Work in manufacturing was traditionally viewed as a path to the middle class. Higher levels of education weren’t required and the pay was above average. Yet, over the past thirty years, manufacturing has taken a hit. The sector has witnessed a precipitous drop from its mid-20th century heights, and some are wondering if the golden years are officially behind us.  

As globalization continues to advance, more and more companies have moved offshore, seeking lower costs and thus greater profit margins. Trade deals like NAFTA create more competitors for US producers and technological advances have lessened the need for physical human beings (in support of automized bots) in some industries. Couple this with many industrialized countries encouraging university studies as opposed to trade schools, sectors that traditionally relied on more manual labor are having to contend with declining labor-related interest.  

Yet, despite these challenges, the US is a large country and we are witnessing a rebound of sorts in manufacturing’s share of employment in some states. Traditionally, northern states like Pennsylvania and New York were manufacturing hubs. Employment and output have dropped, but it hasn’t disappeared. Rather, other states have picked up the slack. 

Take for example Utah. The state posted an impressive 23.2% manufacturing employment growth from 2010 to 2020 and 18.5% manufacturing GDP growth over the same period. In Oregon, the employment growth was lower than in Utah (13.4%), but the Beaver State boasts an impressive manufacturing share of total GDP for the state – 15.4%.

Three decades ago neither state would have been considered a manufacturing hub. So while US manufacturing is certainly nowhere near its World War II level, southern and western US states are advancing the sector forward and providing meaningful employment opportunities for millions of Americans. 

State metro areas are categorized as large, medium, and small. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California is a large metro area and has seen its share of manufacturing GDP growth absolutely balloon by nearly 100% (94.6%) from 2010 to 2020. Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee is another large metro area that has just arrived to double digits with respect to the state’s manufacturing share of total GDP – 10.3%.

Narrowing down further, midsize metros like Vallejo, California, Reno, Nevada, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Mobile, Alabama are now manufacturing hotbeds. Small metro areas like Lake Charles, Louisiana, Spartanburg, South Carolina, Kankakee, Illinois, and Bellingham, Washington are bringing much-needed employment and growth to their respective communities. 

Domestic manufacturing contributes to more resilient supply chains and can be a safety net of sorts when global chains falter. If there’s one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us, the world economy is as integrated as it’s ever been. As such, bolstering a national manufacturing sector could not be more important.         

The post A U.S. Manufacturing Renaissance  appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Jason Bordoff, Founding Director of CGEP and Co-Founding Dean at the Columbia Climate School made it known that the latest IPCC report has made it clear the Agency needed to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions if they’re to keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees C and Although challenging, getting to net-zero emissions for industry isn’t impossible while also adding that Chris is a welcome addition to the growing team at their Carbon Management Research Initiative.

Industrialization is a key driver of economic growth but also responsible for roughly 24 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. In the heavy industry group, cement, steel, and petrochemicals are the top emitters and pose some of the biggest decarbonization challenges in any net-zero scenario. Emissions from heavy industry are primarily produced from the burning of fossil fuels for energy. CGEP has prioritized looking at low-carbon solutions for industrial heat.

Dr. Bataille emphasized that Net-zero deep decarbonization of heavy industry has been his passion and focus since the Paris Agreement was signed in late 2015 and While time is short, so much more seems possible now with concentrated effort adding that He looks forward to working with CGEP and its global community to make heavy industry decarbonization a physical reality.

Dr. Bataille is also an Associate Researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) in Paris and an Adjunct Professor at Simon Fraser University. He was a Lead Author for the Industry Chapter of IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, as well as the Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary.

The post Dr. Chris Bataille Joins the Center on Global Energy Policy as Adjunct Research Fellow appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

The stakes and opportunities of such a move are nowhere higher than in clean energy sectors, where China currently dominates global manufacturing. China makes roughly two-thirds of the world’s solar panels, nearly half of global wind turbines, and three quarters of lithium-ion batteries needed for electric vehicles and on-grid energy storage. To date, the U.S. federal government has not done enough to improve the competitive position of domestic clean energy sectors, which could provide an alternative to the current reliance on China. In the absence of policies to support these industries domestically, tariffs—the main U.S. government response to China’s rise—have made clean energy technologies more expensive but have not drastically improved the competitive position of American firms.

