union is calling on General Motors to pay full union wages at electric vehicle battery factories, thrusting what had been a festering conflict into the spotlight.

The union, in a statement reacting to GM’s announcement Friday that it would build a second U.S. battery plant, said the company and its joint venture partner have a “moral obligation” to pay the higher wages at battery factories.

The statement sets the tone for the next round of contract talks in 2023 between GM, Ford and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler ), all of which have plans to make significant numbers of battery-powered vehicles by then as they invest billions to transition from internal combustion engines.

However the conflict is resolved, it’s likely to chart the course of American manufacturing wages into the next decade as the nation moves from petroleum powered vehicles to those that run on electricity.

GM said wages at the battery plants would be determined by Ultium Cells LLC, the joint venture with LG Energy that’s running the factories.

GM and LG Energy Solutions, its partner on the new plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, and another under construction in Lordstown, Ohio, near Cleveland, should work with the UAW “to make sure these are good-paying union jobs like those of their brothers and sisters who make internal combustion engines,” the union statement said.

It also could draw President Joe Biden into the fray, because he is pushing the transition to EVs, which he says will create “good-paying, union jobs of the future.”

Currently top-scale union production workers at internal combustion engine and transmission plants run by GM, Ford and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) make more than $31 per hour. But when the Lordstown plant was announced in 2019, GM CEO Mary Barra said its worker pay would follow GM’s component manufacturing strategy, where workers are paid less than top union wages. She said the plant would have to be cost-competitive.

At a GM plant assembling batteries in Brownstown Township, Michigan, the union agreed in 2009 to $15 to $17 per hour wages to assemble battery cells into packs for the now-canceled Chevrolet Volt hybrid gas-electric vehicle. That’s a little more than what Amazon pays at distribution centers and just above a proposed $15 per hour new federal minimum wage. GM also pays about $22.50 per hour at union-represented parts manufacturing plants.

Kristin Dziczek, senior vice president at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank, said workers who make internal combustion engines and transmissions and associated parts are at “the epicenter of this industrial transformation from internal combustion engines to batteries.”

With thousands of union jobs at stake, the UAW will want the higher wages, she said, but joint venture companies fear they won’t be competitive globally if they pay too much.

“There’s lots of jobs on the line. The president talks about this transition being positive for jobs, but to do that it has to be very carefully orchestrated,” she said.

Guidehouse Insights Principal Analyst Sam Abuelsamid said Ford and Stellantis probably will follow a model similar to GM with joint ventures running battery plants, placing union jobs at combustion engine and transmission plants at risk.

“The union is going to lose a huge number of jobs from engine and transmission plants that are replaced by battery plants,” he said. “There are also going to be job reductions in the assembly plants due to simplified production of EVs with probably somewhere around 25-30% fewer people required to build same number of vehicles.”

The transition, he said, could cost the union half of its membership in the next 10 to 15 years unless it successfully organizes the battery plants.

The union statement came just after GM announced plans to more than $2.3 billion to build the second U.S. electric vehicle battery factory in Spring Hill, Tennessee.

The union is going to lose a huge number of jobs from engine and transmission plants that are replaced by battery plants. There are also going to be job reductions in the assembly plants due to simplified production of EVs with probably somewhere around 25-30% fewer people required to build same number of vehicles.

The union is going to lose a huge number of jobs from engine and transmission plants that are replaced by battery plants. There are also going to be job reductions in the assembly plants due to simplified production of EVs with probably somewhere around 25-30% fewer people required to build same number of vehicles Sam Abuelsamid, Guidehouse Insights Principal Analyst

The 2.8-million-square-foot plant is expected to create 1,300 manufacturing jobs in Maury County when it opens in 2023.

The joint venture already is building the Ohio plant, which will employ about 1,100 people.

“We are taking bold steps necessary to accelerate toward an all-electric future and to support our vision of zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion,” said GM CEO Mary Barra at a news conference in Nashville.

GM has previously announced that the Cadillac Lyriq electric SUV will be built at the Spring Hill complex. The SUV, due in showrooms during the first half of 2022, will go an estimated 300 miles (482 kilometers) per charge.

GM is likely to need far more battery capacity if it’s able to deliver on a goal of converting all of its new passenger vehicles from internal combustion engines to electricity by 2035.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee declared the new battery plant project “the largest single investment of economic activity in the state’s history” while praising the project.

Lee, a Republican, and his top economic development chief declined to detail how much the state had provided in incentives but said that information would come out soon.

“We will accommodate the companies as they determine what strategies they’re going to take for manufacturing,” Lee told reporters. “The demand for their products is enormous, we think this is a very wise investment.”

Industry analysts have said automakers face a global shortage of batteries as the industry moves away from gasoline powered vehicles. Most of the world’s batteries are built in China and other countries.

By Timothy Gardner, Nerijus Adomaitis and Rod Nickel

In January, Occidental Petroleum announced it had accomplished something no oil company had done before: It sold a shipload of crude that it said was 100% carbon-neutral.

