Connect with us

New Mexico

New Mexico May Finally Reform Oil and Gas Industry With Slate of Bills

Published

on

New Mexico May Finally Reform Oil and Gas Industry With Slate of Bills


Welcome to Feet to the Fire: Big Oil and the Climate Crisis,” a biweekly newsletter in which we share our latest reporting on how the fossil fuel industry is driving climate change and influencing climate policy in five of the nation’s most important oil- and gas-producing states. In addition, we shine a spotlight on the financing of the fossil fuel industry, holding banks and other financial institutions accountable for their role and providing you with updates on their activities.

Click here to subscribe to the newsletter in Substack.


New Mexico’s Oil and Gas Industry Could See Big Change With Slate of Bills 

New Mexico, the country’s second-largest oil producer, failed to take steps last year to reform its fossil fuel industry. This year, with the beginning of the state Legislature’s session, lawmakers  will see a half-dozen bills that could spell big changes for the oil and gas industry through new oil well placement restrictions, increased fines and higher royalty payments, among other possible shifts. The industry is keeping a close eye on the bills. A spokesperson for the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association tells The Slick’s Jerry Redfern that the group “and its industry members support legislation that is grounded in science,” noting that the oil and gas industry funds much of the state’s budget.

Advertisement

Decision to Scrap Resource Management Plans Confuses Both Enviros and Industry

Also in the state, a quietly announced decision by a regional office of the powerful New Mexico Bureau of Land Management united both environmentalists and oil and gas industry leaders — in confusion. The announcement that the Farmington office of the agency was scrapping work on a long-awaited update to the district’s resource management plans — which would have overhauled the playbook for vetting new oil and gas development over more than 4 million acres of federal, private and Native lands in northwestern New Mexico — “allows industry to move at the speed of last century’s status quo,” a Navajo conservation activist tells Redfern.


Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro Promised 30% Renewable Electricity by 2030, But Little is Happening 

When he took office, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was resolute in setting an ambitious goal — making sure that 30% of the energy sold in the state by 2030 would come from renewable sources, up from 8%. A year later, his office has provided no updates on what the administration is doing to reach that 30% goal, reports The Slick’s Audrey Carleton. That includes not taking a position on a bill in the Legislature that would update the state’s energy standards to require that 30% of its energy sales come from renewable sources.


Fossil Fuel Sector Loses Ground Again, Dragging Down Stock Market Returns

Advertisement

Oil companies reported a 30% decline in annual projects in 2023, with the sector posting an annual loss of almost 5%, according to a new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which concluded that “it wasn’t just a bad year to invest in fossil fuels — but a bad decade.” The group’s energy finance analyst Dan Cohn said, “The era of stable, blue-chip returns from the fossil fuel sector is long gone.” In comparison, fossil-free equity indices are picking up steam and proving to be better investments. (See chart below.)

 


NYC Pension Funds Take Aim at Banks Over Fossil Fuel Financing

The day after Europe’s biggest pension fund, Dutch ABP, warned banks that they might divest in banks that continue financing fossil fuel projects, New York City took a similar step. City  Comptroller Brad Lander and trustees of four NYC pension funds — New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System, Board of Education Retirement System and New York City Police Pension Fund — filed shareholder proposals with six major North American banks asking them to fully report their ratios of clean energy to fossil fuel finance and to speed up their stated goals of achieving net zero emissions. The six banking institutions are Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and Royal Bank of Canada.


ING Threatened With Lawsuit Over Continued Financing of Oil and Gas

Advertisement

Dutch banking giant ING is the latest to be threatened with legal action over its continued investment in fossil fuel companies. Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of the nonprofit Friend of the Earth, announced that it plans to sue the bank, claiming that its financing of fossil fuel projects has increased carbon emissions and contributed to global warming. Last year, climate activist groups sued BNP Paribas, claiming that the French bank’s financing of oil and gas companies violated a French law requiring companies to draft environmental damage vigilance plans. It was described by Oxfam as the world’s first climate suit against a commercial bank. That case is ongoing.