Other economies have taken a different approach. Partly in response to China’s dominance in clean technology industries, European policymaking  now treats climate change as an economic imperative, as governments seek to expand shares for domestic firms in growing global clean energy technologies markets and hope to meet a growing share of domestic demand with home-grown technologies. From offshore wind turbines to hydrogen and battery technologies, Europe has combined economic and climate objectives in strategic initiatives to support the growth of domestic clean energy industries. For instance, the EU established the European Battery Alliance to reduce dependence on China for the highest value components in electric vehicle manufacturing. Its goal is to position domestic firms along the entire battery supply chain for economic and security reasons, with the alliance taking on a coordinating function to bring the required industrial actors together. The EU’s push to self-sufficiency in the use of clean energy technologies has taken on new urgency since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the continent seeks to reduce its dependence on imports of Russian fossil fuels.

The United States needs to treat climate policy as economic policy or risk falling behind other economies that have made clean energy industries a domestic priority. Not just since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, the Biden administration has looked for ways to boost the domestic production of clean energy technologies. Yet the use of tools such as the Defense Production Act alone won’t be sufficient to secure the domestic production of clean energy technologies that are needed more than ever for energy security and to protect the United States from a volatile global price environment. To strengthen the competitive position of domestic clean energy sectors, the United States should (i) improve financing for domestic clean technology industries through the creation of a national lending institution, (ii) create a stable domestic market environment for low-carbon technologies to reduce investment uncertainty, and (iii) renew investments in vocational training to create a workforce ready to tackle the clean energy challenge. Without a clear strategy to support the growth of domestic clean energy sectors, calls for greater economic separation from China will likely jeopardize climate goals while ceding economic gains to nations with more comprehensive green growth strategies.

WHY CLIMATE POLICY IS ECONOMIC POLICY

Historically, governments have often prioritized economic growth over climate policy, particularly during periods of economic hardship. Yet the view that emissions reductions and good economic policy are irreconcilable is increasingly outdated. In 2021, global markets for renewable energy and electric vehicles soared to USD $366 and USD $273 billion, respectively; global investment in the clean transition topped USD $755 billion. Global clean energy markets are now roughly equivalent to the GDP of Switzerland and roughly three times the size they were ten years ago.

In light of rapidly growing markets for clean energy technologies, policymakers around the world have begun to promise new jobs, industries, and sources of prosperity in the transition to a zero-carbon economy. In addition to creating service-sector jobs in the installation and maintenance of clean energy technologies and infrastructure for the electrification of the transportation sector, policymakers have argued that climate policy will lead firms to invest in technological innovation and ultimately co-locate manufacturing to commercialize and produce clean energy technologies domestically. Among policy options to address climate change, those that pursued the dual objective of achieving emissions reductions while creating new sources of economic growth have been easier to implement politically. Such economic benefits have also helped justify growing public investments in the clean energy transition.

Yet economic co-benefits from climate policy have not been achieved everywhere. Although governments worldwide have connected climate policymaking to the broader premise of “green growth,” not all economies have successfully built large industrial sectors in support of decarbonization. One reason green sources of economic growth have proven elusive has been the political opposition of industries invested in fossil fuels. Clean energy sectors—wind, solar, storage, and electric vehicles, among others—continue to compete with an existing fossil fuel-based energy system. Utility companies, car manufacturers, and traditional energy providers have mounted political opposition to the clean energy transition. In many cases, such opposition has undermined policies to create markets for clean energy technologies and prevented state support for firms seeking to develop zero-carbon alternatives. This is true even if in many parts of the world new energy technologies are now cheaper than those they are seeking to replace.

Other governments have begun to strategically position their domestic economies to benefit from rapidly growing investment in clean energy. Nowhere is this more the case than in China, which has rapidly established itself as the dominant manufacturer in industries central to addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past two decades, China has increased its share of global solar photovoltaic production from less than 1 percent to over 60 percent of the world’s solar panels. For 15 of the past 17 years, China has added more production capacity for crystalline solar cells than any other country in the world. China is also one of the world’s largest producers of and market for electric vehicles. It now commands roughly 75 percent of global production capacity for non-consumer batteries, which are the highest value component in electric vehicles and critical for on-grid electricity storage. China dominates most individual steps in the supply chain, including in the mining and production of Nickel, Cobalt, and Lithium, in the manufacturing of cathodes and anodes, and lithium-ion cell manufacturing. In 2020, China accounted for 58 percent of global production capacity for wind turbine nacelles, primarily for its large and growing domestic market. In addition to producing components for domestic turbine assembly, China produces gearboxes and generators that are used by turbine manufacturers around the world.

