How Germany lost its reputation as the economic envy of the world

The loss of cheap gas from Russia played a part, but decisions in the boom years are now being questioned.

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jobs were plentiful and the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. 

Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap natural gas — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “de-industrialisation” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region is a symbol of the energy transition, dotted with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann said. 

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, the German government asked Evonik to keep its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030.

ADVERTISEMENT

One debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would prolong reliance on fossil fuels.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

ADVERTISEMENT

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Other dawning realisations: The money the government had on hand came in part because of delays in investing in roads, the rail network and rural high-speed internet. A 2011 decision to shut down Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants has been questioned amid worries about electricity prices and shortages. Companies face a severe shortage of skilled labour, with job openings hitting a record of just under two million.

And relying on Russia to reliably supply gas through the Nord Stream pipelines under the Baltic Sea — since shut off and damaged amid the war — was conceded by the government to have been a mistake.

Now, clean energy projects are slowed by extensive bureaucracy and not-in-my-backyard resistance. Spacing limits from homes keep annual construction of wind turbines in single digits in the southern Bavarian region.

A €10 billion-euro electrical line bringing wind power from the north to industry in the south has faced delays from political resistance to unsightly above-ground towers. Burying the line means completion in 2028 instead of 2022.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the meantime, energy-intensive companies are looking to cope with the price shock.

Drewsen Spezialpapiere, which makes passport and stamp paper as well as paper straws, bought three wind turbines near its mill in northern Germany to cover about a quarter of its external electricity demand as it moves away from natural gas.

Specialty glass company Schott AG experimented with substituting emissions-free hydrogen for gas at the plant where it produces glass in tanks as hot as 1,700 degrees Celsius.

It worked — but only on a small scale, with hydrogen supplied by truck. Mass quantities of hydrogen produced with renewable electricity and delivered by pipeline would be needed and don’t exist yet.

Scholz has called for the energy transition to take on the urgency used to set up four floating natural gas terminals in months to replace lost Russian gas. The liquefied natural gas that comes to the terminals by ship from the US, Qatar and elsewhere is more expensive than Russian pipeline supplies, but the effort showed what Germany can do.

However, squabbling among the coalition government over the energy price cap and a law barring new gas furnaces has exasperated business leaders.

Germany grew complacent during a “golden decade” of economic growth in 2010-2020 says Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg bank. Schmieding, who once dubbed Germany “the sick man of Europe” in an influential 1998 analysis, thinks that label would be overdone today, considering its low unemployment and strong government finances. That gives Germany room to act — but lowers the pressure to make changes.

The most important immediate step, Schmieding said, would be to end uncertainty over energy prices. Whatever policies are chosen, “it would already be a great help if the government could agree on them fast so that companies know what they are up to and can plan accordingly instead of delaying investment decisions,” he said.

Source link

#Germany #lost #reputation #economic #envy #world

AI is policing the package theft beat for UPS as ‘porch piracy’ surge continues across U.S.

A doorbell camera in Chesterfield, Virginia, recently caught a man snatching a box containing a $1,600 new iPad from the arms of a FedEx delivery driver. Barely a day goes by without a similar report. Package theft, often referred to as “porch piracy,” is a big crime business.

While the price tag of any single stolen package isn’t extreme — a study by Security.org found that the median value of stolen merchandise was $50 in 2022 — the absolute level of package theft is high and rising. In 2022, 260 million delivered packages were stolen, according to home security consultant SafeWise, up from 210 million packages the year before. All in all, it estimated that 79% of Americans were victims of porch pirates last year.

In response, some of the big logistics companies have introduced technologies and programs designed to stop the crime wave. One of the most recent examples set to soon go into wider deployment came in June from UPS, with its API for DeliveryDefense, an AI-powered approach to reducing the risk of delivery theft. The UPS tech uses historic data and machine learning algorithms to assign each location a “delivery confidence score,” which is rated on a one to 1,000 scale.

“If we have a score of 1,000 to an address that means that we’re highly confident that that package is going to get delivered,” said Mark Robinson, president of UPS Capital. “At the other end of the scale, like 100 … would be one of those addresses where it would be most likely to happen, some sort of loss at the delivery point,” Robinson said.

Powered by artificial intelligence, UPS Capital’s DeliveryDefense analyzes address characteristics and generates a ‘Delivery Confidence Score’ for each address. If the address produced a low score, then a package recipient can then recommend in-store collection or a UPS pick-up point. 

The initial version was designed to integrate with the existing software of major retailers through the API —a beta test has been run with Costco Wholesale in Colorado. The company declined to provide information related to the Costco collaboration. Costco did not return a request for comment.

DeliveryDefense, said Robinson, is “a decent way for merchants to help make better decisions about how to ship packages to their recipients.”

To meet the needs of more merchants, a web-based version is being launched for small- and medium-sized businesses on Oct. 18, just in time for peak holiday shipping season.

UPS says the decision about delivery options made to mitigate potential issues and enhance the customer experience will ultimately rest with the individual merchant, who will decide whether and how to address any delivery risk, including, for example, insuring the shipment or shipping to a store location for pickup.

UPS already offers its Access Points program, which lets consumers have packages shipped to Michaels and CVS locations to ensure safe deliveries.

How Amazon, Fedex, DHL attempt to prevent theft

UPS isn’t alone in fighting porch piracy.

Among logistics competitors, DHL relies on one of the oldest methods of all — a “signature first” approach to deliveries in which delivery personnel are required to knock on the recipient’s door or ring the doorbell to obtain a signature to deliver a package. DHL customers can opt to have shipments left at their door without a signature, and in such cases, the deliverer takes a photo of the shipment to provide proof for delivery. A FedEx rep said that the company offers its own picture proof of delivery and FedEx Delivery Manager, which lets customers customize their delivery preferences, manage delivery times and locations, redirect packages to a retail location and place holds on packages.

Amazon has several features to help ensure that packages arrive safely, such as its two- to four-hour estimated delivery window “to help customers plan their day,” said an Amazon spokesperson. Amazon also offers photo-on delivery, which offers visual delivery confirmation and key-in-garage Delivery, which lets eligible Amazon Prime members receive deliveries in their garage.

Debate over doorbell cameras

Amazon has also been known for its attempts to use new technology to help prevent piracy, including its Ring doorbell cameras — the gadget maker’s parent company was acquired by the retail giant in 2018 for a reported $1 billion.

Camera images can be important when filing police reports, according to Courtney Klosterman, director of communications for insurer Hippo. But the technology has done little to slow porch piracy, according to some experts who have studied its usage.