HSBC Accused of Reneging on Its Promise to Stop Financing New Oil and Gas Fields

Banking giant HSBC shocked the finance world and won plaudits from climate groups with its announcement in December 2022 that it would stop financing new oil and gas fields. But that same day, HSBC bankers began selling shares in Saudi Aramco, one of the biggest oil giants in the world, sources tell The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), adding that “the bank’s policy has been cleverly worded to allow it to fund some of the world’s biggest polluters while boasting about its green credentials.” Since the announcement, the bank has helped raise more than $47 billion for companies expanding the production of oil and gas, per TBIJ. In response, HSBC said its policy allows the bank to continue providing finance “at a corporate level” and its approach “is based on the latest science for achieving net zero and follows the UN-backed approach for climate target setting and net zero alignment for banks.”


Bank of America Backtracks on Its 2022 Vow to Stop Financing New Coal Projects

At the start of February, Bank of America, one of the largest financiers of fossil fuel projects in the world, echoed HSBC’s backtrack. Two years ago, Bank of America won praise from climate groups for announcing that it would stop financing new coal mines, coal-fueled power plants or Arctic drilling projects. But in its latest environmental and social-risk policy, it pulls back from those commitments, saying only that such projects will undergo “enhanced due diligence.” The move comes in the wake of intense attacks on “woke finance” from conservative lawmakers targeting banks for their environmental policies, the New York Times reported.

Advertisement

Barclays Says It Will Stop Financing New Oil and Gas Projects

And British bank Barclays took a step forward by announcing Feb. 9 that it will stop directly financing new oil and gas projects, as well as restrict lending to energy companies involved in fossil fuel production. The move was outlined in its Transition Finance Framework amid pressure from climate groups over its energy policy. Barclays was Europe’s biggest financier of fossil fuel projects between 2016 and 2022, according to the Rainforest Action Network. In response to the new announcement, nonprofit ShareAction said it was withdrawing a proposed shareholder resolution that pushed for the bank to halt its financing of such projects.


Copyright 2024 Capital & Main



Source link

Advertisement

New Mexico

Remembering Pancho Villa’s New Mexico Raid and the Punitive Expedition Into Mexico | Council on Foreign Relations

Published

on

Remembering Pancho Villa’s New Mexico Raid and the Punitive Expedition Into Mexico | Council on Foreign Relations


Say the words “September 11” and every American instantly knows what you are referring to. The same is true for “Pearl Harbor.” Most Americans vaguely know that during the War of 1812 the British shelled Fort McHenry and burned down the White House. But mention the words “Columbus, New Mexico” and you will draw blank stares. Yet on March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary leader José Doroteo Arango Arámbula—better known to history as Pancho Villa—led a surprise attack on Columbus that left eighteen Americans and eighty Mexicans dead. Within days, nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers crossed the border into Mexico in search of Villa in what would become one of the more dismal chapters in U.S. military history: the Punitive Expedition.

The Mexican Revolution

The events in Columbus, New Mexico had a back story. In 1911, a popular uprising had ousted Porfirio Díaz as president (more accurately, dictator) of Mexico after thirty-five years in power. (Díaz is credited with uttering the line, “Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!”) His overthrow ushered in a decade of political instability known as the Mexican Revolution. Mexico saw several leaders come to power as conflict wracked the country.

From left to right: Victoriano Huerta, Emilio Madero, and Pancho Villa in 1912.Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

The first person to succeed Díaz was Francisco Madero. The son of a wealthy landowner in northeastern Mexico, Madero studied in the United States and France and became a democracy advocate. He was also, to say the least, odd. As the historian Robert Ferrell tells it: 

Advertisement

At one meeting with the American ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, the president of Mexico placed a third chair in the circle and announced to the ambassador that a friend was sitting there. The friend was invisible, Madero explained, but there nonetheless.