China’s dominance in the production of low-carbon energy technologies has national security implications in the United States and elsewhere. Without investments in alternative supply chains from raw materials to final assembly, meeting global climate goals could mean trading dependence on Russian fossil fuels for  reliance on China for electric vehicle batteries and renewable energy products. As the Ukraine crisis has demonstrated, such interdependencies are easily weaponized.

China’s rise to dominance in clean energy industries was not accidental, but the result of strategic and aggressive government support for R&D and manufacturing. No other economy has devoted a similar level of resources to the expansion of production capacity and manufacturing R&D in clean energy sectors central to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This has especially been the case since 2006, when the central government began encouraging “indigenous innovation” to reduce dependence on foreign technologies through increased domestic R&D efforts. Efforts further accelerated under President Xi’s Made in China 2025 initiative, which designated the development of domestic low-carbon emitting technology sectors as a strategic national priority. China’s provincial and municipal governments, meanwhile, brokered bank loans and provided land, facilities, and tax incentives to manufacturers in wind, solar, and battery industries. It is estimated that between 2010 and 2012 alone, wind and solar firms received credit lines of USD $47 billion by Chinese banks; the China Development Bank, one of three state-owned policy banks, reportedly extended USD $29 billion in credit to the 15 largest wind and solar firms.

In part in response to China’s rise in clean energy industries, the European Union has increasingly treated climate policy as economic policy. The EU’s “Fit for 55” proposal seeks to marry climate and economic goals by investing in low-carbon industries that guarantee jobs and prosperity as Europe pushes emissions reductions. Such goals are also noticeable in Europe’s transportation sector, where the EU has proposed reducing new vehicles’ average emissions by 55 percent in 2030 and 100 percent in 2035. This amounts to an outright ban of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, expanding on policies that have already passed in individual member states including France.

The EU proposals send a strong signal to European firms that they need to participate in the transition away from fossil fuels or be left behind in a global industrial policy competition with China. In combination with promises to expand renewable energy capacity and charging infrastructure, increase taxes on conventional fuels, and develop low-carbon sources of hydrogen, these policies for clean energy industries build on ongoing efforts to close key gaps in industrial supply chains. As mentioned above, the EU has already funded a European Battery Alliance to establish a competitive European battery industry that would reduce Europe’s dependence on China.

All this fits with a broader shift to push back globalization and create domestic sources of growth, particularly in strategic clean energy sectors with rapidly growing global markets and domestic security implications. More than forty percent of Europe’s pandemic stimulus package is dedicated to projects that further both economic competitiveness and address greenhouse gas emissions through support for green industries. The pace and level of support of the creation of domestic low-carbon industries has only accelerated since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

THE PROBLEM WITH U.S. POLICIES FOR LOW-CARBON INDUSTRIES

As China began to dominate global supply chains for clean energy technologies, the U.S. responded with a series of trade barriers against Chinese imports. Initially targeting Chinese wind turbine towers, tariffs were expanded to Chinese solar panels under the Obama administration. Tariffs were renewed in 2018 under the Trump administration, again targeting Chinese solar cells despite vocal opposition from the domestic solar industry which feared the impact of rising prices in the large U.S. solar installation and maintenance industry.

Despite these trade barriers, manufacturing did not “come back” to the United States as both Democratic and Republican administrations had argued. Tariffs instead led to relocation of production capacity to other Asian economies, including to Vietnam and Malaysia, but they did not forge a reorganization of the solar industry in the United States or promote the expansion of domestic manufacturing capacity. China continues to account for roughly two-thirds of global production capacity in the solar sector, and most U.S. panels are imported.

More recently, the Biden administration launched a broad investigation into gaps in domestic supply chains from both economic and security perspectives in the context of China’s dominance in key industrial sectors. But the administration has thus far continued to primarily rely on tariffs implemented under previous administrations as its main tool to improve the competitiveness of domestic firms. The Strategic Competition Act, which seeks authorization to assist U.S. companies with supply chain diversification away from China, proposes new investments in domestic infrastructure to compete with China and emphasizes the need to build alliances to counteract China’s growing international influence. The bill remains stalled in Congress. The Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act, which passed in November 2021 with bipartisan support, includes investments in the domestic grid and electric vehicle (EV)-related infrastructure, but does not directly address the competitiveness of domestic clean energy technology firms. Proposals such as the use of the Defense Production Act to accelerate domestic mining could increase the availability of raw materials needed for low-carbon technologies but do little to address underlying structural problems of U.S. clean tech manufacturing. Meanwhile, the March 2022 launch of an investigation into possible tariff evasion by Chinese companies—and the prospect of new tariffs on Asian solar panels—has prompted protest by the U.S. solar industry which fears higher prices.