“I don’t personally think it really prevents a lot of porch piracy,” said Ben Stickle, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University and an expert on package theft.

Recent consumer experiences, including the iPad theft example in Virginia, suggest criminals may not fear the camera. Last month, Julie Litvin, a pregnant woman in Central Islip, N.Y., watched thieves make off with more than 10 packages, so she installed a doorbell camera. She quickly got footage of a woman stealing a package from her doorway after that. She filed a police report, but said her building’s management company didn’t seem interested in providing much help.

Stickle cited a study he conducted in 2018 that showed that only about 5% of thieves made an effort to hide their identity from the cameras. “A lot of thieves, when they walked up and saw the camera, would simply look at it, take the package and walk away anyway,” he said. 

SafeWise data shows that six in 10 people said they’d had packages stolen in 2022. Rebecca Edwards, security expert for SafeWise, said this reality reinforces the view that cameras don’t stop theft. “I don’t think that cameras in general are a deterrent anymore,” Edwards said.

The best delivery crime prevention methods

The increase in packages being delivered has made them more enticing to thieves. “I think it’s been on the rise since the pandemic, because we all got a lot more packages,” she said. “It’s a crime of opportunity, the opportunity has become so much bigger.”

Edwards said that the two most-effective measures consumers can take to thwart theft are requiring a signature to leave a package and dropping the package in a secure location, like a locker.

Large lockboxes start at around $70 and for the most sophisticated can run into the thousands of dollars.

Stickle recommends a lockbox to protect your packages. “Sometimes people will call and say ‘Well, could someone break in the box? Well, yeah, potentially,” Stickle said. “But if they don’t see the item, they’re probably not going to walk up to your house to try and steal it.”

There is always the option of leaning on your neighbors to watch your doorstep and occasionally sign for items. Even some local police departments are willing to hold packages.

The UPS AI comes at a time of concerns about rapid deployment of artificial intelligence, and potential bias in algorithms.

UPS says that DeliveryDefense relies on a dataset derived from two years’ worth of domestic UPS data, encompassing an extensive sample of billions of delivery data points. Data fairness, a UPS spokeswoman said, was built into the model, with a focus “exclusively on delivery characteristics,” rather than on any individual data. For example, in a given area, one apartment complex has a secure mailroom with a lockbox and chain of custody, while a neighboring complex lacks such safeguards, making it more prone to package loss.

But the UPS AI is not free. The API starts at $3,000 per month. For the broader universe of small businesses that are being offered the web version in October, a subscription service will be charged monthly starting at $99, with a variety of other pricing options for larger customers.

Source link

#policing #package #theft #beat #UPS #porch #piracy #surge #continues

Should I sign up for a hybrid life-insurance and long-term-care policy through work?

Got a question about the mechanics of investing, how it fits into your overall financial plan, and what strategies can help you make the most out of your money? You can write me at [email protected].  

I keep getting these emails from my company about a new benefit they are offering that is a combination of life insurance and long-term-care insurance. I really want to get long-term-care insurance, but I don’t know if this is a good deal or not. There’s a deadline on this offer, which makes it seem weird to me. It’s not even our open enrollment period. Why do I have to decide so fast about something so important? I didn’t feel like I could ask somebody at my own company for objective advice, but I don’t know who to ask otherwise. What should I do? 

N.C. employee

Dear N.C. employee, 

You’re not the only one asking this question right now. The number of U.S. companies offering a voluntary benefit that combines life insurance with long-term-care insurance has skyrocketed in the past few years. While there’s no official tally of the offers out there, “our activity has gone up 35% this year alone,” says Dan Schmid, vice president of sales for Trustmark Voluntary Benefits, an insurance company that offers hybrid policies. 

A variety of market forces have led the insurance industry to this point, which sounds arcane, but it matters for your decision tree. To decide whether this is a good deal, you have to consider whether a better offer might come along.  

Better offers were certainly available years ago, when many employers offered group policies for stand-alone long-term care with generous benefits, and you could also more readily get coverage as an individual. But the market for this kind of policy imploded because costs were too great for the insurance companies, especially in a low-interest-rate environment. 

In the past few years, the COVID-19 pandemic shifted people’s thinking about future healthcare costs, and legislation is pending across the country — and is already in force in Washington state — to mandate that companies provide this coverage in order to alleviate the burden on Medicare and Medicaid. On top of all that, the economy has changed, and now interest rates are high, along with inflation, which is changing the pricing dynamic. 

To meet demand, insurance companies came up with today’s hybrid offerings. For the employer-sponsored plans, you can typically get coverage up to certain limits without passing any health checks — what’s known as guaranteed-issue in the business. Your spouse or other dependents who qualify will most likely have to go through underwriting, though. 

You pay the premiums out of your paycheck, and you can take the policy with you after you leave the job, so it can stay in force for your lifetime. You build up value as you go. If you should have a long-term-care need, the policy will pay out a monthly amount for a specific time period, like three or five years. Whatever is left at your death goes to your heirs. 

Policies range in price and vary by the age of the enrolled person, but a typical one would cost about $3,700 per year for a woman in her early 50s, with premiums rising over the life of the plan or if you choose to add to the death benefit over time. That would get you up to a $400,000 long-term care benefit, paid at $8,000 a month for 50 months, and a $200,000 death benefit. 

Here’s the big catch: There’s typically no inflation adjustment for the benefit amount. The amount needed for long-term care today is likely to be $400,000 for the typical married couple, notes retirement expert Wade Pfau, who calculated a case study for the upcoming edition of his Retirement Planning Guidebook. 

That $8,000 monthly benefit would seem to meet that need now, but what about in 30 years, when that 50-something woman is in her 80s? The benefit dollar amount stays the same, but inflation could turn her need into $725,000 with inflation of just 2%. And to be honest, even today, $8,000 is unlikely to fully cover a month in an assisted-living facility, which runs more like $12,000.  

“Inflation is a big deal, so you just have to take that into consideration,” says Howard Sharfman, senior managing director at NFP, an insurance brokerage. 

That means if you think your eventual need would be $20,000 a month, you should purchase enough coverage to get there. But to get that bigger policy — which also would likely come with a six-month exclusion for pre-existing conditions — you will exceed the guaranteed-issue threshold and would have to pass the medical tests. And in any case, you probably wouldn’t even find a policy that offers that level of benefit. 

Should you take what you can get? 

The hard-sell pitch for hybrid long-term-care policies is literally this: Something is better than nothing. And the decision is on a deadline because companies have found that motivates people to act. 

