OPEC countries were gathered Thursday to find a way to support the falling price of oil, with analysts predicting the cartel and key ally Russia would agree to cut production by at least 1 million barrels per day.

Crude prices have been falling since October because major producers — including the U.S. — are pumping oil at high rates and due to fears that weaker economic growth could dampen energy demand. The price of oil fell 22 percent in November and was down again on Thursday amid speculation that OPEC’s action might be too timid to support the market.

Saudi Arabia, the heavyweight within OPEC, said Thursday it was in favor of a cut.

“I think a million (barrels a day) will be adequate personally,” Saudi oil minister Khalid Al-Falih said upon arriving to the meeting in Vienna. That, he said, would include production for both OPEC countries as well as non-OPEC countries, like Russia, which have in recent years been coordinating their production limits with the cartel.

That view was echoed by others, including the oil ministers of Nigeria and Iraq.

“I am optimistic that the agreement will stabilize the market, will stop the slide in the price (of oil),” said Iraq’s Thamir Ghadhban.

Investors did not seem convinced, however, and were pushing the price of oil down sharply again on Thursday, with some experts saying there is concern about the size of the cut. The international benchmark for crude, Brent, was down $1.52 at $60.04 a barrel.

“The cartel has to go above and beyond the 1 million barrels cut, to at least 1.4 million to really steady the ship,” said Neil Wilson, chief market analyst at Markets.com.

The fall in the price of oil will be a help to many consumers as well as energy-hungry businesses, particularly at a time when global growth is slowing. And U.S. President Donald Trump has been putting pressure publicly on OPEC to not cut production. He tweeted Wednesday that “Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The World does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!”

While Saudi Arabia has indicated it is willing to cut production, its decision may be complicated by Trump’s decision to not sanction the country over the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. U.S. Senators say, after a briefing with intelligence services, that they are convinced that Saudi’s de-facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman , was involved in Khashoggi’s death. Some experts say that gives the U.S. some leverage over the Saudis, though Al-Falih denied that on Thursday.

When asked if the Saudis had permission from Trump to cut production, Al-Falih replied: “I don’t need permission from any foreign governments.”

Experts say this week’s meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will influence the price of oil over the coming months. How strongly it does so could depend on Russia’s contribution, which will be determined in a meeting on Friday.

Analysts estimate that if Russia is willing to step up its production cuts, OPEC and non-OPEC countries could trim production by a combined 1.3-1.4 million barrels a day. A cut of 1 million barrels would be the minimum to support the market, and anything less could see the price of oil fall another $10 a barrel, according to Wilson.

“The stakes are high now for OPEC,” he said.

OPEC’s reliance on non-members like Russia highlights the cartel’s waning influence in oil markets, which it had dominated for decades. The OPEC-Russia alliance was made necessary in 2016 to compete with the United States’ vastly increased production of oil in recent years. By some estimates, the U.S. this year became the world’s top crude producer.

OPEC is also riven by internal conflict, especially between regional rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. One of the key questions in Thursday’s talks is whether to exempt Iran from having to cut production, as its energy industry is already hobbled by U.S. sanctions on its crude exports.

Meanwhile, Qatar, a Saudi rival and Iranian ally, said this week it would leave OPEC in January. While it said it was purely a practical decision because it mainly produces natural gas and little oil, the move was viewed as a symbolic snub to the Saudi-dominated organization.
…

The “yellow vests” in France are worrying greens around the world.

The worst riots in Paris in decades were sparked by higher fuel taxes, and French President Emmanuel Macron responded by scrapping them Wednesday. But taxes on fossil fuels are just what international climate negotiators, meeting in Poland this week, say are desperately needed to help wean the world off of fossil fuels and slow climate change.

“The events of the last few days in Paris have made me regard the challenges as even greater than I thought earlier,” said Stanford University environmental economist Lawrence Goulder, author of the book “Confronting the Climate Challenge.”

Economists, policymakers and politicians have long said the best way to fight climate change is to put a higher price on the fuels that are causing it — gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas. Taxing fuels and electricity could help pay for the damage they cause, encourage people to use less, and make it easier for cleaner alternatives and fuel-saving technologies to compete.

These so-called carbon taxes are expected to be a major part of pushing the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and try to prevent runaway climate change that economists say would be far more expensive over the long term than paying more for energy in the short term.

