Diesel Prices Surge as Israel-Iran War Further Pressures Market
Diesel prices kept rising on Tuesday as concerns about Middle Eastern supplies — a consequence of the Israel-Iran conflict — piled pressure on an already tight market.
The premium of benchmark futures to crude in Europe breached $20 a barrel, the third straight day of sharp gains, fair value data compiled by Bloomberg show. It's a clear sign of traders' concerns about the potential disruption to Middle Eastern exports — a key supply source for the world's biggest petroleum product market.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palantir falls on OpenAI's $200M win, NIO & XPeng upgraded
Here are some of the top moving stocks and biggest market stories as part of today's Market Minute. Palantir (PLTR) stock is under pressure after OpenAI ( secured a $200 million defense contract from the US government. Electric vehicle (EV) makers NIO (NIO) and XPeng (XPEV) were upgraded by Goldman Sachs analysts. Stay up to date on the latest market action, minute-by-minute, with Yahoo Finance's Market Minute. It's time for Yahoo Finance's market minute. Stocks are retreating today as President Trump dents hopes for a truce between Israel and Iran. The president calling for Iran's quote unconditional surrender in a Truth Social post, also saying that patience is wearing thin. Meanwhile, Palantir shares are under pressure as it faces potential competition from OpenAI. The US Department of Defense announcing that it awarded OpenAI a $200 million contract. William Blair says this is quote one of the largest Department of Defense contracts given to a software provider when measured by annual contract value. And Nio and Xpeng getting an upgrade at Goldman Sachs. The firm raising its rating on Nio from sell to neutral, while lifting its rating on Xpeng from neutral to buy. Goldman highlighting improving cost structures and new product strategies. And that's your Yahoo Finance market minute. For more on what's trending on Yahoo Finance, you can scan the QR code below to track the best and worst performing stocks of the session. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coal power plants were paid to close. Is it time to do the same for slaughterhouses?
The food industry will go to great lengths (and spend a fortune) to lobby policymakers, confuse the public and politicise scientific findings. You can see the results in the UK's delay of a ban on junk food advertisers targeting children, or the orchestrated backlash to a report that recommended cutting red meat consumption and embracing more plant-based diets. It's a well-worn playbook. When scientific evidence indicates the need to phase down environmentally harmful or unhealthy products, the responsible industry pushes back. Motivating this resistance, my colleagues and I believe, is something rarely discussed in the context of food systems: stranded assets. These are investments that lose value or stop generating revenue earlier than their owners and investors anticipated, due to changes in market conditions, technology or – of particular interest here – policy and regulation. This concept has been central to debates in the energy transition. For example, studies have shown that keeping global warming below 2 °C will require leaving fossil fuels in the ground and shutting down power plants before they've generated a return on investment, wiping off about US$1 trillion (£736 billion) in value for companies, financial institutions and investors. The same dynamic applies to the task of feeding everyone well and without substantial environmental harm. What we produce must change, as well as how we produce it. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Producing animal-sourced protein, especially beef and dairy, has environmental impacts that dwarf those of plant-based protein. Some new technologies may reduce these impacts, particularly feed additives to reduce methane emissions from cattle. But the negative impacts go far beyond cow burps to include deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and pollution. Beef in particular, even when produced using intensive systems like feedlots in the US, requires substantially more land to make 100 grams of protein than any other source (excluding lamb, which is produced in much lower quantities). As the global population increases and constraints on land use intensify, as much nourishing food as possible will need to be produced on as little land as possible. This will entail slashing the amount of land used for animal-sourced foods. However, companies consistently invest in the assets that produce, process, transport and store the foods we consume. These range from slaughterhouses to the grain silos and transport equipment for single-crop supply chains, to manufacturing plants and the research and development of ultra-processed foods. In order to curtail certain foods, as part of a global shift towards sustainable and healthy diets, these assets cannot generate the revenue they do now. This means writing off some of the capital that has been sunk into them, and any anticipated revenue. Our research identified £217 billion that has been invested in meatpacking plants, for example. A portion of this will be lost in service of a shift to more plant-based sustenance. Whether or not policymakers and researchers are aware of the stranded assets problem, food companies certainly are. We outline three things that need to happen. First, while it is laudable that companies set targets to cut emissions or deforestation, how they invest their money is not always consistent with these goals. Companies need to disclose to investors and the public which of their assets are incompatible with a sustainable future, and how they plan to phase them out. Second, lenders (typically banks) and investors (asset managers and their clients) must work with the companies they fund to manage these transitions rather than simply revoke financing or divest. Shutting down a meatpacking plant and building up a plant-based protein business is costly, and firms will need support. Divestment can play an important role symbolically, signalling an ethical and moral stance against certain activities. But unless it is done by all investors at once, assets like shares go to other buyers with little or no interest in sustainability. Third, and perhaps the thorniest problem, who pays for stranded assets? The money has already been spent. The investments have been made, the meatpacking plants and infrastructure already built, the anticipated revenue and maximised profit margins already embedded in the value of these companies. There is the cost of shutting down assets early as well as the opportunity