It could very well be true that something is better than nothing. 

“For some people, it’s going to be outstanding, because they’ll put in money and never need the benefit and their heirs will get a death benefit,” says Jesse Slome, director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. “For a more significant number of people who buy it and need long-term care, the benefit will be sufficient. They’ll make do and manage with that.”

The alternative is self-funding, which makes sense mathematically but perhaps not behaviorally. Take the pricing example of the 50-year-old paying $3,700 a year for 30 years, not counting premium increases. If you took that amount and invested it yearly, you’d have $153,000 after 20 years at 7% returns. That’s nearly the policy life insurance benefit. Add another 10 years to that — presuming you wouldn’t need long-term care until you hit 80 — and you’d have a nest egg of nearly $350,000. 

“If you invested that amount in a diversified portfolio, you could probably expect to get a higher return than through an insurance product,” Pfau says. 

The truth, however, is that people may not do that, and so the death benefit in a hybrid policy acts as a kind of forced savings and investment plan, where you get back what you put in, plus a little interest. 

“There can be some psychological benefits to having some coverage,” Pfau notes. 

Will something better come along? 

It’s not hard to imagine that the industry might find other ways of delivering a long-term-care benefit to consumers who desperately need it, without bankrupting the companies that provide the insurance. 

Already some companies are experimenting with different kinds of hybrid offerings — like John Hancock, which also bundles wellness programs into its policies. 

And people are beginning to think differently about why you get long-term-care insurance — it’s less about a return on investment and more about protecting the next generation. “Insurance works best when it’s low probability, low cost. With long-term care, it’s not a low probability. There’s a good shot you’ll use the benefits, which makes it very expensive to get,” says Pfau. 

So should you take your company’s offering? At the end of the day, it only matters that you understand the need that’s coming and try to find a way to save for it, whether it’s through an insurance policy or by saving on your own. If you feel too rushed, then wait and see what comes next.

More from Beth Pinsker

Source link

#sign #hybrid #lifeinsurance #longtermcare #policy #work

UAW strike brings blue-collar vs. billionaire battle to Detroit

DETROIT — The United Auto Workers strike is bringing a blue-collar versus billionaire battle to the Motor City, just as UAW President Shawn Fain wanted.

The outspoken union leader has weaponized striking — historically a last resort for the union — after less than 24 hours into a work stoppage arguably better than any UAW president has in modern times.

It wasn’t by accident.

Fain, a quirky yet emboldened leader, has meticulously brought the UAW back into the national spotlight after decades of near irrelevance. He wants to represent not just union members but also America’s embattled middle class, which UAW helped create.

United Auto Workers union President Shawn Fain joins UAW members who are on a strike, on the picket line at the Ford Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan, September 15, 2023.

Rebecca Cook | Reuters

To do so, he has leveraged a yearslong national labor movement and a growing disgust for wealthy individuals and corporations among many Americans — starting with his first time addressing the union’s more than 400,000 members during his inauguration speech in March.

“We’re here to come together to ready ourselves for the war against our only one and only true enemy, multibillion-dollar corporations and employers who refuse to give our members their fair share,” Fain said at the time. “It’s a new day in the UAW.”

Fain’s comments Friday morning as he joined UAW members and supporters picketing outside a Ford plant in Michigan — one of three facilities the company is currently striking — echoed everything he said during that first speech.

“We got to do what we got to do to get our share of economic and social justice in this strike,” Fain said outside the Ford Bronco SUV and Ranger pickup plant. “We’re going to be out here until we get our share of economic justice. And it doesn’t matter how long it takes.”

Fain’s upbringing plays into his strong unionism and religious beliefs, which he has growingly talked about with members as he emphasizes “faith” in the UAW’s cause. Two of his grandparents were UAW GM retirees, and one grandfather started at Chrysler in 1937, the year the workers joined the union. Fain, who joined the UAW in 1994, even keeps one of his grandfather’s pay stubs in his wallet as “a reminder” of where he came from. 

National media and others really started paying attention to Fain when he said the union would withhold a reelection endorsement of President Joe Biden, who has called himself the “most pro-union president in history.” Fain and Biden have spoken and met, but the union leader has not shown much support for the president. In response to comments by the president Friday, Fain said: “Working people are not afraid. You know who’s afraid? The corporate media is afraid. The White House is afraid. The companies are afraid.”

While many past union leaders have talked such talk, Fain has thus far delivered on his promises to members without batting an eye — causing General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis to go into crisis mode this week as the UAW follows through on that promise to members.

“We’ve never seen anything like this; it’s frustrating,” Ford CEO Jim Farley told CNBC’s Phil LeBeau Thursday as he criticized Fain and the union for what he said was a lack of communication and counteroffers. “I don’t know what Shawn Fain is doing, but he’s not negotiating this contract with us, as it expires.”

In a statement Friday, Ford said that the UAW’s partial strike at its Michigan Assembly Plant has forced it to lay off about 600 workers.

“This is not a lockout,” Ford said. “This layoff is a consequence of the strike at Michigan Assembly Plant’s final assembly and paint departments, because the components built by these 600 employees use materials that must be e-coated for protection. E-coating is completed in the paint department, which is on strike.”

GM CEO Mary Barra echoed Farley’s feelings Friday morning on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

“I’m extremely frustrated and disappointed,” she said. “We don’t need to be on strike right now.”

Both CEOs said everything they could to indicate they believe Fain may not be bargaining in good faith without using those exact words, which could justify a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

The UAW in late August filed unfair labor practice charges against GM and Stellantis with the NLRB, alleging they did not bargain with the union in good faith or a timely manner. It did not file a complaint against Ford. GM and Stellantis have denied those allegations.

Ford CEO Jim Farley: No way we would be sustainable as a company with UAW's wage proposal

Several past union leaders and company bargainers who spoke to CNBC hailed the way Fain has been able to propel the UAW into the national spotlight, including pausing bargaining for a Friday rally and march with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the progressive lawmaker from Vermont. Sanders, whose surprise 2016 Democratic presidential primary win in Michigan helped cement his national prominence, has lent support to numerous labor movements around the country as he rails against the billionaire class.

“I think they’re just doing an outstanding job,” said respected former UAW President Bob King, who cited growing support for the union among the public and the union’s own members. “Both those measurements say that UAW communications has been outstanding.”

UAW members have taken notice — especially after many of them disdained union leadership during and after a yearslong federal corruption investigation that landed two past UAW presidents and more than a dozen others in prison.