But it’s not so easy for people to think about long-term, global problems when they are struggling to get by.

Macron said the higher tax was his way of trying to prevent the end of the world. But the yellow vest protesters turned that around with the slogan: “it’s hard to talk about the end of the world while we are talking about the end of the month.”

The resistance to the fuel tax is a personal blow to Macron, who sees himself as the guarantor of the 2015 Paris climate accord, its strongest defender on the global stage. He has positioned himself as the anti-Trump when it comes to climate issues.

The French government quietly fears a Trump-led backlash against the accord could spread to other major economies whose commitment is essential to keeping the deal together.

The fuel tax was not originally Macron’s idea; it dates back to previous administrations. But he vigorously defended it and won the presidency in part on a promise to fight climate change.

So what went wrong?

Yale University economist William Nordhaus, who won this year’s Nobel prize for economics, said the tax was poorly designed and was delivered by the wrong person. “If you want to make energy taxes unpopular, step one is to be an unpopular leader,” he said. “Step two is to use gasoline taxes and call them carbon taxes. This is hard enough without adding poor design.”

Macron, like French presidents before him, made environmental and energy decisions without explaining to the public how important they are and how their lives will change. He’s also seen as the “president of the rich” — his first fiscal decision as president was scrapping a wealth tax. So hiking taxes on gasoline and diesel was seen as especially unfair to the working classes in the provinces who need cars to get to work and whose incomes have stagnated for years.

The French government already has programs in place to subsidize drivers who trade in older, dirtier cars for cleaner ones, and expanded them in an attempt to head off the protests last month. But for many French, it was too little, too late.

The French reaction to higher fuel prices is hardly unique, which highlights just how hard it can be to discourage fossil fuel consumption by making people pay more. In September, protests in India over high gasoline prices shut down schools and government offices. Protests erupted in Mexico in 2017 after government deregulation caused a spike in gasoline prices, and in Indonesia in 2013 when the government reduced fuel subsidies and prices rose.

In the United States, Washington state voters handily defeated a carbon tax in November.

“Higher taxes on fuel have always been a policy more popular among economists than among voters,” said Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist and former adviser to President George W. Bush.

Even proponents of carbon taxes acknowledge that they can disproportionally hurt low-income people. Energy costs make up a larger portion of their overall expenses, so a fuel price increase eats up more of their paycheck and leaves them with less to spend. And because energy costs are almost impossible to avoid, they feel trapped.

It is also not lost on them that it is the rich, unbothered by fuel taxes, who are hardest on the environment because they travel and consume more.

“The mistake of the Macron government was not to marry the increase in fuel taxes with other sufficiently compelling initiatives promising to enhance the welfare and incomes of the ‘yellow vests,’ said Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Now the question is “How can we address the climate problem while also avoiding producing political upheaval,” Goulder said.

The key is giving a good chunk of money back to the people, Wesleyan University environmental economist Gary Yohe said.

Many economists back proposals that would tax carbon, but then use that money to offer tax rebates or credits that would benefit lower-income families.

The protests, while sparked by fuel prices, are also about income inequality, populism and anti-elitism, experts say, not just about carbon taxes.

“Is it a death knell for the carbon tax or pricing carbon? I don’t think so,” economist Yohe said. “It is just a call for being a little bit more careful about how you design the damn thing.”
…

The “yellow vests” in France are worrying greens around the world.

The worst riots in Paris in decades were sparked by higher fuel taxes, and French President Emmanuel Macron responded by scrapping them Wednesday. But taxes on fossil fuels are just what international climate negotiators, meeting in Poland this week, say are desperately needed to help wean the world off of fossil fuels and slow climate change.

“The events of the last few days in Paris have made me regard the challenges as even greater than I thought earlier,” said Stanford University environmental economist Lawrence Goulder, author of the book “Confronting the Climate Challenge.”

Economists, policymakers and politicians have long said the best way to fight climate change is to put a higher price on the fuels that are causing it — gasoline, diesel, coal and natural gas. Taxing fuels and electricity could help pay for the damage they cause, encourage people to use less, and make it easier for cleaner alternatives and fuel-saving technologies to compete.

These so-called carbon taxes are expected to be a major part of pushing the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and try to prevent runaway climate change that economists say would be far more expensive over the long term than paying more for energy in the short term.