WHAT THE UNITED STATES CAN DO TO BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

The United States is uniquely equipped to lead the development of new energy technologies needed to meet global climate goals. However, China is on course to overtake the U.S. in R&D spending unless domestic efforts are accelerated. The U.S. has historically been the largest investor in clean energy R&D and continues to lead research and development for many key low-carbon technologies. U.S. companies remain at the forefront of developing next-generation technologies that could make decarbonization cheaper and more efficient, including next-generation solar technologies, advanced battery chemistries, new building materials, smart grid technologies, and software to manage complex energy systems.

Eventually, new technologies have to be commercialized and manufactured at scale, and currently little support exists for such activities domestically. U.S. startups, unable to fund or find domestic manufacturing capabilities, often work with foreign partners or are bought by multinational firms. Tariffs against Chinese imports or finger-pointing at China’s industrial policies have done little to change the global division of labor in favor of domestic clean energy industries.

A three-pronged policy approach to support domestic clean energy industries as part of a national strategy for technological innovation could help America combine economic and climate objectives.

1. A national lending institution to help fund manufacturing

First, a government-established lending institution should finance clean energy firms that the U.S. financial system has been unwilling to fund. A key reason for the lack of domestic clean tech manufacturing in particular has been the scarcity of capital among clean technology firms. Clean energy startups have struggled to raise sufficient funds to invest in domestic manufacturing capacity, as American financial institutions have prioritized industrial sectors—including software—that have historically yielded higher and faster returns. Proposals to establish a national climate bank have not included support for the clean technology industries needed to achieve climate goals.

A government-owned lending institution tasked with providing capital to manufacturing businesses in critical industries such as clean energy would address a financing problem that the private sector has been unable to solve. Although the United States has historically led in the development of new technologies as a result of large injections of public and private capital, long investment horizons, large upfront investment costs, and technological risks associated with the commercialization of new technologies have prevented private investors from supporting domestic manufacturing. This is particularly the case for technologies central to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including renewable energy, batteries, and high-voltage transmission.

A national lending institution would not crowd out the private sector since private financial institutions have historically avoided lending to clean energy manufacturing firms. After a one-time capitalization through the U.S. government, a politically-independent, non-partisan, and not-for-profit lending institution would be self-sustaining, generating enough revenue to maintain and even grow its capital base. It would focus on supporting domestic supply chains in critical industries and promoting the commercialization of U.S.-developed technologies, and it would prioritize the capital needs of manufacturers in traditionally underfunded industrial sectors such as clean energy.

The creation of such an institution—modelled on U.S. intervention in home financing through the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the government-owned EXIM Bank—would put clean energy manufacturing firms in the United States on equal footing with firms in other parts of the world, where such financing corporations already exist. China’s state-owned development banks have already demonstrated that large loans for manufacturing business were central to China’s rise in clean energy industries. Germany’s KfW bank, one of the largest in the country, is another example of a government-owned financial institution tasked with addressing the capital needs of underfunded sectors of the economy. Perhaps somewhat ironically, KfW’s initial capitalization, in 1949, was made with U.S. funds dispensed through the Marshall Plan.

2. Stable support for low-carbon technology markets

 Historically, the share of domestically manufactured parts and components in clean energy technologies deployed in the United States have been lower than in other economies, including those in Europe with similar or higher cost of labor. A key obstacle to investments in domestic production has been the unstable regulatory environment and frequent changes or expirations of government incentives. Examples include the federal production and investment tax credits for wind and solar installations, which, although critically important for the financial viability of such projects particularly in early years of the industry, were often allowed to expire or renewed at the last minute. Such uncertainty deterred manufacturers (and their investors), which faced significant investments to build or retool domestic plants for the production of clean energy technologies with uncertain future markets. The lack of industrial coalitions in support of long-term climate policy in turn further undermined the establishment of a regulatory and market environment that would attract such firms in the first place, leaving U.S. climate policy exposed to political pressure from the fossil fuel lobby.