“For all the years that I’ve worked here, it’s never been this strong,” said Anthony Dobbins, a 27-year autoworker, early Friday morning while picketing the Ford plant in Michigan. “This is going to make history right here because we are trying to get what we deserve.”

Dobbins, a UAW Local 600 union representative, balked at current record offers by the automakers that have included roughly 20% pay increases, thousands of dollars in bonuses, retention of the union’s platinum health care and other sweetened benefits.

“That’s not working for us. Give us what we asked for,” Dobbins said. “That’s what we want. We have to work seven days, overtime, just to make ends meet.”

United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain, center, poses with Anthony Dobbins, right, a 27-year autoworker, and others as the union pickets a Ford plant in Wayne, Michigan, Sept. 15, 2023.

Michael Wayland / CNBC

Key demands from the union have included 40% hourly pay increases; a reduced, 32-hour, workweek; a shift back to traditional pensions; the elimination of compensation tiers; and a restoration of cost-of-living adjustments. Other items on the table include enhanced retiree benefits and better vacation and family leave benefits.

Automakers have argued such demands would cripple the companies. Farley even said the company would have “gone bankrupt by now” under the union’s current proposals and members would not have benefited from $75,000 in average profit-sharing over the last decade.

Ford sources said the automaker would have lost $14.4 billion over the last four years if the current demands had been in effect, instead of recording nearly $30 billion in profits.

Such profits are exactly what Fain has said UAW members deserve to share in. But his strategy to get workers a larger piece of the pie carries great risks.

“This is not going to be positive from an industry perspective or for GM,” Barra said Friday.

Many outside the union believe if Fain pushes too hard, it could lead to long-term job losses for the union. A former high-ranking bargainer for one of the automakers told CNBC that it’s nearly guaranteed the companies cut union jobs through product allocation, plant closures or other means to offset increased labor costs.

“They’re going to have to pay up. The question is how much,” said the longtime bargainer, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity. “This ends up with fewer jobs. That’s how the automakers cut costs.”

Fain and other union leaders have argued that meeting the companies in the middle has led to dozens of plant closures, fewer union members and a growing divide between blue-collar workers and the wealthy.

So why not fight?

“This is about us doing what we got to do to take care of the working class,” Fain said Friday. “This isn’t just about the UAW. This is about working people everywhere in this country. No matter what you do for a living, you deserve your fair share of equity.”

GM CEO Mary Barra on UAW strike: We put a historic offer on the table

Source link

#UAW #strike #brings #bluecollar #billionaire #battle #Detroit

Industry-led innovation could help resolve the energy trilemma

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Forward-looking companies within the energy and related industries must lend their resources and expertise to developing and integrating practical and impactful technologies that support the global energy transition, Lorenzo Simonelli writes.

Multiple recent energy outlooks have projected that the world will not meet the ambitious emission reduction targets set for 2050, with oil and natural gas still likely to meet more than half of the world’s energy needs. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This news reflects a growing focus on energy security, as countries around the world are reluctant to sacrifice the stability of their energy supply and economic situation in order to dramatically reduce their emissions.

Balancing the Paris Accords commitment to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold with our responsibility to provide a steady and secure supply of energy is undoubtedly a challenging task. 

However, the energy industry must not be daunted or discouraged by the obstacles it faces. Instead, we must focus on what we are best equipped to provide, which in the case of industry, is the advancement of lower-emissions technologies and solutions.

Low-hanging fruit first

By breaking down the technology development and implementation process into three broad focus areas – leveraging available low-carbon technologies, investing in the development of new cleaner energy technologies, and piloting promising new concepts and solutions to make them market-ready – we can target our efforts to make significant headway in the journey towards net-zero. 

Within this framework, we can ensure we continue our momentum towards a lower-carbon economy to achieve the energy transition in a sustainable and productive manner.

Firstly, we must look to harvest the already low-hanging fruit of existing technologies that can make our current energy system more sustainable. 

As one example of the opportunity, McKinsey has reported that deploying the available technologies could deliver about 60% of the emissions abatement that will be needed to stabilise the climate by 2050. 

Electrification is an obvious way to reduce emissions, as is being witnessed with the expansion of electric vehicles, heat pumps, and electric and plasma arc furnaces.

However, we will still have to rely on hydrocarbons for at least the next few decades, particularly as we move away from coal and replace it with natural gas.

New technologies should fill the remaining gaps

In this context, we must ensure the oil and gas industry is reducing its emissions as much as possible. 

This can be done by integrating smart technologies to reduce emissions, improve the energy efficiency of hydrocarbons so less is used to achieve more and reduce the impact of hydrocarbon use. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Smart flaring systems can be deployed at oil and gas fields to monitor, reduce, and control emissions associated with flaring. Such systems can reduce the leakage of methane, minimise costs from flaring operations, provide steam savings and improve transparency for flare operations.

In conjunction with this, we need to push investment into developing new energy technologies to fill the remaining gaps in the energy system. 

The major areas where we still need to invest in research and development include carbon capture, storage and usage (CCUS), hydrogen production, transportation and usage, and emissions management. 

By intelligently channelling investment into the new clean energy system, we can be prepared to meet the clean energy needs of tomorrow. I am proud that investment is taking place in this area today, with Baker Hughes investing more than $2 billion (€1.86bn) in new energy technologies through partnerships, acquisitions, and ecosystems. 

This trend must continue, as our actions in the first half of this decade will set the pace of change as we head into the next.

ADVERTISEMENT

Scaling up and identifying gaps

Lastly, we need to ensure that the promising new technologies and systems that are being ideated are not just left on the drawing board or in the lab. 

The International Energy Agency has estimated in previous reports that nearly half of the emissions reductions required to achieve net zero by 2050 will be achieved by technologies that are not yet commercially viable. 

New technology concepts and designs need to be identified and tested through piloting, to see how they scale up to the required size and to identify the gaps that appear when they are deployed in the real world.

Fortunately, our industry is making a concerted effort to promote the continued development of cutting-edge climate technology that can accelerate our transition to clean energy. 

Major industry events, such as the upcoming ADIPEC exhibition and conference in Abu Dhabi, are showcasing the leading innovations in decarbonization, hydrogen, and biofuels. 

ADVERTISEMENT

These events offer promising technology the exposure needed to attract while providing a much-needed forum for key stakeholders to align on investment priorities.

We can develop clean tech together

The journey to net zero will require many different technologies and an energy mix that will continue to evolve and change. 