But it’s not so easy for people to think about long-term, global problems when they are struggling to get by.

Macron said the higher tax was his way of trying to prevent the end of the world. But the yellow vest protesters turned that around with the slogan: “it’s hard to talk about the end of the world while we are talking about the end of the month.”

The resistance to the fuel tax is a personal blow to Macron, who sees himself as the guarantor of the 2015 Paris climate accord, its strongest defender on the global stage. He has positioned himself as the anti-Trump when it comes to climate issues.

The French government quietly fears a Trump-led backlash against the accord could spread to other major economies whose commitment is essential to keeping the deal together.

The fuel tax was not originally Macron’s idea; it dates back to previous administrations. But he vigorously defended it and won the presidency in part on a promise to fight climate change.

So what went wrong?

Yale University economist William Nordhaus, who won this year’s Nobel prize for economics, said the tax was poorly designed and was delivered by the wrong person. “If you want to make energy taxes unpopular, step one is to be an unpopular leader,” he said. “Step two is to use gasoline taxes and call them carbon taxes. This is hard enough without adding poor design.”

Macron, like French presidents before him, made environmental and energy decisions without explaining to the public how important they are and how their lives will change. He’s also seen as the “president of the rich” — his first fiscal decision as president was scrapping a wealth tax. So hiking taxes on gasoline and diesel was seen as especially unfair to the working classes in the provinces who need cars to get to work and whose incomes have stagnated for years.

The French government already has programs in place to subsidize drivers who trade in older, dirtier cars for cleaner ones, and expanded them in an attempt to head off the protests last month. But for many French, it was too little, too late.

The French reaction to higher fuel prices is hardly unique, which highlights just how hard it can be to discourage fossil fuel consumption by making people pay more. In September, protests in India over high gasoline prices shut down schools and government offices. Protests erupted in Mexico in 2017 after government deregulation caused a spike in gasoline prices, and in Indonesia in 2013 when the government reduced fuel subsidies and prices rose.

In the United States, Washington state voters handily defeated a carbon tax in November.

“Higher taxes on fuel have always been a policy more popular among economists than among voters,” said Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist and former adviser to President George W. Bush.

Even proponents of carbon taxes acknowledge that they can disproportionally hurt low-income people. Energy costs make up a larger portion of their overall expenses, so a fuel price increase eats up more of their paycheck and leaves them with less to spend. And because energy costs are almost impossible to avoid, they feel trapped.

It is also not lost on them that it is the rich, unbothered by fuel taxes, who are hardest on the environment because they travel and consume more.

“The mistake of the Macron government was not to marry the increase in fuel taxes with other sufficiently compelling initiatives promising to enhance the welfare and incomes of the ‘yellow vests,’ said Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Now the question is “How can we address the climate problem while also avoiding producing political upheaval,” Goulder said.

The key is giving a good chunk of money back to the people, Wesleyan University environmental economist Gary Yohe said.

Many economists back proposals that would tax carbon, but then use that money to offer tax rebates or credits that would benefit lower-income families.

The protests, while sparked by fuel prices, are also about income inequality, populism and anti-elitism, experts say, not just about carbon taxes.

“Is it a death knell for the carbon tax or pricing carbon? I don’t think so,” economist Yohe said. “It is just a call for being a little bit more careful about how you design the damn thing.”
…

OPEC and Russia moved closer on Wednesday to agreeing cuts in oil production from next year despite pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to reduce the price of crude.

OPEC meets on Thursday in Vienna, followed by talks with allies such as Russia on Friday. OPEC’s de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, has indicated a need for steep output reductions from January, fearing a glut, but Russia has resisted a large cut.

“All of us including Russia agreed there is a need for a reduction,” Oman’s Oil Minister Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Rumhy told reporters after a ministerial committee that groups Saudi Arabia, Russia and several other producers met on Wednesday.

WATCH: Analysts: OPEC Meeting in Vienna to Result in Less Production

Exact volumes were still being discussed, he said. The cuts would take September or October 2018 as baseline figures and last from January to June.

Two OPEC delegates said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak was flying back to Moscow on Wednesday to get a final agreement from President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi Arabia has indicated it wants the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies to curb output by at least 1.3 million barrels per day, or 1.3 percent of global production.

Riyadh wants Moscow to contribute at least 250,000-300,000 bpd to the cut but Russia insists the amount should be only half of that, OPEC and non-OPEC sources said.

