’s earlier in the day. He experienced arrhythmia after having the energy drink.

It wasn’t the first time Davis drank one, although he didn’t consume them regularly.

“We had talked to him and let him know that they weren’t healthy,” Sean Cripe said. “We didn’t understand they could be deadly.”

Trade group says the energy drink industry tries to protect kids

The American Beverage Assn. — which includes Monster and other companies comprising 94% of the energy drink category — said members voluntarily disclose caffeine totals on product labels, which carry advisories such as: “Not intended for children, pregnant or nursing women, or persons sensitive to caffeine.” Members also don’t sell or market energy drinks in K-12 schools.

Monster Energy said in a statement that caffeine and other drink ingredients are found in a broad variety of food products. “Mainstream energy drinks have been marketed worldwide for more than 30 years and more than 100 billion energy drinks have been sold and safely consumed globally,” the company added.

The deal between Big 12 and Monster calls for a co-branded logo on football and basketball jerseys, fields and courts, and across digital and social media channels.

“The energy drink category is not new to collegiate athletics,” the Big 12 Conference said in a statement, adding that beverage companies are always looking for ways to reach sports fans.

The NCAA doesn’t have the authority to regulate conference or school sponsorship agreements, Dr. Deena Casiero, the association’s chief medical officer, told the doctor group in a letter. She said the association offers schools educational resources on caffeine and student-athlete health, and caffeine has been a topic of interest for an NCAA committee, which recently commissioned a cardiac advisory group.

How to educate kids about excess caffeine

To protect children, teachers and coaches can educate them about the dangers of too much caffeine and the difference between energy drinks and sports drinks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sports drinks are designed to help replace water and electrolytes lost through sweating after activity.

Parents and other adults can also model good behavior by not consuming energy drinks in front of kids.

On a related topic, Harvard Medical School experts say there’s no scientifically valid evidence behind the common belief that caffeine can stunt a person’s growth.

At well visits, parents should talk with pediatricians about all the beverages their children are consuming, said Hannon, who often advises families to “Rethink your drink.”

Sean Cripe said sharing stories like his could also help children understand that energy drinks are not for them.

Ungar writes for the Associated Press.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Thanksgiving message comes a week ahead of Alberta’s vote on a separatism referendum.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has used his Thanksgiving message to Canadians to call for national unity, a week before the oil-rich province of Alberta is set to vote on a proposal to secede from Canada.

“We can’t build big things on fault lines,” Carney said in his video message on Monday, warning that Canada faces threats to its economy, security and way of life.

“We have to be strong, and we are stronger together.”

His comments come as Albertans head to the polls on October 19 to decide whether to begin the process of seeking independence. The initial referendum is non-binding, but it proposes to hold a binding vote in the future to decide whether Alberta should secede.

The question facing voters is: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

The vote follows a growing push by a vocal group of separatists, fuelled by longstanding grievances over federal energy and environmental policies.

The secessionist movement has accused the Canadian government of unfairly targeting Alberta’s oil and gas industry, the cornerstone of the province’s economy.

The movement is also being watched south of the border, as Canada’s relationship with the United States under President Donald Trump has become strained.

An investigation by The Globe and Mail earlier this month revealed that US Republican operatives met with secession organisers in Alberta to talk about campaign strategies. Separatist leaders had reportedly offered access to the province’s water and oil royalties in exchange for US support for independence. Separatist leaders have disputed those claims.

Carney’s comments also come after another secessionist movement, the Parti Quebecois, won the most seats in a provincial election in Quebec last week, allowing it to return to power after more than a decade.

The Parti Quebecois, however, only won 59 seats out of a total of 129 in Quebec’s National Assembly, leaving it short of a majority government.

Still, following that victory, US tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, considered the richest man on the planet, applauded the results. He has been known to use his wealth and influence to support political causes, particularly on the far right.

“Good. Quebec should separate,” Musk wrote on social media. “They would be better off. Alberta and Saskatchewan should separate too.”

Carney, who grew up in Alberta, said he was filming the message from a classroom at his former school, St Francis Xavier High School in Edmonton.

“I’m back home a lot these days because we are building big things again in Alberta: thousands of new homes, high-speed rail, a new pipeline to the West Coast that will create lasting opportunity and prosperity for hundreds of thousands of people in this province and across the country,” he said.

Despite the secessionist movement’s growing visibility, polls suggest most Albertans oppose independence.

The Cuban government is pushing ahead with its plans to transition to renewable energy, amid a de facto oil blockade from the United States that has strangled the island’s economy.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency on Monday, Cuban Minister of Energy and Mines Vicente de la O Levy explained that the blockade has forced Cuba to explore domestic alternatives to foreign fuel imports.

“We are seeking our own alternative solutions, using our own resources, our sun, wind, tides, fuel, Cuban crude oil and the gas produced in our wells,” de la O Levy said.

He said 144 solar farms with a combined capacity of about 1,418 megawatts have been installed on the island in recent years.

China has been the largest supplier of solar panels to the island, and shipments have increased since the blockade began in early January.

At the time, US President Donald Trump halted all oil shipments from Venezuela, a close ally of the Cuban government.

Later that month, Trump also announced he would impose heavy tariffs on any country that exported oil to Cuba, justifying the threat by calling the island’s government a “national security” threat.

Since then, only a single oil tanker from Russia has reached Havana. The US has increased its shipments of oil to Cuba’s private sector, but it has largely barred fuel exports for nationalised industries on the communist-led island.

The government-run electrical grid, widely considered to be antiquated, relies heavily on fossil fuels. Only 40 percent of Cuba’s electricity comes from ‌‌‌‌domestic ‌‌‌‌oil production, according to the International Energy Agency.

As of 2023, only nine percent of the country’s energy consumption was covered by renewable sources.

De la O Levy admitted in his interview with Reuters that the country was facing difficulties. The blockade has caused shortages of medicine, water and fuel, pushing Cuba to the brink of a humanitarian crisis.

“We are surviving and moving forward, little by little, even if not at the pace we would like,” he said.

“We face long hours of blackouts and lack fuel for cooking and transportation. We lack fuel, but we are gradually making headway through our own solutions and our people.”

Cuba’s production of domestic crude oil remains stable, he added, but is almost entirely allocated to power plants.

The United Nations and human rights watchdogs have criticised the oil blockade as a violation of international law.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla also condemned the oil blockade in his speech at the UN General Assembly last month.