Long-term federal support for low-carbon technology markets, including through government procurement, caps on future auto emissions, and federal incentives for clean energy targets at the state level, could make it easier for firms to finance investments in U.S. production. The Biden administration has already announced federal procurement goals for electric vehicles, which prompted a number of manufacturers to explore the establishment of U.S. production facilities for EV batteries. But other measures would help. For instance, a number of key industrial economies with large domestic auto industries announced future bans of the internal combustion engine, both prompting their automakers to invest in electric vehicle technologies and ensuring them that domestic markets would reward such investments. The United States has not announced such plans at the federal level. Federal procurement goals for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and public support for clean hydrogen and other next-generation technologies would provide additional motivation for the private sector to invest in the U.S. market. Long-term procurement contracts could provide some insulation against the political volatility that often comes with changes in presidential administrations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the repercussions for global energy markets may have opened new avenues for bipartisan support of domestic low-carbon industries, particularly if public investments are spread across both Republican and Democratic states.

3. Renewed federal investment in vocational training

Third, federal investments in vocational training programs are needed to meet the workforce needs of a growing clean energy manufacturing industry. Historically, large manufacturing corporations in the United States conducted much vocational training internally, with spillover effects for the economy as a whole. They also supported vocational schools in their communities to actively train a labor pool from which they could recruit. Long job tenures provided incentives for firms to invest in such training. Yet changes in the composition of the U.S. manufacturing sector has in many places ended such investments. At the same time, shortening of job tenures now means that firms worry that workers will undergo expensive training only to be poached by other firms. Vocational schools have closed in many parts of the country, as a declining community of local manufacturing businesses has reduced the demand for graduates and public funds have been cut.

The federal government should renew its investments in vocational training programs to train and retrain workers to meet the demand of clean energy industries. Federal grants could support vocational schools and community colleges in establishing dedicated clean energy manufacturing curricula in partnership with industrial partners. Federal support is also critical to overcome collective action problems in the establishment of a paid apprenticeship system, as companies are reluctant to invest in such training on their own for fear that their trainees will eventually be recruited by other firms. The federal government should complement and support state-level initiatives, which often have better information about local conditions, including demand from local businesses and strengths and weaknesses of existing training institutions. But, as the European approach to building a battery industry has demonstrated, training needs for entire new industrial sectors are often greater than the capacity of individual states. The federal government is uniquely equipped to work with the private sector to establish training needs, coordinate such efforts along the entire supply chain, take advantage of network effects in education, and pool resources, particularly in areas with a weak fiscal base.

Such public support for vocational training and retraining is especially important in places that currently depend heavily on fossil fuel industries. Coordination with the private sector is critical to ensure that training meets the needs of clean energy manufacturers. The European Battery Alliance could serve as an example; a key objective of it has been to establish future workforce education needs through public-private collaboration. In the United States, many states have set up “Just Transition” programs with the goal of diversifying the economy, but their coverage is uneven, and they do not always specifically target workforce development for the clean energy industry. Historically, the United States has been outspent by other economies on government resources devoted to training and retraining initiatives, often preventing workers from transitioning to new industrial sectors.

CONCLUSION

The United States has traditionally been the largest investor in clean energy research and development and continues to lead in many areas critical for decarbonization. Yet the United States risks losing its leadership position as other economies, including China and the European Union, have made low-carbon industries a priority. To change this, the United States needs to treat climate policy as economic policy and begin improving conditions for segments of low-carbon energy supply chains that are currently not well-supported domestically. This also means investing in domestic manufacturing capabilities as part of a national strategy for technological innovation. Even then, it is unlikely that entire value chains for complex energy technologies would lie entirely within national borders. The United States should therefore not lose sight of the substantial domestic economic benefits from investments in decarbonization, even if a share of these low-carbon energy technologies is, for now, manufactured abroad.

The post The US should Treat Climate Policy as Economic Policy appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

US Secretary of Commerce, Gina M. Raimondo in his remarks made it known today that the more countries that agree to implement tough export controls, the less chance Vladimir Putin has to obtain the commodities, software, and technologies that he needs to sustain his brutal war machine, saying the US welcome the commitment of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland to joining the U.S. and 33 other allies and partners in standing together against Putin’s aggression.

Deputy Secretary of Commerce Don Graves added that today’s rule recognizes the strong partnership they have with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland in standing up for democracy and in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. He in his speech also mentioned that the effectiveness of export controls is enhanced greatly when they are joined by committed international allies and partners., recognizing that the more the coalition with foreign countries grows, the fewer places Putin and the Kremlin can turn for aid.

