Rising borrowing costs and debt levels could trigger a self-reinforcing fiscal crisis, according to Bridgewater Associates’ boss
The UK faces significant fiscal risks due to its rising borrowing costs and increasing debt levels, the boss of the world’s largest hedge fund, Ray Dalio, has warned.
Britain’s annual interest payments have surpassed £100 billion (roughly $125 billion), Dalio, the founder of investment management firm Bridgewater Associates, said in an interview with the Financial Times.
The recent sell-off in fixed-interest loan securities issued by the UK government, known as gilts, coupled with the weakening of the British pound, indicate that the market is struggling to absorb the government’s higher borrowing requirements, he explained.
“When you get to the point that you have to borrow money to service the debt and interest rates are rising, so that debt-service payments rise, so you need to borrow more money to pay them, you’re in what the markets call a death spiral,” the investor told the FT in Tuesday’s report.
The UK’s ten-year borrowing costs rose from 3.75% in mid-September to a 16-year high earlier this month at 4.93%, the outlet noted.
”As those risks increase, everybody looks at that need to borrow more money at higher interest, which creates [a] self-reinforcing debt deterioration cycle,” Dalio also pointed out.
The UK government in October adopted a budget for the financial year 2025/2026, pledging more funding for essential services and social support, and increased debt-servicing costs. Although the government announced tax increases, analysts have pointed out that these may not fully cover the additional spending, particularly amid slower economic growth.
The British pound has been declining since September, having lost about 8.2% of its value against the US dollar. The drop has been attributed to rising borrowing costs, market apprehension about the country’s debt levels, and reduced investor confidence.
The trends have prompted another warning, this one from Berlin-based credit rating agency Scope Ratings. Recent moves in UK debt markets and the falling pound suggest that cracks may be appearing in Britain’s reserve currency status, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing Denis Shen, a top analyst at the agency. The UK’s vulnerability to emerging market-style sell-offs could jeopardize its AA credit rating, Shen warns.
In response to the challenges, the UK government said it remained “absolutely committed” to strict fiscal discipline. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have described their fiscal rules as “ironclad” and “non-negotiable.”
Greece’s Performance Shipping has extended the time charter contract for an aframax tanker with Glencore subsidiary ST Shipping & Transport.
The deal will see the deal for the 2011-built, 105,525 dwt tanker P. Monterey extended for 12 months. The charterer has the option to shorten or extend the deal by 30 days.
The extension started in mid-January. The vessel will work on a gross charter rate of $28,000 per day and is expected to generate around $9.38m in gross revenue for the minimum duration of the charter. The initial two-year deal for the vessel was for a higher rate of $32,000 per day.
The charter increases the company’s secured revenue backlog to approximately $62m, or $232m when including the five-year contracts for its three aframax LR2 newbuildings.
“Our fleet deployment now consists of six vessels operating under time charter arrangements and one vessel trading in the spot market through pool participation. Looking ahead, we remain constructive on the tanker market as we expect the redelivery of two more vessels from their period charters in the coming months,” said Andreas Michalopoulos, Performance Shipping CEO.
Nearly all modern warming and treeline advances at a Rocky Mountain ice patch occurred between the 1910s and 1940s, challenging global warming claims.
Nearly all modern warming and treeline advances at a Rocky Mountain ice patch occurred between the 1910s and 1940s, challenging global warming claims.
Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.
To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.
But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.
In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.
Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.
As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”
Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.
But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”
This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.
The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Jane Thornton tried and failed to stop the wood pellet plant from being built within earshot of her home in Faison, a tiny farming town in eastern North Carolina where she’s lived for over 60 years.
Now, some eight years later, she and her neighbors have a smaller but critical aim: getting the facility to better control its dust and the nuisance it creates.
Silver-haired and soft-spoken, Thornton is quick to wax philosophical about the forces that have fueled the pellet industry’s rise, largely driven by a decades-old carbon accounting loophole that countries use to allege climate progress. The unintended consequences are concentrated in the U.S. Southeast, which has emerged as a hub for the industry.
“It’s not green,” she said, referring to industry claims of sustainability. “Because when you cut the trees down, you lose the effect of them taking the bad stuff [out of the air]. And then we send them to Europe and use a lot of diesel fuel, which is not good. And they burn it and pollute their air. So how do they think it’s green?”
A host of advocates, scientists, and data backs up Thornton. Producing pellets, shipping them to Europe and Asia, and burning them in power plants all creates carbon pollution greater than that of burning coal. Too often, pellets are made from whole, hardwood trees that were absorbing carbon dioxide while they were alive. Their replacements, often pines, can’t regrow in time to make up for it.
As global climate negotiators debate the fuel’s carbon cycle, today Thornton and others in Faison are focused on dust. Indeed, neighbors of five wood pellet mills in the Southeast, including two operated by Enviva Biomass in North Carolina, list dust as their top concern, according to research conducted by the Southern Environmental Law Center and several other groups.