“It is an unusual and unprecedented action,” Rodriguez said of the blockade.

“A superpower unilaterally deprives all states of their right to export the commodities that they wish to the country that they wish.”

The US has maintained an economic embargo on Cuba for more than 60 years, since the Cold War era.

But since taking office for a second term as president, Trump has sought to squeeze Cuba’s economy further, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign. His administration has indicated that it wants to topple Cuba’s government.

On October 7, US authorities announced they had seized 90 biodiesel fuel shipments valued at over $2.8m destined for Cuba.

“These shipments were part of an attempt to unlawfully export fuel to Cuba in violation of federal export laws,” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said in a statement.

But in his interview with Reuters, de la O Levy denied the Cuban government had any link to the shipments.

“No Cuban state-owned company has managed to secure a fuel contract, whether for small or large quantities,” he said.

He added that any US oil shipments to private firms fall far short of the country’s requirements.

“I would venture to say that the amount entering the country doesn’t even cover 3 percent of its fuel needs,” de la O Levy said.

US President Donald Trump has announced an immediate “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine, days after easing sanctions on Russian fuel to tackle soaring domestic and global fuel prices.

The energy truce, announced on Sunday, marks another shift in Washington’s approach to Russian energy, as the Iran-US war and recent Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy facilities disrupted global oil supplies and pushed up fuel prices. Trump has even asked Ukraine not to attack Russian oil facilities, as Moscow remains a major exporter of diesel.

The spike in diesel prices in recent weeks has particularly put pressure on Trump’s Republican Party ahead of November’s midterm elections. Surveys show Americans hold the Trump administration responsible for the soaring fuel prices amid the unpopular US war on Iran.

“Attacks on refineries and energy facilities have taken capacity out of an already stretched global fuel market, pushing up costs for transport, agriculture and businesses, with the pain ultimately passed on to consumers,” Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera, referring to the mutual attacks on energy sites by Ukraine and Russia.

“A genuine ceasefire could help protect supplies and ease some of that pressure, particularly as winter approaches.”

However, she warned it was too early to call it a “diplomatic breakthrough”, citing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statement that the energy truce came as a surprise to him.

Trump’s decisions have drawn criticism from US politicians and European allies, who warn that allowing Russian fuel back into global markets could provide Moscow with new revenue to finance its war in Ukraine. In March, the Trump administration gave a sanctions waiver to Russian seaborne oil.

So, why has Trump repeatedly changed his position on Russian energy, and what is behind his latest decisions?

What is the ‘energy ceasefire’ Trump announced?

On Sunday, Trump said Russia and Ukraine had agreed to immediately stop attacking each other’s energy infrastructure.

“Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” he wrote on Truth Social, without providing further details.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was not aware of the energy truce, saying the deal was “news to me” but welcomed the announcement nonetheless.

However, he said Russian drones continued targeting Ukrainian energy facilities, including a power plant in Kharkiv, after Trump’s statement.

“We are waiting for the details of the conditions between the Americans and Russians, ⁠⁠⁠⁠and we are waiting ⁠⁠⁠⁠to see one specific step the Americans are ready to take,” Zelenskyy said on Monday during a video address to a security conference in Warsaw.

“This ⁠⁠⁠⁠energy ceasefire, it can work, and it can become a major step towards ending ‌‌‌‌the war if the Americans truly step in now and make ‌‌‌‌sure ‌‌‌‌Russians respect it.”

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries, arguing that energy revenues help fund Moscow’s war. Russia, meanwhile, has attacked Ukraine’s electricity and heating infrastructure throughout the four-year conflict.

Academic Alexey Muriaev has urged caution over Trump’s announcement, questioning whether an agreement has actually been reached, and if so, what it entails.

“Is it about suspending attacks on oil refineries? And if that’s the case, then the situation would be inadequate, because Ukraine’s oil refineries have already been taken out by Russia’s strikes beforehand,” Muraviev, senior research fellow in Defence and Strategic Studies at Edith Cowan University, told Al Jazeera.

“So, in this sense, it would mean effectively Ukraine suspending unilateral action against Russia’s oil refinery facilities.”

Muriaev also linked the announcement to Trump’s diesel agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting it may be a signal to Zelenskyy.

“Attacking Russian oil refinery capability would probably be interpreted by Washington as an attack on US economic interests,” he said, referring to the agreement on diesel exports through April 2027.

What’s the state of global oil prices?

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have continued to keep global oil markets under pressure.

On Monday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell to about $103.04 a barrel following Trump’s ceasefire announcement and Russian diesel deal, while US West Texas Intermediate crude traded at about $90.96.

However, prices remain elevated because of the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies flow.

Recent attacks on Saudi oil installations and airports by Yemen’s Houthis and the fighting around the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb Strait have put further pressure on oil prices.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have compounded diesel shortages, affecting a fuel essential for the agriculture and trucking industries.

The crisis prompted the Group of Seven nations last week to agree to release 100 million barrels of emergency oil and diesel reserves. The G7 decision came after pressure from Trump.

How has the Trump administration zig-zagged between punishing and embracing Russian energy?

Washington’s approach to Russian energy has shifted repeatedly since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Under President Joe Biden, the US banned Russian oil and energy imports in March 2022, seeking to cut off revenue used to finance Moscow’s war.

But Washington simultaneously supported a G7 price cap on Russian oil, designed to restrict Moscow’s earnings without removing too much supply from global markets.

Moreover, the Biden administration also accepted India’s continued purchases of Russian crude to prevent global prices from rising.

After returning to power last year, Trump initially intensified pressure on Moscow. In August 2025, his administration imposed additional tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi’s purchases of Russian oil.

Two months later, Washington sanctioned Russian energy giants Rosneft and Lukoil, accusing Moscow of failing to seriously pursue peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

However, Washington’s approach took a dramatic turn this year. On March 5, Washington issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian oil stranded at sea, as disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz amid US attacks on Iran threatened global supplies.

A week later, the Trump administration expanded the exemption, allowing countries worldwide to buy sanctioned Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded onto tankers, with the waiver lasting until April 11.

In September, Trump urged Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries, blaming the strikes for global diesel shortages.

On October 9, he announced an agreement with Russian President Putin for Moscow to release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, with another 1.5 million tonnes to follow.

Why has Trump changed his position on Russian oil frequently?

Trump’s shifting public position on Russian energy reflects ongoing, and often competing, political and economic pressures.