In February, after holding power for less than two years, Madero was shunted aside by his leading military officer, General Victoriano Huerta. The general drank, and drank often; brandy was his preferred drink. (He died in 1916 from cirrhosis of the liver.) He had Madero and his vice president shot, possibly at the behest of Ambassador Wilson. Huerta had suggested to Ambassador Wilson that perhaps he should exile Madero or send him to an insane asylum. The ambassador responded ambiguously; Huerta “ought to do that which was best for the peace of the country.”

Madero’s murder outraged the incoming U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who was not related to Ambassador Wilson and who was inaugurated on March 4, 1913. (The tradition of inaugurating presidents on January 20 did not begin until after the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.) Once in office, Wilson refused to recognize Huerta’s legitimacy, saying the Mexican general led a “government of butchers.” Ever the moralist, Wilson told the British ambassador to the United States: “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” Wilson’s efforts to influence who would lead Mexico included using the Tampico Incident in April 1914 to order the U.S. invasion of Veracruz, Mexico. U.S. troops would remain there until that November.

Venustiano Carranza Takes Power

President Wilson got his wish for a new Mexican government in August 1914 when Huerta was ousted by Venustiano Carranza. Another son of a wealthy landowner and a Madero follower, Carranza was a former governor of the Mexican state of Coahuila. He quickly found his rule challenged by his former ally, Francisco (Pancho) Villa, who had led the “Division of the North” in fighting against Huerta loyalists.

Pancho Villa, commander of the División del Norte (North Division), and Emiliano Zapata, commander of the Ejército Libertador del Sur (Liberation Army of the South), on December 4, 1914. Villa is sitting in the presidential chair in the Palacio Nacional.DeGolyer Library of Southern Methodist University.

Villa at first had Carranza on the defensive. In December 1914, Villa’s forces briefly took control of Mexico City before being driven back north. Wilson thought that Villa might be friendly to U.S. interests, so he withheld formal recognition of the Carranza government. Villa in turn hoped that Wilson’s refusal to recognize the Carranza government would help his cause. He was soon disappointed, however. The war in Europe increasingly consumed Wilson’s time, and he wanted a way out of his confrontational policies toward Mexico. Carranza, as he put it, “will somehow have to be digested.” In October 1915, the United States did just that, formally recognizing his government. 

Pancho Villa’s Revenge

Advertisement

Villa viewed Wilson’s decision as a betrayal, especially after Washington allowed Carranza’s troops to travel on U.S. railroads through New Mexico and Arizona to pursue Villa and his men rather than cross the harsh northern Mexican desert by horseback. German agents also urged Villa to turn on the United States. They hoped to bog the United States down in a war with Mexico that would prevent a U.S. entry into World War I.

With events having shifted against him, Villa devised a new strategy. He would seek to provoke the United States into attacking Mexico, thereby discrediting Carranza as a pawn of the United States. Villa put his plan into effect in January 1916. As Ferrell tells the story, Villa’s troops:

Met a Mexican Northwestern train at Santa Ysabel on January 11, 1916, carrying seventeen young American college graduates who had just come into Mexico from California under a safe conduct from Carranza to open a mine. Villa killed sixteen of them on the spot.

Villa spared one of the young Americans so he could tell his countrymen what happened. 

The news of the Santa Ysabel massacre did not trigger the U.S. retaliation that Villa expected. So, he turned to something even more audacious. In the predawn hours of March 9, 1916, Villa’s men raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, three miles north of the border. A regiment of the U.S. Army’s 13th Cavalry was encamped at the town, and its munitions depot was a target of the raid. Despite being caught off guard, the U.S. troops quickly regrouped and returned fire—at one point setting up a machine gun in front of the town’s lone hotel. The fighting, as well as the fires Villa’s men set, left the town in ruins.

A soldier stands near the smoking ruins of Columbus, New Mexico, after the raid by Pancho Villa’s forces.Museum of New Mexico and the National Guard. 