“That is the number one thing I have heard from almost every community I’ve talked to about pellet mills. It’s incessant dust,” said Heather Hillaker, senior attorney at the law center.
“We’re up against limited regulatory opportunities,” she acknowledged. But the state could force Enviva to tamp down the problem. “This is one area where there is a regulation that applies to an issue that is very prevalent for the community.”
At her home last month, Thornton described watching suppliers roll past on their way to Enviva’s factory.
“I’ve seen more log trucks come by today,” Thornton said. “They clear-cut everything. You get the oaks and the maples and the sycamores and whatever else is out there, and then you come back and plant pines. So, we’re going to have pine forests – or pine plantations.”
She added, “They’re not forests, because a forest is whatever the Lord puts out there.”
The practice of burning pellets for power isn’t economical without massive government supports, which don’t exist in North Carolina or elsewhere in the U.S.. What’s more, the Biden administration’s new rules for the Clean Electricity Tax Credit make it extremely unlikely that wood pellets could qualify.
Still, many countries count burning wood pellets as a positive on their climate ledgers, and the United Kingdom heavily subsidizes the fuel source. While those incentives are set to expire in 2027, the industry is campaigning heavily to get them renewed.
Often overlooked in the climate accounting debate is the experience of the disproportionately low-income communities of color in the Southeast, where pellet mills are invariably located. From the get-go, neighbors have sought to alleviate dust and noise from the mills.
Dr. Ruby Bell, an organizer with the Dogwood Alliance. Credit: Elizabeth Ouzts
Enviva’s first facility in North Carolina, in Ahoskie in Hertford County, began operating in 2011, and regulators required the company to control its dust soon thereafter.
“That pellet mill is a right smack dab in the middle of town,” said Hillaker. “So, it makes sense that they would have had some pretty significant dust issues immediately.”
Success in other communities has been more elusive.
A former professor at the University of Mt. Olive, Dr. Ruby Bell is an organizer with the nonprofit Dogwood Alliance in Faison. She lives far enough from the Sampson County mill that she doesn’t notice many impacts at her own home. Not so when she’s closer to the facility.
“When I first started this position,” Bell said, “I decided to go visit the people who live across the way. I sat outside for 20 minutes… When I left, I was sniffing. My nose was running. I had mucus beginning to form in my throat.”
Tiny air particulates invisible to the human eye are thought to be the most insidious to human health because they can burrow deep into the lungs and bloodstream. But large dust particles can cause the issues Bell described, because they tend to get trapped in the upper respiratory tract.
They can also exacerbate symptoms in people with pre-existing respiratory conditions. More than 100 households in the 300-person survey by Dogwood, Southern Environmental Law Center, and others, reported having asthma. Over half said they simply avoided outdoor activities like grilling and gardening to avoid the dust.
That’s part of why organizers want state regulators to require dust management plans at Enviva’s mills in Northampton, Richmond, and Sampson counties – not just the one in Ahoskie.
To be sure, the plan wouldn’t address every concern with the Faison facility. Neighbors complain about the noise from the mill’s 24-7 operations. They also blanch at the constant truck traffic, from the delivery of downed trees to the mill to the transport of the finished pellets some 80 miles south to the Port of Wilmington.
“This road out here was built as one of those farm-to-market roads,” Thornton said during the visit at her home, surrounded by farmland. “It wasn’t built for trucks, and they’ve torn it up I don’t know how many times.”
Activists are pressing Enviva to address all of their complaints voluntarily, saying that in addition to controlling its dust, the company should adopt best practices for incoming and outgoing trucks and cease operations between 10 at night and seven in the morning.
Yet even without these extra steps, the dust plan would make a measurable difference, community members believe. The Ahoskie plan, for instance, requires Enviva to apply water to “minimize fugitive dust emissions from any ground surfaces” when dust is observed or conditions are dry, among other measures. It also calls for grass berms, which could mitigate noise.
“The plan is better than nothing,” said Hillaker. “There’s better ability for [the state] to act if the plan itself is violated.”
But convincing North Carolina regulators to mandate the dust plans has been a slog. State rules say a plan is required if regulators can verify two dust complaints in a 12-month period. But that substantiation is far from simple.
“Trained Division of Air Quality inspectors visit the site and determine whether off-site dust is present,” Shawn Taylor, a division spokesperson, said over email. “If so, they attempt to determine the source of the dust by physically inspecting the dust, reviewing weather and wind data, reviewing operating schedules and air quality records of nearby facilities, and using other methods.”
Dating back two years, Bell has submitted grievances on behalf of neighbors in Faison that have yet to be confirmed. And while scientists from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill installed and collected air quality monitors at Thornton’s home and that of others, their research is ongoing and separate from the state’s process for verifying dust complaints.