Russia’s TASS news agency quoted an OPEC source as saying OPEC and its allies were discussing the idea of reducing output next year by reverting to production quotas agreed in 2016.

Such a move would mean cutting production by more than 1 million bpd. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UAE have raised output since June after Trump called for higher production to compensate for lower Iranian exports due to new U.S. sanctions.

Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been vying for the position of top crude producer in recent years. The United States is not part of any output-limiting initiative due to its anti-trust legislation and fragmented oil industry. Trump raises pressure

Oil prices have fallen by almost a third since October to around $62 per barrel after Saudi Arabia raised production to make up for the drop in Iranian exports. Washington also gave sanctions waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude, further raising fears of an oil glut next year.

“Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The world does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!” Trump wrote in a tweet on Wednesday.

Possibly complicating any OPEC decision is the crisis around the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Trump has backed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman despite calls from many U.S. politicians to impose stiff sanctions on Riyadh.

“How can the Saudis cut substantially if Trump doesn’t want a big cut?” said Gary Ross, chief executive of U.S.-based Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher.

“Trump is worried about the Fed and inflation. So he wants low prices now. Also if Saudis are obnoxious with a deep output cut, it will spur the Democrats in Congress to go more actively for the Nopec legislation and the withdrawal of U.S. support for the Saudi-backed forces in the war in Yemen,” Ross said.

The Nopec legislation being discussed by U.S. lawmakers could make it possible to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members for price fixing.

Bob McNally, president of U.S.-based Rapidan Energy Group, said OPEC was stuck between a rock and a hard place given pressure from Trump on one hand and the need for higher revenues on the other.

“We think OPEC will try to come up with a fuzzy production cut … It won’t be called a cut but will effectively mean a cut, which will also be difficult to quantify,” McNally said.
…

OPEC and Russia moved closer on Wednesday to agreeing cuts in oil production from next year despite pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to reduce the price of crude.

OPEC meets on Thursday in Vienna, followed by talks with allies such as Russia on Friday. OPEC’s de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, has indicated a need for steep output reductions from January, fearing a glut, but Russia has resisted a large cut.

“All of us including Russia agreed there is a need for a reduction,” Oman’s Oil Minister Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Rumhy told reporters after a ministerial committee that groups Saudi Arabia, Russia and several other producers met on Wednesday.

WATCH: Analysts: OPEC Meeting in Vienna to Result in Less Production

Exact volumes were still being discussed, he said. The cuts would take September or October 2018 as baseline figures and last from January to June.

Two OPEC delegates said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak was flying back to Moscow on Wednesday to get a final agreement from President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi Arabia has indicated it wants the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies to curb output by at least 1.3 million barrels per day, or 1.3 percent of global production.

Riyadh wants Moscow to contribute at least 250,000-300,000 bpd to the cut but Russia insists the amount should be only half of that, OPEC and non-OPEC sources said.

Russia’s TASS news agency quoted an OPEC source as saying OPEC and its allies were discussing the idea of reducing output next year by reverting to production quotas agreed in 2016.

Such a move would mean cutting production by more than 1 million bpd. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UAE have raised output since June after Trump called for higher production to compensate for lower Iranian exports due to new U.S. sanctions.

Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been vying for the position of top crude producer in recent years. The United States is not part of any output-limiting initiative due to its anti-trust legislation and fragmented oil industry. Trump raises pressure

Oil prices have fallen by almost a third since October to around $62 per barrel after Saudi Arabia raised production to make up for the drop in Iranian exports. Washington also gave sanctions waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude, further raising fears of an oil glut next year.

“Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The world does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!” Trump wrote in a tweet on Wednesday.

Possibly complicating any OPEC decision is the crisis around the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Trump has backed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman despite calls from many U.S. politicians to impose stiff sanctions on Riyadh.

“How can the Saudis cut substantially if Trump doesn’t want a big cut?” said Gary Ross, chief executive of U.S.-based Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher.

“Trump is worried about the Fed and inflation. So he wants low prices now. Also if Saudis are obnoxious with a deep output cut, it will spur the Democrats in Congress to go more actively for the Nopec legislation and the withdrawal of U.S. support for the Saudi-backed forces in the war in Yemen,” Ross said.

The Nopec legislation being discussed by U.S. lawmakers could make it possible to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members for price fixing.