Under a rule issued and implemented today by BIS, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland are added to the list of countries that are excluded from certain license requirements of the U.S. Russia/Belarus Sanctions rules, including the foreign direct product (FDP) rules for Russia/Belarus and Russian/Belarusian Military End Users (MEUs). Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland join Australia, Canada, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU), Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, bringing the total number of countries excluded from application of the FDP rules to 37.

Specifically, under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), countries that have made a commitment to implement substantially similar export controls on Belarus and Russia under their domestic laws may receive full or partial exclusions, as appropriate, from the FDP rules’ license requirements, and such license requirements are not used to determine controlled U.S.-content under the EAR’s de minimus rules provided certain criteria set forth under the new Russia-Belarus restrictions (§746.8 of the EAR) are met.

Adoption of substantially similar export controls by the countries in the coalition expands the scope of products that cannot be obtained by Russia and Belarus. Countries that apply substantially similar controls to those of the United States through their own laws are excluded from application of the FDP rules for Russia/Belarus and Russian/Belarusian MEUs because their own domestic controls duplicate the effects of these FDP rules. These partners are sharing in the effort required to implement these controls globally through their own legal systems, educating companies on compliance responsibilities under their domestic laws, and leveraging their law enforcement resources. The United States will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to share information and enforcement resources, and to coordinate on the commodities, technologies, and software to be controlled, which will result in an increasingly effective global effort.

These BIS actions were taken under the authority of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and its implementing regulations, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

The post Commerce Announces Addition of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland to Global Export Controls Coalition appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

A group of students currently studying Logistics and Supply Chain Management at Auburn University, were given an exclusive, behind-the-scenes air cargo familiarization tour at Atlanta Airport on 25 March 2022. It was a joint initiative planned by Auburn University, JAS Worldwide, Swissport, and Qatar Airways Cargo.

The 7.5-hour event kicked off in the afternoon, first with lunch at the JAS WW Campus Sandy Springs, a meet and greet session with JAS and Qatar Airways Cargo management, and company presentations, before transferring to Atlanta Airport. Following the airport’s introductory presentation, the students were given a tour of the Swissport warehouse and then taken airside to witness the arrival of Qatar Airways Cargo flight QR8141 from Doha, Qatar, and its subsequent offloading and reloading.

In smaller groups of five, the students took turns in visiting the main deck, observing the main deck high loader in operation, and learning how the Swissport warehouse operates from cargo build-up to breakdown, as well as flight planning and preparation. Refreshments in the Swissport warehouse rounded off the educational and informative familiarization tour.

Matthias Frey, Global VP Airfreight Operations at JAS at the event emphasized on the the importance of logistics as it became very visible over the past two years, whereas in the past, the industry was very much the silent strongman in the background, struggling to attract the air cargo managers of tomorrow.

Guillaume Halleux, Chief Officer Cargo at Qatar Airways, commented on their partnership with Auburn University in the past, conducting speaking sessions and participating in their Job Fair.

Halleux pointed out the fact that the Atlanta air cargo facility will be their first joint familiarization tour with the university, and it will certainly not be the last, as they look forward to making it a recurring event having planned a second one already  in the Autumn.

The post Auburn University Students Visit the Air Cargo Facility at Atlanta Airport   appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

According to Westports Holdings, on 4 April at around 4.45 pm, the Port Police Control Centre (PPCC) received a call regarding a fire in the container yard.

Following the call, the PPCC called the Fire and Rescue Department (FRD) from Port Klang, who shortly after deployed two fire engines to combat the flames.

The FRD will soon be commencing an investigation as to the cause and source of the incident. The Royal Malaysian Police has also been notified. They too will be investigating.

“At this point in time, we are unable to ascertain the extent of the damaged containers. All the affected box operators will be notified in due course,” said Westports in a statement.

“There were no damages to port equipment and infrastructure. We are also pleased to inform that there were no injuries or disruption to our operations.

“We would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation to everyone involved in helping us to put out the fire particularly FRD from various stations.”

Last month, two separate fires also broke out at the Durban Container Terminal in South Africa.

On Saturday afternoon 5 March, a fire broke out inside a container which was situated in the stacking area at the Durban Container Terminal (Pier 2).

A separate fire then broke out on Monday morning 7 March.

The cause of the incidents is still unknown.

The post Fire Breaks out in Port Klang Container Yard appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

The program was initially established in 2015 through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) Multimodal Fund and makes up to $1 million available annually to participating ocean carriers that move cargo through the state’s ports.