While the two-million-barrel cargo to India was destined to produce more than a million tons of planet-warming carbon over its lifecycle, from well to tailpipe, the Texas-based driller said it had completely offset that impact by purchasing carbon credits under a U.N.-sponsored program called CORSIA.

Carbon credits are financial instruments generated by projects that reduce or avert greenhouse-gas emissions such as mass tree plantings or solar power farms. The projects’ owners can sell the credits to polluting companies, who then use them to make claims of offsetting their carbon emissions.

Details of the Occidental transaction have not been previously reported. Two sources involved in the deal told Reuters that the driller paid about $1.3 million for the credits – or about 65 cents per barrel. Oil currently sells for more than $60 a barrel.

Occidental and the U.N. program say such credits make the two-million-barrel cargo carbon-neutral because they represent an equivalent amount of greenhouse gas removed from the atmosphere by the projects generating the credits.

The arrangement reflects a growing trend. Oil-and-gas companies worldwide are increasingly trying to market their products as cleaner using a range of controversial methods, including buying credits, powering drilling operations with renewable power and investing in expensive and commercially unproven technology to capture and store emissions.

The moves are designed to secure a future for the fossil fuel industry in a world where investors, activists and regulators demand action to stop climate change. In some cases they are also designed for profit: Companies have begun seeking a premium price for what they call cleaner petroleum products.

Although carbon credits do nothing to reduce the pollution from a given barrel of oil, proponents of offset programs argue that credit purchases help finance clean-energy efforts that otherwise would not be profitable.

Critics blast such programs as smoke-and-mirrors public relations efforts that allow polluters to scrub their image while they continue to profit from climate damage.

Oil company claims of clean fuels through offseting are like “a tobacco company saying they sell nicotine-free cigarettes because they paid someone else to sell some chewing gum,” said David Turnbull, a spokesman for Washington-based Oil Change International, an advocacy group opposing fossil fuels.

NO CLEAR STANDARDS

Carbon credit programs range from national efforts to global ones like the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation run by the United Nations.

Companies and nonprofit organizations such as VERRA and SustainCERT are charged with issuing and verifying credits under these programs. They certify that the projects generating credits are leading to the promised amount of reduced emissions and would not have been built without the credit income.

But there are no uniform standards for how to calculate the full climate impact of fossil fuels, or how to properly offset it with environmental projects, industry experts say. Companies buying credits are also not obliged to disclose their cost or origin – a problem because they can vary widely in price and quality.

In Occidental’s case, the credits were generated between 2016 and 2019 by solar, wind and other clean-energy projects in emerging economies such as India, Thailand and Turkey, and were verified by VERRA.

“The credits they issued are valid and have environmental integrity,” said VERRA spokeswoman Anne Thiel.

VERRA and other verifiers, however, have since stopped approving renewable energy projects in those nations to generate offsets after concluding last year that they had become competitive enough to be built even without offset credit revenue.

Occidental defended the deal, saying it could kick off a new market for oil offset with credits that directs money to green-energy projects. “We can be a big part of the global solution,” said Richard Jackson, Occidental’s president of operations for onshore resources and carbon management.

TREES IN SPAIN

Occidental and the cargo’s buyer, India’s Reliance Industries , did not comment on whether Reliance paid a premium for the shipment.

But other oil-and-gas companies are eager to create a market where climate credentials allow them to command higher prices. That could allow them to recoup the full cost – or more – of credits or other measures that allow for the low-carbon labeling.

Lundin Energy, an independent driller with operations in Norway, is one of the companies that sees a market opportunity in crude with a low-carbon designation.

The company plans to spend $35 million to plant 8 million trees in northern Spain and Ghana – something it says will allow it to generate its own credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuels.

Lundin was the first oil company in the world last year to receive independent certification it was producing low-carbon oil based on its reduction of emissions in producing oil from its Edvard Grieg field in Norway. It also aims to certify low-carbon oil from the Sverdrup field, also in Norway – Western Europe’s biggest – which Lundin co-owns with a consortium of partners.

Cleaner drilling operations, however, have a limited environmental benefit. At least 80% of greenhouse gases from oil are emitted after extraction from the ground, according to consultancy IHS Markit.

Alex Budden, Lundin’s Vice-President, said if buyers paid a 1% premium for lower-carbon barrels, it would boost the company’s annual oil revenue by $10 million to $20 million. That would allow it to recover the costs of its offset and efficiency efforts and eventually profit from them.

So far there have been no takers. “But it’s going to happen,” Budden said.

GREEN OIL SANDS?

Across the Atlantic, Canadian producers in the oil sands have a bigger challenge. Producers there emit three to five times more carbon than the worldwide average because more energy is needed to extract the oil, according to Rystad Energy, a global consultancy. Its producers are hoping to change that.

Suncor Energy, for example, has pledged to cut the amount of carbon it emits per barrel produced 30% from 2014 levels by 2030 to contribute to Canada’s climate goals and address shareholder pressure to reduce its emissions.