Bob McNally, president of U.S.-based Rapidan Energy Group, said OPEC was stuck between a rock and a hard place given pressure from Trump on one hand and the need for higher revenues on the other.

“We think OPEC will try to come up with a fuzzy production cut … It won’t be called a cut but will effectively mean a cut, which will also be difficult to quantify,” McNally said.
…

OPEC and Russia moved closer on Wednesday to agreeing cuts in oil production from next year despite pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to reduce the price of crude.

OPEC meets on Thursday in Vienna, followed by talks with allies such as Russia on Friday. OPEC’s de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, has indicated a need for steep output reductions from January, fearing a glut, but Russia has resisted a large cut.

“All of us including Russia agreed there is a need for a reduction,” Oman’s Oil Minister Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Rumhy told reporters after a ministerial committee that groups Saudi Arabia, Russia and several other producers met on Wednesday.

WATCH: Analysts: OPEC Meeting in Vienna to Result in Less Production

Exact volumes were still being discussed, he said. The cuts would take September or October 2018 as baseline figures and last from January to June.

Two OPEC delegates said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak was flying back to Moscow on Wednesday to get a final agreement from President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi Arabia has indicated it wants the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies to curb output by at least 1.3 million barrels per day, or 1.3 percent of global production.

Riyadh wants Moscow to contribute at least 250,000-300,000 bpd to the cut but Russia insists the amount should be only half of that, OPEC and non-OPEC sources said.

Russia’s TASS news agency quoted an OPEC source as saying OPEC and its allies were discussing the idea of reducing output next year by reverting to production quotas agreed in 2016.

Such a move would mean cutting production by more than 1 million bpd. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UAE have raised output since June after Trump called for higher production to compensate for lower Iranian exports due to new U.S. sanctions.

Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been vying for the position of top crude producer in recent years. The United States is not part of any output-limiting initiative due to its anti-trust legislation and fragmented oil industry. Trump raises pressure

Oil prices have fallen by almost a third since October to around $62 per barrel after Saudi Arabia raised production to make up for the drop in Iranian exports. Washington also gave sanctions waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude, further raising fears of an oil glut next year.

“Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The world does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!” Trump wrote in a tweet on Wednesday.

Possibly complicating any OPEC decision is the crisis around the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Trump has backed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman despite calls from many U.S. politicians to impose stiff sanctions on Riyadh.

“How can the Saudis cut substantially if Trump doesn’t want a big cut?” said Gary Ross, chief executive of U.S.-based Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher.

“Trump is worried about the Fed and inflation. So he wants low prices now. Also if Saudis are obnoxious with a deep output cut, it will spur the Democrats in Congress to go more actively for the Nopec legislation and the withdrawal of U.S. support for the Saudi-backed forces in the war in Yemen,” Ross said.

The Nopec legislation being discussed by U.S. lawmakers could make it possible to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members for price fixing.

Bob McNally, president of U.S.-based Rapidan Energy Group, said OPEC was stuck between a rock and a hard place given pressure from Trump on one hand and the need for higher revenues on the other.

“We think OPEC will try to come up with a fuzzy production cut … It won’t be called a cut but will effectively mean a cut, which will also be difficult to quantify,” McNally said.
…

OPEC and Russia moved closer on Wednesday to agreeing cuts in oil production from next year despite pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to reduce the price of crude.

OPEC meets on Thursday in Vienna, followed by talks with allies such as Russia on Friday. OPEC’s de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, has indicated a need for steep output reductions from January, fearing a glut, but Russia has resisted a large cut.

“All of us including Russia agreed there is a need for a reduction,” Oman’s Oil Minister Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Rumhy told reporters after a ministerial committee that groups Saudi Arabia, Russia and several other producers met on Wednesday.

WATCH: Analysts: OPEC Meeting in Vienna to Result in Less Production

Exact volumes were still being discussed, he said. The cuts would take September or October 2018 as baseline figures and last from January to June.

Two OPEC delegates said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak was flying back to Moscow on Wednesday to get a final agreement from President Vladimir Putin.

Saudi Arabia has indicated it wants the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies to curb output by at least 1.3 million barrels per day, or 1.3 percent of global production.

Riyadh wants Moscow to contribute at least 250,000-300,000 bpd to the cut but Russia insists the amount should be only half of that, OPEC and non-OPEC sources said.

Russia’s TASS news agency quoted an OPEC source as saying OPEC and its allies were discussing the idea of reducing output next year by reverting to production quotas agreed in 2016.

Such a move would mean cutting production by more than 1 million bpd. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UAE have raised output since June after Trump called for higher production to compensate for lower Iranian exports due to new U.S. sanctions.

Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been vying for the position of top crude producer in recent years. The United States is not part of any output-limiting initiative due to its anti-trust legislation and fragmented oil industry. Trump raises pressure

Oil prices have fallen by almost a third since October to around $62 per barrel after Saudi Arabia raised production to make up for the drop in Iranian exports. Washington also gave sanctions waivers to some buyers of Iranian crude, further raising fears of an oil glut next year.

“Hopefully OPEC will be keeping oil flows as is, not restricted. The world does not want to see, or need, higher oil prices!” Trump wrote in a tweet on Wednesday.

Possibly complicating any OPEC decision is the crisis around the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Trump has backed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman despite calls from many U.S. politicians to impose stiff sanctions on Riyadh.

“How can the Saudis cut substantially if Trump doesn’t want a big cut?” said Gary Ross, chief executive of U.S.-based Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher.

“Trump is worried about the Fed and inflation. So he wants low prices now. Also if Saudis are obnoxious with a deep output cut, it will spur the Democrats in Congress to go more actively for the Nopec legislation and the withdrawal of U.S. support for the Saudi-backed forces in the war in Yemen,” Ross said.

The Nopec legislation being discussed by U.S. lawmakers could make it possible to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members for price fixing.

Bob McNally, president of U.S.-based Rapidan Energy Group, said OPEC was stuck between a rock and a hard place given pressure from Trump on one hand and the need for higher revenues on the other.

“We think OPEC will try to come up with a fuzzy production cut … It won’t be called a cut but will effectively mean a cut, which will also be difficult to quantify,” McNally said.
…

A new study estimates 164 million people are migrating to foreign countries in search of work, an increase of 9 percent since 2013.

The majority of migrant workers are men between the ages of 25 and 64, according to the International Labor Organization’s second edition of Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers. While the number of migrant workers in upper-middle-income countries has grown, the report finds the vast majority head for richer countries in North America, Europe and the Arab region, particularly the Gulf States.

Manuela Tomei, director of the ILO Conditions of Work and Equality Department, tells VOA most of the people who migrate for work are low skilled, and employed in fields such as construction, agriculture, the hospitality industry or as domestic help.

She says migrant workers are a key factor in boosting the economies and development of rich countries and in the higher brackets of upper-middle-income countries.

“Their main contribution is through the work, the services that they provide to host communities in sectors and occupations, in jobs in which often nationals are not interested to work any longer,” Tomei said.

Unfortunately, she noted, the influx of migrants into foreign countries often creates a backlash. Instead of welcoming the workers as being beneficial to their societies, host communities often react with hostility.

In coming years, she said, these workers increasingly will be needed because of demographic trends and rapidly aging populations. Labor migration is a long-term trend, she added, urging governments to learn how to manage workers for their mutual benefit.
…

A new study estimates 164 million people are migrating to foreign countries in search of work, an increase of 9 percent since 2013.

The majority of migrant workers are men between the ages of 25 and 64, according to the International Labor Organization’s second edition of Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers. While the number of migrant workers in upper-middle-income countries has grown, the report finds the vast majority head for richer countries in North America, Europe and the Arab region, particularly the Gulf States.

Manuela Tomei, director of the ILO Conditions of Work and Equality Department, tells VOA most of the people who migrate for work are low skilled, and employed in fields such as construction, agriculture, the hospitality industry or as domestic help.

She says migrant workers are a key factor in boosting the economies and development of rich countries and in the higher brackets of upper-middle-income countries.

“Their main contribution is through the work, the services that they provide to host communities in sectors and occupations, in jobs in which often nationals are not interested to work any longer,” Tomei said.

Unfortunately, she noted, the influx of migrants into foreign countries often creates a backlash. Instead of welcoming the workers as being beneficial to their societies, host communities often react with hostility.

In coming years, she said, these workers increasingly will be needed because of demographic trends and rapidly aging populations. Labor migration is a long-term trend, she added, urging governments to learn how to manage workers for their mutual benefit.
…