Forward-looking companies within the energy and related industries must lend their resources and expertise to developing and integrating practical and impactful technologies that support the global energy transition. 

Together, we can develop the clean technologies the world needs to reach net zero, and in doing so, ensure a balanced response to the energy trilemma while driving momentum towards the energy transition.

Lorenzo Simonelli is Chairman and CEO of Baker Hughes, one of the world’s largest companies providing oil field services.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Industryled #innovation #resolve #energy #trilemma

Is Ukraine’s tax policy worse than corruption?

Can you imagine how the economy of any major Western country would perform if one had to gather a heap of documents for every transaction, just to prove your good intentions, Dmytro Boyarchuk writes.

To counter Russian aggression both today and in the future, one thing is clear: Ukraine must strengthen its economic capacity.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ukrainians cannot realistically expect foreign investments to flow into the country until Russian hostility subsides. 

Thus, the only resource we can truly rely on is the business community currently committed to remaining in Ukraine. Local businesses—small, mid-sized, and large—represent the future of the nation.

Surprisingly, however, Ukrainian authorities seem to undervalue the importance of their most valuable internal resource, placing their bets on significant foreign support and potential reparations from Russia as the means to stabilise the economy.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian businesses — especially those of medium size — grapple with a burdensome taxation system. 

The flawed tax administration consistently ranks high in business polls, second only to issues like a drop in demand and other war-related complications. 

But it’s not just the magnitude of the taxes that concerns businesses (even though taxation is by no means insignificant) — it is also the disruptive manner in which authorities handle tax and customs collections.

‘Guilty until found innocent’

Remember: The Ukrainian law enforcement system is not merely “weak”; it is dysfunctional and unreliable. 

A lack of trust in the judiciary and law enforcement has led authorities to base tax and customs collections on a presumption of guilt. 

Unlike in developed countries where tax administration relies on the inevitability of punishment for tax evasion, the Ukrainian system operates on the assumption that all taxpayers are potentially planning to commit a crime. 

Therefore, taxpayers are required to provide proof for every single transaction, demonstrating that they have no ill intent.

Can you imagine how the economy of any major Western country would perform if one had to gather a heap of documents for every transaction, just to prove your good intentions?

ADVERTISEMENT

The Gordian knot that needs untangling

The visa application process is a fitting analogy. Consider how every EU or American citizen who plans to visit mainland China must obtain a visa. 

They gather the necessary documents and fill out the required forms, yet the visa’s approval is not guaranteed. Instead, approval is at the discretion of a Chinese officer. 

Ukrainian businesses face a similar challenge with their government, needing a metaphorical “visa” for every reporting period to continue operations.

Businesses have put forth numerous proposals to address this issue, ranging from a simplified tax on withdrawn capital to the more radical idea of abolishing the VAT (Value Added Tax) in favour of a sales tax. 

While the former is more feasible, the latter seems improbable given European Union mandates that all member states implement a VAT.

ADVERTISEMENT

The authorities refuse to acknowledge the problem, asserting that Ukrainian taxpayers simply don’t want to pay taxes — which is not true. 

Something must be done to untangle this Gordian knot. Otherwise, Ukraine will find itself continually and indefinitely seeking more financial support from EU and US taxpayers, just to stay afloat for years to come.

Fixing the disruptive tax administration isn’t a straightforward task. In a setting where the rule of law is non-functional, “presumption of guilt” administrative practices are highly discretionary and largely corrupt. However, a solution is necessary.

GDP growth is tied to reducing corruption

In the West, there is a significant focus on the issue of corruption in Ukraine. 

Individual accountability for corrupt actions is undeniably crucial. Yet there seems to be less emphasis on addressing the tools and systems that enable corruption in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT

Research from the International Monetary Fund indicates that Ukraine could see an additional 0.85% in annual GDP growth if corruption were reduced to levels seen in neighbouring countries like Bulgaria and Romania, members of both the EU and NATO. 

CASE Ukraine’s own estimates suggest that simply eliminating one document, the “deeds of transfer and acceptance” — which tax authorities use extensively to exert discretionary power — could save businesses around 0.6% of GDP annually. 

This particular document is not utilised anywhere else globally, except in post-Soviet nations. 

And it represents only a fraction of the vast system in place that leverages “presumption of guilt” practices against taxpayers in Ukraine.

Be the reformers Ukrainians desperately need

This is why a petition was initiated and addressed to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, urging the elimination of the “presumption of guilt” practices in tax and customs administration. 

The petition garnered the required 25,000 votes, an impressive number for a tax-related issue in Ukraine, indicating that there is significant concern for thousands of businesses. 

President Zelenskyy even responded favourably to it. However, the Ministry of Finance countered, asserting that there isn’t an issue and the existing law clearly establishes a “presumption of innocence” in taxation practices.

This response, once again, highlights the disconnect between the written law and the actual practice on the ground. 

Ukraine’s businesses are left bearing the consequences and struggling to stay afloat, while our nation’s growth potential is hindered.

The path to a brighter future for the Ukrainian economy is clear. The only question that remains is, can policymakers be pressured into becoming the reformers that Ukraine’s people so desperately need?

Dmytro Boyarchuk serves as Executive Director of CASE Ukraine, a think tank based in Kyiv.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Ukraines #tax #policy #worse #corruption

Disney and Charter reach deal to end cable blackout in time for ‘Monday Night Football’

The blackout fight between cable giant Charter Communications and Disney is over.

Hours ahead of “Monday Night Football,” which airs on Disney’s ESPN, the companies reached a deal that would allow millions of Charter cable customers to watch the game.

The deal will see Disney’s ad-supported streaming apps Disney+ and ESPN+ included in packages for some of Charter’s Spectrum pay TV customers. Disney will receive an increase on the subscriber fees it receives from Charter.

Earlier on Monday CNBC’s David Faber reported a deal between the two companies was nearing and would include a discount on pricing for Disney streaming services for Charter customers.

The news release for the agreement said it includes:

  • The Disney+ basic ad-supported offering will be provided to customers who buy the Spectrum TV Select package.
  • ESPN+ will be provided to subscribers to Spectrum TV Select Plus subscribers.
  • The highly anticipated ESPN streaming service will be made available to Spectrum TV Select subscribers when it launches.

Charter’s and Disney’s stocks, as well as media peers including Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global traded higher Monday afternoon.

Earlier this summer, Charter announced it would soon offer a sports-lite package to customers, primarily nixing regional sports networks and creating a cheaper option for consumers who don’t watch the networks.

Customers on the Spectrum TV Select Plus plan – which includes the regional sports networks – will receive ESPN+ subscriptions as part of their package.

The plans are set to roll out during the third quarter.

Meanwhile, Disney+’s ad-supported option will be provided to customers who select the Spectrum TV Select package. When ESPN launches its direct-to-consumer streaming option, these customers will also receive access to it. (The new ESPN app will be a streaming version of the cable channel, unlike the ESPN+ app, which doesn’t include all programming.)

The inclusion of Disney’s ad-supported streaming apps for Charter’s customers had appeared to be a sticking point in the negotiations that stalled and led to a blackout. While this deal doesn’t appear to give all Charter pay TV customers access to all of Disney’s apps – which also include Hulu – it is a step in that direction as cord cutting ramps up for pay TV distributors.

The dispute between Charter and Disney had been ongoing since late August when carriage renewal negotiations broke down between the two companies and left millions of customers without Disney TV channels, including ESPN, FX and Disney Channel.

At the time of the blackout, Charter had about 14.7 million customers across 41 states, with New York being one of its top TV markets. The dispute dragged on past the NFL season kickoff Thursday, but ended just in time for the “Monday Night Football” matchup between the New York Jets and Buffalo Bills.

As a result, Charter saw some of its Spectrum pay TV customers cut its bundle in favor of internet TV options like Disney’s Hulu + Live TV or Google‘s YouTube TV. In the days after the blackout — which occurred amid the U.S. Open tennis tournament and beginning of the college football season, both of which are featured on ESPN — Disney said Hulu + Live TV sign-ups were more than 60% higher than expected.

While sign ups for internet TV bundles like Hulu + Live TV and YouTube TV are often higher at this time of year due to the NFL and college football, there was a spike in signups recorded by data provider Antenna. While Hulu + Live TV was up more than 60%, YouTube TV – this season’s carrier of the NFL’s “Sunday Ticket” package of out-of-market games – was up about 115%.

The NFL is often the key source of leverage network owners like Disney have in negotiations. Media companies, including Disney, collectively paid more than $100 billion to air NFL games over an 11-year period.

Disney owns broadcaster ABC, which airs some “Monday Night Football” games. ESPN+ has an exclusive “Monday Night Football” game this season, too. Disney agreed to pay around $2.7 billion annually for these rights, CNBC previously reported.

Broadband vs. cable

Carriage disputes and blackouts are a common occurrence. But Charter billed the moment Disney’s networks went dark as a more pivotal moment, as the company proclaimed that the pay TV model was broken.

Satellite TV provider DirecTV and broadcast station owner Nexstar Media Group have been in a similar dispute since earlier in the summer. It has continued past the start of the NFL season. Broadcast networks including CBS and Fox air local NFL games on Sundays.

Hours after the blackout began, Charter executives held an investor call pushing for a revamped deal with Disney that would give Spectrum pay TV customers free access to Disney’s ad-supported streaming apps Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu.

Disney's succession mess: The inside story of Iger and Chapek

This point in particular seemed to be the sticking point in negotiations.

Disney had responded that its streaming and TV networks weren’t equal due to the original content that premieres exclusively on live TV and its multibillion investments in exclusive streaming content.

The public tussle has highlighted the issues facing media companies. Cord cutting has been rampant and consumers are switching to streaming services at a fast clip. Media companies are using content from their pay TV channels for their streaming services, arguably accelerating the transition.

Yet, the fees generated from pay TV providers like Charter for carrying the live networks are still robust — even if they are decreasing with fewer customers in the bundle — and propping up media companies’ cash flow and profitability. Media companies like Disney are still working to make streaming a profitable business.

ESPN is considered to receive some of the highest fees, even before the Monday deal with Charter. The network receives $9.42 per subscriber a month, while other Disney networks like ESPN2, FX and Disney Channel get $1.21, 93 cents and $1.25, respectively, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. A Disney representative hasn’t commented on the fees. The media giant has more than 20 networks.

While providing pay TV services has long been part of Charter, broadband has usurped it as the cornerstone of its profitability and business. Even as consumers cut the TV cord, they remain as broadband customers.

Charter CEO Chris Winfrey had said the company planned to push for similar terms in upcoming negotiations with other content companies.

In the days following the blackout, Winfrey spoke at an investor conference where he said those discussions with other media content companies were already beginning to take place.

He also reiterated the company’s position that the pay TV model was broken and at an inflection point.

Disclosure: Comcast, which owns CNBC parent NBCUniversal, is a co-owner of Hulu.



Source link

#Disney #Charter #reach #deal #cable #blackout #time #Monday #Night #Football

Are small nations welcome at the EU’s industrial policy table?

It is not just about the money, it is about what each country — no matter its size — can bring to the table, Marius Stasiukaitis writes.

The Green Industrial Plan, comprehensive as it might be, falls short of an industrial policy that would work equally well across the entire European Union. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Instead, new policies set broad rules, leaving the actual industrial development strategy in the purview of individual member states. 

While bolstering industry in manufacturing hotspots, this approach might significantly distort the market in ways that do a disservice not just to businesses but to the “green” part of the plan itself.

The EU’s industrial policy should not turn into a subsidy race

A new era of competition is unfolding for investments in strategically vital sectors across the world. 

Last year, the United States enacted the Inflation Reduction Act and Chips Act, introducing generous subsidies to incentivize investments in green technologies and semiconductors. 

In February 2023, the EU followed with the Green Industrial Plan, which relaxed state aid rules for member states, granting them the ability to match subsidies offered in other regions around the globe.

While the intention is likely to prove to be a net positive for the EU, reducing the EU’s industrial policy’s role to a rule set for a subsidy race between member states could prove to be costly. 

For smaller economies, it might be a particularly difficult challenge. This has the potential to undermine Europe’s green transition and weaken its competitiveness, losing prospective investment opportunities in the long run.

This could also imperil the bloc’s cohesion policy

We have already seen the EU’s leading economies roll out the red carpet for major investors, backing their invitation with impressive sums. 

For example, recent media reports have revealed that the German government provided Intel with €10 billion in subsidies to establish a €30bn chip plant within its territory.

Whereas France announced that it has received EU authorisation to grant €1.5bn in subsidies to a €5.2bn electric vehicle battery factory.

These announcements come at a time when many EU countries are facing rising borrowing costs, which could further complicate their efforts to secure significant additional funding for their industrial development. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The government deficit-to-GDP ratio in the eurozone stood at 3.6% in 2022 and might increase even further in 2023. 