“Fugitive wood dust usually consists of larger particles that are less likely to be detectable with these monitors, so physical inspection is used,” Taylor said. “Even if monitors detect dust, they cannot determine the source of the dust, so our investigation would need to rely on additional data to make this determination.”
A jar of wood pellets. Credit: Courtesy of Ruby Bell
Still, after years of little to no headway, organizers finally saw some progress last year. Regulators verified two complaints at the Enviva facility at the Port of Wilmington and will now require the company to enact a dust management plan.
“The details of that plan are still being developed by DAQ and Enviva,” Taylor said, “and will be implemented later this year.”
The success at the port has given a jolt of hope to organizers and pellet mill neighbors who feel they aren’t being heard.
“It’s hard to get them moving sometimes,” Bell said. With some justification, many in the community believe “it doesn’t matter what we say,” she said.
In Thornton’s eyes, the battle against wood pellets is all too typical of the way the country approaches environmental regulation.
“We’re not proactive to make sure what we’re doing is right,” she said. “We say ‘oh, this is new, this is good, we’re going to do a whole bunch of it,’ and after we get done, somebody comes along and says I don’t believe we should have done that.”
She added, “that’s true with a lot of things we’ve done in this country. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you ought to.”
Chinese builder New Dayang best known for its shipbuilding know-how in the dry bulk segment has sealed its first order for product tankers.
The shipbuilding arm of state-run machinery manufacturer Sumec Group has been commissioned to build four MR units for what it described as “world-renowned shipowners”.
Delivery details and financial terms have not been disclosed, but shipbuilding sources estimate each newbuild to cost around $45m.
New Dayang said the tankers would not only be “highly intelligent and have excellent environmental performance”, but also be methanol fuel ready.
The yard, which Sumec took over in 2018, has an orderbook that stands at more than 100 vessels most of which are ultramax bulkers of its flagship Crown 63 Plus design.
Oman’s state-controlled logistics giant Asyad Group has moved to sell shares in Asyad Shipping through an initial public offering.
Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and Société Générale have been appointed as joint bookrunners for the group, which plans to sell a stake of at least 20% in Asyad Shipping and float it on the Muscat Stock Exchange.
Established in 2003, Asyad boasts a fleet of around 90 ships, including tankers, dry bulk vessels, and LNG carriers. Last July, the Middle Eastern owner ordered four VLCCs worth around $520m at Hanwha Ocean in South Korea, with deliveries set for 2026 and the first quarter of 2027.
The subscription period will start in February, and Asyad Shipping’s listing on the Omani bourse is expected in early March. Sohar International Bank will serve as the issue manager, while JPMorgan Chase, Jefferies Financial Group, EFG Hermes, and Oman Investment Bank are among the joint global coordinators.
Warsaw and Munich signed an unusual pact against transforming the CAP budget and the cohesion funds into a single programme managed by national governments.
Such a merger would mean reorganising over 60% of the EU budget and granting member states control over these funds, thanks to national plans.
Poland has repeatedly spoken out against such a reform, referring to the principle of subsidiarity set down in the treaty of the EU, which states that decisions should be made by an authority as close to the citizens as possible.
Bavaria, too, has consistently defended its autonomy and regional control over the cohesion fund and against a possible merger with the CAP.
In a joint declaration, the Agriculture Minister of Poland, Czesław Siekierski and his counterpart from Bavaria, Michaela Kaniber, called against this merger. Kaniber warned that the “renationalisation” of the EU budget posed “great risks.”
Cohesion and agricultural funds
Germany has long been considered a supporter of cohesion fund reforms, albeit with regional differences.
Eastern German states, which stand to benefit the most, have been vocal about radical reforms. In contrast, Bavaria, which would see significant cuts to its funding flows, has opposed altering the status quo and giving Berlin control over regional funding implementation.
With the February election approaching and CDU and its Bavarian sister party leading the polls, Germany’s stance could change.
Until now, the conservative union of the CDU/CSU has tried to include both positions.
Bavaria and Poland also converge on CAP fund allocation.
Small-scale farmers dominate both regions, and Czesław Siekierski promised to work towards noticeable changes in favour of family farms during the Polish presidency.
Eastern German agriculture ministers, however, said that small farms should not be given preferential treatment in allocating funds, in a recent document,
For instance, the document speaks out against any capping of direct payments for big farms.
The coming elections will be decisive to understand to which extent Bavaria can impose its demands within Germany.
French Prime Minister François Bayrou on Tuesday announced plans to divide highly sensitive legislation that would legalise assisted dying into two separate parts.
The bill – adressing a politically charged issue in France – was under review by lawmakers last June but was halted following President Emmanuel Macron’s calling of snap elections.