“Trump is caught between his geopolitical ambitions and the domestic political consequences of expensive energy,” Susannah Streeter of Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera.

She said Washington was trying to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine while simultaneously allowing Russian fuel sales that could generate additional revenue for the Kremlin.

“The shift may deliver a short-term political gain if supplies increase and prices ease, but it could come at a longer-term diplomatic cost,” she said, adding that the benefits appeared limited while the Middle East war continued.

US diesel prices reached a record $6.52 per gallon in September, placing Trump under pressure ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

However, according to academic Muriev, the US president’s public rhetoric should be distinguished from his administration’s actions.

“I don’t really see inconsistency in Trump’s approach because, apart from his public rhetoric, apart from his frequent media posting, there’s been a more steady approach on behalf of his administration,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed to discussions between Russian and American officials in August and September, suggesting that negotiations over the latest diesel agreement may have begun well before Trump’s announcement last Friday.

Muriev suggested the timing of the announcement could be politically motivated, allowing Trump to claim a victory on energy prices before the midterms.

Moreover, Moscow also has an interest in helping Trump retain political influence because his administration appears more willing to negotiate with Russia than former President Biden was. Trump has  been relatively more accepting of the Russian position on the Ukraine war and has even blamed Zelenskyy for failing to end the war.

“For Putin, it’s not just about scoring immediate economic benefit, but also achieving longer-term political and strategic goals,” Muriev said, referring to other issues such as Iran, cybersecurity, space cooperation and nuclear arms control.

The energy crisis has also created contrasting consequences for American businesses.

While higher oil prices can boost revenues for US energy producers, they increase operating costs for businesses dependent on fuel.

Susannah Streeter said cheaper diesel could provide relief to trucking companies, farmers and manufacturers, although the additional Russian supplies were unlikely to make a significant difference while disruptions in the Middle East continued.

She also warned that frequent changes to sanctions could create uncertainty for companies making long-term investment and supply-chain decisions.

“If sanctions are relaxed, reimposed or changed at short notice, companies face greater uncertainty over sourcing, compliance and the risk of being caught on the wrong side of a policy reversal,” she said.

The EU also announced that it officially added almost 1,600 new sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Russia of violating the “energy ceasefire” that United States President Donald Trump unilaterally announced at the weekend and promised to respond if the attacks continue.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum via videolink on Monday, the Ukrainian president urged the US to step in to ensure ⁠that Moscow abided by the truce, noting that there have already been “Russian violations of the energy ceasefire announced by ‌President Trump.”

“We are waiting for the details of the conditions between the Americans and Russians, ⁠and we are waiting ⁠to see what specific steps the Americans are ready to take,” said Zelenskyy, who expressed surprise at the ceasefire deal.

“This ⁠energy ceasefire, it can work, and it can become a major step toward ending ‌the war if the Americans truly step in now and make ‌sure ‌Russians respect it … If Russia does not agree to an energy ceasefire, we will respond,” Zelenskyy told the Warsaw Security Forum.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday that the two countries had agreed to an “energy ceasefire” caused confusion. It came two days after Trump declared a temporary easing of US sanctions on Russian diesel, prompting outrage from European allies and Kyiv, who said it would only embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Both Ukraine and Russia have been launching mutual attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure for months, adding to upward pressure on global energy prices that have risen amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Zelenskyy initially denied any knowledge of the agreement and said it was “news to him,” according to Axios.

Trump has previously taken to his Truth Social account to announce truces or other arrangements before either Kyiv or Moscow confirmed them.

“An energy ceasefire and other steps to reduce escalation and guarantee security are truly needed here in reality, not just on Truth Social,”  Zelenskyy added.

European leaders expressed encouragement at the proposed ceasefire, but agreed with Zelenskyy that it had not taken effect.

“I have not noted, over‌ the last 48 hours, any energy ceasefire coming from the ‌Russian ‌side,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters at a Paris autoshow.

At the Warsaw Security Forum, ⁠Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that “Russia is not interested in ‌a ceasefire, de-escalation, or peace … that is why I will go to Brussels to urge all European partners ⁠to consider increasing ⁠sanctions.”

In Brussels, the European Union announced that it has officially added almost 1,600 new sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex, including individuals and entities involved in its four-and-a-half-year war, in a bid to maintain pressure on Moscow.

“This is the single largest expansion of our sanctions list since Russia started its war,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas wrote online. “Europe is again showing a united front … We are making it significantly harder, slower and more expensive for Russia to produce the weapons it uses to kill Ukrainians,” she added.

Meanwhile, Russia ⁠attacked Ukrainian gas production facilities belonging to its state ⁠oil and gas ⁠company Naftogaz in the Kharkiv region overnight, which caused a fire, the ‌company said on Monday.

“The attack damaged critical equipment. Our employees are doing everything possible ⁠to repair the ⁠damage as quickly as possible and ⁠prevent risks to ⁠the stable ⁠operation of the energy system,” Naftogaz acting CEO ‌Sergii Fedorenko wrote on Telegram.

A day earlier, Zelenskyy had said that Ukraine was ready to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries if Moscow ceased its own attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Ukraine says it has received proposals from India, Turkiye, Egypt and the United States to broker talks with Russia. The offers come as the two adversaries escalate attacks on each other’s energy and port infrastructure with their war now in its fifth year.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha revealed the four proposals at a briefing in Kyiv on Friday and singled out New Delhi’s. “The most comprehensive is India’s proposal,” he said, adding that India had signalled a willingness to play a role for the first time.

None of the proposals aims to end the war. Each seeks a narrower truce, covering energy facilities, ports or commercial shipping in the Black Sea.

Here’s what we know:

What is India proposing?

India has not made its plan public. Quoting unnamed sources, however, Indian media have reported it has three parts. According to the Hindustan Times, it would aim to protect infrastructure, keep grain and energy supplies moving through Black Sea ports, and ensure the safety of commercial shipping.

The first part – mutually halting strikes on energy facilities and ports – matches what Kyiv has been demanding. Sybiha said any deal must be a complete energy truce that covers port infrastructure as well.

The second part builds on the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which Turkiye and the United Nations mediated in 2022 but Russia abandoned in 2023.

The third part, protecting merchant ships and their crews, is particularly important to India because Indian sailors have been killed or harmed on Black Sea routes.