It is also a matter of relative cost. For smaller countries such as the Baltic States or Slovenia, the size of the subsidy that Germany granted to Intel alone would exceed 10% of their GDP. 

No matter what they choose to do regarding upgrading their infrastructure, a subsidy in the billions would most likely trump that. 

In this scenario, the EU’s cohesion policy might also be jeopardised, as large countries will stronghold their position in tomorrow’s industries.

A paradigm shift could make the EU more competitive

Most importantly, this approach will likely undermine Europe’s green transition, making the process more costly. 

ADVERTISEMENT

A policy that favours larger countries with greater financial resources raises the risk of significant market distortions, diverting investments from locations in the EU where their lasting competitive advantages would be most viable.

The EU’s industrial policy is more likely to succeed if it utilises the distinct strengths held by its member states. 

This would require a paradigm shift in the EU’s approach, moving beyond merely relaxing state aid rules and towards implementing a shared industrial development strategy and financing at the EU level. 

However, it is a worthwhile step as this shift would make the EU more competitive on the global stage, capitalising on the strengths of its member-states that already have a long track record in attracting foreign direct investment.

Small advanced economies, such as the Baltic States or Nordic countries, hold the potential to propel the growth of green industries in the EU. 

ADVERTISEMENT

In contrast to the larger economies within the EU, they offer a more enticing business environment, showcase remarkable openness to foreign direct investment, boast ambitious renewable energy targets, and demonstrate a greater ability to adapt to the demands of future industries.

Smaller countries can also have ambitious plans

For instance, since the 1990s, Ireland has emerged as the premier EU destination for foreign direct investment, alluring multinational corporations across various sectors such as semiconductors, life sciences and digital technologies, despite its small size. 

This is attributed to its favourable business environment, skilled workforce, and strategic location.

Furthermore, in recent times, several other nations have joined the league. According to the 2023 Greenfield FDI Performance Index, Portugal and Lithuania have remarkably attracted about six times more investment projects than the size of their economy would predict, positioning them as leading overachievers within the EU.

Notably, small advanced economies that have been focusing on attracting foreign direct investment to fuel their growth also have successfully put all the essential building blocks in place. 

For example, the Baltic States, along with Denmark and Ireland, are ranked highest in the EU for their business environment in the Economic Freedom Ranking. 

Renewable energy could provide another compelling reason why smaller countries in Southern or Northern Europe are strategically positioned to drive the growth of green industries. Nordic countries are already global leaders in renewable energy production, and the surplus of clean energy was crucial to the success of Northvolt’s first battery factory in Sweden. 

The Baltic States also have ambitious plans; for instance, Lithuania aims to meet 90% of its energy demand through local production of renewable energy by the end of this decade. 

As the issue of energy independence is vital for countries on the eastern border of the EU, we are likely to see an acceleration of their green transition.

It’s not about the size — it’s about what you can bring to the table

The success of the EU’s industrial policy and green transformation could hinge on the smaller countries within the EU. Some of these countries have already mastered the fundamentals of future economy — adaptability and flexibility. 

This makes them ideal hubs for sandboxes or emerging industries with rapidly evolving technology. 

And while financial incentives will retain strong appeal, they will not be able to replace the agility of the smaller European states, crucial for securing Europe’s competitiveness. 

In other words, it is not just about the money, it is about what each country — no matter its size — can bring to the table.

Marius Stasiukaitis is the Head of Strategy at Invest Lithuania, a non-profit investment promotion agency founded in 2010 by the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Lithuania.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#small #nations #EUs #industrial #policy #table

Despite the EU deforestation law, companies are backing palm oil. Why?

There are several possible explanations for the apparent contradiction between regulatory pressure to narrow on the lowest compliance risks and companies’ willingness to invest in some higher-risk landscapes, Matthew Spencer writes.

Something strange is happening in the palm oil sector. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite the impending enforcement of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), numerous companies are intensifying their investment in landscape initiatives. 

This phenomenon is surprising as many of us feared that the EUDR would push companies away from sourcing from higher forest-risk jurisdictions.

Some companies are segregating mills and refineries for Europe and focussing on sourcing from plantations distant from remaining forest, and away from smallholder supply. 

But others are making new investments in landscape initiatives in Indonesia and Malaysia which include many thousands of small farmers. 

A report released recently by the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), CDP and Proforest identified a total of 37 landscape and jurisdictional approaches supported by companies and focused on palm production, surpassing any other commodity sector. 

It reflects IDH’s experience in Aceh, where stalwart partners like Unilever, Pepsico and Musim Mas are now being joined by a growing roster of buyers and traders including Mars, Apical, GAR and Mondelēz.

What explains this apparent contradiction between regulatory pressure to narrow on the lowest compliance risks and companies’ willingness to invest in some higher-risk landscapes?

There are several possible explanations.

Deforestation risk can fall quickly in the best landscape initiatives

The evidence for how landscape approaches can reduce deforestation is growing. 

In Mato Grosso in Brazil, which has had a state-wide jurisdictional approach for eight years, Amazon deforestation barely increased under the Bolsonaro government, in contrast to many other states in the Legal Amazon which saw a big jump.

In Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia, deforestation fell to just 30 hectares in 2021 from over 400 hectares in previous years as a coordinated deforestation alert and action plan took effect.

ADVERTISEMENT

The success of the landscape coalition in Aceh Tamiang is now inspiring new partnerships in other forest-risk districts in the Aceh buffer zone around the Leuser Ecosystem.

Also, smallholders are the best hope for growing palm oil supply. Palm is currently described by traders as a “sellers’ market” with surging demand in Asia and many mills operating under capacity. 

There is limited room to grow supply from plantations in Malaysia or Indonesia, given their forest protection policies. 

This creates a business case for companies to invest in the growth of independent small farmer productivity, and landscape initiatives allow them to do this in coordination with other business and farmer groups.

Jurisdictional approaches to EUDR traceability are likely to be more cost-effective in smallholder-dominated sourcing areas

The costs of tracing forest risk commodity supply can be very high and can repeat every year as smallholders switch buyers. 

ADVERTISEMENT

One service provider estimates that costs are in the range of €6-14 per farm to compile and map geolocation and land title data. 

This data is often already held by the government, so with backing from local authorities who are part of landscape agreements, these costs can be shared.

There is also the tantalising prospect of jurisdictional traceability being recognised by the EU if a verified deforestation-free area can compile geolocation data at the district level rather than physically trace commodities from the farm level through many layers of the local supply chain. 

The Vietnamese government is backing an IDH pilot with ten coffee companies in the central highlands which will compare the costs of different approaches to traceability.

