New Chinese EVs will charge in 5 minutes

Costfoto/Getty Images

China’s top EV-maker says its newest cars will charge faster than the average time it takes to decide on a Takis flavor at the rest stop. BYD announced it developed chargers that will allow its newest models to fully charge in as little as five minutes (for 250 miles of range). By comparison, the fastest-charging Teslas take at least 15 minutes to get 200 miles’ worth of juice. The company plans to start shipping two five-minute-charge models next month and install 4,000 of the new Super e-Platform chargers across China. Tesla trouble BYDs with refueling time comparable to a gas-guzzler will rub salt in the wound for Tesla, which is getting schooled in China by domestic EVs that are cheaper and increasingly high-tech. Of the EVs sold there in January: 27% were BYD-produced, while only 4.5% were Teslas, putting Elon Musk’s company at No. 6 by EV market share in the country. Tesla’s 2024 China sales were down 19% year over year. Shares of Tesla have plunged 44% since the year began, and analysts expect its global sales to stagnate in 2025. Meanwhile, news of five-minute chargers powered BYD’s stock listed in Hong Kong to a record high yesterday.  It’s not just China…as BYD is also capturing Latin America’s fledgling EV market, more than tripling its Brazil sales last year.—SK

Fossil Fuel Giants Walk Back

 

Fossil Fuel Giants Walk Back Climate Pledges, Universities Keep Taking Their Cash

March 10, 2025

Full Story: Special to The Energy Mix

Primary Author: Camilla Ceccon and Truzaar Dordi

alexxxis/Pixabay

Universities pride themselves on being engines of progress, knowledge, and public good—and students are increasingly drawn to institutions with strong sustainability commitments. Many universities publicly tout their fossil fuel divestment, but when it comes to the funding they receive from the industry, they remain conspicuously silent.

In Canada, fossil fuel interests have influenced research priorities through government funding mechanisms that favour industry-aligned projects. Our research examines how institutions and media in the United Kingdom and the United States respond when fossil fuel companies fund higher education, revealing a troubling disconnect: While public discourse increasingly recognizes the problematic influence of fossil fuel funding in academia, university policies remain vague and inadequate in addressing these concerns.

These findings come at a critical moment when the business model of British higher education is broken, a reality becoming apparent as universities struggle with financial pressures while pursuing their core missions of education, research, and public service. As institutions seek new revenue sources in a financial vacuum, many rely on partnerships with the fossil fuel industry, despite the ethical and environmental considerations.

Fossil Fuel Funding Affects Policy

In Europe, universities received more than €260 million (around C$404 million) from fossil fuel companies between 2016 and 2023. UK institutions alone accepted €170 million (around C$264 million) for research, tuition fees and grants, with oil and gas giant Shell contributing €62 million (around C$96 million). The parallels to the tobacco industry’s historical efforts to influence health research are striking.

Financial ties between industry and higher education profoundly impact climate policy development. When fossil fuel funding determines research priorities, it shapes the evidence base for policy decisions, often emphasizing non-transformative solutions rather than systemic change. For example, research centres that accept funding from the gas industry are more likely to downplay the role renewable energy sources might play in the energy transition.

In Canada, the fossil fuel industry also indirectly shapes research across the country by influencing government research-funding priorities. Between 1999 and 2016, federally-funded energy or environmental science researchers at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary conducted far more (52%) fossil fuel-related research—e.g., reservoir exploration, hydraulic fracturing—compared to 15% working on renewable energy, biofuels, or energy efficiency combined.

The ethical breach is widened when fossil fuel companies walk back their climate commitments. BP recently shifted strategies to increase its annual investment in oil and gas to $10 billion, while slashing more than $5 billion from its green investment plan—a sign that profit, not climate action, remains the industry’s priority.

Students Demand Ethical Research

Students care about these contradictions. The 2022 QS Student Pulse Survey found that 79% of students place high importance on universities taking action to minimize their environmental impact. Over 43% of students interested in studying in the UK actively research [pdf] universities’ sustainability plans as part of their decision-making process.