The Punitive Expedition

By the end of the day on March 9, Wilson had ordered General John J. Pershing to cross into Mexico to hunt down Villa. The incursion would have been an act of war, except that Carranza had reluctantly consented to it; he essentially had no other choice. He did, however, extract one face-saving concession: Mexico had the right, at least in theory, to pursue bandits across the border into the United States.

Advertisement
“I’ve Had About Enough of This.” Uncle Sam leaps across the border fence with Mexico to chase Pancho Villa. Made on March 10, 1916 by Clifford K. Berryman.National Archives Berryman Collection. 

The Punitive Expedition began with much enthusiasm and moral righteousness in Washington. It proved in practice, like most of Wilson’s policies toward Mexico, to be a political and diplomatic blunder. Pershing’s troops trekked more than 300 miles through northern Mexico without setting eyes on Villa, who knew the unfriendly terrain and was a hero to the local people. Critics back in the United States began to call the incursion as the “Perishing Expedition.”

American soldiers cross the arid plains south of Columbus, New Mexico, March 1916.United States Army. 

Rather than cut his losses, Wilson surged more troops into Mexico. Soon more than 12,000 U.S. soldiers had crossed the border. Carranza understandably wanted them all to go home. Even though General Pershing assured Washington that “the natives are not generally arming to oppose us,” in June 1916 U.S. forces clashed with the Mexican army, leaving a dozen Americans and forty Mexicans dead. Within days, Wilson had ordered nearly 150,000 National Guard troops to the border. War seemed likely. 

Reversing Course

Wilson’s stubbornness and self-righteousness partly explain why he continued to dig his hole deeper in Mexico rather than stop shoveling. Politics also played a part—1916 was a presidential election year. Like many presidents who would follow him, Wilson did not want to hand an election issue to his opponent by looking “weak” in his dealing with Mexico.

Events on the other side of the Atlantic eventually forced Wilson’s hand. With relations with Germany worsening, and the likelihood of a U.S. entry into World War I growing, he ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops in early January 1917. The last U.S. soldiers left Mexico on February 5, 1917. Less than four weeks later, the American public would learn about the  Zimmermann Telegram.

The 6th and 16th Infantry Battalions of the U.S. Army returning to the United States between Corralitos Rancho and Ojo Federico, Mexico, January 29, 1917.United States Army. 

Today Columbus, New Mexico, is home to about 1,800 people. It lies thirty five miles south of Deming, New Mexico, and sixty-five miles west of El Paso, Texas. You can find it by taking New Mexico State Highway 11 south from I-10 or New Mexico State Highway 9 from El Paso. Should you ever visit Columbus, be sure to check out Pancho Villa State Park. 

The United States celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026. To mark that milestone, I am resurfacing essays I have written over the years about major events in U.S. foreign policy. A version of this essay was published on March 9, 2011.

Oscar Berry assisted in the preparation of this post.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

New Mexico

Aggies Earn Outright Mountain West Title with Win Over New Mexico

Published

on


Courtesy of Utah State Athletics

LOGAN, Utah – Utah State men’s basketball concluded its final season in the Mountain West with a championship Saturday afternoon in the Dee Glen Smith Spectrum, defeating New Mexico 94-90 to secure the outright regular season championship and the No. 1-seed in the upcoming MW Tournament.

This is Utah State’s third all-time Mountain West championship, and its second outright title since joining the league in 2013. The Aggies had secured at least a share of the title prior to the game, but were able to prevent the second-place Lobos from claiming a share with the victory. This is the second time USU has won the MW title outright, joining the 2024 squad as the only Aggie teams to do so.

The Aggies conclude the 2025-26 regular season 25-6 overall and 15-5 in conference play. This is the 12th 25-win season in program history, and the first time the team has ever won 25-plus in four-straight seasons.

Advertisement

The senior class showed up in a big way on senior night, combining for 62 of Utah State’s 94 points in the contest. In his final game in the Spectrum, senior guard MJ Collins Jr. led the way as he went for 27 points with a season-best six rebounds, an assist and a steal. This was the second-best scoring performance of the season for Collins Jr.