The sources were quoted as saying India’s plan goes further than the other three proposals because it covers infrastructure and shipping together. A Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent that it incorporates elements of the Turkish, Egyptian and US initiatives. The Kyiv Post reported that Sybiha also described the plan as addressing a possible ceasefire along the front lines, although other accounts said he gave no specifics.

The proposal likely took shape during Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s first visit to Ukraine last month and in a later meeting with Sybiha at the UN General Assembly in New York, also in September. Jaishankar said New Delhi was “trying to be helpful, starting with the Black Sea safety of shipping issue”.

What do we know about the Turkish and Egyptian proposals?

Very little. Neither Ankara nor Cairo has published details. Both reportedly focus on keeping Black Sea grain supplies moving by suspending attacks on commercial shipping. Some reports said the two countries proposed a grain truce jointly while others described two separate plans.

Turkiye has done this before. With the UN, it steered the 2022 grain deal, one of the few narrow truces of the war to hold for any length of time. Ankara and the UN are now organising new Black Sea talks with a round planned for October.

Beyond its Black Sea focus, almost nothing is known about Egypt’s proposal. Its interest, however, is clear: Egypt relies on Ukraine for nearly one-third of its grain supplies.

What is the US pitching?

According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Washington has proposed three steps: a mutual halt to energy strikes, a reopening of the grain corridor and a trilateral meeting with Ukraine and Russia, possibly in Abu Dhabi.

The latest effort began in early September when US President Donald Trump’s envoys visited Kyiv and Moscow and secured an agreement in principle for a trilateral meeting. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on September 5 while Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev visited the US twice in September.

The trilateral meeting has since been pushed back. It had been expected to take place in the United Arab Emirates in early October. Washington now wants it in late October, and people close to the talks blamed the delay on Russia.

Washington has also invited Putin to the Group of 20 summit in Miami, Florida, in December. “We hope that’s an invitation he’ll accept,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. The Kremlin said no decision has been made.

At the same time, the US is applying pressure to try to end the war. Trump recently signed a law giving him sweeping powers to sanction buyers of Russian energy.

He has also called on Ukraine to stop targeting Russian diesel facilities amid a diesel prices crisis in the US, where Trump faces tricky midterm elections next month. “Mr Zelenskyy has to do one thing,” he said on September 13. “He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia.” This drew much criticism that Trump instead should focus his comments on Russia, which began the war with its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

He is reportedly sceptical about his own government’s latest diplomatic initiative. People familiar with his thinking have told US media that he doubted Putin would agree to an energy truce before winter.

How have Russia and Ukraine responded?

Sybiha said Ukraine would agree to a truce but with conditions. It would accept an energy and Black Sea shipping ceasefire, but only as a combined package, he said.

He added that Kyiv is also open to an unconditional ceasefire along the current front lines. Zelenskyy backs the US-proposed meeting but stressed it needs “not only Ukraine but also the Russian side” to support it.

Moscow has been warm in tone but has committed to nothing. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia would welcome India’s peace efforts while Putin said Modi has “very good ideas aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions”, but he did not elaborate.

In private, Moscow appears to have said no. A Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent that Russia has rejected India’s proposal although this has not been confirmed publicly. Ukraine’s agriculture minister said Russia had rejected every Black Sea ceasefire option the mediators have presented.

Why are Global South countries becoming more involved?

Food supplies, the lives of their citizens and fuel prices are all at stake.

“I think it’s clear to many countries that this war is not a localised war, but it’s a war that has these global consequences,” Fredrik Wesslau, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera.

Russia and Ukraine account for more than a quarter of global wheat shipments, and their attacks on each other’s ports helped push wheat futures to a three-year high in August.

Sailors from countries with no links to the war are being killed. At least five Indian seafarers have died in strikes on Black Sea shipping in recent months along with seven Azerbaijani crew members since June. On Saturday, a Russian strike on a Liberian-flagged ship in a port in the Odesa region killed a crew member. Ukraine, for its part, has targeted tankers it links to Russia’s shadow fleet since July.

The energy war is also being felt in global markets. Ukraine reported more than 194 drone attacks on Russian refineries this year, hitting all 11 of the largest. Bloomberg News estimated that Russia’s fuel output has fallen by more than 30 percent. With Middle East supply already down as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran, global diesel markets are more exposed to the loss of Russian supplies.

Maximilian Hess, a nonresident senior fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said energy is at least as important as grain in driving the diplomatic efforts. He pointed to a “clear frustration” among many countries over high oil prices, which reflect both the Russia-Ukraine war and the crisis in the Middle East.

“Of course, Ukrainian grain is important for them, but the oil-price factor is important there as well,” he told Al Jazeera. “I think it is those commodity-shock concerns that are pushing them to re-embrace this rhetoric, rather than anything else.”

What are the challenges ahead?

Every previous attempt at diplomacy has failed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. A US-brokered, 30-day energy truce in early 2025 collapsed amid accusations of violations on both sides. At talks in Istanbul in May 2025, Zelenskyy complained that Russia had sent a junior delegation with no authority to sign a ceasefire.

In August 2025, a meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska yielded no results despite Trump claiming to be close to a deal ahead of it.

Wesslau said Washington’s efforts have faltered partly because Trump – who had boasted he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office in January 2025 – has appeared unwilling to put real pressure on Moscow. “The Russians see this, and they conclude that they can continue this war,” he said.

Deep distrust remains. Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said: “Putin never keeps agreements.”

Moscow’s actions on the ground suggest it is in no hurry, Wesslau said  “They’re trying to strangle Ukraine, strangle the economy, and make it unliveable ahead of the winter,” he said. He added that Moscow’s occasionally softer rhetoric was aimed mainly at the Trump administration and “has always proved to be a bluff”.

Russia’s terms are another obstacle. Hess said Moscow’s demands have not softened at any point since it launched the war and at times have grown. Putin has demanded all of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, including territory Russian forces have never controlled, as well as a buffer zone in northern Ukraine. Moscow is also seeking sanctions relief and military concessions for any Black Sea deal.

“I don’t think it’s a question of who actually mediates. I think it’s really a question of the calculation in Moscow,” Wesslau said. “Fundamentally, the problem is that Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire or a peace agreement. He wants to continue the war. He believes that he can win.”

Analysts said only greater economic pressure is likely to change that calculation.

Wesslau said if Europe can close down Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, “this would be a massive blow to Russia’s war economy.” Hess said the country best placed to shift things quickly is China, rather than the US, by cutting its purchases of Russian oil. However, he added: “I don’t think Beijing is interested in doing so.”

Hess said that unless there is an outside shock, the war “is much more likely to last another four years than another four months”.

Ukrainian reports of South Korean fuel exports to Russia come amid strained tensions between Seoul and Kyiv.

South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said the government will take legal action over illegal fuel shipments to Russia if allegations from an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are confirmed.

The Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it had not confirmed whether South Korean fuel, including diesel, had been exported to Russia.

It added that exports of some products, such as diesel and jet fuel for commercial purposes, were not included in a South Korean exports control list to Russia.

On Wednesday, the South Korean presidential office dismissed a statement by Vladyslav Vlasiuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on sanctions policy, that 176,000 tonnes of fuel were shipped from South Korea to Russia via sanctioned tankers in July and August.

Ukraine’s top sanctions official said the alleged findings run counter to South Korea’s sanctions policy towards Russia.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has consistently implemented sanctions and export controls against Russia in close cooperation with the international community,” South Korean presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said on Wednesday, according to the Yonhap news agency.

“We ask that Ukraine also refrain from distorting the relevant policies of the Republic of Korea without sufficient verification of the facts and making public remarks that can damage international trust,” she added.

Relations between South Korea and Ukraine have been strained for the past couple of weeks after Seoul accused Zelenskyy of having “unilaterally disclosed” to the United Nations General Assembly that Kyiv had transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea.

Seoul Korea demanded an official apology from Kyiv, claiming the Ukrainian president had breached a non-disclosure agreement. Kyiv said no such agreement was in place.

Pyongyang and Moscow, meanwhile, have deep ties, with the two countries having signed a mutual defence treaty in 2024. According to Ukrainian and South Korean estimates, about 14,000 to 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to support Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine.

North Korea and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950–1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 9.5 million people have received subsidised petrol under a special fuel relief scheme launched by Pakistan’s prime minister, Federal Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

The initiative, aimed at lower-income citizens, comes as the government attempts to help households deal with fuel price increases tied to the war on Iran.

The scheme, launched in September, offers 100 rupees ($0.36) off every litre of petrol to owners of motorcycles, rickshaws and small cars, through a text-message system.

Petrol prices have risen by nearly 50 percent since the war began on February 28, adding to Pakistan’s economic hardship and putting further pressure on consumers already grappling with rising inflation.

How the scheme works

Explaining the process, Khawaja, the minister for information technology and telecommunications, said applicants text their national ID number, vehicle registration, and province to 9771. A second message, sent before each visit to a pump, generates a token redeemable anywhere in the country.

Two- and three-wheelers get 500 rupees ($1.80) a week, capped at four tokens a month. Cars with engines of up to 800cc get 1,000 rupees ($3.60) every 10 days, for three tokens monthly.

After complaints, registration, once a paid service, was made free, and a five-litre minimum purchase was scrapped for the same reason.

Khawaja told Al Jazeera the system had been redesigned based on experiences of users on the ground.

Riders no longer need the vehicle to be registered in their own name, as long as they can supply the exact registration date shown on the documents.

“Even in my own house, there’s a bike registered in our name that our cook uses for daily errands,” Khawaja said, explaining why the ownership requirement for two- and three-wheelers was dropped on September 20.

An earlier cash-transfer scheme in April had reached just over a million bike owners, she said, largely because disbursement required a bank account most riders did not have.

‘The relief is decent’

Government officials say that the scheme has been expanded to include wider sections of society, especially those who depend on their vehicles to generate income.

“There’s a benefit; it’s not like there’s nothing,” Shakeel Ahmed, 45, an electrician in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera. “The relief is decent for people who use it normally, for local trips. But for people like us, who put in 1,000 to 1,500 rupees [$3.60-$5.40] of petrol a day, it’s not enough.”

Safiya Aftab, an economist, told Al Jazeera the scheme has reached the people it was meant to.

“The scheme has indeed reached low-income segments of society, people who typically use two-wheelers and 800cc cars. So yes, it’s a good thing that they are subsidising the poor,” she said.

Aftab, however, also pointed to a levy – 114 rupees ($0.41) for every litre – that the government charges. This, she said, was helping the government raise revenue. She said the government is now earning more than 100 billion rupees ($361m) a month from the levy, which is fuelling inflation.

“The levy was originally meant as a sort of environmental tax, to discourage the use of petrol. Now it has become a full revenue earner for the government, one that helps keep the fiscal deficit down,” the economist said.

What it costs and for how long

The Pakistani government has approved 75 billion rupees ($271m) for the scheme’s first three months, through November.

Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik put the running cost at 25-30 billion rupees ($90m-$108m) a month at launch. By late September, he said, it had risen to 35-40 billion rupees ($126m-$144m).

Malik has said the government is prepared to run the scheme for up to 10 months, or “until the end of the war”, if needed.

Pakistan is currently under a $7bn International Monetary Fund programme, and an IMF team is in Islamabad this week for talks with the government as it seeks to keep its fiscal commitments on track while responding to the fuel shock.

Officials familiar with the government’s talks with the IMF say the Fund wants relief capped at three months and routed instead through the Benazir Income Support Programme, the country’s main cash-transfer scheme.

Khawaja said the IMF’s position from the outset was that relief had to be targeted, not universal, which was why the scheme was built around actual token use rather than a blanket price cut.

Who it leaves out

But there are claims that the relief is not reaching all. Cars with engines larger than 800cc, diesel vehicles and public transport are excluded entirely, leading some experts to suggest that the subsidy scheme risks missing the most vulnerable sections of Pakistani society.

“A poor household that uses public transport, walks to work, or relies on diesel-powered transport may receive nothing while still facing higher food and transport costs,” Khaqan Najeeb, a former adviser in Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, told Al Jazeera.

More than 8.1 million tokens had gone to two- and three-wheelers by late September, compared with fewer than 380,000 for cars, Malik said. A November 2024 Gallup Pakistan survey found that 79 percent of respondents, in rural and urban areas alike, said they use public transport such as buses or wagons.

Does the relief go far enough?

At 100 rupees a litre, the maximum monthly saving is 2,000 rupees ($7.20) for a motorcycle user and 3,000 rupees ($10.80) for an eligible car owner, Najeeb said, calling it “useful household relief, but not enough to offset the broader cost-of-living shock”.