Universities cannot claim to serve these students while accepting funding from the fossil fuel industry. Our analysis of policy documents from across eight Ivy League universities in the U.S. and 24 Russell Group universities in the UK reveals that both systems fail to address how industry funding distorts climate research and policy and both lack adequate policies to prevent this distortion.

A Crossroads: The University Funding Crisis Meets the Fossil Free Research Movement

The funding crisis in British higher education is nearing a precipice just as the Fossil Free Research (FFR) movement is emerging. Building on the success of campaigns that saw more than 1,600 institutions globally commit to divesting around $40 trillion from fossil fuel companies, the FFR movement is calling for universities to reject research funding from these companies altogether—to protect their intellectual integrity.

Led by students, academics, and climate justice advocates since 2022, the movement is becoming visible in Canada, with many students calling on their universities to reject fossil fuel funding and researchers publishing open letters to the same effect.

A Path Forward: Ethical Funding and Institutional Integrity

University leaders must think outside the box to manage the tension between competing imperatives, finding new markets and service models while continuing to meet their mandate for progress.

We recommend they establish clear guidelines for accepting any industry funding, and instate robust conflict-of-interest protocols and transparency mechanisms that disclose all funding sources. Universities must develop ethical frameworks that evaluate potential partnerships against climate commitments and support and prioritize alternative funding sources for climate and sustainability research.

The University of Cambridge, has taken steps in this direction with its recent decision to temporarily halt fossil fuel donations after an independent report highlighted “high reputational risk” and due diligence failures. This represents an important development, but Cambridge remains an outlier in a sector that continues to accept fossil fuel money without safeguards or transparency. As BP doubles down on fossil fuels, universities maintaining these partnerships are complicit in climate delay. If higher education is to remain a force for progress, it must break free from fossil fuel influence and chart a new, ethical funding path.

Camilla Ceccon is an MSc Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Management graduate from the University of York. Truzaar Dordi is an assistant professor in sustainability management at the University of York.

Canadians can’t afford to relax barriers to foreign entry in their banking system