Other seniors honored following the game included guards Drake Allen and Kolby King, and forwards Zach Keller and Garry Clark. Each senior gave a major contribution — Allen going for 14 points, Keller for eight, King finishing with seven and Clark going for six.

The Aggies led from nearly start-to-finish in the victory, leading for over 38 minutes while trailing for less than one. USU shot an efficient 50 percent from the field and found its rhythm from deep as well, connecting on 10-of-27 3-pointers. Despite the hot shooting, however, the Lobos held strong and remained in the contest throughout, shooting 48 percent on their end of the court.

Utah State set the tone early with 10 makes in its first 15 shots, opening up a double-digit advantage six minutes in at 17-7. The Aggies remained decisively in front through the rest of the half, until a 7-0 New Mexico run to close the half gave the Lobos their first and only lead of the contest, going into the locker room up 94-90.

The second half started the same as the first, the Aggies pouncing to quickly regain control. USU opened the final 20 minutes with a 12-2 run out of the gates, sparked by back-to-back triples from Collins Jr.

Advertisement

While the Aggies never took another double-digit lead, they remained on top the rest of the way. Despite a cold streak where it made just three of 13 shots, USU kept itself in control at the charity stripe, connecting on 83 percent of its free throws including going 18-of-21 in the second half.

Along with Collins Jr.’s big scoring performance, junior guard Mason Falslev showed out for the Aggies with 15 points, three boards and four assists. Junior guard Karson Templin provided a spark in 23 minutes off the bench, going for 15 points and five rebounds.

Allen accompanied his 14 points with a team-best seven assists, while also pulling down five boards, two steals and a block.

In total, Utah State shot 50.0 percent (27-of-54) from the floor, 37.0 percent (10-of-27) from 3-point range and 83.3 percent (30-of-36) at the charity stripe. New Mexico shot 47.5 percent (29-of-61) from the field, 44.8 percent (13-of-29) from behind the arc and 73.1 percent (19-of-26) at the free throw line.

UP NEXT
Utah State will now travel to Las Vegas for the Mountain West men’s basketball tournament, taking place next week from March 11-14 at the Thomas & Mack Center. The Aggies will be the No. 1-seed and will play at 1 p.m. (MT).

Advertisement

FOLLOW
For more information on Utah State’s men’s basketball program, follow the Aggies on Facebook at usumensbasketball, on Twitter at @usubasketball and on Instagram at @usubasketball. Fans can also watch USU men’s basketball highlights by visiting youtube.com/utahstateathletics.

-USU-





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

New Mexico

Pentagon and FAA agree to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico

Published

on

Pentagon and FAA agree to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico


The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration agreed to conduct anti-drone laser tests in New Mexico after the military’s deployment of the lasers led the FAA to suddenly close airspace in Texas twice in the last month.

The newly announced testing was being carried out to “specifically address FAA safety concerns,” the military said Friday in a statement. It was to take place Saturday and Sunday at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Lawmakers were concerned about an apparent lack of coordination after the Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use an anti-drone laser in early February without notifying the FAA. The federal agency that ensures safety in the skies decided to close the airspace over El Paso for a few hours, stranding many travelers.

The Trump administration said it was working to halt an incursion by Mexican cartel drones, which are not uncommon along the southern border.

Advertisement

On Feb. 26 the U.S. military used the laser to shoot down a “seemingly threatening” drone flying near the U.S.-Mexico border. It turned out the drone belonged to Customs and Border Protection, lawmakers said.

The incident led the FAA to close the airspace around Fort Hancock, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of El Paso.

“We appreciate the coordination with the Department of War to help ensure public safety,” the FAA said of the testing, in a separate statement. “The FAA and DOW are working with interagency partners to address emerging threats posed by unmanned aircraft systems while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System.”

The military is required to formally notify the FAA when it takes any counter-drone action inside U.S. airspace.

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the ranking member on the Senate’s Aviation Subcommittee, called previously for an independent investigation after the two February incidents.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending