TN

"Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change" - Zero Hedge re: Bank of America REPORT

Recommended Posts

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, "net zero", green energy and ESG?  The reason - as one would correctly suspect - is money. Some $150 trillion of it.  Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World, and serves as a massive primer to today's Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these...

LARGE IMAGE (CLICK)    https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/bofa net zero.jpg?itok=Aupm1yqi

bofa%20net%20zero.jpg?itok=Aupm1yqi

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/net zero cheat sheet.jpg?itok=5a55mTGX

net%20zero%20cheat%20sheet.jpg?itok=5a55

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/additional inflation.jpg?itok=46Zt8oA9

additional%20inflation.jpg?itok=46Zt8oA9

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/here-hidden-150-trillion-agenda-behind-crusade-against-climate-change

Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2021 - 05:45 PM

We now live in a world, where bizarro headlines such as the ones below, have become a daily if not hourly occurrence:

  • *TREASURY TO STUDY IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITIES

  • *TREASURY LAUNCHES EFFORT ON CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISKS

  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE-SCENARIO ANALYSIS WILL HELP IDENTIFY RISKS

  • *BRAINARD: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD HAVE PROFOUND ECONOMIC EFFECTS

  • *MESTER: FED LOOKS AT CLIMATE CHANGE FROM VIEW OF RISKS TO BANKS

  • *FED IS TAKING THE RIGHT COURSE ON MONITORING CLIMATE CHANGE

  • *FED SHOULD CONSIDER CLIMATE-CHANGE RISK TO FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Now, in case someone is still confused, none of these institutions, and not a single of the erudite officials running them, give a rat's ass about the climate, about climate change risks, or about the fate of future generations of Americans (and certainly not about the rising water level sweeping away their massive waterfront mansions): if they did, total US debt and underfunded liabilities wouldn't be just shy of $160 trillion.

So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, "net zero", green energy and ESG?

The reason - as one would correctly suspect - is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World, and serves as a massive primer to today's Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these...

GRAPHICS

... and handy cheat sheets...

... none of which happen to mention China's role in the "global climate change" crisis of course (after all, can't offend Beijing and lose the biggest revenue stream now can we) and comes at a very precarious time for the green cause, just when soaring energy prices around the globe as a result of the escalating global energy crisis, threatens to crush any grass roots support to fight "global warming." As report author Haim Israel writes:

This is the decade of climate action and COP26 will be the tipping point of the race to reach net zero emissions – the balance of reducing and removing carbon emissions from the atmosphere. To achieve it, a transition to clean technologies in all sectors at an unprecedented pace would be required, with the steering of governments and willingness of society. This is the last decade to act. Absolute water scarcity is likely for 1.8bn people, 100mn face poverty, and 800mn are at risk from rising sea levels by 2025. Climate migration could reach 143mn from emerging markets, driven by extreme weather.

None of that is new, of course - and while it is handy to have a centralized compendium of the data, a 5 minute google search can provide all the answers that are "accepted" dogma by the green lobby.

But while we don't care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line - how much would this green utopia cost, because if the "net zero", "ESG", "green" narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.

Turns out it does. A lot, lot.

Responding rhetorically to the key question, "how much will it cost?", BofA cuts to the case and writes $150 trillion over 30 years - some $5 trillion in annual investments - amounting to twice current global GDP! 

At this point the report gets good because since it has to be taken seriously, it has to also be at least superficially objective. And here, the details behind the numbers, do we finally learn why the net zero lobby is so intent on pushing this green utopia - simple answer: because it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded "investments" which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks.

Consider this: the covid pandemic has so far led to roughly $30 trillion in fiscal and monetary stimulus across the developed world. And yet, not even two years later, the effect of this $30 trillion is wearing off, yet despite the Biden's admin to keep the Covid Crisis at bay, threatening to lock down society at a moment's notice with the help of the complicit press, the population has made it clear that it will no longer comply with what is clear tyranny of the minority.

And so, the establishment needs a new perpetual source (and use) of funding, a crisis of sorts, but one wrapped in a virtuous, noble facade. This is where the crusade against climate change comes in.

Much digital ink has been spilled on the philosophy and debate behind the green movement, and we won't bore you with the details, but we will instead focus on the very clear, and very tangible financial consequences of a world where the establishment agrees, whether with democratic support or not, to allocate $5 trillion in new capital toward some nebulous cause of "fighting global warming." Here are the highlights from Bank of America:

  • Will it be inflationary? Yes, expect 1-3% pa shock. This is for the next 30 years... over and on top of any already present inflation!
  • What are the bottlenecks? Geopolitics, climate wars and EM.
  • Do we have the resources? Nickel and Lithium are just two that could be in deficit as soon as 2024.
  • Is green technology really green? Not really (see below).

Drilling down on the absolutely staggering costs, at an estimated $150 trillion over 30 years, boosting funding sources to $5tn a year is equivalent to the entire US tax base, or 3x the COVID-19 stimulus this decade. Here are the details:

The energy transition to a net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) economy by 2050 will be a very expensive exercise, estimated by the IEA at $150tn of total investment, over a period of 30 year. At $5tn p.a, the IEA see it costing as much as the entire US tax base every year for 30 years.

Not high enough for you? Hang on then because...

BNEF has a higher estimate that the total investment needed for energy supply and infrastructure could be as high as $173tn through 2050, or up to $5.8tn annually, which is nearly three times the amount invested on an annual basis today.

Next follows the obligatory pitch from BofA which is reminiscent of a stalinist kolhoz pep talk from the 1950s, to wit:

... But it can be done, with technology, economy, markets and ESG joining forces. Exponential cost reductions in wind, solar and batteries technologies have made renewables the cheapest form of energy in areas producing >90% of global electricity. Market appetite is chipping in too. Labelled bonds and loans jumped to > $3tn this year, with $3 in every $10 of flows into global equities going into ESG, which will support climate-friendly investments, as well as funding new ones needed to further decarbonize our planet like green mining, green hydrogen or carbon capture.

We leave the best for last because at the end of the day, this was always about more debt, and more monetization, a process which by now even the shoeshine boy knows makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Only this time the world's wealthiest plan on robbing what little is left of the middle class under the guise of a noble crusade to defeat global warming... a crusade which will require over $500 billion in annual debt monetization by central banks each and every year, leading to hyperinflation in either risk assets or the broader economy, or both.

So if it sounds like "the crusade against climate change" is one giant con game meant to enrich a handful of kleptocrats here and now, while the nebulous benefits - and the all too certain debt and hyperinflation - of this revolutionary overhaul of the global economy are inherited by future generations, it's because that's precisely what it is.

Here is BofA's startling admission of the above, as excerpted from the report's Q&A on the Climate Change Conference (COP 26):

Q: What is the economic impact of net zero?  

A: The inflation impact of elevated net zero funding will not be insignificant but the impact looks manageable at 1% to 3% per annum depending on central bank monetization rates, particularly if government spending is targeted and contributes to accelerate the rate of global GDP growth. The IEA also has a productive outlook for their net zero scenario, where the change in the annual growth rate of GDP accelerates by somewhere between 0.3% and 0.5% on a sustained basis over the next 10 years as a result of a shift to a green economy.

So much more QE for the next 30 years, check. What about inflation? Oh, there will be plenty of that too. As BofA admits, "green bond purchases  could result in a 1% to 3% inflation p.a. shock"

To answer this question, we look at three separate cases. In our first case, the Fed, ECB and other central banks would subsidize all of the required infrastructure spending to decarbonize (translation: print the money). In a second scenario, we assume that they would absorb only half of the new bond issuance. And in a third case, we assume central banks take up only a fifth of all decarbonization spending onto their balance sheet. What is our key finding? If central banks only have to foot 20% of the bill or less, the impact of decarbonization looks fairly manageable with respect to inflation (Exhibit 108).

And just so readers know what to BofA looks "manageable" here it is: this is inflation on top of whatever inflation is already in the economy. Of course, if central banks have to "foot" 50%, 80%, or more, well... it gets much worse.

And this is where we get to the punchline: as BofA admits, it's all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history!

We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full decarbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow. Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse. True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns

And there you have it: just as covid was one giant smokescreen to "allow" central banks and Treasuries to merge and lead us to Helicopter Money and MMT, creating some $30 trillion in liquidity in the process, the "Net Zero" myth is what will perpetuate this endless printing for the next 30 years, a period during which the only benefits will be bestowed upon those who benefit from QE and money printing. That would be the richest. As for everyone else, well you great grandchildren or their grandchildren may (or may not) live in a cleaner world. We really don't know, but if we don't start printing money now it will be too late.

If that sounds scarier than any religion in human history, it's because it is.

The full 114 page report, which we recommend to anyone who wants to know what is coming, is available to pro subs in the usual place.

 

 

  • Great Response! 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is not an activist knows full well that the net-zero goal is just impossible. Few of the top emitters are paying any real attention, even to their Paris pledges which were often nominal in any case. The only countries that I would say are really trying are the UK and Germany, and both are facing horrendous problems in making it happen. Germany's emissions in fact have increase due to the green lobby forcing the closure of nuclear power plants. Yet you hear about net-zero constantly in the media.

However, I would doubt the hidden agenda part of the article. A hidden agenda implies that someone knows what they are doing.. Nope. Its all muddling through and, in the process, some people manage to get rich off the misguided enthusiasms of others. Australia is likely to make a tidy sum off rare minerals and lithium and the like .. well, okay, if people are dumb enough to think that batteries might be an answer to grid scale storage, and politicians are wiling to pander to that nonsense, then there's nothing I can do about it..  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Anyone who is not an activist knows full well that the net-zero goal is just impossible. Few of the top emitters are paying any real attention, even to their Paris pledges which were often nominal in any case. The only countries that I would say are really trying are the UK and Germany, and both are facing horrendous problems in making it happen. Germany's emissions in fact have increase due to the green lobby forcing the closure of nuclear power plants. Yet you hear about net-zero constantly in the media.

However, I would doubt the hidden agenda part of the article. A hidden agenda implies that someone knows what they are doing.. Nope. Its all muddling through and, in the process, some people manage to get rich off the misguided enthusiasms of others. Australia is likely to make a tidy sum off rare minerals and lithium and the like .. well, okay, if people are dumb enough to think that batteries might be an answer to grid scale storage, and politicians are wiling to pander to that nonsense, then there's nothing I can do about it..  

It is part of THE GREAT RESET. 

Covid wasn't about people under age 50 not dying.  It was about control...being able to control the masses.  The Great Reset is here now... and like a freight train society will continue to be manipulated into what looks like Australia (Australia is worse than China).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Change is just one distraction utilized by Major Globalist to push their agenda. Covid was a biological weapon deployed onto the world as a single piece of afar more alarming Project.

The pandemic was used to see the effects of locking society down and their response worldwide. Each of them exhibits the results of countries' leadership reaction and afar more authoritative way to regulate the population worldwide.
 

Some may say this is a conspiracy theory, but that is the case; they want it to be seen as just that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

My hope is that the leaders now meeting in Washington are willing to be bold and push international bodies to overhaul their approach to climate finance for poor countries. Time is running out.

Larry Fink is the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

-----

I am not fond of conspiracy theories, but it is clear that financial sector is keenly interested.  They can finance ANYTHING, but it is important that whatever happens, they get their few percent.  And if there is a multi-trillion plan, multiply by, say, 5%...

I think that global warming is a real problem, but it attracts huge crowds with no critical thinking.  To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature, not a bug.  But the net effect would be at best a minor program -- when compared to the total investments in energy, but 5% of a trillion is an adequate profit (Black Rock may have few dedicated funds etc., keeping other lines of business), even if it spawns inadequate solution.

The truth is that many developing countries are actually developing and climbing out of poverty, and they simply cannot and will not invest several times more in energy generation that the minimum, they also need clean water, housing, investing in jobs, the list is endless and in most of these countries the tax base and internal savings are limited.  And by now, those countries provide the majority of emissions -- surely the majority of the growth in emissions.  What is needed is not a subsidy that will never come -- except for a few exhibition projects -- but a bunch of technologies that provide non-CO2 energy at competitive costs.  There is a financial aspect to it: with loans having as favorable conditions as American loans for new homes or condos, capital intensive technologies with low recurring costs can make economic sense.  But subsidies will not fly.

How a country/region can have RELIABLE non-CO2 energy is another problem, because wind and solar are not reliable in most places, so they need a backup, and a backup has its capital and current costs too.    Ignoring that is easy but idiotic.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Piotr Berman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

Anyone who is not an activist knows full well that the net-zero goal is just impossible. Few of the top emitters are paying any real attention, even to their Paris pledges which were often nominal in any case. The only countries that I would say are really trying are the UK and Germany, and both are facing horrendous problems in making it happen. Germany's emissions in fact have increase due to the green lobby forcing the closure of nuclear power plants. Yet you hear about net-zero constantly in the media.

However, I would doubt the hidden agenda part of the article. A hidden agenda implies that someone knows what they are doing.. Nope. Its all muddling through and, in the process, some people manage to get rich off the misguided enthusiasms of others. Australia is likely to make a tidy sum off rare minerals and lithium and the like .. well, okay, if people are dumb enough to think that batteries might be an answer to grid scale storage, and politicians are wiling to pander to that nonsense, then there's nothing I can do about it..  

Any country that reduces population certainly can reduce emissions. Any country that reduces imports and exports of almost anything can reduce a laundry list of ill effects. Eliminating immigration reduces emissions. Following the rule of law and jailing those that hire illegals would certainly reduce demand of many polluting products. In the US that would be over 10 million illegals that would leave due to no income. So let’s not get to silly. Plenty of actions that could be taken. How about no plane travel overseas for tourists. Watch tv instead. I can just imagine how much cleaner the world could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piotr Berman said:

My hope is that the leaders now meeting in Washington are willing to be bold and push international bodies to overhaul their approach to climate finance for poor countries. Time is running out.

Larry Fink is the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

-----

I am not fond of conspiracy theories, but it is clear that financial sector is keenly interested.  They can finance ANYTHING, but it is important that whatever happens, they get their few percent.  And if there is a multi-trillion plan, multiply by, say, 5%...

I think that global warming is a real problem, but it attracts huge crowds with no critical thinking.  To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature, not a bug.  But the net effect would be at best a minor program -- when compared to the total investments in energy, but 5% of a trillion is an adequate profit (Black Rock may have few dedicated funds etc., keeping other lines of business), even if it spawns inadequate solution.

The truth is that many developing countries are actually developing and climbing out of poverty, and they simply cannot and will not invest several times more in energy generation that the minimum, they also need clean water, housing, investing in jobs, the list is endless and in most of these countries the tax base and internal savings are limited.  And by now, those countries provide the majority of emissions -- surely the majority of the growth in emissions.  What is needed is not a subsidy that will never come -- except for a few exhibition projects -- but a bunch of technologies that provide non-CO2 energy at competitive costs.  There is a financial aspect to it: with loans having as favorable conditions as American loans for new homes or condos, capital intensive technologies with low recurring costs can make economic sense.  But subsidies will not fly.

How a country/region can have RELIABLE non-CO2 energy is another problem, because wind and solar are not reliable in most places, so they need a backup, and a backup has its capital and current costs too.    Ignoring that is easy but idiotic.  

 

 

 

 

To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature,not a bug. 
 

Cost is a moving number. What was more expensive yesterday may be cheaper today. These types of broad statements come from huge crowds of non critical thinkers. You need to pick specific examples with data to back those claims. Or we will eat you alive. 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boat said:

To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature,not a bug. 
 

Cost is a moving number. What was more expensive yesterday may be cheaper today. These types of broad statements come from huge crowds of non critical thinkers. You need to pick specific examples with data to back those claims. Or we will eat you alive. 😂

There are critical thinkers on both sides of these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Boat said:

Eliminating immigration reduces emissions. Following the rule of law and jailing those that hire illegals would certainly reduce demand of many polluting products. In the US that would be over 10 million illegals that would leave due to no income. So let’s not get to silly. Plenty of actions that could be taken. How about no plane travel overseas for tourists. Watch tv instead. I can just imagine how much cleaner the world could be. 

Boat - I don't disagree about overseas travel or immigration but just try imposing any of those policies and see how far you get. Suggesting those policies just underlines the impossibility of net zero. It ain't going to happen. End of story.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 6:28 PM, Tom Nolan said:

It is part of THE GREAT RESET. 

Covid wasn't about people under age 50 not dying.  It was about control...being able to control the masses.  The Great Reset is here now... and like a freight train society will continue to be manipulated into what looks like Australia (Australia is worse than China).

No, not worse than China. Worse than America though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Boat said:

To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature,not a bug. 
 

Cost is a moving number. What was more expensive yesterday may be cheaper today. These types of broad statements come from huge crowds of non critical thinkers. You need to pick specific examples with data to back those claims. Or we will eat you alive. 😂

The immediate issue is the cost of setting up whole new infrastructures when adequate ones already exist. Endangering the world's economies to rush into green dreams or nightmares is not in any logical playbook. It is the long long game. China, Russia, and India will NOT join in. China may make the products to sell to us but that is about it. Putin ans Xi have recently stated as much. India doesn't need to say it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 7:28 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Climate Change is just one distraction utilized by Major Globalist to push their agenda. Covid was a biological weapon deployed onto the world as a single piece of afar more alarming Project.

The pandemic was used to see the effects of locking society down and their response worldwide. Each of them exhibits the results of countries' leadership reaction and afar more authoritative way to regulate the population worldwide.
 

Some may say this is a conspiracy theory, but that is the case; they want it to be seen as just that.

There are many elements to the Great Reset. Agenda 21 is multifaceted and is leading toward globalism as are all the NGO meetings. Non governmental organizations that assume great influence over nations that let them. 

The Cloward and Piven Strategy is something that is happening right now through the printing of monopoly money and Democrat wish lists. We are already on the road to economic disaster. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/clowardpiven-strategy-cps

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Boat - I don't disagree about overseas travel or immigration but just try imposing any of those policies and see how far you get. Suggesting those policies just underlines the impossibility of net zero. It ain't going to happen. End of story.

I don’t even hazard to think about net zero emissions. Today’s politicians are not practical and will fail in the attempt. That being said a more realistic goal of clean energy growing at say 2% per year is probably possible without jacking up electrical costs. 2% adds up rather quickly over a couple decades. Other policies are a matter of will. We just have poor leaders. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

There are many elements to the Great Reset. Agenda 21 is multifaceted and is leading toward globalism as are all the NGO meetings. Non governmental organizations that assume great influence over nations that let them. 

The Cloward and Piven Strategy is something that is happening right now through the printing of monopoly money and Democrat wish lists. We are already on the road to economic disaster. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/clowardpiven-strategy-cps

All conspiracy sounding to me. If Musk comes through with his battery and drops prices to $100 per kWh then he did it with brains and tech. In 2019 that price was $300. Not a bunch of idiots talking. Landing rockets put him ahead of all nations in space. He recycles. 3 D printing metal objects and autonomous vehicles are the future impact that’s much bigger than government money. Pull up technology shows on YouTube and you’ll get an idea of what’s going to happen. I don’t see globalism except in a few rare instances. I see more division in countries and between countries. gaining an advantage is not what humans give up. You think those 2000+ billionaires will give up power? Unless you want China to rule. They would disappear them and grab the assets. 

Edited by Boat
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 minutes ago, Boat said:

All conspiracy sounding to me. If Musk comes through with his battery and drops prices to $50 per MW then he did it with brains and tech. Not a bunch of idiots talking. Landing rockets put him ahead of all nations in space. He recycles. 3 D printing metal objects and autonomous vehicles are the future impact that’s much bigger than government money. Pull up technology shows on YouTube and you’ll get an idea of what’s going to happen. I don’t see globalism except in a few rare instances. I see more division in countries and between countries. How y’all think the world is gonna quit trying to gain an advantage is not what humans do. You think those 2000+ billionaires will give up power? Unless you want China to rule. They would disappear them and grab the assets. 

I see globalism everywhere I look. My local code enforcer tried to intimidate me into putting a cement driveway leading to my new detached garage. I already had half of the gravel in one area and just had some more neatly added. Two neighbors also have gravel drives. A third did at the time. We had a tense discussion and he brought up that A United Nations code against gravel drives was the basis for our local code. I am not lying. He could tell by my expression that he had aroused my anger and from then on he backed off a little. I still have my gravel drive but he went after the guy who put the gravel in for me and the garage builder! I live in a semi rural area with 1/2 acre lots and inexpensive homes. My 2 1/2 car garage perfectly matches my home and is a minor enhancement to the area. 

P.S. I do have a full cement driveway to my attached garage that came with the house. The gravel part was already there too.  

Edited by ronwagn
add
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BofA goes under soon...Over-leveraged, but I'm just an oilfield hand, what do I know 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There are many elements to the Great Reset. Agenda 21 is multifaceted and is leading toward globalism as are all the NGO meetings. Non governmental organizations that assume great influence over nations that let them. 

The Cloward and Piven Strategy is something that is happening right now through the printing of monopoly money and Democrat wish lists. We are already on the road to economic disaster. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/clowardpiven-strategy-cps

We my friend may not always seem to agree on topics; however, we do find common ground!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2021 at 4:25 AM, Piotr Berman said:

My hope is that the leaders now meeting in Washington are willing to be bold and push international bodies to overhaul their approach to climate finance for poor countries. Time is running out.

Larry Fink is the chairman and chief executive of BlackRock.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

-----

I am not fond of conspiracy theories, but it is clear that financial sector is keenly interested.  They can finance ANYTHING, but it is important that whatever happens, they get their few percent.  And if there is a multi-trillion plan, multiply by, say, 5%...

I think that global warming is a real problem, but it attracts huge crowds with no critical thinking.  To Larry Fink, the fact that "green energy" requires several times higher capital expenditures is a feature, not a bug.  But the net effect would be at best a minor program -- when compared to the total investments in energy, but 5% of a trillion is an adequate profit (Black Rock may have few dedicated funds etc., keeping other lines of business), even if it spawns inadequate solution.

The truth is that many developing countries are actually developing and climbing out of poverty, and they simply cannot and will not invest several times more in energy generation that the minimum, they also need clean water, housing, investing in jobs, the list is endless and in most of these countries the tax base and internal savings are limited.  And by now, those countries provide the majority of emissions -- surely the majority of the growth in emissions.  What is needed is not a subsidy that will never come -- except for a few exhibition projects -- but a bunch of technologies that provide non-CO2 energy at competitive costs.  There is a financial aspect to it: with loans having as favorable conditions as American loans for new homes or condos, capital intensive technologies with low recurring costs can make economic sense.  But subsidies will not fly.

How a country/region can have RELIABLE non-CO2 energy is another problem, because wind and solar are not reliable in most places, so they need a backup, and a backup has its capital and current costs too.    Ignoring that is easy but idiotic.  

 

 

 

 

BlackRock - You need to do some research into this nefarious corporation.  You do realize that BlackRock helped write the ESG guidelines for companies.  BlackRock is not in the game to benefit the average person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.