Petrol has climbed from 266 rupees ($0.96) a litre before the war to nearly 395 rupees ($1.42), despite a partial rollback in April. Inflation rose to 10.3 percent in September from 7 percent in February, Najeeb said.

Sajid Amin Javed, a senior economist at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, said the relief was “minimal”, but added that this was understandable given the IMF constraints on Pakistan.

“The relief is minimal, and that is understandable as we are in an IMF programme,” Javed told Al Jazeera, arguing that cutting the petroleum development levy, which still adds 114 rupees to every litre, would deliver broader relief than a capped subsidy.

“The government is using the petroleum development levy to fill its revenue gap, but that comes at a significant cost in terms of inflation, growth and household welfare,” Javed said.

Najeeb, however, argued the scheme should not become a permanent fixture of Pakistan’s energy policy – and should be used only to make oil price shocks “less damaging”.

Rising energy costs are already affecting households across Northern Ireland.

The impact of the US-Israel war with Iran is one of the factors behind the increase.

The letter from the EA to head teachers said that “recent geopolitical events are expected to have a substantial impact on energy costs across the Education Authority (EA) during the 2026/27 financial year”.

It said that total school gas bills were expected to go up by 60% from £10.7m to £17m by March 2027.

Meanwhile, total school electricity bills are expected to rise by 5% from £23.8m to £25.1m by March 2027.

“Given the scale of the anticipated cost increases, we are asking all schools to review their energy usage and identify opportunities to reduce consumption wherever possible,” the EA said.

Among the measures the authority has suggested to schools are cutting heating use by an hour a day and switching off classroom lights to use natural daylight instead.

Staff and pupils have also been advised to “wear more clothes” rather than turn the heating thermostat up if it is cold.

But principals have told BBC News NI that it is not straightforward for schools to cut heating costs.

The principal of Tullygally Primary School in Craigavon, Kirsty Logan-Hall, said that the school was “committed to promoting responsible energy consumption and regularly reinforce good practice with staff and pupils”.

“However, our ability to achieve significant reductions in energy usage is constrained by the nature of our estate,” she said.

“The school operates from an older building which presents inherent energy efficiency challenges.

“In addition, our site is particularly spread out due to the accommodation and operational requirements associated with our specialist provision.

“This necessitates the heating, lighting and ongoing use of multiple areas across the site throughout the school day to ensure appropriate learning environments, accessibility and pupil welfare.

“It is important to recognise that there is limited scope for reducing energy consumption without adversely impacting the quality of provision, staff working conditions or the wellbeing of pupils, including those with additional needs.”

Emma Quinn from Rathcoole Primary told BBC Good Morning Ulster that the “lack of maintenance” has an impact on schools, adding that pupils have a right to come into a warm school after being outside.

“Putting this pressure onto us at the minute is ridiculous, when we are eco schools, we are doing all of these, we are turning off lights, but yet this lands in on our doorstep and we’re suddenly expected to jump and to fix a problem that is so systemic, it’s just not good enough.”

Countries in Central Asia have begun buying oil from Iran as the Russian fuel supplies they have long depended on run dry amid Ukraine’s mounting attacks on Russian energy infrastructure to degrade Moscow’s war effort.

In August, Tajikistan announced it was receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran as Dushanbe faces uncertainty over its fuel supply from Russia. Tehran also agreed to establish a joint refinery in Kyrgyzstan in August, and supply the country with crude oil.

Moscow has been facing fuel shortages due to Ukrainian drone strikes on its refineries as Russia’s war on its neighbour continues to rage.

Can the Russian fuel crisis give Iran a new oil opening in Central Asia?

Here’s what we know:

Which Central Asian countries have been affected by Russia’s fuel crisis?

Ukraine’s offensive against Russian energy infrastructure has caused panic across Central Asian countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are dependent on Moscow for oil and petroleum products.

Tajikistan has traditionally sourced up to 80 percent of its petroleum products from Russia. Kyrgyzstan also relies on petroleum product imports, sourcing more than 90 percent of its petrol from Russia.

“They’ve been hurt the most,” Galiya Ibragimova, a Moldova-based expert on Central Asia with Carnegie Politika, which has its headquarters in Berlin, told Al Jazeera in an interview in August.

Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, the free trade bloc of five former Soviet nations dominated by Russia and the Kremlin’s political decisions.

Tajikistan is not a member of the group, but it bought discounted Russian fuel as “payment for political loyalty, not because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is so kind”, Ibragimova added.

Kazakhstan, meanwhile, boasts three giant, Soviet-era oil refineries. Still, fuel prices in the country have increased by 15.6 percent this year, the UlusMedia website reported on July 10.

Uzbekistan, on the other hand, is less dependent on Russian energy, with domestic production capable of reaching 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products per month, satisfying most of the country’s needs. But due to the increase in oil demand from its regional neighbours, Uzbekistan has also been forced to diversify its imports and has begun striking deals with countries like Georgia and Iraq.

Why is there a fuel crisis in Russia?

Russia has been facing a severe fuel deficit as Kyiv’s drone strikes – launched in an effort to degrade Moscow’s ability to maintain its ongoing invasion of Ukraine – have knocked out an estimated quarter to half of its total oil refining capacity.

To tackle the problem, Russia has imposed fuel rationing. Sales are often limited to about 20-30 litres (about 5-8 US gallons) per vehicle, and drivers must pump fuel strictly into vehicle tanks. Filling jerry cans is largely prohibited.

Earlier, the government banned petrol and jet fuel exports. Officials are now weighing a ban on diesel exports, too. Authorities have loosened fuel-quality regulations, temporarily allowing lower-grade fuel for the domestic market.

A state of emergency has also been declared in Russian-occupied Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014. A Russian-owned oil firm in India, Nayara Energy, has reportedly sold petroleum to Russia.

While Russian President Putin acknowledges the crisis, he appears reluctant to end the war on Ukraine and insists the situation is under control.

“These attacks on our facilities certainly create problems – that is obvious. We are currently seeing a certain shortage, though I would say it is not critical,” he said earlier this year.

“First and foremost, we have to rapidly and significantly increase production of air defence systems that are most in demand. We must also continue to improve them… Repairs at refineries must be completed more quickly.”

So, how is Iran helping Central Asia?

Amid Russian fuel shortages, Central Asian countries like Tajikistan have begun striking deals with Iran.