Under Bayrou’s proposal, a revived bill would be split in two: one would legalise assisted dying for patients with short- or medium-term terminal diagnoses.
A second would reform palliative care – end-of-life medical treatment for those with complex or terminal illnesses.
Currently, assisted dying or euthanasia is prohibited in France, but the law allows patients to request access to deep and continuous sedation until death, under very strict conditions.
By splitting the text into two parts, Bayrou is responding to demands made by some members of the right and far right, who are ideologically opposed to assisted dying but may support the less contentious palliative care reform.
With his predecessor as prime minister, Michel Barnier, toppled by the far right in a no-confidence vote, Bayrou appears keen to make concessions to avoid the same fate.
Despite the separation, Bayrou has insisted that both texts should be reviewed “within the same timeframe.”
Opposition is expected from some members of parliament, including those typically associated with Bayrou and Macron’s centrist faction.
National Assembly President Yaël Braun-Pivet, a Macron ally, is among pushing for both issues to be dealt with in a single law as originally planned.
“The end-of-life bill is a constant collateral victim of the parliamentary chaos we are experiencing,” said Olivier Falorni, a lawmaker from Bayrou’s camp who had been the bill’s rapporteur before the legislative work was interrupted in June, speaking to Sud Radio.
Falorni believes that palliative care and assisted dying are, in practice, “complementary pillars”, with the former the “primary response” and the latter the “ultimate recourse”.
The issue deeply divides French society, with supporters seeing euthanasia as a fundamental freedom to defend, while opponents – particularly conservative voters and religious representatives – fear an ethically perilous ‘slippery slope’.
Some healthcare workers worry that the legislation might be too permissive, with unions expressing regret at not being included in its drafting process.
Tuesday’s announcement also stirred reactions among organisations and advocacy groups. Claire Fourcade, president of the French society for palliative care and support, told AFP that separating the issues could expedite necessary progress on palliative care by removing assisted dying from the debate.
Conversely, the Association for the right to die with dignity said the separation amounts to “giving in to religious representatives and opponents of euthanasia.”
A similar law to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales passed in the UK parliament November, following a free vote in which MPs were not whipped to support a party line.
Ireland’s parliament, the Dáil, descended into chaos on Wednesday, postponing what was supposed to be a routine vote to confirm the new prime minister.
The Dáil was due to elect Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin as Taoiseach shortly after midday Brussels time. But opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings over a plan to allow pro-government independents to speak from the opposition benches, during the opposition’s speaking time.
Opposition deputies shouted over the speaker, Verona Murphy, forcing her to suspend the Dáil three times, in the hope that different factions could strike a backroom deal.
No solid deal had materialised by early Wednesday evening. The legislature is due to resume at 10am Brussels time on Thursday.
Fianna Fáil and its old rival Fine Gael – centre-right parties whose ideological differences are minor – struck a coalition agreement with a small group of largely conservative independent lawmakers on 14 January.
The agreement followed a general election on 29 November, which extended Fianna Fáil’s lead in the Dáil. Fine Gael came third, behind the left-wing and nationalist Sinn Féin, the largest opposition party.
Opposition kicks up a fuss, Von der Leyen jumps the gun
Besides the speaking time arrangement, the opposition also objected to a plan to adjourn the Dáil for two weeks after it ratified the new government – which was supposed to happen on Wednesday.
In a mistimed post on X, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen prematurely congratulated Martin, whom the Dáil had not yet elected due to the delays. “Together we will make Europe more competitive in these turbulent times,” she told him. The post was deleted a short time later.
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been in government together since 2020. Last year’s election all but wiped their third partner, the Green Party, while still leaving Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael together a few seats short of a majority in the Dáil.
That forced them to seek a new coalition partner, which they eventually found in the loose formation of seven independent deputies who were at the heart of Wednesday’s speaking time drama. Four of them are due to become ministers.
Irish parliamentary rules allow five or more deputies of different political stripes to form a ‘technical group’, which strengthens their right to question ministers.
However, members of technical groups must remain in opposition. That forced the group to formally split between ministers-to-be and the rest, which caused the dispute over the remaining members’ speaking time.
More of the same
The coalition deal stipulates that Martin will resign on 16 November 2027 and pass the reins to the Fine Gael leader, currently Simon Harris, the outgoing Taoiseach.
Before the two parties entered into a formal coalition after the 2020 election, Fianna Fáil propped up a minority Fine Gael government during 2016-2020 in a “confidence and supply” deal.
The ideological differences between the two parties are fairly small. Both are socially liberal by European standards, but Fine Gael more so than Fianna Fáil. However, Fine Gael is also the more fiscally conservative of the pair.
Nevertheless, they were the main rivals of Irish politics for most of the last century, having grown from the opposing sides in the 1922-1923 Irish Civil War.