It will do so by improving energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy technologies, such as wind farms, said Chief Sustainability Officer Martha Hall Findlay. She said Suncor will consider certifying those lower-carbon barrels.

“There’s no question carbon is our Achilles heel in the oil sands,” she said.

Liquefied natural gas producers are also increasingly marketing carbon-neutral LNG. Unlike in the oil market, some LNG buyers are already paying a premium for such cargoes.

In March, for example, Shell announced it had taken delivery of Europe’s first ever carbon-neutral cargo of LNG from Russian supplier Gazprom. Gazprom provided the gas and both companies chipped in for the offsets, said Mehdi Chennoufi, Shell’s head of LNG Origination and Business Development.

Shell said the credits came from projects that protect biodiversity or restore land, but it would not disclose the cost.

Buyers in Spain, Japan, Taiwan and China have also bought LNG certified as carbon-neutral, a trend that has led the International Group of LNG Importers, an association of big global LNG companies, to start working on standardized methodology.

“Today there is a lot of talk about carbon-neutral LNG, but there is no universal definition,” said Vincent Demoury, the group’s Deputy General Delegate.

Other companies are turning to carbon-capture technology – despite its history of high costs and operational difficulties – to offset their products’ climate impact.

Qatar, the world’s biggest LNG producer, announced in February that it is building a carbon-capture project at its North Field expansion project in the Persian Gulf.

Occidental is also developing the largest-ever direct-air-capture facility, to pull 500,000 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide out of the open air near some of its Texas oil fields, using fans and chemical reactions. That’s equal to the annual emissions from nearly 110,000 U.S. cars.

Environmentalists criticize such projects because they could extend the life of the fossil fuel industry.

If Occidental’s project works, for example, the company plans to pump the carbon back into the Texas oil fields, raising reservoir pressure to extract more crude.

Occidental says it hopes to market crude oil produced in this way as the feedstock for refining jet and marine fuel – providing a way for those industries to claim they have offset their emissions.

Marion Verles, Chief Executive Officer at SustainCERT, the credit verifier, said such offset schemes can help reduce overall greenhouse-gas emissions – but could also backfire.

Telling consumers they can consume carbon-neutral fossil fuels sends the message, she said, that “behavioral change is no longer needed.”

Tamil actor Vivek passed away in the early hours of Saturday (April 17) in a hospital in Chennai. The 59-year-old actor was rushed to the hospital by his wife and daughter in an unconscious condition after he complained of discomfort. The actor underwent an angioplasty and stenting procedure on Friday for a complete block in a critical blood vessel of the heart and was put on ECMO support in the intensive care unit. However, the actor passed away at 4.35 am.
In his career spanning over three decades, Vivek has acted in over 200 films and rose to fame as a comedian. He has won many accolades for his performances and was also bestowed with the Padma Shri in 2009.

Vivek’s untimely demise has shattered the entire South film industry. Many are still in disbelief that a great individual and actor is no more. Mollywood celebrities including Mohanlal , Suhasini, Manju Warrier have taken to their respective social media platforms to pay homage to the late actor.
“Heart felt condolences,” Mohanlal said.

Heartfelt condolences https://t.co/L78R3C9UqF

— Mohanlal (@Mohanlal) 1618632055000

Rest in peace Vivek sir! Privileged to have worked with you. Prayers and condolences to family and friends. https://t.co/SUXwToopSL

— Prithviraj Sukumaran (@PrithviOfficial) 1618632678000

Manju Warrier too is in disbelief and she shared, “RIP #Vivek Sir.”

Suhasini Maniratnam is devastated hearing the demise of Vivek. Vivek began his career as an actor by co-starring with Suhasini. In the 1987 film ‘Manathil Uruthi Vendum’, Vivek played the role of Suhasini’s brother. “Shattered. Lost a brother a dear friend thinker life is so unfair,” Suhasini wrote in her Instagram post.

Cinematographer PC Sreeram too penned a heartfelt note mourning the demise of the Tamil actor. “#Ripvivek Your humor made us laugh & think.

The trees you have planted made us breath better. You lived a life with commitment and now that you are no more,the work you have done will inspire generations. May your soul rest in peace,” PC Sreeram wrote.

#RipvivekYour humor made us laugh & think.The trees you have planted made us breath better.You lived a life with… https://t.co/kT4TGF5BC6

— pcsreeramISC (@pcsreeram) 1618631283000

Check out how other M-Town celebs paid homage to the late Vivek.

Shocked to hear about the demise of #Vivek sir. He was such a positive & happy soul.Will miss bumping into you ev… https://t.co/DZ5LwFIQNK

— Nikki Galrani (@nikkigalrani) 1618632800000

Rest in peace Vivek sir! Privileged to have worked with you. Prayers and condolences to family and friends. https://t.co/SUXwToopSL

— Prithviraj Sukumaran (@PrithviOfficial) 1618632678000