In August, Tajikistan’s Energy and Water Resources Ministry told the Asia-Plus news agency that the country is receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran. The ministry has not disclosed the route used to transport the products, but Tajikistan expects to receive 2.55 million tonnes of oil and petroleum products from Iran.

Besides Tajikistan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian welcomed a proposal from Kyrgyzstan in August to establish a joint refinery in the Central Asian country, according to a report by Iran’s Tasnim news agency,

Under the agreement, Pezeshkian said, “The crude oil needed by the refinery can be supplied by Iran, and the products can be divided between the two sides.”

Will exporting oil to Central Asian countries help Iran?

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has affected Tehran’s oil revenues. Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran in September showed that gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 10.1 percent year-on-year between March 21 and June 20, the first quarter of the Persian calendar.

Tehran’s ability to sell crude has also been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade of Iran’s ports, imposed for most of the war, which began in late February.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day (bpd) in March to roughly 740,000bpd in July and just 220,000-255,000bpd in August, according to estimates from Kpler and Vortexa.

TankerTrackers.com told the Reuters news agency in September that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated that total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Amid these challenges, Iran has been scrambling to find new countries to trade oil with. Russian fuel shortages have opened up new opportunities for Iran in Central Asia, at least in the short term, according to analysts.

How does Iranian oil reach Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?

Iran does not share a border with either country.

To get to Tajikistan, Iranian “oil and refined products have to cross Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by rail”, said Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

To get to Kyrgyzstan, Iranian oil would also need to pass through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Is trading oil with Iran logistically sustainable for Central Asia?

It is unlikely, Schneider said.

“This opportunity [for Iran] depends on Ukraine continuing to hit Russian refineries, which seems unlikely, both given the waning of Ukraine’s strike capability and the US government’s demand to stop the attacks as they put too much strain on global oil markets,” he told Al Jazeera.

He noted that US President Donald Trump has pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeatedly in September for an “energy truce” with Russia, since diesel prices have become a political problem for Trump ahead of the November midterm elections in the US.

“Those truces have so far collapsed within hours, but the direction is clear. Once the strikes stop, or once Russia repairs its plants, Russian fuel will come back to Central Asia duty-free under Eurasian Economic Union arrangements, and Iran will struggle to compete on price,” he said.

Logistics also favour Russia with respect to importing oil to countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, he said.

Unlike Iran, Russia shares a border with both.

“Tajikistan’s own request [for oil] would need around 51,000 rail tank cars, and its main refinery at Dangara has never operated commercially at scale. Russia, by contrast, has decades’ worth of logistics infrastructure, pipelines, rail links, and supply contracts into the region,” Schneider said.

Is Central Asia a big enough market to compensate for Iran’s Hormuz losses?

No, according to Schneider.

Tajikistan’s total demand, Schneider said, was about 50,000bpd.

That is a drop in the ocean compared with the 1.7 million bpd Iran exported by sea a year ago. China reported $9.96bn in two-way trade with Iran in 2025, a figure that does not include some $31.2bn in Iranian oil shipments, according to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“This suggests that Central Asia can be a useful outlet for Iranian diesel and gasoline, but it cannot replace the Chinese market,” Schneider said.

For Tehran, Central Asia’s importance depends on how the US-Israel war on Iran develops, he said, adding that Tehran also needs to stay on good terms with Russia, with which it has a deep strategic partnership.

“Iran cannot afford to be seen as poaching Russian customers too aggressively, so it will present itself as a stopgap supplier, which, again, limits how much it can earn there,” he said.

What other risks does Central Asia face in buying Iranian oil?

Schneider warned that Central Asian nations could be hit with Washington’s secondary sanctions on Iran.

“Legally, US secondary sanctions apply to any foreign company or bank that conducts a significant transaction in Iranian petroleum, wherever it is based, and the Treasury expanded the list of sanctionable conduct in August. A Treasury official has already warned publicly that anyone in this trade ‘incurs that risk themselves’,” he noted.

But Schneider said that, politically, the US sanctioning Central Asian governments is unlikely.

“Central Asia is the arena of a new ‘Great Game’ between Russia, China and the United States, and Washington is courting the region harder than at any point since the 1990s, chiefly for its critical minerals. Kazakhstan alone holds about half of the minerals the US classifies as critical, including uranium and tungsten,” he said.

“Sanctioning a Central Asian government for buying fuel from Iran would push them straight back into closer ties to Russia and China,” he noted.

“What I would expect instead are targeted designations of individual traders, rail and logistics operators and smaller banks, combined with quiet pressure on the region’s correspondent banks. That alone is enough to raise the cost and slow the trade, but will come at the price of these countries redoubling their efforts to decouple economically and financially from the US.”

The hum of the kidney dialysis machine that Onasis Munoz is connected to suddenly stops. The fluorescent lights overhead flicker out, and his room at a clinic in Valencia, Venezuela, is plunged into darkness.

It is not the first time a power cut has interrupted one of the three weekly sessions Munoz needs to do the work his failing kidneys can no longer do, filtering waste and excess fluid from his blood.

For years, electricity would go out every couple of days across parts of Venezuela’s Carabobo state.

But in recent months, Munoz said, the outages have grown to be daily, lasting around seven hours. The clinic’s emergency batteries have since been depleted, and its backup generator no longer works.

He explained that the frequent power failures have disrupted his treatment. His health has slumped as a result.

“I arrive home, exhausted, as if I had run a marathon,” the 34-year-old said.

But often there is no electricity there either, and recent weeks have been sweltering. “I can’t switch on the air conditioning. I cannot rest because of the heat and the mosquitoes. There’s no relief,” Munoz said.

Across Venezuela, the prolonged outages are riling locals, as the electricity supply to homes, businesses and essential services becomes unstable.

Some of the cuts are deliberate, as the government of interim President Delcy Rodriguez rations electricity.

The resulting frustration has spilled onto the streets, where demonstrators hold “cacerolazos” – a traditional form of protest that involves banging pots and pans.

Some have gone as far as blocking roadways and setting tyres on fire. The electricity crisis has also raised concerns about how the government is managing the country’s vast oil supply, a key source of income for the country.

“We are desperate. We cannot understand how a country so rich in resources can be practically left in the dark,” said Patricia Cueva, a lawyer from Maracaibo, the capital of oil-rich Zulia state.

“We cannot rest. We cannot work. Our children cry.”

IRGC commander says oil flows through US-supervised route in Hormuz are ‘negligible’.