In turn, the scheme helps secure full time employment at the terminals and increase economic activity through indirect and induced jobs.

The PICGIP was previously expected to end in June 2021.

“Pennsylvania’s ports are more vital than ever and are continuing to increase the volume of essential goods and strengthen the supply chain,” said Wolf.

“Increasing shipping activity will help ensure that goods are delivered to stores in a timely manner.”

In order to be eligible, carriers that have not docked at the Port of Philadelphia (PhilaPort) in the past six months are required to fill out an application on the PennDOT website, whereas existing participants only need to complete a data verification form.

Jeff Theobald, CEO and Executive Director of PhilaPort, added: “The Intermodal Cargo Growth Incentive Program is essential for us to compete with other ports in attracting new ocean carriers and new trade lanes to Pennsylvania.

“This program supports the ocean carrier during the difficult initial phase of entering a port for the first time or starting a new service.

“This is a well-designed program, and PennDOT has done a great job assisting us with implementing it.”

New carriers that sign onto the program will receive $25 per new container unit loaded or discharged per vessels from a Pennsylvania Port. Existing participants qualify for the incentive payment by exceeding established benchmarks.

Since its inception, container lifts of participants have nearly doubled, demonstrating PICGIP’s use to the business growth of Pennsylvania ports.

In February this year, PhilaPort also received a $246 million state investment from the governor to continue its modernisation efforts.

The sum aimed to build upon his previous $300 million Capital Investment Program announced in 2016.

The post Pennsylvania Governor Extends Cargo Growth Scheme for Another Year appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Congress should heed Boustany’s advice and invest in new infrastructure that raises the capacity of the transportation industry.

As America’s supply chain continues to be tested, there is reason to be hopeful for the future. Back in November, there was much reporting about Christmas being canceled. However, as we got closer and closer to Christmas, shelves were stocked, and families were able to purchase the gifts they wanted for their loved ones.

It might seem difficult to reconcile these conflicting reports, but as a former member of the US House of Representative’s Ways and Means Committee and having had the privilege of representing much of southern Louisiana, including the Port of Lake Charles, I want to discuss the complexity of the supply chain, how we got here, and where we go from here.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had severe global implications on our manufacturing and supply chain system. From day one, industry stakeholders, including ocean carriers, marine terminal operators, dockworkers, and many more, have worked with the federal government, Congress, and both the current and prior presidential administration to ensure goods flowed.

If we think back to 2020, when the pandemic first came to the US, we can remember how frightened many of us were, purchasing goods in bulk out of fear that shelves would be completely empty. However, those fears never quite materialized. Marine terminal operators, longshore workers, stevedores, and many others put themselves on the frontlines, at a time before vaccines, to ensure that consumer goods, medical goods, and everything else made it to American ports. The shipping industry remains committed to facing these challenges head-on and is working tirelessly to manage the current supply chain issues, while laying the foundation for a stronger supply chain.

Heavy investment in port infrastructure

Transportation industry leaders are investing heavily into US port infrastructure, not just to mitigate the current challenges, but to help pave the way for a 21st century port infrastructure and intermodal connectors capable of meeting the demands of a globalized economy. Here in my home state, industry leaders are investing in a new terminal at Plaquemines, Louisiana, to help facilitate more imports and exports in the Mississippi Gulf region. Industry partners are also making significant investments in new ships, containers, and technologies. In the short term, marine terminal operators and their ocean carrier customers are working closely with the White House on developing solutions to alleviate the current bottlenecks and delays.

Some of these solutions we’ve already seen come to fruition, such as expanded hours at truck gates, more local depots by carriers to get cargo off terminal, and significant private investments into our marine terminal infrastructure. These investments, short term and long term, are vital in supporting America’s advantage in the shipping industry. Ocean carriers have a choice in where to bring their ships and it’s vital we retain our competitive edge to support this industry that provides more than 30.8 million jobs, a large portion of which don’t require a college degree, and has a total economic impact of more than $5.4 trillion. As a former member of Congress, I understand the anxieties many of my former colleagues feel as we enter the election season, and the compulsion to act in the face of this issue. But as we all know, well-meaning intentions can lead to negative consequences.

On Capitol Hill, there is an insatiable appetite to be viewed as doing something for the supply chain. However, today’s bottleneck disruptions are caused by a shortage of physical assets (trucks, warehouse space, truck chassis, rail cars) and labor (truck drivers and warehouse workers). The uptick in COVID cases since late 2021 continuing through the new year also resulted in a shortage of longshore workers. Those disruptions are not caused by the marine terminals, ocean carriers, or inadequacies in existing law. Pending legislation to amend the US Shipping Act will not fix supply chain congestion, but instead would make it worse and ultimately raise costs to the American consumer and businesses.

We have a variety of solutions at our disposal to help facilitate and improve our supply chain. Washington can help by enacting tax credits to stimulate additional last-mile warehouse capacity, and identify off-dock acreage near rail ramps and logistic container hubs. The industry can continue to locate and create temporary warehouse spaces and use tax credits to stimulate investment in clean trucks needed at ports. We can work together to prioritize appointments to pick up essential cargo, such as medical equipment, at marine terminals, and support industry solutions to minimize congestion, such as PierPass.

Similar to the early days of the pandemic, we’ll only resolve these issues by working together. I urge my former colleagues on Capitol Hill to put partisanship politics behind us and work with our friends in the transportation sector to ensure that we find a solution to our infrastructure woes and formulate a solution that has the input of all participants. Speaking over each other, and excluding important voices, will only harm us in the long run.

Charles Boustany served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2005 to 2017, representing Louisiana’s 7th Congressional District, and later the 3rd Congressional District.

The post ICYMI – Former Congressman: Let’s not Make America’s Supply Chain Challenges Worse appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

The post Reducing emissions requires efficient supply chain solutions appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.

Soft skills: Most recruiters normally have a list of around thirty job skills that they are looking out for while reviewing the candidates. It is pretty common for the supply chain industry. Soft skills are the top priority for producing more successful recruitment. Some of them include email marketing skills, fundamental business ethics, communication skills, and problem-solving skills. All of these may be identified via past job experience of the candidates, references, and the responses they provide to some key questions at the time of the job interview. When you are looking to hire globally you can take help from PEO services.

Inventory, finance, and supplier management experience: Watch out for earlier experience in financial, supplier, and inventory management together with direct knowledge. These are the important components of the skill sets required for a hire. If the candidate has financial management training in fields such as investing it is a massive advantage. Maybe this talent did not go through massive numbers every day in his earlier position. But there will be sufficient indications of whether the candidate has the requisite understanding of data utilization for making solid business decisions.

Education and area of interest: You need to look out for candidates that have certifications and university training. Some of the specific things you must look out for include participation in projects that involve a basic understanding of financial matters and problem-solving that is related to them. Sometimes even the way they handle personal finances could show something about their work skills. You need to look for talent that has enthusiasm, passion, and energy for the position he or she is applying for. For instance, they would have researched and displayed knowledge about an organization and how their skills could benefit this business.

Result-oriented track record: Ask the prospective candidates, not just about their earlier job responsibilities. Ask them to correctly quantify the results also. Try and find out people that will produce some examples of the projects they have accomplished with good results in their resumes. It should demonstrate that they had to work with supply chain departments, service providers, and suppliers. You also need to be flexible and open-minded while considering the top talent from other industries and fields. There are many candidates out there that are working in other professions. However, they have transferable skills that can make them the right candidate for your supply chain.

Hire female candidates: Women are under-represented in many industries and it’s imperative that we find ways to bring them into the fold. In order to remain competitive in the future of supply chain management, it is important that you consider hiring female talent for roles usually reserved for males. They can take on roles that men have traditionally held, but with some added perks- they’re better at relationship building and interpersonal skills which will be important for certain jobs. The best way to find a replacement for your position is by interviewing applicants who have the skills you need. This will allow you get more personal insight into their personality, knowledge of procedures, and ability-to-efficiently perform job duties than if they were applying without being interviewed first. You can also look at female workers’ resumes or career paths during mentorship programs that involved working closely with seasoned professionals in similar fields.

Conclusion

There are challenges involved in securing the supply chain talent at the moment, especially for filling out the necessary positions. it is a good idea to change your approach. You need to examine the staffing forecast, be aware of the specific needs and trends from historical data, and develop a talent management program. After doing all this, you need to take a closer look at the candidate pipeline that is capable of fulfilling the continuous hiring requirement. The organizations that perform well are the ones that consider the recruitment department as a value-added and strategic program.

The post Hiring Supply Chain Talent: What to Look for In the Perfect Candidate appeared first on Global Trade Magazine.