cost of not making money that was expected from capital that has already been sunk. Who bears those costs? Many assume the answer is straightforward: the polluter should pay. This is certainly possible to achieve. Take the recent ruling in Germany, which determined that private companies can be held liable for their share in causing climate damages. But implementing this principle requires unusually strong political leadership and sustained public support. Both of these things are difficult to secure, particularly in food systems where industry lobbying is intense, livelihoods are at stake, public attention is fragmented and diets are highly personal and easily politicised. Even when policies designed to improve public health or sustainability are passed, they can be easily rolled back. Which brings us to an uncomfortable alternative: paying the polluter. This approach already exists in other sectors. Since 2020, Germany has paid coal plants to retire early. The same has been done in the Netherlands, parts of the US and several other countries. In the Netherlands, the government paid farmers to reduce dairy herds in certain areas in order to hit pollution targets. Paying off food companies to phase out harmful assets sounds like a bailout and feels unfair, since a clean and thriving environment is a human right. Such an approach could only work if it allowed stronger regulation that ensured such pollution wouldn't occur in the future. This is how abolitionists contributed to ending slavery in the UK. If we're stuck between endless policy whiplash and slow-motion climate and health crises, paying the polluter may be worth considering. It's politically fraught and emotionally frustrating, but when it comes to stopping pollution sooner rather than later, it is perhaps more tractable than waiting for political will, corporate courage and public consensus to converge. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Stephanie Walton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Airbus seals VietJet deal as hopes rise at air show for tariff rollback
By Joe Brock, Tim Hepher, Giulia Segreti and Paul Sandle PARIS (Reuters) -Airbus struck a deal with budget airline VietJet for up to 150 single-aisle jets at the Paris Airshow on Tuesday, where industry hopes for a return to tariff-free trade were given a boost by U.S. Transport Secretary Sean Duffy. Duffy said he wanted civil aviation to return to a 1979 zero-tariff trade agreement, in one of the clearest signs yet that the Trump administration might favour such a move. However, Duffy added that while the White House was aware that the U.S. is a net exporter in aerospace, it was also dealing with a complex tariff situation. "Now, again, you look at what free trade has done for aviation. It's been remarkable for them. It's a great space of net exporters," he said. "And so the White House understands that, but if you go over there and you see the moving parts of what they're dealing with, it is pretty intense and it's a lot." U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping 10% import tariffs are a headache for an industry already battling supply chain challenges and facing fresh turbulence from last week's deadly Air India crash and conflict in the Middle East. In early May, the U.S. Commerce Department launched a "Section 232" national security investigation into imports of commercial aircraft, jet engines and parts that could form the basis for even higher tariffs on such imports. Airlines, planemakers and several U.S. trading partners have been lobbying Trump to restore the tariff-free regime under the 1979 agreement. On day two of the air show, European planemaker Airbus signed a provisional deal for VietJet to buy 100 A321neo planes, with the option to buy up to 50 more in future. Vietnam's largest private airline operates an all-Airbus fleet, apart from two Chinese-made regional jets. The airline has not to date taken delivery of any of the around 200 MAX planes it has ordered from Boeing. Airbus is the main supplier of jets to Vietnam, accounting for 86% of the planes currently operated by Vietnamese airlines. However, the export-dependent Southeast Asian country is under pressure from Washington to buy more U.S. goods. VietJet Chairwoman Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao said the scale of the airline's orders was backed by plans to develop a major aviation hub in Vietnam, which Airbus says has seen its aviation market grow by 7.5% a year. A deal for 150 A321neos could be worth around $9.4 billion, according to estimated prices provided by Cirium Ascend. The agreement was the latest in a flurry of business announced by Airbus at the world's biggest aviation trade fair. AIRASIA FINALE U.S. rival Boeing was having a subdued show and parking announcements as it focuses on the probe into last week's fatal crash of an Air India Boeing 787 and after it racked up huge deals during Trump's recent tour of the Middle East. Attention turned to another big Airbus customer, AirAsia, long associated with buzzy show finales and looking at buying 100 A220s, with Brazil's Embraer seeking to wrest away the deal after losing a key contest in Poland, delegates said. Airbus was also expected to reveal Egyptair as the airline behind a recent unidentified order for six more A350s. But its hopes of using the event as a showcase for its first significant deal with Royal Air Maroc faded after the airline postponed plans to announce a larger Boeing deal, delegates said. None of the companies involved in last-minute air show negotiations agreed to comment. Airlines have been battling the engine industry over long waiting times for repairs on the latest generation of engines in the busiest part of the market for workhorse narrow-body jets. Pratt & Whitney commercial engines head Rick Deurloo said durability was top priority and the number of aircraft out of service while waiting for engine repairs was stabilising. Rolls-Royce CEO Tufan Erginbilgic told reporters it was "even more true" that the British jet engine maker wanted to re-enter the narrow-body market, preferably via a partnership. On the defence side, analysts are expecting a flurry of deals as European companies tap into a surge in arms spending. Leonardo CEO Roberto Cingolani said he saw advantages to new entrants joining an Italian-British-Japanese next-generation fighter jet programme, particularly in terms of technology, but added that it would be a decision for the governments involved. He said the addition of Saudi Arabia to the Global Combat Air Programme - something that has long been mooted - would open up a big market with great potential. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