Canadians can’t afford to relax barriers to foreign entry in their banking system The Bank of Canada's head office seen in 2019. Capitulating to U.S. pressure could push Canada toward a more deregulated financial environment. (Bank of Canada/Flickr) United States President Donald Trump has made calls to ease Canadian regulatory barriers on foreign-owned banks. His criticism highlights a recurring, but often overlooked, threat to Canada: monetary sovereignty. Alongside his material threats to use economic force to annex Canada, Trump’s repeated grievance raises concerns about Canada’s ability to maintain control over its financial system at a time when such control is crucial. U.S. pressure on Canada’s banks Over the past 50 years, Canada has maintained an exceptionally domesticated financial sector, despite repeated attempts by U.S. banks to weaken its regulatory barriers. Canada’s longstanding rule prohibiting foreign ownership of large Canadian banks is one rooted in concerns about U.S. corporate takeovers amid growing economic integration between the two countries. Since the 1980s, American pressure to remove these barriers has led to several regulatory breaks modelled after U.S. banking laws. In one notable instance, pressure from the U.S. Treasury resulted in Canada lowering federal restrictions on foreign bank subsidiaries. U.S. negotiators have since pushed for full branching rights, which would allow American banks to operate in Canada with less effective regulatory control on their Canadian market operations than is currently the case. Some critics view this as an attempt to impose U.S. banking laws on Canadian soil. Unlike subsidiaries, a foreign branch’s parent company retains administrative control over cross-border investment decisions. In today’s geopolitical climate, relaxing these restrictions could lead to the de facto takeover of Canada’s financial system by U.S. entities, with significant implications for the country’s economic policy. Canada’s financial stability at risk Canada’s chartered banks are key issuers of Canadian dollars; their privileges depend on government regulatory approval. A sudden increase in foreign ownership risks upsetting the regulatory balance needed to manage the creation of Canadian dollars, with potential knock-on effects for financial stability. By way of comparison, Canada could look to Mexico, where the creation of Peso Credit occurs mainly through U.S. banks. Research suggests this has reduced the effectiveness of monetary policy with corollary risks for financial stability. Similarly, evidence suggests the effectiveness of South Korea’s monetary policy response to the 2008 financial crisis was undermined by the presence of U.S. multinational banks. Under normal circumstances, any takeover of a Canadian-owned bank must be approved by Canada’s finance minister, which reduces such risks. However, Canada’s streamlined regulatory system could become a target for American lobbying efforts aimed at foreign bank acquisitions. If U.S. banks gain a greater foothold, the impact it could have on Canada’s financial regulatory system is concerning, especially with an enlarged American market share. Reducing foreign banking restrictions seems unjustifiably short-sighted, particularly in an era of increasingly frequent financial crises. Additional risks also exist in the non-bank financial sector, where “shadow banks” issue unregulated money without oversight. Canada’s domesticated banking system and conservative regulatory approach allowed it to weather the 2008 crisis without relying on risky new asset classes like unregulated asset-backed commercial papers. However, capitulating to U.S. pressure could push Canada toward a more deregulated financial environment, leading to an increase in shadow banking and heightened risks of financial crises and costly public bailouts. A threat to Canada’s autonomy If these regulatory barriers did come down, it could hamstring Canada’s ability to implement additional regulatory restrictions — sometimes called financial repression — on the financial system at large in the event of a major crisis. Financial repression refers to regulatory policies that seek to direct domestic savings in order to finance government spending — often for the sake of deficit reduction, but also for managing the economy during systemic global crises. This measure could be warranted in situations like runaway climate change, wars or other crises. However, it can only be effectively implemented if a country has effective control of its financial system. Lifting these regulatory barriers could similarly undermine efforts to forge a more integrated economic union amid the spectre of U.S. expansionism. Since regulatory authority for the repurchase agreement market — a core national funding market — is shared between levels of government, it would be immensely risky to compromise another key pillar of our credit system. Capitulating to U.S. demands could lead to a significant loss of Canada’s monetary and economic sovereignty, at a time when the U.S. is prioritizing its national interests over global co-operation. Banking concentration in Canada There are certainly downsides to Canada maintaining its barriers to foreign bank branching. The most notable one is the role these restrictions play in supporting a banking system that is both concentrated and under-competitive. Today, Canada’s biggest six banks control 90 per cent of the banking market. This dominance is largely because the global banking trend over the past 40 years has been more about creating large universal banks for a globalized marketplace, rather than freeing markets and increasing consumer choice. In aligning Canada’s regulations with this model, federal regulators moved away from the previous era’s trend toward greater domestic competitiveness. If Canada truly wants to address its lack of banking competition, it should seek to revitalize it from below — not from above and outside. Among the proposals by Canada’s Competition Bureau are calls to enhance small- and medium-bank access to brokered deposits and various anti-monopoly measures. Regardless of whether one agrees with the merits of a concentrated banking system, the property rights that underpin it are a vital part of the public-private partnership that support Canada’s monetary sovereignty. This means that the present regulatory arrangement leaves the terms and conditions of that partnership firmly in Canadian hands. As the U.S. pushes for greater access to Canada’s banking market, Canadians must weigh the steep political costs of allowing a stronger American banking presence. Dustin Fergusson-Vaux does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Trump orders the creation of a sovereign wealth fund - more auto theft

 Trump orders the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury and Commerce Departments to create the nation’s first-ever sovereign wealth fund—something he hinted could be used to buy TikTok. These government investment vehicles are more typical in countries with budget surpluses (unlike the US which tends to have a deficit), and the order didn’t specify where the fund would get money from, although Trump has previously said it could be “tariffs and other intelligent things.”