Social risks are impossible to manage without engaging in sourcing areas

Despite its name, the EUDR creates duties beyond deforestation. Imports must also “have been produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”. 

ADVERTISEMENT

 What is more, it is only the first act of a blockbuster package of new European regulation which means risks will begin to converge in corporate reporting and legal requirements on business. 

Forced labour is notoriously difficult to spot but is a real possibility in palm plantations reliant on migrant labour. 

Child labour is common and impossible to manage without community consent. 

Given that the burden of proof is on the importing business, there is increasing interest from big brands to see if landscape initiatives can address human rights and social risks.

Different responses to business risk?

It’s possible that we are seeing two distinct responses to corporate risk. The “let’s get this risk off the table” approach tries to remove deforestation risk in the quickest and cheapest way but doesn’t join the dots to other social or environmental risks that exist in “forest safe” sourcing areas. 

The second “let’s tackle risks at the source” response manages down interlinked risk by engaging key stakeholders in sourcing areas, often via landscape initiatives.

Landscape initiatives don’t pretend to get rid of all social and environmental risks, but they do reduce them at source. 

That’s why they form part of the risk management strategy of an increasing number of palm buyers and traders. It’s a good bet that existing landscape collaborations are where the best models of forest and farmer-positive palm sourcing and traceability will emerge.

Matthew Spencer is the Global Director of Landscapes at IDH — Sustainable Trade Initiative, established by the Dutch government in 2009 to help improve the sustainability of international supply chains.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#deforestation #law #companies #backing #palm #oil

Urinary tract infections in men: Here are 10 things to know | CNN

Editor’s Note: Dr. Jamin Brahmbhatt is a urologist and robotic surgeon with Orlando Health and president of the Florida Urological Society.



CNN
 — 

While urinary tract infections are more common in women, men can still get what’s commonly known as a UTI. Here are 10 things I’d like you to know about urinary tract infections, including who’s more at risk and how to get treatment.

UTI is short for urinary tract infection. It’s an infection of the organs in your body – I call them pipes – that are meant to funnel your urine out of your system and into the urinal. Most UTIs are caused by bacteria that work their way into the urethra, prostate, bladder or kidneys.

Way more women than men are diagnosed with UTIs. Anatomically, we feel this happens because women have a shorter urethra – the tube that connects the bladder to the outside world. The shorter length makes it easier for bacteria to travel to the urinary system. Men have longer urethras and therefore can be protected against urinary infections.

But the length of the urethra alone cannot protect men against UTIs – over their lifetimes, 12% of men will get urinary symptoms linked to a UTI. This by no means implies a urethra or penis are short or small. In men, there is usually a more clear pathologic cause to the infection beyond just the length of the urethra.

There are many reasons why a guy may get a UTI – all of them we take seriously and should not be ignored.

Men older than 50 tend to get more infections than younger men. As a urologist, I see men get recurrent infections when they do not properly empty their bladder because of an enlarged prostate. Beyond the prostate, men may not empty their bladder if they have nerve damage from stroke, uncontrolled diabetes or injury to the spine.

Men can also get infections that start from the prostate or testicles that seed up into the bladder, or the opposite can happen where the infection goes from the bladder to the other organs. Kidney stones can also be a cause of infection. (I know this from personal experience – I’ve had a kidney stone myself!)

Younger men may also present with urinary infections because of sexually transmitted diseases. Men can also get an infection if they have a recent procedure done in the urinary system.

4. What are the signs and symptoms of a UTI?

Burning with urination (dysuria), increased urinary frequency, urgency, incontinence, foul smell, blood in the urine, fevers, chills, pain in the abdomen near the bladder. Believe it or not, some men may have zero symptoms and still get diagnosed with a UTI based on urine cultures done for other purposes.

UTI is diagnosed by sending your urine off for a culture. This is when a sample of your urine is processed and evaluated for various strains of bacteria. The most common bacteria identified in urinary tract infections is E.coli. Once the culture is done, the results can guide treatment, which is usually oral antibiotics. There is a test called a urine analysis which can be done quickly in our office which can suggest an infection. However, the best test is an actual culture.

Doctors do not wait for the culture results – which can take one to three days – to start treatment. If an infection is suspected, an antibiotic will be started immediately and then adjusted based on the culture results.

UTIs generally are treated with oral or IV antibiotics. Most infections can be treated with oral antibiotics. However there are superbugs that may be resistant to what we can give you by mouth that may require the use of stronger antibiotics through an IV. Most treatments last seven to 10 days, but can be longer.

In severe cases of infection that has spread to the bloodstream, strong IV antibiotics are started immediately to control the infection. Patients are placed in the hospital to start these strong treatments. You do not have to stay in the hospital for weeks if you have infection in your bloodstream. As long as you are doing well – no fever, normal labs, heart and pulse OK – then you may continue these IV treatments from home. Each treatment is tailored to your condition.

As a doctor, my answer is: No. Men should not try to treat infections on their own. If you have symptoms, get yourself to a doctor or emergency room.

The best prevention is making sure first there is nothing anatomical that needs to be corrected, such as an enlarged prostate, kidney stone or blockage.

Proper hygiene can help prevent infections. Men with uncircumcised penises should make sure they can retract the foreskin and clean under the foreskin and the glans properly. Cranberry supplements have been shown to help prevent infections. Staying hydrated by drinking enough fluids/water during the day can also help. Making sure you don’t hold your urine can help, too. Staying in good health to avoid chronic medical conditions such as diabetes and heart disease will also protect against infections.

9. My infection is gone. Are there any long-term effects on my body?

Recurrent, untreated infections could cause strictures, or tight scars, in your urethra that would slow your stream and make it difficult to empty your bladder. Infections could also cause the bladder to lose its ability to fill and empty properly. In the long run, if you are getting constantly treated with antibiotics, we may run out of antibiotics to give you due to resistance.

The first priority is to clear the infection with antibiotics.

From there, we do a full workup with a detailed history, evaluation of chronic medical problems and exam of the genitals to look for anatomic issues such as a foreskin that won’t retract back. Imaging may include a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis to look for kidney stones, blocked tubes and other abnormalities.

If you see a urologist, you will likely get a cystoscopy, where we place a camera inside of a small tube into the urethra to look at the inside of your urine channel. The cystoscopy helps look for strictures, large obstructing prostates and changes to the bladder walls. Once a cause is found, it’s aggressively treated with either medication or surgery.

Source link

#Urinary #tract #infections #men #CNN