Crude oil exports from the Middle East have risen above pre-war levels on four of the seven days in the last week of September, provisional data from ship-tracking firm Kpler showed.

However, senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Ali Fadavi said in a televised interview on Sunday night that only three to four million barrels of oil per day (bpd) are now moving through the route, dismissing the amount as “negligible” when compared with pre-war traffic.

Fadavi said, for the first time, no US vessels were present in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman or even the northern Indian Ocean and US warships are “100 percent vulnerable” to IRGC attacks.

Kpler data showed crude exports from the region exceeded pre-war levels on September 24 and between September 27 and 29, rising to 19.5-22.5 million bpd.

Around that time, Iran claimed success in attacking ships – including US Navy vessels – near the Strait of Hormuz, saying the strikes had forced Washington to move its warships further from the Iranian coast.

Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, exports averaged 18 million bpd between March 2025 and February 2026.

According to Kpler data, the overall tally for crude, oil products, chemicals and non-gas liquids averaged 22.4 million bpd in the seven days to September 30.

On October 1, the seven-day moving average for crude exports was at 18.5 million bpd. This includes transits via the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, exports from terminals and ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman.

The number of liquefied natural gas cargoes exiting the Strait of Hormuz also rose in September to its highest monthly level since February.

The figures exclude any vessels that might have crossed the strait with their automatic identification system transponders turned off to avoid detection.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency reported at least one attack a day in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Gulf of Aden since October 2.

On Sunday, Iran’s top negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until the United States accepts Tehran’s seven-day plan to reopen the waterway.

United States President Donald Trump has increased the pressure on US Senate Republicans to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, singling out one of the body’s members for stalling legislation to end the twice-a-year changing of clocks.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump blasted US Senator Tom Cotton for “holding up” the Sunshine Protection Act, which Trump has personally opted to call the “No More Changing of Clocks Act”.

“For some reason, Tom is stopping the Bill and, in the Senate, it’s very easy to do, it only takes one!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account about the Arkansas Republican. “It should pass overwhelmingly, in a Bipartisan fashion”.

“Nobody wants to spend their precious time running all over the place, turning Clocks back twice a year and, having sunshine in the afternoon is better than early in the morning!” he added.

Trump went even further, publishing what he claimed was Cotton’s phone number as he implored Arkansas residents to pressure him. The move echoed a moment during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, when then-candidate Trump gave out US Senator Lindsey Graham’s number after the former rival criticised him.

Al Jazeera called the number listed in Trump’s post, but an automated message stated the voicemail box was full. Cotton’s spokesperson and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The president has routinely pushed Senate Republicans to pass legislation mandating year-round daylight saving, which would end Americans’ decades-long practice of changing their clocks twice a year to increase daylight hours. On Friday, Trump urged the US Senate to approve the bill, which passed the US House in July by a 308-117 vote.

Cotton has previously opposed the bill, arguing in a US Senate floor speech last year that farmers, construction workers, commuters and children heading to school would begin their days in the dark during the winter.

Trump disputed that argument in a separate post on Saturday, saying the bill “would be a very nice and easy WIN for the Republican Party”.

“If Tom Cotton were putting Arkansas first, he would give them an extra hour of daylight and, more importantly, they wouldn’t have to run all over their houses, farms, workplaces, and everywhere else, twice a year, having to change their Clocks, and often forgetting to do so”, Trump wrote.

Trump, an avid golfer, also highlighted what he considered to be another selling point of the bill: the North American Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) tour.

“The PGA TOUR, as an example, needs more Daylight in the afternoon in order to finish their Tournaments”, he wrote in a post, which included a letter from PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp supporting the bill. “Likewise, regular Golfers, Tennis Players, Hunters and, perhaps more importantly, Farmers who want more Daylight to play or work.”

The US president, who spent part of Saturday at his golf club in Sterling, Virginia, indicated in a subsequent post that he had received personal feedback on the proposal: “I don’t know about anyone else, but a table full of very distinguished people just told me that they HATE, immediately after a mandatory time change, going home at night – and it’s DARK. It’s depressing!”

In 1974, the US Congress briefly adopted year-round daylight saving time in response to the country’s energy crisis. But Congress repealed the law less than a year later over safety concerns as children commuted to school before sunrise.

US senators left Washington this week and have no set plans to return until after the November 3 midterm elections.

Some members, such as Senator John Kennedy, weren’t optimistic that Senate Republican Leader John Thune would bring the bill up for a vote before polling day.

“It’s dead as disco,” the Louisiana Republican told Reuters this week of Trump’s push to make daylight saving time permanent. “My sense is it would have trouble passing … I don’t think the leader is going to bring it up.”

Gold hits seven-week low; silver follows suit and records a nearly 5 percent loss.

Gold prices are falling as concerns of rising fuel prices stoke inflation worries on the back of the war between the United States and Iran.

Spot gold prices fell by 3.3 percent to reach a more than seven-week low at $4,146.51 per ounce on Monday.

Rising oil prices, a higher US dollar and Treasury yields stoked inflation concerns, creating further headwinds for the metal.

This is the lowest level for gold values since August 5. US gold futures also fell by 3.3 percent to $4,178.40.

Although gold is traditionally considered an inflation hedge, higher interest rates dent ⁠its appeal as investors prefer yield-bearing assets.

“There might be no notable direct impact on regular people due to that. However, investors who had turned to gold will see a hit, especially under the current high inflation rates,” Sherif Othman, CEO of the Maryland-based Poise Investment Advisors, told Al Jazeera.

“Gold does not yield interest, so when Treasury yields go up, investors turn away from gold, impacting its value”, he added.

The Fed lifted benchmark rates by a quarter ⁠percentage point earlier this month and flagged that at least one more hike is likely in the coming months.

The US dollar was steady near a two-month high, and oil prices spiked about 3 percent as US President Donald Trump rejected an Iranian offer ⁠to resolve the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Such factors triggered several policymakers to warn that inflation risks remain elevated and that interest rates may need to rise, with Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack among the latest officials to reiterate that view.

Higher Treasury yields and the US dollar are “creating a perfect storm to push the metals prices sharply lower,” according to Jim Wyckoff, a market analyst at American Gold Exchange.

Spot silver also fell by 4.7 percent to $61.27 per ounce, platinum declined 2.9 percent to $1,726.30 and palladium lost 4.4 percent to $1,211.45.