Apple pulls UK cloud encryption

Apple pulls UK cloud encryption after government spying demands. Apple will no longer offer Advanced Data Protection, its end-to-end encrypted iCloud storage feature, to users in the UK. The tech giant’s decision to pull the feature comes after it reportedly received a secret government request for a backdoor entry to all customer data stored that way, which would have given British law enforcement access to information from users around the globe.

Democrats' Lack of Resistance - Tom Hartmann

 

Could the Democrats' Lack of Resistance Be a Green Light for Tyranny?

The inaction of high profile and leadership Democrats is not just weakness — it's a betrayal of Democratic principles and thus our nation...

Thom Hartmann Feb 3

READ IN APP

Share

Is Trump’s, Musk’s, and Putin’s coup against democracy complete?

Under the guise of a 44-year campaign to reverse the middle-class advances of the New Deal and Great Society, rightwing billionaires and the Republicans they own have pushed a fundamentally fascist agenda that is now openly at war with America. They are engaging in a coup, finishing the work Trump started on January 6, 2021.

Trump is nakedly breaking the law right in front of the entire country, just as progressive Democrats have been predicting. Not a single elected Republican has had the courage to try to stop him or even speak out against his lawlessness, and only a handful of Democrats have found that fearlessness. That has to change.

— Trump is illegally firing career Civil Service prosecutors in the DOJ and agents in the FBI. The principal message he is conveying is, “Donald Trump, his family, and his friends are above the law. Investigate them and you will lose your job.”

— He’s illegally fired Inspectors General who search out and prosecute corruption within their own agencies.

— He’s illegally impounded money appropriated by Congress.

— He’s illegally imposing tariffs against Mexico and Canada, turning our friends against us, just like Putin has dreamed for years.

— USAID, created by President Kennedy, is our single most effective tool for keeping poor countries on America’s side instead of joining Russia or China. Musk has declared war on this Agency, and the only beneficiaries will be those two dictatorships.

— And now this South African billionaire has apparently downloaded all of your and my private information from the federal agencies responsible for making six trillion dollars’ worth of payments every year, with the explicit permission of Treasury Secretary and billionaire Scott Bessent — who was put into his job with the votes of 15 compliant Democratic senators.

As Senator Patty Murray (who voted against Bessent) noted on Bluesky yesterday:

“All of your most sensitive data and our country’s checkbook are in the hands of an unelected billionaire. This is the most corrupt administration in history and it’s putting our economy & government in serious jeopardy.

“It’s time to speak out and fight back. www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/u...”

Hell, it’s way past time to speak out and fight back.

Ever since Reagan’s Revolution on behalf of the billionaire class, many of us have been shouting from the rooftops about the inevitability of this day. I’ve published multiple books and hundreds of articles (see * below), as have many of my colleagues, warning of this exact scenario.

This is the tail-end of the battle, not the beginning:

— When Republicans claimed that corporations were “persons” with rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights (including the right to fund political campaigns), Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, Bill Clinton encouraged corporate contributions to his “New Democrats.”

— When Republicans said billionaires and corporations bribing politicians was legal (and could even be considered “tips”), Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead the “Problem Solvers” and many others simply put their hands out.

— When Republicans gutted union protections, borrowed $34 trillion to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and ended support for college tuition, Democrats could have spoken out, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, many “moved to the center.”

— When Republicans fought voting rights and purged over 50 million voters from the rolls over the past decade (giving Trump the White House last year), Democrats could have raised hell, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they abandoned Red states, often not even bothering to run candidates.

— When Republicans denied climate change and went to the mat to protect the hundreds of billions in subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets every year, Democrats could have stopped them, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they complained about “disruptive” groups protesting pipelines.

— When Republicans raised an entire Astroturf Tea Party movement to fight progressive efforts to put into place a national healthcare system that would include a buy-in option for Medicare at all ages, Democrats could have fought for their constituents, but — other than the progressives — didn’t. Instead, they offered a privatized Obamacare and weak “negotiation” with drug companies to lower prices on 10 drugs while ignoring the creeping privatization of Medicare with the Medicare Advantage scam.

In each case, progressive Democrats were ahead of the curve and corporate Democrats either ignored or even obstructed needed reforms.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been steamrolling ahead with their plan — first laid out by Lewis Powell in 1971 — to turn our country into an oligarchy that’s no longer accountable to its people.

And now they’re just months away from finishing off our democratic republic, silencing all voices of dissent, and guaranteeing — like Trump promised — that we may never be able to even vote again in a meaningful election with candidates who aren’t pre-vetted by billionaires.

The greatest danger America is facing today — because Democratic messaging and outrage have been so weak for so long — is that average people won’t realize what’s happening until it’s too late.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the Democratic Party — Hakeem Jefferies in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate — are both saying that they’re not going to challenge Trump on every crime he commits, and Democratic senators voted unanimously for Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, who’s now in Panama threatening that sovereign government.

Trump is working as hard as possible to make his fascist vision of America a reality by attacking, threatening, and suing reporters and media outlets while his billionaire buddies and AIPAC threaten to fund primary challenges against any politician — Democrat or Republican — who dares to challenge them.

And the threats are working:

— The media is walking on pins and needles, trying to avoid pissing off Trump or Musk.

— The FCC just launched an investigation that could lead to the end of NPR and PBS.

— Major networks are paying off Trump to settle frivolous lawsuits.

— Democrats are treating Vichy Republicans as if they were good faith colleagues during normal times, many even voting for Trump’s cabinet nominees.

But these are not normal times: Our democracy is hanging by a thread. The simple reality is that the MAGA takeover of the GOP has turned it into, essentially, an agent of Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China. And an immigrant billionaire is deconstructing our government like a toddler busting up a Lego set.

Democrats — who campaigned on the allegation that Trump was a fascist — must now behave like their claim was true and fight back, before Trump and Musk finalize Orbán’s and Putin’s neofascist governance model, making such a response impossible.

— Shut down the House and the Senate.

— Challenge Johnson’s speakership.

— Fight every unanimous consent vote.

— Use quorum calls to bring floor business to a standstill.

— Put holds on every Trump nominee, even for things like naming Post Offices or noncontroversial positions.

— Hold a major press conference every day and coordinate with Democrats across the nation to amplify that day’s message across local and national media.

— Organize political guerilla theater and mass protest events.

Average people can reach out to their elected officials — the phone number for Congress is 202-224-3121 — and raise absolute holy hell. Blow up social media with protest and outrage posts. Share your concerns with friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors.

As Bernie Sanders — who’s been fighting this fight his entire life and was on my radio/TV show every Friday for 11 years — shared yesterday with people subscribed to his newsletter:

“We must fight back — effectively. This is not a time for wallowing in despair and hiding under the covers. The stakes are too high. We’re not just fighting for ourselves. We’re fighting for our kids and for future generations. We’re fighting for the future of this planet.

“Further, we must not become overwhelmed and think that Trump has some kind of extraordinary mandate and an inevitable glide path into the future. That’s what the right-wing mouthpieces want you to believe, but it’s not true. Trump won the election because Kamala Harris and a very weak and out-of-touch Democratic Party received 5 million votes LESS than Biden did in 2020, not because Donald Trump or his agenda were popular. His agenda can be defeated. …

“We cannot just play defense. We have got to be on offense. Please, never forget, the agenda that we are fighting for is widely supported by working families all across this country. And we must continue to fight for that agenda.”

It only took Hitler 53 days to use legal means to turn Germany from a functioning democracy into a dictatorship. We’ve officially gone way too far down that same road, and if Trump and Project 2025 aren’t stopped now it may well be too late by as soon as this Spring.

The Hartmann Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid